Is Evolution Compatible with Christianity?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by RoyW on April 5, 2011 at 7:07am

Grazer,

Now, you are getting ridiculous. Jesus was not speaking a parable in Mark 10:6. I can take a lot of things from you without getting offensive but that is simply nonsense. You can believe what you want. But don't insult intelligence by saying that was a parable. You won't find one credible scholar to agree with you on that one. Yes, Jesus spoke in parables but that wasn't one of them. It is very easy to know when He is speaking in parables. Nonsense, Grazer, nonsense. Not excellent! Not well done!

Permalink Reply by RoyW on April 5, 2011 at 7:24am

Grazer,

Again, nonsense, unless I am not understanding what you are saying. Jesus made a statement that he believed to be true. Either it was true or it was not. What you are saying to me is nonsense.

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on April 5, 2011 at 9:47am

 “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise
and discard the intelligence of the intelligent.”[e]
20 So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. 21 Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe.

 

The word of God is in direct collision with the principals taught by the world's system. We understand that and have experience how wrong the world is in their thinking. God says is better to give than to receive, the world says, you are number one, if you don't take care of self no one will blah blah blah Yes, we need to take care of ourselves by doing what God wants us to do in all situations and as we die to self and this life God adds amazing, beautiful purposes and dreams to our lives.

 

The verses above are referring to the Gospel message and how it appears foolish to the world’s brilliant minds, but it’s not - is the most beautiful love story ever. No human story can match it. The same folks that believe that the gospel is foolish try to find ways to explain the world we live in and sometimes through their search they find that God was right all along. True science never contradicts scripture. Science that does is wrong period. If God says I created the world in six days, than guess what? He did.  Any other explanation is wrong. Scientist who are born again can see that, thought there are some born again that have a hard time reconciling what appears to be an old earth with the Genesis account, but God can do whatever He wants. He is not subject to any law He creates, He is transcendent. He can make an earth that looks old if he wants, but I think the answer lies in the fact that you have the majority of the scientific community working with biases and hidden agendas. Some want to make a name for themselves others hate God and the list goes on and on, this folks are operating in the natural and don't miss understand me, some of them even with all their silliness do make some valuable discoveries that help humanity and this is from God. I believe God created the universe in a way that is intelligible, but also in a way that would perplex us with its mysteries for multiple reasons, the main one being his glory and the fact to truly see his creation for what it is, one must be one with Him.  There is much more to this but i will stop here for now.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RoyW on April 5, 2011 at 5:09pm

If you toss out Lev. 20:13, you might as well discard the entire Bible. It absolutely meant what it said. That was the penalty for homosexuality under the Old Testament Law. Also, after so many generations, as verse 17 points out, it became unlawful for a man to marry his sister. Cain did marry his sister but at the time it was not unlawful. It was necessary. Again, Grazer, you are picking and choosing what you want to believe.

Also, your generic statements about God are consequential as there are many gods that people serve. However, there is only one true God and that is the God of both the Old and the New Testament. Maybe you feel comfortable tossing out the parts that doesn't agree with your philosophies. That is what you are doing.

Do you realize what you are saying? You said:

I've already laid out the definitions for evolution and which ones I believe are true in light of Genesis (or at least my interpretation of it) If you wish to disagree with the accuracy of the interpretations then that's fine but I feel you will need to on scientific grounds especially if you don't class it as science in the first place.

Science is not complete and never will be. There are many, many, many unanswered questions. The Word is complete. I feel no need to make the absolute truthful completed Word agree with the absolute nescience of science. Science is a wonderful thing but it is not complete. It has not attained. It has not arrived. Why would I even begin to need to put it on the same level as the perfect Word of God?

The atheists and agnostics put their studies of evolution on a plane higher than Scripture. They are terrified of even the idea of intelligent-design. In America, your friends have succeeded in getting even the thought that there might be intelligence involved in the design of man completely thrown out of the classrooms. That is a crime against heaven and God and it will be dealt with.

You mentioned you didn't believe in Lev. 20:13. There was a day when God got so fed up with the exact same reasoning as yours that He said that He was going to destroy everything on the face of the earth. On that day He told Noah to build a large boat. When Noah entered into that boat he left that ancient world behind. When he got off that boat, the world was a completely different place than the world he had left. Man looks at those geological layers that were laid down in minutes by the flood and claims they represent millions of years and people like you buy into that nonsense. These same atheists and agnostics look at man and say he is a product of billions of years and people like you buy into that nonsense.

You reject Lev. 20:13 because you don't like what it says. My recommendation is to repent. I am nothing more than a lowly sinner. I repent of all my sin. I would never reject any part of His Word. I know what He is capable of. I do believe He destroyed the entire ancient world with a flood. I believe He is going to do it again only this time by fire. I don't know how much longer He will be willing to put up with our absolute nonsense and toleration of these things. Grazer, I am not trying to win an argument here. I do believe you are making some very risky statements.

You are correct. People will have to make up their own minds. Your rejection of Genesis is very popular in our day and you will make many friends doing so. You will undoubtedly find friends on this site and others as well that will agree with you that Genesis is nothing more than a book of fables. I am saddened by your position. When you mentioned Lev. 20:13, you said all you needed to say. I now believe I know why you believe the way you do. I understand why you are rejecting Genesis. That does sadden me but I know if you are a genuine child of God, He will bring you to an understanding that His Word is true.

Blessings to you, I will leave it there but I will be praying for you.

