Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[AmericanChristian91]

Exactly! Yet you deny the 1st miracle listed in the Bible—the 6 day creation. Why is that okay, logically speaking, but denying the Resurrection not okay?

I accept the Resurrection because believing that Jesus is the Son of God and died for our sins is one of the key parts of the Christian faith. It is in a much higher level of importance then the belief of God creating the world in 6 days. The Nicene creed sure doesn't mention the 6 day creation belief a necessity and the fact that most Christians don't take that interpretation of Genesis further shows that the idea of 24 hr 6 day creation is not needed for Christianity to be valid in the hearts of many.

Also I don't deny the belief that genesis is a history book simply because "science says so", but also because of Genesis itself. Part of that is references to ancient cosmology (especially the firmament) and other reasons. Various factors contribute me to believing that Genesis is more focused on teaching theology and other things instead of an emphasis on being historically correct.

 

[Extraneous]

Let me clarify. I NEVER contradicted myself.

I said earlier to your response,

"The ToE does not deal with the origins of life, your thinking about abiogenesis."

And I further said....

"I mean ToE does not deal with how life first got on earth. It deals with already existing life and how it developed. Yes ToE deals with Man's origins."

Im not contradicting myself.


The ToE does not deal with how life first appears on earth, but it does deal with the development of Man.

Whatever, its still a false doctrine created in the mind of Atheist scientists who see what they want to see, instead of truth.

 

[Hieronymus]

I accept the Resurrection because believing that Jesus is the Son of God and died for our sins is one of the key parts of the Christian faith.

So is the Flood: God WILL judge.
So is creation and the fall: God didn't create a fallen world with death and suffering.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Because its a notion invented in the minds of Atheist scientists.

Actually Darwin still had his faith when he was creating the theory of evolution, he became agnostic later on. Also some christians even in the early days of the ToE accepting the theory. In other words you can't say it had an atheistic beginning.

 

[Sonclad]

Your humanistic ToE-loving friends wouldn't accept the resurrection of Jesus; in fact it sticks in their craw because evolutionary theory says it couldn't possibly happen and yet history cannot refute that it occurred! God couldn't become a man, because God either doesn't exist (according to atheists) or there's no reason for God to intervene ( no reason for God at all according to evolutionists). Likewise, Satan is some figment of mankind's imagination, so there is no such thing as sin (according to evolutionists and atheists). Once dead, dead forever (according to both), so it would seem you have some discrepancy with ToE on some matters; things of great importance.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

So is the Flood: God WILL judge.
So is creation and the fall: God didn't create a fallen world with death and suffering.

Believing in God created the world and man falling is important, but the belief of a historical flood or no physical death before the flood are not as important to the Christian Faith (if they were most Christians would be Young Earth creationists, and the minority who aren't would be considered heretics). Besides myself, many others hold to the belief that it was spiritual death that the first humans brought into the world.

 

[Extraneous]

Actually Darwin still had his faith when he was creating the theory of evolution, he became agnostic later on. Also some christians even in the early days of the ToE accepting the theory. In other words you can't say it had an atheistic beginning.

I wasn't referring to Darwin, i was referring to those who took his untested theory and turned it into the monstrosity that it is now. Even so, it matters little that Darwin may have had faith at one time, because many false doctrines are created by men of faith. All men create false doctrines, even scientists, and that's what ToE is. Its a man made false doctrine, but its not pure science.

 

[Hieronymus]

Believing in God created the world and man falling is important, but the belief of a historical flood or no physical death before the flood are not as important to the Christian Faith (if they were most Christians would be Young Earth creationists, and the minority who aren't would be considered heretics). Besides myself, many others hold to the belief that it was spiritual death that the first humans brought into the world.

Allright, fair enough.
But it's a rather weak God i.m.o. when Genesis is not true or 'just allegorical'.

 

[Job8]

Darwin cited a lot of things to back up his ideas. You should actually read the work.

I did read it. But where is the objective evidence, which even Darwin admitted did not exist in the fossil record? Science is based on actual evidence (just like law enforcement).

 

[Sonclad]

Believing in God created the world and man falling is important, but the belief of a historical flood or no physical death before the flood are not as important to the Christian Faith (if they were most Christians would be Young Earth creationists, and the minority who aren't would be considered heretics). Besides myself, many others hold to the belief that it was spiritual death that the first humans brought into the world.

