Theistic Evolution makes Judgment and Sin feel distant and less real

[Cis.jd]

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.

not claims but factual evidence, in addition to better theology due to understanding of translations and just applying common sense.

For example, in that 6th day creation.
- When was Jupiter, Saturn, and the rest of the planets made?
- How does a literal first day happen (which the Bible shows is signified by light) on a sphere Earth? One side will have to be night and either a 24hrs before or after.

Are Time zones scientific "claims"? No, these are facts and you are forced to explain this with facts especially since you said "many scientific evidence".

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

Quoting isn't just for referencing a historical fact but also to get a point across. People quote from movies, books, etc as examples to others.. it's not about the story being true, but the message behind it that is important.

 

[Cis.jd]

It is not my opinion that the Bible is divinely inspired. It just is because God says so.

You have the wrong concept of what "divinely inspired" means. Divinely inspired doesn't include a huge IQ boost.

You think the writers gained knowledge of Physics, Biology, the Americas, or even to speak in English? Regardless of them being divinely inspired, there is still a good amount of their POV's and societal/cultural understanding of things during there time therefore we can't look to their writings as anything academically related.

 

[-57]

not claims but factual evidence, in addition to better theology due to understanding of translations and just applying common sense.

For example, in that 6th day creation.
- When was Jupiter, Saturn, and the rest of the planets made?
- How does a literal first day happen (which the Bible shows is signified by light) on a sphere Earth? One side will have to be night and either a 24hrs before or after.

Are Time zones scientific "claims"? No, these are facts and you are forced to explain this with facts especially since you said "many scientific evidence".



Quoting isn't just for referencing a historical fact but also to get a point across. People quote from movies, books, etc as examples to others.. it's not about the story being true, but the message behind it that is important.

You appear to be lost.

You do know the wine and bread taken at communion don't really become the blood and body of Christ.

 

[-57]

You have the wrong concept of what "divinely inspired" means. Divinely inspired doesn't include a huge IQ boost.

You think the writers gained knowledge of Physics, Biology, the Americas, or even to speak in English? Regardless of them being divinely inspired, there is still a good amount of their POV's and societal/cultural understanding of things during there time therefore we can't look to their writings as anything academically related.

Divinely inspired means Moses received his creation information from the creator. The creator Jesus was an eyewitness.

 

[nolidad]

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 it is not true! The Big Bang is beyond the realm of the scientific method, so isn't "macro-evolution". we have never observed one family, order or phyla change to another. So they are scientific philosophies not truth!

Teh mechanism they say that drives evolution (random unplanned mutations) almost universally de-generate a population not regenerate it!

 

[nolidad]

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

I am sure that is a reason for carnal Christians to justify their sin. I suspect though that most Christians have been indoctrinated in Evolution since the earliest grades of govt. run schools and private secular schools (even Christian as well). They never have been shown that evolution is scientifically impossible in the Darwinian microbes to man concept and that true empirical science witnesses against evolution being valid.

 

[Celticroots]

I accept Evolution because of the all the evidence supporting it. I have no problem with the supernatural and have seen God's hand in my life many times.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The bible never says the bread and wine are literally Christ flesh and blood. The bible presents the creation as literal and histrical in many places. Not so with the Eucharist.

Except of course the Bible says that the bread and wine are Christ's flesh and blood, it says it very explicitly. You just don't take it literally. I do.

Where does the Bible say that the creation story is literal?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[nolidad]

I accept Evolution because of the all the evidence supporting it. I have no problem with the supernatural and have seen God's hand in my life many times.

And what physical evidence have you actually seen that supports the macro-theory that life started as microbes and through unplanned, random mutations preserved via natural selection both kingdoms (plant and animal) came to be and that microbes ultimately turned into men???

Mutations are just not capable of doing that!

 

[Halbhh]

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

God being powerful enough to create everything... (Gospel of John chapter 1)...

....is more present everywhere, because He created physics and chemistry -- not only a list of some things, but truly everything that exists throughout all the Universe.

Consider -- When you see a planet orbit the sun under gravity...or a plant grow using the chemistry of photosynthesis...

You are seeing the miraculous laws of Nature God created at work, as He intended.

This Nature He created works.

Ergo, all that happens from chemistry...is His.

And Time -- that's His. He can make it pass, or stop, or accelerate....

Think on it -- should a person see their right arm as an argument against their left arm?

 

[Cis.jd]

Divinely inspired means Moses received his creation information from the creator. The creator Jesus was an eyewitness.

So in this creation information, where/when was Jupiter and the other plants made. You've left out answering the 1 questions which in regards to the time the planets where made and how a first day would work for a globe earth with each zone having it's own time of the day.

You have to factually back this up just based on what you said "divinely inspired" means.

 

[Cis.jd]

You appear to be lost.

You do know the wine and bread taken at communion don't really become the blood and body of Christ.

That last sentence has nothing to do with my argument, so i am ignoring it. Until you give a factual based explanation based on those 2 questions then your arguments are based off your bad theology.

