Charles Darwin & Genesis 3:5

[Humble_Disciple]

In Genesis 3:5, the serpent promised Eve that she could become like God, through special knowledge apart from what God had chosen to reveal.

All religions based on salvation through one's own attainment of special knowledge or enlightenment, such as Gnosticism, Hinduism, Buddhism, occultism, new age, etc. stem from the same false promise that we can become gods unto ourselves.

With Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, this age-old promise of Satan became cloaked in scientific language. In the words of Richard Dawkins, "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Darwin gave the masses permission to be gods unto themselves, making their own morality apart from God's commands, by demonstrating that we don’t need God for our very existence, but instead that we are the result of a mechanistic evolutionary process.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Decided to take another bite at the "Darwin caused all our problems" apple, eh?

 

[BeyondET]

In Genesis 3:5, the serpent promised Eve that she could become like God, through special knowledge apart from what God had chosen to reveal.

All religions based on salvation through one's own attainment of special knowledge or enlightenment, such as Gnosticism, Hinduism, Buddhism, occultism, new age, etc. stem from the same false promise that we can become gods unto ourselves.

With Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, this age-old promise of Satan became cloaked in scientific language. In the words of Richard Dawkins, "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Darwin gave the masses permission to be gods unto themselves, making their own morality apart from God's commands, by demonstrating that we need not depend on God for our very existence, but instead that we are the result of a mechanistic evolutionary process.

if Darwin made it possible, what was the Egyptians Godly people. a child doesn't have to learn biology in public school if the parents don't like it.

you mentioned schools are teaching in another thread. place the child in a private school or ask the school to change out for another class or fail it all together i don't think a person needs biology to pass high school.

 

[AV1611VET]

All religions based on salvation through one's own attainment of special knowledge or enlightenment, such as Gnosticism, Hinduism, Buddhism, occultism, new age, etc. stem from the same false promise that we can become gods unto ourselves.

One facet of the New Age Movement teaches that, in the beginning, mankind had all the knowledge of the universe available to him in his brain.

But when the Fall occurred, God locked all this information up, and man lost his ability to use it.

Thus salvation comes in the form of learning to unlock this information piece by piece.

They teach that the word "educate" means to "bring out;" and the job of an educator (or guru) is to teach his students to bring out this knowledge that's locked away in his head.

Of course, this "bringing out" entails all sorts of mystic stuff: like meditation, yoga, drugs, and the like.

 

[pitabread]

Oh look, this thread again.

 

[Hans Blaster]

One facet of the New Age Movement teaches that, in the beginning, mankind had all the knowledge of the universe available to him in his brain.

But when the Fall occurred, God locked all this information up, and man lost his ability to use it.

Thus salvation comes in the form of learning to unlock this information piece by piece.

They teach that the word "educate" means to "bring out;" and the job of an educator (or guru) is to teach his students to bring out this knowledge that's locked away in his head.

Of course, this "bringing out" entails all sorts of mystic stuff: like meditation, yoga, drugs, and the like.

Are you talking about the New-Agers or your own religion, I can't quite tell. Frankly you make it all sound the same. I wish I'd realized how mushy it all was earlier. Indoctrination really does work.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you talking about the New-Agers or your own religion, I can't quite tell.

Which part of "One facet of the New Age Movement" did you not understand?

Frankly you make it all sound the same.

Really?

You don't know the difference between "salvation by education" and "salvation by grace thorough faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ"?

I wish I'd realized how mushy it all was earlier. Indoctrination really does work.

Not a clue what you're saying here.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You don't know the difference between "salvation by education" and "salvation by grace thorough faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ"?

The paths are a little different, but ultimately not all that different. Even from your description of the "New Age" movement, it's not so much "education" but the revelation of secret knowledge. Sounds not all that different that needing to learn the teachings of Jesus, or the Christian rituals, etc. I mean that "relationship with Jesus" stuff always sounded to me like New Age-like stuff back in the day.

 

[Yttrium]

Darwin gave the masses permission to be gods unto themselves, making their own morality apart from God's commands, by demonstrating that we don’t need God for our very existence, but instead that we are the result of a mechanistic evolutionary process.

You're not going to get rid of a scientific theory by trying to come up with philosophical problems with it.

