Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[BobRyan]

Note that in Genesis it refers to the field, and Paul says that we are Gods field. Note that in Genesis God refers to himself in plural form, and that he says that man should not be alone, singular form. Then he creates a helper for man. Note that the holy spirit is mans helper in John 14. Note that God had not allowed it to rain on the earth yet, and there was no man to till the ground yet, so nothing grew yet. Note also how the apostles water the plants, and the apostles are one, they are not alone either but are of one mind, the mind of Christ, i would assert. There is much here to consider i think.

God compares evangelism to a ripe field being harvested - this does not mean there is "no such thing as a field or as literal evangelism" as I think we all agree. But God uses real physical events to illustrate abstract concepts.

 

[Extraneous]

The apostles, they are nothing, just workers. How much of less value are today's teachers, if they are not preaching the Word?

The truth is that the Word is both spirit and scripture working together, and its all about being Joined with Christ alone, in one flesh. Now if we are all of One mind, we are all One in Christ, having the mind of Christ, having his teaching, submitting to the husband. However, if we are all divided into denominations, we are not one. There is only one, who is Christ. Preach the Word.

There is no evolution, no mans wisdom, Christ is our wisdom, sayeth Paul.

Set your minds on things above, not on the earth. He who follows the spirit sets his mind on things of the spirit.

 

[BobRyan]

Why do Christians have a hard time doubting the Bible in exchange for the irrational "belief" that a pile of dirt has turned into a rabbit -- given a sufficiently large pile of dirt and a sufficiently long period of time filled with "just-so" stories?

Yes there is, people screwing their eyes shut just s tight as they can and pretending it doesn't exist notwithstandingBecause it's the best supported by evidence.

Or maybe the claims of blind faith evolutionism regarding its doctrine on origins - do not even begin to compare with the more reasoned Bible doctrine on origins that says - infinite Creator God did what He said He did -- and there is no such thing as dirt turning into a rabbit.

 

[Extraneous]

God compares evangelism to a ripe field being harvested - this does not mean there is "no such thing as a field or as literal evangelism" as I think we all agree. But God uses real physical events to illustrate abstract concepts.

Im not suggesting otherwise brother, but i believe evangelism is often polluted by fallacy. That's why i would rather promote only the Word, and not a Church denomination.

 

[BobRyan]

Pride is the enemy of man, Some would rather spend time in prideful argument rather then accept that they could be mistaken...

If I am wrong, Then so be it, I will be corrected. I can not be the person I want to be by pridefully arguing about trivial subjects. If someone seeks the truth,, and thirsts for it,, Why would the truth offend them? I welcome the chance to learn, And expect to be wrong from time to time.. But know that Pride is an enemy, pride makes husbands argue with wives, pride makes liars uphold their untruths, pride turns friends against each other, and pride makes one feel small and weak when they don't live up to expectations..

I will humble myself when it is necessary, But I will not spend time arguing the same arguments as my grandfathers. This evolution debate. It has no end to it..

These hand's I wash them of this debate.

This is a thread contrasting the junk-science religion of blind-faith-evolutionism -- to the fact that the Bible is correct about a pile of dirt will never turn into a rabbit. I would not give up too quickly on the thread just because there are so many atheists, agnostics and some T.E. that choose the "pile of dirt --> rabbit" option no matter how nonsensical it is.

Notice that in Matt 4 - the devil challenges Christ to turn a pile of dirt into bread - claiming that only God could do such a thing - and Christ would thereby prove Himself to be God.

But most atheists and agnostics will claim that rocks,dust,gas would have turned into a rabbit, horse... loaf of bread "over time" if only the sun was shining.

 

[Extraneous]

Everyone agrees on the Word, so there is no division in that, but denominations cause only division and strife. Preach the Word. The sower sows the Word.

 

[BobRyan]

It's not me that's casting doubt on your character because you're doing a fine job of that all by yourself. I didn't say God "evolved" us from dirt God said HE created us from the dirt

here then is a "not-so-subtle" detail. Blind faith in evolutionism engages in gross "equivocation" between the painter taking raw materials and painting the Mona Lisa -- vs the raw materials themselves self-organizing into the Mona Lisa.

And we are simply "not supposed to notice" that not-so-subtle paucity in logic of their argument.

