In the beginning (Evolution and religion)

The debate over creation and evolution, once most conspicuous in America, is fast going global

THE “Atlas of Creation” runs to 770 pages and is lavishly illustrated with photographs of fossils and living animals, interlaced with quotations from the Koran. Its author claims to prove not only the falsehood of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, but the links between “Darwinism” and such diverse evils as communism, fascism and terrorism. In recent weeks the “Atlas de la Création” has been arriving unsolicited and free of charge at schools and universities across French-speaking Europe. It is the latest sign of a revolt against the theories of Darwin, on which virtually the whole of modern biology is based, that is gathering momentum in many parts of the world.

The mass distribution of a French version of the “Atlas” (already published in English and Turkish) typifies the style of an Istanbul publishing house whose sole business is the dissemination, in many languages, of scores of works by a single author, a charismatic but controversial Turkish preacher who writes as Harun Yahya but is really called Adnan Oktar. According to a Turkish scientist who now lives in America, the movement founded by Mr Oktar is “powerful, global and very well financed”. Translations of Mr Oktar's work into tongues like Arabic, Urdu and Bahasa Indonesia have ensured a large following in Muslim countries.

In his native Turkey there are many people, including devout Muslims, who feel uncomfortable about the 51-year-old Mr Oktar's strong appeal to young women and his political sympathies for the nationalist right. But across the Muslim world he seems to be riding high. Many of the most popular Islamic websites refer readers to his vast canon.

In the more prosperous parts of the historically Christian world, Mr Oktar's flamboyant style would be unappealing, even to religious believers. Among mainstream Catholics and liberal Protestants, clerical pronouncements on creation and evolution are often couched in careful—and for many people, almost impenetrable—theological language. For example, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the world's 80m Anglicans, has dismissed literal readings of the Creation story in Genesis as a “category mistake”. But no such highbrow reticence holds back the more zealous Christian movements in the developing world, where the strongest religious medicine seems to go down best.

In Kenya, for example, there is a bitter controversy over plans to put on display the most complete skeleton of a prehistoric human being ever found, a figure known as Turkana Boy—along with a collection of fossils, some of which may be as much as 200m years old. Bishop Boniface Adoyo, an evangelical leader who claims to speak for 35 denominations and 10m believers, has denounced the proposed exhibit, asserting that: “I did not evolve from Turkana Boy or anything like it.”

Richard Leakey, the palaeontologist who unearthed both the skeleton and the fossils in northern Kenya, is adamant that the show must go on. “Whether the bishop likes it or not, Turkana Boy is a distant relation of his,” Mr Leakey has insisted. Local Catholics have backed him.

Rows over religion and reason are also raging in Russia. In recent weeks the Russian Orthodox Church has backed a family in St Petersburg who (unsuccessfully) sued the education authorities for teaching only about evolution to explain the origins of life. Plunging into deep scientific waters, a spokesman for the Moscow Patriarchate, Father Vsevolod Chaplin, said Darwin's theory of evolution was “based on pretty strained argumentation”—and that physical evidence cited in its support “can never prove that one biological species can evolve into another.”

A much more nuanced critique, not of Darwin himself but of secular world-views based on Darwin's ideas, has been advanced by Pope Benedict XVI, the conservative Bavarian who assumed the most powerful office in the Christian world two years ago. The pope marked his 80th birthday this week by publishing a book on Jesus Christ. But for Vatican-watchers, an equally important event was the issue in German, a few days earlier, of a book in which the pontiff and several key advisers expound their views on the emergence of the universe and life. While avoiding the cruder arguments that have been used to challenge Darwin's theories, the pope asserts that evolution cannot be conclusively proved; and that the manner in which life developed was indicative of a “divine reason” which could not be discerned by scientific methods alone.

