Until you look at the fact that the most fundamentalist Christian nation in the world probably commits just as much if not more sins than other societies... There goes your theory.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Until you look at the fact that the most fundamentalist Christian nation in the world probably commits just as much if not more sins than other societies... There goes your theory.No I don't find that dishonest, my own personal experiences back that up. Does that mean that everyone who doesn't accept Genesis as truth will become a homosexual, want an abortion, surf for pornography, etc., obviously no. It does however, I believe, make people more susceptible to doing those things. I personally believe think the association is fair and is born out when you look at society.
Well, Ham's Creation Museum is open this weekend.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/arts/24crea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
What are people's thoughts on this?
No I don't find that dishonest, my own personal experiences back that up. Does that mean that everyone who doesn't accept Genesis as truth will become a homosexual, want an abortion, surf for pornography, etc., obviously no. It does however, I believe, make people more susceptible to doing those things. I personally believe think the association is fair and is born out when you look at society.
Knowing what I know about people, I think this is an incredible way to reach them. It will show God and His creation in a very real and effective way. His glory and honor will be properly shown and His Word will be promoted.
Funny, I have some personal experience where the first 3 girls knocked up in a certain high school were Baptist pastor daughters. That Southern Baptist upbringing seems highly correlated with underage intercourse in Johnson County Missouri.
LOL Howdy Neighbor, I'm in Jackson County MO
Hey Mallon,What about those people who are turned away from Christianity because they associate it with the museum's rediculous belief that fire-breathing dragons were once real?
That's strange. In all my experience I've found the complete opposite to be true in nearly every case. I've never seen a creationist asked to visit a secular university unless it was to debate a professor, I've never seen an atheist deride me for accepting evolution, and every poll and study I've seen points to young-earth creationists as being viewed as an embarrassment to the faith as a whole, and a major source of deconversion. It sounds like you get exactly what you'd expect from that interview: dishonest answers from an obviously skewed list of questions.Hey Mallon,
I actually left this thread thinking no good could come of it if I continued to debate, yet oddly was just reading an interview with a creationist scientist, and this one area sort of jumped out at me. Have a read:
====
Where do you find your biggest opposition comes from?My biggest opposition, by far, is from 'Christians' who have accepted theistic evolution as a compromise'Christian' colleges and seminaries.And yet they would be aware that your ministry is bearing much fruit?
We are seeing people won to Christ. I can give you example after example of universities, secular universities, where they have had us in, even paying us to come in and present creation. Overwhelmingly the audiences are large. We were at one university and a longhaired, hippie-looking young man who asked very intense questions, just 'spat' his questions out. And he came up afterwards, and with tears in his eyes pushed his way through the audience right up to the front. When I was finished, he said, 'Nobody, but nobody, has ever told me about a Creator before: thank you for coming!'There are some people who also say they are talking about a creator and science, but they get very angry with ministries like yours and that of the Institute for Creation Research and Creation Science Foundation because of our strong uncompromising stand on issues like the recency of creation, the world-wide Flood and so on.
Yesin fact there are some allegedly evangelical ministries like that of Hugh Ross which claim to use science to point to the Creator, but they accept totally the evolutionists' viewpoint of billions of years, cosmic and stellar evolution, ape-men before Adam, long ages of death and bloodshed before man and so on.Yes, it is very sad, and can be confusing to Christians who do not have the full picture. The argument they sometimes use is that by taking a stand as we do on the truth of the Bible (as we would claim) one risks 'putting people off' the Gospel. Do you find that this is so?
I find the exact opposite to be true. Incidentally, on the university campuses they may not agree with us, but they expect us to take the Bible literally as true. And I found out that the secular world has very little patience for people who try to fit the Bible into the evolutionary model. They say if the evolutionary model explains everything, why add on the unnecessary hypothesis of God? You should either take a naturalistic explanation or go supernatural, but you can't have both, so they have very little respect for the compromise position.====
Full article here.
