Why is thinking these so popular?

[gluadys]

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.

Except that for most TEs, it doesn't play out like this at all. After all, most TEs still firmly believe in the fall, in the incarnation, the atoning sacrifice of Christ, in the resurrection, in forgiveness of sins through Christ, in the return of Christ, in the judgment to come and the life of the world to come.

Very strange if the purpose of accepting evolution is to avoid responsibility for our sins and appease a guilty conscience.

It sounds like you have invented a wholly fictitious TE.

 

[Assyrian]

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.

Wow!

 

[vossler]

Except that for most TEs, it doesn't play out like this at all. After all, most TEs still firmly believe in the fall, in the incarnation, the atoning sacrifice of Christ, in the resurrection, in forgiveness of sins through Christ, in the return of Christ, in the judgment to come and the life of the world to come.

Very strange if the purpose of accepting evolution is to avoid responsibility for our sins and appease a guilty conscience.

It sounds like you have invented a wholly fictitious TE.

I can't speak for you or anyone specifically, all I can do is give you my observations. I know that almost 100% of the time when I speak to someone who claims to be a Christian and they believe in things like abortion, gay marriage, etc. they are evolutionists. You may see this as fictitious but it's in my face all the time. So yes, there are TEs who believe in the fall, in the incarnation, etc. but I would submit they cherry pick the doctrines they support and believe. It's my belief they do this so they won't have to confront their own sins. BTW, this clearly explains why TEs are all over the theological map of doctrinal beliefs.

 

[gluadys]

I can't speak for you or anyone specifically, all I can do is give you my observations. I know that almost 100% of the time when I speak to someone who claims to be a Christian and they believe in things like abortion, gay marriage, etc. they are evolutionists. You may see this as fictitious but it's in my face all the time. So yes, there are TEs who believe in the fall, in the incarnation, etc. but I would submit they cherry pick the doctrines they support and believe. It's my belief they do this so they won't have to confront their own sins. BTW, this clearly explains why TEs are all over the theological map of doctrinal beliefs.

I think you are confusing two different categories. Sin is a doctrinal issue. That Christ came to save sinners is a doctrinal issue.

But what is and is not a sin is not a doctrinal issue. When Peter and Paul wrote to the first Christians they considered it sinful for a slave to disobey or desert their master or to be slack in their work. Today we consider it sinful to own slaves.

The bible says virtually nothing about abortion so it is difficult to determine whether it was considered sinful or not or whether it should still be considered sinful. Christians can legitimately differ on whether there are any appropriate circumstances in which abortion is a morally responsible decision and still be agreed on the biblical doctrines relative to sin and redemption.

They can also legitimately disagree on the extent to which access to abortion should be dealt with legally in a religiously plural society and still be agreed on the biblical doctrines relative to sin and redemption.

Ditto on gay marriage.

Christians who disagree with you on these specifics are not avoiding responsibility for sin or seeking to excuse themselves. Just like you they recognize and confess their own sins and rely wholly on Christ for forgiveness. They only disagree on which actions are to be considered sinful.

They might be as frustrated with you (or people who adopt much the same theological stance as you) for not considering the sinfulness of engaging in war--especially on false pretexts, for not respecting the human rights of migrants--including illegals, for justifying the use of torture, for neglecting the challenge of climate change, or the fundamental sinfulness of capitalism. (You may not personally subscribe to all of these but I expect you know people who do--yet call themselves Christian).

They could charge such people--just as you do--with evading responsibility and seeking to excuse themselves. And the response would be the same --that it is not the doctrine that is in dispute, but whether or not these actions, or inactions, are actually sinful.

Finally, while I am not surprised that a Christian who accepts the validity of gay marriage or the necessity of choice around abortion is also likely to accept evolution, you need to note 1. that this is not always the case and 2. that the reverse is not the case--by a long shot. On this board, I expect that many TEs share your position on both abortion and gay marriage. Most Catholic TEs, for example, also oppose both abortion and gay marriage.

