Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[Extraneous]

That is a very good way, Extraneous, to take the Bible way out of context and distort its meaning. Many biblical passages have a specific address on them. For example, when we read Paul's letters, we are obviously reading some else's mail. If we don't understand the situation he was in with those churches, they we haven't got an inkling what's going on.

Thats your problem Hoghead, you love fallible scientific theory more than the truth and wisdom found in those letters. You reduce it to nothing more than mail. After reading those letters, i put away my politics so i could love democrats. I no longer wanted to be divided with my brethren over politics, and i no longer wanted to stain the gospel with my politics. Its not my place to say how unbelievers should live, and so i wont fight them in a political arena, and its not love to argue over politics with my brethren either. I also see politics as unfaithful to Christ. He alone is our helper. THis is what those letters taught me. I laid down my life for the brethren. I know nothing but Christ and Christ alone.

You say its out of context, but your love for the world has blinded you which makes it hard for you to see, ether that or you have never studied those letters and seen the wisdom and truth in them

 

[Extraneous]

I have seen what it means to follow Christ, and Paul has taught me. I cant be comfortable in this contentious mess any longer. Peace.

 

[Hoghead1]

No, that really isn't accurate, Geralt. Evolution became a central scientific understanding because the hard evidence demolished the natural theology that was in vogue at the time. It is true that science has a very limited window into the past. So some degree of speculation is always caller for. Therefore , science doesn't deal in absolute truths. It deals in probabilities of being right. The same is also true of right-wing Christian beliefs. If nobody was around to directly observe the Big Bang, nobody was around to see God create the world in six days, either. The trouble with creation-science re people is that they refuse to acknowledge they also are going on speculation, not absolute truth based on absolute proof.

 

[Hoghead1]

Actually, Extraneous, I gave Paul's letters a great deal of study. I first thought of doing by doctorate in biblical studies, then switched to theology. I am an academic and I want to approach Scripture as a scholar. So I accept only what modern biblical studies has to say. That is my way of maintaining quality control in my belief system. In biblical studies, we have safeguards built in to ensure we don't project our a priori assumptions and beliefs back into the Bible. With laity, such as yourself, no such safeguards are in place. So it is all to easy for laity to read in their preconceived-of ideology and then think Scripture is backing them, when it point of fact it might not be. Every kook, fanatic, and terrorist in the book claimed he is being let by the Holy Spirit and has the Bible on his side. You are not providing an objective exegesis of Scripture. You are presenting Scripture as interpreted and understood by right-wing Christian fundamentalism, which is an essentially anti-intellectual approach. If that works for you, fine. But it does not even begin to work for your fellow Christians who have a strong intellectual bent. You also have a tendency to exploit this form as a platform upon which you can ridicule, condemn, denounce, can cast aspersion on the character of fellow Christian who disagree with you. Not only is that rude, but it is against the rules of teh forum. Your emails are full of hate , insults, and irrational thinking, way too close to the kind of neurotic self-talk I hear from clients. All I find in your posts is irrational intolerance and a conspicuous absence of compassionate Christian charity.

 

[PapaZoom]

But who makes the determination what is the authentic word of God in Scripture and which isn't?

Your post is one of the reasons I like reading here on CF. You can read the perspectives of others and get a flavor of what you might not get in one's isolated circle.

When we look down through history we see that the Deuterocanonicals were generally widely accepted, at least as widely accepted (and often moreso) than the New Testament Antilegomena (Hebrews, James, Jude, the Apocalypse of John, etc); but modern Protestantism completely rejects the Deuterocanonicals but accepts the Antilegomena unquestioningly.

I had to look up Antilegomena. This is a fair point and one that I have just recently been thinking about. I'm not sure if this is correct, but I was either told or read that we are the first generation (or was it first centaury?) that didn't include the Apocrypha in their Bible. I'm assuming that the Apocrypha and Deuterocanoicals are the same?

And it does both of these things uncritically, with seemingly no bothering to ask the question why? And the reason why there seems to be little critical thought is because the actual history of the Canon of Scripture, not to mention the large breadth and depth of Christian history, seems to be entirely absent from the religious formation of many modern Protestants (not just Protestants, it's a Catholic and Orthodox problem too).

There are many who do that for sure. But others do look critically at these things and many ask the question why. Some are satisfied with the answer and some not.

In modern Protestant circles this seems to largely either feed into or otherwise perpetuate a dogmatic Bible-onlyism that is historically un-Christian and un-biblical. To challenge the a priori assumptions about the Bible is frequently interpreted as challenging the authority and/or integrity of Holy Scripture itself--which isn't the case.

True. I see the problem not being simply in what the Bible "says," but what we often interpret it to mean. It can't mean different things to different people if those interpretations are in conflict. This is the problem I often run across.

