Free Republic

Things evos are not allowed to say:

That any scientist who believes in creation is not a real scientist. Also, no putting the word scientist in quotes.

Like it or not, you evos must accept the reality that there are reputable scientists who accept creation. It does not matter what the biased liberal media or other sources, such as the many liberal science journals, have to say about creation scientists not being real scientists.

The global flood has not been confirmed by archaeology. And early geologists (pretty much all creationists) gave up on the global flood about 1830.

Oh come on. Weren't the first big batch of dinosaur fossils discovered around 1850? And within a few years paleontologists discovered that these kinds of fossils were found all over the world? For bones to become fossils you need: rapid burial; lots of water; minerals in the right amounts. Hmmm...you mean like the Flood of Noah?

Not only is 1830 WAY off as some sort of "consensus date" for suspending belief in the Flood of Noah, there are many reputable scientists TODAY who believe that the earth was once covered by a global flood.

It was not the bible till man recognized it as the bible. Collections of old writings do NOT a bible make.

Let's see now...these old writings were authored by more than 40 different men, from all walks of life, on 3 different continents, in 3 languages, across about 1600 years in time, makeing collusion impossible...yet they tell one cohesive story. Further, many of the prophecies of the older writings have already been fulfilled. Archaeological evidence confirms the writings as well. The writings themselves contain claims to be the Word of God - claims which can be tested.

These are some of the factors that argue for the veracity of the writings and validate their collection into the book we call the Bible.

But what IS plain, is that none of this could possibly have arisen purely through chance and time acting on matter (which of course also begs the question of where the matter came from in the first place).

How is that plain? Do you have some inside information which physicists, cosmologists, astronomers, chemists and biochemists all lack? Care to publish that information and claim your Nobel?

I have read articles and books which describe the immense magnitude of complexity found in a single cell...or a strand of DNA...have you watched those Discovery programs which show the behavior of bees in a hive, or other such marvels of nature?

The point is, you don't have to be a scientist to appreciate that there is incredible complexity to living things (one might even say 'irreducible' as in the eye, though I realize that's a touchy word for you evos).

I operate in two professions. One is that of computer programmer and the other is that of musician. Now, when I want to produce a screen or a report or a file update for my company, I have noticed that I actually have to write the instructions to create the program. As much as I might wish for it, the hardware, operating system, and software elements just won't fuse themselves together to make what I want, all by themselves (even when I try giving them the whole afternoon to do it). No; I must use my intelligence to assemble the elements of the code in such a manner that they work with the operating system and hardware platform to produce the object I want.

Similarly, when I create a music track, my guitar doesn't strum itself into the recording device on the correct track using the correct chords in the correct time all by itself. Funny, the drum synthesizer, bass, keyboards, and vocals all have the same problem - they need intelligent guidance and actual execution by the operator to actually create a musical accompaniment track.

My brother-in-law is a general contractor. He has noticed that houses don't build themselves, either. It takes planning and execution by a crew of his workers to produce what the customer wants.

Now, if these inamimate objects require intelligent planning and execution to create these things...how much MORE, do you suppose, creative intelligence and power would be needed to produce a human cell? The eye? The animal kingdom? The stars in the universe? Does the One who made the eye, not see? Does He who made the ear, not hear?

Science is defined by its methods. Science evolves. It applies functional selection to weed out bad ideas. The science of evolution is not one field, but a collection of many, each of them use well tested, effective scientific methodologies to discover the traits of nature. These fields are all interrelated, a discovery in one affects the rest.

Did you mean anything serious by this blather? You know, I thought science was the discovery of the nature and laws of reality through observation, hypothesis, testing, analysis, evaluation, and conclusion. What you have said is pretty mushy, and appeals to conclusion by consensus.

Facts, however, are stubborn things, and could care less about how many people from different fields of study decide to agree on the veracity of something they want to be true, no matter how desperately they want it.

