Theistic Evolution makes Judgment and Sin feel distant and less real

[lifepsyop]

Something I've been pondering lately. I'm now fairly confident that most Christians who believe in Evolution, do so because they have a problem with the idea of the supernatural in general. They tend to reject accounts of miracles in the NT (unrelated to Evolution) just as readily as they reject a Genesis worldview of earth history.

But why? I think perhaps we have a hidden motivation to "de-realize" (make the Bible more unreal) because this in turn makes ideas of accountability and God's judgment more unreal. It makes SIN feel less real... Our personal lives, our desires and agendas, get a lot more flexible the more we push the Bible into the realm of symbolic unreal-ness...

"All those stories about God wiping out people who turned away from his commandment? Ehh... that didn't really happen. It's just a moral lesson to help us live better lives..."

If our Creator God really takes judgment and accountability as seriously as he says he does.. then the party down here in the world is over, and we better get a whole lot more serious about taking up our cross and following him. I think a lot of us have one foot planted comfortably in this world, and going along with the secular world's creation story (Evolution) makes it a lot easier to maintain that lifestyle and reap the social benefits of being a "reasonable Christian" ... and not one of those kooks who actually believe all that problematic stuff in scripture about miracles and judgments and stuff.

We assure ourselves that we are just following the "evidence" of Evolution that God left for us, when in reality we are just putting on the goggles of philosophical naturalism, where everything we look at *must* be attributed to a natural process. The result is a weird contradictory blend of professing to believe in the Resurrection, while systematically cleansing all other supernatural accounts out of the Bible.


For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

- John 5:46-47

 

[hedrick]

Nope. People who accept the scientific account of evolution, the Big Bang, etc, do so because it’s true, not because of hidden desires to avoid accountability. Accountability is quite clear in Jesus’ teachings. Indeed Genesis 2 has been used at times to avoid accountability, by blaming Satan as the originator of sin.

 

[lifepsyop]

Nope. People who accept the scientific account of evolution, the Big Bang, etc, do so because it’s true,

That's an interesting claim. There are prominent secular astronomers/astrophysicists who don't even accept the Big Bang model.
Open Letter on Cosmology

But maybe the truth of our reality really is just a matter of consensus.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Something I've been pondering lately. I'm now fairly confident that most Christians who believe in Evolution, do so because they have a problem with the idea of the supernatural in general. They tend to reject accounts of miracles in the NT (unrelated to Evolution) just as readily as they reject a Genesis worldview of earth history.

Actually, not all of us of your fellow Christians who "believe" in evolution (lower case, really ...) do so because we have a problem with the idea of the supernatural. If that were the case, then I wouldn't perhaps literally believe the traditionial view of Jesus' Resurrection (uppercase, really ...) .

 

[lifepsyop]

Actually, not all of us of your fellow Christians who "believe" in evolution (lower case, really ...) do so because we have a problem with the idea of the supernatural. If that were the case, then I wouldn't perhaps literally believe the traditionial view of Jesus' Resurrection (uppercase, really ...) .

Yea but I'm talking about the 99% of supernatural claims in both the OT and NT. Do you reject most everything else besides the Resurrection?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yea but I'm talking about the 99% of supernatural claims in both the OT and NT. Do you reject most everything else besides the Resurrection?

No. I don't 'reject' any of it, although I might only take 86% (more or less) literally.

 

[lifepsyop]

No. I don't 'reject' any of it, although I might only take 86% (more or less) literally.

Gonna make me work for it, huh?

Okay, do you generally believe or disbelieve the supernatural biblical accounts like the Exodus/Red-Sea... Joshua/Conquest of Jericho... You know all that problematic stuff that "Science" says never happened.

Straightforward response please so I don't have to guess at your position

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Gonna make me work for it, huh?

Okay, do you generally believe or disbelieve the supernatural biblical accounts like the Exodus/Red-Sea... Joshua/Conquest of Jericho... You know all that problematic stuff that "Science" says never happened.

