Why is thinking these so popular?

[metherion]

One thing that I tend to see in a lot of anti-evolutionist questions or reasonings in some way shape or form is:

People believe in evolution just so they won't be accountable to God.
and/or
People believe in evolution just because they can't conceive of a loving Creator.

Examples like : Why do people turn to evolution? Are they unable to conceive of a loving Creator? Why do you believe in evolution, do you just not want to be held accountable at the end of days? If we discredit evolution enough, people will remember they are accountable to the One who created them. Etc etc etc.



Now, I'm curious as to why this line of reasoning is so popular? Where did they come from? A lot of evolutionists are theistic and thus contradict those two statements by their very existence, and I've never seen evolution given as the sole reason someone doesn't believe in God, or the truth of the Bible, etc.

Metherion

 

[juvenissun]

One thing that I tend to see in a lot of anti-evolutionist questions or reasonings in some way shape or form is:

People believe in evolution just so they won't be accountable to God.
and/or
People believe in evolution just because they can't conceive of a loving Creator.

Examples like : Why do people turn to evolution? Are they unable to conceive of a loving Creator? Why do you believe in evolution, do you just not want to be held accountable at the end of days? If we discredit evolution enough, people will remember they are accountable to the One who created them. Etc etc etc.



Now, I'm curious as to why this line of reasoning is so popular? Where did they come from? A lot of evolutionists are theistic and thus contradict those two statements by their very existence, and I've never seen evolution given as the sole reason someone doesn't believe in God, or the truth of the Bible, etc.

Metherion

The bottom line of evolution is to survive (anything goes). So the goal is wrong to begin with.

Or, if you like to argue: A principle of evolution is having no goal (anything goes). That is wrong too.

Or, the process of evolution has no right or wrong (anything goes). And that is wrong.

So it is wrong anyway you look at it.

 

[The Barbarian]

The bottom line of evolution is to survive (anything goes). So the goal is wrong to begin with.

Or, if you like to argue: A principle of evolution is having no goal (anything goes). That is wrong too.

Or, the process of evolution has no right or wrong (anything goes). And that is wrong.

So it is wrong anyway you look at it.

The fallacy in your reasoning is supposing that scientists hold up nature as an ethical standard. I'm not trying to be insulting here, but it appears that you really believed that.

If I'm wrong, I apologize.

 

[philadiddle]

The bottom line of evolution is to survive (anything goes). So the goal is wrong to begin with.

Or, if you like to argue: A principle of evolution is having no goal (anything goes). That is wrong too.

Or, the process of evolution has no right or wrong (anything goes). And that is wrong.

So it is wrong anyway you look at it.

No, it's not "anything goes". Social species need to have a code of "ethics" they live by in order to survive. Piranhas don't eat each other, they get along, they can't just do anything. Primates care for their young, they can't just do anything. People need to get along to at least a reasonable degree, which includes not murdering, raping etc. Evolution has never promoted an "anything goes" philosophy.

And we observe "survival of the fittest" all around us in nature. Why do people deny this?

 

[herev]

Now, I'm curious as to why this line of reasoning is so popular? Where did they come from? A lot of evolutionists are theistic and thus contradict those two statements by their very existence, and I've never seen evolution given as the sole reason someone doesn't believe in God, or the truth of the Bible, etc.

Metherion

the answer is simple. Some people get so caught up in their own theology that they believe anyone who disagrees with them MUST disagree with God. So, in this case, someone who takes Genesis 1 and 2 literally genuinely believes that someone who does not MUST not really believe in God. They simply are not open minded enough to conceive of someone holding vastly differing views and still believing in the same God, thus they look at themselves and the one who disagrees with them and say, "one of us must not be a believer and I know it's not me."

 

[Smidlee]

One thing that I tend to see in a lot of anti-evolutionist questions or reasonings in some way shape or form is:

People believe in evolution just so they won't be accountable to God.
and/or
People believe in evolution just because they can't conceive of a loving Creator.

These are general statements so of course it does not apply to everyone. It's safe to say "smoking is bad for your health" even though there are many smokers without any health problems.

 

[juvenissun]

the answer is simple. Some people get so caught up in their own theology that they believe anyone who disagrees with them MUST disagree with God. So, in this case, someone who takes Genesis 1 and 2 literally genuinely believes that someone who does not MUST not really believe in God. They simply are not open minded enough to conceive of someone holding vastly differing views and still believing in the same God, thus they look at themselves and the one who disagrees with them and say, "one of us must not be a believer and I know it's not me."

