- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,300
- 52,680
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Would you know the "strange idea" was correct if you heard it? or would you be too busy being anti?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Would you know the "strange idea" was correct if you heard it? or would you be too busy being anti?The biggest reason to be "anti" is the strange totally mistaken ideas they have.
It can come up with that if an omnipotent, omniscient god intended evolution to come up with it.
False. Scientists don't say anything about gods at all.
So nothing in the universe needs God to function? Maybe everything does.Yes they do, when they say evolution is a process like a computer doing its thing alone can make a human or a ant whatever by itself, they are saying God is not needed at all, like the deceased Stephen Hawking believed.
Yes they do, when they say evolution is a process like a computer doing its thing alone can make a human or a ant whatever by itself, they are saying God is not needed at all, like the deceased Stephen Hawking believed.
I started this thread, not as a debate, but to understand better why some Christians leap towards rejecting ToE. For me to learn what their driving force is.You should not start debates if you don't know about one half of the subject matter. First study what the Bible actually says about creation before trying to fit evolution into the Bible.
Job 38:22a Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow?Waterfalls- wonderful stuff, all from snowflakes falling where they may.
Adam & Eve always had moral agency, they just hadn't had it tested before the fall. They knew what right and wrong was, right = obey God, wrong = disobey God.Were Adam and Eve like the animals before they ate the fruit of knowledge?
Did eating the fruit make Adam and Eve like the gods? With the ability to now know right form wrong?
Before - they were not moral agents, incapable of making moral decisions.
After - they had moral agency, they understood right from wrong and now this became part of their decision making. So only after eating the fruit did they truly become human????
"There’s also the problem that it’s unlikely that our pre-human ancestors were sinless, which makes the whole Gen 3 narrative fall apart."This has been hinted at by several postings, but there are a couple of serious consequences.
1) If evolution is true, most likely Genesis 1 - 3 are not historical. There are various arguments about how a day may be an age, but in fact most people who accept evolution take Gen 1 - 3 at face value, and think they’re wrong, at least as history. But the moment you accept that the Bible may be wrong, there are other questions: Modern archaeologists generally don’t think anything before maybe the time of the kings is accurate. In specific, the Exodus as described didn’t happen. In fact the current understanding is that the people who became Israel largely originated in the hill country in Palestine, and moved into the cities slowly and mostly without major conflict. Once you start thinking that the Bible might be a human book describing God’s interactions with us from our perspective, anything in it might be wrong.
That is very troubling to many people. It seems safer to hold the line, and claim that the whole Bible is accurate in everything it says.
2) In a lot of theology, particularly popular Protestant theology, Jesus is the answer to a specific problem: We are fallen people, due to Adam’s sin. We inherit at least a fallen nature, if not actual guilt from Adam’s sin, and are thus unacceptable to God. We need salvation if we are to avoid hell. That’s what Christ is for. Without the Fall, Christ’s death seems pointless, since the problem it is designed to fix isn’t there.
Evolution probably destroys the Fall. Catholics have at times tried to say that even though we evolved, at some point a specific pair sinned, and all modern people are descendants of them. But this seems unlikely. There’s also the problem that it’s unlikely that our pre-human ancestors were sinless, which makes the whole Gen 3 narrative fall apart.
———————
I think once we accept scientific and historical evidence, there are serious challenges to a lot of Christian theology. I don’t think it challenges what Jesus was actually trying to do, but it certainly makes a lot of traditional theology hard.
I don’t see Jesus saying that everyone starts out as unacceptable to God. He saw lost sheep, who have to repent. But OT theology in general saw Jews as part of the covenant. When they sinned they needed to repent, but they didn’t start out damned. Later Jewish thought became more inclusive of non-Jews, and I think Jesus followed that approach.
The problem with this is once you don’t think people start out damned you have to ask what Jesus’ death was about. At that point you have to look at the atonement. Traditional Protestant theology takes one view of Jesus’ death, that he took the punishment that was due to us, and without it we would have to be punished ourselves with hell. But historically this wasn’t the only or even the earliest idea. Before Augustine’s time, Christians didn’t necessarily think everyone started off damned. Other ideas of Christ’s death ranged from it being an inspiration to it being a trick that caused Satan to overstep his bounds (by taking an innocent life) and lose his rights.
If you take seriously the idea that Christ was God made flesh, we might consider the idea that his death for us makes visible the character that God always had. He always loved us, and was always willing to go to extremes to help us, even if in loving us he suffered with us and on our behalf.
This has been hinted at by several postings, but there are a couple of serious consequences.
1) If evolution is true, most likely Genesis 1 - 3 are not historical. There are various arguments about how a day may be an age, but in fact most people who accept evolution take Gen 1 - 3 at face value, and think they’re wrong, at least as history. But the moment you accept that the Bible may be wrong, there are other questions: Modern archaeologists generally don’t think anything before maybe the time of the kings is accurate. In specific, the Exodus as described didn’t happen. In fact the current understanding is that the people who became Israel largely originated in the hill country in Palestine, and moved into the cities slowly and mostly without major conflict. Once you start thinking that the Bible might be a human book describing God’s interactions with us from our perspective, anything in it might be wrong.