Both in his previous role as the chief enforcer of Catholic doctrine and since his enthronement, the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has made clear his profound belief that man has a unique, God-given role in the animal kingdom; and that a divine creator has an ongoing role in sustaining the universe, something far more than just “lighting the blue touch paper” for the Big Bang, the event that scientists think set the universe in motion. Yesterday America, today the world

As these examples from around the world show, the debate over creation, evolution and religion is rapidly going global. Until recently, all the hottest public arguments had taken place in the United States, where school boards in many districts and states tried to restrict the teaching of Darwin's idea that life in its myriad forms evolved through a natural process of adaptation to changing conditions.

Darwin-bashers in America suffered a body-blow in December 2005, when a judge—striking down the policies of a district school board in Pennsylvania—delivered a 139-page verdict that delved deeply into questions about the origin of life and tore apart the case made by the “intelligent design” camp: the idea that some features of the natural world can be explained only by the direct intervention of a ingenious creator.

Intelligent design, the judge found, was a religious theory, not a scientific one—and its teaching in schools violated the constitution, which bars the establishment of any religion. One point advanced in favour of intelligent design—the “irreducible complexity” of some living things—was purportedly scientific, but it was not well-founded, the judge ruled. Proponents of intelligent design were also dishonest in saying that where there were gaps in evolutionary theory, their own view was the only alternative, according to the judge.

The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which has spearheaded the American campaign to counter-balance the teaching of evolution, artfully distanced itself from the Pennsylvania case, saying the local school board had gone too far in mixing intelligent design with a more overtly religious doctrine of “creationism”. But the verdict made it much harder for school boards in other parts of America to mandate curbs on the teaching of evolution, as many have tried to do—to the horror of most professional scientists.

Whatever the defeats they have suffered on home ground, American foes of Darwin seem to be gaining influence elsewhere. In February several luminaries of the anti-evolution movement in the United States went to Istanbul for a grand conference where Darwin's ideas were roundly denounced. The organiser of the gathering was a Turkish Muslim author and columnist, Mustafa Akyol, who forged strong American connections during a fellowship at the Discovery Institute.

To the dismay of some Americans and the delight of others, Mr Akyol was invited to give evidence (against Darwin's ideas) at hearings held by the Kansas school board in 2005 on how science should be taught. Mr Akyol, an advocate of reconciliation between Muslims and the West who is much in demand at conferences on the future of Islam, is careful to distinguish his position from that of the extravagant publishing venture in his home city. “They make some valid criticisms of Darwinism, but I disagree with most of their other views,” insists the young author, whose other favourite cause is the compatibility between Islam and Western liberal ideals, including human rights and capitalism. But a multi-layered anti-Darwin movement has certainly brought about a climate in Turkey and other Muslim countries that makes sure challenges to evolution theory, be they sophisticated or crude, are often well received.

America's arguments over evolution are also being followed closely in Brazil, where—as the pope will find when he visits the country next month—various forms of evangelicalism and Pentecostalism are advancing rapidly at the expense of the majority Catholic faith. Samuel Rodovalho, an activist in Brazil's Pentecostal church, puts it simply: “We are convinced that the story of Genesis is right, and we take heart from the fact that in North America the teaching of evolution in schools has been challenged.”

Even in the United States, defenders of evolution teaching do not see their battle as won. There was widespread dismay in their ranks in February when John McCain, a Republican presidential candidate, accepted an invitation (albeit to talk about geopolitics, not science) from the Discovery Institute. And some opponents of intelligent design are still recovering from their shock at reading in the New York Times a commentary written, partly at the prompting of the Discovery Institute, by the pope's close friend, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the Archbishop of Vienna.

In his July 2005 article the cardinal seemed to challenge what most scientists would see as axiomatic—the idea that natural selection is an adequate explanation for the diversity and complexity of life in all its forms. Within days, the pope and his advisers found they had new interlocutors. Lawrence Krauss, an American physicist in the front-line of courtroom battles over education, fired off a letter to the Vatican urging a clarification. An agnostic Jew who insists that evolution neither disproves nor affirms any particular faith, Mr Krauss recruited as co-signatories two American biologists who were also devout Catholics. Around the same time, another Catholic voice was raised in support of evolution, that of Father George Coyne, a Jesuit astronomer who until last year was head of the Vatican observatory in Rome. Mr Krauss reckons his missive helped to nudge the Catholic authorities into clarifying their view and insisting that they did still accept natural selection as a scientific theory.