Straightforward response please so I don't have to guess at your position

Personally, I think the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, along with the account of the Parting of the Red Sea with Moses, is a live historical possibility. I don't think that what we find in the book of Exodus is meant to be taken as a mere metaphor, expressed as it is with what appears to be something like first hand experience rather than 'historicized, spiritualized' reflection.

Is that direct enough?

 

[-57]

But why? I think perhaps we have a hidden motivation to "de-realize" (make the Bible more unreal) because this in turn makes ideas of accountability and God's judgment more unreal. It makes SIN feel less real... Our personal lives, our desires and agendas, get a lot more flexible the more we push the Bible into the realm of symbolic unreal-ness...

If mankind evolved...then sin is a non-issue. Why? Because that what makes us sinners was a natural step in our evolution. A random mutation changed our DNA one micro step at a time...and eventually produced a population of sinners. That's just who we are and God can't count us accountable for our sin nature.

 

[-57]

Nope. People who accept the scientific account of evolution, the Big Bang, etc, do so because it’s true, not because of hidden desires to avoid accountability. Accountability is quite clear in Jesus’ teachings. Indeed Genesis 2 has been used at times to avoid accountability, by blaming Satan as the originator of sin.

Well perhaps some do blame Satan...Even Eve blamed Satan but it didn't get her off the hook.
Using Gen 2 to avoid accountability by blaming Satan doesn't seem like a good decision.

 

[-57]

Actually, not all of us of your fellow Christians who "believe" in evolution (lower case, really ...) do so because we have a problem with the idea of the supernatural. If that were the case, then I wouldn't perhaps literally believe the traditionial view of Jesus' Resurrection (uppercase, really ...) .

A Christian believing in the resurrection but not the literal, historical six day creation account points out the hypcrosity.
They say Jesus miraculously rose from the dead on day 3 but deny the biblical fact that Jesus via miracle was also the one who made Adam from the dust then Eve from Adams rib.

 

[hedrick]

That's an interesting claim. There are prominent secular astronomers/astrophysicists who don't even accept the Big Bang model.
Open Letter on Cosmology

But maybe the truth of our reality really is just a matter of consensus.

I find inflation a bit odd. Maybe it will be replaced by something else. Maybe, as suggested here, it could involve something steady state. But the evolution of the visible universe after the first second is quite well supported. I doubt that the authors of this letter intended to say otherwise.

 

[hedrick]

A Christian believing in the resurrection but not the literal, historical six day creation account points out the hypcrosity.
They say Jesus miraculously rose from the dead on day 3 but deny the biblical fact that Jesus via miracle was also the one who made Adam from the dust then Eve from Adams rib.

Not at all. Excellent evidence shows that the six day creation didn't happen. That's part of a set of legends that were old when they were written down. The NT was written when witnesses of the resurrection were still alive. N T Wright has looked at it against the 1st Cent cultural background, and has a pretty good argument that such a claim couldn't have arisen if it hadn't happened.

Just because some miracle happened doesn't mean every miracle that people in the 1st Cent believed actually happened.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A Christian believing in the resurrection but not the literal, historical six day creation account points out the hypcrosity.
They say Jesus miraculously rose from the dead on day 3 but deny the biblical fact that Jesus via miracle was also the one who made Adam from the dust then Eve from Adams rib.

Yeah, well. We'll find out on Judgment Day just how 'culpable' I am for thinking that Genesis 1 (and 3) are literary expressions of Cosmogony rather than hyper-literal accounts about 'how' God 'made' the universe and world.

 

[-57]

Gonna make me work for it, huh?

Okay, do you generally believe or disbelieve the supernatural biblical accounts like the Exodus/Red-Sea... Joshua/Conquest of Jericho... You know all that problematic stuff that "Science" says never happened.

