Scientist Coalition Accused of 'Suppressing' Evidence Against Darwinism

FreeInChrist »

Thu Oct 09, 2008 12:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"There is a reason that essentially every actual science organization in America supports evolution and condemns intelligent design creationsm, while the only supporters of intelligent design creationism are overt or covert apologists for religion - not science. "

As to such persons being apologists for religion, I believe there is a reason; that being that having once opened one's eyes to the inevitable and unalterable reality of God's existence, one can hardly return to blindly arguing in the opposite direction. Making an a priori commitment to one side of an argument hardly seems the best way to discover which side is valid.

As to the '...not science' part, the obvious bias and untruthfullness of this statement should be clear to anyone not suffering the same affliciton.

Islam, Secularism and the Gospel – Part II

FreeInChrist »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:55 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Homoousia316,

While I appreciate the 'forcefullness' of your post, it is you who have erred in your critique. You stated 'When Hume asks for evidence, it is nonsensical to say "well, show me evidence that you are asking for evidence." ' Frankly I couldn't agree with you more. It would seem ludicrous to demand evidence that his statement had been made; however, I do not demand evidence that he has asked the question, but I do ask that it be proven, using mathematical or empirically verifiable evidence, that his statement is true. Neither Hume, nor you, nor anyone else has given, or is able to provide sufficient evidence, according to Hume's own standard,as to show the validity of his statement. Clearly the logic here is circular; you can only use his statement as the gold standard if you first assume that it is true.

As for what is being taught about philosophers, I have little interest. Surely there are few things so unreliable and certain to fade as the newest university fads. What I seek to know is the truth. It does not take much to see that Hume does not have it. Many theories have been taught, but none have yet dethroned the Lord Jesus Christ from His rightful place of preeminence in all things.

If you are looking for authors to read, consider those mentioned by schumacr below (yes I've read them). You may also consider Zacharias and Chesterton. Even Lewis has quite a bit to say on these issues; I know you think him laughable, but the 'ease' with which you brush him aside would seem to suggest an unfair reading, or insufficient understanding, of the writings left by such a powerful and insightful intellect. I too am glad to hear that you have read the Bible; I pray that in time your heart will be softened enough to allow your mind to close upon the truth it holds.

Islam, Secularism and the Gospel – Part II

FreeInChrist »

Wed Oct 01, 2008 11:03 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

'And as for the real "why" questions, don't even get me started on philosophers who are atheists. The crummy "theologians" like Anselm, Aquinas, etc., never stood a chance against Hume, Russell, Nielsen, etc. Christians may worship CS Lewis, but if you only knew to what level he is regarded as a joke in the current literature. '

Those individuals that whatever current literature you are reading has come to regard as a 'joke' are indeed often mocked with the same emotion that you thinly veil. But like your statement, such scorning is always supported by flimsy, or as in the case of your claim, no coherent argument. The philosophies of Hume, Russell and the like have been well refuted and shown time and again to rely on circular logic. Take for example the standard set forth by Hume, who stated that when holding a book of religion/philosophy, we must ask whether it provides any mathematical or empirical evidence, and if not, then we must toss it to the flames. Unfortunatly for Hume and his devotees, this is an evidently self-defeating thoery in that it fails to meets it's own standard, becuase his statement is itself neither mathematically or empiracally verifiable, and would therefore, according to Hume himself, have to be cast into the flames.

Again one can't help but wonder, have you fairly considered what you are attempting to refute? The one unchangeable, absolute, eternal God is not easily brushed aside with circular logic. Open your mind and your heart. Give The Bible a honest read. It could change your life and much more. I urge you, seek the truth, rather than affirmation of a pre-determined conclusion. Make the one decision you will never regret and give your life to Christ.

Islam, Secularism and the Gospel – Part II

FreeInChrist »

Tue Sep 30, 2008 3:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Homoousia,

Do you have any reason, other than an emotionally charged disregard for matters of fact, for your disagreement with the statement you quoted?

