Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[Astrid]

But there is a gargantuan, a tsunami, a galactic (literally) amount of evidence that shows it cannot be taken literally.

And you should look up the meaning of metaphor (as being used in this discussion): A metaphor is a figure of speech that describes an object or action in a way that isn't literally true, but helps explain an idea. Metaphors.

So as nobody back then was going to have the foggiest idea of the actual means by which God made the universe, He used figures of speech that described an action in a way that wasn't literally true, but helped explain an idea.

Maybe.
Try this.
Do you think J Smith's account of how he
got the BoM is metaphorical allegory, or,
is it written as fact?
I figure both pretty much mean what they say,
given some few exceptions like "Jesus is a door".

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you think J Smith's account of how he got the BoM is metaphorical allegory, or, is it written as fact?

Fact.

 

[Bradskii]

Maybe.
Try this.
Do you think J Smith's account of how he
got the BoM is metaphorical allegory, or,
is it written as fact?
I figure both pretty much mean what they say,
given some few exceptions like "Jesus is a door".

Written as fact. Some people even believed him.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The poverty of your list of possible alternatives to a literal and inerrant Genesis is astonishing.

Then perhaps you can answer the question I asked, what is Genesis 1 metaphorical for? What’s the analogy to Genesis 1?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Have I not been civil with you? Now you have to put lies in my mouth? You impugn my faith in Christ? For shame! I have never denied the divine inspiration of scripture. I believe it as all Christians do even Chistians who subscribe to a different theory of divine inspiration than either of us. But you, in your arrogance, denounce anyone who does not agree with your interpretation of scripture to be dismissing the Bible as "just an old book." What hubris!

Please forgive me but this statement right here led me to believe that you were saying that you are one of those Christians who don’t believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, otherwise what’s the point of bringing them up?

But my point is, that what you offer as "proof" is really only conjecture and at that is built upon a theory of divine inspiration that not all Christians subscribe to. So, the verdict is, not proved.

 

[coffee4u]

I think 'wokeness' is actually a result of some pretty deep critical thinking on social issues like actually dealing with inequality issues, other than by pure aggression and being tempted by getting the buzz that comes from dominating others.
(It may have gone a little overboard in some circles however .. I'm no particular fan of it .. but there again, I'm sure my parents were no fans of some of my behaviours in my youth too).

I think you will find your parents ignored most of your pretend and other silliness because they were sensible people who understood that you were a child with childish thoughts. Now they don't, now they take it seriously. When I was a child I wanted to be a boy, lots of girls did. We didn't really want sex changes (we would not have understood the ramifications apart from anything else) we wanted to stand to pee and to do 'boys things' No one jumped on us and rushed us to gender clinics, it was mostly ignored and we grew out of it.

I would suggest taking a close look at some videos, then tell me if you think schools (from preschool on not just highschool) are teaching appropriate curriculum.

Are these really the people you want teaching your kids critical thought?
Maybe you do, maybe you are with those who think talking about genitals over the lunch table with preschoolers is fine, that lessons should revolve around social justice and race rather than grammar, mathematics and geography. If so we will be diametrically opposite on this topic.

This has nothing to do with critical thought, preschoolers are not yet at that stage nor should adult social issues be on their agenda. At 3-5 social issues should be about sharing toys, using your manners; and critical thought should be about building with blocks and jig-saw-puzzles. I use to be in early childhood education and children don't reach the first stage of critical thought until between 6-8. It was often called the age of reason and if you look at history 7 was seen as the age of childhood maturity. In medieval times court apprenticeships began at age seven and the Catholic Church offers first Communion at 7.
Even then children are very easy to steer aka 'brainwash' but they have gained enough cognitive ability to question things like Santa Clause. They start to notice things like chimney size verses a fat Santa, they question magic.
A 3 year old on the other hand is much easier to convince and will believe you when you tell him Santa is real and he will also believe you if you tell him he is a girl. He doesn't even fully understand what being a boy or a girl even means. The same way he thinks he can simply change his age. (I tried to find the video where the 4 year old claimed to be 7 but can't find it, I will post it if I do)
A 6-8 year old will question you more, doubt you more, but can still be won around quite easily, especially by an authority figure like a teacher or a police officer.

See what I don't get is that there's probably millions of ordinary human beings who have sacrificed themselves for altruistic reasons since he did his thing .. and even before that time. And I'd also bet those people had no thoughts of him and his sacrifices just before they did theirs too.
What about them? Doesn't what they did count?

I really can't think of anyone who died in place of others they didn't know. A mother might dive in front of a bus to push her child out the way but that is because of her strong emotional ties to her child. But how many would die to save those they don't know, those who are not even asking to be saved?
You could say fire fighters die to save people they don't know, and they do, but their intent isn't to die. They go into a fire wanting to save and they plan to come out safely. What Jesus did is different.

