Theological Problems with God-guided Evolution

[Who me]

14 hours ago, one.opinion said:

It is a shame. I don’t listen to anything Richard Dawkins says.

To me personally, I see evolution as a wonderful and powerful tool that God has used to achieve His creative purposes.

 

Dawkins is not the only atheist, talk to your colleagues, I'm sure they would help you understand how atheists view Christians who believe in evolution.

[one.opinion]

13 minutes ago, Who me said:

Dawkins is not the only atheist, talk to your colleagues, I'm sure they would help you understand how atheists view Christians who believe in evolution.

I've interacted with hundreds of scientists from secular institutions over the years during my days as a student and now professionally at conferences and workshops. I've always been very open about my Christianity and have never had a negative reaction about it. I think the militant anti-theists (credit to @Marathoner for that term) are very few in number, but get a lot of attention because they make a lot of noise. I've never personally encountered any of them. On the contrary, talking with atheists about my faith reveals that they are overwhelmingly of the mindset of "live and let live".

[Guest kingdombrat]

one.opinion

 

You keep claiming you've been taught that the first couple Chapters of Genesis are just a theatrical reference.   I've been in this Faith since birth and for over 50+ years have never heard a single Preacher/Pastor/Teacher/Evangelist make any such suggestion.   I don't know where you heard this but they're off their rocker!

 

Secondly, you made a comment about by the [time] Genesis was written by Moses, so much time had passed there could be errors in the writings of Genesis.  But we know God Himself hand wrote the 10 Commandments before Moses' own eyes.   Why would we think God Himself did not instruct Moses what to write about Genesis?   There would be no mistake if it is a first hand account from God's [mouth] to Moses' ears.

 

To me, your reasoning with these 2 examples seem more like excuses because they can easily be debunked.

Edited June 7, 2021 by kingdombrat

[abcdef]

15 hours ago, one.opinion said:

It is a shame. I don’t listen to anything Richard Dawkins says.

To me personally, I see evolution as a wonderful and powerful tool that God has used to achieve His creative purposes.

The Bible and science do not contradict each other,

Only man's interpretation of science or the Bible contradict each other.

------

The Gen 1 creation story is full of symbolic images of the creation and is not always literal.

----

The literal viewpoint of the creation is just a traditional view that existed before science matured to the level that we have today.

---

To teach a literal view of the Gen 1 creation is proving the Bible wrong,

Teaching that the passage is full of symbolic images will prove the passage as right.

---

Believing that the Gen 1 creation passage is literal is not a requirement for salvation.

[one.opinion]

47 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

You keep claiming you've been taught that the first couple Chapters of Genesis are just a theatrical reference.   I've been in this Faith since birth and for over 50+ years have never heard a single Preacher/Pastor/Teacher/Evangelist make any such suggestion.   I don't know where you heard this but they're off their rocker!

No, that isn't quite true. I've never been "taught" this, but a poetic view is a possible explanation for the days of creation, if they weren't 24 hour periods. I'll give some examples.

https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=jibs

https://www.toddjana.com/genesis-11-23-the-creation-account-as-hebrew-poiesis/

https://www.ualberta.ca/st-josephs/media-library/lamoureux-book-excerpt-2021.pdf

The Lamoureux link is to a fairly long document, he discusses Genesis 1-2 as poetry around page 21.

57 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

Secondly, you made a comment about by the [time] Genesis was written by Moses, so much time had passed there could be errors in the writings of Genesis.

No, you've misinterpreted what I said. I didn't say anything about errors creeping into the writing. My point about the initial intended audience is that the timing of creation was of minor importance compared to the teaching of a single Creator God.

59 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

To me, your reasoning with these 2 examples seem more like excuses because they can easily be debunked.

Well, for the first example, take that up with Biblical scholars. I was only offering a potential explanation, I am not committed to that being the correct explanation.

As far as the second example, it was never anything I've said to begin with. As such, this is a moot point.

[Guest kingdombrat]

2 hours ago, abcdef said:

The Bible and science do not contradict each other,

Only man's interpretation of science or the Bible contradict each other.

------

The Gen 1 creation story is full of symbolic images of the creation and is not always literal.

----

The literal viewpoint of the creation is just a traditional view that existed before science matured to the level that we have today.

---

To teach a literal view of the Gen 1 creation is proving the Bible wrong,

Teaching that the passage is full of symbolic images will prove the passage as right.

