What is meant by “accept” ?
What is meant by “evolution” ?
Excellent question. I’m glad you asked it.
People “converted” by peer pressure. This is what is called groupthink.
This method of “conversion” says something about the people “converted” and something about the people doing the “converting” but it says exactly nothing about the truth of the matter in question.
2 Likes
I believe that one issue is that those who would fall into the category stated above (i.e. comfortable with creationism, compatible with ID) also enter the debate believing that there is an utter incompatibility between evolution and theism. I, and many of my friends, came from that position. So the having the ability to have an open discussion, free of judgment and humiliation, allows for one’s horizons to be expanded, such that we can see that there are more options available. As such, I would also fall into the category that @Faizal_Ali claims rarely exists. One who comes to understand how a theist can embrace evolution in a way that is compatible with Christian faith.
And, I must say, not an inch of that progress came because through harsh words. The rare harsh words, on the other hand, became additional obstacles that needed to be overcome. The kind and patient explanations that came from both theists and atheists alike are what allowed me to consider the evidence and to adopt a new paradigm.
5 Likes
What is meant by this? This is an honest question.
2 Likes
Creation, in all its forms, is predicated on the belief that divine revelation is the only true path to knowledge, and all other means of obtaining knowledge, including science, must be subservient to it. ID is no exception, as they made clear in the Wedge document.
AiG’s disagreement with ID is over whether this principle should be explicitly stated, rather than obscured and denied as the ID’ers do. I actually think the YEC’s have more integrity and honesty than the ID’ers. YEC’s are just not as smart.
I’ll come out publicly as having voted for a complete ass, because it’s the only thing that would prevent a poisonous snake from getting the upper hand. That’s hardly indicating admiration.
1 Like
Good and fair question. What it means, to me, is to understand that biological evolution may be the way in which God created, and the best explanation for what we observe, this in comparison to special creation, wherein God, in some way, caused species to appear ex nihilo.
In theology (as Christians) we see a Jesus Christ who must be accepted by faith. We are asked to be prepared to give the reasons for our faith, and those reasons are personal and personally compelling. That said, all people have experiences, and eventually make decisions regarding their own faith. There seems, to those of us who have faith, an indication (stepping stones or breadcrumbs) that have led us to where we are. That said, we cannot impute our faith upon others. God seems (to me) to have created enough indication that He exists to allow me to be comfortable with my own decision of faith.
In cosmology, there seems to be many just so consequences that, once again, indicate, but do not prove, that God has intentionally fostered a safe harbor here on earth where life can not only exist, but flourish. We cannot know that he literally slung the perfectly-sized planet into the earth causing a chain of incredibly unlikely events that eventually allowed life to develop again and again here, we can only, again, see that there is sufficient indication that something incredible has happened here.
In biology, we see plenty of evidence for common descent. Certainly, some will argue that it is not yet conclusive, but many disagree. So, in my former understanding, I would have seen evolution as a process entirely incompatible (even antagonistic) with Christian faith. However, if one accepts the definition of methodological naturalism that is presented here at face value, such that we can observe what we are able to within the realm of science, but that the spiritual realm can exist outside of that realm, and, further (as some have put forth here) that God can be involved in the process, though his direct actions may be undetectable, I can now see a unity that exists between these realms in a way that I could never see it before. This is what I mean by “embrace.”
In this way, my eyes have been opened to another option that allows me to understand and appreciate the wonders of scientific discovery in this arena, and yet also allows me to keep my faith unaffected by my acknowledgment of this domain.
5 Likes
Thanks for the thoughtful explanation.
I agree.
Would you say that all of the reasons for your faith are personal and personally compelling? By that I mean, would you say that all of your reasons would be considered subjective and only accessible to you personally and non-accessible to someone who doesn’t share your faith?
2 Likes
So you’re saying that evangelicals are hypocritical?
1 Like
So you don’t like Methodists?
And you clearly must not agree with:
Take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.
Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?” The King will reply, “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” (Matthew 25:34-40)
Fewer teachings of Jesus Christ are more clear than that one.
“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God." [Leviticus 19:33-34]
2 Likes
I don’t vote for false-dealing folks to govern me. Trump is a jerk, but at least makes it patently obvious.
1 Like
Well, I’m sure as hell not a fan of Hillary (but my reasons for it are different than yours, namely, I don’t like her because I’m a complete leftist, that is, a socialist) but she’s far better than the other guy.
Wait, why are we even talking about this here?
2 Likes
So that trumps the most basic teachings of Jesus Christ for you?
1 Like
We’re talking about the effectiveness of ridicule as perceived by evangelicals.
2 Likes
Oh, I heard of a certain guy ridiculing a person with disabilities. It’s very effective, as long as it’s in their favor.
Well, most of them, there are quite a few evangelicals I respect. Jimmy Carter, for example.
2 Likes
You tried to make the case that evangelicals admired Trump’s ridiculing tactics. I disagreed. Apparently, we both agree that no good, or even reasonable, choice was offered to American voters, as my faith in Jesus informs me. Others chose differently, and I’m okay with that.
1 Like
Nope.
No, we don’t agree at all. You’ve offered nothing but venomous ad hominems to support your choice.
I think that the choice for anyone who takes the most blatant teaching of Jesus Christ seriously is the candidate that doesn’t speak loudly and often about rejecting that teaching.
I just can’t see why an interpretation of Genesis is so much more important that what Jesus tells us is most important. Can you explain? Do you have a different exegesis of Matthew?
I’m not seeing almost zero support from evangelicals for treating strangers as Jesus.
2 Likes
Undoubtedly. There are reasonable and compassionate choices other than merely completely open borders and completely closed ones, for example. So, I apparently apply Matthew differently than you do.
You undoubtedly reject one of the most fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ?
1 Like