Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[AV1611VET]

Why is that an important point? Why are we not free to believe in as many or as few of events deemed by some religious authority to be miracles as we want?

Well, for one thing, the criteria used to determine if an event is a miracle or not could be flawed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Im not saying your not free to do that I’m simply saying your being inconsistent in your analysis of scripture and science.

Have you ever had a discussion with someone who believes the widow of Zarephath was fed from a "bottomless cruse," as well as believed that Jesus fed five thousand people with two small fishes, but then claimed the Flood wasn't global because Noah would have had to take all that food aboard the Ark?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Why is that an important point? Why are we not free to believe in as many or as few of events deemed by some religious authority to be miracles as we want?

One thing I would point out tho is that your inconsistency does somewhat discredit your argument as to how miracles need to be explainable by science in order for them to be accurate.

 

[ottawak]

One thing I would point out tho is that your inconsistency does somewhat discredit your argument as to how miracles need to be explainable by science in order for them to be accurate.

I never made such an argument.
But I think we can cut to the chase here. I'm a Traditional Christian. I believe the death and miraculous resurrection of Christ--but not just because it says so in the Bible. The miracles described in the Bible I can take on case-by-case basis as to whether they are actually miracles or just fortuitious natural events, without being inconsistent.

 

[Astrid]

I never made such an argument.
But I think we can cut to the chase here. I'm a Traditional Christian. I believe the death and miraculous resurrection of Christ--but not just because it says so in the Bible. The miracles described in the Bible I can take on case-by-case basis as to whether they are actually miracles or just fortuitious natural events, without being inconsistent.

" Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds"

 

[AV1611VET]

" Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds"

What's non-foolish consistency called?

 

[ottawak]

" Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds"

And, in fact, whether an event deemed to be a "miracle" has a natural explanation is not really a very important question. The real importance is what contribution the miracle makes to the theological narrative.

For example, in the story of the Exodus, Moses is able to quench the thirst of his followers by striking a cliff face with his staff causing water to gush out. This event turns out to be part of a larger narrative which results in Moses not being allowed to enter the Promised Land himself.
However, in the Sinai desert there are natural springs which ooze out of limestone cliffs. These will crust over and damn up large amounts of water which will gush out when the crust is knocked away. You could do this yourself if you wanted to take an arduous adventure tour of the desert and it was something Moses would have known about through his sojourn with the desert tribes. So was the gushing water in the Exodus story a natural event or not? Who knows? It really doesn't make any difference in the larger context of the narrative.

 

[Astrid]

And, in fact, whether an event deemed to be a "miracle" has a natural explanation is not really a very important question. The real importance is what contribution the miracle makes to the theological narrative.

For example, in the story of the Exodus, Moses is able to quench the thirst of his followers by striking a cliff face with his staff causing water to gush out. This event turns out to be part of a larger narrative which results in Moses not being allowed to enter the Promised Land himself.
However, in the Sinai desert there are natural springs which ooze out of limestone cliffs. These will crust over and damn up large amounts of water which will gush out when the crust is knocked away. You could do this yourself if you wanted to take an arduous adventure tour of the desert and it was something Moses would have known about through his sojourn with the desert tribes. So was the gushing water in the Exodus story a natural event or not? Who knows? It really doesn't make any difference in the larger context of the narrative.

What is the larger context?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I never made such an argument.
But I think we can cut to the chase here. I'm a Traditional Christian. I believe the death and miraculous resurrection of Christ--but not just because it says so in the Bible. The miracles described in the Bible I can take on case-by-case basis as to whether they are actually miracles or just fortuitious natural events, without being inconsistent.

Then why did you use the word “we” instead of “they”?

Why are we not free to believe in as many or as few of events deemed by some religious authority to be miracles as we want?

 

[ottawak]

Then why did you use the word “we” instead of “they”?

I don't think the word choice makes any difference. I suppose that by "we" I meant Christians like myself who don't take your view of the matter. But whether or not we evaluate individual descriptions of events on the basis of scientific plausibility or by some other standard is a separate question. And not a very important one, I think, as I have tried to explain above. Christians are not required to believe in the supernatural origin of any miracles except those supported by Tradition and outlined in the Creed.

 

[ottawak]

What is the larger context?

What is the point of the Exodus story*? Was it just supposed to be a bald historical account of an arduous trek through the desert?

*Excuse me, I mean narrative. BNR32FAN thinks anything called a "story" must be entirely fictional and I promised not to use the word any more.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What's non-foolish consistency called?

Science.

 

[BNR32FAN]

What is the point of the Exodus story*? Was it just supposed to be a bald historical account of an arduous trek through the desert?

The point of Exodus was to provide a record of historical events that took place so it could be passed on thru the ages.

*Excuse me, I mean narrative. BNR32FAN thinks anything called a "story" must be entirely fictional and I promised not to use the word any more.

If that were true I wouldn’t have asked you this question yesterday that you repeatedly dodged.

What do you mean by stories are you speaking of historical facts or fictional stories?

 

[ottawak]

The point of Exodus was to provide a record of historical events that took place so it could be passed on thru the ages.

That's it?

If that were true I wouldn’t have asked you this question yesterday that you repeatedly dodged.