But that was not the end of the story. Catholic physicists, biologists and astronomers (like Father Coyne) insisted that there was no reason to revise their view that intelligent design is bad science. And they expressed concern (as the Christian philosopher Augustine did in the 4th century) that if the Christian church teaches things about the physical world which are manifestly false, then everything else the church teaches might be discredited too. But there is also a feeling among Pope Benedict's senior advisers that in rejecting intelligent design as it is understood in America they must not go too far in endorsing the idea that Darwinian evolution says all that needs to be, or can be, said about how the world came to be.

The net result has been the emergence of two distinct camps among the Catholic pundits who aspire to influence the pope. In one there are people such as Father Coyne, who believe (like the agnostic Mr Krauss) that physics and metaphysics can and should be separated. From his new base at a parish in North Carolina, Father Coyne insists strongly on the integrity of science—“natural phenomena have natural causes”—and he is as firm as any secular biologist in asserting that every year the theory of evolution is consolidated with fresh evidence.

In the second camp are those, including some high up in the Vatican bureaucracy, who feel that Catholic scientists like Father Coyne have gone too far in accepting the world-view of their secular colleagues. This camp stresses that Darwinian science should not seduce people into believing that man evolved purely as the result of a process of random selection. While rejecting American-style intelligent design, some authoritative Catholic thinkers claim to see God's hand in “convergence”: the apparent fact that, as they put it, similar processes and structures are present in organisms that have evolved separately.

As an example of Catholic thinking that is relatively critical of science-based views of the world, take Father Joseph Fessio, the provost of Ave Maria University in Florida and a participant in a seminar on creation and evolution which led to the new book with papal input. As Father Fessio observes, Catholics accept three different ways of learning about reality: empirical observation, direct revelations from God and, between those two categories, “natural philosophy”—the ability of human reason to discern divine reason in the created universe. That is not quite intelligent design, but it does sound similar. The mainly Protestant heritage of the United States may be one reason why the idea of “natural philosophy” is poorly understood by American thinkers, Father Fessio playfully suggests. (Another problem the Vatican may face is that Orthodox Christian theologians, as well as Catholic mystics, are wary of “natural philosophy”: they insist that mystical communion with God is radically different from observation or speculation by the human brain.) The evolution of the anti-evolutionists

Whatever they think about science, there is one crucial problem that all Christian thinkers about creation must wrestle with: the status of the human being in relation to other creatures, and the whole universe. There is no reading of Christianity which does not assert the belief that mankind, while part of the animal kingdom, has a unique vocation and potential to enhance the rest of creation, or else to destroy it. This point has been especially emphasised by Pope Benedict's interlocutors in the Orthodox church, such as its senior prelate Patriarch Bartholomew I, who has been nudging the Vatican to take a stronger line on man's effect on the environment and climate change.

For Father Coyne, belief in man's unique status is entirely consistent with an evolutionary view of life. “The fact we are at the end of this marvellous process is something that glorifies us,” he says.

But Benedict XVI apparently wants to lay down an even stronger line on the status of man as a species produced by divine ordinance, not just random selection. “Man is the only creature on earth that God willed for his own sake,” says a document issued under Pope John Paul II and approved by the then Cardinal Ratzinger.

What is not quite clear is whether the current pope accepts the “Chinese wall” that his old scientific adviser, Father Coyne, has struggled to preserve between physics and metaphysics. It is in the name of this Chinese wall that Father Coyne and other Catholic scientists have been able to make common cause with agnostics, like Mr Krauss, in defence of the scientific method. What the Jesuit astronomer and his secular friends all share is the belief that people who agree about physics can differ about metaphysics or religion.

