Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
I, for example, am extremely conservative, and yet I accept TE.
If you are honest you would also admit that this is a rarity.
__________________ David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."
If you are honest you would also admit that this is a rarity.
I don't think so.
I personally know several other people; I doubt we're the only ones. Just the fact that we exist, I think, disproves your idea that evolution is somehow the cause of liberalism. Liberalism and materialism, and twisting Scriptures to suit one's own wishes, existed long before the theory of evolution came on the scene. If you are honest, you'll admit that.
__________________
Господи помилуй нас.
"I have no pleasure in any man who despises music. It is no invention of ours: it is a gift of God. I place it next to theology. Satan hates music: he knows how it drives the evil spirit out of us." -Martin Luther
I personally know several other people; I doubt we're the only ones. Just the fact that we exist, I think, disproves your idea that evolution is somehow the cause of liberalism. Liberalism and materialism, and twisting Scriptures to suit one's own wishes, existed long before the theory of evolution came on the scene. If you are honest, you'll admit that.
Of course liberalism and materialism existed well before evolution came onto the scene. I've never made the claim that evolution is the cause of liberalism. My point is that evolution makes it much easier to be a liberal.
__________________ David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."
Hardly, my method of supporting or defending a view is based, as much as possible, on God's Word.
So you claim. Yet coincidentally, "God's Word" according to Vossler happens to agree with Vossler's social and political conservatism.
I on the other hand am politically socialist and when I read scripture I find ample scriptural support for socialism. Another convenience.
But what right have you to say I am the one twisting scripture? Jesus had something to say about removing the log in one's own eye first.
If Scripture supports a position then it becomes my position
So you tell yourself. But I expect there is a lot of confirmation bias in your discovery of scriptural support for your position. And a lot of reading between the lines.
Those who support abortion and same sex marriage have no scriptural support for their positions.
I for one, do not support abortion. But I would add that those who call abortion and same sex marriage sin also have no scriptural support for their position.
If you wish to believe that abortion isn't a sin
You are the one who demands a good scriptural exegesis. Find me any list of sins or sinners in scripture that includes abortion/procuring an abortion. Find me any law that prohibits abortion.
Again, my point was to demonstrate how evolution allows such a discussion to be considered rational and even productive.
Evolution is beside the point. It says nothing about abortion one way or the other. Plenty of people who accept evolution agree with you on abortion. I don't, but that has more to do with my socially oriented theology than with science.
This is the typical diversionary tactic of those who wish to divert attention from a simple and straight-forward subject and cloud it with another less simple topic.
Of course you want to label it as diversionsry. You don't find it comfortable or convenient to listen to what scripture is saying when it is your sins that it is speaking of. There is only one verse in scripture that mentions abortion, and that is in the context of a spontaneous abortion precipitated in the course of a fight. There are only a handful of texts about homosexual intercourse, and they are of dubious application to same-sex marriage.
But there are thousands of texts about the importance of social justice, the fair treatment of aliens, of workers, of the poor--especially women and children. It is a fair and simple statement that the primary social concern of God revealed in scripture is social justice. But scripturally and socially, abortion is far from a simple, straight-forward matter, and it can only be made to seem so by ignoring the whole social context that scripture says you ought to be paying attention to.
So who is really being diversionary? People who choose to heed the most important commands God gives us in relation to justice, mercy and faith---or those who ignore all that and pat themselves on the back for condemning something scripture never condemns?
Call this "twisting scripture" if you like, but show me the biblical exegesis this accusation is based on.
I don't think any of this has anything to do with evolution, but if by some odd chance it is evolution that makes me concerned with what Jesus called the weightier matters (justice, mercy, truth, compassion, a fair sharing of goods) then you can credit evolution with making me a biblical Christian.
Personally, I would give more credit to great teachers like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu and J.S. Woodsworth. I don't know that any of them ever said anything about evolution. But they all had a lot to say about the bible.
Abortion is, plain and simple, death or more specifically murder.
Then why does scripture not treat it as murder and set out the same penalty?
This has nothing to do with right or left wing agendas and has everything to do with the Word of God.
It also has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution doesn't have comments on politics. It doesn't tell us we should obey or disobey God, that we should study or reject scripture, that we should or should not allow abortion or same-sex marriage, that we should or should not go to war, use drugs, get tough on crime or climate change, support public schooling, universal medicare, livable wages or any other pet issue of left or right. That is why people of all political stripes and all doctrinal stances can accept or reject evolution. That is why TEs and creationists, (as Melethiel pointed out) are both all over the doctrinal map.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
I can't speak for you or anyone specifically, all I can do is give you my observations. I know that almost 100% of the time when I speak to someone who claims to be a Christian and they believe in things like abortion, gay marriage, etc. they are evolutionists. You may see this as fictitious but it's in my face all the time. So yes, there are TEs who believe in the fall, in the incarnation, etc. but I would submit they cherry pick the doctrines they support and believe. It's my belief they do this so they won't have to confront their own sins. BTW, this clearly explains why TEs are all over the theological map of doctrinal beliefs.