The presumption there, is that we are unable to shield ourselves from harm. Yet I see exactly that happening every single day. Doesn't that count? None of those acts are necessarily performed because of any Laws, too. Doesn't that also count?

Sure it counts but we can't shield ourselves from everything and as children we have virtually no power to protect ourselves at all. I won't site cases but you know the kind of headlines about abuse that goes on. We were all defenseless children at one stage of our lives.
Knowledge though has certainly helped. When God told the ancients to wash and quarantine they didn't understand germ theory and now we do. Now we know to wash our hands well without God telling us. But not everything coming at us is physical, its also mental and spiritual. Now you obviously won't believe in spiritual harm but I do. We are body, soul(mind) and spirit.
We don't always notice harm to the mind, people raised in toxic families don't always realize that their parent is a narcissist, they think its normal. Children are very poor at protecting themselves. Adults are much better at spotting things like this but still everyday women end up with abusive men because the signs were ignored. A lot of emotional abuse gets overlooked because some things are subtle. Often abuse starts tiny and grows. A bit like the frog being boiled scenario, the abuse goes undetected until it has reached a point that becomes visible to others but by then a lot of damage has been done.
Spiritual harm is even harder to see and understand then emotional mental harm.
Many of God's laws were about this.

 

[BNR32FAN]

But there is a gargantuan, a tsunami, a galactic (literally) amount of evidence that shows it cannot be taken literally.

And you should look up the meaning of metaphor (as being used in this discussion): A metaphor is a figure of speech that describes an object or action in a way that isn't literally true, but helps explain an idea. Metaphors.

So as nobody back then was going to have the foggiest idea of the actual means by which God made the universe, He used figures of speech that described an action in a way that wasn't literally true, but helped explain an idea.

I don’t need to look it up because I learned that word several decades ago. But here’s Webster’s definition

1: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money)

 

[Bradskii]

I don’t need to look it up because I learned that word several decades ago. But here’s Webster’s definition

1: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money)

The one I quoted is the definition of the word as almost everyone in this thread is using it. In other words, a complex concept simplified by using common terms and ideas in order so that it could be understood by people who didn't have the benefit of a modern education.

If the bible had been written today God would have written: 'Hey, all that stuff you've discovered about singularities, galaxy formation, planetary accretion, continental drift etc? I did that'.

 

[ottawak]

Please forgive me but this statement right here led me to believe that you were saying that you are one of those Christians who don’t believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, otherwise what’s the point of bringing them up?

As far as I am aware, all Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Many (most, in fact) do not agree with you about what you think that means. You are the one who has decided that they therefore regard the Bible as nothing but an old book.

 

[AV1611VET]

As far as I am aware, all Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

Including you?

[One word answer, please.]

 

[ottawak]

Then perhaps you can answer the question I asked, what is Genesis 1 metaphorical for? What’s the analogy to Genesis 1?

None of the above. Gen 1 does not quite meet the linguistic criteria for Hebrew court poetry, but in Hebrew it has a rythmic quality which suggests hymnody--a hymn of praise to the creator. Gen 2 is an etiology, a "just-so" story. It has the characteristics of a narrative which has survived for a long time in oral form: puns and other wordplay, highly anthropomorphized non-human characters, etc. Calling Gen 2 an "analogy" doesn't do it justice. Of course neither does reading it as baldly accurate historical narrative--the lowest form of literature.

 

[ottawak]

Including you?

[One word answer, please.]

Including me.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think you will find your parents ignored most of your pretend and other silliness because they were sensible people who understood that you were a child with childish thoughts. Now they don't, now they take it seriously. When I was a child I wanted to be a boy, lots of girls did. We didn't really want sex changes (we would not have understood the ramifications apart from anything else) we wanted to stand to pee and to do 'boys things' No one jumped on us and rushed us to gender clinics, it was mostly ignored and we grew out of it.

I would suggest taking a close look at some videos, then tell me if you think schools (from preschool on not just highschool) are teaching appropriate curriculum.

Are these really the people you want teaching your kids critical thought?
Maybe you do, maybe you are with those who think talking about genitals over the lunch table with preschoolers is fine, that lessons should revolve around social justice and race rather than grammar, mathematics and geography. If so we will be diametrically opposite on this topic.