So your thin edge of the wedge scenario is still mostly unsubstantiated conjecture and speculation.

 

[vossler]

But what is and is not a sin is not a doctrinal issue. When Peter and Paul wrote to the first Christians they considered it sinful for a slave to disobey or desert their master or to be slack in their work. Today we consider it sinful to own slaves.

This is an extremely loaded subject that could easily derail this thread so I'll say one quick thing and leave it alone. What was considered slavery back in biblical times was very different than what we consider slavery today.

The bible says virtually nothing about abortion so it is difficult to determine whether it was considered sinful or not or whether it should still be considered sinful. Christians can legitimately differ on whether there are any appropriate circumstances in which abortion is a morally responsible decision and still be agreed on the biblical doctrines relative to sin and redemption.

It's statements such as these that almost immediately identify you as an evolutionist. Obviously there are non evolutionists who are Christians who support abortion but their percentage is small compared to those who don't.

They can also legitimately disagree on the extent to which access to abortion should be dealt with legally in a religiously plural society and still be agreed on the biblical doctrines relative to sin and redemption.

Ditto on gay marriage.

Here again we differ completely.

Christians who disagree with you on these specifics are not avoiding responsibility for sin or seeking to excuse themselves. Just like you they recognize and confess their own sins and rely wholly on Christ for forgiveness. They only disagree on which actions are to be considered sinful.

Once again I'm in total disagreement.

They might be as frustrated with you (or people who adopt much the same theological stance as you) for not considering the sinfulness of engaging in war--especially on false pretexts, for not respecting the human rights of migrants--including illegals, for justifying the use of torture, for neglecting the challenge of climate change, or the fundamental sinfulness of capitalism. (You may not personally subscribe to all of these but I expect you know people who do--yet call themselves Christian).

Whether they are or are not frustrated with me considering war, human rights, etc. these subjects have nothing to do with the point I raised.

They could charge such people--just as you do--with evading responsibility and seeking to excuse themselves. And the response would be the same --that it is not the doctrine that is in dispute, but whether or not these actions, or inactions, are actually sinful.

Of course if someone were to make a strong biblical case for their argument then they in fact have a strong charge. However, I rarely if ever hear evolutionists make any such charges based on sound biblical exegesis. It certainly would be welcome if they did.

Finally, while I am not surprised that a Christian who accepts the validity of gay marriage or the necessity of choice around abortion is also likely to accept evolution, you need to note 1. that this is not always the case and 2. that the reverse is not the case--by a long shot. On this board, I expect that many TEs share your position on both abortion and gay marriage. Most Catholic TEs, for example, also oppose both abortion and gay marriage.

Point one is noted and I agree, while point two may have some validity, especially considering the TE who is a Catholic, yet even then many, many Catholics stray from their own doctrines.

So your thin edge of the wedge scenario is still mostly unsubstantiated conjecture and speculation.

I readily admit that my views are based on conjecture and speculation, that's what observations typically are. Too bad evolutionists don't take the same stand.

 

[gluadys]

This is an extremely loaded subject that could easily derail this thread so I'll say one quick thing and leave it alone. What was considered slavery back in biblical times was very different than what we consider slavery today.

There are many different viewpoints today on what constitutes slavery too. Is child labour slavery? Is hiring illegal immigrants and overworking/ underpaying them because they don't dare protest slavery? Is the legal denial of union rights in export processing zones slavery?

Are you trying to excuse ancient slavery? And modern slavery such as the examples above along with it?

Is it only two debatable sins that count with you?

Whether they are or are not frustrated with me considering war, human rights, etc. these subjects have nothing to do with the point I raised.

It has everything to do with the point you raised. You said TE was a slippery slope toward twisting scripture to excuse one's own sin. But on the basis of their support for war, denial of human rights, torture, capitalism, etc. --when combined with a belief in creationism--I could just as easily say that creationism is a slippery slope toward twisting scripture to excuse one's own sin.