And sorry...there are no transitional fossil forms. Not one. I'm sure you realize, also, that there would have to be many, many of them - more in fact than the number of fossils that man has discovered and classified from 150 years ago until today.

How many additions, deletions, translations and revisions have been made to those ancient writings in 3500 years?

Many refinements to the text have been made with the proliferation of manuscripts, absolutely true. However, the vast majority of these have to do with variations in spelling, or language expression. Basic doctrine has remained as it ever was.

The bible was not recognized till 450 BC and the NT was written less than 2000 years ago.

Moses (1525 BC through 1405 BC) wrote the first 5 books of the Old Testament. Job may have been written even earlier than that.

Man's formal recognition of the OT Scriptures does not supersede the origin of their existence.

You have to wonder why anyone in their right mind would accept the wholesale corruption of known laws of physics to support the words in a 2000 year old book.

Actually the Bible is 3500 years old.

The things we see around us testify to the existence and power of God. The more we learn of the intricate nature of things, the more questions we have. We soon realize that what we don't know vastly exceeds what we do know. But what IS plain, is that none of this could possibly have arisen purely through chance and time acting on matter (which of course also begs the question of where the matter came from in the first place).

It is so exasperating to constantly hear evolutionists telling creationists that we are simply presenting religious views as science, while they are the keepers of true science. That is the pot calling the kettle black.

Evolution isn't science; not fact; not even a valid theory. It is like global warming - a fanatical religion, which is used to serve political ends.

Special Creation is supported by the fossil record. The Bible is not a science textbook, however it does not contradict the scientific principles that man has discovered, for its Author is also the Author of the Science that is behind what we see. He does not contradict Himself.

How about living their lives in the manner that Jesus taught.

Be careful about how you use Matthew 19:16-18. This passage is not God telling us that the way one gets to heaven when he dies is by living a life of obedience to the 10 commandments.

No one can perfectly keep the 10 commandments, let alone live up to the sum of righteous thought and action that is set forth in rest of the Bible. That is why we need Jesus - because on our own, we fall hopelessly short of the standard of God's righteousness. No one gets to heaven by commandment-keeping.

Baptism is not a "step" to salvation. The act of getting baptized (regardless of the mode, sprinkling or full immersion) holds no merit in terms of receiving eternal life. It is an outward symbol of an inner transformation. That is, it is the way by which a believer in Christ, having already received salvation through faith in Christ, publicly professes and symbolizes that he has been born again through personal faith in Jesus.

We read that Jesus presented Himself to John for Baptism. In the Mormonism scheme of Christianity, they believe in being baptised for the dead. If Jesus can die and be resurrected for all who will receive Him, why cannot His baptism also be for all who will receive Him?... Including the little ones who are so prone to exercise faith so easily.

It is Christ's death on Calvary's cross -- THAT AND THAT ALONE -- which atones for the sin of the entire human race. While His death for sin is universal in scope as far as atonement for sin, anyone who desires to be saved must appropriate (receive) that salvation on a personal basis; that is, salvation is not automatically conferred upon every man, woman, and child, simply because Jesus has paid the price for it with His death. You must personally believe in Him, confess that he is Lord, and receive Him as your savior. Believing in Jesus, in terms of Who He Is, means that intellectually you understand that He is God, as well as being the Son of Man (for so He called Himself). He is God the Son, the Second Person of the Triune Godhead. He is One with The Father. He is NOT "Lucifer's spirit-brother" or any other such nonsense. Jesus is not a created being, as Lucifer is. Jesus IS The Creator. He has always existed, since "before eternal times". In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God (John 1:1).

These [words about infants going to hell] are not my words. You should address your comment to a Mr. D. Longo, who presumed to speak for me.

Sorry! I responded to the wrong post.

So, yes, you believe the infant goes to hell and yes you believe the person who never heard of Jesus Christ, through no fault of their own goes to hell.

Couldn't resist jumping in for a minute.

No, infants do not go to hell if they die. They go to heaven to be with the Lord.