Cheers!
Digit
I haven't even encountered a mature atheist who has based their whole worldview on evolutionary theory.*blinks*
So you've never had an Atheist deride you for accepting a theory that their whole worldview is based on?
Apparently the man being interviewed claims that it takes place.Yeah, that's a real shocker right there.
Perhaps you should consider what you've just posted before making sarcastic remarks like that.The Interview said:And I found out that the secular world has very little patience for people who try to fit the Bible into the evolutionary model. They say if the evolutionary model explains everything, why add on the unnecessary hypothesis of God? You should either take a naturalistic explanation or go supernatural, but you can't have both, so they have very little respect for the compromise position.
Again, the interview that you posted claims that atheists do not respect theistic evolutionists for their compromise viewpoint.C'mon, that's like saying I've never been derided for believing in God by other Christians. What do you expect, a prize for that discovery?
From what part of "every poll and study I've seen" did you get unsubstantiated from? I can understand your fervent desire to deny that your preconceived, closely-held religious beliefs are so ridiculous to observers that they turn them off from the entire faith. It's certainly not something I would be proud of or comfortable discussing. But, unfortunately, it's the truth.Other than that, your post is simply disagreeing, and pressing your own unsubstantiated opinions of things.
First, my comments were based off poll and study results, not personal experience (though my personal experience certainly supports my position as well). Second, I'm not trying to convince you. I'm well aware that, as a Christian fundamentalist, it's depressingly likely that you will not allow your entrenched viewpoint to be changed regardless of the evidence against it. It's the same malaise suffered by the 31% of Americans who insist that the Bible be taken completely literally, word for word. You cannot afford to allow yourself to listen to challenge lest you be made uncomfortable by the mental conflict it causes, but the rest of the people reading this thread (any of the usually 40-70% guest population that makes up this board's readership at any given time) are often here to learn about the issue. It's the lurkers we debate for.Well, unfortunately that doesn't change anything I'm afraid. On the one hand we have a recognised scientist with his own ministry, and on the other hand a limited and converse experience. I'm unconvinced.
He works in a ministry organisation, and therefore it's one thing to say you believe in evolution, and not be derided for it, and another to believe in theistic evolution. You specifically said...I haven't even encountered a mature atheist who has based their whole worldview on evolutionary theory.
Apparently the man being interviewed claims that it takes place.
I've never seen an atheist deride me for accepting evolution...
Or, perhaps you should consider what you believe in and post/relate it to people correctly before trying to completely refute another's claims without any real support to do so.Perhaps you should consider what you've just posted before making sarcastic remarks like that.
Yup, and I would hasten to add that it's not a blanket statement about every single last one, it's based off of his experience.Again, the interview that you posted claims that atheists do not respect theistic evolutionists for their compromise viewpoint.
From the part where you put a full stop after it. Lets see, when I say, "Every poll and study I've ever seen says God is alive and real." do you think that will win any Atheists over? Or, do you think they will demand to see some evidence of that fact?From what part of "every poll and study I've seen" did you get unsubstantiated from?
I actually am proud of my position, and I have no issues talking about it with people. I do not declare that I know everything about it, but it does make a great deal more sense to me than any others offered, and is certainly more biblical. But you're right insofar that it's far easier to slot in a theory that's accepted by the masses, to somehow make you feel comfortable around them, whilst also proclaiming faith. If there is one thing life has taught me through experience, it's that often the path of least resistance, is the wrong one...I can understand your fervent desire to deny that your preconceived, closely-held religious beliefs are so ridiculous to observers that they turn them off from the entire faith. It's certainly not something I would be proud of or comfortable discussing. But, unfortunately, it's the truth.
May we see?First, my comments were based off poll and study results, not personal experience (though my personal experience certainly supports my position as well).
