Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
81 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, PaulK (3 members, 78 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,260 Year: 5,906/14,102 Month: 54/438 Week: 98/83 Day: 0/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8236
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.7


(2)
Message 1981 of 2024 (889263)
11-13-2021 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1978 by EWolf
11-12-2021 10:28 PM


quote:
Have you considered these statements made by Isaac Newton and Johann Kepler?

Sure and many more.

Why do you think the views of those two people are relevant to what you call truth? If I quoted two famous scientists that said that the bible is a bunch of myths created by and for an iron age society would that cancel those two views out?

What if I quoted my mum, would that count?

quote:
Scientific and Biblical truth go hand in hand. Where does any truth including that which is scientific come from but from God? Without conscience governed by Biblical truth, what would stop a scientist from performing destructive experiments on live humans?

Ok, too much madness there for me.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1978 by EWolf, posted 11-12-2021 10:28 PM EWolf has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20410
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(3)
Message 1982 of 2024 (889264)
11-13-2021 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1977 by EWolf
11-12-2021 10:16 PM


If you want to quote something, you can use this style of quoting:

[quote]
This is what I'm quoting.
[/quote]

Which becomes this:

quote:
This is what I'm quoting.

Or you can use this style of quoting, which optionally allows you to include the name of the person you're quoting:

[qs=Percy]
This is what I said.
[/qs]

Which becomes this:

Percy writes:

This is what I said.

Responding now to what you said:

E Dunn writes:

quote:
More importantly the question is whether sectarian dogma should be presented as fact in schools - when the evidence is greatly against it,

I'm speaking of truth in its purity, not sectarian dogma.

How do you tell the difference? Your truth is someone else's sectarian dogma, and vice versa, and neither of you have any objective criteria for making such judgments, not to mention that you may as well be arguing about elves and ogres.

Have I not previously said that all decisions and actions are based on ones religion whatsoever it may be, thus making it impossible to act apart from it? Even the person that claims to have no religion lives by his religion of "no religion."

If "no religion" is a religion then try telling the guy with "no hair" that he has hair, or the guy with "no car" that he has a car. I wonder, is "no God" a god? If I say there's "no Jesus," does that mean there's a Jesus?

quote:
How should we react to people who reject science while claiming to be "scientists"? And the dishonesty noted among creationists hardly helps.

Does the attainment and support of scientific knowledge that supports Biblical truth disqualify the scientist that acquired it to the point that he should be counted as a quack? Should the knowledge gained be counted as sectarian dogma?

Scientific research that supports some aspect or another of the Bible does not lose scientific legitimacy simply because of its topic or conclusions. It loses legitimacy because it is invariably science in name only, following methods and reasoning bearing no resemblance to science. "Hey, trust me, I'm telling you the honest truth about the science," said ICR members Andrew Snelling, Henry Morris and Duane Gish (among many others), otherwise known as liars for Christ. Ken Ham was once part of ICR, but he branched off and formed Answers in Genesis, building an ark in Kentucky.

quote:
As for my question, "Why do many teachers tend to prefer to teach evolution in the absence of Biblical truth?",

You answered, "Because they prefer to teach the truth over false sectarian dogma."



Does truth fear falsehood or is it the other way around? Truth has no problem when presented beside the falsehood that it exposes.

What counts is how you establish what is true and what is false. If you're relying solely upon real world data then your answers have a far better chance of being correct than if they're based upon myths and prayers.

quote:
That's an example of creationist dishonesty - perhaps not on your part, you may well have been deceived yourself. Nevertheless it is a fact that honest science overwhelmingly supports evolution,

Would you please inform me of a scientific or a mathematical law that supports evolution? It only takes one law to disprove it.

If evolution lacks scientific validity then it should not be taught in public school science classrooms. It's that simple. If you can show that evolution lacks scientific validity then you should seek out an appropriate thread, or start a new one, and begin making your case.

As for which is the truthful and which is the deceiving side, whether that which promotes evolution as science or that which supports the Bible, are we not more than sufficiently equipped to discern? We travel life's journey only once.

The Bible and science do not contradict each other. One revolves around spiritual knowledge, the other scientific.

Although true that mishandling of Biblical truth abounds, does that excuse us to despise that which is genuine? That would only make us vulnerable to be drawn deeper into error. Shouldn't we beware of the possibility that scientific knowledge and its authority may also be corrupted to be used as a weapon to promote Godless tyranny?