Adults who have never heard of Jesus Christ are lost, and not through 'no fault of their own'. They are lost because of the same reason anyone else is lost: because they are sinners who cannot save themselves. God deals fairly and justly with everyone. He will not hold someone who never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ accountable for that gospel on their day of judgement. However, He will hold that person accountable for what knowledge and light he did have; what opportunities he had to act on that knowledge and light; and what actions that person actually took. It's laid out in Romans 2 for us. In other words, God holds people accountable for that which they do know.

Everyone, even the remotest pagan on the planet, has the light of (1) Creation, and (2) Conscience. Barring some mental handicap, every man is aware through Creation itself that a Higher Power exists. That is external revelation. Also, each man has a conscience, an inner guide to what is right or wrong (though it is not infallible). This is an internal witness to the fact that there is a moral order to the universe. Men instinctively know this. And every man, if he is honest, must admit that he has fallen short of even this standard many times - that is, he knows that in the course of his daily life he has often thought, said, and done things that contradict what he knows to be right and true. It is on this basis that God can rightly and justly condemn the man, for the man himself has demonstrated that he is a sinner, and moreover, that he has deliberately sinned, many times in his life.

Romans 10:13-15

for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

You may claim not to be an anti-Mormon bigot, but you certainly sound like one.

Do you realize what you are doing here.

Today, all one has to do to be classed as a religious bigot is point out the errors in someone else's religious doctrines. The fact that the doctrines held by proponents of the religion in question are in conflict with the doctrines of historic Christianity seems not to enter into the equation. All that matters to people anymore is that their own doctrines, whatever they are, no matter how silly they are, be accepted and approved on equal footing with all other religious doctrines. Equally valid, in other words. Of course, if all doctrines are equally valid, then no doctrine is valid (for they all conflict with one another, each making exclusive truth claims).

I am against any cult system, for the same reason I am against anything else that is clearly wrong - because acting on wrong beliefs produces negative (and possibly even tragic and fatal) consequences for those who adhere to them. That makes me a clear thinker who is concerned for others, not a bigot.

Failure to accept the essence of God's Being - that He is trinitarian in nature - means rejection of the Biblical God of historic Christianity.

You are inside the cult of Mormonism; I am not. Your defense of Mormonism is understandable but wrong-headed. Mormonism is indeed a cult, and fits the classic definition and modus operandi of such.

Article by Frank Pastore, Sat April 28, 2007 on Townhall.com

Mormonism: Religion, Denomination, or Cult?

Am I an anti-Mormon bigot for simply raising this question?

In this column two weeks ago (available here), I stated I would vote for Mitt Romney should he win the Republican nomination, and that “though I am willing to unite with and befriend Mormons in common cause to advance our shared values, I am hoping to be a voice of clarity – unwilling to allow Mormonism to be mistaken for orthodox Christianity and unwilling again to disqualify a candidate simply because he is from a faith tradition so different from my own.”

I also stated, “many Mormons in recent years have taken to calling themselves Christians, and a growing number of Christians are willing to speak of Mormonism as something akin to another Christian denomination. But, Mormonism is not a Christian denomination, nor is it merely ‘a non-Christian religion.’ To be theologically precise, though perhaps politically incorrect, Mormonism is a cult of Christianity.”

The Romney candidacy is both good news and bad news for Mormonism. It is the greatest opportunity in the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to win converts because hundreds of millions of people from all over the world will be exposed to the teachings of Mormonism for the very first time.

However, that’s also the bad news.

I say this with no animus towards Mormons. I am neither “anti-Mormon” nor a bigot. But, words mean things. And we are in danger of losing a perfectly good word to the forces of political correctness.

“Cult” is in danger of becoming the new theological “n-word.”

If you winced when you read the title of this column, you’re already feeling the pressure.

Most Christians and many Mormons do not know Mormon theology, if the emails and responses from my last column are any indication.

“A cult of Christianity is a group of people, which claiming to be Christian, embraces a particular doctrinal system taught by an individual leader, group of leaders, or organization, which (system) denies (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the central doctrines of the Christian faith as taught in the sixty-six books of the Bible.” – Alan Gomes, Ed., Unmasking the Cults (Zondervan, 1995).

