Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[sjastro]

Here's the conclusion: 18.

What facts can we find to support it?

1. 2⁴
2. 9x2
3. 17+1
4. 18/1
5. etc

You can't even get your jokes right.
The answer is 42.

 

[Bradskii]

Christians do it everyday, that’s what this whole discussion has been about. Some don’t consider the passages containing miracles as being literal because they aren’t within the realm of possibility. The realm of possibility being defined by science.

Looks like I'll have to keep repeating myself. Saying that something is not literally true and denying that something couldn't happen are two entirely different things. Yet again, if you can find any Christian who says that Jesus didn't perform a miracle because it was scientifically impossible, then we can discuss it with him or her.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well that’s a bit of speculation as to what other people might think but I assure you it falls into one of three categories, either they believe it, they aren’t sure, or they don’t believe it.

Actually, as others have already described in their own ways, the epistemological rabbit-hole goes deeper than these three options alone.

All you need to know about my own Christian view is that I personally value and generally give credance to the biblical books, and this is the case however varying in quality my beliefs may be for the contents of each individual book.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Secondly the 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405, but it is probable that a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I gave the same list first. These councils also provided the canon of the Old Testament, which included the apocryphal books.
It was the councils (=people) that validated the New Testament.

Here is canon 24 of the synod of Hippo in 393. The last statement says that this list was given to them by the fathers. They already had this list before the council of Hippo. So it was not decided at Hippo it was merely reiterated upon what was already previously established.


Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)
That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture

Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

• Genesis.
• Exodus.
• Leviticus.
• Numbers.
• Deuteronomy.
• Joshua the Son of Nun.
• The Judges.
• Ruth.
• The Kings, iv. books.
• The Chronicles, ij. books.
• Job.
• The Psalter.
• The Five books of Solomon.
• The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
• Isaiah.
• Jeremiah.
• Ezechiel.
• Daniel.
• Tobit.
• Judith.
• Esther.
• Ezra, ij. books.
• Macchabees, ij. books.
  • The New Testament.
    • The Gospels, iv. books.
    • The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
    • The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
    • The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
    • The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
    • The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
    • The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
    • The Revelation of John, j. book.

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

 

[Bradskii]

Here's the conclusion: 18.

What facts can we find to support it?

1. 2⁴
2. 9x2
3. 17+1
4. 18/1
5. etc

Number 1 is a good example of an answer a creationist might repeat because he saw it on the interweb. It gets slipped in amongst multiple other arguments which themselves might be true upon investigation but the outlier might be overlooked. And then it gets repeated ad nauseum and eventually stated as fact because nobody has refuted it.

This is a simple list of five numbers so it's easy to spot. But when you have five paragraphs of dense argument scattered with obscure and unverifiable quotes it's not so easy.

But thanks for an example of how it works.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The problem with a blind adherence of the Bible as representing absolute truth is the requirement of its acceptance as a complete package including other aspects such as Biblical law.
Do you believe the Bible is correct in handling the issue of rape or the status of women as described in this post?

““If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.”
‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭22:23-24‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Do I agree with this law now? No I don’t because Jesus changed how we should handle such matters, but before He made that change yes I would agree with it because it was what God commanded.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

““If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.”
‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭22:23-24‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Do I agree with this law now? No I don’t because Jesus changed how we should handle such matters, but before He made that change yes I would agree with it because it was what God commanded.

I could be wrong, but---uh--- I somehow think we've drifted from the main focus of the OP here ...

 

[Bradskii]

““If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.”
‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭22:23-24‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Do I agree with this law now? No I don’t because Jesus changed how we should handle such matters, but before He made that change yes I would agree with it because it was what God commanded.

As Weinberg once said: 'With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.'

Stoning people to death for adultry cannot be described as anything but evil. What you have just said is that if you were asked if stoning people to death for that sin is OK, your effective response would be 'I'll just check that...and yes, it is OK.'

I've never been able to get my head around the fact that people say something is wrong 'because it is written'. Or an act is justifiable 'because it is written'. It's a position that results in planes being flown into buildings.

And what is even more mind boggling, what has me shaking my head in disbelief, is that a few chapters later the same deity in another form then says it's wrong and you then say 'Hang on...apparently it's now unacceptable. He's changed His mind'.

 

[Bradskii]

I could be wrong, but---uh--- I somehow think we've drifted from the main focus of the OP here ...

No, no we haven't. That people believe that all things in the bible are literally true is the cause of a rejection of evolution (which is the specific point of the op). That rejection in itself is not a problem. But we have been examining the mindset of those who take that position, as a natural extention of the original question. And we have reached a point where is has been explained that literally everything is taken as being true. Leading on to an acceptance that what God wills must be done. Whether one might consider it to be wrong or even evil.

It justifies literally anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

Stoning people to death for adultry cannot be described as anything but evil.

A necessary evil.

How many murders are committed because of a love triangle?

 

[Bradskii]

A necessary evil.