I think it's safe to say we all oppose tyranny of any type, and that we all in favor truth over falsity. Science has a method for creeping closer and closer to establishing what is true and what is false. While science isn't perfect (no human endeavor is), as long as we limit ourselves to teaching what science has established as likely true then we're on pretty safe ground.

Don't we both agree that sin is the cause of the chaos I stated above? But what other than Biblical truth should we depend on for controlling sin? Please?

The South used Biblical truth to argue for the goodness of slavery for decades, and that's just one example. The history of Biblical truth is more one of driving sin than of controlling it.

The first amendment protects the free exercise of good religion...

What an interesting amendment you've made to the First Amendment. Do I need to quote it for you? What constitutes "good religion" to you? Christianity, no doubt, but what about Islam, Hindu, Buddhist and Judaism? What about the ancient Roman, Greek and Norse gods? What about ancient Aztec ritual sacrifice? What about Mormon polygamy - why wasn't that protected by the First Amendment?

...based on good conscience against governmentally imposed dogma that would compromise it.

None of that is in the First Amendment either.

Please note the terms, "free exercise." Should the free exercise of good action based on good conscience be prohibited?

You sure like the word "good." One person's good is another man's evil. Good is relative. There's nothing in the First Amendment about good. If you've got a religion then in this country you have the right to practice it as long as it obeys the law, whether others think it good or not.

But why do we have unbiblical humanistic dogma forced on us especially in our schools by our government that violates the first amendment right to abide by the Biblical mandate?

Is this about evolution? If so, evolution is based upon mountains of evidence and represents the best scientific thinking we have explaining species change over time and so merits a place in public school science classrooms.

Should we be led to believe that the Biblical mandate is bad so that unbiblical behavior may appear and thus promoted as good?

If Biblical behavior is the standard for good then we're in trouble. Fortunately we're a country of democratically established laws, not of some religion's interpretation of their holy book in the way of Isis, the Taliban and Iran. Perhaps you should read The Handmaid's Tale.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1977 by EWolf, posted 11-12-2021 10:16 PM EWolf has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1984 by Phat, posted 11-13-2021 6:54 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1996 by EWolf, posted 11-15-2021 11:12 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20410
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 1983 of 2024 (889265)
11-13-2021 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1978 by EWolf
11-12-2021 10:28 PM


E Dunn writes:

Have you considered these statements made by Isaac Newton and Johann Kepler?

Newton?
"I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Johann Kepler said he was “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” when once asked what he was doing in his scientific work.

Can I guess that you'll accept anything said by a famous scientist that you agree with, but not by one you disagree with? Stephen Hawking said, "The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator." What now?

I don't think a battle of quotes makes any sense. You should try to argue your position based on the facts.

Where does any truth including that which is scientific come from but from God?

And where is your scientific evidence for this statement?

Without conscience governed by Biblical truth, what would stop a scientist from performing destructive experiments on live humans?

Apparently "conscience governed by Biblical truth" represents no obstacle to "destructive experiments" at all. The Nazis were not godless, yet Joseph Mengele's experments happened anyway. American scientists are not godless, yet the Tuskegee Experiment happened anyway.

I expect this is where we'll see the familiar Christian excuse that if a Christian does something bad then he isn't really a Christian. Alas, such a tragedy that we can only know the true Christians from the false after the fact. Until they go wrong they look, act and speak just like all other Christians.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1978 by EWolf, posted 11-12-2021 10:28 PM EWolf has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1985 by Phat, posted 11-13-2021 7:01 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15709
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 1984 of 2024 (889267)
11-13-2021 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1982 by Percy
11-13-2021 10:46 AM


No Antidote
percy writes:

If "no religion" is a religion then try telling the guy with "no hair" that he has hair, or the guy with "no car" that he has a car. I wonder, is "no God" a god? If I say there's "no Jesus," does that mean there's a Jesus?

well we do have an antichrist. In my mind anti means opposite rathar than "no". It can also mean contrary to the anointing or contrary to the anointed One.

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killo

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1982 by Percy, posted 11-13-2021 10:46 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1991 by ringo, posted 11-14-2021 1:21 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15709
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 1985 of 2024 (889268)
11-13-2021 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1983 by Percy
11-13-2021 11:06 AM


No Need
percy writes:

Stephen Hawking said, "The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator." What now?

its all about belief rather than objective facts. Evidently objectivity would have eliminated the need for belief. Speculation behind the reasoning for belief rather than objective facts. Centers on the opportunity for free will. Hawkings genius notwithstanding, the need is a free willed opinion.