Critics like Father Fessio would retort that their problem was not with the Chinese wall—but with an attempt to tear it down by scientists whose position is both Darwinist and anti-religious: in other words, with those who believe that scientific observation of the universe leaves no room at all for religious belief. (Some scientists and philosophers go further, dismissing religion itself as a phenomenon brought about by man's evolutionary needs.)

The new book quoting Pope Benedict's contributions to last year's seminar shows him doing his best to pick his way through these arguments: accepting that scientific descriptions of the universe are valid as far as they go, while insisting that they are ultimately incomplete as a way of explaining how things came to be. On those points, he seems to share the “anti-Darwinist” position of Father Fessio; but he also agrees with Father Coyne that a “God of the gaps” theory—which uses a deity to fill in the real or imagined holes in evolutionary science—is too small-minded. Only a handful of the world's 2 billion Christians will be able to make sense of his intricate intellectual arguments, and there is a risk that simplistic reporting and faulty interpretation of his ideas could create the impression that the pope has deserted to the ranks of the outright anti-evolutionists; he has done no such thing, his advisers insist.

Not that the advocates of intelligent design or outright creationists are in need of anyone's endorsement. Their ideas are flourishing and their numbers growing. As Mr Krauss has caustically argued, the anti-evolution movement is itself a prime example of evolution and adaptability—defeated in one arena, it will resurface elsewhere. His ally Father Coyne, the devoted star-gazer, is one of the relatively few boffins who have managed to expound with equal passion both their scientific views and their religious beliefs. He writes with breathless excitement about “the dance of the fertile universe, a ballet with three ballerinas: chance, necessity and fertility.” Whether they are atheists or theists, other supporters of Darwin's ideas on natural selection will have to inspire as well as inform if they are to compete with their growing army of foes.

“Why so hell bent on YOU having me belong to a religion? “

Because Lone Ranger Christian don’t make it. Plus, their directly disobeying Christ. Want to know how?

“Besides satan is powerless, he’s been defeated and under my feet.”

Not true!

1 Peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

You determine how the “Spirit” that is speaking to you is from God, by what the words and the character from which it comes. Just by you asking me that question tells me you are a trouble shooter and a non-believer. You will not shake my faith nor the faith of a soul that knows the one true God. Jesus did not establish a religion, he established a way of life and a truth that transcend the concept of a religion. The concept of Religion is not even figured here. He did tell his disciples to teach people the same things that he [Jesus] taught them. It wasn’t religion it was a way of life and a way to eternal life after death. Man calls it religion, as well as Mormans, Buddist, Scientologist, Jeh. witnesses, Muslims, hari Christna...or whatever they call it...and; and, Satanist call their worship of Satan a religion. Now, there is something wrong with the term. The love and following of Jesus Christ has little to no association to the term Religion.

OH, I never said that I “despised” religion. Where did you get that? Don’t put words in my writings that are not there. I don’t have a religion, in that others use Religion to control people....in the name of some religion.

The old concepts or similar writings correspondening to the bible is just that.....you have to ask yourself in reality, “who inspired these other Gods and religions”? Then, there lies the truth linked with the lie...........to disinform.

You see, cold does not exist as a term or a principle, in the same way that Evil exists only because there is an absence of God; in the same way that cold only exists because of an absence of heat.

The world is in chaos because in every war and most all conflicts we provided the seed as did England.

"You determine how the “Spirit” that is speaking to you is from God, by what the words and the character from which it comes."

You must have a higher criteria than that. Paul stated, "And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:14) - and John said, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God:" (1 John 4:1) In other words, beware, because you can be deceived. You must compare what you believe the Spirit is telling you to what God has revealed in the Scripture - and to what God has taught other Christians.

"Just by you asking me that question tells me you are a trouble shooter and a non-believer."

You are mistaken. Your comment was, " I don’t believe in Religion....I believe in Jesus Christ." That is usually a sign of someone who has "pop religion" - i.e. "I don't need no Church to tell me what to do, I got Jesus and I'll just do my own thang...". Usually it's followed up with a disparagement of "organized religion".

