Posted on 09/24/2009 8:37:40 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[[If evolution is right, then (as the article says) there is no Adam and Eve, no original sin, no need for a savior and Jesus is redundant, QED. Thinking through the logical consequences makes Christianity out to be no more than a nice but untrue religion]]
Exactly- apparently though, in order to befriend the left, we have to throw out all sense of reasoning, doubt God’s word, call God a liar, pick and hcoose which portions of God’s word we want to beleive,, and ignore the FACT that evolution is based solely on ASSUMPTIONS, lacks scientific support, ignore the scientific impossibilities facing evolution, ignore that it violates natural laws, and just pretend there’s no conflict with hte bible- like you- I think I’ll pass
What you said. Exactly what you said.
I could say more, but what you said covers it nicely in a positive way.
Thanks...I am surprised though, not that there are atheists on FR who only have the option of evolution, but Christians who have fallen for the ‘god of the gaps’ theory which is usually associated withthe liberal / left. That is not to accuse our brother of being liberal/left but only to recognise the influences in that mindset.
You said it well. Example is much better than constantly being yelled at.
that’s like saying you can believe in a cradle to grave welfare state and still be a conservative. “We’ll just manage it better than the liberals.”
Thanks for the ping!
BFL
the other option is “I accept the Bible as it is. I’m not going to try to fit evolution into the Bible but I’m not going to pretend I have all the scientific answers. I have faith that one day we will and everything will make sense.”
For many years the accepted science was that there could not have been a beginning at all, that the universe always existed. Someone who wanted to fit that belief into the Bible wouldn’t make it past the first 3 words. Now most scientists believe there was a beginning, just billions of years ago. Scientific understanding changes, especially when we’re talking about a time when nobody else was around to observe and measure.
The kids go away for a while then come back 95% of the time. There is no real problem!
When would the National Day of Prayer have been, and what can stop us from going to the outside of the White House and praying anyway on that day?
” do not wish to disparage the affects of Darwinism on society, but the primary reasons that the youth are leaving Christianity are (1) the poor example of parents. (2) the heretical teachings of liberal Christian denominations. (3) the lack of knowledge about doctrine.”
I agree with you especially #1. I’d also add because believing and following God’s word is hard, there is not always an immediate positive feedback for doing whats right and bad things do happen to which there is often not a logical or comforting answer. Also, society as a whole places significant value on the financially wealthy and famous but doesn’t see (or ignores) the moral bankruptcy of the majority of these individuals.
Actually, FRiend, the problem is generally not the supposed competition between Genesis and evolution, but rather the Christians who are rather unpleasantly strident about claiming that they are.
It ain't the science, brother ... it's often us Christians that are the problem.
“Either Genesis is right or evolution is right.”
Wrong. Christianity and evolution are perfectly compatible. Faith and science are perfectly compatible.
[[but Christians who have fallen for the ‘god of the gaps’ theory which is usually associated withthe liberal / left.]]
One has to wonder just who these self-professed ‘Christians’ worship- it certainly isn’t hte Creator that they worship, and infact, many who beleive in theistic evolution deny the very God-ness of Christ because it conflicts with their hypothesis of Macroevolution and hte need for a redeemer. I’ve seen many theistic evolutionists deny clai mthat Christ was nothign more than a ‘good teacher’ and claim that most portions of God’s word were nothign more than popular myths (some even goign so far as to claim the Holy spirit inspired writers of the bible weren’t infact holy Spirit inspired, but rather were plagarists who ‘stole myths’ from other religions’)
In order to reconcile Macroevolution with God’s word, one MUST call God out as a liar, deny whole portions of God’s word, Question the very Holy Spirit inspired writers of God’s word, Quesiton whether the bible is infact the Direct word of God to us, and not some simple man-inspired ‘good teachings of hte day’.
By their fruit shall ye know them- Theistic evolutionists play a good game, but their fruit is rotton to hte core, and hteir contempt for true Christians who hold that God’s word is infallible, is only thinly disguised by religious sounding rhettoric.. My God created man from the dust of hte ground, breathed life directly into his nostrils, created a mate for him- breathed life directly into her nostrils, and there was no sin or spirit death BEFORE the fall, which rules out macroevolution, and hwich therefore means the bible and evolution do infact contradict each other- any attemptto reconcile the two is nothign more than an attempt to discredit God’s word altogether by claiming we ‘need to broaden our interpretations’. The Evil One comes as an angel of light- quotign Scriptures (but out of context), and tryign to convince hte masses that there’s ‘more than one itnerpretation’ of hte bible, and tryign to convince the masses that the bible is open to all manner of error because the ‘writers were human, and the translators were confused’.