The thing is, we have a lot of evidence. Facts. The evidence needs to be explained. We come up with a hypothesis that explains the evidence. That fits all the known evidence that pertains to the situation. And if that hypothesis survives the rigors of peer review, it can become a scientific theory.

These days we have enough genetic evidence to come up with the Theory of Evolution. Darwin didn't have that evidence. He didn't know anything about DNA. He had all sorts of other evidence to work with. If Darwin was wrong, the genetic evidence (not to mention all the other evidence we've turned up since Darwin) could have done the theory in. In fact, a lot of changes have been made to the theory, but it still concludes with all living things evolving from common ancestors.

The theory could still be wrong. But you're not going to get rid of it as long as all the known evidence fits snugly inside it.

There have been people who misused it. Misapplied it. There will always be people who do stupid things. That's not the theory's fault. That's the people's fault.

 

[pitabread]

You're not going to get rid of a scientific theory by trying to come up with philosophical problems with it.

He's not trying to get rid of it, though. He's trying to create a fantasy villain so he has something to crusade against in his imaginary war on atheism.

 

[Yttrium]

He's not trying to get rid of it, though. He's trying to create a fantasy villain so he has something to crusade against in his imaginary war on atheism.

Oh. Well, getting rid of it, making a villain out of it, washing the laundry with it, whatever.

 

[Bradskii]

...of a mechanistic evolutionary process.

Are you saying that God had nothing to do with it?

 

[Estrid]

if Darwin made it possible, what was the Egyptians Godly people. a child doesn't have to learn biology in public school if the parents don't like it.

you mentioned schools are teaching in another thread. place the child in a private school or ask the school to change out for another class or fail it all together i don't think a person needs biology to pass high school.

They don't seem to need to learn English, either.

 

[Estrid]

Are you saying that God had nothing to do with it?

That horrible mechanistic gravity don't hold the sun together and
didn't ignore fusion there, still less can it be allowed to keep
the planets in orbit or control the tide.

 

[AV1611VET]

They don't seem to need to learn English, either.

Followed by:

That horrible mechanistic gravity don't hold the sun together ...

Solid aurum.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

In Genesis 3:5, the serpent promised Eve that she could become like God, through special knowledge apart from what God had chosen to reveal.

All religions based on salvation through one's own attainment of special knowledge or enlightenment, such as Gnosticism, Hinduism, Buddhism, occultism, new age, etc. stem from the same false promise that we can become gods unto ourselves.

With Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, this age-old promise of Satan became cloaked in scientific language. In the words of Richard Dawkins, "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Darwin gave the masses permission to be gods unto themselves, making their own morality apart from God's commands, by demonstrating that we don’t need God for our very existence, but instead that we are the result of a mechanistic evolutionary process.

If you are saying that by trying to better understand the processes of biology you are trying to become a god and that's bad - perhaps that explains why you're so willfully ignorant of said processes?

 

[Oneiric1975]

The paths are a little different, but ultimately not all that different. Even from your description of the "New Age" movement, it's not so much "education" but the revelation of secret knowledge. Sounds not all that different that needing to learn the teachings of Jesus, or the Christian rituals, etc. I mean that "relationship with Jesus" stuff always sounded to me like New Age-like stuff back in the day.

There is a strain of thought within Christian tradition that thinks Paul himself may have been a gnostic, you know the folks with "secret knowledge" that is revealed in stages.

I don't know if it is a valid hypothesis or not, but they point to some of Paul's writings. So maybe Paul himself was a bit "new-agey".

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know if it is a valid hypothesis or not, but they point to some of Paul's writings. So maybe Paul himself was a bit "new-agey".

Paul wrote the book of Colossians to combat gnosticism.

 

[Oneiric1975]

Paul wrote the book of Colossians to combat gnosticism.

...and of course, based on the language used, there are questions as to whether Paul wrote Colossians.

I understand it is still up for debate.

 

[AV1611VET]

...and of course, based on the language used, there are questions as to whether Paul wrote Colossians.

That's easy to answer.

If they get testy about it, just say "God wrote it" and see where they go with that.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

And if they want to argue that, make them admit (if you can) that they don't believe in verbal plenary inspiration.

Then shake off the dust of your feet and move on.