You make it too simple. It is not just black or white. There are a shades of gray in between. In addition, without comparison, many would take light grays as white.

Open mind means to know variations and possibilities. Jesus tells us to have a "pure mind". This teaching is politically very wrong today.

 

[herev]

You make it too simple. It is not just black or white. There are a shades of gray in between. In addition, without comparison, many would take light grays as white.

interesting. I am actually a proponent of many gray areas in interpreting scripture, so I am not sure what you are saying. The question was (I thought) why do people adhere to such thoughts as saying when someone believes in evolution, they are somehow dismissing God (my translation of the question)--something I've heard for years in this very forum. My answer is that when someone doesn't see anything but black and white, they come to this conclusion. Now your response is that I am too black and white? Interesting.

Open mind means to know variations and possibilities. Jesus tells us to have a "pure mind". This teaching is politically very wrong today.

what teaching is politically wrong? the open mind or the "to have a pure mind?" I am confused by your response to me on this, or perhaps you were attributing the part you highlighted as my own thoughts rather than what I propose to be the thoughts of those who think this way? Help me understand

 

[juvenissun]

interesting. I am actually a proponent of many gray areas in interpreting scripture, so I am not sure what you are saying. The question was (I thought) why do people adhere to such thoughts as saying when someone believes in evolution, they are somehow dismissing God (my translation of the question)--something I've heard for years in this very forum. My answer is that when someone doesn't see anything but black and white, they come to this conclusion. Now your response is that I am too black and white? Interesting.
what teaching is politically wrong? the open mind or the "to have a pure mind?" I am confused by your response to me on this, or perhaps you were attributing the part you highlighted as my own thoughts rather than what I propose to be the thoughts of those who think this way? Help me understand

My response had a few turns in it. Sorry to lose you.

We should have a pure heart (see things as black/white). So we should NOT consider all shades of gray as acceptable alternatives. Bush administration was more toward black/white. Obama administration is totally gray. Creation is totally black/white. But evolution is completely gray.

 

[philadiddle]

My response had a few turns in it. Sorry to lose you.

So you've found someone else who can't keep up with your superior intellect!!! This seems to happen a lot around here. People don't understand what you are trying to say, and we all know it couldn't be because you aren't very clear about what u are saying...

We should have a pure heart (see things as black/white). So we should NOT consider all shades of gray as acceptable alternatives. Bush administration was more toward black/white. Obama administration is totally gray. Creation is totally black/white. But evolution is completely gray.

Yes this was much clearer, thanks for laying it all out for us....

 

[juvenissun]

So you've found someone else who can't keep up with your superior intellect!!! This seems to happen a lot around here. People don't understand what you are trying to say, and we all know it couldn't be because you aren't very clear about what u are saying...

Yes this was much clearer, thanks for laying it all out for us....

I like your new logo. Does it mean the cross is the end of evolution?

 

[philadiddle]

I like your new logo. Does it mean the cross is the end of evolution?

The cross was certainly a part of the plan for this universe, and evolution was one of the tools God used to make it come about.

 

[herev]

My response had a few turns in it. Sorry to lose you.

We should have a pure heart (see things as black/white). So we should NOT consider all shades of gray as acceptable alternatives. Bush administration was more toward black/white. Obama administration is totally gray. Creation is totally black/white. But evolution is completely gray.

interesting. I have a pure heart for Jesus (as much as that is possible this side of heaven). as to the rest:
After as many years studying and as much education as I've had on Biblical Studies, Exegesis, hermeneutics, etc., and as many years teaching and preaching as I've had----I think you are right. It is quite clear that the creation stories in Genesis MUST be taken as figurative myths. There is NO GRAY there. There is NO ROOM for gray.
Now, before reading your post, I thought it was ok for some folks to take it as literal, but you must be right. Serious study (contextual analysis, historical analysis, literary analysis, source criticism, textual analysis) indicates there is but one way to understand it. It is the culmination of years of oral tradition passed down from mouth to mouth in a time when there was no knowledge of Biology (among other sciences). These storeis are timeless tales that contain the truth of God's love for us as our Creator, but they were NEVER intended to be taken as factual. There are too many inconsistencies in those two little chapters to base an entire movement and belief system around and divide the church. You are right, no more gray. We must all accept the truth that God wrote into the geological record. I'm glad you cleared that up and helped me see things the way they are.
What on earth does this have to do with Bush and Obama?
(and I find it odd that someone who insists on no gray areas would use such a brazen symbol of far eastern religions like yin and yang--not very black and white of you to allow such a pagan symbol on every post--someone might the idea you were open minded--be careful!)

