Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[Colter]

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

It's ok, you asked I answered. I've read the massive book, many times, for ther try years, I know what it is that I agree with. I feel certain that you haven't read it and don't know what it is that you disagree with.

Let's get back to the topic.

 

[Hoghead1]

ScottA, I have trouble when people say in a matter-of-fact way that they have experienced the Spirit. Every kook and fanatic claims the same thing. How do you know it was God and not your grandmother?

 

[ScottA]

ScottA, I have trouble when people say in a matter-of-fact way that they have experienced the Spirit. Every kook and fanatic claims the same thing. How do you know it was God and not your grandmother?

I can imagine that kooks are every bit as convinced as I. But a counterfeit knows no truth, nor do they know God - but I know God, and it is He who decides the way of history. The kook has conviction - I have confidence.

 

[Colter]

The apostles spent 3+ years at Jesus' feet, yet went into hiding, dejected and doubting after his death. It was the women who first believed in the reports of the masters resurrection while the boys were vacillating. I have my own convictions and will gladly defend them, but the pipeline to God stuff is sometimes proportional to the egotism of the religionists.

 

[Hoghead1]

I can imagine that kooks are every bit as convinced as I. But a counterfeit knows no truth, nor do they know God - but I know God, and it is He who decides the way of history. The kook has conviction - I have confidence.

Well, you may have confidence in yourself, but some of the rest of us, including myself, do not. It's not enough to say you are moved by the Spirit, you need to show some productive outcome.

 

[Faith77]

How does having a common ancestor not mean evolving from them? If everything evolved from the same source then we are all the same. Is it a wonder to you why many people just regard life as meaningless, because we are just another animal?

Do you have a problem with a lion killing a gazelle? What about a human killing a gazelle? What about a human killing another human? If God said "do not kill" was He just referring to the modern evolution of ourselves or that we shouldn't kill others creatures that we may have a common ancestor with?

EastCoast, Replying to your post (as above): Having a common ancestor means that both apes and humans branched out from a common ancestor, not that humans evolved from apes. No, it is not a wonder to me, because I don't know many people who view life as meaningless, atheists or Christians. The ones I know who do, don't do it because of the theory of evolution but because they face situations where they feel powerless (rendered invisible through abusive relationships). Christians who have no issue with evolution pursue life with a healthy zest, much the same way that others who hold to a young earth model. I never consider myself any less meaningful because I am part of a human race that evolved.

Whatever God said in the Old Testament about killing was part of the Mosaic law given to keep law and order (if I understand correctly). The people it was written for understood "Thou shalt not kill" as a commandment not to kill another human. I don't see why that is a problem. That was probably written without any thought or consideration as to where humans came from, and rightly so, as it was irrelevant to the smooth running of a society. Of course, I stand to be corrected. I don't understand the need to put down others with qualifications - why not learn from them? Why think one's position is unassailable?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

EastCoast, Replying to your post (as above): Having a common ancestor means that both apes and humans branched out from a common ancestor, not that humans evolved from apes. No, it is not a wonder to me, because I don't know many people who view life as meaningless, atheists or Christians. The ones I know who do, don't do it because of the theory of evolution but because they face situations where they feel powerless (rendered invisible through abusive relationships). Christians who have no issue with evolution pursue life with a healthy zest, much the same way that others who hold to a young earth model. I never consider myself any less meaningful because I am part of a human race that evolved.

Whatever God said in the Old Testament about killing was part of the Mosaic law given to keep law and order (if I understand correctly). The people it was written for understood "Thou shalt not kill" as a commandment not to kill another human. I don't see why that is a problem. That was probably written without any thought or consideration as to where humans came from, and rightly so, as it was irrelevant to the smooth running of a society. Of course, I stand to be corrected. I don't understand the need to put down others with qualifications - why not learn from them? Why think one's position is unassailable?

When did God make man in His image? At the beginning when He set the whole ball of wax rolling (making all things God' image and not just us) or later when He determined which mutation was suitable? Good thing the evolution train didn't stop at cro-mags... not my idea of God's image.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

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.

Big difference between arguing heliocentric vs. geocentric perspective and demoting God to a less spectacular and secondary role in creation... evolution, whether pronounced by a Christian or an atheist, demotes God... not exalts Him. It promotes theism...

 

[Faith77]

When did God make man in His image? At the beginning when He set the whole ball of wax rolling (making all things God' image and not just us) or later when He determined which mutation was suitable? Good thing the evolution train didn't stop at cro-mags... not my idea of God's image.

So that's your reason why you wouldn't accept evolution as true? Just discount all the evidence because you can't understand when something happened? No matter what we discover, we will have new questions. Instead of discounting the evidence, we can have the mindset of inquiry, curiosity and growth by seeking new answers to new questions. Your question is something most people who study this have themselves asked, or have been challenged with. You could take the time to read what they have written, with a critical mind. If what they say doesn't hold water (not just because you fail to grasp it, or you cannot accept it), then of course, feel free to discard it. "Not my idea of God's image" has no backing - it may be OK for you, but it can't be the foundation of what's true and what's not.