" Jesus did not establish a religion, he established a way of life and a truth that transcend the concept of a religion. "

You are hung up on the word religion. Religion can be "a way of life" As we saw earlier, religion can be defined as: “3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.” This could (partially) describe the Christian experience. There can be bad religion - if James points out what good religion is, then there must be a corresponding "bad" religion.

"If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." - James 1:26, 27

Worthless Christian religion is a religion that evidences no true holiness or compassion. If James says that there is pure and undelifed religion, then that's the kind of religion you and I need!

"OH, I never said that I “despised” religion."

Forgive me if I put word in your mouth. So, do you like religion?

"I don’t have a religion, in that others use Religion to control people."

Where do you go to church?

If the atheist crowd could definitively prove false Genesis, then why should they take any part of Christianity seriously?

Every branch of science, not just biology, shows that a literal interpretation of Genesis is a flawed interpretation. Hence it is our understanding of Genesis that needs to be reconsidered.

But at the same time this does not mean that we understand the literal meaning of Genesis completely. For instance, due to the fluidity of time as affected by speed and gravity, the explanation in Genesis, even if accurate, may not be clear for quite a while.

That's essentially my point. I don't see a literal Genesis interpretation as a foundational issue, unlike many of the replies to my earlier posts. A literal interpretation, to me, restricts God and forces Him to be restricted by our time and space as well as our conceptions. It forces Him to be a part of creation, not outside of it.

While genetics should be the foundation of biology, and I don’t believe that any biologist would say that they completely understand genetics, evolution has taken over as the philosophical “foundation of biology” even while new cellular and genetic mechanisms are discovered today.

I disagree. Evolution is the explanation for (and the predecessor of) modern genetics. Evolution was around long before molecular genetics and the discoveries of molecular genetics are all consistent with evolution. If they weren't, then evolution would have had serious issues. There are always new discoveries in every branch of science and lots of things we don't know or understand. Those gaps are not indicators of weak theory, but places of future discovery. Science as a whole, and that includes evolution, are fluid and are under constant revision.

I think that is one of many reasons why some people have such a hard time with it. It does not offer an absolute truth like religion does. It is fluid and changing and that can be quite disconcerting for many people. But with religion, it is easy to take a literalist approach and then go on spiritual war with anything that even remotely contradicts that fundamentalist perspective. There is no introspection or questioning of one's interpretation. It is that dichotamy that is the source of friction. One group is fluid and changing, the other is rigid and unyeilding.

The problem is you are hung up on the word religion. I go to church at a First Baptist that is very near.

The scripture is good to have in order to know what words are of God and what is not. However, your spirit and it’s recognition of the truth is supernatural and you do not need a higher criteria. You are mistaken there.

You are also mistaken and mislabeling what I said for your own purposes. You don’t have the knowledge nor the right to lable what I said, as Pop Religion. Your authority stops to just what you think. In other words, you don’t have the authority to label what I said as a general label. Your posts are misleading and your attempt to control is weak at best.

For example.......”....I believe in Jesus Christ.” That is usually a sign of someone who has “pop religion” - i.e. “I don’t need no Church to tell me what to do, I got Jesus and I’ll just do my own thang...”. Usually it’s followed up with a disparagement of “organized religion”.

What I said, is not a sign except according to your own personal beliefs, not for a general classification. You also tend to put words in peoples mouths which then takes away any credibility or desire to take your posts serious. I never said, “I’ll just do my own thang”. This is your ignorance showing....:)) and obvious agenda to distort what is true.

I don’t trust Religion. I assume then that you approve of the doctrine that I will become a God, or, the Religion that Jesus was not God, or the religion that Jesus was a prophet only....which religion do you favor? Or, do you favor all as long as they believe in something?

I don’t think I will forgive you for putting words in my mouth twice now. You are quickly losing any form of credibility and in my humble opinion, you are the type that gives just enough truth, and then once you have their confidence, you sway from the truth and inject false doctrine. This is only my humble opinion, however...:)) lolol.

then evolution would have had serious issues.

