Evolution is a part of a "strong delusion" in the end times?

[AV1611VET]

staff edit

You mean if you were a new Christian? or if you were a Christian who knew his doctrine?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You do a good job of saying "Science does things"; a statement to which no one is disagreeing. It seems that all you and your fellows are able to do is state "science provides information" and adding more emotion-based rhetoric in which, again, I have as much interest in listening to as I have in listening to, "super preachers" speaking emotion-based rhetoric from the pulpits without bringing to light a shred of evidence to support their preaching.

There is nothing "emotional" about the fact that sience provides knowledge which is used to solve and tackle every single one of the problems that you mentioned.

Prayer didn't turn infant mortality into an all-time low. Prayer didn't tripple life expectancy.

Science did.

 

[Nithavela]

I find it terrific that John is such an expert of philosophy "at only 24 years" that he can beat anyone at any discussion with 100% certainty.

Hang on to that, John. Most people lose this kind of ability with age and experience.

 

[Loudmouth]

You do a good job of saying "Science does things"; a statement to which no one is disagreeing. It seems that all you and your fellows are able to do is state "science provides information" and adding more emotion-based rhetoric in which, again, I have as much interest in listening to as I have in listening to, "super preachers" speaking emotion-based rhetoric from the pulpits without bringing to light a shred of evidence to support their preaching.

I can't think of a better recruiting tool for atheism than your posts.

 

[ViaCrucis]

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.


What is a more powerful delusion in these days than the theory of evolution, the age of the earth, and all things that stemmed forth from these theories to create the current secular ways of thinking?

Scripture says in the end times there will be a strong delusion sent by God purposely so that unbelievers and unrighteous people will believe a lie.

Now I don't believe evolution and such are all that will be put forth. There will be more to come that will be added to those theories. I also don't believe it's saying that all who believe in the current theories put forth are damned - no, I see it as saying that the final theory will be put forth will be a "believe or don't" type of thing, aligning with most likely the mark of the beast and things of that nature.

I don't see how evolution and age of the earth and other like-minded theories cannot be a part of it really. They're too powerful, too well-known, too believed.

It seems as though there will be final separation. Those who believe the lie, the goats, and those who believe the truth, the sheep. And it appears evolution is a big factor in this separation.

Thoughts?

Why evolution and not heliocentrism or special relativity or germ theory? Perhaps heliocentrism is the strong delusion and in order to be part of the sheep we need to believe in a flat earth--because evidence doesn't matter (it's a strong delusion after all) so only the righteous sheep who deny the evidence of a round earth and insist on the literalistic biblical view of a flat earth will be saved in the end times.

Does that sound silly? It's because it is.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Antichrist is going to be a superscientist,

Or maybe even a super-duper-uber-scientist extraordinaire. Part Einstein and part grizzly bear, he'll have a herd of mega-unicorns and terror-dactyls. And he'll have a space fortress on the moon from which he'll bench press telescopes as he hypothesizes really, really, really hard.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Mobezom]

There is nothing "emotional" about the fact that sience provides knowledge which is used to solve and tackle every single one of the problems that you mentioned.

Prayer didn't turn infant mortality into an all-time low. Prayer didn't tripple life expectancy.

Science did.

Biology < Physics in terms of peopleSaved - peopleKilled.

I wonder where religion would fit in? Certainly, if there is no afterlife, the Crusades and Inquisition alone would place religion far below Physics.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And science can answer everyone of those questions.

Science: Easy but ineffective solutions to societal/social problems.

Religion: Difficult but effective solutions to societal/social problems.

 

[Mobezom]

Science: Easy but ineffective solutions to societal/social problems.

Religion: Difficult but effective solutions to societal/social problems.

Isn't that nice. It's a shame it's not true.

Science is difficult! Religion is easy - just do whatever someone tells you to, believe whatever someone tells you to believe. Science requires thought - religion works best without it. Science builds on itself - religion is static. Science can fix itself. Religion cannot.

Also, it's clear that you've never done or seen or viewed or learned about any science. Ever hear about protein folding? Pshaw, "easy," my foot.