If Mormonism can no longer be called a cult of Christianity, then neither can the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the United Pentecostal Church, or the Unification Church (to name but a few). If this is to be the case, then books will have to be retitled, libraries and bookstores will have to relabel their shelves, and colleges will have to rename their courses. And, perhaps my seminary degree will be declared illegitimate since I had a course in “Cults” at Talbot School of Theology under Professor Gomes (homepage), whose Unmasking the Cults series linked above is simply the best thing on cults in print. The pertinent volume on Mormonism is written by Kurt Van Gorden and is available here, or from his website here.

So, though I am willing to unite with Mormons in common cause to advance our shared values, I am unwilling to allow Mormonism to be mistaken for Christianity.

Mormonism has almost nothing in common with Christianity. Mormonism is polytheistic, it denies original sin, it teaches that both God the Father and God the Holy Spirit have physical bodies, that Jesus was conceived through sexual intercourse between God the Father and Mary, that Jesus was the spirit-brother of Lucifer, that Jesus was a polygamist, that Jesus traveled to the Americas during His three days in the tomb, and that every Mormon male will one day become a God ruling over his own planet, accompanied by multiple wives, just as the God of this Earth, named Elohim – who was once a man – has done here.

Each of these claims are rooted in primary source documents of the Mormon church (see my Cults Study Guide .pdf available free here.) Another good link to start an examination of Mormon theology is here.

However, you will not find this information located on the “Basic Beliefs” page of the official L.D.S. website (here). It is the “meat” you will learn once you’re able to digest the “milk” of basic Mormon theology. There is a lot of Christian terminology on the official website, but upon examination, you come to understand that though the terms are familiar, the meanings of those terms are foreign and heretical.

For now, in the spirit of clarity and to honor brevity, a simple overview of the birth of Mormonism must suffice.

In 1820, a 14 year old farm boy named Joseph Smith went to the woods to pray about the religious turmoil going on around his hometown of Palmyra, New York. Revivals had broken out, and young Joseph didn’t know which of the denominations to join. So, he prayed for guidance. God the Father and Jesus appeared to him in bodily form, and he was told, “I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith History, 1:19).

Joseph claims he was told all Christianity was heretical, and that he would be correcting eighteen centuries of error.

The Mormon message is clear: historic Christianity false, Joseph Smith’s visions true.

Three years later, on September 21, 1823, in another vision, the angel Moroni appeared and told him of an ancient book written on golden plates buried nearby in Hill Cumorah. He was shown the location, but was prohibited from taking the plates. Moroni told him the plates recorded the history of an ancient American civilization written in Reformed Egyptian Hieroglyphics – an utterly unique language for which there is no evidence – and that he was to translate them with the aid of two magical seer stones called the Urim and Thummim. Moroni had been given the plates by his father Mormon, and Moroni had buried them prior to his death in the final great battle between the Nephites and the Lamanites that took place near Cumorah in 385AD. After 1,400 years, Moroni – now an angel – had returned to direct Joseph Smith to the plates.

In 1827, Smith was finally allowed to take the plates just long enough to finish the translation before they were to be returned to Moroni. In May 1829, while Smith and Oliver Cowdery were praying in a forest near Bainbridge, Pennsylvania, John the Baptist appeared and conferred the Aaronic priesthood to them. Later, Peter, James, and John appeared and conferred upon them the Melchizedekian priesthood. The translation was completed in three years, and the Book of Mormon was published in March, 1830. On April 6, 1830, Smith and five others formed The Church of Christ in Fayette, New York. After two name changes over the next four years, they settled on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Mormonism is not Christian, from its birth it has been anti-Christian.

The first Christians believed they had met the promised Jewish Messiah in fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. It is both correct and proper to say Christianity is the completion of Judaism.