 

[Extraneous]

This is a thread contrasting the junk-science religion of blind-faith-evolutionism -- to the fact that the Bible is correct about a pile of dirt will never turn into a rabbit. I would not give up too quickly on the thread just because there are so many atheists, agnostics and some T.E. that choose the "pile of dirt --> rabbit" option no matter how nonsensical it is.

Notice that in Matt 4 - the devil challenges Christ to turn a pile of dirt into bread - claiming that only God could do such a thing - and Christ would thereby prove Himself to be God.

But most atheists and agnostics will claim that rocks,dust,gas would have turned into a rabbit, horse... loaf of bread "over time" if only the sun was shining.

Its also not walking in the spirit, not setting our minds on spiritual things. WE do not need to worry about how the earth was created, and we need no ToE which is about natural things, not spiritual. We need to set our minds on spiritual things. Even creationists might need to adjust their thinking as well, and look for spiritual things, instead of just natural creation.

 

[Hieronymus]

I think itś about Love (Agape).
for God
for man

 

[Extraneous]

If your ToE causes you to offend, cut it off.

 

[Armoured]

Why do Christians have a hard time doubting the Bible in exchange for the irrational "belief" that a pile of dirt has turned into a rabbit -- given a sufficiently large pile of dirt and a sufficiently long period of time filled with "just-so" stories?



Or maybe the claims of blind faith evolutionism regarding its doctrine on origins - do not even begin to compare with the more reasoned Bible doctrine on origins that says - infinite Creator God did what He said He did -- and there is no such thing as dirt turning into a rabbit.

Evolution doesn't claim that a pile of dirt turned into a rabbit, but keep strawmanning, that's the way to make your position credible.

 

[Radrook]

I think i know some key ideas. Its because it undermines the creation story and that people will become irreligious?

Well wouldnt that be an issue about the idea of the earth is flat if the bible is literal on that part i mean?

What i mean is that science explains our physicial world. The main point i am making is that Creation Story had two interpretations in medieval ages. Allegory" basically a deeper meaning than it is. Or "Literally" like just like it is written.

So basically allegory seems to be the key point then. Since that can be used. Since God is outside our understanding. Science is a method just to understand the world we live in more or less.

So i dont see the problem with evolution, because it doesnt undermine the scripture in the sense of it not being true?

Although i do believe its a shame that more people who lack understanding go away because of ignorance and just dont bother trying to understand why Christianity is a religion to help your life.

But i am curious to what you think?

It isn't as simple as it might at first seem. Please note that the Israelites later referred to as the Jews, including the prophets Jesus and the Apostles, all considered the Genesis account as genuinely historical. In fact, the very genealogical record of Jesus' ancestry found in the Gospels depends on the Genesis account to trace Jesus directly back to Adam via along line of ancestors to David, Abraham Noah- and finally Adam who is referred to as the son of God and in that way offers evidence to legitimize his being the Messiah or Christ.

The Line of Jesus Through Mary

Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:23:38)

So a belief that the Genesis account is fictional means that all these men who are believed to be inspired and even Jesus himself, whom many believe to have been God incarnate, were deluded.

If indeed they were deluded, then they were teaching lies. It would then follow that everything that was said that included references to the Genesis account, including Jesus' genealogy, was drivel

That would include Jesus' reference to the Devil, to Adam and Eve, to the Noachian Flood, and to Sodom and Gomorrah. It would include the Apostle Paul's teachings concerning the origin of sin in Eden, the references that Peter makes concerning the Flood, the references that Jude makes about the fallen angels, and a host of other references. All these must then be viewed as drivel.

In turn that would mean that Christianity itself is based on drivel and that the whole salvation message is merely the product of human fervid imagination.

So it isn't as simple as it might at first appear.

 

[Armoured]

here then is a "not-so-subtle" detail. Blind faith in evolutionism engages in gross "equivocation" between the painter taking raw materials and painting the Mona Lisa -- vs the raw materials themselves self-organizing into the Mona Lisa.

And we are simply "not supposed to notice" that not-so-subtle paucity in logic of their argument.

Except evolution doesn't require materials to "self organise" but whatever makes it easier for you to dismiss, I guess.

 

[Extraneous]

It isn't as simple as it might at first seem. Please note that the Israelites later referred to as the Jews, including the prophets Jesus and the Apostles, all considered the Genesis account as genuinely historical. In fact, the very genealogical record of Jesus' ancestry found in the Gospels depends on the Genesis account to trace Jesus directly back to Adam via along line of ancestors to David, Abraham Noah- and finally Adam who is referred to as the son of God and in that way offers evidence to legitimize his being the Messiah or Christ.