 

[mzungu]

I do drive a car. It is irrelevant, insignificant and meaningless in relation to the real problems facing mankind. I can now travel farther than on a horse. There is still division, strife, suffering, etc. I could also argue the potential the car has for being, a detriment to society in ecological ramifications.



Same as "car"; am I to understand that you believe that the invention of the television has somehow caused a meaningful alleviation of strife, division, suffering, abuse, death, etc.?



You would need to demonstrate that any of the things you are mentioning actually have a meaningful effect on the problems the world faces due to, division, strife, suffering, abuse, etc. All you are demonstrating is the ability to state "things science has done" (I would also reject such things as "growing food for others" as something accomplished by "science" and rather by, farmers). I have not proposed "science has accomplished nothing" but that "investigation of the natural world (especially theorectical sciences) has produced no meaningful change, and no information with substantial or meaningful use in alleviating the problems of mankind."



Before medicine cured any disease, man was subject to crippling/deadly disease; after science cured X diseases, man is still as equally subject to crippling/deadly disease. Nothing meaningful has come of medicine in the face of the true statement "man is subject to crippling/deadly disease"

What has been cured is now irrelevant, as stated. Man has no worry/care about what he "can't get/doesn't have" but only about what he "can get/does have"; the fact that disease X is no longer viable does not solve the problem that dieases A-Z are still viable. No one with cancer cares that polio was cured. This is like playing a game of Russian Roulette with a gun holding 10,000 bullets, removing a bullet from the chamber and claiming you have done something "significant" when you have done nothing of meaningful significance. The man spinning the chamber is still going to be worried about bullets 1-9,999 and couldn't care less that one bullet is missing.

You obviously have never suffered a tooth ache.

 

[dickyh995]

Honestly, with all due respect to everyone, I believe that "scientific investigation" is synonymous to "irrelvant investigation"; an enterprise which conjectures information that has no fundamental, substantial or meaningful use. Likewise, that "scientific creation investigation" is a bankrupt attempt to "compete" with science by using the bible as a means of "scientific investigation" which is, again, synonymous to "irrelevant investigation" which conjectures information that has no fundamental, substantial or meaningful use.

I would argue that many of the great social strides in the 20th-21st Centuries are a result of scientific understanding. Science tells us that race is biologically meaningless, science tells us that there is homosexuality in nature. Social progress is certainly informed by scientific discovery which to me is clearly meaningful use. Can you enlighten me as to what positive impact religion or the bible have had on society since the enlightment? I can't think of anything in my lifetime.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you enlighten me as to what positive impact religion or the bible have had on society since the enlightment? I can't think of anything in my lifetime.

You mean like the Salvation Army, Alcoholics Victorious, Narcotics Victorious, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, hospitals, famine relief and other operations done in the name of Jesus Christ?

 

[Speedwell]

You mean like the Salvation Army, Alcoholics Victorious, Narcotics Victorious, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, hospitals, famine relief and other operations done in the name of Jesus Christ?

Don't buy it. Much of that kind of thing is done by "Christians in name only."

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't buy it. Much of that kind of thing is done by "Christians in name only."

Except for the Crusades and other Christian raiding operations ... right?

 

[Speedwell]

Except for the Crusades and other Christian raiding operations ... right?

Hard to tell. Your "real" Christianity hadn't been invented yet.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hard to tell. Your "real" Christianity hadn't been invented yet.

Solid aurum, folks.

 

[Mobezom]

You mean like the Salvation Army, Alcoholics Victorious, Narcotics Victorious, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, hospitals, famine relief and other operations done in the name of Jesus Christ?

That's not enough. You need to show that being a Christian results in more altruism. Perhaps altruistic people are more likely to convert to Christianity, for instance.

Besides, I could list seven atheist/agnostic/nonreligious altruistic operations too.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not enough.

It's good enough for me.

The accusation that they are 'Christian in name only' doesn't cut it.

 

[Speedwell]

It's good enough for me.

The accusation that they are 'Christian in name only' doesn't cut it.

Even your first example "cuts it." Booth was a Methodist.

 

[AV1611VET]

Even your first example "cuts it." Booth was a Methodist.

So?

God can (and has) used the unsaved to do His will.