U.S. Christian Leaders to Issue Call to Defend Truth

ID4234 »

Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:38 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

But Norman and all others on this page,

"Therefore, God has highly exalted Him and given Him the name that is above every name that at the name of Jesus every knee shouldl bow,of those in Heaven, and of those on earth and of those under the earth and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." that at the name of Jesus." Philippians 2: 9-11 It's coming, that day when every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Praise His Holy Name.

Ministry Distributes 'Origin of Species' with Intelligent Design Intro

ID4234 »

Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Hi, Steve. You may be right on the two points you make. I'll have to look into that. Thanks for your graciousness in the response. Now, if the fossils are being used to declare the age of the strata of rock, I think the argument I made is still valid. The point of my last response is that there are multiple questions that evolution can not begin to answer. Everything points to design and a Designer.

Norman, Darwin is the one who said that evolution could never explain the complexity of the human eye. I think on this one point he was right. Check it out. It comes from Darwin himself. No science that I am aware of it since Darwin made that statement indicates otherwise.

Would anyone be gracious enough to admit that there are profound thinkers on both sides of this? Or do we have to debase one another by namecalling? This sarcastic namecalling stuff is really a turnoff and an indication of weak thinking.

Archbishop: Women Clergy Need Not Divide Anglicans, Catholics

ID4234 »

Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

I have nothing against women, MIckey. God has used them in wonderful ways in the church and throughout history. There are many admirable, dedicated servants of Christ who are women and who serve in many capacities in God's Kingdom. At the same time, there is the guidance of scripture which defines roles of both men and women in the home and in the church. The pagan world vilifies orthodox Christianity for following these guidelines given throughout scripture.

Ref: 1 Timothy 2: 9-14, 1 Timothy 3: 1-8, Titus 1: 3-9, 1 Corinthians 7:17, 1 Corinthians 14: 34-36, the Levitical priesthood, the disciples of Christ, the bishops or overseers of the early 1st century church, the bishops or overseers described by Eusebius in the first centuries of church history.

I am just trying, with the help of the Spirit, to follow the teachings of scripture, something that many individual Anglicans and Episcopalians also want to do, but sadly, their leaders oppose abiding by scripture. So much so that African Anglicans have put immense pressure on Dr. Williams to confine Anglican practice to what is in keeping with scripture. He'd be even further out of compliance otherwise.

U.S. Christian Leaders to Issue Call to Defend Truth

ID4234 »

Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:17 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

Amen! It's about time. Our God reigns. Thank you, all of you who signed the Manhatten Declaration. Thank you espeically for the clarity with which you have stated Christian belief, practice, and intention.

Archbishop: Women Clergy Need Not Divide Anglicans, Catholics

ID4234 »

Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:11 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Dr. Williams does about as well as can be expected here. He frames his stance against clear Biblical teachings in the best way he can. He, as is often the case with him, expresses an underlying belief that the culture trumps scripture and again reveals that the English Anglicans and the American Episcopalians have no interest in abiding by the Bible.

Ministry Distributes 'Origin of Species' with Intelligent Design Intro

ID4234 »

Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:03 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

Hi, steve20,
I didn't see anything in your post of the other day that needed a response. Your "evidence" of those things I mentioned just consisted of saying they were wrong. Well, that's not true.

For example, the DNA of a human being is in each cell of the body. That's a scientific fact, one that reveals a complexity of the human cell far more complicated than scientists had previously thought and far less likely (actually, impossible) to have occurred by the randomness that evolution depends upon. When scientists verify these kinds of facts, they begin to have serious doubts about evolution.

There's a whole body of science that leads towards belief in a designer, not random selection and accidental creation. Those trees that have fossilized and crossed stratas of rock are a proof of a much younger earth.

The complexity of the human eye is far beyond the possibilties of evolutionary thought or science.

Who came first in evolutionary thought or so called "science"? Was it the male or the female? How was procreation carried out if they, male and female, evolved at different times?

What is the explanation for the absence of a missing link after all these decades since Darwin offered this theory? Why does the fossil record not give the evidence that he believed it surely would?

