/lit/ - Literature

Still no missing link found.

>>22232944
No one in modern history has addressed the true implications of Darwinian evolution. You think you’re smart pointing your fingers at Christians when in reality no one has accepted what evolution truly means. Everyone just moves along with life as zealous believers in liberal morality and progress even when modern science has proven that life is completely and utterly meaningless. Social Darwinists were the only ones that were honest about the nature of life and they are obsolete because humanity wants to cope instead.

>>22233035
The absolute state of atheist

>>22233035
>Social Darwinists were the only ones that were honest
>ideological supremacist wankery
>honest
survival of the fittest not of self-proclamed superior
>>22233041
he sounds as frogposter

>>22233035
This is why /lit/ is a great board

>>22233035
>No one in modern history has addressed the true implications of Darwinian evolution.
>>22233035
>even when modern science has proven that life is completely and utterly meaningless.

Science doesn't prove things, Russell, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend.
Philosophy has since Hegel been primarily dealing with "meaninglessness" in the continental tradition, and since the 1980s in the analytical tradition. Read some theory of language or phenomenology.

>>22233043
If Darwin was right then all of the white supremacist colonizers are right. Modernity supposes that Darwin is indeed correct but condemns a belief in inherent superiority so we cling to the ghosts of religious morality to shun ourselves from the horrible truth. Our sentience doesn’t matter, the fact that we went to the moon doesn’t matter. Ultimately we’re animals in an indifferent universe and some animals are stronger than others.

>>22233025

we are the missing link u moron

>>22233058
Arent you guys the ones who claim that arabs and africans are invading europe and fucking your wives to make the white race go extinct? Seems like they have evolution and darwinism figured out by your theory

>>22232944
Evolution was harmonized years ago

Checkmate atheists

>>22232944
Loaded question; evolutionary theory has never damaged Christianity.
>The early chapters of Genesis, which describe the creation of the world, are symbolic or allegorical rather than strictly literal. These accounts convey theological and spiritual truths rather than providing a detailed scientific or historical account. Evolutionary theory can be seen as compatible with the Bible's message, as it offers an explanation for the natural processes through which life has developed over millions of years.
>God is the ultimate source and sustainer of all life, including the processes of evolution. God's creative power can work through natural processes, and evolutionary theory can be seen as describing the mechanism by which God brought about the diversity of life on Earth. Evolutionary processes are part of God's ongoing creative activity.
>Theistic evolution combines the scientific understanding of evolution with the belief in God as the creator. God initiated the process of evolution and guided it over time to produce the diversity of life we see today. Theistic evolution allows for the acceptance of the scientific consensus on evolution while maintaining a theological framework that includes God's purpose and involvement in the natural world.
>Science and theology address different aspects of reality and operate in separate domains. Science provides explanations for the natural processes and mechanisms governing the physical world, while theology addresses questions of ultimate meaning, purpose, and God's relationship with creation. Evolutionary theory and Christianity can coexist without directly conflicting with each other.
>Whitehead is known for his process philosophy, which emphasizes the dynamic nature of reality and the interplay between change and creativity. His concept of "process" suggests that reality is characterized by constant transformation and that the universe is in a continual state of becoming. While Whitehead's philosophy does not directly address evolutionary theory, some theologians have drawn on his ideas to reconcile the concepts of God's creative activity and the evolutionary process. They argue that Whitehead's emphasis on creativity and dynamic change aligns with the notion that God works through the ongoing processes of the natural world, including evolution. In this sense, Whitehead's process philosophy can provide a framework for understanding the compatibility of evolutionary theory with the Christian worldview. By viewing evolution as part of a larger creative process in which God is involved, proponents of this perspective argue that God's presence and purpose can be recognized within the evolutionary process.

>>22232944
>fatal wound which evolutionary theory has dealt to its stomach
Only faithless brainlettes feel this about evolution. The entire story if the creation ofvtheveorkd and Adam and eve is like 3 Fucking pages of the whole Bible

>>22233082
>symbolic or allegorical rather than strictly literal
Most pathetic cope ever

>>22233091
The Bible contains various genres, including historical accounts, poetry, wisdom literature, parables, and apocalyptic literature. Recognizing the literary genre of a particular passage helps to determine the intended meaning, and just as one would not read a poem or parable as a literal historical account, some parts of the Bible may employ allegory or symbolism to convey deeper truths.
Symbolism is prevalent throughout the book, even in passages that are not typically considered allegorical. For example, Jesus often used parables, which are symbolic stories, to teach profound spiritual truths. The presence of symbolism in the Bible suggests that a purely literalistic approach may overlook the intended meaning.
Understanding the symbolism and allegory that were familiar and meaningful to the original audience helps us grasp the intended message. Taking the Bible as purely literal may disregard the cultural context and symbolism embedded within the text.
Allegorical or symbolic interpretations can reveal profound theological insights, and they allow for the exploration of deeper spiritual and moral truths which transcend literal descriptions. Symbolic interpretations can highlight universal themes, ethical principles, and the transformative nature of faith.
In cases where there may appear to be a conflict between scientific understanding and a literal interpretation of the Bible, allegorical interpretations can help reconcile apparent discrepancies. This approach allows for a dialogue between scientific discoveries and theological insights, avoiding unnecessary conflicts between faith and reason.

