Christian Charity and Evolution

[chaoschristian]

Seeking to Understand

I've seen references on these threads to an argument that basically says that evolution is incompatible with Christian charity. I don't quite get it.

Would you all be so kind as to explain this to me and also add where you fall in relation to it?

 

[Gwenyfur]

I believe that the earth was created in a literal 6 days and is around 6000 years old, I believe that 4400 years ago there *was* a world wide flood, I don't believe in pangae, I don't believe in evolution.

Evolution is opposite to the Bible in many ways....

Evolution: death brings man into the world
Creation: man brings death into the world

Evolution: Universe appeared from nothing with a bang!
Creation: Universe broken down to latin: one Uni spoken Verse....so we're living in a spoken verse "Gen1:3 And God said..."

Evolution: Millions of years ago water rained down upon rocks forming a pool of primordial soup
Creation: 6 thousand years ago G-d created man with His own hands...Genesis 9:6
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Evolution: We are nothing more than animals evolved from lower animals
Creation: We are sentient beings with spirit and soul created to be stewards of the earth

Evolution: White people have a more advanced evolution than blacks...whites are farther removed from monkeys...blacks and "lesser races" are still little more than beasts....(don't yell at me....yell at Charles Darwin Origin of the Species...if you haven't read the whole book take time to do it...it's packed with racism!!)

Creation:We are of the same blood and flesh, created in His image...Acts 17:26
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

I could go on but I believe you understand my stance from these statments.

Shalom

 

[notto]

I

Evolution: Universe appeared from nothing with a bang!
Creation: Universe broken down to latin: one Uni spoken Verse....so we're living in a spoken verse "Gen1:3 And God said..."

1) Evolution says nothing about the creation of the universe. That is an entirely different theory. You should just say 'mainstream science' or 'science' in general.

2) Even mainstream science doesn't say that the universe appeared from nothing with a bang.

3) That is not the root of the word universe.

 

[chaoschristian]

I believe that the earth was created in a literal 6 days and is around 6000 years old, I believe that 4400 years ago there *was* a world wide flood, I don't believe in pangae, I don't believe in evolution.

Evolution is opposite to the Bible in many ways....

Evolution: death brings man into the world
Creation: man brings death into the world

Evolution: Universe appeared from nothing with a bang!
Creation: Universe broken down to latin: one Uni spoken Verse....so we're living in a spoken verse "Gen1:3 And God said..."

Evolution: Millions of years ago water rained down upon rocks forming a pool of primordial soup
Creation: 6 thousand years ago G-d created man with His own hands...Genesis 9:6
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Evolution: We are nothing more than animals evolved from lower animals
Creation: We are sentient beings with spirit and soul created to be stewards of the earth

Evolution: White people have a more advanced evolution than blacks...whites are farther removed from monkeys...blacks and "lesser races" are still little more than beasts....(don't yell at me....yell at Charles Darwin Origin of the Species...if you haven't read the whole book take time to do it...it's packed with racism!!)

Creation:We are of the same blood and flesh, created in His image...Acts 17:26
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

I could go on but I believe you understand my stance from these statments.

Shalom

Thanks for your reply. However, I'm interested primarily in your thoughts on what defines 'Christian charity' and how evolution might stand in opposition to it. I'm not quite clear on how what you posted is related to that. Could you elaborate some for me please?

 

[Numenor]

Nice, a Dr Dino cut-and-paste job, who was it said TEs make more of a fuss over Hovind than YECs do?

I've seen references on these threads to an argument that basically says that evolution is incompatible with Christian charity. I don't quite get it.

There's nothing to get, we love because he first loved us. Evolution has nothing to do with it.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I've seen references on these threads to an argument that basically says that evolution is incompatible with Christian charity. I don't quite get it.

Neither do I... For that matter, if charity is important, I don't see what Christian charity has to do with trying to establish theocracy in schools.

 

[DailyBlessings]

First of all, Gwenfur, what does your post have to do with charity?

Evolution: death brings man into the world
Creation: man brings death into the world

Not true. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that physical death is the result of the fall- if you want to be a literalist, at least read the good Book first.

Evolution: Universe appeared from nothing with a bang!
Creation: Universe broken down to latin: one Uni spoken Verse....so we're living in a spoken verse "Gen1:3 And God said..."

Actually the root word of universe is the verb "vertere" or "to turn". The name has much more to do with Greek philosphy than Christian.

Evolution: Millions of years ago water rained down upon rocks forming a pool of primordial soup
Creation: 6 thousand years ago G-d created man with His own hands...Genesis 9:6
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

One: Abiogenesis is not a part of evolutionary theory. Two: Evolution does not preclude God's role in our creation, just the method.