I completely disagree. The flood is critical to the Christian faith 1) it shows the extent of evil and how the Watchers infiltrated the human blood line to destroy the possibility of a Savior coming 2) it shows how God preserved not only a pure DNA line through Noah and his family, but with some animals as well 3) God went to great lengths to judge sin and to save those whom were found righteous 4) it explains a great deal of terrain across the globe like the Grand Canyon 5) God will judge again - this time with fire; and He will preserve those who are found righteous via the rapture.

It is also important because it proves: 1) God exists; 2) God is loving and holy; 3) God will not tolerate sin forever

 

[Hoghead1]

That isn't accurate, Sonclad. I believe evolution would be impossible without God. I also believe that God continually intervenes. Without that, the evolutionary process would not take place. I have no problem with the Resurrection. I believe this is actually called for by the evolutionary process. So, I think you need to qualify your statements and be more specific about whom you are speaking of.

 

[Hoghead1]

Where exactly did Darwin make that statement, Job8?

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Allright, fair enough.
But it's a rather weak God i.m.o. when Genesis is not true or 'just allegorical'.

I wouldn't call God weak, I would just say that the book of Genesis not intending to be historical just makes the book important for other types of truth.

Genesis teaches a lot of things. From there only being one God and his creation is good. That God controls the world, he created the moon and the stars (so one should not worship those). That Man is a unique creation and God's most beloved creation on earth. We our made in his image (note this does not mean God's image is that of a human). Eve being created out of Adam's rib and as a companion for him can be seen as the relationship that often results in marriage between men and women. Both sexes need each other. Man isn't perfect and because of it we fall after disobeying God. Im sure you could find even more truths in this book.

 

[Sonclad]

That isn't accurate, Sonclad. I believe evolution would be impossible without God. I also believe that God continually intervenes. Without that, the evolutionary process would not take place. I have no problem with the Resurrection. I believe this is actually called for by the evolutionary process. So, I think you need to qualify your statements and be more specific about whom you are speaking of.

Then we must be speaking of two different ToE's... Does your ToE accept the possibility of God creating and then coming to rescue mankind from sin? Does your version of ToE accept the resurrection of a man named Jesus as a viable possibility? How about the rapture? Perhaps you are the one with the onus of explanation as your ToE doesn't appear to fit with the mainstream. Try posting your version of ToE on some humanistic ToE site and see what happens... Textbook definition of ToE doesn't depend on God

 

[Hoghead1]

Science, Cal, is not at all equipped to study what happens after death. The Resurrection is not a scientific matter, to start with. I have no trouble accepting the Resurrection and evolution. I believe it is revelatory of God's memory. That's important. We all seek meaningfulness. That means significance and endurance. That's difficult to see in an ever-changing world. Why do anything if it is going to go up in smoke soon enough anyway? I believe everything ahs meaning because everything contributes to God. God shares empathically in all creaturely feeling, and God's memory preserves all of the past. Nothing is lost. Everythign has eternal meaning, because everything is contained in God's loving memory, where it is enjoyed by God forever. The Resurrection is a revelation of this memory process.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

I completely disagree. The flood is critical to the Christian faith 1) it shows the extent of evil and how the Watchers infiltrated the human blood line to destroy the possibility of a Savior coming 2) it shows how God preserved not only a pure DNA line through Noah and his family, but with some animals as well 3) God went to great lengths to judge sin and to save those whom were found righteous 4) it explains a great deal of terrain across the globe like the Grand Canyon 5) God will judge again - this time with fire; and He will preserve those who are found righteous via the rapture.

It is also important because it proves: 1) God exists; 2) God is loving and holy; 3) God will not tolerate sin forever

You are enitled to your beliefs, but there is a reason why the whole belief in a historical flood is not mentioned in the nicene creed.

There is also a reason why YEC is the minority.

Yes I know some Christians make the Flood a must needed belief for their faith, but your interpenetration is not the same for all Christians.

Also a Christian can accept those last 3 points of yours without viewing the Flood story as a historical global flood. The Flood not being an historical fact would also not disprove those 3 points as being valid.