The charge cuts both ways.

Of course if someone were to make a strong biblical case for their argument then they in fact have a strong charge. However, I rarely if ever hear evolutionists make any such charges based on sound biblical exegesis. It certainly would be welcome if they did.

Again the charge cuts both ways. I have rarely if ever heard anyone make a case against abortion on sound biblical exegesis either.

Basically most people affirm their politics first and then interpret scripture to agree with it---and that applies just as much to the right as to the left.

I readily admit that my views are based on conjecture and speculation, that's what observations typically are. Too bad evolutionists don't take the same stand.

Actually they do. That is why they rely on tested and testable evidence.

 

[vossler]

There are many different viewpoints today on what constitutes slavery too. Is child labour slavery? Is hiring illegal immigrants and overworking/ underpaying them because they don't dare protest slavery? Is the legal denial of union rights in export processing zones slavery?

Are you trying to excuse ancient slavery? And modern slavery such as the examples above along with it?

Is it only two debatable sins that count with you?

The question was posed as to why people believe in evolution. My response was specifically to that question so I'm choosing not to derail this thread by now making it a discussion about what is or isn't slavery. However, I would gladly entertain such a discussion in an appropriate thread elsewhere.

It has everything to do with the point you raised. You said TE was a slippery slope toward twisting scripture to excuse one's own sin. But on the basis of their support for war, denial of human rights, torture, capitalism, etc. --when combined with a belief in creationism--I could just as easily say that creationism is a slippery slope toward twisting scripture to excuse one's own sin.

That's fine, you're more than welcome to do just that. It should be quite interesting.

Again the charge cuts both ways. I have rarely if ever heard anyone make a case against abortion on sound biblical exegesis either.

Here are just a few Scriptures that affirm life and the value God places on it.

Deuteronomy 30:19 This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life...

Job 10:8-12 Your hands fashioned and made me, and now you have destroyed me altogether. Remember that you have made me like clay; and will you return me to the dust? Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese? You clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews. You have granted me life and steadfast love, and your care has preserved my spirit.

Job 31:15 Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?

Psalm 95:6 Come, let us bow down in worship, let us kneel before the Lord our Maker.

Psalm 100:3 Know that the Lord is God. It is He who made us, and we are his; we are His people, the sheep of His pasture.

Psalm 119:73 Your hands made me and formed me; give me understanding to learn your commands.

Psalm 139:13-16 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body.

Isaiah 44:2 This is what the Lord says — He who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you...

Isaiah 44:24 This is what the Lord says — your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: "I am the Lord, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself..."

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.

Many evolutionists will read those Scriptures and twist them to say whatever it is they would like them to say but one thing is perfectly clear. God values life! This cannot be denied no matter how much one chooses to distort His Word.

Please provide an exegetical response that supports the sin of abortion.

Basically most people affirm their politics first and then interpret scripture to agree with it---and that applies just as much to the right as to the left.

I don't disagree.

 

[gluadys]

The question was posed as to why people believe in evolution. My response was specifically to that question so I'm choosing not to derail this thread by now making it a discussion about what is or isn't slavery. However, I would gladly entertain such a discussion in an appropriate thread elsewhere.

I am not really interested. The point is that identifying specific actions or inactions as sin is not really a doctrinal issue; the doctrinal issue is how sin is dealt with, and on this matter Christian TEs affirm orthodox Christian doctrine in the atoning sacrifice of Christ and the power of his resurrection.

That's fine, you're more than welcome to do just that. It should be quite interesting.

And you would defend your actions, or inactions, as justified, in the same way as those who support choice and gay marriage do. Yet it takes more twisting of scripture to defend injustice than to defend a choice to end a pregnancy.

Here are just a few Scriptures that affirm life and the value God places on it.