[[That is not to accuse our brother of being liberal/left]]
He accuses hismelf- it’s open for anyone to see and judge- He certainly accuses you and I I suppose, of being too ‘narrow minded’ (and htus by implication, apparently we’re ‘scientifically ignorant’ Christians who hold to the infallibility of God’s word, in his mind)
Yes, the4 bible and evolution are ‘perfectly compatible’ as long as you are comfortable callign God a complete liar, and ignoring His word- Yes, the ‘problem lies with us Christians’ who happen to take God at His word, and who doubt the failed hyptohesis of Macroevolution
At least Huxley was intellectually honest enough to admit one either beleives in evolution, or hte bible, and that there can’t be any middle ground- but apaprently htere are many today not honest enough to admit this
““But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.” (Mark 10:6)
If you believe Christ is Lord and are dedicated to following the Words of Jesus, then this becomes an enormous problem.
“Theory”? Evolution is not a theory; it is a failed hypothesis at best as its coherence leaves much to be desired.”
Huxley then gave a lesson on New Testament theology. He quoted Matthew 19:4–5: “And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”?’” Huxley commented, “If divine authority is not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis, what is the value of language? And again, I ask, if one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as a ‘type’ or ‘allegory,’ what becomes of the foundation of Pauline theology?”4
And to substantiate this, Huxley quoted 1 Corinthians 15:21–22: “For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.”
Huxley continued, “If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive ‘type,’ comparable to the profound Promethean mythos, what value has Paul’s dialectic?”5
Thus, concerning those who accepted the New Testament doctrines that Paul and Christ teach but rejected Genesis as literal history, Huxley claimed “the melancholy fact remains, that the position they have taken up is hopelessly untenable.”6
He was adamant that science (by which he meant evolutionary, long-age ideas about the past) had proven that one cannot intelligently accept the Genesis account of creation and the Flood as historical truth. He further pointed out that various doctrines in the New Testament are dependent on the truth of these events, such as Paul’s teaching on the doctrine of sin, Christ’s teaching on the doctrine of marriage, and the warning of future judgment. Huxley mocked those who try to harmonize evolution and millions of years with the Bible, because it requires them to give up a historical Genesis while still trying to hold to the doctrines of the New Testament.
What was Huxley’s point? He insisted that the theologians had to accept evolution and millions of years, but he pointed out that, to be consistent, they had to give up the Bible totally. Compromise is impossible.
This is an obvious reference to the millions of years associated with the fossil record. The god of an old earth is one who uses death as part of creating. Death, therefore, can’t be the penalty for sin and can’t be described as the last enemy (1 Corinthians 15:26).
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/couldnt-god-have-used-evolution
As each subsequent generation has pushed this door of compromise open farther and farther, they are increasingly not accepting the morality or salvation of the Bible either. After all, if the history in Genesis is not correct, how can one be sure the rest is correct? Jesus said, “If I have told you earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” (John 3:12).
Are you certain someone wouldn't just mistake you for a Rotarian? Really, you think Christianity is just "being nice to each other"? Indeed, wouldn't most members of the "Hope and Change" movement say they behave in the way you recommend?
That depends. If they purposefully omit references to God, as you did, and attribute quotes which weren't written, then perhaps. You're point is taken: faith is about more than simple good acts, but that wasn't my isolated point, which is why I used Jesus as the model, and framed the whole idea within the following context: "Something that gives them hope and purpose and demonstrates the transformative power of God's grace.
You chose to ignore all that...inexplicably.
“(2) the heretical teachings of liberal Christian denominations.”
That is EXACTLY what the author of this book, the author of the book I am reading (Ken Ham), and this article is about.
When we have Christians teaching that evolution is compatible with Genesis, we will have youths leaving the Church.
And evolutionists don’t realize that evolution is based on multiple logical fallacies.
“Thinking themselves wise, they became fools.”
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.