Posted on 12/04/2007 10:42:17 PM PST by Kurt Evans
On February 18, presidential candidate Pat Buchanan appeared on the ABC program, "This Week With David Brinkley." He was asked by newspaper columnist George Will, "On the subject of culture, do you favor the teaching of creationism in public schools?"
Buchanan answered, "I believe that God created heaven and earth. I believe in the Bible, George. I believe that children should not be forced to believe the Bible, but I think that every child should know what's in the Old and New Testaments."
This prompted liberal commentator Sam Donaldson to ask, in a tone of unconcealed condescension and ridicule, "Did He do it in six days?"
Buchanan responded, "God did it, Sam, according to the Bible... You may believe you descended from monkeys. I don't believe it. I think you're created. I think you're a creature of God."
A few moments later--as Donaldson chuckled with amusement at Buchanan's stated belief that the Bible is the Word of God--Will joined the assault. In a tone similar to Donaldson's, the ostensibly conservative columnist asked whether, in Buchanan's judgment, parents have the right to insist that creationism be taught in public schools.
Buchanan replied that he believes parents have a right to insist that their children not be indoctrinated in godless evolution--which is, after all, exactly what's happening in most public schools today.
At the end of the program, Will said of creationism, "No serious person believes it." In light of this assertion, the offhandedness with which he raised the subject looks less than genuine.
Later that week on C-SPAN, another presidential candidate, Alan Keyes, was asked to comment on the matter. He said his answer to Will and others is that they ought to take a look at the Declaration of Independence, which says all men are "created" and endowed by their "Creator" with unalienable rights.
"All the founders believed it, and they set it down as the foundation of this country," Keyes said. "I don't think that it is only a question of Judeo-Christian beliefs. It is of American beliefs."
Keyes continued, "Are we going to throw away the document and principles that are the foundation of this nation's life because George Will has become too intellectually sophisticated to accept common sense? I hardly think so."
He went on to say, "Our faith is grounded in the same bedrock, commonsense principles that motivated the founders of this nation, and if we are not sensible, then the people who put this country together in the first place were not sensible."
As a Harvard-educated black conservative running for president, Keyes is clearly an American original. But in stark contrast to his liberal counterpart Jesse Jackson, Keyes has been almost completely "blacked out" by the national media.
Buchanan's pre-established following makes him more difficult to ignore, so he was initially patronized in the manner demonstrated by Will and Donaldson. That is, until he won the New Hampshire primary, after which he was contemptuously accused of everything from sexism to Nazism.
An examination of hundreds of articles about Buchanan published at that time reveals that fewer than one in twenty carried any positive connotations whatsoever. (Don't feel bad, Pat. These days anyone who comes to a complete stop at a stop sign can expect to be labeled a right-wing religious bigot.)
Although the voices of Buchanan and Keyes have been largely silenced, their respective campaigns have made a valuable contribution to our political dialogue. Using somewhat different approaches, both have focused attention on the issue of our national identity as Americans.
The United States has traditionally prided itself in academic freedom. In recent years, though, books such as "Creationist Scientists Answer Their Critics" by Ph.D. biochemist Duane Gish have been systematically censored by the self-appointed academic elite.
When the founders set forth the reason this nation was established, they appealed to a Creator whose existence they regarded as a self-evident truth. Now a growing minority not only disavows accountability to our Creator, but further denies that truth, in any absolute sense, even exists.
During the Revolutionary War, Thomas Jefferson posed the rhetorical question, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that their liberties are the gift of God?"
General Douglas MacArthur more recently made this poignant observation: "History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration to ultimate national disaster."
The United States has been wallowing in the kind of moral lapse to which MacArthur was referring, but I believe we're moving into the early stages of a spiritual awakening that will overcome it. Even after the prenatal slaughter of millions of our children, God's arms are open to forgive.
He will bless America again.
Even as an atheist, I can sympathize with what Buchanan is saying. Although I don’t think young children should be taught what’s in the Testaments, as a society based on Judeo-Christian morality, (in my case, Australia), we do need to learn what the basis for our society has been, in the same way I’d expect schools to teach us about the Magna Carta and the way British Common Law has evolved, in Australia’s case.
Good post. I'm not sorry if anyone is offended.
Why would anyone be offended?
The question was basically that if the Bible is taken literally, what about a seed of mustard being the smallest? Looked at Creationist sources, and to be frank, their answers to the question/criticism was infuriating--one more or less just childishly blew off the topic without giving an adequate explanation.
