Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[KWCrazy]

That's because nobody here has had much education in theology and biblical studies.

And you know this how, exactly?
Tell me. Who learns more about the Bible; a Christian who studies it with the Holy Spirit to help him understand, or a skeptic in a comparative religions class? So as you infuse the word of God with the opinions of man you come up with opinions such as that is science doesn't agree with the bible the Bible must be wrong (which you did post, actually, to discredit most of Genesis)? Yours are the words of the Pharisee's, who taught doctrine apart from the Scriptures to make themselves appear wise and endowed with special knowledge. Disagreeing with the Scriptures doesn't make you enlightened, it makes you wrong.

... any biblical scholar who disagrees with the fundamentality version of teh Bible is automatically written off as possessed by the Devil, ignorant, lacking in Spirit, you name it.

They certainly are not teaching the Gospel. A false teacher is infinitely worse than an atheist because he seeks to undermine the faith from within; pretending to bring enlightenment while casting aspersions on the Lord's word. It doesn't take an advanced degree to realize that miracle violate the laws of nature. The "bronze age goat herders" knew full well that the miracles of the Lord defied nature's laws. They didn't need someone educated beyond their understanding to tell them that the creation defied anything which could have happened naturally. Adam knew he was created by God. The woodsmen knew you couldn't make an ax head float. The fishermen knew a man couldn't walk on water. You look down on people for believing in miracles and yet you label yourself as a Baptist; a person who understands that God works miracles and continues to this day. You aren't imparting any new knowledge here. You are talking down to people with a better understanding than you have, you are misrepresenting the word of God and you are actively seeking to destroy the faith of others. You tell me what the Bible says about false teachers. You're the Biblical scholar here.

 

[KWCrazy]

You twisted just about every scripture you referenced, which proves you are not using any known theological education but instead your own opinion. You criticize pharisees on one hand but then follow their same example. They were educated as well, and boasted in it, just as you do, yet they were blind, just as you are.

I've never seen him use a Biblical quote correctly.

 

[KWCrazy]

My views on Scripture come from the advanced course work I did in modern biblical studies.

I have a novel idea. Try actually reading the Bible. If your views on Scripture do not match what Jesus taught then you're wrong.

When you talk of being "overly educated" and having "strange views on the Bible," I wish I had a nickel for every time I have heard that.

We've seen no evidence of the former and much of the latter. You've boasted of your education so much I'm beginning to wonder is you ever took a secondary education class. You put down as uneducated people that I know have advanced degrees and yet no pearls of wisdom are ever revealed from your posts. Having actually known people with advanced degrees in theology and having heard the special insights they have on the Scriptures I grow increasingly skeptical that you've had any such education whatever. Your understanding of the Bible seems to be extremely limited and what you do acknowledge you disagree with.

 

[Hoghead1]

Yeah, yeah, sure, sure, KW. If I only had a nickel for everything I heard that one. The SOP is that any time a scholar dares disagree with the fundamentalist version of the Bible, he is immediately written off as possessed by the Devil, stupid, too worldly, you name it. Why should I be an exception? Also, you fail to pay attention to what I post. I am not putting down people with advanced degrees. Many laity I know have advanced degrees. Thing is, advanced degrees in what? Many highly educated laity still have very naïve expectations about the world of serious biblical and theological studies. Also, I'm not here to hand out pearls of wisdom. I am here, however, to explore the lenses through which people view and exegete Scripture. I don't know what persons you have known that have advanced degrees in theology. I do know that you and others are functioning on lay expectations about what theologians such as myself should be like. Everyone is entitled to form expectations. However, the problem here is that yours are way, way off from the real world of scholarship. That being the case, and since I didn't tell you what you wanted to hear, I think you decided I had nothing to offer.