But that is not the issue. The issue is how do we affirm and value specific lives in specific situations. Right beside this valuation of life, scripture also provides the death penalty for many situations (including homosexual intercourse) where we no longer do so. Yet it does not include abortion among any list of sins nor prescribe the death penalty for it.

And most condemnations of sin in Israel--by far--are condemnations of the pursuit of wealth at the expense of the vulnerable. A just distribution of a society's economic resources is an important aspect of affirming and valuing life. How can one say that one has respect for life while allowing thousands of citizens to go homeless and hungry?

Many evolutionists will read those Scriptures and twist them to say whatever it is they would like them to say but one thing is perfectly clear. God values life! This cannot be denied no matter how much one chooses to distort His Word.

Not at all. We can affirm all these scriptures without qualification.

Please provide an exegetical response that supports the sin of abortion.

Scripture nowhere supports sin; but neither does it define abortion as sin. That is your exegetical dilemma. You have to twist scripture to make it denounce abortion.

I don't disagree.

Yet you do not define your right-wing political agenda as twisting scripture. Only the political agenda of those you disagree with.

 

[Melethiel]

I can't speak for you or anyone specifically, all I can do is give you my observations. I know that almost 100% of the time when I speak to someone who claims to be a Christian and they believe in things like abortion, gay marriage, etc. they are evolutionists. You may see this as fictitious but it's in my face all the time. So yes, there are TEs who believe in the fall, in the incarnation, etc. but I would submit they cherry pick the doctrines they support and believe. It's my belief they do this so they won't have to confront their own sins. BTW, this clearly explains why TEs are all over the theological map of doctrinal beliefs.

As are creationists; there are creationists who are Catholic and Lutheran, evangelical, and even cults or other religions. So why does it surprise you that TEs are doctrinally all over the map?

You have to determine which set is larger. Certainly, many of those who are proponents of abortion and gay marriage also accept evolution. It does NOT logically follow that the converse is true. I, for example, am extremely conservative, and yet I accept TE.

 

[vossler]

And you would defend your actions, or inactions, as justified, in the same way as those who support choice and gay marriage do. Yet it takes more twisting of scripture to defend injustice than to defend a choice to end a pregnancy.

Hardly, my method of supporting or defending a view is based, as much as possible, on God's Word. If Scripture supports a position then it becomes my position and I do that without the need twist or distort it by justifying personal sins I wish to minimize. Those who support abortion and same sex marriage have no scriptural support for their positions.

But that is not the issue. The issue is how do we affirm and value specific lives in specific situations.

For those who don't value life above death or inconvenience yes the issue is how to apply their needs to their personal situation. No where that I know does Scripture ever treat life as situational.

Right beside this valuation of life, scripture also provides the death penalty for many situations (including homosexual intercourse) where we no longer do so. Yet it does not include abortion among any list of sins nor prescribe the death penalty for it.

If you wish to believe that abortion isn't a sin there is nothing I or anyone else can say to cause you to think otherwise. It would be a waste of my time. Again, my point was to demonstrate how evolution allows such a discussion to be considered rational and even productive.

And most condemnations of sin in Israel--by far--are condemnations of the pursuit of wealth at the expense of the vulnerable. A just distribution of a society's economic resources is an important aspect of affirming and valuing life. How can one say that one has respect for life while allowing thousands of citizens to go homeless and hungry?

This is the typical diversionary tactic of those who wish to divert attention from a simple and straight-forward subject and cloud it with another less simple topic.

Not at all. We can affirm all these scriptures without qualification.

That sounds great, you affirm all those scriptures. It's a little like saying I have faith in Jesus but when asked to trust Him I don't. The bottom line isn't whether you or other abortion believing folks affirm scripture, the question is do your actions affirm scripture?

Scripture nowhere supports sin; but neither does it define abortion as sin. That is your exegetical dilemma. You have to twist scripture to make it denounce abortion.

