Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[Extraneous]

You realize that that post tends more to get this thread "moved" than it does to change who can post - right?

I was kinda enjoying the exposure to Christians that it gets here.

No, i didnt realize that. Thanks for the heads up

 

[Extraneous]

Yes, that is the crux of the problem, ScottA. As yet you have presented no evidence that your ideology or belief system has any sort of solid biblical backing to it. You are simply presenting you opinions as laity on these matters. Fine. But everyone has an opinion and everyone thinks their is right. So the question is, Why should I or anyone else here believe anything you have to say about God, the Bible, Christ, science?

Please stop with the laity stuff. This is a public forum, anyone can post here. Practice what you preach Hogshead, its about the topic, not the poster. Likewise, you seem to say that its about testing each other, so i would ask, when you are testing other peoples love, do you use this test?

Acts 4:32 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. 33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. 34 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold,

 

[Hoghead1]

I am well aware, Extraneous, that anyone can post here. That's what cool about this site. However, I want to stress the laity issue. I think it is very important. The problem is that too many laity and amateurs post here, claiming far more authority for themselves in these matters than is anywhere even near reasonable. Such posts are from persons who definitely are not educated scientists, theologians, biblical scholars, ministers, or the like. For example, I can't believe for a minute that any lay person is so much smatter and better qualified than anyone in the scientific community that they are qualified to sit in judgment and find what are allegedly all sorts of mistakes that the scientists themselves never realized. I find it extremely arrogant for some laity here to presume God has granted them the special privilege of sitting in judgment on their fellow Christians and pronounce sentence on them. I find it arrogant that some laity here presume they have such a monopoly on God that they can condemn to Hell all modern science. Granted, people have the right to post their opinions. However, I also have the right to respond and disagree.

 

[Extraneous]

I am well aware, Extraneous, that anyone can post here. That's what cool about this site. However, I want to stress the laity issue. I think it is very important. The problem is that too many laity and amateurs post here, claiming far more authority for themselves in these matters than is anywhere even near reasonable. Such posts are from persons who definitely are not educated scientists, theologians, biblical scholars, ministers, or the like. For example, I can't believe for a minute that any lay person is so much smatter and better qualified than anyone in the scientific community that they are qualified to sit in judgment and find what are allegedly all sorts of mistakes that the scientists themselves never realized. I find it extremely arrogant for some laity here to presume God has granted them the special privilege of sitting in judgment on their fellow Christians and pronounce sentence on them. I find it arrogant that some laity here presume they have such a monopoly on God that they can condemn to Hell all modern science. Granted, people have the right to post their opinions. However, I also have the right to respond and disagree.

Paul didn't need a letter of recommendation. Such things are useless. I never pronounced sentence on anyone, i share what i see, that's all, and i'm not laity i'm a brother. I reject the idea of laity. There is only one teacher who is Christ, and we are all brethren. I recognize the authority of NT apostles as being pure doctrine as well, and all things are ours as Paul has said, however i recognize no authority outside of scripture. I recognize authority of worldly governments, and i submit to their earthly authority, but i do not follow their teaching. Christ is the only teacher.

 

[BobRyan]

I am well aware, Extraneous, that anyone can post here. That's what cool about this site. However, I want to stress the laity issue. I think it is very important. The problem is that too many laity and amateurs post here, claiming far more authority for themselves in these matters than is anywhere even near reasonable. Such posts are from persons who definitely are not educated scientists, theologians, biblical scholars, ministers, or the like. For example, I can't believe for a minute that any lay person is so much smatter and better qualified than anyone in the scientific community that they are qualified to sit in judgment and find what are allegedly all sorts of mistakes that the scientists themselves never realized. I find it extremely arrogant

Ok that was the word I was looking for -- "arrogant" - especially coming from someone who rejects the virgin birth.

 

[Extraneous]

Hoghead, you want us to submit to the wisdom of Atheist scientists but that doesnt seem like sound doctrine. You said we should test the spirits didnt you? What did John say about that?

