Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[AV1611VET]

Indeed... anyone who claims to believe in God needs to look at the world around them and concede that He is incredibly creative... that has to apply to His words as well as His actions.

Is that a felony? or a misdemeanor?

 

[TLK Valentine]

If I drop my bigotry and accept Genesis as allegory, will you drop your bigotry and accept Genesis as literal?

Seems like those who accept it as allegorical lose both ways...

 

[BNR32FAN]

No, that's just bigotry on your part. You have blinded yourself to the possibility that God could inspire any other form of literature besides 100% accurate literal history--which does an injustice to both God and His Word.

Really? How so, by believing His word as opposed to not believing it? I’m really struggling to comprehend how believing His word is an injustice to Him as opposed to not believing His word. The Bible says repeatedly that God performed numerous miracles and somehow my belief that those statements are correct and true are an injustice to God? Or is it not believing in His miracles that are actually an injustice to Him? Look at every single example of those who didn’t believe in His miracles in the scriptures and tell me if these people did God injustice or not. Pharaoh, the Pharisees, Judas, the people mentioned in John 12:37, etc.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Is that a felony? or a misdemeanor?

For a literalist such as yourself, possibly a deal breaker... but so what?

 

[BNR32FAN]

No. You are entiled to your view and I am entiled to mine. We must each make our own way in the matter as we judge it to bring us closer to Christ. What I object to is the the assertion that to reject a literal interpretation is to reject divine inspiration. That is the bigotry I speak of.

There’s more at work here, it’s not just a literal translation that your rejecting but the miracles performed by God.

 

[Astrid]

I sure dont get believng one is infallible about the
truth of "flood" when it 's quite so obvious that
no such event actually occurred.

 

[ottawak]

If I reject an allegorical interpretation, am I rejecting divine inspiration?

No. Let's put it this way: You (may) think that Genesis must be literal because it is divinely inspired. I think it may be divinely inspired even if it is not literal.

Now, you may think my opinion is wrong (and who knows, it might be.) But do think I am just wrong? Or do you think (like BNR32FAN) that I know I'm wrong and am lying to you about it?

 

[ottawak]

There’s more at work here, it’s not just a literal translation that your rejecting but the miracles performed by God.

You really are shameless. I challenge you to quote me from anyplace whatever that I have rejected the miracles performed by God.

 

[AV1611VET]

There’s more at work here, it’s not just a literal translation that your rejecting but the miracles performed by God.

I've seen this time and again when I try to explain how God restored the earth's plant life after the Flood, they just can't get it.

If God can create plant life all over the earth in one day, why can't He do it again after the Flood?

 

[AV1611VET]

I sure dont get believng one is infallible about the truth of "flood" when it 's quite so obvious that no such event actually occurred.

Would you know it if it did occur ... then was cleaned up seamlessly?

 

[ottawak]

I've seen this time and again when I try to explain how God restored the earth's plant life after the Flood, they just can't get it.

If God can create plant life all over the earth in one day, why can't He do it again after the Flood?

No reason at all. I don't think that's what He did do, but there is no reason He couldn't have.

 

[ottawak]

Would you know it if it did occur ... then was cleaned up seamlessly?

Now you have two options:
1. The clean-up was done in a miraculous way such that scientists cannot detect it.
2. Scientists have detected it but are lying about it as part of worldwide satanic conspiracy to deny Christ.

The second, of course, is the Creationist position.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think that's what He did do,

Because He didn't have to?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I sure dont get believng one is infallible about the
truth of "flood" when it 's quite so obvious that
no such event actually occurred.

Indeed -- there are those who will claim that God painstakingly wiped away all the evidence (and then forgot to document the cleanup) as some sort of bizarre test of faith...

What's the only takeaway from such a belief? Salvation is a very exclusive club, and God's looking for excuses to blackball you.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Would you know it if it did occur ... then was cleaned up seamlessly?

And secretly? Was God ashamed of His actions, or is my other suggestion more accurate -- a secret test of faith in literalism?

 

[AV1611VET]

Now you have two options:
1. The clean-up was done in a miraculous way such that scientists cannot detect it.
2. Scientists have detected it but are lying about it as part of worldwide satanic conspiracy to deny Christ.

The second, of course, is the Creationist position.

Just out of curiosity, do you consider yourself qualified to speak for/against creationists?

In your above scenario, Number One is the interpretation I subscribe to.

Yet you seem to think Number Two is our choice for an explanation.

What's up with this?

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed -- there are those who will claim that God painstakingly wiped away all the evidence (and then forgot to document the cleanup) as some sort of bizarre test of faith...

Just out of curiosity, do you consider yourself qualified to speak for/against those who will claim that God painstakingly wiped away all the evidence?

What's this "forgot to document the cleanup" stuff?

What does the story of Noah sending out the dove twice tell you ... professor?

 

[AV1611VET]

And secretly?

No.

Did God close Adam's side "secretly", after He removed one of his ribs?

 

[ottawak]

Just out of curiosity, do you consider yourself qualified to speak for/against creationists?

In your above scenario, Number One is the interpretation I subscribe to.

Yet you seem to think Number Two is our choice for an explanation.

What's up with this?

It may not be your choice but it is certainly the most popular position of our YEC colleagues in this forum. How many times have you seen it posted that science is a lie?

 

[AV1611VET]

It may not be your choice but it is certainly the most popular position of our YEC colleagues in this forum.

So you're saying I'm right and they're wrong?

Or, as I suspect, are we both wrong in your eyes?

And if we're both wrong in your eyes, what is it you're harping about?