There are some things that are presented in the Bible in such a way as to make it impossible to take it figuratively, and indeed common sense dictates that God would not inspire someone to write the Bible in such a way that only those intellectual enough could fathom it's real meaning, it's completely contradictory to the nature of the book. It's meant to be take at face value, word for word as it says it is, unless obvious. Figurative text often includes words such as, 'like', 'appeared' and so on. Or is told in a way as to illustrate a story that very clearly never took place, yet has deeper meaning.Second, I'm not trying to convince you. I'm well aware that, as a Christian fundamentalist, it's depressingly likely that you will not allow your entrenched viewpoint to be changed regardless of the evidence against it. It's the same malaise suffered by the 31% of Americans who insist that the Bible be taken completely literally, word for word.
Actually, my comfort level has naught to do with it, as I have rethought several things recently due to new findings. I am fallable and am well aware I can be wrong. I do not even go so far to say that I am not wrong about this, as it is quite possible that I could be. If anything, I would bounce that retort right back at you, as you seem fairly entrenched yourself. However at the end of the day, I can put forth a viewpoint that is complete and whole, satisfies the deeper questions of life and doesn't require you to be a scientist to understand.You cannot afford to allow yourself to listen to challenge lest you be made uncomfortable by the mental conflict it causes,
I find it difficult to learn when you have a rigid framework that everything must coincide with, or else it is simply labelled wrong. As you appear to have, and as you have labelled the Dr who was interviewed....but the rest of the people reading this thread (any of the usually 40-70% guest population that makes up this board's readership at any given time) are often here to learn about the issue. It's the lurkers we debate for.
There's no difference. I accept the same evolutionary theory that atheists do. I just also happen to believe in the existence of God.He works in a ministry organisation, and therefore it's one thing to say you believe in evolution, and not be derided for it, and another to believe in theistic evolution. You specifically said...
... you believe in evolution, and have never been derided for it by non-believers. So really, there are two points. One is it evolution or theistic evolution
What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?and two, ministering to people, and simply telling them your viewpoint is another deal altogether. My boss was perfectly happy to hear my viewpoint, yet not so accepting or tolerant when I witnessed to him.
Again, what? You're not making a lot of sense here.Or, perhaps you should consider what you believe in and post/relate it to people correctly before trying to completely refute another's claims without any real support to do so.
And my point was that his personal experience does not apply to the community as a whole (indeed, I question the veracity of his personal experience - I doubt it accurately describes his encounters with secularists over the years but rather represents a specific selection of encounters that helps him promote his viewpoint).Yup, and I would hasten to add that it's not a blanket statement about every single last one, it's based off of his experience.
Ah, apologies then. I, clearly incorrectly, assumed that you meant my position was actually unsupported by fact rather than lacking support provided in the post.From the part where you put a full stop after it. Lets see, when I say, "Every poll and study I've ever seen says God is alive and real." do you think that will win any Atheists over? Or, do you think they will demand to see some evidence of that fact?
It is not at all more biblical. It simply works better with a literalist interpretation of the Bible (an interpretation that, itself, is horribly flawed).I actually am proud of my position, and I have no issues talking about it with people. I do not declare that I know everything about it, but it does make a great deal more sense to me than any others offered, and is certainly more biblical.
I'm actually unsure as to how to look for the studies I have seen (most of them have been provided here at one point or another, or on IIDB and similar sites). In the process of looking, though, I found that simply Googling "reasons for deconversion" provides a bevy of testimonies for reasons people left Christianity. Very prominent among them is the disconnect between the fundamentalist view of the world around them and reality itself.May we see?
What? First off, the Bible can only be read by most people after it's been translated from the original text (a number of times), which requires someone (indeed, many someones) with a significant intellectual capacity. Second, intellectual strength is not required to glean the moral and spiritual messages that the Bible was given to us for. It's only the factual details that become problematic, and they are completely unimportant to the intent of the Bible.There are some things that are presented in the Bible in such a way as to make it impossible to take it figuratively, and indeed common sense dictates that God would not inspire someone to write the Bible in such a way that only those intellectual enough could fathom it's real meaning, it's completely contradictory to the nature of the book.