It does - it's purpose is to deceive.

There are always new discoveries in every branch of science

Science, yes. Evolution is a belief, as in a religion. And evo's are out to 'convert' everyday - much like the Jehovah Witness's.

and lots of things we don't know or understand. Those gaps are not indicators of weak theory, but places of future discovery.

Yes, evos don't understand but have no problem telling others they are wrong. Weak is an understatement. Your place of 'future discovery' is a given because "EVERY KNEE WILL BOW". Your future discovery will show how wrong you were.

Science as a whole, and that includes evolution, are fluid and are under constant revision.

Evolution is not a science - no matter how many times evos try to make an association with it to gain credibility. When something is based on a lie, it will ALWAYS be a LIE.

I think that is one of many reasons why some people have such a hard time with it.

Evos are having the hard time with it. They just can't/won't understand why Christians don't succumb to "THEIR" way of thinking. Mere mortal man and "his" thinking - his ego is his enemy. It's time to get over it - God is Supreme, All Mighty, Everlasting, THE ALPHA and THE OMEGA, THE KING OF KINGS, ALL Powerful, ALL Knowing. Evos - get a grip - you cannot compete, try as you may.

It does not offer an absolute truth

There is only ONE Absolute Truth - The Living Word.

It is fluid and changing and that can be quite disconcerting for many people.

It should be disconcerting - who would chase something that is not stable. God ALWAYS was, ALWAYS will be, and ALWAYS will remain the same and that equals TRUTH.

One group is fluid and changing, the other is rigid and unyeilding.

One group is chasing it's tail, and the other is grounded in TRUTH. And, you are right - unyielding to the deceiver! God Reigns and what an Awesome God He is!

Satan is powerless, when you have the spirit of Christ and his word on your side and in your mind. These postings are filled with those that are trying to control by appearing to be Christians. Its a clever way to mislead but one that is obvious. If Evolution is a religion which one of the “posters” agreed with, then who can trust a “religion”. As i said before, one does not need to belong to a religion which is structured by man, using their own rules that won’t be found in the Bible. It just so happens that Biblical principles tend to follow the Christian Religion but not all. If I attend a “Christian” church and they start putting their own rules in the “flock”, well, I get the “flock” out of there...and never to return. It’s simple......:)lolol...:))

When you have the Truth, you do save a lot of time.

Willful ignorance - a mind is such a terrible thing to use.

And so is time spent on a lie. That's a great bumper sticker that applies to evo's! Willful ignorance - They 'think' with their limited brain they know more than The Almighty! Man vs. God - how much more ignorant and self-righteous can someone be!

Those who have the mind of Christ have no need to chase a monkey's tail. When you get tired of the lie and deceit, you will seek The Truth. Unless, of course, your ego is more important than Truth.

Gen 2:15 ¶ And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Question for you: How long did Adam live BEFORE he and Eve ate of the tree?

Gen 3:1 ¶ Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

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.

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Adam and Eve did not physically die. Satan gave them the old switcheroo. God meant that they would spiritually die. They did. And, they physically began to die, too.

Adam lived to be 930 years old. I take that to mean that he lived 930 years from the point he and Eve ate of the fruit.

How long did he live before the sin occurred?

that are trying to control by appearing to be Christians.

Yeah, and they are doing a terrible job of it!

one does not need to belong to a religion which is structured by man,

And one SHOULDN'T. That's why the PUSH for some to make you say - you do belong to a religion - otherwise, if you don't the lion will attack you!! And then do it by quoting scripture! They refuse to submit that Christians follow Christ, not a religion. Anything to decrease the Name of JESUS CHRIST! A tactic of satan, the father of lies.

Satan uses lies and wraps it up in some truth - but he is the great deceiver because when you know The Truth - you know, the great deceiver is powerless - all he has is deceit. If one falls for it, it's at their own doing - they submitted to it and it's not by any 'perceived' power of satan because he ain't got any power. He was been defeated at The Cross!