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killo

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1983 by Percy, posted 11-13-2021 11:06 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
EWolf
Member
Posts: 10
From: Lehigh Acres, Fl
Joined: 11-10-2021


Message 1986 of 2024 (889271)
11-13-2021 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1980 by PaulK
11-13-2021 1:52 AM


Hello Paulk,

Thank you for your reply.

As for your mention of the Law of Faunal Succession, how does that support amoeba to man evolution?

* * *

What does the term, "creationist" describe other than a person that trusts and believes the Biblically revealed fact that God, the Supreme of all beings created the universe including you and me? By whose standard that one should judge it wrong to believe this Biblical account?

What truth is the DOI paragraph below based on?

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness---That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed"

Who are our rights thus based on? Who gave us the purpose of government?

Is the bad judgment against believers in creation truth based on a standard of a rival group called "evolutionists" that are at war against the Biblical creation account and believe that the Supreme Being that created and is holding us accountable is non-existent and unneeded? Who or what is this war over?

Although true we have several choices of brands of automobiles we may depend on for reliable transportation, only ONE choice is available for reliably transporting us through this present life and to the life beyond. If we don't believe this we will not relieve ourselves of the fact that we were told.

With education the process of imparting necessary knowledge, much of which is vital to our children that are our future leaders, what's the need to deprive them of the background support of the vital knowledge that we were created by Sovereignty that's holding us all responsible? Please?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1980 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2021 1:52 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1989 by PaulK, posted 11-14-2021 2:03 AM EWolf has responded

  
EWolf
Member
Posts: 10
From: Lehigh Acres, Fl
Joined: 11-10-2021


Message 1987 of 2024 (889272)
11-13-2021 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1979 by vimesey
11-12-2021 11:14 PM


Hello Vimesey,

To answer my question,

"Without conscience governed by Biblical truth, what would stop a scientist from performing destructive experiments on live humans?",

You said, "Oh that one's easy. It's called common human decency. For example, I'm an atheist and I wouldn't dream of inflicting cruelty on a fellow human being."

But does that negate the possibility for someone to be driven beyond his sense of decency by a "super-duper" leader? By what standard is decency based on?

Although the Nazi scientists were among the best in the world, weren't some of them guilty of the cruelty spoken of above?


ELD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1979 by vimesey, posted 11-12-2021 11:14 PM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1988 by vimesey, posted 11-14-2021 12:39 AM EWolf has responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1264
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 8.2


(1)
Message 1988 of 2024 (889273)
11-14-2021 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1987 by EWolf
11-13-2021 11:01 PM


By what standard is decency based on?

Oh I choose the one arrived at by consensus. It changes from time to time, and generally we're getting better. It's certainly preferable to the fictional standards of a god who got so annoyed with a few people not doing what he ordered them to do that he decided to drown not only the people who pissed him off, but also millions of innocent babies, people, animals etc. He's such a charmer, isn't he ?

Morality is a messy business - there's no perfect standard of goodness that can be defined - but we all know that deciding to drown an innocent child is more than a tad evil, don't we ?

Edited by vimesey, : Bloody autocorrect...


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1987 by EWolf, posted 11-13-2021 11:01 PM EWolf has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1994 by EWolf, posted 11-15-2021 9:56 PM vimesey has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 1989 of 2024 (889274)
11-14-2021 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1986 by EWolf
11-13-2021 10:40 PM


quote:
As for your mention of the Law of Faunal Succession, how does that support amoeba to man evolution?

Nobody claims that men are descended from actual amoebas. In addition the whole question is largely an irrelevance. The whole idea that scientific conclusions must be supported by “laws” creates a vicious circularity since the “laws” themselves are scientific conclusions.

However, The Law of Faunal Succession describes the order of the fossil record. Not only is this something that Young Earth Creationists have failed to explain evolution does explain features of the order which would be puzzling if it were not true. E.g. the earliest life we can find is relatively simple, then we only find marine life. Eventually we find animals increasingly adapted to land - while marine life continues,

quote:
What does the term, "creationist" describe other than a person that trusts and believes the Biblically revealed fact that God, the Supreme of all beings created the universe including you and me?

A creationist is someone who insists that the variety of life is largely due to individual creation rather than evolution. Though most Young Earth creationists have backtracked quite significantly on that. In large part they insist that the Biblical creation stories must be taken literally (although Old Earth Creationists allow more latitude to interpretation to harmonise more with scientific conclusions).