 

[Hoghead1]

First of all, KW, I am not disagreeing with Scripture. I am, however, challenging your interpretation. Scripture is one thing, your interpretations something wholly different. You have absolutely no under4standing of who the Pharisees were. So let me clue you in. They were Jews who followed strictly toe OT laws to the letter. They even built what's called a fence around the law, that is, came up with new laws to be followed to prevent you from accidentally breaking a biblical law. So don't give me all this Pharisee jazz. As said, anyone who disagrees with teh fundamentalist Christian version of the Bible is automatically labeled a Pharisee, false teacher, and God knows what else. Also, again, I remind you to read my posts carefully. I never said I was a Baptist. Actually, I am PCUSA.
In serious theological discussion, it is totally inappropriate to get into arguments as to who is or is not moved by the Spirit. You have no way of testing that and no authority to do that. Remember, every kook and fanatic in the book claims that he was moved by the Spirit. What counts here is presenting evidence in a rational way. I work out of the so-called Higher Criticism in modern biblical studies. I thought I made it pretty clear that I hold the Bible is divinely inspired but also the writing of fallible humans from a prescientific culture. I think I already explained to you and gave you plenty of evidence why modern biblical scholarship challenges the notion of an infallible Scripture. I also pointed out the irrationality of either-or thinking. Either the Bible is inerrant or it is errant and useless. That is unrealistic simply because reality is a shade of grey. Apparently, you neglected to read that post.
Too often, you and some others here speak in a very angry, hostile, inflammatory style that is bound to cause tension and alienate your opponents, throwing them on the defensive and then unable to communicate as freely as they would like. Look at all the nasty uncalled-for names and things you just said about me. Now if you were in my shoes, do you think you would want to talk to someone that said such things about you? Do you think I feel at all comfortable sharing what I know about the Bible?

The point you don't seem to grasp is that Christianity represents a rich plurality of diverse approaches. Yours is OK. Fundamentalism is, after all, a major dimension of Christianity. But it is definitely not the only one. And that's great because no one approach will work for everybody. I work out of a very liberal Christian perspective and no doubt that will trouble you since you are coming out of a very conservative approach. If you stopped dumping on me and asked questions, then you might learn something about reality of Christendom outside of your world.
Another pointer. To the existent you push your anti-science rhetoric, you do a very good job of alienating liberal Christians, not to mention many other educated Christians. We are painfully aware that down though the ages, some Christians have had the wicked habit of persecuting and denouncing science as a thing of the Devil. In every case, the church was proven wrong. Why should evolution be an exception? So, to the extent your promote all these inflammatory attacks on evolution, I just sit there and think you are simply repeating an unfortunate irrational maladaptive pattern that got stuck in Christendom for far too long.

 

[Hoghead1]

How do I know that , KW? It is a no-brainer based on reading the kinds of posts you and others send me.

 

[Colter]

"When theology masters religion, religion dies; it becomes a doctrine instead of a life." UB 1955

 

[Hoghead1]

Sad but true, Colter. The overemphasis on dogma has led many Christians to collapse faith into intellectual ascent to church doctrines. It really doesn't matter to God how you live, just what church doctrines and teachings you believe. Since correct doctrine is the key to Heaven, the whole thing fossilizes very quickly. The dogmas must be accepted without question, lest you find yourself in error and then losing your place in Heaven. Anyone who challenges you a ore disagrees with you is an instrument of the Devil. This results in Christian Imperialism. That is the belief that only Bible-believing Christians are saved. God loves them and them only. The rest of the folks with their heathen religion are all reprobate bound for Hell. In turn, this prompted the church to ruthlessly spread Christianity. Just get out there and smash down all those other religions, just smash down all those heathen cultures. The result is that Jesus Christ is not good news for everyone. Just ask Native Americans up here in Alaska to share what they had to endure at the hands of teh church, how it completely destroyed their identity.

 

[Colter]

Sad but true, Colter. The overemphasis on dogma has led many Christians to collapse faith into intellectual ascent to church doctrines. It really doesn't matter to God how you live, just what church doctrines and teachings you believe. Since correct doctrine is the key to Heaven, the whole thing fossilizes very quickly. The dogmas must be accepted without question, lest you find yourself in error and then losing your place in Heaven. Anyone who challenges you a ore disagrees with you is an instrument of the Devil. This results in Christian Imperialism. That is the belief that only Bible-believing Christians are saved. God loves them and them only. The rest of the folks with their heathen religion are all reprobate bound for Hell. In turn, this prompted the church to ruthlessly spread Christianity. Just get out there and smash down all those other religions, just smash down all those heathen cultures. The result is that Jesus Christ is not good news for everyone. Just ask Native Americans up here in Alaska to share what they had to endure at the hands of teh church, how it completely destroyed their identity.