There are a lot of intelligent Creationist freepers on FR. Can one of you give an explanation about the mustard topic? (this is asking Creationists specifically--at least trying to get Creationist comments first before snarky Macroevolutionist ones (and do personal requests have to be fair anyway?)).
Creationism ping.
As for me, I chose in the first grade to home school my daughter. There were many different reasons for doing so, but the first was to expose her to the wisdom in the Bible. The values being taught in school were harmful to children and frankly dangerous to their health, both physical and mental. We home schooled for 11 years and we are pleased with the results. My daughter is also pleased and says she wouldn't have changed a thing. Her friends, many church friends, have been busted for dope, pregnant, abortions, divorces, etc. Many of those that were "honor students", dropped out of college the first year with failing grades. She is a year from graduation and is stable and has good judgment.
The public school system is literally killing our children and causing the decline of America. The percentage of students that go through the system and go on to "functional" lives is very small. God bless the parents that did it, but there just isn't that many. Almost every aspect of our culture is affected by the school system teachings. If you wouldn't send your child to be taught by a Satan worshiper, then why send them to secular schools?
- Alan Keyes, was asked to comment on the matter. He said his answer to Will and others is that they ought to take a look at the Declaration of Independence, which says all men are "created" and endowed by their "Creator" with unalienable rights. "All the founders believed it, and they set it down as the foundation of this country,"
When people are engaged in things greater than themselves, there is usually a firm belief in God. That is why most doctors believe in God."
While on the other hand... inconsequential people who are only interested in promoting their smug ego status (like TV personalities Will and Donaldson) or wasting most of their time in other frivolous and selfish endeavors usually do not believe in God.
The Founding Fathers vs Will and Donaldson is *the* perfect example of this. Thanks for the post. :)
Congressman Hunter on evolution:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1934888/posts
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1874862/posts
Governor Huckabee says humans are unique creations of God:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1934882/posts
Honest science defends Hunter and Huckabee:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1934898/posts
“Why would anyone be offended?”
I thought someone might be offended if they considered it a vanity post.
Forget the spiritual and godly aspects of organized religions. Lets think Christianity and Judaism here though others could be included.
These faiths are an organized and comprehensive way of passing on higher values and ethics and how to behave to younger generations. Meaning your children and grandchildren. They pass on moral codes. This is not a perfect system but is far better than anything atheists can do. Atheists cannot pass on such values. Not so easily.
No Kurt, I am not offended at all.
You have written a very nice article that is relevant to our times.
I was particularly fond of your closing, and your offering of hope.
“There are a lot of intelligent Creationist freepers on FR. Can one of you give an explanation about the mustard topic?”
The parable of the mustard seed simply presents a situation in which the seed under discussion is smaller than all other seeds the man sowed on the soil. Some or all other seeds in the parable may be mustard seeds themselves, but the one under discussion is the smallest.
“Thanks for the post. :)”
Thank you. You may be interested to know Ambassador Keyes has accepted an invitation to participate in the Des Moines Register debate next Wednesday:
http://www.alankeyes.com/articles/071120iowa.php
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1928884/posts
Will thinks if he can get a bunch of monkeys to play baseball, then Darwin was right. Problem is he can’t.
“These faiths are an organized and comprehensive way of passing on higher values and ethics and how to behave to younger generations. Meaning your children and grandchildren. They pass on moral codes. This is not a perfect system but is far better than anything atheists can do. Atheists cannot pass on such values. Not so easily.”
I agree whole heartedly. The Bible is a compendium of what makes a society work and what the goals of the society should be in moral and ethical senses. It is evident that people have done this since the very beginning of people whether they worshipped God, the earth mother or some smooth stone in a cave.
Religion added emphasis to codes of behavior.
Atheists and moral relativists cannot do that. Hence our present society spirals increasingly out of control as people are encouraged to believe there is no right and wrong and therefore anything can be done without consequence. Their only option is to use laws to enforce their ideas of morality and to place brakes on behavior. So everything they do not like is illegal. As we can see, they are attempting to extend that idea into the realm of thought.
When a society is united behind or under a belief system, such a the Judeo-Christian one, social sanctions work pretty well, though laws are still important.
Just some ill-formed thoughts....
Ooh! There goes Will right off my esteem platform. (I hope that didn’t break any of you bones, George)
I always thought he was an independent thinker. I see that he is now riding on the popular PC bus with all the other sheeple.
God has the last laugh, Sam. “He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. “ -Psalm 2:4
If a monkey bangs away at a typewriter twice a week for ten years it could write an M. Dowd column.~ M Savage~
I say both creationists and evolutionists are correct.