I see no such dilemma. The Scriptures I cited clearly support life not death. Abortion is, plain and simple, death or more specifically murder. For you or anyone else to claim otherwise is, at best, disingenuous.

Yet you do not define your right-wing political agenda as twisting scripture. Only the political agenda of those you disagree with.

This has nothing to do with right or left wing agendas and has everything to do with the Word of God.

 

[vossler]

I, for example, am extremely conservative, and yet I accept TE.

If you are honest you would also admit that this is a rarity.

 

[Melethiel]

If you are honest you would also admit that this is a rarity.

I don't think so.

I personally know several other people; I doubt we're the only ones. Just the fact that we exist, I think, disproves your idea that evolution is somehow the cause of liberalism. Liberalism and materialism, and twisting Scriptures to suit one's own wishes, existed long before the theory of evolution came on the scene. If you are honest, you'll admit that.

 

[vossler]

I don't think so.

I personally know several other people; I doubt we're the only ones. Just the fact that we exist, I think, disproves your idea that evolution is somehow the cause of liberalism. Liberalism and materialism, and twisting Scriptures to suit one's own wishes, existed long before the theory of evolution came on the scene. If you are honest, you'll admit that.

Of course liberalism and materialism existed well before evolution came onto the scene. I've never made the claim that evolution is the cause of liberalism. My point is that evolution makes it much easier to be a liberal.

 

[gluadys]

Hardly, my method of supporting or defending a view is based, as much as possible, on God's Word.

So you claim. Yet coincidentally, "God's Word" according to Vossler happens to agree with Vossler's social and political conservatism.

I on the other hand am politically socialist and when I read scripture I find ample scriptural support for socialism. Another convenience.

But what right have you to say I am the one twisting scripture? Jesus had something to say about removing the log in one's own eye first.

If Scripture supports a position then it becomes my position

So you tell yourself. But I expect there is a lot of confirmation bias in your discovery of scriptural support for your position. And a lot of reading between the lines.

Those who support abortion and same sex marriage have no scriptural support for their positions.

I for one, do not support abortion. But I would add that those who call abortion and same sex marriage sin also have no scriptural support for their position.

If you wish to believe that abortion isn't a sin

You are the one who demands a good scriptural exegesis. Find me any list of sins or sinners in scripture that includes abortion/procuring an abortion. Find me any law that prohibits abortion.

Again, my point was to demonstrate how evolution allows such a discussion to be considered rational and even productive.

Evolution is beside the point. It says nothing about abortion one way or the other. Plenty of people who accept evolution agree with you on abortion. I don't, but that has more to do with my socially oriented theology than with science.

This is the typical diversionary tactic of those who wish to divert attention from a simple and straight-forward subject and cloud it with another less simple topic.

Of course you want to label it as diversionsry. You don't find it comfortable or convenient to listen to what scripture is saying when it is your sins that it is speaking of. There is only one verse in scripture that mentions abortion, and that is in the context of a spontaneous abortion precipitated in the course of a fight. There are only a handful of texts about homosexual intercourse, and they are of dubious application to same-sex marriage.

But there are thousands of texts about the importance of social justice, the fair treatment of aliens, of workers, of the poor--especially women and children. It is a fair and simple statement that the primary social concern of God revealed in scripture is social justice. But scripturally and socially, abortion is far from a simple, straight-forward matter, and it can only be made to seem so by ignoring the whole social context that scripture says you ought to be paying attention to.

So who is really being diversionary? People who choose to heed the most important commands God gives us in relation to justice, mercy and faith---or those who ignore all that and pat themselves on the back for condemning something scripture never condemns?

Call this "twisting scripture" if you like, but show me the biblical exegesis this accusation is based on.

I don't think any of this has anything to do with evolution, but if by some odd chance it is evolution that makes me concerned with what Jesus called the weightier matters (justice, mercy, truth, compassion, a fair sharing of goods) then you can credit evolution with making me a biblical Christian.