Why are the evolutionists always shown to be scientifically wrong when they think they have a missing link?

What accounts for the fine tuning of the universe to such narrow parameters that life is sustainable? Randomness? Accidents? Could it be design and an all powerful Designer?

Why are evolutionists refusing to debate Christian scientists? Could it be they can't support the Darwinian theory?

What about that second law of thermodynamics? How does evolution fit with that? Is the law wrong or is evolution wrong?

Oh, my, what if evolution all along was just an outrageous, illogical, man made theory no better than a hoax?

Investigate the evidence. An honest approach reading both evolutionary scientists and creation scientists will lead to the logical conclusion that there is a God in Heaven, and we are not Him.

Ministry Distributes 'Origin of Species' with Intelligent Design Intro

ID4234 »

Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:02 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Hi, steve20,
I didn't see anything in your post of the other day that needed a response. Your "evidence" of those things I mentioned just consisted of saying they were wrong. Well, that's not true.

For example, the DNA of a human being is in each cell of the body. That's a scientific fact, one that reveals a complexity of the human cell far more complicated than scientists had previously thought and far less likely (actually, impossible) to have occurred by the randomness that evolution depends upon. When scientists verify these kinds of facts, they begin to have serious doubts about evolution.

There's a whole body of science that leads towards belief in a designer, not random selection and accidental creation. Those trees that have fossilized and crossed stratas of rock are a proof of a much younger earth.

The complexity of the human eye is far beyond the possibilties of evolutionary thought or science.

Who came first in evolutionary thought or so called "science"? Was it the male or the female? How was procreation carried out if they, male and female, evolved at different times?

What is the explanation for the absence of a missing link after all these decades since Darwin offered this theory? Why does the fossil record not give the evidence that he believed it surely would?

Why are the evolutionists always shown to be scientifically wrong when they think they have a missing link?

What accounts for the fine tuning of the universe to such narrow parameters that life is sustainable? Randomness? Accidents? Could it be design and an all powerful Designer?

Why are evolutionists refusing to debate Christian scientists? Could it be they can't support the Darwinian theory?

What about that second law of thermodynamics? How does evolution fit with that? Is the law wrong or is evolution wrong?

Oh, my, what if evolution all along was just an outrageous, illogical, man made theory no better than a hoax?

Investigate the evidence. An honest approach reading both evolutionary scientists and creation scientists will lead to the logical conclusion that there is a God in Heaven, and we are not Him.

Ministry Distributes 'Origin of Species' with Intelligent Design Intro

ID4234 »

Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:53 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

Oh, how the evolutionists do rage. The last thing they want is an honest debate on the merits of the science. Notice on this page there is no evidence provided by the evolution believers just outrage, name calling, sarcasm, and disrespect. In the arena of ideas, that won't cut it. Their theory is falling apart before their eyes and they are desperate to stamp out the thoughts and ideas and yes, the science, of those who think evolution is "a fairy tale for adults." To read these posts, one would think that they have never heard of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

They are losing the battle. Lately, every poll asking if people believe in evolution reveals a larger percentage of the public now thinking the Darwinists practice really bad science. Hallelujah!. Praise His Holy Name! Our God Reigns!

Disaffected Lutherans Begin Work on Alternate Church Body

ID4234 »

Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:57 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

God always preserves a remnant to serve Him. While the Bible is clear that in the last days there will be a great falling away, which we are witnessing, the teaching of Scripture is also clear that a remnant of the faithful will be true to the Word of God.

Disaffected Lutherans Begin Work on Alternate Church Body

ID4234 »

Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:46 am Agree: 8   Disagree: 1

Thank you. It's good to hear of Christians standing up for Biblical belief. I know this must be painful for those leaving, but they have been given little choice by the ELCA considering that the denomination is determined to stray from clear Biblical teachings.

Darwin Was Wrong, Scientists Argue

ID4234 »

Tue Nov 17, 2009 12:34 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Sorry, ifeelfine, I thought you were serious. I see from your response that you are less interested in following where the evidence leads than you are in adhering to preconceived notions. You are right that there are different methods of dating. You would also be right in stating that they disagree with one another widely and that many of them are increasingly discredited by modern science. Spelling w-r-o-n-g is not a particularly compelling argument in providing an opposing viewpoint. If your mind is already set, why did you ask the question?