Straightforward response please so I don't have to guess at your position

SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE


Often we read where Christians deny the possibility of the events pertaining to the six day creation or the world wide flood of Noah. The major reason for this denial is due to claims that modern science has disproved the accounts presented within Genesis. Genesis is no longer scientifically feasible.

Despite the many scientific evidences pointing to a recent creation and a world wide flood as told in the accounts of Genesis there is still this nagging need to deny the accounts of Genesis yet believe the other scientifically impossible portions of the bible.

For those who choose not to believe in the accounts of Genesis an allegory must be drawn up to explain the verses.


Below are 9 scientifically impossible events that the bible presents as truth. Why is it that some of the events get dismissed and allegorized by “Theistic Evolutionist” while some of the other events are held on to and presented as the literal truth by these same “Theistic Evolutionist” despite their obvious scientific impossibilities?

If the answer is “miracles” then why can’t all the scientific impossibilities be miracles?

Why is it that the events such as a recent creation and the flood which actually have scientific data to support them become allegories while the others with no scientific support are still up held as fact?

• The creation of the world in six days did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  
  REF: Genesis 1-2

• The creation of Adam from the dust then Eve from his side did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  
  REF: Genesis 2:7 , 2:22

• The world wide flood of Noah did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  
  REF: Genesis 6-8

• Men living to long ages did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  
  REF: Genesis 9:29

• Moses staff turning into snakes did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  
  REF: Exodus 4:3

• The sun standing still for Joshua did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  
  REF: Joshua 10:13

• Peter walking on the water with Jesus did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  
  REF: Matthew 14:29

• Jesus turning water into wine did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  
  REF: John 2: 1-11

• Jesus Christ rising from the dead did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  
  REF: John 20,21[/i]

Perhaps it’s best to allegorize the resurrection of Jesus Christ along with the six day creation....after all, both are scientifically impossible. Dead people can’t rise from the grave on day 3.

That would be the natural “scientific” interpretational tendencies. Allegorize.


The above questions make me think of the following question:

Why is it the Theistic Evolutionist can believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ which is scientifically impossible, yet deny the six day creation performed by Jesus Christ as written in the accounts of Genesis...which is also considered as scientifically impossible?

I believe the bottom line of biblical translation for the Theistic Evolutionist is as follows:

If it relates to the flood or creation, it's an allegory.

Of course there is a danger in presenting this kind of a watered down scientifically impossible pick and choose your miracle bible .....salvation may be easly lost.

 

[hedrick]

SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE


Often we read where Christians deny the possibility of the events pertaining to the six day creation or the world wide flood of Noah. The major reason for this denial is due to claims that modern science has disproved the accounts presented within Genesis. Genesis is no longer scientifically feasible.

Despite the many scientific evidences pointing to a recent creation and a world wide flood as told in the accounts of Genesis there is still this nagging need to deny the accounts of Genesis yet believe the other scientifically impossible portions of the bible.

For those who choose not to believe in the accounts of Genesis an allegory must be drawn up to explain the verses.


Below are 9 scientifically impossible events that the bible presents as truth. Why is it that some of the events get dismissed and allegorized by “Theistic Evolutionist” while some of the other events are held on to and presented as the literal truth by these same “Theistic Evolutionist” despite their obvious scientific impossibilities?

If the answer is “miracles” then why can’t all the scientific impossibilities be miracles?

Why is it that the events such as a recent creation and the flood which actually have scientific data to support them become allegories while the others with no scientific support are still up held as fact?

• The creation of the world in six days did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  
  REF: Genesis 1-2

• The creation of Adam from the dust then Eve from his side did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  
  REF: Genesis 2:7 , 2:22

• The world wide flood of Noah did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  
  REF: Genesis 6-8

• Men living to long ages did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  
  REF: Genesis 9:29

• Moses staff turning into snakes did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  
  REF: Exodus 4:3

• The sun standing still for Joshua did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  
  REF: Joshua 10:13

• Peter walking on the water with Jesus did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  
  REF: Matthew 14:29

• Jesus turning water into wine did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  
  REF: John 2: 1-11

• Jesus Christ rising from the dead did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
  
  They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
  
  REF: John 20,21[/i]

Perhaps it’s best to allegorize the resurrection of Jesus Christ along with the six day creation....after all, both are scientifically impossible. Dead people can’t rise from the grave on day 3.