Personally, I would give more credit to great teachers like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu and J.S. Woodsworth. I don't know that any of them ever said anything about evolution. But they all had a lot to say about the bible.

Abortion is, plain and simple, death or more specifically murder.

Then why does scripture not treat it as murder and set out the same penalty?

This has nothing to do with right or left wing agendas and has everything to do with the Word of God.

It also has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution doesn't have comments on politics. It doesn't tell us we should obey or disobey God, that we should study or reject scripture, that we should or should not allow abortion or same-sex marriage, that we should or should not go to war, use drugs, get tough on crime or climate change, support public schooling, universal medicare, livable wages or any other pet issue of left or right. That is why people of all political stripes and all doctrinal stances can accept or reject evolution. That is why TEs and creationists, (as Melethiel pointed out) are both all over the doctrinal map.

 

[hedrick]

I can't speak for you or anyone specifically, all I can do is give you my observations. I know that almost 100% of the time when I speak to someone who claims to be a Christian and they believe in things like abortion, gay marriage, etc. they are evolutionists. You may see this as fictitious but it's in my face all the time. So yes, there are TEs who believe in the fall, in the incarnation, etc. but I would submit they cherry pick the doctrines they support and believe. It's my belief they do this so they won't have to confront their own sins. BTW, this clearly explains why TEs are all over the theological map of doctrinal beliefs.

The first half of this is correct. It's not surprising. It's pretty clear that anyone who doesn't have a strong ideological commitment is likely to accept evolution, so I'd expect any Christians who take a non-fundamentalist view of Scripture would be TE. And you'd have to be a non-fundamentalist to accept either abortion or gay marriage. However I believe that the reverse is not true. I think more people accept TE than gay marriage. (The reason is that there are arguments for evolution that are consistent with a fairly literal reading of Scripture. I don't think that's the case for gay marriage.)

What you haven't shown is that they are doing this to avoid confronting their sin. This is classic ad hominem, dismissing the people personally so you don't have to consider the possibility that faithful Christians might disagree with your approach to Scripture.

 

[vossler]

So you claim. Yet coincidentally, "God's Word" according to Vossler happens to agree with Vossler's social and political conservatism.

No, whatever social and political conservatism you see happens to agree with God's Word.

I on the other hand am politically socialist and when I read scripture I find ample scriptural support for socialism. Another convenience.

No doubt you believe this.

But what right have you to say I am the one twisting scripture? Jesus had something to say about removing the log in one's own eye first.

We can't both be right.

So you tell yourself. But I expect there is a lot of confirmation bias in your discovery of scriptural support for your position. And a lot of reading between the lines.

More like a lot of listening to the Holy Spirit.

I for one, do not support abortion. But I would add that those who call abortion and same sex marriage sin also have no scriptural support for their position.

One could easily say that the Bible has nothing to say about torture but does that mean we should do it?

You are the one who demands a good scriptural exegesis. Find me any list of sins or sinners in scripture that includes abortion/procuring an abortion. Find me any law that prohibits abortion.

This is easy for you to say because abortion itself isn't mentioned, however there is an equivalent, murder. Abortion is premeditated murder of another human being and the Bible has a lot to say about that.

You don't find it comfortable or convenient to listen to what scripture is saying when it is your sins that it is speaking of.

No one that I know of is comfortable hearing their sins being called out in Scripture; I'm certainly not above that. However, I do desire that people point out my sins because I don't want to live in ignorance of them. I tell my family and friends that all the time. My prayer is that I am humble enough to hear them without being too defensive. Am I always, no, but that is my goal.

But there are thousands of texts about the importance of social justice, the fair treatment of aliens, of workers, of the poor--especially women and children. It is a fair and simple statement that the primary social concern of God revealed in scripture is social justice. But scripturally and socially, abortion is far from a simple, straight-forward matter, and it can only be made to seem so by ignoring the whole social context that scripture says you ought to be paying attention to.

