[_ Old Earth _] What's worse? Theistic or atheistic evolution?

[GojuBrian]

What's worse? Theistic or atheistic evolution?

I think theistic evolutionists. Because they have the word of God, but choose not to believe it for what it says. Instead, they try to rely on their own intellect, which Proverbs warns us against. :yes

 

[Barbarian]

I think theistic evolutionists. Because they have the word of God, but choose not to believe it for what it says.

Rather, they accept it as it is. YE creationists, on the other hand, deny God's word in Genesis, preferring their own doctrine of "life ex nihilo." There are other forms of creationism which are not contrary to God's word, of course. But YE is a direct contradiction to God's word.

There is nothing at all in scripture that is inconsistent with evoluton, as the vast majority of Christians acknowledge.

Instead, they try to rely on their own intellect, which Proverbs warns us against.

Like making up new and false doctrines such as "life ex nihilo?"

 

[SentientOne]

Rom 2:11-16 For there is no respect of faces with God. For as many as sinned without Law will also perish without Law. And as many as have sinned within Law shall be judged through Law. For it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. For when the nations, who do not have the Law, do by nature the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law unto themselves; who show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and the thoughts between one another accusing or even excusing one another, in a day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

 

[Barbarian]

I'm puzzled why Paul's explanation how unbelievers could be saved, is applicable to the discussion. Can you explain this for us?

I suspect you have something worthwhile to add, but it's not clear to me what that is.

 

[lovely]

Atheistic evolution is worse, because those people are lost and need the forgiveness of the Lord, and they are convinced that evolution disproves God.

 

[Barbarian]

Atheistic evolution is worse, because those people are lost and need the forgiveness of the Lord, and they are convinced that evolution disproves God.

In many cases, that is what convinced them to become atheists. YE creationism is a highly effective atheist-maker.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

I guess I am having trouble understanding why either is "bad" or "worse" than the other? There is no clear way to look at the creation other than God is the creator. As far as if this happened in the literal sense vs. evolution vs. the big bang vs. intelligent design etc. are just the details that personally I feel will never be truly proven or validated.

If you are a Christian, then you more than likely believe God is the creator. At the end of the day, that is all that matters. Not how he did it but that he did it.

 

[zer0das]

If you are a Christian, then you more than likely believe God is the creator. At the end of the day, that is all that matters. Not how he did it but that he did it.

I wish more Christians would believe this, because it would alleviate a lot of problems. Not just with regards to creation either. I think most of the conflict within churches results from the idea that you must believe something that is nonessential to be saved, when in reality it doesn't really matter (ie, the worship service must be done in x way). If you asked someone point blank if they needed to believe in this to be saved, they'd say no, but they act as if you do.

Of course I realize there is the danger of taking this too far and applying it to things that do matter an awful lot, but that is a different and more important issue in my mind.

 

[Barbarian]

I agree. I often see crises of faith in young students who grew up being taught that creationism was an essential part of Christian belief. When they discover that it can't possibly be true, their faith in God is shaken.

It's not wise for man to add requirements for heaven that God didn't see fit to use.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

I agree. I often see crises of faith in young students who grew up being taught that creationism was an essential part of Christian belief. When they discover that it can't possibly be true, their faith in God is shaken.

It's not wise for man to add requirements for heaven that God didn't see fit to use.

Completely agree. I became a Christian in April of this year and if I tried to "figure" everything out that is considered controversial and or in question between Christians and non Christians I would drive myself crazy.

I don't think that someone has to change their entire belief structure based on becoming a Christian. Surely, parts of the old me can coexist with the new me. I think as Christians we are more divisive than we should be on topics that could go either way with evolution / creationism being one of the big ones. If we can all agree that God created us and the universe that is all that matters.

I'm not suggesting that we can't discuss it and even disagree. I do think however that we can do so without berating others opinions and/or being disrespectful. Let's remember that we are all Christians and regardless of whether you believe in evolution or creationism at the end of the day it doesn't change the fact that we know Jesus died to save us and God created all.

 

[Barbarian]

I became a Christian in April of this year

Well, welcome home, brother! Glad you made it.

 

[coelacanth]

What's worse? Theistic or atheistic evolution?

I think theistic evolutionists. Because they have the word of God, but choose not to believe it for what it says. Instead, they try to rely on their own intellect, which Proverbs warns us against. :yes

When things like this are said, it makes me wonder where you draw the line and decide to stop relying on your intellect. You obviously use your intellect, so where is the line drawn? I really don't get that at all.

