Chrisitans promoting evolution - and Catholics voting for abortion - a common proof

[BobRyan]

In debates on evolution and creation - one common response is "yes but a great many Christians believe in evolution so it must somehow fit in with the Bible".

And if you watch the political debates you can see the pro-abortion political party - trotting out Catholic after Catholic advancing their cause - with the argument that a good Catholic can certainly be promoting LGBT and abortion as a national leader -- so somehow this fits with Catholicism.

We all agree that there are Christians that oppose those two bad-compromises - and there are Christians who embrace them. Numbers are large on both sides.

But do numbers alone really "prove" that such self-conflicted mutually-exclusive positions are "compatible anyway - since so many take those positions"??

How much of your "doctrine" your "belief" is "proof by numbers" combined with "holding the Bible at a distance"??

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

ZERO
.
.
.
OR near 100%.

Since YHWH most often worked thru one person, or the weakest, most foolish, etc .... and the smallest , weakest, nation ....
and
since Y'SHUA said "REMNANT" ... "FEW" ..... "Will HE find faith on earth?" .... "NARROW is the way to life" .... and in many many other ways all through SCRIPTURE (YHWH'S WORD ! )

So also, WOE to those more popular... (hint: "woe" is very , very bad)

The conclusion ? GO with YHWH. HE KNOWS !

 

[seeking.IAM]

I concur that numbers can't make wrong into right. In the political arena, the question is whether one is going to be a one-issue voter or one who votes for the candidate that is more aligned with the totality of one's belief than is the other. I've never understood one-issue voters (e.g., 2nd amendment, abortion, etc.) who vote as if that is all that matters.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

In the political arena

The ecclesia in many countries are not in the political arena;
they pray a lot, every day,
and do a lot , every day, as Y'SHUA says to do.
Just like in the New Testament;
and like the people of YHWH were told to do
in their journey and promised land in the Old Testament:

when those people wanted to get in the political arena,
saying as it were "I WILL" or "WE WANT"
YHWH
gave them what they wanted (as punishment it turns out)
and
said plainly that they rebelled against YHWH(GOD) by
choosing to
even have a political arena like other countries had.

 

[BobRyan]

I concur that numbers can't make wrong into right. In the political arena, the question is whether one is going to be a one-issue voter or one who votes for the candidate that is more aligned with the totality of one's belief than is the other. I've never understood one-issue voters (e.g., 2nd amendment, abortion, etc.) who vote as if that is all that matters.

in the example it is not merely the Catholic that votes the pro-abortion platform -- it is the Catholic Candidate who himself will ensure that not one abortion is at risk of not happening - under his watch. That every effort to stem the tide of evil - is defeated.

But it is of course "good Catholicism" because the candidate also claims to be a good Candidate. Therefore "because this scenario exists" it is argued that good Catholicism can fight to defend abortion at all costs. After all "people do it" so it must be true since those people claim to be good Catholics.

 

[BobRyan]

The same argument is made for Christians objecting to the Bible and clinging to evolutionism. Even though Darwin himself admits the two religions are not at all compatible.

================================= Charles DARWIN

I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus….

By further reflecting… that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracle become, - that the men of the time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,- that they differ in many important details…

I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.

 

[pdudgeon]

I concur that numbers can't make wrong into right. In the political arena, the question is whether one is going to be a one-issue voter or one who votes for the candidate that is more aligned with the totality of one's belief than is the other. I've never understood one-issue voters (e.g., 2nd amendment, abortion, etc.) who vote as if that is all that matters.

hmmmm.
may i step in here for a moment?
one of the main reasons that one-issue voters are so "consumed" (if you will) with those 2 issues is because of what they stand for; the fundamental rght to life and the fundamental ability to defend oneself and their family.

both of these issues are tied together because if you're dead you can't defend anyone, and thus you are at the complete mercy of whatever wants to destroy you.

 

[seeking.IAM]

...one of the main reasons that one-issue voters are so "consumed" (if you will) with those 2 issues is because of what they stand for...

I do not argue that either issue is unimportant. However, I prefer to look at the total score card and to cast my vote for the candidate I think will bring the greater good overall. And, that includes which platform I think may be more Christ-like overall. For example, this year I am voting against a governor candidate that would be best for my business, and even cause it to flourish. Why? because I disagree with about everything else he stands for other than that. I simply don't understand one issue voters.

 

[Rhamiel]

in ancient Israel, we can see that many times the nobility and even a large number of the common man would fall into idolatry

their personal failings, in accepting the common evils of the culture of that time, does not prove that ancient Judaism was false

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

in ancient Israel, we can see that many times the nobility and even a large number of the common man would fall into idolatry

their personal failings, in accepting the common evils of the culture of that time, does not prove that ancient Judaism was false

YHWH set up ISRAEL as HE promised Abraham and blessed all the nations through them.

Who ever intimated that Judaism that YHWH set up was false ?