That would be the natural “scientific” interpretational tendencies. Allegorize.


The above questions make me think of the following question:

Why is it the Theistic Evolutionist can believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ which is scientifically impossible, yet deny the six day creation performed by Jesus Christ as written in the accounts of Genesis...which is also considered as scientifically impossible?

I believe the bottom line of biblical translation for the Theistic Evolutionist is as follows:

If it relates to the flood or creation, it's an allegory.

Of course there is a danger in presenting this kind of a watered down scientifically impossible pick and choose your miracle bible .....salvation may be easly lost.

The problem with the early OT isn't that it's scientifically impossible, but that there is evidence, scientific and historical, that it didn't happen. That's different. Science can't disprove the existence of miracles. But the problem with Gen 1 isn't that it involves miracles. The problem is that we know a lot about how the universe started and life developed, and Gen 1 is wrong.

Similarly, archaeologists have developed a reasonable understanding of the origin of Israel, based on physical evidence, and the OT description is wrong.

 

[-57]

Not at all. Excellent evidence shows that the six day creation didn't happen. That's part of a set of legends that were old when they were written down. The NT was written when witnesses of the resurrection were still alive. N T Wright has looked at it against the 1st Cent cultural background, and has a pretty good argument that such a claim couldn't have arisen if it hadn't happened.

Just because some miracle happened doesn't mean every miracle that people in the 1st Cent believed actually happened.

problem being for you is that the authors of the bible...inspired by God authors...presented the creation account as literal and historical.
In order for the Theo-evoism crowd to force fit it into the bible much has to be given up. One of which is the explanation for sin. The Theo-Evo crowd has no explanation for sin.....they may say, we know it exist....but why the bible say's it exist isn't accurate.

The Theo-Evo crowd will run from answering tht question every time.

 

[-57]

The problem with the early OT isn't that it's scientifically impossible, but that there is evidence, scientific and historical, that it didn't happen. That's different. Science can't disprove the existence of miracles. But the problem with Gen 1 isn't that it involves miracles. The problem is that we know a lot about how the universe started and life developed, and Gen 1 is wrong.

Similarly, archaeologists have developed a reasonable understanding of the origin of Israel, based on physical evidence, and the OT description is wrong.

Then Jesus was wrong for quoting the OT. Good luck with that one.

 

[Rachel20]

... Our personal lives, our desires and agendas, get a lot more flexible the more we push the Bible into the realm of symbolic unreal-ness...

Everywhere Christ quoted the Old Testament, he did so as literal (days of Noah, etc...).

 

[hedrick]

problem being for you is that the authors of the bible...inspired by God authors...presented the creation account as literal and historical.
In order for the Theo-evoism crowd to force fit it into the bible much has to be given up. One of which is the explanation for sin. The Theo-Evo crowd has no explanation for sin.....they may say, we know it exist....but why the bible say's it exist isn't accurate.

The Theo-Evo crowd will run from answering tht question every time.

I have answered this many times. We sin because we're imperfect. We're imperfect because evolution doesn't have any reason to favor development of morally perfect beings, though there is reason to think that there are basic standards such as fairness and cooperation.

Evolution has mainly favored beings who can adapt to changing situations. Adaptation requires trial and error, and error includes sin.

However part of the problem with sin is that conservative Christians have what is basically the Pharisees' concept of sin, violations of purity. That's not what Jesus taught. There's no reason for evolution to favor beings who are completely pure by traditional standards. There are reasons for it to favor many of Jesus' standards, such as cooperation and fairness.