>>22232944

Evolution is Catholic fabrication.

AFAIK the main issue is the cause of original sin

>>22233086
>what is original sin
>what is with sin, so came death
>but if death didn’t come before sin, what are pre-adam and eve fossils
>what delineates between non-human and human primate?
>did neanderthals have sin? if so, why would adam and eve be the first? if not, how did neanderthals die and integrate into human dna?
>if death has always existed by evidence of fossils, sin does not exist
>ergo, jesus’ sacrifice for our sins has been a meaningless act
etc. I can get more going, but that’s the gist of it. It’s either you accept christianity wholeheartedly in spite of evidence, or you accept evolutionary biology

>>22233065
Their argument is that the West, both Europe and the Americas, are mired in the "cope" he speaks of, and try to continue boring morality in the face of its being proved meaningless. They argue, by contrast, that the West should behave in a way consistent with its superiority, and use its superior firepower and technology to simply exterminate the peoples of Africa and the Middle East. They view the West as "weak" and "coping" for not doing so. Clinging to an antiquated morality in a way that gives their enemies an artificial advantage.

>>22233123
I’m a Muslim and the only way to make sense of any sort of transcendent meaning, value, morality and love is by rejecting evolution. I know that I am irrationally opposing science, I know that I am ignoring an overwhelming body of evidence, but I don’t care. I don’t accept what evolution implies about our existence. And neither do 99% of human beings anyways, including these shitlib scientists themselves. So it’s not really a big deal.

>>22233123
>in spite of evidence

Darwinism and the rest of materialism have no answer for miracles, especially those subjected to and passing rigorous testing. They are literally the proof that atheists claim to want, but when confronted with them the average atheist plugs their ears and shuts their eyes and behaves in a way no different than a Bible-thumping fundie.

There is so much that is strange and otherworldly about the world, that has been documented, that being a materialist seems to me as nonsensical as being a Flat-Earther. There's SOMETHING out there, you have to acknowledge that, even if you can't say for certain what it is.

A man was visiting an Orthodox Christian monastery. A monk approached him and said "There is something wrong with you. You have a foul stench about you."
The man didn't understand what the monk could be talking about.
They spoke again later that night. After some conversing, the monk learned that the man had written a book supporting evolutionary theory. This was the cause of the foul stench!
The monk taught the man how evolution is incompatible with Orthodox Christianity.
The man later repented and renounced his belief in evolution.

Here are many Orthodox fathers who speak against evolutionary theory. And this is only some examples, and not a comprehensive list.
https://youtu.be/Y0sdPLJO3cE

No, and eventually evolution will slay also Christianity's ghost, Liberalism.

Evolutionists never being able to explain why humans have a different set of chromosomes to every other great ape is priceless

>>22233695
That monk's name? Albert Einstein.

>>22233703
Evolution, like liberalism, is a Masonic deception.
https://youtu.be/8A7YE6b-crw

Have atheists ever addressed the fatal wound of Isaiah prophesying Jesus Christ’s birth life death and legacy 800 years before it occurred?

>>22233708
kek
>all those old icons
>arcane high wizard cloak
>aaannd an IKEA spinning chair in the center

>the traits of parents get passed on to their children
>this destroys Christianity!

>>22233715
When is Jesus’s name mentioned by Isiah?

Have you considered the possibility that Jesus was a false prophet?

https://youtu.be/wB8KJOewKHM

>>22233706
Fr. Seraphim Rose. The book is Genesis, Creation, and Early Man.

Why would it have to? If evolutionary theory is the theory which merely states as the result of observation that adaptations occur, then this doesn’t contradict Christian dogma at all. If evolutionary theory is the theory which asserts that all life came from nothing and we came first from apes, then that’s a theory that has moved beyond the realm of observation and into the realm of unjustified claims about our origins. At that point, you’re just doing the same thing Christians do when they tell the story of creation, but unlike creations, not giving any account whatsoever for how you know it’s the case or why you should believe it. So there’s no actual reason a Christian should have to reckon with the fable at all, beyond, I suppose, the same manner in which is reckons with other false religions.