The first half of this is correct. It's not surprising. It's pretty clear that anyone who doesn't have a strong ideological commitment is likely to accept evolution, so I'd expect any Christians who take a non-fundamentalist view of Scripture would be TE. And you'd have to be a non-fundamentalist to accept either abortion or gay marriage. However I believe that the reverse is not true. I think more people accept TE than gay marriage. (The reason is that there are arguments for evolution that are consistent with a fairly literal reading of Scripture. I don't think that's the case for gay marriage.)
What you haven't shown is that they are doing this to avoid confronting their sin. This is classic ad hominem, dismissing the people personally so you don't have to consider the possibility that faithful Christians might disagree with your approach to Scripture.
So you claim. Yet coincidentally, "God's Word" according to Vossler happens to agree with Vossler's social and political conservatism.
No, whatever social and political conservatism you see happens to agree with God's Word.
I on the other hand am politically socialist and when I read scripture I find ample scriptural support for socialism. Another convenience.
No doubt you believe this.
But what right have you to say I am the one twisting scripture? Jesus had something to say about removing the log in one's own eye first.
We can't both be right.
So you tell yourself. But I expect there is a lot of confirmation bias in your discovery of scriptural support for your position. And a lot of reading between the lines.
More like a lot of listening to the Holy Spirit.
I for one, do not support abortion. But I would add that those who call abortion and same sex marriage sin also have no scriptural support for their position.
One could easily say that the Bible has nothing to say about torture but does that mean we should do it?
You are the one who demands a good scriptural exegesis. Find me any list of sins or sinners in scripture that includes abortion/procuring an abortion. Find me any law that prohibits abortion.
This is easy for you to say because abortion itself isn't mentioned, however there is an equivalent, murder. Abortion is premeditated murder of another human being and the Bible has a lot to say about that.
You don't find it comfortable or convenient to listen to what scripture is saying when it is your sins that it is speaking of.
No one that I know of is comfortable hearing their sins being called out in Scripture; I'm certainly not above that. However, I do desire that people point out my sins because I don't want to live in ignorance of them. I tell my family and friends that all the time. My prayer is that I am humble enough to hear them without being too defensive. Am I always, no, but that is my goal.
But there are thousands of texts about the importance of social justice, the fair treatment of aliens, of workers, of the poor--especially women and children. It is a fair and simple statement that the primary social concern of God revealed in scripture is social justice. But scripturally and socially, abortion is far from a simple, straight-forward matter, and it can only be made to seem so by ignoring the whole social context that scripture says you ought to be paying attention to.
Yet the importance of what you mentioned isn't in dispute, abortion and same sex marriage is.
So who is really being diversionary? People who choose to heed the most important commands God gives us in relation to justice, mercy and faith---or those who ignore all that and pat themselves on the back for condemning something scripture never condemns?
Condemning murder is patting myself on the back?
Call this "twisting scripture" if you like, but show me the biblical exegesis this accusation is based on.
I've already done so, you just didn't appreciate it.
I don't think any of this has anything to do with evolution, but if by some odd chance it is evolution that makes me concerned with what Jesus called the weightier matters (justice, mercy, truth, compassion, a fair sharing of goods) then you can credit evolution with making me a biblical Christian.
So evolution has made you a biblical Christian, I'm not surprised to hear that.
Then why does scripture not treat it as murder and set out the same penalty?
So does Scripture have to list every type of murder before it can be considered murder?
It also has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution doesn't have comments on politics. It doesn't tell us we should obey or disobey God, that we should study or reject scripture, that we should or should not allow abortion or same-sex marriage, that we should or should not go to war, use drugs, get tough on crime or climate change, support public schooling, universal medicare, livable wages or any other pet issue of left or right. That is why people of all political stripes and all doctrinal stances can accept or reject evolution. That is why TEs and creationists, (as Melethiel pointed out) are both all over the doctrinal map.
True, evolution by itself doesn't do those things. It does however make it easier.
__________________ David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."
The first half of this is correct. It's not surprising. It's pretty clear that anyone who doesn't have a strong ideological commitment is likely to accept evolution, so I'd expect any Christians who take a non-fundamentalist view of Scripture would be TE. And you'd have to be a non-fundamentalist to accept either abortion or gay marriage. However I believe that the reverse is not true. I think more people accept TE than gay marriage. (The reason is that there are arguments for evolution that are consistent with a fairly literal reading of Scripture. I don't think that's the case for gay marriage.)
What you haven't shown is that they are doing this to avoid confronting their sin. This is classic ad hominem, dismissing the people personally so you don't have to consider the possibility that faithful Christians might disagree with your approach to Scripture.
You are right, I haven't shown that. Remember I did say my views were based on conjecture and speculation. BTW, I think this would be extremely difficult to do because no one, certainly not me, knows the heart of the individuals who believe what they do. As far as the possibility of faithful Christians disagreeing with my approach to Scripture, well let me just say I know many, many faithful Christians with which I disagree or even have a different approach to Scripture with. However those differences don't lie in basic doctrines.
