Elliminating Unnecessary Obstacles

[TheBear]

I am what is considered to be a Theistic Evolutionist. I am a Bible believing Christian, and would like to take this opportunity to address those Agnostics or Atheists, who may unknowingly use the "creation vs evolution" arguments, as an obsticle to knowing Jesus Christ. For me, there is no "creation vs evolution" argument. For me, it is creation through an evolutionary process. And, I think that all arguments along the 'creation vs evolution' lines, are nothing more than a distraction, to the more important issue of salvation.


John

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by TheBear
I am what is considered to be a Theistic Evolutionist. I am a Bible believing Christian, and would like to take this opportunity to address those Agnostics or Atheists, who may unknowingly use the "creation vs evolution" arguments, as an obsticle to knowing Jesus Christ. For me, there is no "creation vs evolution" argument. For me, it is creation through an evolutionary process. And, I think that all arguments along the 'creation vs evolution' lines, are nothing more than a distraction, to the more important issue of salvation.

Seconded. I think it's a sad thing when people are driven from Christianity, not because any part of Christ's teachings is unacceptable to them, but simply because they can't accept every last story in the Bible as literal truth. I don't think it's *about* literal truth, it's about morals and God, and the rest is adapted to fit.

 

[BigJon]

#1 Evolution is a distraction, its a trick of the devil himself to draw people's attention away from the power of God to create such a world

#2 You called your self a Christian, read the tail end of Acts 11:26 ".....And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." People called the disciples, they didnt call themselves as such, It should be easy for others to ID you as a Christian and you shouldnt have to say "I am" Others should be able to see it.

 

[Blackhawk]

"#1 Evolution is a distraction, its a trick of the devil himself to draw people's attention away from the power of God to create such a world "

Possibly but you do not know that for a fact. I think that the many arguments are teh real distraction not the theory by itself.

"#2 You called your self a Christian, read the tail end of Acts 11:26 ".....And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." People called the disciples, they didnt call themselves as such, It should be easy for others to ID you as a Christian and you shouldnt have to say "I am" Others should ba able to see it."

okay I will say that theBear is a Christian. also I will say that Louis is and Seebs is. I do not agree with everything all of them say but we agree on enough and I see the fruit of the spirit in their lives. And I see their love. Which John said is how we will know that people are Christians.

blackhawk

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by BigJon
#1 Evolution is a distraction, its a trick of the devil himself to draw people's attention away from the power of God to create such a world

#2 You called your self a Christian, read the tail end of Acts 11:26 ".....And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." People called the disciples, they didnt call themselves as such, It should be easy for others to ID you as a Christian and you shouldnt have to say "I am" Others should be able to see it.

I don't understand what you are saying, Jon. I think you may have missed the point of my post. Please elaborate on your point.


Thank you,
John

 

[jon1101]

#1 Evolution is a distraction, its a trick of the devil himself to draw people's attention away from the power of God to create such a world

Really? Satan inspired the idea of evolution? I wouldn't mind hearing your support for this statement. . . either way, creation/evolution should not be an issue keeping someone from Christ. Personally, I think that both sides make some decent points, but it certainly isn't clear that the Bible contradicts evolution, nor that evolution is a flawed theory.

You called your self a Christian, read the tail end of Acts 11:26 ".....And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." People called the disciples, they didnt call themselves as such, It should be easy for others to ID you as a Christian and you shouldnt have to say "I am" Others should be able to see it.

I concurr with Blackhawk on this one. Seebs and TheBear are neat guys, and I don't think that their calling themselves Christians in any way conflicts with the Bible.

-jon

 

[RufusAtticus]

BigJon,

I refer you to Forum rule #6 for who qualifies as a Christian on this board.

 

[chickenman]

the biggest obstacle isn't even the argument over creation/evolution, its some of the people who do the arguing, like big_jon

 

[mac_philo]

I suppose this issue really depends on the ends justifying the means. People who have the opinion that evolution and Xtianity are incompatible only care about the ends--reject the fact that evidence contradicts the bible in order to have a more pure 'faith.'

