Posted on 09/24/2009 8:37:40 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[[I think alot of people are getting that sense the way this idiot is moving waaaaaay too fast and has taken off his mask.]]
Was just talking abouthtis today- Obama isn’t attempting to hide it anymore- He’s just flat out opposing Christianity, and praising Islam and htose that stand for Islam. I can NOT beleive this country voted this dolt who obviously feels ashamed of America, into office. His ideology, more and more, smacks of end times, doing hte bidding of the one from the pit of sulfer Himself- Guess Hugo is confused abotu hte smell of sulfer
Your posts manifest a rather haughty and proud
spirit.
“ I have a remarkably keen insight into both... “
Wow, thanks for wasting your time slumming with
the rubes here !
“Wow, thanks for wasting your time slumming with
the rubes here !”
You’re welcome! Actually, I don’t consider my actions as a waste of my time at all. I gladly take on the responsibility of reminding the folks here that faith and science are separate and wholly compatible, and that most Christians are perfectly comfortable with the process of evolution.
Keep in touch!
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).
[[How do you determine what is or isn’t allegory?]]
to the ‘religious’ (who incidently run away with hteir tails between their legs when asked if they have ever received Christ as their personal Savior the way the bible speaks about) determine what is allegory by determinign what does and does not agree with macroevolution. Since Christ had to die to cover the sins of fallen man who fell after creation, bringing spirit death to the world, they do not think Christ was anythign more than a ‘good man’ or ‘good teacher’ because to admit He was the Son of God who became man to die for our sins, woudl be to admit that man didn’t evovle, because if they had evolved, there would have had to have been death and sin before the sin of Adam and Eve, and hte bible makes irt very clear, there wasn’t- so, whatever refutes the idea of Macroevolution, must hterefore be allegory-, and anyhting that can be skewed and twisted to support macroevolution, must hterefore be ‘biblical truth’ (which i nther minds amoutns to nothign more substantial than ‘good men writign good thigns for man to do’)
“Yes, the4 bible and evolution are ‘perfectly compatible’ as long as you are comfortable callign God a complete liar, and ignoring His word...”
A refresher course in allegory is in order for you!
Wow...typical liberal tactic of projection. Metmom is perfectly secure with the definition, so all your wild swinging still leaves you at the same spot.
Can you define the term or are you just going to keep up with the pretense?
Surely you believe that Catholics and Episcopalians are Christian, don’t you?
Apparently so...nope...still not it. How many times will you require explanation that Chrisianity is greater than it's denominations Buck?
Young people want a demonstration of the power of The LORD. We Christians need to know how to be used by The LORD God Almighty as vessels of His mighty power. When the power of The LORD is revealed it will put to rest all opposition to truth for those who are willing to believe. Let’s pray that The LORD reveals His mighty power!
Wow...typical liberal tactic of projection. Metmom is perfectly secure with the definition, so all your wild swinging still leaves you at the same spot.
Can you define the term or are you just going to keep up with the pretense?
Surely you believe that Catholics and Episcopalians are Christian, don’t you?
Apparently so...nope...still not it. How many times will you require explanation that Chrisianity is greater than it's denominations Buck?
[[How do you determine what is or isn’t allegory?]]
the bible makes it VERY clear that it is Scripture that interprets Scripture, and NOT man- When hte ibble includes allegory, it clearly indicates, with corroborating Scriptures, that allegory is being used- when allegory is NOT intended, the bible is an historical work from the Holy spirit workign htrough man
2 Peter 1:21-22 clearly states in no uncertain terms that Scripture is not a matter of human interpretation since Its Source is not human - the Holy Spirit gave the Words, spoken by God to men to write down.
People who obviously reject the word of God as a supernatural work By God, Through man, obviously reject the authority of His word, and so will not ever admit anythign that doesn’t jive with their Macroevolutionary beleif- their’s is not a ‘religion’ of Sovreignty, Omnipotence, and Salvation, theirs is a religion of secularism and interpretation. Just liek the Pharisees (who incidently also claimed to be ‘religious’), the theistic evolutionsits MUST undermine hte very word of God in order to get God’s word to mesh with their hyptohesis- Jesus point blank exposed the pharisees as teachign somethign that was NOT the word of God!!! They ‘honor’ God with their lips, but their hearts are desperately wicked and far from God- Anyoen can ‘honor’ God- but it’s what proceeds fro mthe heart that exposes their spiritual conditions for everyone to see.
as I psoted earlier- theistic evolutionists have also called into question Christ’s own Godship because in order for Macroevolution to be concidered, one must call into question the NEED for Christ to come to die for original sin- They call into quesiton His Godship, His death, even His life, and certainly His ressurection.
