Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[Smidlee]

There are many ways to falsify macroevolution. Find a fossilized rabbit in Cambrian rock formations, for starters.

We know that it wouldn't convince Darwinist because the fossil record has always been evidence againest miraclevolution. Gould tried his best to explain away the obvious contradicting evidence againest evolution in the fossil records. His PE only convince those who were already believers.

 

[gluadys]

So, since we know the form Jesus took wasn't God, but His Spirit was, then image must be something other than the spirit in these verses.

I would be a bit careful with this line of thought. It suggests a pretence of incarnation in that it suggests that Jesus' non-physical being was not human. i.e. that Jesus had only the physical form of a human, and not a fully human nature.

I don't think you actually mean that in Jesus, God was play-acting at being human. But the language here is tending in that direction.

It seems we tend to just cut off the physical completely, which can be used to justify our evil acts as something not of us, spiritually. That would be incorrect. For sin starts in the mind and is carried out in the physical. So too are acts of good.

Didn't Paul say something along this line? (Romans 7:20). But with a different implication--not to justify sin, but to show that we are slaves to sin. Yes, sin starts in the mind, as Jesus confirmed, and also James. And good as well, for good deeds and attitudes are fruits of the Spirit, as Paul says.

Science, too, has discovered more and more, that in humans at least, the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual cannot be divided. These are more labels of convenience than a true division of the structure of human nature.

That is why I like the notion that we do not have souls, we are souls. And "soul" comprises both spirit and body. Genesis 2:7

 

[gluadys]

He didn't take on our human nature, He took on human form. Our human nature is to sin, He did not sin. Our human nature is to war against God, He did not war against God.

Our human nature, as it was created, did not include the propensity to sin or to war against God. Jesus took on human nature as it was created i.e. without sin, not fallen human nature. That is why Paul calls him the second Adam. Jesus is our model of what we were meant to be had we not fallen into sin.

Christ never gave up anything other than His right to be Lord over all mankind while on earth.

Paul says that what he gave up was his right to be equal to God. Philippians 2:6

It saddens me that many people want to reduce Jesus to a demigod, instead of the Almighty God. He demostrated who He was, He wasn't void of who He is, and He gave up His right to be Lord over all to save us. And now, even Christians want to subject Him to being less than who He is.

I don't think that affirming the reality and fullness of Christ's incarnation reduces him to a demi-god. It is a key Christian doctrine that in Christ God really did become human, not just take on the appearance of a human. Yet he also remained very God of very God.

As you no doubt know, this was not an easy doctrine for the Church to define. It took the early Church five centuries to nail down the details. There were all sorts of ideas that the Church rejected one by one, such as that the Spirit of Christ "adopted" the human body of Jesus at his baptism, suppressing the human spirit of a natural man, Jesus of Nazareth, until just before his death. Or that Christ had one nature at a time, God in heaven, human on earth. Or that he was human in the flesh only and God in spirit, like the manifestations of the pagan gods who sometimes appeared on earth in human form.

All of these were eventually rejected as heresy in favour of the Chalcedonian forumula that he was both fully God and fully man. Yet often when a Christian affirms that he was indeed fully man, that is treated as if it were a denial or diminution of his divinity. One might just as well say that affirming his divinity is a denial or diminution of his humanity.

Unless we have reason to assume otherwise, let's just take affirmations of Jesus' humanity or divinity as falling within the framework of the doctrine of the incarnation and not as a denial of whichever aspect of his dual nature is not mentioned.

 

[stumpjumper]

Of course, none of this potentially falsifying evidence has turned up yet. Nevertheless, we do know what it takes to falsify macroevolution.

Yes, very true. I was looking at it more from an amount of evidence perspective. I remember Stephen Jay Gould talking about the rabbit scenario but funny no rabbit or even anything else has turned up in the wrong place

 

[Critias]

I would be a bit careful with this line of thought. It suggests a pretence of incarnation in that it suggests that Jesus' non-physical being was not human. i.e. that Jesus had only the physical form of a human, and not a fully human nature.

Careful? To admit that Jesus was God? Ok...

Human nature is to sin, was Jesus sinful?

I don't think you actually mean that in Jesus, God was play-acting at being human. But the language here is tending in that direction.

