Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[TLK Valentine]

Someone said no essential Christian doctrine depends upon a literal interpretation of Genesis that he is aware of.

I'm making him aware of the essential doctrine of Original Sin.

Perhaps the problem is considering "original sin" an essential doctrine.

Any system in which the innocent are punished for the actions of the guilty isn't providing any incentive to be innocent.

 

[ottawak]

We don’t observe that doctors are completely incapable of bringing a person back to life 3 days later? We don’t observe irreversible brain damage occurring within just a few minutes of being dead? How are these not empirical evidence?

So you take the position that Jesus was a mere human man?

Never mind. You may take it that 2PhiloVoid's last post (#979) is an accurate summary of my own position.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Perhaps the problem is considering "original sin" an essential doctrine.

Any system in which the innocent are punished for the actions of the guilty isn't providing any incentive to be innocent.

Of course it is essential doctrine, if not, why the great push to baptize infants so they aren't damned for their uncleanliness if they die?

Oh, wait, the poster in question doesn't believe in infant baptism...

 

[AV1611VET]

And you were going to explain why the doctrine of Original Sin depends on a literal reading of Genesis but never got around to it.

No, I wasn't.

I pointed out a doctrine that is dependent on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

Therefore: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course it is essential doctrine, if not, why the great push to baptize infants so they aren't damned for their uncleanliness if they die?

Oh, wait, the poster in question doesn't believe in infant baptism...

The poster in question believes the concept of Original Sin was a master stroke on the part of the Designer.

By making the First Adam the federal head of the human race for sin, God made the Last Adam the federal Head of the human race for salvation.

Had He not done that, then Jesus would have to die on the Cross for every single person who ever lived.

Instead, we see ...

Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, I wasn't.

I pointed out a doctrine that is dependent on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

Therefore: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

In order for "Mission Accomplished" you must first, you know, actually accomplish the mission.

And since Original Sin does not rely on a naked woman literally taking bad advice from a talking reptile, your mission is not accomplished.

 

[sjastro]

The only difference between you and those IFB preachers of yours I see online is that they have the courage of their convictions to be explicit about their hate.

I had a look at a Fundamentalist Baptist Church site and its contempt for other Christian denominations particularly the RC church.

We believe that the Ecumenical Movement is Satan’s attempt to bring the world’s religions together in preparation for the Antichrist and his Great Roman Catholic harlot.

Those such as true Fundamentalist Baptists, who put Jesus and the Bible first, will be beheaded (or otherwise murdered) by this end-time “church” of Rome.

However, Calvinism also teaches that some men and women cannot be saved by Jesus -- a doctrine which is clearly against the Bible.

We believe that Pentecostalism is Satan’s counterfeit to true revival.

Finally there is this which would do ISIS and the Taliban proud.

Jesus will then return to Earth; execute all of the Christ-rejecting and Bible-rejecting sinners; bind up Satan in Hell; and set up his Kingdom on Earth. After a thousand years, God will let Satan out of Hell for a short while, the Earth will be destroyed, and God will create a new Heavens and Earth. There will also be a Great White Throne judgment of the wicked, with all those who rejected Jesus on Earth being cast into The Lake of Fire to burn there forever.

I'm afraid you, I and 99.99999999999999999999999999% of the world's population have had it if this occurs in our lifetime.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So you take the position that Jesus was a mere human man?

Never mind. You may take it that 2PhiloVoid's last post (#979) is an accurate summary of my own position.

Yes, He was God in a mere human man’s body. He was fully God and fully man. He felt pain, hunger, cold, thirst, just like everyone else. But Jesus wasn’t the only man who was resurrected after being dead for 3 days, Lazarus was also raised from the dead 3 days after his death.

 

[Bradskii]

But Genesis is different?

The BoM was written as fact and was intended to be accepted as fact. Genesis was a metaphor and wasn't intended to be taken literally.

 

[Bradskii]

Original Sin

Reading Genesis as metaphor doesn't preclude that. Do you have something else?

Edit: Not that I will be supporting the concept. But it's obvious to all that Catholicism for example has no problem with original sin and the evolutionary process, so accepting original sin does not require a rejection of an old earth and evolution.

 

[Astrid]

The BoM was written as fact and was intended to be accepted as fact. Genesis was a metaphor and wasn't intended to be taken literally.

How do you know

 

[Bradskii]

A day does not convey the analogy of billions of years. If God wanted to give an analogy or metaphor for billions of years He could’ve said years as numerous as the stars like He did when He mentioned Abraham’s descendants.

So you're back to the same problem. He gives us two means of determining how old things are. One is what Genesis says and the other is the galactic amount of evidence He has left in making everything. And we aren't just talking about rocks. We are talking about literally everything.

So God has to either make literally everything in the order in which they would occur naturally and then compress the whole of creation into 6 days OR make everything instantly and adjust the 'internal clocks' so it appears that they were made millions and billions of years ago.

In either case there is this obvious question: What on earth for?

If He took billions of years then say so in Genesis. If He did it in an instant then let the evidence show that.

 

[Bradskii]

How do you know

That the BoM was meant to be taken as a fact? Smith himself wrote it as a fact. And Genesis is a metaphor? Well, the universe wasn't created in six days so it's obviously not meant to be taken literally.