Creationists are created!
dEvolutionists are the accidental unwanted retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel!
Atheists and moral relativists cannot do that. Hence our present society spirals increasingly out of control as people are encouraged to believe there is no right and wrong and therefore anything can be done without consequence. Their only option is to use laws to enforce their ideas of morality and to place brakes on behavior. So everything they do not like is illegal. As we can see, they are attempting to extend that idea into the realm of thought.
When a society is united behind or under a belief system, such a the Judeo-Christian one, social sanctions work pretty well, though laws are still important.
Just some ill-formed thoughts....
On the bright sisde there are many sane atheists who acknowledge their debt to organized religion. They know the ethics and morals here are Judeo-Christian in origin and recognize this
Plus many parents of minimal faith send their children to religious schools because they know the children receive a better moral upbringing than the godless public schools
Australia is different.
The United States were not just founded on christian morality, they were founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the sole reason for this country’s former greatness, and the departure therefrom is the sole reason for our fall from that greatness.
You don’t have to like it, but please don’t make a fool of yourself by denying it.
Anyone who thinks that they owe anything to "organized religion" is deeply deluded. Religion, organized or not, offers nothing but departure from God's word. Religion is man's attempt to defeat God's laws and commandments by replacing them with man's softened and blunted alternative, thus condemning billions to eternity in Hell.
Man doesn't have eternal life. Therefore no man can spend eternity in hell.
Care to clarify?
[John 3:16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Two choices....eternal life....or eternal death.
Describe “eternal death.”
Certainly. The bible teaches that eternal life is a gift from God:
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
The wages of sin is death. The gift of God is eternal life:
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
The soul that sins dies...
Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
Death is the fate of men without Christ, not eternal life:
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Only Jesus Christ is immortal:
1Ti 6:14 that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1Ti 6:15 which He will bring about at the proper time--He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
1Ti 6:16 who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.
Your attempt to rationalize hell out of existence will have no fruit.
[Revelation 20:14-15] And death and hell (Hades,the grave) were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Death.....absence of life!
How do you suppose it correlates with “outer darkness?”
Three words are translated in the New Testament as Hell. Not one of them means one you believe it to be. Hades....the grave; Gehenna....a Jerusalem garbage dump; Tartarus.....a place where sinning Angels are being kept....dark and gloomy.
An ever burning Hell Fire is a fairy tale! You are attempting to rationalize it in to existence.
I'm not rationalizing hell out of existence. Biblically sinners DO NOT have eternal life. But there is a hell. However, the word translated "hell" is actually three different concepts and is expressed by 3 separate greek words and one hebrew. From Heaven and Hell:
The concept of hell being an everlasting place of torment for eternal people is a mistaken interpretation of the bible. In the original Hebrew and Greek languages in which the Bible was written, four words are translated "hell" in English. The four words convey three different meanings.
The Hebrew word sheol, used in the Old Testament, has the same meaning as hades, one of the Greek words translated "hell" in the New Testament.
The Anchor Bible Dictionary explains the meaning of both words: "The Greek word Hades ... is sometimes, but misleadingly, translated 'hell' in English versions of the N[ew] T[estament]. It refers to the place of the dead ... The old Hebrew concept of the place of the dead, most often called Sheol ... is usually translated as Hades, and the Greek term was naturally and commonly used by Jews writing in Greek" (1992, Vol. 3, p. 14, "Hades, Hell").
Both sheol and hades refer to the grave. A comparison of an Old Testament and a New Testament scripture confirm this. Psalm 16:10 says, "For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption." In Acts 2:27 the apostle Peter quotes this verse and shows that it is a reference to Christ. Here the Greek word hades is substituted for the Hebrew sheol.
Where did Christ go when He died? He went to the grave. His body was placed in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea. The two passages, in Psalms and Acts, tell us Jesus' flesh did not decay in the grave because God resurrected Him.
The majority of scriptures that use the term hell are simply talking about the grave, the place where everyone, whether good or evil, goes at death. The Hebrew word sheol is used in the Old Testament 65 times. In the King James Version it is translated "grave" 31 times, "hell" 31 times and "pit" three times.
The Greek hades is used 11 times in the New Testament. In the King James translation in all instances but one the term hades is translated "hell." The one exception is 1 Corinthians 15:55, where it is translated "grave." In the New King James Version, the translators simply used the original Greek word hades in all 11 instances.
Two other Greek words are translated "hell" in the New Testament. One of these is tartaroo, used only once in the Bible (2 Peter 2:4), where it refers to the place where the fallen angels, or demons, are restrained awaiting their judgment. The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words explains that tartaroo means "to confine in tartaros" and that "Tartaros was the Greek name for the mythological abyss where rebellious gods were confined" (Lawrence Richards, 1985, "Heaven and Hell").