---

Believing that the Gen 1 creation passage is literal is not a requirement for salvation.

That {Post} my friend is the perfect example of a forked-tongue philosophy, because philosophy is exactly what that was, something not bearing any resemblance of the [Truth] at all!

[Marathoner]

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I've interacted with hundreds of scientists from secular institutions over the years during my days as a student and now professionally at conferences and workshops. I've always been very open about my Christianity and have never had a negative reaction about it. I think the militant anti-theists (credit to @Marathoner for that term) are very few in number, but get a lot of attention because they make a lot of noise. I've never personally encountered any of them. On the contrary, talking with atheists about my faith reveals that they are overwhelmingly of the mindset of "live and let live".

Antitheism, like Young Earth Creationism, is a reactionary movement defined by what it opposes. 

Amorality is the lack of morals; 
Immorality is the deliberate violation of moral guidelines. 

Atheism is a lack of belief in God;
Antitheism is the opposition to belief in God. 

The Lord is faithful to equip us for service. "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" as the Son of God commands, and so His Spirit sent me to my atheist neighbor to love them as surely as He loves me. This is the commandment I received from the beginning, that I shall love my neighbor as Jesus Christ loves me, withholding nothing good because the Almighty is not a respecter of persons. The servant is not greater than his master.

My Father in heaven withheld nothing good from me, drawing me to His Son when I was a young atheist in this world. This is my reasonable service to Jesus Christ who gave His life to me, that I pour out the love which His Spirit gifts to my heart upon others. I'm not a respecter of persons. As the Lord had regard for me when I was a stranger far away from Him, His Spirit commands me to walk in the same regard for my neighbor.

True to His purpose, the Lord fashioned me to be the penultimate observer and so I positioned myself in the periphery of atheist (as well as antitheist) circles to learn everything I could about my neighbor. It pleased the Lord that I would listen to what they say among themselves, so I might understand the nature of their predicament. The Lord equipped me for my reasonable service. 

I was an atheist myself a long time ago. I don't bear witness to the distorted caricature which some of my brothers and sisters bear. Demonizing one's neighbor isn't love. 

[Guest kingdombrat]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

No, that isn't quite true. I've never been "taught" this, but a poetic view is a possible explanation for the days of creation, if they weren't 24 hour periods. I'll give some examples.

https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=jibs

https://www.toddjana.com/genesis-11-23-the-creation-account-as-hebrew-poiesis/

https://www.ualberta.ca/st-josephs/media-library/lamoureux-book-excerpt-2021.pdf

The Lamoureux link is to a fairly long document, he discusses Genesis 1-2 as poetry around page 21.

I will grant it is possible that it could be a Poetic View.   

But knowing the circumstances of Moses climbing up the mountain for many days at a time [MEETING] with God in person, it is more logical to understand this is what God said directly and what God meant.   So it would fall more under the [Truth] vs Poetic.

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

No, you've misinterpreted what I said. I didn't say anything about errors creeping into the writing. My point about the initial intended audience is that the timing of creation was of minor importance compared to the teaching of a single Creator God.

I did read that, but it most likely came from another participating Member, and I apologize for thinking it was You.

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Well, for the first example, take that up with Biblical scholars. I was only offering a potential explanation, I am not committed to that being the correct explanation.

We have debunked so many Biblical Scholars on this forum that most Members no longer use them as reference points.

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

As far as the second example, it was never anything I've said to begin with. As such, this is a moot point.

Agreed!

[Marathoner]

12 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

That {Post} my friend is the perfect example of a forked-tongue philosophy, because philosophy is exactly what that was, something not bearing any resemblance of the [Truth] at all!

Prove it, @kingdombrat. Prove that belief in a young earth is essential to salvation. Accusation is neither comely nor worthwhile for the Lord is not an accuser. 

 

[one.opinion]

11 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

But knowing the circumstances of Moses climbing up the mountain for many days at a time [MEETING] with God in person, it is more logical to understand this is what God said directly and what God meant.   So it would fall more under the [Truth] vs Poetic.

There is no indication anywhere in the Bible that Moses received the inspiration for Genesis on Mt. Sinai. We know that's where the 10 Commandments came from, and most likely the laws given in the next several chapters of Exodus, but no claim is made about the book of Genesis.