 

[Extraneous]

This Authority issue seems to be twisted. You are recognizing Atheist authority as teachers, after you have said we should test the spirits? Thats twisted hoghead. Likewise, the letter of recommendation thing that you keep citing, thats useless as well.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Hoghead, you want us to submit to the wisdom of Atheist scientists

Plenty of scientists are theists (including Christians), and even they agree with evolution.

Also because evolution deals with the natural world and is apart of a scientific theory, it doesn't deal with God. Similar to how modern Astronomy doesn't talk about God when they learn more about the universe. But while it doesn't deal with God it also does not say like Atheists that God isn't real. It is neutral.

And even an Atheist can be wise on some things. Just because he is misinformed with his lack of belief in God doesn't mean we can't trust him on other things. For example a doctor treating a patient. Perhaps this Doctor is an atheist, that isn't going to cause him to do a horrible job and you should still show trust to him when he talks about your condition so you two can work together for your body to heal.

 

[Extraneous]

Plenty of scientists are theists (including Christians), and even they agree with evolution.

Also because evolution deals with the natural world and is apart of a scientific theory, it doesn't deal with God. Similar to how modern Astronomy doesn't talk about God when they learn more about the universe. But while it doesn't deal with God it also does not say like Atheists that God isn't real. It is neutral.

And even an Atheist can be wise on some things. Just because he is misinformed with his lack of belief in God doesn't mean we can't trust him on other things. For example a doctor treating a patient. Perhaps this Doctor is an atheist, that isn't going to cause him to do a horrible job and you should still show trust to him when he talks about your condition so you to can work together for your body to heal.

I was just showing Hoghead how his testing of the spirits ideology was flawed. He provided the context, not I. Also, a theist is not a Christian unless im mistaken, and they would fail the testing of spirits test. AS far as some Christian scientists being ToE proponents, that means nothing because some are not as well. The whole truth of the matter is that anything which divides us over worldly matters such as ToE does, should be considered rubbish. Why should we need to be divided over a flawed scientific theory? Surely you can see the folly in that. Paul exhorts us to put away division and be of one mind, to have one judgment, and that judgment and mind is Christ and Christ alone. ToE is just a flawed scientific theory, thats all it is.

 

[redleghunter]

I think i know some key ideas. Its because it undermines the creation story and that people will become irreligious?

Well wouldnt that be an issue about the idea of the earth is flat if the bible is literal on that part i mean?

What i mean is that science explains our physicial world. The main point i am making is that Creation Story had two interpretations in medieval ages. Allegory" basically a deeper meaning than it is. Or "Literally" like just like it is written.

So basically allegory seems to be the key point then. Since that can be used. Since God is outside our understanding. Science is a method just to understand the world we live in more or less.

So i dont see the problem with evolution, because it doesnt undermine the scripture in the sense of it not being true?

Although i do believe its a shame that more people who lack understanding go away because of ignorance and just dont bother trying to understand why Christianity is a religion to help your life.

But i am curious to what you think?

Do you believe Moses by the Power of God parted the red sea and the Israelites walked on dry ground?

 

[redleghunter]

But the Bible isn't literal on that point, referring to the Earth, as it does in one passage, as a sphere.


...and what you're saying is the reason most Christians have come to believe in (theistic) evolution.

The theory of evolution was originally seen as rejecting the possibility of God creating by an act of His will, but if we see Him as having created the laws of the universe and setting them into operation, which in turn resulted in the creation of all that exists in the physical universe...

then evolution is credible and not opposed to Genesis.

How do you address mankind made in the image of God?

 

[redleghunter]

Not all Christians believe the Creation story. I believe in Evolution.

Do you believe the miracle accounts in Torah?

 

[SteveB28]

You seem to be "wishing" to accuse me of something - the ad hominem solution of many evolutionists is not convincing. At some point you need actual fact. Are you asking for a quote - or are you claiming you read something from Darwin and are ready to,.. almost ready to ... quote it?

Details matter.

He said nothing about "doctrines of origins imagined in evolution".