Evolution: We are nothing more than animals evolved from lower animals
Creation: We are sentient beings with spirit and soul created to be stewards of the earth

Again, most Christian evolutionists hold both these views, they are not contradictory.

Evolution: White people have a more advanced evolution than blacks...whites are farther removed from monkeys...blacks and "lesser races" are still little more than beasts....(don't yell at me....yell at Charles Darwin Origin of the Species...if you haven't read the whole book take time to do it...it's packed with racism!!)

I've read Origin of the Species, and it isn't. You are probably thinking of his later book, "The Descent of Man", which is. But no contemporary evolutionists, that anyone knows of, currently espouse this 19th century rubbish. Darwin is not Moses, and DoM is not the Bible.

Creation:We are of the same blood and flesh, created in His image...

Yes, we are all of the same flesh- man and beast alike.

 

[SBG]

Let's not allow this thread to get off topic by going after Gwen's point of view. Whether or not she is right or wrong isn't the point, that is how she sees things as each of us sees things differently. We are allowed our own opinions.

Concerning the Topic of this thread, I think the argument that has been made is that if death is part of this world without sin, where death brings pain and suffering for no apparent reason, there is a lack of love from our Creator. It would go on to say that if the Creator created us to be in pain and suffer without sin being part of the world, is that love?

It revolves around death and pain and suffering that come from the one dying and the one's who love the one dying, in a world without sin. The tie-in to evolutionists is that evolutionists suggest that death is a good thing and has been part of life even before sin.

Hopefully that helps some.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Let's not allow this thread to get off topic by going after Gwen's point of view. Whether or not she is right or wrong isn't the point, that is how she sees things as each of us sees things differently. We are allowed our own opinions.

Concerning the Topic of this thread, I think the argument that has been made is that if death is part of this world without sin, where death brings pain and suffering for no apparent reason, there is a lack of love from our Creator. It would go on to say that if the Creator created us to be in pain and suffer without sin being part of the world, is that love?

It revolves around death and pain and suffering that come from the one dying and the one's who love the one dying, in a world without sin. The tie-in to evolutionists is that evolutionists suggest that death is a good thing and has been part of life even before sin.

Hopefully that helps some.

I still don't quite see what this has to do with charity- if the pain and sorrow are intrinsic to the universal experience, doesn't that just make the role of charity all the more important? Ubi Caritas Deus Ibi Est?

 

[billwald]

Evolution is compatable with charity because we are social animals who have learned to co-operate for mutual benefit.

 

[shernren]

Concerning the Topic of this thread, I think the argument that has been made is that if death is part of this world without sin, where death brings pain and suffering for no apparent reason, there is a lack of love from our Creator. It would go on to say that if the Creator created us to be in pain and suffer without sin being part of the world, is that love?

It revolves around death and pain and suffering that come from the one dying and the one's who love the one dying, in a world without sin. The tie-in to evolutionists is that evolutionists suggest that death is a good thing and has been part of life even before sin.

I don't know. If it's about human death, I think that TEism makes no difference to the basic premise of evangelism: people who die without Christ go to hell, whether or not human death is natural in the world.

If it's about animal death, may I post something I just posted elsewhere that seems particularly apt here:

But when I looked at a particular problem I realized that the issues are not so clear-cut:

Were there carnivores before the Fall?

If YES, then I've proven my point. If God created carnivores in a pre-Fall world logically He intended for it to contain animal death, and He called it "very good". Lions hunting elephants were "very good", sperm whales battling giant squids were "very good", female spiders devouring their male mates after mating were "very good".

Of course the creationist answer has to be NO, because they can't imagine all those being "very good". This however raises immense difficulties:

1. God GLORIFIES HIMSELF through predatory activities.

"Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
and satisfy the hunger of the lions when they crouch in their dens
or lie in wait in a thicket?
Who provides food for the raven
when its young cry out to God
and wander about for lack of food?"
(Job 38:39-41 NIV)

If predation was not part of God's original plan, then it is the result of sin, and verses like these are basically God saying ... "Look at what sin has done for My ecosystems! Look how I provide for animals who need meat because of sin! Look what a testimony sin is to My glory!" ... can you honestly imagine God saying something like that?

God takes credit for the design and sustenance of predators, and so their killing cannot be the result of sin.

2. The introduction of predation is NOT MENTIONED in the Curse of the Fall.

Thus, isn't saying that "the Fall caused predation" rather like reading something into Scripture that shouldn't be there?