 

[Calminian]

I accept the Resurrection because believing that Jesus is the Son of God and died for our sins is one of the key parts of the Christian faith. It is in a much higher level of importance then the belief of God creating the world in 6 days. The Nicene creed sure doesn't mention the 6 day creation belief a necessity and the fact that most Christians don't take that interpretation of Genesis further shows that the idea of 24 hr 6 day creation is not needed for Christianity to be valid in the hearts of many.

I'm not getting your answer, yet. You're saying that denying the Resurrection has stronger consequences, but that doesn't speak to the logic of your argument. If he's using the same identical logic as you, then why is he wrong in denying one miracle, but you're right in denying another, regardless of which denial has more consequences. And I'll agree with you that denial of the Resurrection has stronger consequences.

Also I don't deny the belief that genesis is a history book simply because "science says so", but also because of Genesis itself. Part of that is references to ancient cosmology (especially the firmament) and other reasons. Various factors contribute me to believing that Genesis is more focused on teaching theology and other things instead of an emphasis on being historically correct.

Just out of curiosity, did you know that God actually named the firmament in Genesis 1? It's not really a mystery at all. "God called the firmament (raqiya') Heaven." Heaven is the firmament, and the firmament is heaven. And heaven (the sky), in numerous places all over the O.T. is described as an open expanse. In fact, clouds are said to be in the heavens, and clouds most certainly look like they're moving through an open expanse. IOWs, the Genesis account actually contradicts many ANE beliefs about the structure of the universe.

But forget all that for now. Because you're making the same argument, essentially.

You: The Creation account, read literally, is in conflict with modern science. Therefore, it must be figurative.

Bishop Spong: The Resurrection account, read literally, is in conflict with modern science. Therefore, it must be figurative.

Set aside, for a moment, the various interpretations of Genesis which may or may not contradict science. Because the Resurrection most certainly contradicts science. Spong and many other liberal theologians recognize this. What would you tell them about their approach to scripture? Should they put science aside, and trust the Resurrection account?

 

[Hoghead1]

I am a process theologian, Sonclad. process theology is a major movement in contemporary Christian thought. Many laity are unfamiliar with it, as process tends to be very academic. Yes, we accept Christ, the Resurrection. See Post 677 above. About posting on a humanistic site, I don't understand your point. Yes, there are atheists. Yes, process has plenty of dialogues with atheists.

 

[Sonclad]

You are enitled to your beliefs, but there is a reason why the whole belief in a historical flood is not mentioned in the nicene creed.

There is also a reason why YEC is the minority.

Yes I know some Christians make the Flood a must needed belief for their faith, but your interpenetration is not the same for all Christians.

Also a Christian can accept those last 3 points of yours without viewing the Flood story as a historical global flood. The Flood not being an historical fact would also not disprove those 3 points as being valid.

Jesus trumps the Nicene Creed and he believed in a literal flood and referenced it. With that put into proper perspective, I am proud to claim to be in the same camp of belief with Jesus regarding a literal flood. What you're saying then is that some "Christians" hold to some other view than Jesus'. I'll leave it to the reader to figure out which side that is.

 

[Extraneous]

Science, Cal, is not at all equipped to study what happens after death. The Resurrection is not a scientific matter, to start with. I have no trouble accepting the Resurrection and evolution. I believe it is revelatory of God's memory. That's important. We all seek meaningfulness. That means significance and endurance. That's difficult to see in an ever-changing world. Why do anything if it is going to go up in smoke soon enough anyway? I believe everything ahs meaning because everything contributes to God. God shares empathically in all creaturely feeling, and God's memory preserves all of the past. Nothing is lost. Everythign has eternal meaning, because everything is contained in God's loving memory, where it is enjoyed by God forever. The Resurrection is a revelation of this memory process.

If you accept evolution then you cant also accept the genealogy in Genesis, which would mean you cant accept Noah, Abraham, David or Moses. You see how it just doesn't work? God never asked you to be liked by the world. You don't need to be accepted by them. They reject Christ so who cares is they laugh at us about the man called Noah? They will not accept your faith anyway.

Also, God never asked you to believe only things that seem realistic. Do you think that Jesus actually performed Miracles? Do you think he was actually raised from the dead? If so, then the world is laughing at you anyway. If God can do those things, he can surely flood the earth, even though it seems hard to believe.