In a way God was play acting. He is not a lowly man of status, He is God Almighty. But, for our sakes, He took this status of a lowly man to redeem us.

Didn't Paul say something along this line? (Romans 7:20). But with a different implication--not to justify sin, but to show that we are slaves to sin. Yes, sin starts in the mind, as Jesus confirmed, and also James. And good as well, for good deeds and attitudes are fruits of the Spirit, as Paul says.

Science, too, has discovered more and more, that in humans at least, the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual cannot be divided. These are more labels of convenience than a true division of the structure of human nature.

That is why I like the notion that we do not have souls, we are souls. And "soul" comprises both spirit and body. Genesis 2:7

Ecclesiastes 12:7

"Then shall the dust [out of which God made man's body] return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God Who gave it."

 

[gluadys]

Ecclesiastes 12:7

"Then shall the dust [out of which God made man's body] return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God Who gave it."

Exactly. No mention of the soul. The creation of spirit-body unity is the creation of the soul, and the dissolution of the spirit-body unity is the dissolution of the soul until body and spirit are re-united in the resurrection.

That is how I have heard it expounded.

 

[Critias]

Our human nature, as it was created, did not include the propensity to sin or to war against God. Jesus took on human nature as it was created i.e. without sin, not fallen human nature. That is why Paul calls him the second Adam. Jesus is our model of what we were meant to be had we not fallen into sin.

But, Adam and Eve had the choice to sin. I know you don't believe there ever was an Adam or Eve. So, are we born sinless?

Paul says that what he gave up was his right to be equal to God. Philippians 2:6

Why is it that not 1 TE has been able to understand this verse? It is as if the English language is too hard to understand or something. Point to where the verse says Jesus gave up equality with God.

Philippians 2:5-8
"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion [size=-1][/size]as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

First off, do you understand what the text in orange is saying? He thought it not robbery to be equal with God. How is this saying He gave up equality with God? That is verse 6.

But, Jesus made Himself of no reputation. Do you know what this means?

Do you know what it means to take the form of a servant?

Do you know what it means to be in the likeness of men?

Do you know what it means to humble Himself?

This is the verse you chose to support your belief, where does it say Jesus gave up His right to be equal to God?

I don't think that affirming the reality and fullness of Christ's incarnation reduces him to a demi-god. It is a key Christian doctrine that in Christ God really did become human, not just take on the appearance of a human. Yet he also remained very God of very God.

He did become human. If He was exactly like us, then He couldn't do what He came to do. He had to be the second Adam, not like us. You are arguing to reduce Jesus to being just like us, and He wasn't. He experienced what we do, but He wasn't exactly like us.

Jesus was made in the likeness of man, He lived like a man; He experienced troubles, hardships and pain, like man, but He was greater than any man. Yet, He made Himself a man of no reputation, a lowly man of status.

As you no doubt know, this was not an easy doctrine for the Church to define. It took the early Church five centuries to nail down the details. There were all sorts of ideas that the Church rejected one by one, such as that the Spirit of Christ "adopted" the human body of Jesus at his baptism, suppressing the human spirit of a natural man, Jesus of Nazareth, until just before his death. Or that Christ had one nature at a time, God in heaven, human on earth. Or that he was human in the flesh only and God in spirit, like the manifestations of the pagan gods who sometimes appeared on earth in human form.

All of these were eventually rejected as heresy in favour of the Chalcedonian forumula that he was both fully God and fully man. Yet often when a Christian affirms that he was indeed fully man, that is treated as if it were a denial or diminution of his divinity. One might just as well say that affirming his divinity is a denial or diminution of his humanity.

Unless we have reason to assume otherwise, let's just take affirmations of Jesus' humanity or divinity as falling within the framework of the doctrine of the incarnation and not as a denial of whichever aspect of his dual nature is not mentioned.

His nature is mentioned often by St. Paul. St. Paul stated Jesus embodied the Godhead completely. Not partially, but fully and completely.

With your assertion that He was only half-god, you are arguing against St. Paul and all NT writers.

I remember a thread where you agreed with another that (Vance I believe) that Jesus could have been born of man, Mary being either raped or slept with Joseph. Thus affirming Jesus was born in sin. I, however, do not take this approach to show my Lord and Savior being sinful, only a half-god, not equal to Himself, less than what He truly is.