It's so obvious how 'these 'self proclaimed' Christians' give no power to The Blood of Jesus but give power to satan using 'their thinking'. Hence, the 'self'.

I do attend a church where only The Word of God is taught - and where we gather as a family to praise and honor The Most Holy and Most Powerful Name, Jesus - The Living Word! We are humble servants to a Mighty Savior, yet we are co-heirs in His Kingdom.

Jesus did it all, so we could have it all - here and for eternity! Now that's LOVE! What an awesome privilege it is to be able to call him Our Father and He calls us His children.

You are a long way from where I am right now, but; I’m working in that direction. It’s a pleasure to know that the truth is shared and supported.

I found a book, you may have heard of before. “The Conspiracy to Silence the Son of God” by Tal Brooke; 1998.

Changing times are very very close at hand. Those that have never thought of the “end times”, “New World Order Conspiracy”.....will now start looking for answers. There will be a sweeping of the Holy Spirit, in the same way that a conductor will send out his last boarding call before the train pulls out.....and then the Ark doors will shut. Some amazing things are going to happen in a relatively short while.

You’re using the worn-out, “if it’s old it must be deficient” argument.

Only recognizing that most people think that old ideas are in fact deficient. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.

Do you feel the same way about the U.S. Constitution???

The history behind the US Constitution is orders of magnitude more secure than Christianity. Yes, there are two milenia of history of Christianity, but it is the history of the followers of Christ and the evolution of their belief, not a direct history of Christ himself. There is *some* valid history of Christ. All I'm saying is that there is dramatically more history behind the countries founding.

As to the Constitution, it is secular law pertaining to how we run the country, while Christianity is a personal faith that can be accepted or rejected at will.

Those documents [about other old faiths] would be subject to the rules of evidence. They would be set aside.

You would set them aside because your belief system. I don't follow your belief system, and see them equally as old documents with supernatural claims with zero physical evidence. They are equal in my judgement.

In the Bible, God states, “You will find me when you seek for me with all your heart.” Can you honestly say you have done that?

People tend to find what they're looking for. That's why genuine science requires double blind tests, so that the researcher will not read into the evidence that which he wants to be true. You want your faith to be true, therefore your mind makes it so.

As for myself, I was once intending to be a Southern Baptist Missionary, and attended a religious university for a time. I've sought Jesus with all my heart, and eventually discovered my mistake.

You are a long way from where I am right now

I don't see it that way at all! We are grounded in Truth and learning more of His Awesomeness. Of course, we will never know ALL about Him here but in eternity.

There will be a sweeping of the Holy Spirit

Yes and your analogy is fitting. The last call, indeed, before The New World Order - the flood of deceit - takes over.

Some amazing things are going to happen in a relatively short while.

And they are amazing right now - seeing how 'today's news' has already been 'WRITTEN' thousands of years ago. And since we read The Book, we know the end and know of 'our victory'.

Ploys of satan, the deceiver... You can't understand scripture or 'how do you know you interpreted it correctly'.

Those who claim Christianity can't possibly believe that God would give us a book and not an Instructor. In fact, if they read the Book, they will KNOW that the Holy Spirit is our Teacher. Like this is My Book and I'm not going to let you understand it! What kind of god do they serve?

While satan has some believing in a "Bang" instead of "The Almighty Creator', he goes after those that believe there is a God and uses his 'written by man, don't understand, misinterpret 'tactics'. Then satan's pawns do the same to us who know he has no power and he can't achieve anything - unless one submits themselves to his deceit. Resist satan and he will flee. God's Word vs. deceit - Good vs evil - all the time, everytime.

you may have heard of before. “The Conspiracy to Silence the Son of God” by Tal Brooke; 1998.

No, I don't remember hearing about it. It will be worthwhile reading since he 'gets it'. Time spent on those who choose to remain deceived/clueless is time wasted, IMO.

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.