Peter used this reference to contemporary mythology to show that the sinning angels were "delivered ... into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment." Fallen angels are in a condition or place of restraint awaiting their ultimate judgment for their rebellion against God and destructive influence on humanity. Tartaroo applies only to demons. Nowhere does it refer to a fiery hell in which people are punished after death.
The third Greek word used in the Bible and translated "hell" is gehenna. This does refer to a fiery punishment for the wicked—but not in the manner portrayed in the hell of men's imagination.
Gehenna refers to a valley just outside Jerusalem. The word is derived from the Hebrew Ge-Hinnom, the valley of Hinnom (Joshua 18:16). At the time of Jesus this valley was what we might call the city dump—the place where garbage, trash and refuse were thrown and consumed in the fires that constantly burned there. The carcasses of dead animals—and the bodies of despised criminals—were also cast into Gehenna to be burned. Jesus used this particular location and what took place there to help us understand the fate the wicked and unrepentant will suffer in the future.
??????
Obviously you are a very selective Bible reader.
What about the story of the rich man, Lazrus, and Abraham?
You’ve created an end that is impossible by all that is contained in God’s word.
You are evidently referring to [Matthew 8:12;22:13 and 25:30].......correct?
Where was Lazarus? He sure wasn't in Heaven....he was in Abraham's bosum.....the grave.
[John 3:13] And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
No argument with John 3:13, but do you mean that Paul was in error when he declared “absent from the body, present with the Lord?”
A parable meant to illustrate the folly of depending on riches. It wasn't a literal statement on the nature of hell. If it were, then you would have to believe every part of it literally. For example, you would have to believe that "heaven" means that we gaze upon our loved ones burning in hell eternally.
I can give you scripture upon scripture that shows that men perish. The myth that we ALREADY have eternal life is the oldest lie of Satan:
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
God told Adam and Eve that if they ate, they would die.
Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Satan said, no, God's a liar. You won't die.
But they DID die and the process began at the moment they sinned.
Man is NOT immortal. That is Satan's lie.
Think about it. [Ecclesiastes 3:19] For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
[Ecclesiastes 9:5] For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
[Psalm 146:3-4] Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
[Matthew 10:28] And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
All these verse tell us that when we die we go back to the earth.....and know nothing. The Apostle knew that the very first instant after he died he would be resurrected as he knew there would be no sensation of passage of time. Paul believed....and it is scriptural....that the very first thing after death.....would be life in the resurrection. It doesn't matter that some folks will have been dead two thousand years.....because to them it will be an instant after they close their eyes in death.
Your assertion implies that a parable can tell a falsehood to convey the truth. Illogical, and also contrary to the principle of the inerrancy of the word. The Bible contains no fanciful theater; it uses one truth to convey another.
The problem with your fanciful creation is that the spirit doesn’t lose consiousness when the body fails.
[Matthew 13:10-11] And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Oh.....chapter and verse....please?
That doesn't say that the parable gave a falsehood; only that they couldn't understand.
You may take that implication, but I didn't suggest it. Your (or mine) failure to interpret the parable correctly doesn't make it a lie. The parable ran deep and wasn't a statement about the fate of sinners versus the righteous as you seem to suggest. Christ never called the rich man a sinner or the poor man righteous. In fact, if you believe that then you would have to believe that the poor man got to heaven without faith in Christ.
There are in fact many theories about what it represents. Your interpretation is at odds with scripture after scripture telling us that sinners die and that eternal life is only possible through Christ.
Paul speaks of having knowledge, but not having recall of weather it was in or out of body. There could be no question if the spirit lost consiousness when the body did.
If that were in question, they would not have been separated by a gulf.
We are expecting torrential rain tonight and tomorrow.... and a lot of hillsides here in Orange County have been denuded because of the recent fires. We are hoping for the best....but preparing for mud. Many canyons have already been evacuated.
I think this is the tail end of what they had up north (Oregon and Washington). Stay safe my FRiend.
It’s raining lightly here, but has done so all day. It’s nothing compared to what my brother went through up in Oregon; rain blowing sideways 50 feet into sheltered areas!
Have your plywood and sandbags ready though.
Again you're making an assumption that flies in the face of the rest of scripture. The penalty for sin IS death:
Jas 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
I think that Christ was telling a parable to the Pharisees that was tailored to their mindset. You're projecting a "Dante's Inferno" interpretation to this parable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.