Theistic evolutionists will often claim that ‘there are many interpretations’ of the bible, and that ‘no one interpretation is true or right’, but what does hte bible tell us? Yup- that it is NOT man that interprets Scripture, but Scripture itself which is the ONLY valid itnerpretation of Scripture. Those who reject God’s word deny this of course- despite tjhe bible clearly tellign us this is so- they simply come up with another ‘man-made interpretation’ to wave thsoe verses away. Their ‘truth’ is built upon sand, nothign more substantial that the whims of the day, whichever way the wind blows, that’s the ‘truth’ forthem- subjective man-made interpretation! The bible is NOT the Holy Spirit Inspired word of God to them- it’s nothign more than ‘good words written by good people who may or may not have been right’ and ‘who may or may not have interpreted good teachigns right’
Jesus was apparently prepared to start here...and so am I.
Do you really think I am saying that being "nice" and loving people is bad? Certainly it is good. But "nice" and "loving people" are not the same as being a Christian. "Good" is not the same as being a Christian. I'm sure there are lots of loving and nice pagans in the world.
But do you really think young people turn away from church/Christianity because they have not been taught to love people? I think they are taught this constantly in church and youth camps, but that teaching is so generic and part of pretty much all religions that the yutes see no reason to connect to a religion that is the same as all others, or the same as just "doing good works" with no judgment and no need for a Redeemer.
“Wow...typical liberal tactic of projection. Metmom is perfectly secure with the definition, so all your wild swinging still leaves you at the same spot.”
I’m not so sure. You both keep asking the question, so I am forced to conclude that your faith is so weak that you have to compare your beliefs to mine as a form of reassurance.
I’m a proud Christian. I believe that evolution is fact. Most Christians do.
“How many times will you require explanation that Chrisianity is greater than it’s denominations Buck? “
Are Catholics who faithfully follow Catholic doctrine, teachings, and sacraments for their entire lives Christians?
This question is open to all. It’s a yes/no question.
There’s a very tiny percentage of people on FR that define Christianity the way you do...strictly by denominational doctine.
Another tiny percentage of them dismiss the Bible the way you do.
But there’s no doubt, as has been pointed out on this very thread...there are indeed secular progressive liberals undermining churches all across the land with “feel good” liberalism...cafeteria Catholicism, etc.
Christian insight isn’t gained by secular progressive “keen intellect”...it’s gained by wisdom from the Holy Spirit.
I thought Hugo was laughing at himself breaking wind...
as far as the zerrhoid...my brother is convinced he’s a precursor. I sure hope he’s right!
Either way though, the dude is absolutely scary!
When you think about it...there’s alot to be done...but this dude is moving faster than I thought!
If he starts asking for getting rid of our currency, then having people laser their account numbers into their skin...
creepy stuff!
If they're Christians...of course!
No Buck, that’s not it either...it’s not comfortably believing in evolution that makes you a Christian.
You didn’t answer my question.
That’s not what I said.
Government schools must be shut down because they can NOT be religiously neutral. No school is religiously neutral.
Please try to follow me here:
No school is religiously neutral. It is impossible. This is axiomatic.
Why?
Reason: The school must choose between having either a godless worldview or a God-centered worldview. It must choose one or the other. The worldview chosen ( godless of God-centered) will NOT be religiously neutral in either content or consequences.
Obviously, if a God-centered worldview is chosen, then we have the obvious problem of whose God-centered worldview. The state would be establishing a particular sect of religion.
If a godless worldview is chosen, then God is ignored. By doing this the state is establishing atheism as a religious philosophy. The state is teaching children how to think about everything taught in school from a godless perspective. The state is literally teaching children to ignore God, and giving them practical daily lessons on how to live without God in their lives. This isn't religiously neutral either!
I will give you a few examples from my own Catholic education:
In studying **all** literature, we examined where the Commandments had been broken and how the conflict may have been avoided by simply living the commandments, and following the principles taught in our catechism. Examples from the lives of the Saints were liberally applied when appropriate. We learned to integrate our faith into essence of our thinking about **everything**!
In a school with a godless worldview ignoring all of this has just as many religious consequences as including it.
In science and math, the nuns at appropriate times made certain that we understood that math and science was a creation of a **rational** God. Studying the sciences and math gave us a glimpse into the mind of God. It was our responsibility to be as educated as possible so that we could use this information to bless our fellow man ( literately, our brothers and sisters who were also children of God.)
Again, to ignore the above in a school with a godless worldview has just as many non-neutral religious consequences as including it would.
Aren’t you better able to teach your kids about God than the schools?
The best way to teach about God is to have it thoroughly and completely integrated into the child's entire life in an appropriate manner. This means seamlessly integrating it into a child's schooling, as well.
Government schools must be abolished because it is NOT religiously neutral to teach children how to think godlessly, and then ask parent to both unteach these godless habits and patterns and then attempt to teach in a few hours in the evening what should have been part of the child's entire day.
Fundamentally, government schools are a First Amendment and freedom of conscience abomination!
I have given you the benefit of the doubt and I have given you a thoughtful and polite response. I am assuming that you are not a troll. By your response ( if you make one) I will know if you are troll or not.
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.