The Genesis account clearly never took place, but has a deeper meaning.It's meant to be take at face value, word for word as it says it is, unless obvious. Figurative text often includes words such as, 'like', 'appeared' and so on. Or is told in a way as to illustrate a story that very clearly never took place, yet has deeper meaning.
Your comfort level still has a lot to do with it.Actually, my comfort level has naught to do with it, as I have rethought several things recently due to new findings.
If only it were that simple. People are very easily able to admit their own fallibility. The problem is that even these people continue to see the Bible itself as infallible, not realizing that their interpretation of it is what allows them to read it in the first place.I am fallable and am well aware I can be wrong.
I'm glad that you can acknowledge that.I do not even go so far to say that I am not wrong about this, as it is quite possible that I could be.
On the contrary, if evidence emerged tomorrow that evolutionary theory is wrong and creationism is somehow accurate, I would switch to the supported explanation. Entrenchment applies to those who reject reality.If anything, I would bounce that retort right back at you, as you seem fairly entrenched yourself.
Evolutionary theory doesn't require you to be a scientist to understand, and doesn't even try to answer the deeper questions of life. And no viewpoint is complete and whole which actively rejects the evidence.However at the end of the day, I can put forth a viewpoint that is complete and whole, satisfies the deeper questions of life and doesn't require you to be a scientist to understand.
Digit, nothing needs to coincide with evolutionary theory. There is no requirement in my mind or in any scientist's mind that it happen that way. That's just the way it is. It's a nifty little side effect of being the correct theory that the evidence you end up finding tends to fit.I find it difficult to learn when you have a rigid framework that everything must coincide with, or else it is simply labelled wrong. As you appear to have, and as you have labelled the Dr who was interviewed.
I understand, but the "Yes, it is very sad" line in the final question just about kills any illusion of an impartial interview they might have maintained. It's one thing to lead your interviewee. It's another thing to throw him ammunition. If you're just going to agree with him on everything he says, why not just have him write the article himself?And out of interest, it's good interview practice to have the questions lead on from one to another, in a friendly and non-formal interview, as this is. If it was a debate I would say otherwise.
Thanks for posting that interview, Digit. Unfortunately, it saddens me for 3 reasons:Hey Mallon,
I actually left this thread thinking no good could come of it if I continued to debate, yet oddly was just reading an interview with a creationist scientist, and this one area sort of jumped out at me. Have a read:
Without a doubt much of what you say is true, but I would submit it is so because the power of the Holy Spirit doesn't reside within them and that they are false Christians, people who outwardly live for Jesus but inwardly are spiritually dead.I see the absolute opposite. Some people who have deep, sinful desires often try and use orthodox religion as a method of suppressing those desires. The stronger those inner lusts, the stricter their outward religion will be. When the inevitable happens - inevitable because rather than trusting in God and admitting publicly of their sinful nature to receive help, they push it down and try to hide it - they end up leading a secret life of trying to satisfy those lusts. Then they get caught.
(2) This man refers to evolutionary creationists as "Christians" (with quotes), implying that they are somehow less Christian than he. That is one of the most unChristian things you can do, and it exemplifies his feelings of self-righteousness.
*blinks*
So you've never had an Atheist deride you for accepting a theory that their whole worldview is based on?
I've never been derided for believing in God by other Christians.
Atheism isn't a worldview, but a larger portion of atheists adopt Humanism, which has a great emphasis on evolution in their worldview, and not just biological evolution either. I was merely pointing out that it's no great surprise that people meet no resistance when proclaiming something that the people they are proclaiming it to, believe in.The theory that the Atheists, by definition, base their whole worldview on is "There is no God." I can honestly say I've never had one deride me for accepting that... mostly because I do not.
Did you have a different theory in mind? Then you don't know much about Atheism.
Now that does happen all the time... I'm derided by Christians who believe in Creationism because I don't believe in their God: A literal Bible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?