However, Joseph Smith considered both Judaism and Christianity not incomplete but false, choosing instead to write his own versions of the Old and New Testaments while also adding additional holy texts. Had he not claimed to be the “corrected” version of Christianity, Mormonism would be a false religion. Yet, by claiming to be the “true” Christianity, he created the archetypical “cult of Christianity.”

For me, this is what makes the Romney candidacy so fascinating: a political conservative who belongs to a cult of Christianity.

It will be interesting to see whether Romney can persuade enough conservative Christians to vote for him, in spite of his Mormonism. Not since Kennedy have such questions been raised.

With regard to this writer’s vote, however, Romney’s got it – if he can win the Republican nomination.

(FIRST ADD: At 3:05 PDT, Saturday April 28, 2007, Frank Pastore posted the following correction to his column:

The clause "...God the Father and God the Holy Spirit have physical bodies, ..." is an error. It should read "God the Father and God the Son have physical bodies while only the Holy Ghost is a purely spiritual being, ..." according to Doctrines & Covenants 130:22. –– Frank

The Frank Pastore Show is heard in Los Angeles weekday afternoons on 99.5 KKLA and on the web at kkla.com, and is the winner of the 2006 National Religious Broadcasters Talk Show of the Year. Frank is a former major league pitcher with graduate degrees in both philosophy of religion and political philosophy.

Correction... Mormonism does not believe in the pagan, mystical, amorphous, politically expedient, historical God of Emperor Constantine.

Huh? Not sure where you're coming from on this. The Biblical God is not the 'pagan, mystical, amorphous, politically expedient, historical God of Emperor Constantine' -- which is what you seem to implying.

While Al Sharpton is deplorable in his shameless opportunism, and we all know that he was simply looking for a glib way to smear a Republican candidate for President...he has actually spoken some truth here (probably an unintended consequence, considering who he is). The Mormon religion is antithetical to historic Christianity, and “God” as defined by Mormonism is certainly not the biblical God of Christianity.

Dude...the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is overwhelming (more than 5,000 complete manuscripts). Compare this with about 10 copies of the Iliad.

Jesus did not regard King David as a fictional character. Nor, for example, did he regard the story of Jonah and the whale as a fictional account.

The four gospels were all written in the 1st century A.D. Matthew or Mark within 20 years (not 200) of Jesus' death; Luke very soon thereafter; John probably around 85-95 A.D. The point is, they were written soon enough (quite soon enough) that many who were alive and who witnessed the activities of Christ during his 3 year ministry, were still alive along with the authors of the gospels, and would have refuted the gospel accounts if they were in error. They would never have been able to gain the circulation and credibility they did, if they were fabrications.

On your last point...suffice to say that while many religious leaders have risen to greatness, only One has risen from the grave. The resurrection of Christ authenticates His divinity.

Evolution is an observation. Observations don't morally compel us to do anything.

Ummm...evolution is a religious point of view, not an observation.

For the story of Adam and Eve to be true, there would have to be significant inbreeding and that has disastrous results. ANd you would not be able to account for the huge racial diversity throughout the world. There is a laundry list of scientific reason why it is just not possible. Not to mention, the bible itself has big gaping plot holes. Like who did Cain marry?

Adam and Eve were created in a pure state by God. Therefore, intermarriage among their offspring would not have been the problem that it is for us today.

Their DNA no doubt contained all of the elements necessary for the racial diversity among the world's inhabitabts today.

Were today's scientists on hand to personally observe the creation of Adam and Eve?

Big gaping plot holes...Cain would have married one of his sisters or some other close relative. Significant degeneration of the gene pool did not occur for many hundreds of years after Adam and Eve were created. By the time of Moses (which had to be at least 2600 years later) God prohibited intermarriage on moral grounds. No doubt this prohibition also encompassed the fact that by then inbreeding would be dangerous, producing defective offspring.

I was a member of a conservative Baptist church for 11 years. Then I attended for 3 years at an AOG church while playing on the worship team. Currently I am searching for another church to attend regularly.