Darwin Was Wrong, Scientists Argue

ID4234 »

Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:54 am Agree: 9   Disagree: 2

To ifeelfine,

I'm not a scientist but having read on this subject I think I can point you in the right direction. Here are some of the points that modern scientists make who have no confidence in Darwin's theory.

1. The fine tuning of the universe necessary to sustain life has much narrower parameters than previously thought and one scientist has likened that necessary fine tuning happening by randomness as equivalent to the chance that a strong wind or tornado hits a junkyard and you wind up with a properly assembled 747 airplane.
2. The complexity of human eye. Darwin himself said that his theory could never explain the complexity of the human eye.
3. The complexity of a single cell which contains the complete DNA code for a human.
4. The method of dating scientists have been using has been shown to be unreliable. In trying to prove their desired outcomes, they date the rocks by the fossils and the fossils by the rocks. It's circular.
5. The fossil record. There are embedded fossilized trees that cross two stratas of rock that the evolutionists say are millions of years apart in the making. But it's the same tree. Big problem for the evolutionists.
6. The fossil record: No missing links after all the years. Still just as the Bible says. Kind produces kind.
7. The red blood cells discovered about three years ago now in dinosaur remains. They should not be there. There was a brief report in the papers, and then this has been hushed up because it doesn't fit the preferred outcome.

There are many more, but as I say, I am not a scientist. However, I would suggest that evolutionists habit of refusing to debate creationists, which is now happening regularly, might indicate that they know their preferred outcomes have big problems in the scientific community.

High Court Refuses to Revive Battle Over Religious Graduation Speech

ID4234 »

Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:40 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

Tom,
The founders did mix the two. Regularly. A church met for a number of years in the Capitol with the approval of the founders. The phrase "separation of church and state" is not located in any of our founding documents. It's in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association assuring the churches of that association that the government would not interfere in the religious practices of the churches. The perversion of these historical facts is the most serious threat to our liberties today. And the Supreme Court is perfectly predictable in favoring statist authority over free speech. When authorities tell us what ideas are unacceptable to them, we no longer have "free speech." We then have government approved speech.

Presbytery Approves Ordination of Lesbian

ID4234 »

Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:31 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

I'll let Jesus describe what seems to have escaped you, gagageguy: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17 Jesus Himself always agrees with scripture. To know that is not oversimplifying the matter. On the contrary, to obfuscate an obvious truth is no honor, nor is it a sign of intelligence, nor is it a sign of discernment. Confusion for the sake of seeming complex is intellectually suicidal.

Judge Strikes Down Christian License Plate

ID4234 »

Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:22 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

garageguy,
Why the animosity? Your posts are increasingly bitter. I don't see how that helps anything.

Christians Urged to Boycott Gap Inc. Over 'Christmas' Censor

ID4234 »

Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:13 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

I would think it a little odd for Christians to be shopping in these particular stores anyway. I don't believe they get that much business from Christians in the first place. They are most likely catering to their unbelieving clientele. I was trying to think if I have ever bought anything from these stores, and I don't believe I have.

Presbytery Approves Ordination of Lesbian

ID4234 »

Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:50 pm Agree: 10   Disagree: 2

The authority of scripture and the authority of Christ are one and the same since they never contradict one another. Therefore, they have an equality about them both always agreeing.

United Methodist Court Affirms Stance Against Homosexuality

ID4234 »

Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:53 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Well stated, Slacker.

Maine Voters Repeal Gay Marriage Law

ID4234 »

Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:31 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

For the record, apparently unlike those with opposing viewpoints, we who are followers of Christ do not choose to call those who disagree with us names even when they choose to call us names for disagreeing with them.

Maine Voters Repeal Gay Marriage Law

ID4234 »

Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:11 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

My view is that our rights come from God, not government. When we assume rights that He does not grant, we overstep. I do not desire to stand in opposition to the Word of God. Your argument is with God and His Word more than it is with me. I didn't write the book; He did.