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 has led to this weakening of belief in biblical truth? In order for people to move away from classical Christianity, they must come to believe in something other than what the Bible teaches. And this is exactly what evolutionary doctrines accomplish."
Christianity has doctrines. Evolution does not. One of the major criticisms of evolutionary theory by creationists is that evolutionary theorists are always changing their minds. This is because they are not tied to any specific doctrines. If their studies take them in a different direction, then so be it. Of course being humans scientists will resist shifting away from a current well-developed position until a more than sufficient quantity of data is amassed to undermine it. Eventually, however, the hope is that evolutionary theory will more-and-more reflect what happened ... and is happening.
Also, even if evolutionary theory had doctrines, these doctrines couldn't accomplish anything. Doctrines are inanimate concepts. Certainly ideas have consequences, but only because of peoples' individual response to them. If evolutionary ideas were complete poppycock then they would have ended up in the intellectual dustbin over a century ago.
Evolutionary theory, for some reason, seems to have legs. Maybe it is because the universe appears to have been around for billions of years, as has our earth. Maybe evolutionary is more compatible with the scientific evidence than the theory that everything was created just 6,000 years ago.
Of course it could be that as soon as someone discovers evolutionary theory their immediate first thought is: Wow! If I believed in this I could have guilt-free sex 24/7 for the rest of my life. Whoopee!
Somehow this thought doesn't seem to have occured to the vast numbers of scientists who daily forego bouts of wild monkey sex in favor of squatting down in hot dusty desert areas to carefully extract fossils from the earth.
So you believe that God is an animal that evolved?
I said this where?
You stated somewhere ... you should know where ... that evolution is compatiable with the Bible. I gace you just a FEW verses that show evolution is not compatible with God.
God isn’t an “ape” that “evolved”.
Humans are made in His image and He is no ape!
I am a religious person and I believe in God. I find the militant atheism of some evolutionary biologists ill-reasoned and childish, and most importantly unscientific — crucially, faith should not be subject to scientific justification. But the converse also holds true — science should not need to be validated by the narrow dogma of faith. As such, I regard the opinions of the Discovery Institute as regressive, repressive, divisive, sectarian and probably unrepresentative of views held by people of faith generally ~ Henry Gee
http://stevereuland.blogspot.com/2006/04/wittlessly-quote-mining.html
You can expose anything you wish,
“Is it wrong to expose this hatred done in the name of Christ?”
but you're here griping about how someone didn't say the words you want them to.
“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.”
From what I've seen lately I'd lay that more to the corruption of morals by those claiming to be Christian shepherds and propagandizing of the young by the “higher” skeptics” (Darwinists, atheists, humanists, blatherists) over the years.
The creationist views have been around a long time and over the years in my discussions with folks I've found a lot of people turned off religion for a lot of reasons but not once because they heard someone's creationist's opinions.
“This anti-science stance is reeking of Theocracy.”
Anti-science or anti-Evolutionary doctrine?
Theocracy? Christians look forward to living under a Theocracy as God's Kingdom is. What future Darwinism has in that you'll have to explain to me.
The bible is generally accurate to a much higher extent than most history accounts. Nonetheless it is not protected by God from human error. One simple and obvious example should suffice: The NIB actually translates Isaiah 30:26 using the term "seven full days" as if what were meant was the notion of cramming seven days of light into one day; what the verse provably refers to is the seven days of intense light prior to the flood which are referred to also in Genesis 7:4. The NIB rendition is a total mistranslation.
We’ve heard this kind of nonsense before.
Worried about a theocracy, are you, coyoteman?
FWIW, how do you know who is my *brother in Christ*?
On the other hand, real scientific disciplines do not have to be totally reinvented every fifteen or twenty years as is the case with evoloserism.
Coyoteman, it is you. It is you.
Welcome back.
Long time no see.
Really?! Dr. Stadler is back amongst us? Welcome back Dr. Stadler. Or is it Dr. Ferris? Stadler. Ferris . . . Ferris. Stadler.
Oh, I can never remember. Ferris . . . Stadler. It doesn't matter. Opposite sides of the same coin of dross.
How is the NIB a “total mistranslation”?
The OT is a sort of a Readers’ Digest compendium of some of what Jews call Midrashim, or the full body of antique rabbinical literature. The statement you find in Midrash sources is that the Lord turned on the primordial lights of the universe to commemorate the death of Methusalah who died the week prior to the flood and Louis Ginzberg’s “Legends of the Jews” which is the largest body of Midrashim ever translated into western languages directly connects Isaiah 30:26 and Genesis 7.4 for this reason. What is being said is that there was some sort of a stellar blowout near or inside our own system, i.e. a nova-like event, followed by seven days of intense light and then the deluge.
When Christ said, “Your word is truth”, it wasn't the Midrahim he was talking about. When the apostle Paul told Timothy, “all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial.....”, he wasn't wasn't talking about the Midrashim.
As the title of your reference says, “Legends”.
Another evo stating that if you don’t believe as the evos do, then your faith is weak.
roll eyes.....
Who made you the judge of what is strong faith and what is weak faith and on what basis? What is the Scriptural criteria that you use to make that determination?
It’s odd that evos accuse creationists of having weak faith when evos depend so heavily on evidence and then turn around and accuse creationists who supply evidence to support their viewpoint of having weak faith because they depend on evidence, not faith.
So, which is it evos?
They honestly don’t know anymore.
Too many have failed to get the various memos it seems...
for starters that evolution indeed addresses origins...as we’ve learned in Bezerkly’s evolution 101 (courtesy of YHAOS...thanks YHAOS!)
And then there’s the sticky wicket of evolution IS intelligent design...
sure to go over like a lead ballooon for the likes of the die-hard evolutionists like Dawkins...
then there’s the utter disconnect by closet liberals failing to understand evolution is the liberal position.
As if algore, Chrissy Fit Matthews, etc. etc. etc. aren’t proof enough, demanding settled science...debate is over...blah blah blah!
Not to mention liberals sue to shut down debate because they can’t tolerate a free debate/exchange of ideas...for obvious reasons...
and how does evolution survive? Not by peer review obviously, ohterwise there’d BE no need of so many lawsuits...
actually evolution is in serious trouble.
Yet another undeniable disconnect from liberal reality.
Inspired by God maybe, mistranslated by yuppies, as I note, provably. The editors of the KJ at least had the decency when they didn't understand the context of a passage, to leave the language alone rather than ruin the sense of the stories trying to yuppify the language. My own take is that the KJ is the only English language bible worth having. Luther's bible and the Russian bible translate Isaiah identically without adding the word "whole" i.e. "as the light of seven days", meaning the seven days preceeding the flood.
Kansas58: It is entirely possible to be a good Christian and accept the possibility of Evolution.
We should NOT be forced into an “either / OR” decision.
Tax Government: Exactly right...Christianity and evolution are compatible.
Have either of you been in or around a government run failed NEA public screwel lately?
Oh wait...in the last 30-35 years?
It’s the liberals that ensure they’re not “compatable”.
This is a common misconception. It would be helpful to get together with a Christ centered Bible study group to learn why this is incorrect.
Her post “proves” everything it needed to prove.
It’s also quite fascianting that she posts Biblical scripture, which you say proves nothing and then you turn right around and...
post Biblical scripture!
That’s called a cafeteria Christian.
BTW...why would people 2000 years ago need to understand man came from monkeys over ga-jillions of years any less than we do?
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.