Your 'hail felow, well met' attitude is exposed by this three word response.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your 'hail felow, well met' attitude is exposed by this three word response.

 

[ottawak]

Actually, as others have already described in their own ways, the epistemological rabbit-hole goes deeper than these three options alone.

All you need to know about my own Christian view is that I personally value and generally give credance to the biblical books, and this is the case however varying in quality my beliefs may be for the contents of each individual book.

A wisw man once said "Take the Bible seriously, not literally."

 

[ottawak]

If someone asked me a question and posed two possible answers and neither one of them fit the situation then I would say the answer is neither of those two it is this. That’s just common sense. This is a public forum not a formal multiple choice exam where your limited to only answer from the choices given.

My impression of your comments has been that you don't wish to acknowledge the possibility of a third option. Isn't that why you avoided my question about the range of genres comprising historical narrative?

 

[TLK Valentine]

And do what with it?

Give it to someone who can't tell the difference between a legitimate check and a fake one?

Well, if the checks were from the government, you could sort them out:

1. one dollar checks here
2. two dollar checks here
3. three dollar checks there
4. four dollar checks there
5. FIVE GOLDEN RINGS.... (sorry, couldn't resist.)
6. five dollar checks here
7. six dollar checks there
8. seven dollar checks there
9. eight dollar checks there
10. nine dollar checks there
11. ten dollar checks here

...and they would all be legal tender.

(your own checks, however, may not be so reliable -- but generally speaking, Uncle Sam's checks don't bounce)

 

[AV1611VET]

FIVE GOLDEN RINGS.... (sorry, couldn't resist.)

I gotta admit, that was a goodie.

Who says sarcasm needn't have entertainment value!?

 

[coffee4u]

So... You think schoolteachers are out to make your children gay?

I think there are public school teachers out there who want to indoctrinate children into their own world view rather than teach reading, writing, mathematics etc while keeping sexual themes, politics, religion out of it.

I'm an actual schoolteacher... are you concerned about me?

I know you're a teacher.

You tell me, should we be? Do you enjoy sharing your private life with 5 year olds or are you mature enough to know that has no place in the classroom?

You either approve of this behavior or you don't.

Use to be children had no idea a teacher was even married unless their name 'Mrs x' gave it away. They knew nothing about the teachers private life or sexual preferences -as it should be. The teacher being gay or straight or whatever is not the point here, the point is what they talk about, and their gender preferences is not it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, no we haven't. That people believe that all things in the bible are literally true is the cause of a rejection of evolution (which is the specific point of the op). That rejection in itself is not a problem. But we have been examining the mindset of those who take that position, as a natural extention of the original question. And we have reached a point where is has been explained that literally everything is taken as being true. Leading on to an acceptance that what God wills must be done. Whether one might consider it to be wrong or even evil.

It justifies literally anything.

I really don't see it quite this way, Bradskii. In my view, I couldn't care much less if my fellow Christians reject the Theory of Evolution.

As for the "mindset" of those you're signifying here, I think it's an unspoken conflation to say that a firmer, even fundamentalist viewpoint somehow extends solely from a singular, monolithic view of the Bible. It doesn't necessarily, and it's not really a natural extension of the original question. Even Christian Fundamentalists can have different emphases between themselves upon various portions of the Bible. How they apply various doctrines peculiar to their own denominations can differ as well. I think you might want to deflate the claim that there is a direct correlation in biblical interpretation and ethical values, and bring it down to a more moderate level.

Obviously, I don't take the Bible ultra literally myself, but the force of Axiological questions are all contingent upon metaphysics [or the utter lack thereof], and we can't simply blame the Bible for all of the current ethical ills that so many secular and atheistic folks today want to say it has.

No, I think this thread should stick to discussing 'why' some Christians refuse to engage or accept the Theory of Evolution. Structurally, this is a separate epistemic topic than that of whether or not two adulterers were commanded to be stoned or not--let alone whether or not such stoning is evil by 'Modern Lights.'

Let's keep these things separated and parsed out into measures that are proportional to what we know, not according to what we surmise about the nature of ethical issues we despise for no absolute reason.

 

[sjastro]

““If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.”
‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭22:23-24‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Do I agree with this law now? No I don’t because Jesus changed how we should handle such matters, but before He made that change yes I would agree with it because it was what God commanded.

What Deuteronomy states if a women doesn't cry out in a city where she can be heard, it cannot be rape but a consensual act in which case both parties are stoned to death for either adultery or fornication.
Did you consider a woman might be paralyzed with fear or prevented from crying out, or at the very least contemplate the verses are an extreme case of modern day victim blaming?
Like @Bradskii I cannot get my head around how anyone can blindly accept a clearly flawed law by modern standards because it is in the Bible and therefore infallible.

The Bible is not infallible as your post indicates where Jesus contradicts an Old Testament law.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A wisw man once said "Take the Bible seriously, not literally."

That's one way to look at it. The thing is, I haven't been known to always take everything in the bible seriously ... until I know and understand what "seriously" amounts to.