I will note that no creationist I have heard of insists that any of us were created outside of the usual reproductive processes. It is creation outside of those processes that is the issue - please don’t conflate them.

quote:
By whose standard that one should judge it wrong to believe this Biblical account?

It is creationist interpretations of the Bible that are the main issue. Surely it is valid - even in your view - to make challenges to that interpretation based on the Biblical text. And certainly there are good grounds to do so - the disagreements between the two creation stories and the construction of the Flood story from two differing traditions being examples - as is the rather obvious fact that the stories are myths.

Then again why should an interpretation be immune from criticism on scientific grounds? Creationists do not adhere to the cosmology of Genesis 1 - preferring the facts shown by science. Why should other aspects of the story be treated differently?

quote:
What truth is the DOI paragraph below based on?

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness---That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed"

Who are our rights thus based on? Who gave us the purpose of government?


It is based on belief - which is not necessarily true. Indeed, since some of the Founders were Deists it certainly was not based on creationist belief.

quote:
Is the bad judgment against believers in creation truth based on a standard of a rival group called "evolutionists" that are at war against the Biblical creation account and believe that the Supreme Being that created and is holding us accountable is non-existent and unneeded? Who or what is this war over?

It is clearly about an idolatrous cult called creationism trying to set up men as false gods. The group you call “evolutionists” includes many Christians. Now there is a real example of “bad judgement”.

quote:
Although true we have several choices of brands of automobiles we may depend on for reliable transportation, only ONE choice is available for reliably transporting us through this present life and to the life beyond. If we don't believe this we will not relieve ourselves of the fact that we were told.

Again you tell us to uncritically accept the word of men. Why should we do that?

quote:
With education the process of imparting necessary knowledge, much of which is vital to our children that are our future leaders, what's the need to deprive them of the background support of the vital knowledge that we were created by Sovereignty that's holding us all responsible? Please?

Who decides that this knowledge is “essential”? Why is teaching creationism important to it? Why should we reject the findings of science that conflict with the sectarian teachings you accept? Why should we hold that any teachings of men are beyond challenge?

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1986 by EWolf, posted 11-13-2021 10:40 PM EWolf has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1995 by EWolf, posted 11-15-2021 10:23 PM PaulK has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19302
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 1990 of 2024 (889277)
11-14-2021 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1976 by Phat
11-12-2021 10:09 PM


Re: Response to Religious BS
Phat writes:

We may have chosen incorrectly. Only after we all die may we ever know.


Exactly. Which is why it's foolish to put all your eggs in one basket.

Phat writes:

The difference between our certainty that our God is real vs all of the other choices is that we believe that truth is not relative nor are all God choices dynamically equivalent.


All of the other choices believe that too.

Phat writes:

... we believe that truth is not relative...


But of course it is relative. You own "truth" is as relative as any. Any "truth" that is not based on evidence must be relative.

Phat writes:

... nor are all God choices dynamically equivalent.


Your choice is less probable than many others.

Phat writes:

The idea that truth is relative we reject.


And you're wrong. See above. You might as well reject the idea that the world is round.

Phat writes:

The idea that Zeus or Odin is as likely as Jesus we also reject.


And you have no reason for that rejection.

Phat writes:

I need not explain why on earth God might choose me but suffice it to say its not my good works thatvcount.


It certainly does not suffice. You're blatantly rejecting what the Son of your own God said.

"I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!"
-- Lucky Ned Pepper

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1976 by Phat, posted 11-12-2021 10:09 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19302
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 1991 of 2024 (889278)
11-14-2021 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1984 by Phat
11-13-2021 6:54 PM


Re: No Antidote
Phat writes:

well we do have an antichrist. In my mind anti means opposite rathar than "no". It can also mean contrary to the anointing or contrary to the anointed One.


That would be you.

"I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!"
-- Lucky Ned Pepper

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1984 by Phat, posted 11-13-2021 6:54 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19302
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 1992 of 2024 (889279)
11-14-2021 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1977 by EWolf
11-12-2021 10:16 PM


EWolf writes:

Even the person that claims to have no religion lives by his religion of "no religion."


I believe in "no God". I practice "no religion". I go to "no church" every Sunday. I put "no money" in "no plate".

It's a pretty easy religion to live by. I could do it in my sleep.


