Questions for people who say Christians can't accept evolution

October 28, 2009

Jesus return can be seen as not a literal return -

The problem is that the Bible speaks of the return of Jesus in NOTHING but literal terms. For example, when Jesus was ascended into heaven, the angels told the disciples how Jesus would return:

And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (Act 1:9-11)

The angels told the disciples that Jesus would return in the same manner they saw Him go into heaven. Jesus ascended bodily into heaven, and the angels promised that Jesus would return the same way. There is no room for any alternate renderings. There is no way around it, other than to decide that one simply rejects what the Bible says. EVERY other reference to the return of Christ is always rendered in a literal fashion. To declare Jesus' return as nonliteral is to reject the plain meaning of the tex.

there is much historical evidence to support that much of revelation was written to the people of that time period-
question- are you Jehovah's witness?

No, I am not, but this has nothing to do with the JWs.

Your personal interpretation is the furthest away
from the authors intent based on historical context and higher criticism.

Higher Criticism is a joke and most of it is based on secular, not genuine Christian scholarship. Higher Criticism is predicated on the assumption that the Bible is of human origin and based on human tradition. It rejects the Divine inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. If you are relying on Higher Criticism, you are depending on a less than accurate and certainly nonChristian approach to the Bible.

The problem with assuming that Jesus' return somehow "metaphorically" occurred in the first century (which seems to be what you are suggesting) is that if Jesus has returned that would mean we have entered the Messianic/Millennial/New Heavens and New Eart reign of Christ back some 2000 years ago.

If we are in the Messianic reign of Christ on earth NOW, then the world should be getting better, not worse. The reign of Christ on earth, according to the Bible will be marked by the eradication of sin. The Bible puts it this way:

And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

(Rev 21:3-5)

If this is the eternal reign of Christ on the earth, it is the greatest failure in the history of the world.

The fact that the world is getting progressively worse indicates that we have NOT experienced what John describes above, indicates that Jesus has not returned in any fashion as of yet, and it is still something we are waiting on in the future.

I have noticed something about you CS Lewis. You reject what the Bible says at the first and now you reject what the Bible says at the end. So if you think the creation account (the foundation of redemption

October 28, 2009

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Oct 27 2009, 11:48 AM)
The return of Jesus is a major part of Christian doctrine and since it is fulfillment of salvation, it falls as a tenant of it.

Yes, the return of Christ is a major part of Christian doctrine but that's not what we're talking about. I'm speaking specifically of your contention that "looking for" the return of Christ is necessary for salvation which it most certainly is not. There is a difference, subtle though it may be.

I didn't say it was necessary for salvation. You seem bent on assigning things to me I did not say. The return of Jesus is not a tenant of how get saved, but it is still part of salvation in that it is the consummation of the promise of salvation. The doctrine of salvation and the tenants therein, encompass a broader range of topics than just how a person gets saved. Again, YOU the one who is deficient in the doctrinal area.

QUOTE
You do not demonstrate any knowledge of genuine doctrinal knowledge thus far. Frankly, all you have been doing is teaming up with atheists to tear down the Christian faith.

I make no qualms about tearing down ridiculously contradictory interpretations of scripture that necessarily paint God into a corner as a liar. Christians should not be afraid of evidence.

The irony is that it is people like you paint God as a liar and the Bible as untrue. Frankly, people like you are not threat to genuine Christianity. You have nothing to offer that we are afraid of. Rejecting your Evolution myth is not equivalent to being afraid of it.

QUOTE
When people hold to views that challenge the teachings of Scripture, they should be challenged.

The ToS of the website explicitly state that you, as a member, should not be questioning the faith of other members. I don't think it's too much to ask that you respect that.

The problem is that there is a major disconnect between claiming to be a Christian, but constantly tearing down the Bible and painting Christianity as a naive and backward ideology, which is done even by people who "profess" to be Christians. This is not a matter of claiming someone is not a Christian because they don't agree with me, but rather, it is a matter of the fruit they produce. They say one thing but do another. That needs to be challenged.

QUOTE
No one is taking anything on to salvation.
Good, I guess that means that one doesn't need to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis to be saved then.