Well, the question is, is the atmosphere created by this type of thinking going to attract more followers, or repel more followers? It is going to repel many rational people, though it will attract many people who take comfort in absolutist thinking. I don't know which way the numbers add up, though I believe you repel more than you attract. The type of people you're repelling may have been amenable to the faith otherwise; the people you're attracting would probably be attracted no matter how the religion they were socialized into viewed evolution.

I don't see any conflict between christianity, but many people grow up in communities where it is just second nature to equate evolution with disbelief. In those communities, you're going to repel a lot of rational would-be believers.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
BigJon,

I refer you to Forum rule #6 for who qualifies as a Christian on this board.

I think that's for purposes of board rules - and I've had at least one post deleted from a "Christians only" board apparently on the grounds that I don't qualify, although I'm pretty sure I accept the Nicene Creed. (I have a hard time being sure sometimes, because the words I grew up with were derived from the Apostle's Creed, but it's clearly close enough.)

Note also that I'm pretty sure preterists qualify, although they reject at least one part of most creeds.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by mac_philo
I suppose this issue really depends on the ends justifying the means. People who have the opinion that evolution and Xtianity are incompatible only care about the ends--reject the fact that evidence contradicts the bible in order to have a more pure 'faith.'

I don't think that's quite fair. Like all of us (at least when we're being good people), they believe it because they think it's true. Since the source of the belief is faith, they'd see someone else who didn't believe in it as lacking faith.

This happens in non-faith disciplines as well; often, when a proof is complicated, it's a while before the mathematical community accepts it; during this point, people on each side think the people on the other side are "less rational".

Well, the question is, is the atmosphere created by this type of thinking going to attract more followers, or repel more followers?

While I find myself almost agreeing... No. Believing something because it makes people happy doesn't go. The argument, singular, for belief in young-earth creation is that it's a literal reading of the Bible. The arguments for considering evolution compatible with Christian teachings have *nothing* to do with who will, or won't, accept them; they have to do with the sheer weight of scientific evidence, and with the belief that the Bible is sometimes allegorical.

I don't see any conflict between christianity

You omitted the "... and evolution" here, and the resulting statement is much less plausible. You can't be reading the same forums I am if you don't see any conflict between Christianity.

 

[mac_philo]

I typed 'and evolution,' I don't know why it disappeared.

I don't really agree with your 'good faith' diagnosis. I think that church leadership, or at least intelligent Christians, let their vocal, young-earth peers get away with murder, for the sole reason that they think the ends justify the means. Consider what happens on this forum--there are a very few Christians who defend evolution, and a miniscule number of christians who point out the dishonest tacticts of (some) creationists. Why? I don't think this is in good faith, if by that you mean truth-preserving. The sane majority of Christians allow christian creationists to spread absurd propaganda. There has to be a reason for this, and since they are letting christians get away with spreading falsehoods, the only conclusion I can make is that this is ends-justify-means reasoning. If there's another answer, please let me know what it is!

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by mac_philo
I typed 'and evolution,' I don't know why it disappeared.

I don't really agree with your 'good faith' diagnosis. I think that church leadership, or at least intelligent Christians, let their vocal, young-earth peers get away with murder, for the sole reason that they think the ends justify the means. Consider what happens on this forum--there are a very few Christians who defend evolution, and a miniscule number of christians who point out the dishonest tacticts of (some) creationists. Why? I don't think this is in good faith, if by that you mean truth-preserving. The sane majority of Christians allow christian creationists to spread absurd propaganda. There has to be a reason for this, and since they are letting christians get away with spreading falsehoods, the only conclusion I can make is that this is ends-justify-means reasoning. If there's another answer, please let me know what it is!

Well, to start, I have to willfully equivocate; Paul often says that the three Christian virtues are Faith, Hope, and Charity (sometimes translated Love), and that the greatest of these is Charity. With that in mind, I will therefore apply the principle of charity to the debate.

I think one of the main issues here is that, frankly, for probably 90% of the population, evolution is not something they have the qualifications to understand or not understand. I know that I don't really have the background to subject it to the kinds of rigorous testing I would use on a belief about a claimed theory in *my* fields... and I know that I know more about biology than a lot of people.