 

[zer0das]

A different question is, if you didn't use your own intellect, how would you ever arrive at Jesus being the Christ, the Son of God? I don't think you could in good conscious (or you're significantly downplaying the role your own thoughts had in coming to God- even if He planted them there). God built the foundation of my faith, but I had to fill in a lot of empty holes in the ground before He could do so. But there would be no foundation if I did not question "Why is this so? Is this truth?" There would simply be no way to discern truth from fiction otherwise. There's a subtle difference between leaning not on your own understanding, and leaning upon ignorance.

If you cannot trust yourself to discern the things that aren't essential to faith, then why should you ever trust yourself with the essential things of faith? To me it doesn't make any sense to say "The Bible says this, it must be literally true" in every circumstance because in a way it is sidestepping a deeper understanding of the faith. A simple example: Jesus said he would destroy and raise the temple in three days- but this wasn't a literal reference to the Jewish temple, as many Jews thought. If you stop right there, Jesus is a liar. But he isn't speaking literally, there's a far deeper truth beneath it. It just so happens in this particular case the scripture whacks you upside the head with the meaning a few verses later, because I'm sure if it didn't a lot of people would take this literally and never consider Christ again.

 

[Fembot]

I think it's sad when Christians judge other Christians in situations where no commandments or laws are being broken. THou shalt not judge, He said.

 

[coelacanth]

A different question is, if you didn't use your own intellect, how would you ever arrive at Jesus being the Christ, the Son of God? I don't think you could in good conscious (or you're significantly downplaying the role your own thoughts had in coming to God- even if He planted them there). God built the foundation of my faith, but I had to fill in a lot of empty holes in the ground before He could do so. But there would be no foundation if I did not question "Why is this so? Is this truth?" There would simply be no way to discern truth from fiction otherwise. There's a subtle difference between leaning not on your own understanding, and leaning upon ignorance.

You're right that it is a different question. I used my intellect to gain faith in the way you described, then continued to use my intellect and lost my faith as a direct result. According to how I understand GojuBrian's words, I went wrong somewhere. What defines appropriate use and inappropriate use of the intellect?

 

[zer0das]

You're right that it is a different question. I used my intellect to gain faith in the way you described, then continued to use my intellect and lost my faith as a direct result. According to how I understand GojuBrian's words, I went wrong somewhere. What defines appropriate use and inappropriate use of the intellect?

Well, from the standpoint of a Christian, I think an inappropriate use of intellect is rationalizing things away in a way that directly conflicts with scripture (ie, the issue is central to Christianity). For example: Christ died for our sins, therefore our sins have no effect on our souls, so go and do whatever you want. Seems logical enough, except for the fact the scripture talks about this subject on several occasions and essentially says "go and sin no more."

As far as intellect as a means to having faith, that depends a lot upon the particular circumstance. I think often (but not always) it is a failure of simple logic that causes people to lose faith. A very common one seems to be the creation/flood can't possibly be literally true, therefore the rest of the Bible must necessarily be false. I myself used this rationale for a while, but somewhere along the line I realized how irrational this was. I don't think you can really take intellect too far as a means of having faith, so long as you are being careful to remain consistent. If you want to delve into the specifics of your particular circumstance, I'd be happy to discuss that.

 

[Caroline H]

I think theistic evolutionists. Because they have the word of God, but choose not to believe it for what it says.

Rather, they accept it as it is. YE creationists, on the other hand, deny God's word in Genesis, preferring their own doctrine of "life ex nihilo." There are other forms of creationism which are not contrary to God's word, of course. But YE is a direct contradiction to God's word.

There is nothing at all in scripture that is inconsistent with evoluton, as the vast majority of Christians acknowledge.

[quote:23gh2okn]Instead, they try to rely on their own intellect, which Proverbs warns us against.

Like making up new and false doctrines such as "life ex nihilo?"[/quote:23gh2okn]

Barbarian, can you please explain to us how the YE creation view is denying God's word in Genesis? Thanks ahead

 

[Gabe]

I think it's sad when Christians judge other Christians in situations where no commandments or laws are being broken. THou shalt not judge, He said.

Totally agree. This thread is the perfect example.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, can you please explain to us how the YE creation view is denying God's word in Genesis? Thanks ahead

Sure. The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is directly refuted by God, who says living things were brought forth by things already created.

 

[Caroline H]

Where is the scripture reference please. Thanks