My Lord contained the Godhead fully and completely and made Himself of no reputation to redeem those give to the wooing of the Holy Spirit to bring them unto Jesus to believe, serve, obey and following.

 

[artybloke]

It is written the same as the rest of genesis

No it's not, it's far more formal in its use of language, of refrain and of cadence, than chapter 2 & 3, for instance. Which reads more like a fable (even down to the talking snake, and the anthropomorphic God waliking round his garden like a king round his domain.)

Besides which, as I personally think the whole of Genesis is "metaphorical", it wouldn't make much difference even if it was written in the same style

 

[QuantumFlux]

I remember a thread where you agreed with another that (Vance I believe) that Jesus could have been born of man, Mary being either raped or slept with Joseph. Thus affirming Jesus was born in sin. I, however, do not take this approach to show my Lord and Savior being sinful, only a half-god, not equal to Himself, less than what He truly is.

this is why you cant use scipture to argue with TE's because whatever doesn't fit in their frame of their own theology is myth or symbolism, poetic or metaphoric. Either way, it just leaves the door open to believe whatever they want and you can't argue with it.

 

[theFijian]

I remember a thread where you agreed with another that (Vance I believe) that Jesus could have been born of man, Mary being either raped or slept with Joseph. Thus affirming Jesus was born in sin. I, however, do not take this approach to show my Lord and Savior being sinful, only a half-god, not equal to Himself, less than what He truly is.

I never saw this thread, please supply a link to support what you're accusing people of.

 

[QuantumFlux]

No it's not, it's far more formal in its use of language, of refrain and of cadence, than chapter 2 & 3, for instance. Which reads more like a fable (even down to the talking snake, and the anthropomorphic God waliking round his garden like a king round his domain.)

What? Yeah, I guess it is metaphoric, and every instance of God speaking to someone is metaphoric as well. God didn't really decend on Abrahams tent like a cloud. Nor did he decend on Jesus like a Dove. A talking snake doesn't make it a fable because you think it couldn't have happened. In order for it to be considered different from the rest of Genesis, there has to be a break in format or a line making it shown to be different. It's not any different than the rest of Genesis.

If you wish to consider the whole thing myth, thats fine, but you're pushing the boundaries of what Jesus obviously accepted as authoritative.

It's obvious from his views he expressed that Jesus was a creationist. It showed in the view of marriage he speaks of in Mark 10:6. I seriously doubt he would have said God created them male and female since the beginning of creation, if he did not believe such a thing happened. Creation is a noun there, btw, His wording is very important to note, he is not speaking of the begining of the creation of man, he is speaking of the begining of all creation.

 

[artybloke]

What? Yeah, I guess it is metaphoric, and every instance of God speaking to someone is metaphoric as well.

Absolutely! There's no way you can encompass a divine viewpoint except through metaphor, analogy, indirection, poetry or whatever. God is not really like the local satrap taking a stroll through his garden to see what his gardeners are doing, the Holy spirit is not literally a dove (oh look! I've found a feather of the Holy Spirit!) All religious language is metaphorical: just because something is metaphorical, though, doesn't mean it isn't refering to something real. Except what reality it is refering to isn't pin downable to a materialist definition of reality; God is both like a Father, and not like any father who has ever lived. We can't do anything other than see God through our own limited vision: "through a glass darkly" as Paul so poetically put it (and in those days, glass wasn't clear.)

And calling something a "myth" is not calling it untrue, unless all poets, fiction writers and playwrights are liars.

Jesus was no more a creationist than he was a Marxist: that's what's known as an anachronism. Creationism is no more than a modern reaction to science. It didn't exist in Jesus' time. Jesus knew no more about science than anyone else (anything else - by the way - is Arianism: the idea that Jesus wasn't fully human.) Except of course, he did believe that God his Father created everything. As I do, incidentally.

And I'm sorry you can't see the difference in style between Chapter 1 and Cahpter 2; to me it's as obvious as can be, even in English.

 

[QuantumFlux]

And calling something a "myth" is not calling it untrue, unless all poets, fiction writers and playwrights are liars

in essence, they are. They tell lies to entertain, even Jesus said don't be like the hypocrites (or very literally, the actors). However, they are not lies to deceive since we know that they are entertainment. When you add that quality to genesis however, it is deceiving because there is no disclaimer that says that this is only myth or fiction, or a poet. It is written as if that is what took place. In this case, were it a poem or a myth, it would be deceiving.