So... It seems reasonable to me that many people (most!) simply don't have the qualifications to accurately judge the claims and counterclaims made by "creation scientists" and "evolution scientists". Like many scientific theories, evolution is a bit counterintuitive. Don't think science is counterintuitive? Go to a museum that has a vacuum tube with a feather and a steel ball in it. You drop them; the ball falls faster. You pump out the air... they fall at the same rate!

That simple experiment produces looks of *shock* on the viewers, because every experience they've had has taught them that dense things fall faster.

Described as "bacteria evolved into humans", evolution sounds absolutely crazy... Until you understand the process.

You saw the debate about Kent Hovind's ever-growing "thesis", right? Most people probably don't know exactly what a thesis is, or why it's laughable to claim that you've "updated" it, and that's now "your thesis".

So... I assume that most of these people are not biologists or academics, and I see no lack of good faith. Indeed, I've been very impressed by the openness some people have shown towards the possibility that their basic beliefs about the structure of the world may be incorrect.

Tell the truth: How many people do *you* know who would cope well if you told them that the world was much younger (or older) than they thought it was?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by TheBear
I am what is considered to be a Theistic Evolutionist.

Do you believe that the Bible is God's word? How do you deal with Romans 5?

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin

For the benefit of others who don't know the Bible, the "one man" the author is referring to is Adam.

So is this symbolism? Or did sin really enter the world through one man? If it is symbolic, then what's the symbolism here?

If it is literal, then are you saying God directed evolution so that man evolved from the most primitive form of life, and then at some arbitrary time, he whipped up this one guy from dust? Given that God created Adam from dust, was there a reason why God evolved the other men (and women)?

Or perhaps Adam was simply a man in a long chain of evolution? If that's true, then how do you explain the need for a savior? Doesn't it violate the character of God as expressed in the Bible that he would evolve us into sinful creatures? Or were we innocent up to a point -- say, up to some particular neanderthal we now call "Adam" -- and after that point man became sinful?

Perhaps the most important question is this: Are you not trembling at man's word instead of God's word?

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by npetreley

Do you believe that the Bible is God's word? How do you deal with Romans 5?

Sounds like metaphysical death to me.

To is this symbolism? Or did sin really enter the world through one man? If it is symbolic, then what's the symbolism here?

I suspect Paul may have believed it to be literal, because he didn't have telescopes or radiometric dating.

Or perhaps Adam was simply a man in a long chain of evolution? If that's true, then how do you explain the need for a savior? Doesn't it violate the character of God as expressed in the Bible that he would evolve us into sinful creatures? Or were we innocent up to a point -- say, up to some particular neanderthal we now call "Adam" -- and after that point man became sinful?

I don't think he "evolved us" into sinful creatures any more than I think he "set us up" to become sinful.

Perhaps the most important question is this: Are you not trembling at man's word instead of God's word?

I see no trembling here. God speaks about morality and spirituality. The Bible is *not* a science textbook.

 

[TheBear]

First of all, welcome to Christian Forums, npetreley. I hope you have an enjoyable and fulfilling time here.


Next, I have addressed a lot of your issues, starting HERE, and continuing throughout that thread.


John

 

[npetreley]

Sounds like metaphysical death to me.

I'm not asking about the death part, I'm asking about the "one man" part.

I don't think he "evolved us" into sinful creatures any more than I think he "set us up" to become sinful.

Then how did sin enter the world?

 

[npetreley]

First of all, welcome to Christian Forums, npetreley.

Thanks! Greetings to all.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by npetreley

I'm not asking about the death part, I'm asking about the "one man" part.

I think Paul was referring to the story of Adam. When referring to an allegory, using the same words is permissible, even if it's not exactly literal.

Then how did sin enter the world?

I don't really know. I see it as an inevitable corollary of free will.

 

[npetreley]

Next, I have addressed a lot of your issues, starting HERE, and continuing throughout that thread.

I think you misunderstood my issues. I'm not discussing physical death, which is what that whole thread seems to be centered on.