Yet the importance of what you mentioned isn't in dispute, abortion and same sex marriage is.

So who is really being diversionary? People who choose to heed the most important commands God gives us in relation to justice, mercy and faith---or those who ignore all that and pat themselves on the back for condemning something scripture never condemns?

Condemning murder is patting myself on the back?

Call this "twisting scripture" if you like, but show me the biblical exegesis this accusation is based on.

I've already done so, you just didn't appreciate it.

I don't think any of this has anything to do with evolution, but if by some odd chance it is evolution that makes me concerned with what Jesus called the weightier matters (justice, mercy, truth, compassion, a fair sharing of goods) then you can credit evolution with making me a biblical Christian.

So evolution has made you a biblical Christian, I'm not surprised to hear that.

Then why does scripture not treat it as murder and set out the same penalty?

So does Scripture have to list every type of murder before it can be considered murder?

It also has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution doesn't have comments on politics. It doesn't tell us we should obey or disobey God, that we should study or reject scripture, that we should or should not allow abortion or same-sex marriage, that we should or should not go to war, use drugs, get tough on crime or climate change, support public schooling, universal medicare, livable wages or any other pet issue of left or right. That is why people of all political stripes and all doctrinal stances can accept or reject evolution. That is why TEs and creationists, (as Melethiel pointed out) are both all over the doctrinal map.

True, evolution by itself doesn't do those things. It does however make it easier.

 

[vossler]

The first half of this is correct. It's not surprising. It's pretty clear that anyone who doesn't have a strong ideological commitment is likely to accept evolution, so I'd expect any Christians who take a non-fundamentalist view of Scripture would be TE. And you'd have to be a non-fundamentalist to accept either abortion or gay marriage. However I believe that the reverse is not true. I think more people accept TE than gay marriage. (The reason is that there are arguments for evolution that are consistent with a fairly literal reading of Scripture. I don't think that's the case for gay marriage.)

What you haven't shown is that they are doing this to avoid confronting their sin. This is classic ad hominem, dismissing the people personally so you don't have to consider the possibility that faithful Christians might disagree with your approach to Scripture.

You are right, I haven't shown that. Remember I did say my views were based on conjecture and speculation. BTW, I think this would be extremely difficult to do because no one, certainly not me, knows the heart of the individuals who believe what they do. As far as the possibility of faithful Christians disagreeing with my approach to Scripture, well let me just say I know many, many faithful Christians with which I disagree or even have a different approach to Scripture with. However those differences don't lie in basic doctrines.

 

[hedrick]

I'm not sure I'd necessarily disagree on basic doctrine either. There's a lot of misunderstanding of the difference between liberal and conservative Christians. The folks in my church (PCUSA) mostly agree with our conservative friends on what i'd call basic doctrines. The disagreement is over maybe a half dozen hot-button issues, where so-called "literal" interpretation gives different results. Remember I (and I think most other members of the "mainline") think the Bible tells us what God has done, and those are the basis of our faith. So differences are really in whether some things in Genesis happened literally, and whether we can come to different answers than Paul did (somehow it's always Paul) on a couple of things (homosexuality, and depending upon how conservative you are, the role of women; conservatives now agree with us on slavery, although they didn't 150 years ago). Anyone who thinks that our approach to homosexuality is a basic Christian doctrine has a very different idea about Christianity than I do.

 

[gluadys]

No, whatever social and political conservatism you see happens to agree with God's Word.

How very convenient! Now Tommy Douglas (Baptist minister and founder of our (formerly) socialist party) used to say that you can start from any page of the Bible and support socialism.

We can't both be right.

But we can both be wrong. It is really a form of idolatry to identify God's will with any political stance. It is not far from saying "My politics agree with God's Word" to such institutions as the Inquisition. There's a quote I can't remember exactly at the moment the gist of which is that men cheerfully practice the cruelest atrocities when they are convinced it is God's will. We see that in the dictatorships of both the left and the right.

