Posted on 08/28/2009 8:53:44 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Polling data has revealed a trend indicating that “America is not a Christian nation.”[1] Although a large majority of Americans outwardly claim to be Christian, their inward beliefs are actually non-Christian. Why is this so?
Classic Christianity is based on certain fundamental doctrines that are clearly taught in the Bible, such as the universality of sin, the universality of access to the Savior, and the exclusivity of that Savior.[2] But apparently, many of those who call themselves Christians deny that Jesus Christ is the only Savior.
Newsweek reported, “According to a 2008 Pew Forum survey, 65 percent of us believe that ‘many religions can lead to eternal life,’” but “76 percent of us continue to identify as Christian.”[1] What kind of “Christianity” denies the very Christ for whom it is named?
The Bible speaks of a future time when...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
What of their opinions?
“Science indicates to me that some degree of evolution occurs in species’ genes.”
“Religion informs me that God directs all.”
So you believe that God is an animal that evolved?
Gen.1:26
[26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Ever noticed that?
You couldn’t be more wrong. I have had numerous PMs thanking me for posting these links, my ping list keeps growing and growing with out soliciting for new members, and a couple of FReepers even informed me that these links helped them make a decision to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. If nothing else, that makes it all worthwhile right there.
Since when did any ToE research papers have any predictions (prophecies) come true to the letter 600-1000 years later?
:)
Free Speech!
Amen to that :o)
I said this where?
you lost me.. sorry.
I am of the view that believing living things evolve isn’t incompatible with Christianity.
believing it’s a cosmic random event derived from an amino acids soup mix on some just perfect by accident planet and henceforth explains how humans ..who have only been here for an electron orbit of time in day of space... came to be ..is incompatible with Christianity.
not to mention other arguments for God’s presence like behavior and fate and emotional tells
is that hypocritical, debunked, ignorant and ad nauseating?
btw...i have a mirror...it’s getting older..lol
Really? How so?
What makes you think that you have a better reason to question the faith of someone else, than creationists do?
Who made you so special?
The double standard that evos display on FR is so blindigly and blatantly obvious that everyone can see it, except other evos.
How do you spell hypocrite? e-v-o-l-u-t-i-o-n-i-s-t
'All things are possible for God', *except* a literal six-day creation and a young earth.
Man has decreed that such things are *not* possible for God, therefore they are not possible.
Man has spoken.
/sarc
Did God tell you that? Why should anyone care about yours? Why are you yelling then?
The people with weak faith are those who can't handle what God said as He plainly said it in Scripture and have to twist it and reinterpret it to make it fit their preconceived notions based on what mere man has concluded.
If the Bible cannot be trusted to be true because "Every SINGLE person who authored, edited, or compiled the various books of the Bible was Human and subject to Human error.", then that same standard has to be applied to every single other work that man has ever produced throughout history.
To be consistent, the same standards must apply to all works. Otherwise, there is then no more reason to put any confidence in the ToE than there is to put it in the Bible.
The understanding of what Christ taught and what Darwinism is is so foggy that statements of how “compatiable” the two are can be offered again and again as though self evident.
At least that’s the most charitable explanation.
And I'm sure that atheists and evos portraying Christians and creationists in such a light has nothing to do with it. /s
I’ve heard that idea before, that the Bible is just the efforts of sincere men that equally sincere men may ignore where and when they wish.
Isn’t that what is taking place as active homosexuals are now acceptable to the ELCA leadership and some percentage of the membership?
Maybe because ol' Kansas is losing the argument?
Appears to be suffering from a pathology known as self-blinding hubris. True to form.
God does care whether one chooses to take Him at His Word or not, and He disregards opinions of man to the contrary. As such, He would likely dismiss Kansas58's opinions in this same context.
To his credit, he's usually much more lucid and better composed over on the birth certificate threads.
Can't really account for his coming so un-hinged on this one, except to say that he'd probably prefer to create a "God" in his own image.
Diagnosis: self-blinding hubris.
It is due to statements like this made by your bother in Christ Tom Willis of the Creation Science Association for Mid America.
Clearly then, “evolutionists should not be allowed to roam free in the land.” All that remains for us to discuss is “What should be done with evolutionists?” For the purposes of this essay, I will ignore the minor issue of Western-style jurisprudenceand merely mention possible solutions to the “evolutionism problem,” leaving the legal details to others:
· Labor camps. Their fellow believers were high on these. But, my position would be that most of them have lived their lives at, or near the public trough. So, after their own beliefs, their life should continue only as long as they can support themselves in the camps.
· Require them to wear placards around their neck, or perhaps large medallions which prominently announce “Warning: Evolutionist! Mentally Incompetent – Potentially Dangerous.” I consider this option too dangerous.
· Since evolutionists are liars and most do not really believe evolution we could employ truth serum or water-boarding to obtain confessions of evolution rejection. But, this should, at most, result in parole, because, like Muslims, evolutionist religion permits them to lie if there is any benefit to them.
· An Evolutionist Colony in Antarctica could be a promising option. Of course inspections would be required to prevent too much progress. They might invent gunpowder.
· A colony on Mars would prevent gunpowder from harming anyone but their own kind, in the unlikely event they turned out to be intelligent enough to invent it.
· All options should include 24-hour sound system playing Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris reading Darwin’s Origin of Species, or the preservation of Favored Races by Means of Natural Selection. Of course some will consider this cruel & unusual, especially since they will undoubtedly have that treatment for eternity.
Arguments and disagreements over Biblical interpretation went on among the Founders. This isn’t anyting “new”, and is very much a part of our heritage.
Ira, You tried that “brother (bother?) in Christ, Willis” nonsense with me and it didn’t work...Why do you think it will work here and now?
You never denounced his words of hate.
Is it wrong to expose this hatred done in the name of Christ?
The id/creationist/ cdesign proponentsists need to see how this type of rhetoric is painting all Christians in a bad light and driving people away from the Lord.
This anti-science stance is reeking of Theocracy.
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.