Posted on 10/11/2009 6:56:59 AM PDT by OneVike
“There was an article I posted from Answers Magazine that pointed out how conservative churches are losing their children to the ways of the world while they are still in Junior and Senior High school.”
While “the ways of the world” implies the secular world, This article seems to make no mention of obviously money-grubbing TV preachers, and other dubious groups masquerading as “religion” as also contributing to the demise of religion.
In my opinion, those providing “false” religion are more of a threat that those that are secular. “false” religion does more to turn people away than the secular does to lure people away from conservative religion - and having a pool of non-religious folks offers the promise of enlightenment that can and should drive the faithful.
I have a clue that, if the usual rules pertaining to personal attacks and "mind reading" are in effect, there's going to be a lot of empty space in this thread before it's over with.
Dawkins comes on TV, in news print, in magazines, on radio news shows etc, ranting about Creationists, foaming at the m outh, and htis is ‘news’, but let a Creation scientist present evidnece refuting evolution, and by golly the evos and atheists fall to pieces demanding censorship, or ‘fairness doctrine’, or ‘political activism’
While I am a Bible believer, I see nothing in scripture that proves there was not a gap between Gen. 1:2 and Gen. 1:3...Plus, there is scripture that does bolster that idea...
And, that 'idea' does not lead one away from God...On the contrary, it strengthens one's faith in that it resolves the problems, real or perceived, of the actual age of the earth while keeping with the rest of the creation story...
Regardless, the source of one questioning God's word and authority was Satan...Satan convinced Eve to question God's word and it stands to reason that everyone who questions God's word is being led by Satan...
These are the new words you have invented today.
First off, there is no scripture that supports the gap theory, secondly, when children grow up thinking God is not the Creator and man is not the first to sin and thus death did not enter the world through Adam’s sin, you have made Go sand Christ a liar.
Let me ask if you even read the article that specifically answered your assertion? If so, then give me your evidence and I promise to proof it wrong.
What? Are you threatening me with that post? Are you going to hit the abuse button on me because I observed that you didn’t understand the point of my post?
This is on the religion forum, yes.
So why are you here?
I fail to see why you would care to question anything anyone here says when you have not mentioned anything that this thread is about. Are you here just to start a fight?
If not, then why do you care what or where it is said unless like I said you just want a fight?
I asked as simple question. - Why does it bother you that some people don’t think it’s an appropriate subject for political activism. It’s not an unusual POV, and there’s much in our political history to support the idea that it’s not something the government should be involved in.
Do you mean things in the bible like the fact that God said there was no sin and spirit death BEFORE the fall of man? IF evolution were true, there would HAVE to be spirit death BEFORE the fall of man- The whoel word of God, and reason for Christ’s birth and death, was to redeam man from the sin ghe brought upon all mankind because he sinned against God when told not to- So no, there isn’t anythign in God’s word that supports theistic evolution
“CAN WE TRUST THE BIBLE?
In accepting evolution, liberal theologians reject a number of key Christian beliefs. They reject the traditional date and authorship of many books in the Bible, which in itself represents a drastic undercutting of confidence in Scripture. If we cannot trust the Bible when it makes simple claims about when and by whom it was written, can we trust it when it makes much more important spiritual claims?
In treating the Bible as though it must be cut and patched to convey a ‘true’ picture, liberal theologians are saying it is full of errors. If the Bible is full of errors, it obviously cannot be revelation from God.
Take Genesis, for example. Liberalism rejects the Bible’s own claim that God told Moses what to write (Exodus 24:4; Numbers 33:2; etc.). Instead, it assumes that Genesis is a collection of writings by authors living much later. These hypothetical authors (dubbed J, E, D, and P) were writing merely out of their own experience and convictions. An example can be found in Conrad Hyer’s book, The Meaning of Creation. He attributes the content of Genesis 1 and 2 not to God’s revelation, but to the life experiences and religious purposes of its hypothetical authors, presumably writing hundreds of years after Moses.1
WHERE DID EVIL COME FROM?
A contemporary of Darwin described the theological impact of evolution in these words:
‘The evolution of man from lower forms of life was in itself a new and startling fact, and one that broke up the old theology. I and my contemporaries, however, accepted it as fact. The first and obvious result of this experience was that we were compelled to regard the Biblical story of the Fall as not historic ... If there is no historic Fall, what becomes of the redemption, the salvation through Christ?’2
The Bible clearly tells us that evil, suffering, and death are real, so we are not escapist. However, evil is not intrinsic to the world. God created a good world. Evil entered by the free choice of individual human beings when Adam and Eve first sinned. So it is not contradictory to say that some day God will wipe out evil and sorrow.
This teaching is both our hope for the future and our basis for fighting evil today. The theistic evolutionist loses all this. By denying the Fall, he loses the Biblical answer to the question, where did evil and suffering come from?
Theistic evolution assumes that evil and death are intrinsic to God’s creation and have been there since the beginning. In other words, that God created them. God Himself is then the source of evil. But then God must be an evil God. To avoid this conclusion theistic evolutionists usually trivialize evil. This imperfect world is just a stepping stone to a better world which will evolve from it. Which brings us to the next point.
REDEEMED FROM WHAT?
If there was no Fall, why do we need redemption? If the problem is not our sin but our animal nature, then we only need to wait for evolution to raise us to the next stage.
I was talking to a young woman recently who summed it up well. The answer is so simple, she said, that we often overlook it. Jesus treated Genesis as though it actually happened, so that settles it. We may not be able to master a lot of complex arguments against theistic evolution, but even a child can grasp this one. Among those who claim to be Christians, Jesus’ own treatment of Genesis closes the question.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/god_evolution.asp
While the bible may be twisted and stretched to view long ages- doing so, one has to outright deny the whole context of God’s word, and compelte passages in order to do so- and even bring into question the whole message of God’s word of redemption
It doesn’t bother me that some people don’t think that it’s an appropriate subject for a political forum. That isn’t what I commented about.
Read the post again. Several times, if you need to. What I said was clear enough to get the point across.
Others certainly got the point I was making.
If someone wants to make their religious beliefs government policy, does that give you any reason to ask questions?
That one apparently did.
Like I said, what pray-tell does anything you bring to the table have to do with the subject of this thread?
You like so many others see religion and never even read what the article says, but get on the defense and start attacking the reason for where or what it is doing here for.
So unless you want to partake in the debate between YEC and OEC, which by the way is a Christian in house debate, then go find another thread to disrupt.
[[If someone wants to make their religious beliefs government policy,]]
The govenrment HAs made their religious beliefs govenrment policy, and as such, we have the right to question it- last we checked, religious beliefs are NOT banned in public discussions- however, folks seekign to push discussions involving religious precepts out of public view certainly would apparently like to have them banned, or at least buried. Till such a ban takes place, it’s certainyl reasonable to discuss issues affectign policy, and hte state of Christian views in science and politics, in public forums- I know that probably really grates on yours, and other DC folk’s nerves, but you all will carry on just fine, and hte world isn’t goign to crumble down around you when peopel openly discuss religion in public
That seems an odd statement from someone complaining about "self appointed moderators".
Do you consider this an example of the governemt making their religion public policy?
Here are some more words you have invented today.
Age dating beyond 5000 years or so IS a religious ideology based on assumptions using problem riddled methods that are also built upon religious assumptions about long ages- since hte govenrment has mandated that only long ages can be taught in schools, then yes, they are pushing a secular religious ideology under the guise of ‘science’
Yes Yes, humblegunner- we ALL know I’m a lazt tyypist- this is common knowledge- so your johnny come lately ‘observations’ are a tad outdated- but thanks for playing- now run along
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.