That is very troubling to many people. It seems safer to hold the line, and claim that the whole Bible is accurate in everything it says.
2) In a lot of theology, particularly popular Protestant theology, Jesus is the answer to a specific problem: We are fallen people, due to Adam’s sin. We inherit at least a fallen nature, if not actual guilt from Adam’s sin, and are thus unacceptable to God. We need salvation if we are to avoid hell. That’s what Christ is for. Without the Fall, Christ’s death seems pointless, since the problem it is designed to fix isn’t there.
Evolution probably destroys the Fall. Catholics have at times tried to say that even though we evolved, at some point a specific pair sinned, and all modern people are descendants of them. But this seems unlikely. There’s also the problem that it’s unlikely that our pre-human ancestors were sinless, which makes the whole Gen 3 narrative fall apart.
———————
I think once we accept scientific and historical evidence, there are serious challenges to a lot of Christian theology. I don’t think it challenges what Jesus was actually trying to do, but it certainly makes a lot of traditional theology hard.
I don’t see Jesus saying that everyone starts out as unacceptable to God. He saw lost sheep, who have to repent. But OT theology in general saw Jews as part of the covenant. When they sinned they needed to repent, but they didn’t start out damned. Later Jewish thought became more inclusive of non-Jews, and I think Jesus followed that approach.
The problem with this is once you don’t think people start out damned you have to ask what Jesus’ death was about. At that point you have to look at the atonement. Traditional Protestant theology takes one view of Jesus’ death, that he took the punishment that was due to us, and without it we would have to be punished ourselves with hell. But historically this wasn’t the only or even the earliest idea. Before Augustine’s time, Christians didn’t necessarily think everyone started off damned. Other ideas of Christ’s death ranged from it being an inspiration to it being a trick that caused Satan to overstep his bounds (by taking an innocent life) and lose his rights.
If you take seriously the idea that Christ was God made flesh, we might consider the idea that his death for us makes visible the character that God always had. He always loved us, and was always willing to go to extremes to help us, even if in loving us he suffered with us and on our behalf.
My lack of belief in gods has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. It isn't a foundation of my worldview.
If you were able to disprove Evolution, as interesting as that would be, it wouldn't cause me to believe in gods.
From a secular perspective (I'm not qualified to do theology), the origin's story of humans becoming a moral agent, is quite an interesting one.Well, it could be that before a certain point in evolution, sin wasn't possible due to the ability to make moral choices not yet being present. So can animals sin?? So at some point between a monkey ancestor and us the moral ability required developed, and its probably fair to say that from that point on, selfish moral choices began to be made.
No, I don't see "a creator" as being a viable option. It's a pretty outlandish claim and doesn't have anything close to evidence to support any of it.I think you would agree that really there are only two main choices for the world we see, either a creator or pure naturism?
There is no evidence in support of anything supernatural. But even if we go with only natural causes, evolution might have some other natural alternatives (although I don't know what they would be).As an atheist, naturism must be true since God and the supernatural is not an option for you.
Sure, but I don't particularly care that I am an atheist. It isn't something that I am proud of. I won't believe or disbelieve something purely because it supports an atheist worldview. I am open to evidence.You can't be an atheist while believing in a creator.
No, I find evolution fascinating, but I don't care if it supports a "no god" worldview. In fact I recognise that there are hundreds of millions of Christians who accept that Evolution is truth, so in that regard I don't believe that ToE disproves even the Christian god.Evolution must strengthen your view since by that a person can easily believe only in naturism, that the world creates itself through natural forces.
No, it wouldn't cause me to doubt. If evolution were disproven, I certainly would be wondering then how did these various life forms come to be, how come they appear to be evolved when they are not?I know you say you wouldn't believe in God or gods, but it might cause you to doubt.
If I was born into a strongly Christian creation family and society it is conceivable that I would also hold Christian creation beliefs.If society as a whole held to creation, if creation was the prevailing thing taught you might have a different view.
I don't want to get into theology, I'm not qualified.But that wasn't really your main question which you didn't respond to my reply about.
So to sum it up, no death before sin is the main reason I am anti evolution.
I was surprised to hear the Archbishop of Canterbury openly admit to such doubts - and that he keenly supports LGBTQ+ lifestyles... It takes all sortsThe moment you accept that both the Bible and traditional Christian beliefs are sometimes wrong, everything becomes a judgement call, and based purely upon evidence I think it’s hard to be 100% sure that there’s really a God that cares for us. You also open the door to things like having to accept gay people. It’s pretty clear that for many Christians that is unthinkable.
I did actually attempt to address this topic, in post 45 in this thread.But that wasn't really your main question which you didn't respond to my reply about.
So to sum it up, no death before sin is the main reason I am anti evolution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?