The inability of secularism to address the sort of 'why' questions Craven mentions is well established. If you only allow for the existence of physical matter and nothing more, you cannot hope to know why anything is the way it has come to be, other than to say 'that's just the way it is'. Granted you may be able to establish a long line of cause and effect relationships that have led to particular occurences, but to ask 'for what reason?' is completely out of the question for the secularist. Indeed, an honest secularist must admit that there is no reason; i.e. 'I don't know how we came to be here, I don't know why we are here, I don't even know why I am typing on a Christian message board, other than that an unalterable chain of entirely physical events has led to this moment'. Craven's statement is quite reasonable; the secularist must either dishonestly deny the lack of meaning that comes with his/her worldview, deny the possibility of an underlying 'meaning of life', or decide it's time for a change. Give Christ a chance, a truly honest look, and I think you will find the answers He provides are more than sufficient.

The Brotherhood of Belief

FreeInChrist »

Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:53 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

'...that is what should define us all as evangelicals: our belief in and commitment to the Scriptures, to the historic creeds and confessions. Yes, what we call orthodoxy.'

AMEN! May we ever pursue that eternal bond with our Christian brethren throughout the ages. May we seek to discover the truths revealed in His Word, passed down through the generations. May we be willing to conform ourselves to those truths, rather than to our self-serving desires which would see that order reversed.

Hollywood's Embrace of Homosexuality Adds Fuel to Debates

FreeInChrist »

Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:05 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

We all have wrong desires. What matters here is not how the feelings came into being, but how we respond. I may be born with a genetic disposition that exposes me to a greater risk of drinking too much & too often, or I may be immersed in an immoral culture that causes such the same temptation. It doesn't matter which scenario creates the tempation, it is still wrong to give in become a drunk. We are told that we will face trials in this fallen world, however, our trust is not to be placed in the ever-changing tide of emotion, but in Jesus Christ who has overcome the world. If you ask, you are forgiven, but only if you ask with the intent to 'go forth and sin no more', and, guided by the power of the Holy Spirit, to do the will of our Father. Some things are wrong, some things are right. Open your heart to the truth, worry not for the earthly consequences, and cast all aside for the glory of knowing Jesus Christ as your savior.

Pastors Preach against Pulpit Politics

FreeInChrist »

Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:14 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 2

"Williams, who pastors the North Congregational United Church of Christ in Columbus, believes ministers who endorse or oppose candidates could improperly impose their values on others."

If a pastor isn't working to spread 'their' (hopefully Christian) values, then they had better re-consider their occupation. Williams and others like him need to give thought to sitting through a history lesson or twenty. For the vast majority of the United States' history pastors not only addressed specific issues on the pulpit, but endorsed specific cantidates, weighing in on their positions and how they corresponded to the Bible. It is not only an option, but is the responsibility of a pastor to guide their congregation towards those values espoused in scripture, both in private and in public; and yes that includes in the voting booth.

Separation of church and state is a lie promulgated in recent history, and in direct contradiction to both the intentions and actions of our forefathers. If our version of Christianity impacts only our 'private life', then we may want to take anther title, because we certainly are not following the teachings of Christ.

A Private Conviction About Murder?

FreeInChrist »

Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:16 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Well composed. If we grant that human life begins at conception, (and there is no other non-arbitrary point which can be chosen) then an argument against abortion cannot be made on any grounds, other than perhaps extreme situations in which the mother's life is genuinely at risk. Unfortunately, rather than conceding this point and changing his view to fit that which corresponds to reality, Senator Biden, like so many other 'pro-choice' individuals, chooses to bind himself in a web of self-contradiction and moral relativism. Living in a pluralistic society does not mean that all views are equally valid - there remains a definate standard of right vs wrong, and He has commanded us not to kill.

Palin Fires Up Conservatives

FreeInChrist »

Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:05 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

"Her remarks were continually disrespectful, divisive and bordering on childish; hardly the kind of person we need as a vice president...I'm still a Clinton fan all the way. "

This is a contradictory post. You have denounced the exact description of Hillary, and then embraced her in the same breath.