__________________ David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."
I'm not sure I'd necessarily disagree on basic doctrine either. There's a lot of misunderstanding of the difference between liberal and conservative Christians. The folks in my church (PCUSA) mostly agree with our conservative friends on what i'd call basic doctrines. The disagreement is over maybe a half dozen hot-button issues, where so-called "literal" interpretation gives different results. Remember I (and I think most other members of the "mainline") think the Bible tells us what God has done, and those are the basis of our faith. So differences are really in whether some things in Genesis happened literally, and whether we can come to different answers than Paul did (somehow it's always Paul) on a couple of things (homosexuality, and depending upon how conservative you are, the role of women; conservatives now agree with us on slavery, although they didn't 150 years ago). Anyone who thinks that our approach to homosexuality is a basic Christian doctrine has a very different idea about Christianity than I do.
No, whatever social and political conservatism you see happens to agree with God's Word.
How very convenient! Now Tommy Douglas (Baptist minister and founder of our (formerly) socialist party) used to say that you can start from any page of the Bible and support socialism.
We can't both be right.
But we can both be wrong. It is really a form of idolatry to identify God's will with any political stance. It is not far from saying "My politics agree with God's Word" to such institutions as the Inquisition. There's a quote I can't remember exactly at the moment the gist of which is that men cheerfully practice the cruelest atrocities when they are convinced it is God's will. We see that in the dictatorships of both the left and the right.
One could easily say that the Bible has nothing to say about torture but does that mean we should do it?
Ask the right-wingers in your government who are justifying the torture in Guantanamo. Or sending people like Maher Arar off to Syria and other places where they know torture is practiced. Christians of many generations took it for granted that torture was a necessary part of the legal system.
Apparently you disagree with them, and on this point I agree with you. But let's be clear that biblical silence on this point has been influential in a justification of torture that has been accepted--and still is--by many Christians.
This is easy for you to say because abortion itself isn't mentioned, however there is an equivalent, murder.
That is the point to be established. The bible does not suggest that abortion is murder or equivalent to murder. The bible prescribes the death penalty for murder, adultery, blasphemy and a number of other sins, but never for abortion. If it really was thought of as murder, there would be case law in the bible for it.
The only legal penalty in scripture relating to the death of a fetus is when--through the action of another--a spontaneous (therefore unplanned and unwanted) abortion is induced. There is no word at all against a planned abortion.
No one that I know of is comfortable hearing their sins being called out in Scripture; I'm certainly not above that. However, I do desire that people point out my sins because I don't want to live in ignorance of them.
I would hope for more than that. I would hope for more than knowledge, but also for repentance and a change of life pattern.
Yet the importance of what you mentioned isn't in dispute, abortion and same sex marriage is.
Then why is justice so rare, the church so silent about it, and even--in some cases--opposed to measures that would produce a more just society? If life is so important, why is there so much opposition to providing all children with the basic necessities of life once they are born?
The prophets focused on justice not only because it was important, but because that is where society most often fails. It is always easy to raise a hue and cry of hate against witches or gays or illegal immigrants. It is never easy, and always controversial, to promote justice.
Condemning murder is patting myself on the back?
Again you assume what has not been established. And you also forget what James told us: if you offend in one point of the law, you have offended. You cannot take credit for not murdering if at the same time you steal. You cannot take credit for a strong stance against abortion if at the same time you vote for tax reductions instead of day care.
So evolution has made you a biblical Christian, I'm not surprised to hear that.
That is what you said. I said it had nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with good theological teaching.
So does Scripture have to list every type of murder before it can be considered murder?
Yes. Unless one holds strictly to "thou shalt not kill" no matter what the circumstances. As long as there is a distinction drawn between killing and murder, the line of distinction must be set out. This is especially so when one makes a crusade against one type of killing. It must be clear that this is indeed murder.
Consider another case. The biblical injunction on adultery prescribes capital punishment. In some parts of the world "honour killings" of women are still considered acceptable. In biblical times to kill an adulterer was not murder. But today we are shocked when the Taliban applies that standard and consider the executions of women for adultery to be judicial murder.
So, yes, it is important--if one is claiming biblical support--that the bible identify abortion as murder. And it does not.
True, evolution by itself doesn't do those things. It does however make it easier.
Make what easier? Did you actually read that last paragraph? So now we have you on record as agreeing that evolution makes it easier to oppose abortion, go to war, get tough on crime, ignore climate change, oppose universal medicare, dismantle public schools, etc.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
Anyone who thinks that our approach to homosexuality is a basic Christian doctrine has a very different idea about Christianity than I do.
I think that is a key statement. To me, "basic doctrine" is what is set out in the great ecumenical creeds. We can agree on these while holding very different points of view on capital punishment, the legitimacy of war, and same-sex marriage.
Taking one side on these issues and holding it up as "basic Christian doctrine" diverts attention from the real core of Christian faith and sets up a wall of hostility where there should be respectful discussion.
And that is what we see on the question of evolution too. Most TEs do not see evolution as a matter affecting basic Christian doctrine. They are able to accept evolution and also accept the core doctrines of creation, sin and redemption. But those opposing evolution treat it as if it were a basic doctrine--and a heresy. That requires a very different view of Christianity.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
Linear Mode