No, but how you approach Genesis will reveal a lot about the authenticity of your profession of faith. Real Christians believe the Bible as it intends to be understood.

QUOTE
You miss the point. No one said that salvation hangs on a literal interpretation of Genesis or that such is a prerequisite for salvation. Rather it is how one approaches the Word of God that reveals what is really in their heart. Works don't save us, rather they demonstrate the inward salvation that has taken place or has not taken place.

Spiritual fluff. I've heard enough sermons to know when people are just using theological buzzwords and catch phrases to dance around making a concrete statement. Salvation is through faith in Christ, it has nothing at all to do with how you interpret the method by which God created the universe. If a Congolese pygmy picked up a copy of the NT, read it, and became a Christian and went on to live their entire lives without reading anything else about how God created the earth they would still be a Christian.

Still missing the point. When a person tears down the Bible at every point, when the Bible never means what it says, when the Bible is relegated to a bunch manmade, embellished stories, it is hard for such a person to then demand that they are a genuine Christian. Christianity is predicated on the Bible as absolute truth. To challenge the accuracy and integrity of Scripture is by proxy a challenge to God's integrity. If God could not get Genesis 1 right, then how would anyone have any faith in what follows since everything else is builds on the foundation laid in Genesis??

QUOTE
Saying "I am Christian" but then claiming to reject what the Bible claims, presents a major disconnect. I have elucidated on that disconnect multiple times.

I guess that means that the sun goes around the earth then, after all, that's what the Bible claims.

No, what the Bible does is speak in observational terms. Even today, we still refer to "sitting on the beach and watching the sunset." Meteoroligists still calculate the exact time for "sunrise" and "sunset" and print them in local newspapers. That type of observational language is still widely in use today, but it does not mean that we are geocentric. It is just how how things appear to us from our vantage point. The Bible is not anti-science, but rather it is "pre-science." The Bible makes no genuine geocentric claims.

CSLewis · October 29, 2009

The problem is that the Bible speaks of the return of Jesus in NOTHING but literal terms.

So you believe there is a seven headed red dragon floating around in space?

CSLewis · October 29, 2009

"I have noticed something about you CS Lewis. You reject what the Bible says at the first and now you reject what the Bible says at the end. So if you think the creation account (the foundation of redemption

MorningGlory · October 29, 2009

"I have noticed something about you CS Lewis. You reject what the Bible says at the first and now you reject what the Bible says at the end. So if you think the creation account (the foundation of redemption's plan) is nonliteral, and you think the return of Jesus (the consummation of redemption's plan) is nonliteral, what makes you think redemption itself should be seen as literal??"

which part of redemption?

CS, this post looks like you're answering YOURSELF! Please use the quote thing....will you? Like this....

CSLewis · October 29, 2009

I have no problem with antinomy within redemption.

(spell corrector on the iPhone is annoying.)

Fraught · October 29, 2009

i would venture to go as far as to say that one wouldn't even be christian if they weren't looking for the return to the unity with God.

And your venture would be an epic failure, "looking for the return" is not a tenant of salvation.

whoa. i definitely recommend you go back and re-read the parable of the ten virgins. here's an excerpt:

"But he replied, 'I tell you the truth, I don't know you.' "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour."

this is Jesus speaking

Fraught · October 29, 2009

Wow Chris you are very wrong - religious fundentalism of one form or another is what this nation is founded on- this supposed holy war you talk of is defending innocents against Muslim extremists who even kill there own people and deny basic human rights to women and children- this deeply rooted mysogyny is one thing Christianity seeks to eradicate and if the
only way to protect humanity is to destroy these evil doers then in my opinion it is the only choice.

What?!? The founding fathers were secularists and believed in the separation of church and state. Religious fundmentalism is what they didn't want.

This "Holy War" is trying to eradicate one ideology in place of another. It kills innocents. It takes revenge. And its stupid and ill-advised.

The problem is the "evil doers" are not a universal group that everyone agrees are evil. As soon as Christianity starts calling the shots with who is considered evil and who is not, we're all screwed (again). But we already are. It'll be for religious reasons the first time a nuclear bomb is set off.