As for Republican vs Democrat: we need to be careful about how we describe 'selling your soul'. How many policy changes for the better (espoused by Democrats) would it take to create an equal exchange for the lives of millions of unborn children? No amount of reform in other areas is worth a vote supporting such directly anti-christian views as those put forth under the murderous guise of 'pro-choice'. McCain may not be as anti-abortion as some would like, but he is a far cry from two of the most staunch pro-abortionists ever to grace the political limelight.

Poll: California Voters Oppose Ban on Gay 'Marriage,' Split on Attitude

FreeInChrist »

Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:58 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"It is admirable, FreeInChrist, for you to live by the scripture in the Bible. I do that, too - but not to the point of absurdity...No matter what YOU believe, you cannot force these people to live by YOUR religious principles."

I do not seek to force anyone to live by what you refer to as my religious principles (you seem to overlook the fact that these not princples which I have invented, but rather are Biblical teachings), only to open the eyes of those willing to see the truth that is given to all who are seek honestly. The vote will determine what is considered legal, I only mean to point out that whatever term we apply, such unions will still be a sin in God's view. You will notice in my post that I do not demand a vote in either direction, only state that legalization has no value in determining eternal truths. I hope you will also understand that I do not intend to 'gloat' in any fashion, only to point to the God given truth. As for having my head in the sand, I refer to Chesterton, who said "The purpose of an open mind is the same as that of an open mouth - to close it again on something solid." I seek to have my head firmly planted in, and my mind closed upon, the truth of Christ; if you call that having your head in the sand, then I'll take it as a compliment.

Poll: California Voters Oppose Ban on Gay 'Marriage,' Split on Attitude

FreeInChrist »

Thu Aug 28, 2008 10:25 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

"...their position on banning it could be explained by a hesitancy to remove a constitutional right..."

How can anyone have a constitutional right to something that that does not exist? How can anyone say, unions other than those between a man an a woman deserve to be recognized as that which is defined as a union between a man and a woman? The very idea is contradictory & self defeating. Call it what you like, whatever enjoyment is derived from such lunacy will turn to despair when those chasing this illusion find that the behavior they spent their life indulging was not a thing in and of itself, but merely a perversion of a God given gift.

Romans 1:32
"Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

For those who read the above article and find themselves rejoicing, please take time to consider whether temporal pleasures are worth exchanging for eternity in the presence of our Heavenly Father. If you are still around to think it over, then it is not too late; please repent and recieve the salvation offered through Jesus Christ alone. Those who do the will of the Father, whatever the earthly cost, will receive their reward in due time.

In Defense of Marriage – Part VI

FreeInChrist »

Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:38 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Feet,

Other questionable arguments aside (ie equating race & sexual preference), regarding the separation of church and state, may I suggest reading (or re-reading) the constitution. Provided you read it with an openness to honest interpretation, you will not find this 'separation' mentioned. What you will find, is a direct restriction of the government's right to infringe on religious expression. Regarding homosexuality not being a sin, anyone who has given the Bible an honest read should not require convincing as to God's stance on the matter; it is a sin, plain and simple. Thankfully, it, like our other sins, is forgivable, provided we seek such forgivenss through genuine repentence. I urge you to consider whether the beliefs you espouse are your own purposefully crafted interpretations, or those actually given in scripture. As someone who stands to gain nothing from your personal decision in the matter, I ask you in love and truth to repent and give your life, all of it, to Christ.

Cardinal Warns Against EU's Attitude to Christianity

FreeInChrist »

Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:07 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Homoousia316,

Blaming Christianity for Hitler? Really? The entire regime was built upon a naturalistic framework. Have you any idea of Hitler's fascination with this philosophy? 'Christians' throughout the centuries have indeed wrought their share of destruction, but it cannot honestly be said that this was in keeping with the teachings of Christ; unlike Hitler, who's actions cannot be objected to on the basis of an atheistic worldview, which has no absolute basis upon which to determine right vs wrong. Take if from Victor Franco, who himselft spent some time in one of Hitler's concentration camps:

"If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives & reactions, as a mere product of instincts, heredity & environment, we feed the despair to which man is in any case prone. I became acquainted with the last stages of corruption in my second concentration camp in Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment, or as the Nazi's like to say, of blood and soil. I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblincher, and Mideneg were ultimately prepared, not in some ministry or the other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers."