Jesus knew no more about science than anyone else (anything else - by the way - is Arianism: the idea that Jesus wasn't fully human.)

Are you telling me that Jesus was only guessing that he was the messiah? Jesus obviously knew quite a bit more than any other man, either that or he just had a keen sense of quick wit when dealing with the pharisees. Having knowledge doesnt make him any less human. That's like saying he couldn't have done miracles because he was just a man.

Jesus always spoke the truth, He in fact is truth itself. If "science" says something contradictory to what Jesus said, then there are two choices, Jesus did not speak the truth, or the "science" is wrong.

 

[stumpjumper]

in essence, they are. They tell lies to entertain, even Jesus said don't be like the hypocrites (or very literally, the actors). However, they are not lies to deceive since we know that they are entertainment.

Perhaps you should tell that to Jesus and to Webster.

Here is Webster's definition of myth:

Webster Online:
myth:
Pronunciation: 'mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : [size=-1]PARABLE[/size]

Note that a parable can be used as a synonym of myth. Do you think that Jesus was deceiving people for entertainment?

 

[QuantumFlux]

Perhaps you should tell that to Jesus and to Webster.

I'm sure one day I will consider Webster as scripture, but it's not today.

However, using your own definition, look at 1B, a parable. Every instance of a parable is said to be so and was never tried to be passed off as true events. You have no evidence that Genesis is saying anything but true events, other than you're belief that it is to weird to be true. If you had something in or around scripture that gave any hint that it was to be taken as a myth, i would accept it. Genesis does not give hints to that fact, nor did any of the hebrews of the time take it as such, so if this "myth" is trying to be passed off as plain truth (which context says it is) then it is deceiving.

 

[stumpjumper]

I'm sure one day I will consider Webster as scripture, but it's not today.

It certainly helps to look up the definitions of words if you want to have a meaningfull discussion.

However, using your own definition, look at 1B, a parable. Every instance of a parable is said to be so and was never tried to be passed off as true events. You have no evidence that Genesis is saying anything but true events, other than you're belief that it is to weird to be true. If you had something in or around scripture that gave any hint that it was to be taken as a myth, i would accept it. Genesis does not give hints to that fact, nor did any of the hebrews of the time take it as such, so if this "myth" is trying to be passed off as plain truth (which context says it is) then it is deceiving.

Well nearly all of the teachings about the Kingdom of Heaven come from parables, yet I am quite sure you think Jesus' allegories about heaven describe an actual place or state of mind.

Have you interviewed the Jewish population of two thousand years ago?

Are you aware that there were and are many different ways of looking at scripture? The pharisees, sadducees, and essenes all had different understandings of scripture all of which included allegorical interpretations of many parts and acceptance of an oral torah for some. Do a search for Philo and his "On Allegory" and see what he has to say.

 

[Critias]

I never saw this thread, please supply a link to support what you're accusing people of.

I would, if CF had not deleted it.

 

[Smidlee]

I remember Stephen Jay Gould talking about the rabbit scenario but funny no rabbit or even anything else has turned up in the wrong place

Actually there is something found out of place. Almost all (95%) insects showed up 100 millions before plants/ flowers. Insects shows no sign of evolution since they are found in the fossils. Poor insects had to wait millions of year for plants to appear.

 

[gluadys]

Actually there is something found out of place. Almost all (95%) insects showed up 100 millions before plants/ flowers. Insects shows no sign of evolution since they are found in the fossils. Poor insects had to wait millions of year for plants to appear.

This is incorrect. Plants show up before insects. Insects show up millions of years before plants with flowers. But plants that do not bear flowers are older than insects. So insects did not have to wait for plants to appear.

 

[Smidlee]

This is incorrect. Plants show up before insects. Insects show up millions of years before plants with flowers. But plants that do not bear flowers are older than insects. So insects did not have to wait for plants to appear.

Flower plants which I was referring to ; should have made it more clear. Yet many insects are linked and design for flowers. This is an example of creatures out of place in the fossil record.. of course this is going to falsified darwinists since it's become a dogma. Even if a rabbit is found in pre-Cambrian Darwinists still will tried to explain it away with their imagination just as they have done since Darwin.