The Bible can be authoritative without being magical. By magical I mean a host of different ideas about the Bible which are both biblically unsustainable and, historically, objectively false. For one, the modern concept of biblical inerrancy--by which I mean the idea that the Bible cannot err in any way, shape, or form; and that seemingly "scientific" statements in the biblical texts must be held as scientific and thus such interpretations must take precedence over the evidence-based rule of modern science as it pertains to understanding the mechanisms of the natural world. So that, for example, Genesis 1 must be read as a literal account of cosmic material origins, and this provides sufficient enough reason to reject the grand wealth of evidence uncovered by the scientific method concerning the antiquity of the earth and the universe, the mechanisms of natural selection as having explanatory power to address the vast diversity of life on the planet, and so on and so forth. By "magical" I mean this idea that the Bible is a pristine and perfect tome of divine revelation that that just seems to exist in situ, as though St. John of Patmos finished the last stroke of the pen and divine decree went forth that the Bible was finished--and Christians from thenceforth went around carrying Bibles around with them (at least until the big ol' mean Catholic Church took everyone's Bible away, as the popular narrative tends to go).

I agree with this. I don't understand Biblical inerrancy that way at any rate. I was, for example, surprised to find out just how many errors there are in the variants of the NT. Around 400,000 according to Bart Ehrman. But such variants don't speak to the question of inerrancy. A misplaced period isn't an error of the sort inerrancy addresses.

As for science, I just can't see how the Bible is interested in exacting out the science of how God did things. I certainly don't see the necessity of believing in 6 literal days of creation when the science of the universe suggests otherwise. I could be wrong but I'm not at all bothered by my lack of knowledge. Even if I was 100% correct on everything I believe to be true there is no way of me knowing for sure all of it. I'd have to be all-knowing and that's not to happen any time soon.

The actual story of the Bible is far more interesting, and does a lot more to show the integrity with which the people of God looked to their faith, and to the word which they heard and received. It probably will destroy modern day myths about the Bible, but that's a good thing. Because by tearing down our golden calves we can actually approach the Scriptures honestly, and allow the Scriptures to form and inform our faith meaningfully, as we engage the Scriptures within the context of being the Christian Church, sharing in a legacy of faith that stretches back not just to the Apostles, but back to Abraham.

If you have any books you recommend on these thoughts, send me a message. Sounds like an interesting thing to read up on.

-CryptoLutheran[/QUOTE]

 

[Hoghead1]

You are not providing a technical, neutral, objective exegesis of Scripture, KWCrazy. You are presenting Scripture as understood and interpreted by Christen fundamentalism. OK, fine. Nothing wrong with that. Christian fundamentalism is a traditional branch of Christianity. Only thing is, it is not the only Christian church or way of interpreting the Bible. There are other options that I and others want to explore here. Your post would be fine if you said something like, "I am a fundamentalist and as such here is my take on these matters." But you should stop right there. Instead you go way over the line. It appears you think yours is the one true church, so that you have the right to sit in judgment and ridicule, condemn, and denounce all fellow Christians who do not think the way you do. All that amount to is irrational intolerance and a lack of compassionate Christian charity. I am a theologian and one of the guys here you love to personally attack here. So I do not take you as an acceptable sparring partner worthy of serious consideration. You hate mail is easily written off by me as an occupational hazard when you are a progressive thinker in the church. However, it is rather irritating that you continually get away with braking the rules of this forum.

 

[PapaZoom]

I dont believe in interpreting NT scripture by observing the times it was written in. Thats just another way to interpret scripture to suit our own needs, and our own love for the world. The command of Christ is simple. Let the word of Christ dwell in us richly, share what we have, pray, be separate from the world and all its division through politics and other such things. Its really not that hard to understand. I believe our teachers are failing us because we live in the end times, and the love for this world has blinded us. I see this, and it grieves me deeply. I hate this stuff, im not sure why i even come here.

I'm not sure what you think I mean by my statement. It's a bit off topic but by what then do you interpret the NT scripture? The authors had a specific message to a specific audience and spoke in a language that was culturally relevant. What can possibly be wrong with trying to understand the author's intent?

It isn't that easy to understand either or there wouldn't be so much disagreement among believers.

The fact is, there has never been a time where Christians everywhere, except perhaps in the very beginning, believed in exactly the same way.

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't agree with your statement, Papazoom, that God's Word doesn't change. It is true there are many passages in the Bible that speak of God as immutable, but there are also about 100 others that do speak of God as changing. Many Christians miss these passages because they ar3e caught up in the traditional or classical Christian model of God as wholly immutable. But that model came largely from Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture.

 

[Hoghead1]

The fact of the matter is, Hier, the biblical cosmology does view the world as flat and also takes a geocentric view. There are probably around 70 biblical passages that speak of a flat earth. Why do you think Galileo had such trouble with the church?