New God or No God? The Peril of Making God Plausible

FreeInChrist »

Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Spelling:

Nietche = Nietzsche

My apologies.

New God or No God? The Peril of Making God Plausible

FreeInChrist »

Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:20 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Iris Murdock:

'How recognizable, how familiar to us, is the man so beautifully portrayed by Kant in his 'Groundwork of Ethics' who confronted even with Christ turns away to consider the judgment of his own conscience and to hear the voice of his own reason. This man is still with us. Free, independent, lovely, powerful, rational, responsible, brave, the hero of so many novels and books of moral philosophy. The reason of the existence for this attractive but misleading creature is not far to seek. He is the offspring of the age of science, confidently rational, yet increasingly aware of his alienation from the material universe which his discoveries reveal. His alienation is without cure. It is not a long step from Kant, to Nietche, to existentialism, and the anglo-saxon ethical doctrines which in some ways closely resemble it. In fact, Kant's man already received a glorious incarnation, nearly a century earlier, in the work of Milton. His proper name was Lucifer.'

Most Americans Unhappy with Church, Politics Combo

FreeInChrist »

Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Dongard,

Regarding hypocrisy, you are absolutely right, people are tired of it, both within and outside of the Christian communinity. It should be noted however, that such people are certainly not following the teachings of Christ.

Regarding 'their standards' - these are not the standards of any individual, but of God - yes the one and only God. If you throw him aside, you have no basis for any sort of standard. Tell God to 'go' and societal decline becomes inevitable.

Foreign Missionaries Defy Ban during Olympics, Evangelize

FreeInChrist »

Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Tomas

My apologies, while I did disagree with your post and therefore attempted to give a 'thumbs down', I did not mean to flag it, which I accidentally did. Sorry again.

Foreign Missionaries Defy Ban during Olympics, Evangelize

FreeInChrist »

Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:55 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Acts 4:18-20:

Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard."

These people are putting themselves at risk to spread the truth. No man has any right to stand in the way of that. It is our role as fellow Christians to pray for them, not to criticize them, when they directly follow the teachings of scripture for the glory of God.

Minister to Face Court Again for Wedding Lesbian Couple

FreeInChrist »

Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:06 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"Edwards conducted the ceremony for Nancy McConn and Brenda Cole in June 2005, saying the PC(USA) does not forbid same-sex "marriage.""

What about the Bible? How on God's green earth can anyone claim be a Christian, while seeking to justify their behavior using the standards of the PC(USA), rather than the Word of God?

2 For in his own eyes he flatters himself
too much to detect or hate his sin.

3 The words of his mouth are wicked and deceitful;
he has ceased to be wise and to do good.

4 Even on his bed he plots evil;
he commits himself to a sinful course
and does not reject what is wrong.

Gay Bishop Dismisses Call to Resign, Says Issue Will Not Go Away

FreeInChrist »

Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:37 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

troyg - It is hardly bigotry to inform someone that their lifestly is out of line with God's will. The truly hateful thing would be to allow someone to continue, blinders firmly in place, on the path to destruction while secretly thinking 'they'll get theirs someday'. Likewise, standing by and saying 'well I know the Bible says it's wrong, but I really just think we'll all be ok in the end' is both uncaring and willfully ignorant. You call it judging, the Bible tells us, as seen in the post from 'The Watch' below, that we are to call attention to such error in the life of a brother 'that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus'.

chicago24 - Regarding which Bishop was in the wrong, reading the post from 'The Watch' below makes it quite clear, through Scripture nonetheless. Asking others not to disagree with you, when you disagree with Scripture, is to ask them to join you in your choice to disobey God's Word.

Christ forgives all who desire His mercy enough to recognize their own faults, of which we all have many, repent, and allow Him to conform us to His image. Please recognize that it is not about getting your way; it is about following Him.