So a belief that the Genesis account is fictional means that all these men who are believed to be inspired and even Jesus himself whom many believe to have been God incarnate, were deluded. If indeed they were, then they were teaching lies. It would then follow that everything that was said that included references to the Genesis account was drivel

. That would include Jesus' reference to the Devil, to Adam and Eve, to the Noachian Flood, and to Sodom and Gomorrah. It would include the Apostle Paul's teachings concerning the origin of sin in Eden, the references that Peter makes concerning the Flood, the references that Jude makes about the fallen angels, and a host of other references. All these must then be viewed as drivel.

In turn that would mean that Christianity itself is based on drivel and that the whole salvation message is merely the product of human fervid imagination. So it isn't as simple as it might at first appear.

Its all part of Gods plan i think. He asks us to seek him by faith. He hides himself in Heaven because we did not want to know Him. He sent prophets to teach us how to find him as well. It's as if he is telling us that he doesn't need us because he is God, but we need him because we are but mere humans which are created beings, and its as if he's saying that he loves us and wants us to seek him. Its almost like hes trying to build a real relationship with him, not just a religion but an actual relationship with a real God, a Real spirit. Its a great mystery and its the meaning to life in my opinion. The natural man (all men) who loves only himself should be exhorted by all this to seek God, but if he doesn't, its his own loss.

 

[BobRyan]

Except evolution doesn't require materials to "self organise"

until you actually talk to one of them - who like Dawkins, will argue that from a "big pile of dirt" there has indeed come "rabbits".

in fact they will argue that all life in the universe came from the "big pile of dirt" -- the "big bang".

And they will argue for self-replicating molecules that form - via the self-organizing properties inherent in a "big pile of dirt" that has access to sunlight.

By contrast -- the Bible claims God did what He said - in 7 literal days.

 

[BobRyan]

blind faith evolutionism claims we "cannot be sure that a pile of dirt will not turn into a rabbit" it argues that we "cannot be certain that prokaryotes will not one day turn into eukaryotes" and the T.E. form of it argues "and we can't know what the Bible says when we read it".

Thus they argue that the illogical and impossible "just might happen" and at the same time argue that the obvious reading of the text of scripture "can't possibly be true".

 

[Armoured]

until you actually talk to one of them - who like Dawkins, will argue that from a "big pile of dirt" there has indeed come "rabbits".

in fact they will argue that all life in the universe came from the "big pile of dirt" -- the "big bang".

And they will argue for self-replicating molecules that form - via the self-organizing properties inherent in a "big pile of dirt" that has access to sunlight.

By contrast -- the Bible claims God did what He said - in 7 literal days.

You show me a quote of Dawkins, or anyone else for that matter, making such a claim about piles of dirt, if you can.

 

[BobRyan]

Those who argue that only mean ol "Bible believing Christians" would think Genesis is talking about a 7 day creation week... think again.

consider what happens when you look at "the kind of literature that it is" when it comes to the Genesis account

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

 

[BobRyan]

You show me a quote of Dawkins, or anyone else for that matter, making such a claim about piles of dirt, if you can.

you want the short form or the long one.

Nobel prize Cosmologist, atheist, evolutionist Martin Rees and the guy that is the "Father of String Theory" -- Leonard Susskind also agree to this - atheist concept of all life coming from the big bang. (Something you apparently imagine nobody out there is promoting... where have you been!!??).

They along with Dawkins will argue that these are simply a string of stories about very unlikely events such that you start with that pile of dirt -- and you end up with a rabbit!

Christians have a difficult time tossing the Bible out the window for that "pile of dirt will sure-enough turn into a rabbit" mythology.

 

[Radrook]

until you actually talk to one of them - who like Dawkins, will argue that from a "big pile of dirt" there has indeed come "rabbits".

in fact they will argue that all life in the universe came from the "big pile of dirt" -- the "big bang".

And they will argue for self-replicating molecules that form - via the self-organizing properties inherent in a "big pile of dirt" that has access to sunlight.

By contrast -- the Bible claims God did what He said - in 7 literal days.

That's some heck of a feisty "pile of dirt" they are describing there!