 

[Bradskii]

This isn’t just about the creation account in Genesis but every miracle performed by God that is recorded in the scriptures that contradicts science which would include Jesus’ birth and resurrection which are foundational beliefs for a Christian. If a person can’t believe these literally took place then they literally don’t believe the gospel.

Did He feed 5,000 from a few loaves and fishes? Whatever. It's not important. Did He walk on water? Who knows. Maybe it was shallow water. Maybe someone made it up. It's not important. Did He turn water into wine? Probably not. But who cares? It's not important.

The only miracle that you need to believe as a Christian is that He was born as the son of God and that He died for our sins and was resurrected.

That's it. Burning bushes, parting seas, talking snakes and a six day creation aren't anything you need to believe to be a Christian. Whether you want to believe them or not is entirely up to you. So please, we don't need any arguments that one must take literally every single word written in the bible.

You have chosen the six day of creation as being somehow important for you being a Christian. And you say that because you imply that it casts doubt on other passages? But you don't believe everything is meant literally. And you can take them as parable or as metaphor because they don't have to be acceoted as being literally true for your salvation. And it's the same with six day creation. It has no bearing whatsoever on the miracle of Jesus' birth or his resurrection. Period.

 

[Astrid]

That the BoM was meant to be taken as a fact? Smith himself wrote it as a fact. And Genesis is a metaphor? Well, the universe wasn't created in six days so it's obviously not meant to be taken literally.

Isnt obvious to me.
I figure the people who composed the story
didnt know any better.

First time i went to Philippines people were
making a fuss, all kinds of noise to scare the lizard
that was trying to eat the moon.

People did and do think up all kinds of things,
and then start to believe them.

 

[ottawak]

Did He feed 5,000 from a few loaves and fishes? Whatever. It's not important. Did He walk on water? Who knows. Maybe it was shallow water. Maybe someone made it up. It's not important. Did He turn water into wine? Probably not. But who cares? It's not important.

The only miracle that you need to believe as a Christian is that He was born as the son of God and that He died for our sins and was resurrected.

That's it. Burning bushes, parting seas, talking snakes and a six day creation aren't anything you need to believe to be a Christian. Whether you want to believe them or not is entirely up to you. So please, we don't need any arguments that one must take literally every single word written in the bible.

You have chosen the six day of creation as being somehow important for you being a Christian. And you say that because you imply that it casts doubt on other passages? But you don't believe everything is meant literally. And you can take them as parable or as metaphor because they don't have to be acceoted as being literally true for your salvation. And it's the same with six day creation. It has no bearing whatsoever on the miracle of Jesus' birth or his resurrection. Period.

As a Christian, what I must believe is entirely contaned in a statement of faith called the Nicene Creed. This has been true for 1600 years right down to the present day and even defines what a Christian is in this forum. It is derived from an older, very similar creed which is atrributed to the Apostles themselves. The Creed says nothing about a six-day creation or a global flood and doesn't even mention the Bible or how we are to read it.

 

[AV1611VET]

That the BoM was meant to be taken as a fact? Smith himself wrote it as a fact. And Genesis is a metaphor? Well, the universe wasn't created in six days so it's obviously not meant to be taken literally.

Then why do the Mormons believe the universe was created in six days?

 

[Bradskii]

Isnt obvious to me.
I figure the people who composed the story
didnt know any better.

First time i went to Philippines people were
making a fuss, all kinds of noise to scare the lizard
that was trying to eat the moon.

People did and do think up all kinds of things,
and then start to believe them.

But Smith wrote the BoM. And he knew he wasn't writing down what actually happened. But Genesis, as we keep being told, is God's word. That is, it wasn't written by people who didn't know any better. It was written by God to people who didn't know any better. But He also knew that we'd eventually discover that the universe is billions of years old. No big deal - we'll treat Genesis as a story for the time in which it was written.

 

[Astrid]

As a Christian, what I must believe is entirely contaned in a statement of faith called the Nicene Creed. This has been true for 1600 years right down to the present day and even defines what a Christian is in this forum. It is derived from an older, very similar creed which is atrributed to the Apostles themselves. The Creed says nothing about a six-day creation or a global flood and doesn't even mention the Bible or how we are to read it.

As a non Christian I am obligated to any creed, of
course, and read the Bible quite differently than any
Christian likely would.
Its a complex book of course so no single approach
( like straight literalist) is going to work.

For a lot of it though, I just look,to outside sources
to see if something may not be historical.
Sodom and Gomorrah dont seem likely to have been
actual places.
Pauls viper- bite is very implausible.
Flood is, well, no way that happened.

Other accounts are perfectly reasonable, and have
basis that can be cross checked.

 

[Bradskii]

As a Christian, what I must believe is entirely contaned in a statement of faith called the Nicene Creed. This has been true for 1600 years right down to the present day and even defines what a Christian is in this forum. It is derived from an older, very similar creed which is atrributed to the Apostles themselves. The Creed says nothing about a six-day creation or a global flood and doesn't even mention the Bible or how we are to read it.

Indeed. And I can still quote it from the hundreds of times I said it as a young lad. It's the affirmation of one's faith. Nothing else is required.

Is God the creator of everything? Yes.
Was Jesus born the only Son of God? Yes.
Did He die for our sins and was resurrected? Yes.

Tick all the boxes and you're a Christian. Nothing else is required.