If animal death was the result of the Fall, and Christians as God's agents are supposed to reverse the Fall in their finite and limited ways, aren't Christians supposed to be vegetarian in order to prevent animal death? That seems like the logical conclusion to me

 

[SBG]

It was God who gave animals to man for food. You can read about it in Genesis after the flood event. And, it is God who takes something bad and turns it into something good.

Whatever the animals were like before sin, no one knows or will know till God chooses to tell us. Everything everyone says is speculation, not fact or probable.

 

[shernren]

It was God who gave animals to man for food. You can read about it in Genesis after the flood event. And, it is God who takes something bad and turns it into something good.

If animal death is the result of sin, isn't it strange that God tells man that "You can now sin and kill animals for food!" I don't know, it just feels like there is some sort of inconsistency in the theology there.

 

[SBG]

If animal death is the result of sin, isn't it strange that God tells man that "You can now sin and kill animals for food!" I don't know, it just feels like there is some sort of inconsistency in the theology there.

Death is a result of sin and sin has corrupted this world. Why is creation(all) groaning to be set free if it isn't affected by sin and the consequences of sin?

Since you think this is an inconsistent theology, let's look at something very similar, divorce. When God created man and woman, they were/are to become one flesh in marriage. Did God also originally intend for this one flesh to be divorced? Was it God who said that what He has joined let no man separate? Jesus Himself says from the beginning it was not so that man and woman were to separate.

How about Jesus' statements on divorce where He says that divorce was allowed because their hearts were hardened? Read Jesus' statements where He calls divorce adultry if one has divorced their spouse for any other reason then fornication. Again, Jesus says from the beginning it was not so.

We know adultry is a sin. The Ten Commandments tell us this. From the beginning divorce itself was a sin, yet now God has given an exception for fornication only because their hearts were hardened.

Is it inconsistent theology because God made an exception where there wasn't one before?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Death is a result of sin and sin has corrupted this world. Why is creation(all) groaning to be set free if it isn't affected by sin and the consequences of sin?

Since you think this is an inconsistent theology, let's look at something very similar, divorce. When God created man and woman, they were/are to become one flesh in marriage. Did God also originally intend for this one flesh to be divorced? Was it God who said that what He has joined let no man separate? Jesus Himself says from the beginning it was not so that man and woman were to separate.



How about Jesus' statements on divorce where He says that divorce was allowed because their hearts were hardened? Read Jesus' statements where He calls divorce adultry if one has divorced their spouse for any other reason then fornication. Again, Jesus says from the beginning it was not so.



We know adultry is a sin. The Ten Commandments tell us this. From the beginning divorce itself was a sin, yet now God has given an exception for fornication only because their hearts were hardened.



Is it inconsistent theology because God made an exception where there wasn't one before?

Matt 19

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."



It seems to me that God did not make an exception, but Moses did. What verses and writings lead you to the idea that God made the exception rather than Moses? I would be interested in seeing them.


It appears to me that Moses was making a political decision to please the people in his additions to the Ten Commandments. That could be one of the reasons that Christians for the most part do not follow the Levitical and other laws, only the Ten Commandments.

 

[shernren]

From the beginning divorce itself was a sin, yet now God has given an exception for fornication only because their hearts were hardened.

Is it inconsistent theology because God made an exception where there wasn't one before?

Apart from what Lewis has said, actually I don't think divorce on the grounds of adultery is a sin, not even before Moses made the hole. For me my main objection to your argument would be (as you'd expect) that I can't see why God would let Noah eat meat after the Flood. Is there any biological or spiritual significance to eating meat that would make it logical for God to give it to Noah after the Flood? And how can we extend this to carnivorous animals?

I personally believe that creation is groaning to be set free from sinful man. Without human activities there are no ecological problems. Perhaps creation has been affected by the Fall not because God (or Satan) has directly transformed and reworked creation, but because man's greed causes him to lose his place in everything - in his relationship with God, man, and creation - and man's power means that when he loses his relationship with creation it has devastating consequences for creation, as we all can see.

 

[chaoschristian]

Let me ask this question, to swing the point back around to my original query: what is meant by 'Christian Charity'?

 

[DailyBlessings]

I was actually waiting for you to define that, as you posed the question. My definition would be something along the lines of "To love others as Christ loved us."

The New Catholic Dictionary defines it as "A supernatural, infused virtue, by which we love God above everything for His own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for God's sake."

 

[chaoschristian]

I was actually hoping that someone who uses it as a part of their origins theology would come along and define it, as I don't understand how it is being used as part of their reasoning.

 

[shernren]

Maybe you could point us to the original discussion you were referring to in the OP, then we could come along and look at what the issue is here.