What!! You don't see how Christians are persecuted in this and other countries and set back and take it, and don't say a thing? What planet do live on.

Christians persecuted in America? I don't think so. After all, the "American Taliban" is ever present in politics.

before responding, please widen the sources from which you obtain your information. true, there is not a lot of physical persecution. but christians must withstand mental and emotional persecution. they are brushed off, disregarded, ridiculed.

the most persecuted among us is academia. scientists, professors, and most in the professional fields must keep their beliefs to themselves or risk not being able to advance within their chosen fields.

this is not mere speculation. it happens.

Mike Runk · October 29, 2009

Now does man come from an ape, probably not. However that doesn't mean that we didn't evolve from something. The bible says that God created man in his own image, it doesn't say how he did it. There could have been a process and from God's point of view, the process didn't matter because man was the finally conclussion of the very thing he was trying to create.
The fact that man created God separate from all other life forms and created man in His image, precludes man evolving from some other life form, much sharing a common ancestor from another life form. The Bible says that man was created from the dust of the earth. The text indicates that man was created directly from the dust. It does not say that created an organism from dust that later evolved into God's image/likeness. The text is unambiguous on that point.

First off please forgive me I know that I responding a bit late to this but I been sort of busy and this first I could respond. The truth of the matter is this, so much time has passed sense the creation of life on this planet, so many piece of the puzzle are lost and we may never know the truth. I do not believe that the universe nor life just popped in to existance, there is to much evidence that says other wise. Please understand this does not mean I do not believe God is incapable of doing so only that he didn't. We have enough scientific evidence to show that the universe evolved over time. As far as man goes I don't have the answers and to be honest I don't think any of use know for sure. I think that Genesis is not meant to be taken literally. I believe Genesis is from Gods point of view. I believe that the end resaults were all that matter to God, not the process and that is why the bible does not talk about evolution. I also believe that the other reason it wasn't put in the bible was because it would be beyond mans grasp of understanding and more to the point is that it didn't really matter in God mind.

I accept Genesis as truth from God's point of view. I think as interesting as science is at the end of the Day what matters is that God did it, how he did it really doesn't matter. Science is glimps in to God creation but more to the point it is a glimps in to the process that God used. That is my belief.

October 29, 2009

First off please forgive me I know that I responding a bit late to this but I been sort of busy and this first I could respond.

No prob!

The truth of the matter is this, so much time has passed sense the creation of life on this planet, so many piece of the puzzle are lost and we may never know the truth.

No, the truth is here. It has been given to us. Now, the biblical record's intent was not to give us a play-by-play, minute-to-minute account of creation, but it gives us the light we need.

I do not believe that the universe nor life just popped in to existance, there is to much evidence that says other wise. Please understand this does not mean I do not believe God is incapable of doing so only that he didn't.

Well, the Bible doesn't say that the universe just "plopped into existence," either.

We have enough scientific evidence to show that the universe evolved over time.

In the micro-evolutionary sense yes. The world we live in and the life it supports has been undergoing changes for as long as it has been around.

As far as man goes I don't have the answers and to be honest I don't think any of use know for sure.

Of course we know for sure. We may not have every detail pinned down, but we do know for sure, as the Bible is authored by a God who cannot lie.

I think that Genesis is not meant to be taken literally.

Of course you don't. The problem is that your assertion is not based on any genuine literary analysis, or textual evidence to suggest a nonliteral interpretation, but because a "literal" interpretation (which is the only kind of interpretation that exists in the universe) won't allow for Genesis to agree with Evolution. So, since you prefer to treat truth as expendable, you opt for the nonliteral view. Not because it is true or correct, but because it is more comfortable. A comfortable lie is more soothing than inconvenient truth.

I believe Genesis is from Gods point of view.

But God cannot lie, so you have a choice. Either God's view is true, or the evolutionist's view is true.

I believe that the end resaults were all that matter to God, not the process and that is why the bible does not talk about evolution.

The reason the Bible doesn't talk about Evolution is because it didn't happen. The text of Genesis makes evolution impossible to reconcile with how the Bible describes creation.