Seriously, forgive me. I had to have a bit of fun.
I appreciate what you are saying, but the Bible is simply NOT black and white in many places--and where it is--you should be suspicious.)
Blessings

 

[AnswersInHovind]

You make it too simple. It is not just black or white. There are a shades of gray in between. In addition, without comparison, many would take light grays as white.

Open mind means to know variations and possibilities. Jesus tells us to have a "pure mind". This teaching is politically very wrong today.

I agree. You either believe the Bible is true, or you don't. None of this, "i believe some parts are and some (like genesis 1) aren't."

If you don't believe the whole Bible is true, you fall into a grey area, and you might as well be black in that case.

Revelation 3:16 "So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth."

 

[Assyrian]

Speaking of Revelation, do you believe in a literal seven headed leopard-lion-bear-beast?

Are you lukewarm if you don't believe the seven headed beast is true, or that Jesus really is a vine and a door for sheep? Or is it possible to believe the bible is true, but not always literal?

 

[herev]

I agree. You either believe the Bible is true, or you don't. None of this, "i believe some parts are and some (like genesis 1) aren't."

If you don't believe the whole Bible is true, you fall into a grey area, and you might as well be black in that case.

Revelation 3:16 "So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth."

who said I don't believe the whole bible is true?
I don't believe all the bible is FACT, neither do you--stop being so pompous--you just believe different parts are non factual than I. I am not now, nor have I ever been in my 32 years as a Christian--"lukewarm"

 

[shernren]

Speaking of Revelation, do you believe in a literal seven headed leopard-lion-bear-beast?

Are you lukewarm if you don't believe the seven headed beast is true, or that Jesus really is a vine and a door for sheep? Or is it possible to believe the bible is true, but not always literal?

While we're at it, I've never met a Christian who wasn't lukewarm.

The ones who went through either fever or hypothermia for too long didn't come out too well at the end.

 

[metherion]

I just want to say I'm sorry I kinda stopped paying attention. Unless I'm hallucinating, there was a great almost 8 page long thread going an 7.5 pages got wiped out when it went down, and coming back with a great reply post copied and ready to be pasted and having nothing to respond to kind took the wind from my sails.

Metherion

 

[juvenissun]

I just want to say I'm sorry I kinda stopped paying attention. Unless I'm hallucinating, there was a great almost 8 page long thread going an 7.5 pages got wiped out when it went down, and coming back with a great reply post copied and ready to be pasted and having nothing to respond to kind took the wind from my sails.

Metherion

Sorry for that.
Start another one and see if it would stick.

 

[vossler]

One thing that I tend to see in a lot of anti-evolutionist questions or reasonings in some way shape or form is:

People believe in evolution just so they won't be accountable to God.
and/or
People believe in evolution just because they can't conceive of a loving Creator.

Examples like : Why do people turn to evolution? Are they unable to conceive of a loving Creator? Why do you believe in evolution, do you just not want to be held accountable at the end of days? If we discredit evolution enough, people will remember they are accountable to the One who created them. Etc etc etc.

Now, I'm curious as to why this line of reasoning is so popular? Where did they come from? A lot of evolutionists are theistic and thus contradict those two statements by their very existence, and I've never seen evolution given as the sole reason someone doesn't believe in God, or the truth of the Bible, etc.

Metherion

You really make it more complicated than it is. Simply put, I believe TEs and non-believers (I will limit my comments to TEs) support evolution because it gives them the ability to believe whatever it is they wish instead of being held accountable to God and His Word.

For the TE, here's how it plays out. If I am able to take the plain meaning of Scripture in something as simple as the creation story and twist it to say something entirely different then the door has been thrown open to take other truths of God's Word and manipulate them as well, all in an effort to cover our personal sins. Remember, sin is something many of us wish to sweep away and pretend didn't exist because if held accountable we would then be held responsible for changing our behavior and we all know how popular change is, especially any change that requires an effort that could be painful. Why change when you can simply justify your sin by twisting Scripture to accommodate it? When we can appease our guilty conscience by twisting Scripture to state that which is sin to be good, well then we can do just about anything.

So yeah, it makes perfect sense why many Christians believe in evolution.