>ITT:

>>22232944
Only Protestant evangelical fundamentalist wackos have an issue with evolution. It’s like painting all Muslims by the brush of isis or Al quada. Catholics, orthodox, hell even Lutherans and anglicans have no issue with evolution. The focus is on the New Testament, and Jesus teachings, and how they are interpreted. Only fundamentalists look at the Old Testament, so we weird math, get 5000 years and think omg this is literally true. You faggot atheist. At least read Aquinas before you bring up stupid arguments.

>>22233798
Not true. Orthodox Christians reject evolution.

>>22233798
Everyone should take an issue with the evolution not just because there is no philosophical, logical, rational justification for it, but there is not even empirical evidence for it. That animals adapt to their environment goes without saying. To go from that alone to claims about how we became humans or the origin of life or anything like that is just speculative nonsense. So if acknowledging that true fact makes me a religious fundamentalist then I guess I’m a religious fundamentalist.

>>22233123
>he doesn't know about the retrocausation that occurred with the fall

>>22233798
Why do you papalists try so hard to appease the secular world?

>>22232944
evolution is fake Greek history is millions of years old and Darwin was a lying masonic faggot

>>22233815
True, and he is also wrong about Orthodox by the way. You can find writings from many Orthodox who call evolution a heresy.

>>22233798
LMAO literally not true. I live in a catholic country and a lot of christians here consider evolution to be heretical and satanic, despite the pope (John Paul II if I recall correctly?) saying that god used evolution as means for creating humanity (he's supposed to be infallible in matters of faith btw, don't forget about that). OrthoDOGS also often reject it, although most moderates don't seem to have a problem with it, at least where I live. It's the fundamentalists of all denominations that reject it.

>>22233708
based truth teller dabbing on GAYTO

>>22233798
Please don't include Orthodox in your list of evolutionists again. If you papalists want to appease the secular materialist crowd, that's your problem, but I can assure you that Orthodox Christians want no part of it.

>>22233708
I think the primary reason people blindly accept these scientistic theories is because in their mind science and technology are virtually synonymous and they see clearly all around them the power and reality of technology. Of course, they’re not synonymous, but this is how people tend to consider them. Claims about the universe would have no popularity if a telescope wasn’t involved.

>>22232944
>Bible says man is made in the image of God
>actually we have evidence we evolved from apes
>maybe we are similar to God in a way that isn’t our physical forms
The argument is pretty obvious if you aren’t a drooling retard

>>22233102
Isn't this just too convenient? Specially considering people did believe it was literal truth ages ago?
Do you think Exodus 4:24-26 is literal?

>>22233102
Why are papalists like this

>>22233134
What would be some of those miracles?

>>22233055
>no one expects the correlationist’s inquisition

>>22233930
the Bible is literally true you fucking retard, it's literally about MATH

https://youtu.be/3vi7043z6tI

Also, how can so many people here claim that they are both Christian and racists? How the fuck are those two compatible?

i've known some of the best biologists ever and everytime they gone out of the lab they made the sign of the cross.

>>22233035
Well not only that its meaningless but also that since there is no divine intervention, everything is based on a causal chain. Meaning the past,present, and future already exist and life is essentially watching a movie play out as cybernetic robots.

>>22233708
Liberalism is to Christianity what Christianity is to Judaism.

You are in the position that Jews are in, refusing to acknowledge your historical supersession by the logical continuation of your own systems.

>>22233065
Well that’s a result of Jews neutering the white public and thus wrenching government power away from them. Arabs and blacks are mindless animals and are simply guided into the west by higher powers.
So in a convoluted way, yes; but on its face, no.

>>22233126
power of the west is in the weak commoner
in the cuck which allows to exploit himself and allows expansionist cluster to form and accumulate wealth
note how the most "woke" and "pozzed" are not pacifistic but warmongering
real superior are not "west" but rich

>>22233818
Because the Catholic Church owned the secular world until the Reformation and even still after that into the Enlightenment.
Catholics believe their religion is true no matter what, so if any scientific theory appears to be true, then it can’t in any way contradict their religion since truth cannot contradict truth.
This isn’t Catholics trying to appease the secular world because Catholics have always infused the spiritual with the secular because ultimately there is no fundamental distinction between them: it’s all one reality.

>>22234017
wrong

>>22234017
You’re not wrong that liberalism evolved from Christianity but don’t pretend like it’s the logical conclusion it. It’s a bastard child at best.

>>22233966
the plot of genesis is how a whore cheating on her husband to race-mix created the existence of evil

>>22233695
I'm Orthodox but these Protestant Grandma facebook tier stories make me embarrassed to call myself one

>>22234017
The problem is your Hegelian view of truth as an unfolding process over time, and your failure to understand that Christ is the eternal Truth.