"I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!"
-- Lucky Ned Pepper

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1977 by EWolf, posted 11-12-2021 10:16 PM EWolf has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2622
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 1993 of 2024 (889281)
11-14-2021 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1977 by EWolf
11-12-2021 10:16 PM


EWolf writes:

Even the person that claims to have no religion lives by his religion of "no religion."

Are you really this clueless?

Next you'll be telling us not collecting stamps is a hobby.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1977 by EWolf, posted 11-12-2021 10:16 PM EWolf has not yet responded

  
EWolf
Member
Posts: 10
From: Lehigh Acres, Fl
Joined: 11-10-2021


Message 1994 of 2024 (889308)
11-15-2021 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1988 by vimesey
11-14-2021 12:39 AM


Hello Vimesay,

quote:
Oh I choose the one arrived at by consensus. It changes from time to time, and generally we're getting better. It's certainly preferable to the fictional standards of a god who got so annoyed with a few people not doing what he ordered them to do that he decided to drown not only the people who pissed him off, but also millions of innocent babies, people, animals etc. He's such a charmer, isn't he ?

Is human nature getting better? Please? The god that you spoke of is indeed fictional. God of the Bible is merciful to all including you and me.

Have we forgotten the scripture that says, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, . . . etc?" Although we are all corrupted by sin and deserve to die, why aren't we all dead by now if God is the way you described Him? What other god is waiting for us to accept an offer of mercy? Not only is God offering us mercy, but also redemption and power beyond our natural abilities to do good when we accept it. Scripture tells us that the condemned are those that choose to continue in their evil deeds beyond the offer of mercy. What would you do with a device you built that fails to accomplish your intended purposes for it despite all of your efforts to fix it?

As for the killing of the innocent, was God responsible for destroying the 62 plus million lives of unborn individuals before they could commit their first sin?

quote:
Morality is a messy business - there's no perfect standard of goodness that can be defined - but we all know that deciding to drown an innocent child is more than a tad evil, don't we ?

But where did we get the Golden Rule? Is it a myth? Is the commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves a myth? It is the second to what great commandment given us?

Edited by EWolf, : No reason given.


ELD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1988 by vimesey, posted 11-14-2021 12:39 AM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1998 by vimesey, posted 11-16-2021 1:49 AM EWolf has not yet responded
 Message 2000 by ringo, posted 11-16-2021 10:59 AM EWolf has not yet responded

  
EWolf
Member
Posts: 10
From: Lehigh Acres, Fl
Joined: 11-10-2021


Message 1995 of 2024 (889309)
11-15-2021 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1989 by PaulK
11-14-2021 2:03 AM


Hello PaulK,

Paulk writes:

Who decides that this knowledge is “essential”? Why is teaching creationism important to it? Why should we reject the findings of science that conflict with the sectarian teachings you accept? Why should we hold that any teachings of men are beyond challenge?

I hope the answers below will also answer all that you have above.

What knowledge do you count as essential?

Biblical truth is settled and as unmovable from debate as pi is unmovable from the value of 3.14. If the Biblical truth revealed to us cannot be trusted as reality then what hope do you and I have for redemption from our fallen nature and the consequent corruption around us? Do we even realize that we are fallen? The evolution mindset hides this vital fact. What other hope is there? Biblical truth is not from man and my speech is not based on mere belief of man's rhetoric, but based on personal testimonies as a witness to the power of Biblical truth. It's unfortunate that some Christians compromise their faith to believe evolution that counters Biblical truth.

If you own a good business how would you like for someone to smear it to make you appear as if evil? As for God seen as evil, I hope you read my post to Vimesey.

As I said earlier, scientific truth is also victimized by faulty interpretation and corrupt dogma that's meant to deceive and draw us away from Biblical truth. We witness today the same scenario as that at the time when Adam and Eve in the Bible were deceived into doubting God's word not to eat the forbidden fruit. The fall thus resulted. Interpretation and observations of the fossil record and the cosmos that supports evolution is the consequences of an anti-Biblical worldview.

A forgiven, redeemed life with God is far beyond sectarian dogma that I am also tired of. Such dogma is what makes the power of the cross non-effective as Paul warned in I Corinthians 1:11-17.

The truth of God enriches all knowledge and bring out the meaning of our lives and thus should never be removed from education.


ELD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1989 by PaulK, posted 11-14-2021 2:03 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1997 by PaulK, posted 11-16-2021 12:53 AM EWolf has not yet responded
 Message 1999 by Percy, posted 11-16-2021 9:59 AM EWolf has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021