One could easily say that the Bible has nothing to say about torture but does that mean we should do it?

Ask the right-wingers in your government who are justifying the torture in Guantanamo. Or sending people like Maher Arar off to Syria and other places where they know torture is practiced. Christians of many generations took it for granted that torture was a necessary part of the legal system.

Apparently you disagree with them, and on this point I agree with you. But let's be clear that biblical silence on this point has been influential in a justification of torture that has been accepted--and still is--by many Christians.

This is easy for you to say because abortion itself isn't mentioned, however there is an equivalent, murder.

That is the point to be established. The bible does not suggest that abortion is murder or equivalent to murder. The bible prescribes the death penalty for murder, adultery, blasphemy and a number of other sins, but never for abortion. If it really was thought of as murder, there would be case law in the bible for it.

The only legal penalty in scripture relating to the death of a fetus is when--through the action of another--a spontaneous (therefore unplanned and unwanted) abortion is induced. There is no word at all against a planned abortion.

No one that I know of is comfortable hearing their sins being called out in Scripture; I'm certainly not above that. However, I do desire that people point out my sins because I don't want to live in ignorance of them.

I would hope for more than that. I would hope for more than knowledge, but also for repentance and a change of life pattern.

Yet the importance of what you mentioned isn't in dispute, abortion and same sex marriage is.

Then why is justice so rare, the church so silent about it, and even--in some cases--opposed to measures that would produce a more just society? If life is so important, why is there so much opposition to providing all children with the basic necessities of life once they are born?

The prophets focused on justice not only because it was important, but because that is where society most often fails. It is always easy to raise a hue and cry of hate against witches or gays or illegal immigrants. It is never easy, and always controversial, to promote justice.

Condemning murder is patting myself on the back?

Again you assume what has not been established. And you also forget what James told us: if you offend in one point of the law, you have offended. You cannot take credit for not murdering if at the same time you steal. You cannot take credit for a strong stance against abortion if at the same time you vote for tax reductions instead of day care.

So evolution has made you a biblical Christian, I'm not surprised to hear that.

That is what you said. I said it had nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with good theological teaching.

So does Scripture have to list every type of murder before it can be considered murder?

Yes. Unless one holds strictly to "thou shalt not kill" no matter what the circumstances. As long as there is a distinction drawn between killing and murder, the line of distinction must be set out. This is especially so when one makes a crusade against one type of killing. It must be clear that this is indeed murder.

Consider another case. The biblical injunction on adultery prescribes capital punishment. In some parts of the world "honour killings" of women are still considered acceptable. In biblical times to kill an adulterer was not murder. But today we are shocked when the Taliban applies that standard and consider the executions of women for adultery to be judicial murder.

So, yes, it is important--if one is claiming biblical support--that the bible identify abortion as murder. And it does not.

True, evolution by itself doesn't do those things. It does however make it easier.

Make what easier? Did you actually read that last paragraph? So now we have you on record as agreeing that evolution makes it easier to oppose abortion, go to war, get tough on crime, ignore climate change, oppose universal medicare, dismantle public schools, etc.

 

[gluadys]

Anyone who thinks that our approach to homosexuality is a basic Christian doctrine has a very different idea about Christianity than I do.

I think that is a key statement. To me, "basic doctrine" is what is set out in the great ecumenical creeds. We can agree on these while holding very different points of view on capital punishment, the legitimacy of war, and same-sex marriage.

Taking one side on these issues and holding it up as "basic Christian doctrine" diverts attention from the real core of Christian faith and sets up a wall of hostility where there should be respectful discussion.

And that is what we see on the question of evolution too. Most TEs do not see evolution as a matter affecting basic Christian doctrine. They are able to accept evolution and also accept the core doctrines of creation, sin and redemption. But those opposing evolution treat it as if it were a basic doctrine--and a heresy. That requires a very different view of Christianity.