That's OK. You have been dodging my questions; nobody takes it seriously. But I couldn't really answer your question because you posed it as a false dichotomy. I believe I answered "yes" because that is realy the only way to answer a false "either or" question like that.

 

[Astrid]

What is the point of the Exodus story*? Was it just supposed to be a bald historical account of an arduous trek through the desert?

*Excuse me, I mean narrative. BNR32FAN thinks anything called a "story" must be entirely fictional and I promised not to use the word any more.

I would say-
Mostly a cautionary tale * about the
importance of faith, if that is a "context"
but i asked you no fair ask me.

* aka story

 

[BNR32FAN]

That's OK. You have been dodging my questions; nobody takes it seriously. But I couldn't really answer your question because you posed it as a false dichotomy. I believe I answered "yes" because that is realy the only way to answer a false "either or" question like that.

No you could’ve given any answer and yes you did finally answer the question but the point in this case was just to indicate that your false accusation that I believe the word story only applies to fiction was obviously inaccurate and you already knew that since I asked you several times yesterday if you were referring to a fictional story or a historical one.

 

[ottawak]

No you could’ve given any answer and yes you did finally answer the question but the point in this case was just to indicate that your false accusation that I believe the word story only applies to fiction was obviously inaccurate and you already knew that since I asked you several times yesterday if you were referring to a fictional story or a historical one.

It's still a false dichotomy.

 

[Valletta]

I'm not up on Christian beliefs, I understand that Christian is a vast umbrella term and so there are many people within this vast group and these people have differing beliefs.
But, for those Christians that are hell bent on fighting against evolution, what is the root of this resistance?

It really seems that with their arguments they are just reaching for excuses to shoot down evolution.

My thoughts, which could be wrong because of my poor understanding of Christian beliefs. But here they are:
1. Humans are special (god's children, made in god's image) therefore we can't possibly be animals, or apes. Perhaps these people feel uncomfortable about being part of the animal kingdom.
2. All of existence was made as a playground for humans. If humans evolved randomly then it was just chance that we came to be, and then what would be the purpose for the universe existing if humans weren't destined to be? Perhaps these people feel uncomfortable that a universe wasn't destined to have humans, and without humans at the centre of it would be purposeless and therefore goes against the core belief that god created everything for us.

Am I on track here? Or are there other reasons?
The ones above seem incredibly self centred.

I don't think most people are that concerned about the Theory of Evolution. As to Christians, certainly there is an understandable reaction when people misuse the theory by claiming it shows God had no hand in creating humans. Then there is a core minority group of Christians that takes the number of years in the Bible literally and doesn't believe the carbon dating techniques. In fact there is no way to prove carbon dating, although there is a strong scientific argument to made.

 

[ottawak]

Then there is a core minority group of Christians that takes the number of years in the Bible literally and doesn't believe the carbon dating techniques.

That's pretty much the way it divides up in this forum; young-Earth creationists on one side and non-YEC Christians, other theists and atheists on the other.

 

[sjastro]

The absolutism of the Bible displayed in this thread that anything stated in the Bible must be true ignores the fact the current Jewish and Christian Bibles were subject to alterations and omissions throughout history.
For example there is barely a mention in the New Testament of Jesus from the time after his birth up to the commencement of his ministry around the age of thirty.
None of the infancy gospels written in the 2nd century survived the final cut when the New Testament was settled on 27 books by the 5th century.

There is perhaps a good reason why infancy gospels never made the final cut as in the Infancy Gospel of St Thomas, the child Jesus is not exactly portrayed in a benevolent light.

The text describes the life of the child Jesus from the age of five to age twelve,[12] with fanciful, and sometimes malevolent, supernatural events. He is presented as a precocious child who starts his education early.[12] The stories cover how the young Incarnation of God matures and learns to use his powers for good and how those around him first respond in fear and later with admiration.[2] One of the episodes involves Jesus making clay birds, which he then proceeds to bring to life, an act also attributed to Jesus in Quran 5:110,[13] and in a medieval work known as Toledot Yeshu, although Jesus's age at the time of the event is not specified in either account. In another episode, a child disperses water that Jesus has collected. Jesus kills this first child, when at age one he curses a boy, which causes the child's body to wither into a corpse. Later, Jesus kills another child via curse when the child apparently accidentally bumps into Jesus, throws a stone at Jesus, or punches Jesus (depending on the translation).

When Joseph and Mary's neighbours complain, they are miraculously struck blind by Jesus. Jesus then starts receiving lessons, but arrogantly tries to teach the teacher, instead, upsetting the teacher who suspects supernatural origins. Jesus is amused by this suspicion, which he confirms, and revokes all his earlier apparent cruelty. Subsequently, he resurrects a friend who is killed when he falls from a roof, and heals another who cuts his foot with an axe.

After various other demonstrations of supernatural ability, new teachers try to teach Jesus, but he proceeds to explain the law to them instead. Another set of miracles is mentioned in which Jesus heals his brother, who is bitten by a snake, and two others, who have died from different causes. Finally, the text recounts the episode in Luke in which Jesus, aged 12, teaches in the temple.

The development of the Jewish and Christian Bibles is given in the following video.
What you read today in the Bible is the result of human intervention over the centuries.