 

[ScottA]

Well, you may have confidence in yourself, but some of the rest of us, including myself, do not. It's not enough to say you are moved by the Spirit, you need to show some productive outcome.

It doesn't work that way. History and personal confirmation from God is the only proof.

 

[BobRyan]

So that's your reason why you wouldn't accept evolution as true? Just discount all the evidence because you can't understand when something happened? No matter what we discover, we will have new questions. .

the junk-science of blind-faith evolutionism is more than a "little" apparent to the objective unbiased reader.

BOTH the atheist and the T.E. however argue that "a single celled animal will -- sure enough -- turn into a horse over time no matter the impossibility of it -- given a sufficiently talented long period of time filled with improbable just-so-stories"

Fortunately our atheist-evolutionist friends take that one tiny step further so that all may clearly see the huge leap of blind-faith they are using in that religious system - for while the T.E. may "appeal to God" to start off his long series of improbable stories via an "amoeba" divinely - designed and created right from dirt - as the 'start' -- the atheist can afford no such luxury. For the atheist there is no other start other than the "talented pile of dirt" from which all things come.

Thus atheist evolutionism is stuck arguing that "a pile of dirt -- will sure enough -- turn into a horse -- given a sufficiently large pile of dirt and a sufficiently talented long period of time filled with improbable just-so-stories"

By contrast - the Bible has a statement on the origin of all the major "kinds" in a 7 day creation week where one of those "kinds" is "mankind".

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

There are tons of evidence to sup[port evolution.

In that whole quote Hog, you provided not a stitch of evidence... if there are tons then please sir, can I have a pound?

Rhetoric doesn't constitute facts or evidence... but perhaps that is the way of the scholarly intellectuals, a veritable plethora of rhetorical folly.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

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.

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.

Let's not forget the example of Moses... educated to the highest degree in the Egyptian court but yet God needed to humble him for 40 years as a shepherd, to uneducated him so he could be of use to God.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

But "science" is equal to "evidence".

Because you say so? What is your basis for this or is this your own gem?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

EastCoast, Replying to your post (as above): Having a common ancestor means that both apes and humans branched out from a common ancestor, not that humans evolved from apes.

According to legend, apes may not be our immediate paternity but we are evolutionary cousins, made from the same stock, right?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

So that's your reason why you wouldn't accept evolution as true? Just discount all the evidence because you can't understand when something happened? No matter what we discover, we will have new questions. Instead of discounting the evidence, we can have the mindset of inquiry, curiosity and growth by seeking new answers to new questions. Your question is something most people who study this have themselves asked, or have been challenged with. You could take the time to read what they have written, with a critical mind. If what they say doesn't hold water (not just because you fail to grasp it, or you cannot accept it), then of course, feel free to discard it. "Not my idea of God's image" has no backing - it may be OK for you, but it can't be the foundation of what's true and what's not.

Why not explain it to me yourself? When was the stamp of His image impressed upon us?

 

[Hoghead1]

Let's not forget the example of Moses... educated to the highest degree in the Egyptian court but yet God needed to humble him for 40 years as a shepherd, to uneducated him so he could be of use to God.

I don't think Moses is at all a comparable example. Yes, I have a Ph.D. and am proud of it. Why shouldn't I be? Yes, I think it is important to share credentials, as these speak volumes about where one is coming from. Yes, I do think I know far more here in certain areas than do others. That's not conceit, that's just being honest and factual. I am willing to share what I know, but that is difficult when I receive inflammatory posts attacking me simply because I brought up my credentials. Usually these seem to come from individuals who are working our of a conservative Christian background and then automatically assume that any scholar disagreeing with them is lacking in Spirt, possessed by the Devil, etc.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Question for the evolutionists.... what happens to God's image when time and chance dictate that we evolve again into something previously not known. Has anyone ever thought about the continuation of evolution and what that means for our relating to God through the Bible? Or is man the perfect mutation?

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't think Moses is at all a comparable example. Yes, I have a Ph.D. and am proud of it. Why shouldn't I be? Yes, I think it is important to share credentials, as these speak volumes about where one is coming from. Yes, I do think I know far more here in certain areas than do others. That's not conceit, that's just being honest and factual. I am willing to share what I know, but that is difficult when I receive inflammatory posts attacking me simply because I brought up my credentials. Usually these seem to come from individuals who are working our of a conservative Christian background and then automatically assume that any scholar disagreeing with them is lacking in Spirit, possessed by the Devil, etc. Maybe that is cool in some anti-intellectual quarters, quarters, but it is totally inappropriate in serious theological discussions.

 

[Hoghead1]

Question for the evolutionists.... what happens to God's image when time and chance dictate that we evolve again into something previously not known. Has anyone ever thought about the continuation of evolution and what that means for our relating to God through the Bible? Or is man the perfect mutation?

It depends on the "evolutionists." For example, I would argue that evolution is impossible without God, as evolution is creativity at work, and creativity requires a transcendental imagination, i.e, God.