 

[Hoghead1]

Try Gen. 6:6 and Hosea 11:9, Papa. Malachi 3:5-7 is a perfect example here. What it is claiming is that God enjoys a fixity of purpose and in that fixity does not vary. But rather than denying Change in God, such immutability insists upon change; for if we change in a certain direction, then God will also change to accommodate us. Also, if God cannot change, then I cannot see how God could utter a single sentence. Think of all the changes, tiny though they my be, that take place in you when you utter a sentence.

 

[PapaZoom]

I don't agree with your statement, Papazoom, that God's Word doesn't change. It is true there are many passages in the Bible that speak of God as immutable, but there are also about 100 others that do speak of God as changing. Many Christians miss these passages because they ar3e caught up in the traditional or classical Christian model of God as wholly immutable. But that model came largely from Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture.

You'd have to elaborate for me to fully understand where you're coming from here. Probably not here as it's a bit off topic. I suppose it boils down to what we both mean by God "changing." And also what we don't mean. :/

 

[Hoghead1]

I was responding to KW, Redleg. I put that right in the first sentence.

 

[KWCrazy]

You are not providing a technical, neutral, objective exegesis of Scripture, KWCrazy. You are presenting Scripture as understood and interpreted by Christen fundamentalism.

I am presenting Scripture as it is written. You have presented nothing to support your opinion but dogma. I care nothing about the pseudo-intellectual claims of the modern day Pharisees who teach contrary to the Scriptures. I have asked for Scriptural validation of your claims, and the fact that you cannot produce any gives credence to the notion that no such evidence exists. You can explore any "theological" discussion you choose, but when you come to a Christian website and misrepresent Biblical teaching that's called heresy. Your words are not better than the words of the Lord. No believer will take your opinions over His.

It appears you think yours is the one true church, so that you have the right to sit in judgment and ridicule, condemn, and denounce all fellow Christians who do not think the way you do.

Not true in the least. I haven't denounced you at all. However, I do take exception with your teaching a total rejection of Scriptures as the only educated, intelligent interpretation. Our God is not science, nor is it nature. Our God is the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth.

I am a theologian and one of the guys here you love to personally attack here. So I do not take you as an acceptable sparring partner worthy of serious consideration.

I reject your claim that you are a theologian. A theologian would have a sufficient understanding of the Scriptures to be able to validate their claims with a thorough explanation using the Bible and not the theology of man as a reference. In other words, if you can't validate what you say through the Scriptures then what you are teaching is false doctrine. That isn't hate mail. There is no hate and I haven't mailed you anything. Our only discussions have been here. You are the one making false claims. You are the one who says that much of the book of Genesis should be disregarded. You're the one subjugating the truths of the Word to the teaching of man. You made claims, I said prove it. You can't. If the truth was on your side, you could.

 

[Hoghead1]

No, it is right on topic, Papa. Probably the basic reason many Christians have trouble accepting evolution is that they assume God is immutable, does not change, and so neither does anything in the universe, most especially the species. So just where did the notion of a wholly immutable God come from? The incorporation of Hellenic metaphysics into the church. Why? The Bible is not a book of metaphysics, tells us very little about how God is built. All we have are snapshots which often seem to conflict. it is left to the reader to put all this tougher. So the early fathers looked to Hellenic philosophy here and were especially influenced by certain schools which viewed the world of time and change as evil, a big illusion. The divine, the "really real," was a wholly immaterial, simple, immutable realm of existence. So, in the major creeds and church fathers, God was described as wholly immutable and therefore said to be void of body, parts, passions, compassion. At the time of Darwin, the natural theology argued that God did not change and so was not about to change anything in creation and so the species could not change. Fundamentalists generally hold with this model of God.

 

[PapaZoom]

Try Gen. 6:6 and Hosea 11:9, Papa. Malachi 3:5-7 is a perfect example here. What it is claiming is that God enjoys a fixity of purpose and in that fixity does not vary. But rather than denying Change in God, such immutability insists upon change; for if we change in a certain direction, then God will also change to accommodate us. Also, if God cannot change, then I cannot see how God could utter a single sentence. Think of all the changes, tiny though they my be, that take place in you when you utter a sentence.