You made that up.

 

[SteveB28]

1. Are you familiar with the concept of homologous chromosomes???

I already told you I was. Well acquainted.

Then you already know that amoeba==> rabbit stores are utter foolishness -- no matter "how long the sufficiently long period of time filled with just-so stories".

I "know" no such thing. How you derive such outlandish claims from the study of homologous chromosome formation is beyond me.

2. Are you inclined to argue that your belief in evolutionism is rightly stated as "FOR in SIX days the LORD created the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them ... and rested the 7th day" Ex 20:11 ???

No.

Some here are arguing that such a statement is the very opposite of evolutionism's claim and is never the way that evolution is described.

You make no sense.

3. Are you familiar with the "pile of dirt will sure enough turn into a horse over time - given a sufficiently large pile of dirt and a sufficiently long period of time filled with just-so stories" form of evolution? Or do you insist that God came here and scattered amoebas around to get things started?

These claims ONLY originate from the minds of the religious. The theory of evolution states something entirely different.

4. Would you agree that atheist evolutionism is the worst of all options because it has the worst hole-in-ground "upside" and it has the worst Revelation 20 "downside"?

No.

 

[Extraneous]

I already told you I was. Well acquainted.




I "know" no such thing. How you derive such outlandish claims from the study of homologous chromosome formation is beyond me.



No.



You make no sense.



These claims ONLY originate from the minds of the religious. The theory of evolution states something entirely different.



No.

You don't Acknowledge Gods existence, and thats the only thing that matters in the end, its the highest of all knowledge. God says that the world is blind, and only by returning to Him can they be healed of this blindness and see correctly. Why should we believe that you can interpret data correctly if you are blind?

 

[SteveB28]

You don't Acknowledge Gods existence, and thats the only thing that matters in the end, its the highest of all knowledge. God says that the world is blind, and only by returning to Him can they be healed of this blindness and see correctly. Why should we believe that you can interpret data correctly if you are blind?

Because the data is of the real world, not the supernatural.

Because we have a proven track record of being able to make sense of our world using this method.

 

[Extraneous]

Because the data is of the real world, not the supernatural.

Because we have a proven track record of being able to make sense of our world using this method.

So you are saying that science is more holy than the scripture? ITs our belief that Gods knowledge is holy and mans wisdom is not, and that man blinds himself with his own knowledge, and cannot see correctly. Its our belief that only scripture can make sense of this world, yet you deny this, correct?

 

[SteveB28]

So you are saying that science is more holy than the scripture?

The concept of 'holiness' is irrelevant when discussing the real world.

ITs our belief that Gods knowledge is holy and mans wisdom is not, and that man blinds himself with his own knowledge, and cannot see correctly.

Good for you. What a shame for you that all the evidence points towards you being wrong.

Its our belief that only scripture can make sense of this world, yet you deny this, correct?

Correct. And I've just realised that I shouldn't be contributing in this particular forum. I will withdraw if that is desired?

 

[Extraneous]

The concept of 'holiness' is irrelevant when discussing the real world.



Good for you. What a shame for you that all the evidence points towards you being wrong.



Correct. And I've just realised that I shouldn't be contributing in this particular forum. I will withdraw if that is desired?

No, dont withdraw, im fine with you showing how science exalts itself above God. Its the truth that i have been trying to show anyway. Holiness is not irrelevant, but its the sole purpose of man. The evidence doesn't point to me being wrong because God causes mankind to be deceived by a great delusion when they refuse to give him glory. Its only a flawed interpretation of evidence that you have, that however doesn't prove anything. Without God we will be blind and not see correctly, and will be deceived by a great delusion. Im sorry to say it that way but its true, I would rather the Church separate itself from this ToE debate altogether and preach only the Gospel. Its not up to me however.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Do you believe Moses by the Power of God parted the red sea and the Israelites walked on dry ground?

Does it matter if it didn't happen?

Should our faith all fall apart and we cease to be Christians if it turns out historical accuracy was not the main intention of the exodus story?