 

[Halbhh]

But the problem with Gen 1 isn't that it involves miracles

Well, the actual text is more complex than either side tends to represent in those debates (usually). Have a look:

In mainstream science we now have hard evidence that the Earth was once a water world, just as the Genesis text reads also.

the 2017 discovery of evidence:
https://phys.org/news/2017-05-earth-barren-flat-billion-years.html

another recent article (there are many tho)
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-early-earth-waterworld.html

As the text says:

Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.

And later continents emerging --

Genesis 1:9 And God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered into one place, so that the dry land may appear." And it was so.
The words here spoken though (in quotation marks) -- similar to God adding helpful narration to Peter's vision in Acts chapter 10, so that deeper meaning could be understood in time -- are saying this was also an intended outcome (we wouldn't be on a planet without both oceans and dry land then) -- chosen, by God, for a planet suitable for being our home, one that is "good" --
Genesis 1:10 God called the dry land "earth," and the gathering of waters He called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

---------
So, wonderfully, the text is better and more complex than either side of this dichotomy argument we usually see where it's asserted to only be figurative or only be literal -- that it has to be only about metaphor, or only about concrete events (as if only history detail without any deep meaning).

 

[Redwingfan9]

I don't see how any Christian can claim faith when they deny God's account of creation. If someone denies creation they're essentially calling into question every supernatural thing which occurs in scripture. Why believe in the resurrection or virgin birth? Why believe those things and not creation?

 

[hedrick]

I don't see how any Christian can claim faith when they deny God's account of creation. If someone denies creation they're essentially calling into question every supernatural thing which occurs in scripture. Why believe in the resurrection or virgin birth? Why believe those things and not creation?

Because there’s a difference between accounts written when witnesses are still alive and legends. Particularly legends that we know aren’t true.

The problem with supernatural things is that we know 1st Cent people tended to believe in supernatural events even when they didn't happen. We see this in other religions, and even Roman historians. This doesn't mean that we reject all Roman history, but we're careful about things they say in areas where we know we see things differently.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Because there’s a difference between accounts written when witnesses are still alive and legends. Particularly legends that we know aren’t true.

We know no such thing. Beyond that, it sounds to me that you want to pick and choose what to believe in scripture based on your own subjective presuppositions.

 

[hedrick]

We know no such thing. Beyond that, it sounds to me that you want to pick and choose what to believe in scripture based on your own subjective presuppositions.

You think it's subjective to differentiate between events occuring hundreds to thousands of year before the writer and events where Luke, at least, said he had talked to witnesses? I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by subjective.

You think it's subjective to take into account known biases of authors?

This is all a bunch of special pleading in aid of some theory about the Bible for which there's no evidence. I'd feel much better about a conservative that simply admits that they have faith in the Bible, and evidence is irrelevant to them.

 

[Redwingfan9]

You think it's subjective to differentiate between events occuring hundreds to thousands of year before the writer and events where Luke, at least, said he had talked to witnesses? I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by subjective.

You think it's subjective to take into account known biases of authors?

This is all a bunch of special pleading in aid of some theory about the Bible for which there's no evidence. I'd feel much better about a conservative that simply admits that they have faith in the Bible, and evidence is irrelevant to them.

You either believe that scripture is God breathed or you don't. Obviously you don't.

 

[Cis.jd]

You either believe that scripture is God breathed or you don't. Obviously you don't.

That is a very irrational and unfair reply to someone who is trying to explain to you on what to take as historical factual and what to conclude is just metaphorical or out of the understandings of the writer based on his time.

I believe scripture is God breathed, but I also know he never made the scriptures to be a revelation of all discovery. It's breathed for a purpose which is to tell us the connection between him and the creation, not about the science of the cosmos.

 

[Dale]

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

Lifepsy: "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."

Nope.

Lifepsy: "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."

Nope.

Lifepsy: "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) ..."

Evolution is not the secular world's creation story.

Lifepsy: "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."

Nope.

Lifepsy: "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."


All you are doing here is attacking other people's motives.

Does it occur to you that creationism collapses by itself?

Here's a question I've been asking people for years. As a child, I was specifically taught that God removed the Garden of Eden from the earth. Presumably this happened before the Flood.

In the Middle East, a garden is almost always walled, a garden has walls. The Garden of Eden had to have walls. That is why a couple of angels with flaming swords could guard the entrance.

Although creationists assume that God removed the Garden of Eden from the earth, there is no verse in the Bible that says so. Creationists are adding to the Bible on this point.

If the Garden of Eden did exist, and wasn't removed (the Bible doesn't say it was removed), we should be able to find it. At the least, we should be able to find the walls. We haven't. As far as I know, no one has ever looked. Why? Because everyone knows they aren't going to find it.

I talk to people in their eighties who have been creationists all their lives. They still don't know who the sons of Adam and Eve married. I don't have to bring this point up, they volunteer it.

Don't waste your time attacking the motives of non-creationist Christians until you can straighten out the contradictions in creationism.