Roy

By the way, I do believe I hear you chuckling. You need to take very seriously the things I have said.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RoyW on April 6, 2011 at 3:22am

Grazer, do you understand that we are no longer under the law of the Old Testament? I was taking it for granted that you understood that. Please forgive me if I am wrong. Yes, that was the law during Moses' time. I do understand Moses was traveling through a wilderness and the law needed to be observed very strictly or things would get out of hand. Under the Law, it was God's will that homosexuals be put to death for their sin. I hear you wanting to reject that based on your understanding of God. God did not design man to have relations with man and a woman with a woman. That was an abomination to God. Not only did God send a flood to destroy the world over deviant sexual sin, he destroyed the communities of Sodom and Gomorrah over deviant sexual sins and the community's acceptance of it.

I think you are correct. We are going to continue to disagree on these kinds of interpretations. I take the Bible literally and you take it figuratively. When there is something that you don't agree with such as this verse in Leviticus, you dismiss it by saying that is not really what God meant. You do the same with the six days. I simply disagree with your approach.

I am not smart enough or persuasive enough to convince you that God intended for His Word to be taken literally unless He is clearly using figurative language. That is between you, God and the Holy Spirit. Your acceptance of the majority of the evolutionary teaching forces you to reject a literal six days. You cannot even be of the opinion that He could have done it in six days since that would completely defunct the models.

I don't want to believe anything about you that is not completely true. I am concerned about your seemingly apparent willingness to dismiss certain things taught in Scripture based on your philosophy. If you are not dismissing Lev. 20:13 as literal, please forgive me. If you are then I think you do have a lot of explaining to do to this community. Again, that is my opinion. I don't speak for anyone other than myself. I do believe the majority of members would accept Lev. 20:13 as literal. I kind of believe the majority accept the following verse as literal but I really couldn't say for sure:

Ex 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.
NLT
and~
Ex 31:16-17
16 The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. 17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.'"
NIV

I may be wrong but I believe the majority of Bible-believing Christians accept these and other verses as literal. I know that some whose denominations still claim to be Bible-believing are teetering on this issue. I would have to agree that there are many that are leaving the camp of believing those verses are literal. That saddens me. The main problem is that many believe science has proved the earth to be billions of years old. That is simply not the case. Science is a wonderful part of our lives. However, when we begin to talk of origins and the age of the earth, etc., scientists must set aside their science hats and put on their philosophy hat since this is not science but philosophy. Even the creation scientists have to set aside their scientist hats when they begin to discuss origins and the philosophies of the universe - age, etc. What I am objecting to is not science, Grazer, it is calling philosophy science. The discussions of evolution, origins, age of the earth, etc. are not science - that is philosophy. I object to this being called science in the classroom. Since these things cannot be observed, they are not science.

Grazer, your attempt to pit me against science is an attempt to side-step the issue. I am not against science. I am for science. I enjoy the benefits of science. I am simply against calling philosophy science. You are dealing with philosophical issues - not scientific ones. Our discussion is not about science. It is about philosophy.

I do not label Dawkins a scientist. He is a philosopher that dabbles in science. I think the same of a lot of our wonderful creation scientists. However, I am aware of the impact the philosophy of evolution has had on the scientific community and I think that is sad.

Blessings in your search. I do not want to in anyway be a hindrance in your search. I would encourage you to set aside some of your philosophies and attempt to interpret Scripture literally. I know, however, that is coming from a very conservative individual.

Roy

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RoyW on April 6, 2011 at 5:54am

Grazer,

I am sure you are familiar with these kinds of verse in the New Testament or the New Covenant:

2 Cor 3:5-11
 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant- — not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! NIV

As I mentioned we are no longer under the Old Testament Law. However, we can go to the Old Testament and find that God's method of salvation was the same. Abraham was credited with righteousness just as we are today - through faith. God's plan of salvation through Jesus dying on the cross is eternal. Our salvation comes through faith in Him. We are credited with righteousness not by our own works but by the works of Him Who saves even before He ever came to this earth. Abraham, Noah, David, Elijah and on and on - all were saved by faith. I am not under the Old Testament Law but I live the way I do because of my faith. That faith gets me credited with 100% righteousness.

I know you know these things but I do really enjoy discussing them. My salvation is more important to me than anything. I guess I may get just a bit overly defensive and aggressive when anyone questions that what the Bible says is true. God certainly does not need me to defend Him or anything He has said. I am very happy that you may be getting to go to a Bible college. I pray that you will find some good Bible professors that truly believe and trust in God for their salvation. I certainly feel like a beginner when it comes to understanding His Word.

By the way, I have said that I accept natural selection or that which is called micro-evolution. When Darwin observed these changes, he jumped to many wrong conclusions in my opinion. We are certainly in agreement on that one. You have clearly stated that God did it. I have heard you say that many times and we are, I feel, more in agreement than not.

I must admit that I don't consider the dating of rocks science but more of a philosophical study. The dating methods are often based on predetermined ideas which is another method of circular reasoning. I do agree with the creation people on that one. However, those on the creation websites and institutions have to admit that their conclusions are based on philosophy or a worldview when considering the age of the earth. I guess I just don't call the dating of our universe science and neither do I consider the study of our origins science. I don't think we are discussing science but rather our worldview or philosophy when we discuss those things.

That is a different discussion than how are we saved which I believe is a more critical discussion. I do not take the position that one must believe the earth is young to be a saved, born-again Christian. My faith in Him and the study of His Word has taken me to that place. However, I am convinced that He will straighten me out on a lot of things when I get over there. I absolutely won't have a thing to tell Him. 

Amen, brother, I applaud you for your search. I have been a Christian for over fifty years and still learning.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RoyW on April 6, 2011 at 6:33am

Your friends doesn't mean you. You said you have atheist friends that believe in this philosophy. That was the point of my reference.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RoyW on April 6, 2011 at 8:31am

Well, you will have to forgive me if I misspoke or offended someone. I certainly did not intend to do that.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page