This has nothing to do with critical thought, preschoolers are not yet at that stage nor should adult social issues be on their agenda. At 3-5 social issues should be about sharing toys, using your manners; and critical thought should be about building with blocks and jig-saw-puzzles. I use to be in early childhood education and children don't reach the first stage of critical thought until between 6-8. It was often called the age of reason and if you look at history 7 was seen as the age of childhood maturity. In medieval times court apprenticeships began at age seven and the Catholic Church offers first Communion at 7.
Even then children are very easy to steer aka 'brainwash' but they have gained enough cognitive ability to question things like Santa Clause. They start to notice things like chimney size verses a fat Santa, they question magic.
A 3 year old on the other hand is much easier to convince and will believe you when you tell him Santa is real and he will also believe you if you tell him he is a girl. He doesn't even fully understand what being a boy or a girl even means. The same way he thinks he can simply change his age. (I tried to find the video where the 4 year old claimed to be 7 but can't find it, I will post it if I do)
A 6-8 year old will question you more, doubt you more, but can still be won around quite easily, especially by an authority figure like a teacher or a police officer.


I really can't think of anyone who died in place of others they didn't know. A mother might dive in front of a bus to push her child out the way but that is because of her strong emotional ties to her child. But how many would die to save those they don't know, those who are not even asking to be saved?
You could say fire fighters die to save people they don't know, and they do, but their intent isn't to die. They go into a fire wanting to save and they plan to come out safely. What Jesus did is different.



Sure it counts but we can't shield ourselves from everything and as children we have virtually no power to protect ourselves at all. I won't site cases but you know the kind of headlines about abuse that goes on. We were all defenseless children at one stage of our lives.
Knowledge though has certainly helped. When God told the ancients to wash and quarantine they didn't understand germ theory and now we do. Now we know to wash our hands well without God telling us. But not everything coming at us is physical, its also mental and spiritual. Now you obviously won't believe in spiritual harm but I do. We are body, soul(mind) and spirit.
We don't always notice harm to the mind, people raised in toxic families don't always realize that their parent is a narcissist, they think its normal. Children are very poor at protecting themselves. Adults are much better at spotting things like this but still everyday women end up with abusive men because the signs were ignored. A lot of emotional abuse gets overlooked because some things are subtle. Often abuse starts tiny and grows. A bit like the frog being boiled scenario, the abuse goes undetected until it has reached a point that becomes visible to others but by then a lot of damage has been done.
Spiritual harm is even harder to see and understand then emotional mental harm.
Many of God's laws were about this.

Suppose I take your claim that christians are anti-evolution because of "wokeness" (or the irrational fear of it)...

Why were they anti-evolution before "wokeness" was a "thing"? (2015, 2010, or when ever that was?

 

[AV1611VET]

Including me.

Fair enough.

 

[coffee4u]

Suppose I take your claim that christians are anti-evolution because of "wokeness" (or the irrational fear of it)...

Why were they anti-evolution before "wokeness" was a "thing"? (2015, 2010, or when ever that was?

The conversation has changed since the initial question was posted.

Given that I am still not fully recovered from Covid, I don't recall my first post or how the conversation ended up here.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The conversation has changed since the initial question was posted.

Given that I am still not fully recovered from Covid, I don't recall my first post or how the conversation ended up here.

Since it has drifted so far from the C/E topic of this subforum, perhaps you could take it some where more appropriate.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Are these really the people you want teaching your kids critical thought?

Do you believe everything you see on YouTube?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Suppose I take your claim that christians are anti-evolution because of "wokeness" (or the irrational fear of it)...

Why were they anti-evolution before "wokeness" was a "thing"? (2015, 2010, or when ever that was?

Actually, it would make a lot of sense why the anti-evo sentiment is on the rise... It's connected to the current round of manufactured moral panic.

Remember, fundamentalism is a response to a (real or perceived) threat... And people these days feel so threatened by what they're told to be...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is a good point. Just upstream I asked what a reasonable disinterested person might think being told of all the countless ways we determine how the universe was formed (or even how God actually created it if you like) versus a literal reading of a chapter in scripture. The answer is obvious. But even though we appear to be conversing with what I'd suggest are reasonable people in the normal scheme of things,we are definitely not dealing with disinterested people.

I think you're right, we're not typically dealing with disinterested people here. Still, I wonder why a disinterested person, reasonable or not, would even desire to hear countless ways about how to determine something we can't really know ...

These discussions turn into a game whereby most of us are working out ways to find out what sort of arguments can be made against catastrophically overwhelming evidence.

... games are fun. But I'm just waiting for someone to tell me the meta-rules by which we are to play this game amidst the evidential devastation.

 

[ottawak]

I think you're right, we're not typically dealing with disinterested people here. Still, I wonder why a disinterested person, reasonable or not, would even desire to hear countless ways about how to determine something we can't really know ...

... games are fun. But I'm just waiting for someone to tell me the meta-rules by which we are to play this game admist the evidential devastation.

There is another way to look at it: In any arument/negotiation/discussion it is useful to find out what the other side really wants as an outome--which is not always apparent or (sometimes) clearly understood by them. For example, creationists are vociferous in their defense of a literal Genesis. Why is that? No essential Christian doctrine depends on it so far as I am aware, so what is it that they are really defending? If we knew, it might be something we don't care about and don't intend to attack.