When I understand immutability, I understand it this way: http://www.gotquestions.org/immutability-God.html

 

[Hoghead1]

No, KW, you are definitely not presenting Scripture and just that alone. You are presenting Scripture as you interpret it via Christian fundamentalist understandings. You yourself are interpreting Scripture according to certain human-made ideas and traditions. The tradition one is in largely determines how you interpret and understand Scripture. I am an academician, I work out of the Christian intellectual tradition. Hence, I have a very different approach and understanding of Scripture than you have. You approach Scripture, with the idea firmly implanted in your mind that Scripture has to be an inerrant geophysical witness. You believe this dogma is unquestionable. However, in modern biblical studies, that is just about the worst way to go to Scripture. One should approach Scripture more open-minded. One should view Scripture through the lens provided by a healthy skepticism for tradition. Maybe Scripture is an inerrant scientific witness, maybe not. Let's check this out. Given that modern science seriously challenges the biblical cosmology, it would appear that Scripture is not an inerrant scientific witness. So the think to do is change interpretation of Scripture. In a number or posts, I have pointed out how it makes good sense that God never intended Scripture to be an accurate geophysical witness.
Also, you, your emails are insulting and disrespectful. For example, in this one, you tell me I'm not a theologian. Well, that's kinda of funny, you see, because I have a doctorate in theology, plus publications. So I viewed your remark as very disrespectful. I may not live up to your lay expectations as to what a theologian should be, but who says you really know anything about the academic world of theology and are therefore capable of judging me or any one else? I sure don't.

 

[PapaZoom]

No, it is right on topic, Papa. Probably the basic reason many Christians have trouble accepting evolution is that they assume God is immutable, does not change, and so neither does anything in the universe, most especially the species. So just where did the notion of a wholly immutable God come from? The incorporation of Hellenic metaphysics into the church. Why? The Bible is not a book of metaphysics, tells us very little about how God is built. All we have are snapshots which often seem to conflict. it is left to the reader to put all this tougher. So the early fathers looked to Hellenic philosophy here and were especially influenced by certain schools which viewed the world of time and change as evil, a big illusion. The divine, the "really real," was a wholly immaterial, simple, immutable realm of existence. So, in the major creeds and church fathers, God was described as wholly immutable and therefore said to be void of body, parts, passions, compassion. At the time of Darwin, the natural theology argued that God did not change and so was not about to change anything in creation and so the species could not change. Fundamentalists generally hold with this model of God.

I'm still with the idea that God never changes. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Eternally the same God. As for how it relates to evolution, I've never though of in the way you describe it. God clearly involves an "evolution" of sorts in all aspects of life. Bacteria can become resistant to an antibacterial and evolve into a resistant strain. But this isn't "changing" in the sense that it is only acting on the properties God gave it. Our own antibodies do the same thing. Species have changes within kind. A bird with a small beak and a bird with a large beak. Still a bird. I have no problems with these ideas because I've see them in action. But the kind of changes advocated by neo-Darwinism seems a stretch to me. There is much disagreement in the scientific community with respect to Neo-Darwinism. There's be more disagreement if it wasn't so costly for dissenting scientists. When someone says there is no controversy regarding evolution theory and called it an accepted fact, I cringe because I know that is not true. When I entered the teaching field nearly 30 years ago, I was told that even if it was know to be a false claim or a controversial claim in a textbook on evolution, I was to teach the curriculum. Even IF a scientific journal called into question that very claim! I was never to teach the current science from secular sources. I was ONLY to teach what they told me. Needless to say I didn't take that job. But the point is, such an attitude seems to permeate the scientific community. At least this has been true in my many years of experience.

 

[Hoghead1]

Papa, I would appreciate it if you would spell out how you understand immutability. I do not have the time or interest to go check out recommended web sites. Anyhow, I am not talking to them, I am talking to members here. I am using the term "immutability" as it is used in theology.

 

[Hoghead1]

That doesn't work, Papa. In the Bible, God is granted a deep emotional life, and so his emotional states are seen as continually changing. For example, his feelings about creation certainly underwent a drastic change, Gen. 6:6. His feelings about Israel certainly changed. Christ is God, and Christ obviously experienced changing emotional states, going from pleasure to displeasure, etc. Emotions are part of oneself, so when they change, yes, you change. So, putting al the pieces together form Scripture, God appears to be a living personality and therefore a synthesis of consistency and change.

 

[PapaZoom]

Papa, I would appreciate it if you would spell out how you understand immutability. I do not have the time or interest to go check out recommended web sites. Anyhow, I am not talking to them, I am talking to members here. I am using the term "immutability" as it is used in theology.

If something or someone changes, it changes from what it was, to something else. This is impossible with God. He is the same today as yesterday and as forever. Hebrews 13:8 (NIV) 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. What is true about God today, was true yesterday and is forever true. Unchangable. His nature doesn't change. He makes promises and keep them. Those promises don't change. God's purpose never changes. Everything works according to his perfect will. His holiness is unchanging. He cannot turn from the light to the dark. He is perfect in every way and this perfection never has changed. The God we worship today is exactly the same God, in all His fullness from eternity past.

Someone would have to show me from the Bible how these things are not true for me to even consider a changing nature of God. This is my view, and I think biblical, of God's immutability.