I agree completely, it's so frustrating to watch and experience.

 

[Hoghead1]

True, Colter, and so much of that goes on right on this forum. The problem here is that more than one member fails to recognize that religious ideation can be very close to irrational, neurotic thinking and has unwittingly fallen into the latter.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

A scientific finding is not truth, it is conjecture. Truth is absolute and science is anything but...

But "science" is equal to "evidence". Your claim is equal to saying you have found a way to truth without having evidence. Some of us are a bit suspicious of such a claim.

 

[Hoghead1]

That seems like a most unrealistic concept to me, EastCoast. Science has a very limited window on the distant past and into the rest of the universe. Therefore, science does entail a real degree of speculation, a kind of leap of faith, with a certain probability of being true. Science does not deal in absolute truth based on absolute proofs. The same goes for your religious beliefs. These, too, are speculations, leaps of faith, with a certain probability of being right or wrong, not absolute truths or proofs. No one was around to directly observe the Big Bang, true. But nobody was around to directly observe God creating in six days, either. The question is then , Given the hard evidence which claim has the higher probability of being true?

 

[Colter]

Ancient sedimentary rock pushed upwards by the massive forces of subduction.

 

[ScottA]

It's what they wrote about that interest me, not how they understood it or used it to bolster there own "chosen people" arrogance.

That's cool.

The UB was written by celestials who were present for the history of the world. We now have the history of the earth and the entire life if Jesus of Nazareth.

"Written by celestials..." How do you "know" this...or do you?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Ancient sedimentary rock pushed upwards by the massive forces of subduction.

The same phenomonom occurs during a hydroplate slide... the only difference is time.

 

[Colter]

The same phenomonom occurs during a hydroplate slide... the only difference is time.

So called Hydroplate theory is a creationist theory invented by Dr. Walt Brown which attempts to provide a theory of the origins of the present evidence to fit the flood and YEC story of the Bible. It still doesn't account for the millions of years of sedimentary rock formation and the fossils within those layers.

 

[Colter]

That's cool.
"Written by celestials..." How do you "know" this...or do you?

We don't "know" as in provable. It is a matter of faith like every other revelatory event in the past and future.

 

[ScottA]

We don't "know" as in provable. It is a matter of faith like every other revelatory event in the past and future.

"Faith", although considered a righteous act, is a rather week stronghold. The only respectful position of faith, is that which is collaborated by some form of "knowing."

My own position of faith, for instance, was collaborated before I ever read a lick of scripture or heard a sermon. I called out to God by name...and He answered...and snatched me up in the spirit and brought me above the earth and showed me what I cannot say I have faith in, but what I "know." It is my witness, having had such an experience, that the Bible in its present form, is verified and accurate. Now that is not to say that it is without the confusion put upon all language at the tower of Babel, nor that it can be read and understood without spiritual discernment - heavens, no.

Nevertheless, this same God whom made Himself known to me by supernatural means, perfectly correlated with the scriptures (which I had not previously known)...gave no indication regarding the book of Urantia.

 

[Colter]

"Faith", although considered a righteous act, is a rather week stronghold. The only respectful position of faith, is that which is collaborated by some form of "knowing."

My own position of faith, for instance, was collaborated before I ever read a lick of scripture or heard a sermon. I called out to God by name...and He answered...and snatched me up in the spirit and brought me above the earth and showed me what I cannot say I have faith in, but what I "know." It is my witness, having had such an experience, that the Bible in its present form, is verified and accurate. Now that is not to say that it is without the confusion put upon all language at the tower of Babel, nor that it can be read and understood without spiritual discernment - heavens, no.

Nevertheless, this same God whom made Himself know to me by supernatural means, perfectly correlated with the scriptures (which I had not previously known)...gave no indication regarding the book of Urantia.

Maybe God gave you an indication about the Urantia Book through this conversation?

 

[ScottA]

Maybe God gave you an indication about the Urantia Book through this conversation?

Nice try...but that would be an indication without collaboration.