Why is Evolution feared by many Christians?

[Hydra009]

Satan will use the uninformed for his own purposes.

Irony?

 

[LittleNipper]

are you joking? reality is basically the exact opposite of what you just said. the dark ages was when the church had authority over all, including science. this lead to almost complete stagnation of scientific thought. it was moving away from this that brought about the renaissance. if anything is going to bring about a new dark ages, it will be moving towards a theocracy, like the US seems to be doing right now.

The Dark Ages occurred when the "Church" was infiltrated by hedonists and pagans looking to be members of the new Roman Empire State Religion. They incorporated their OWN ideologies revamped the old mystic religions in an effort to appease, placate and absorb the masses of barbarians. This period was not marked as one of personal commitment or a relationship with GOD but rather a misdirected worship of saints, statues, shrines, artifacts, and "church" dignitaries. This was aggravated by the collapse of both reading and writing except for those in places under the direct control of authority and that authority was absolute...

 

[corvus_corax]

The Dark Ages occurred when the "Church" was infiltrated by hedonists and pagans looking to be members of the new Roman Empire State Religion.

Source?

They incorporated their OWN ideologies revamped the old mystic religions in an effort to appease, placate and absorb the masses of barbarians.

Source?

This period was not marked as one of personal commitment or a relationship with GOD but rather a misdirected worship of saints, statues, shrines, artifacts, and "church" dignitaries.

Source proving this was the work of pagans?

This was aggravated by the collapse of both reading and writing except for those in places under the direct control of authority and that authority was absolute...

Source proving that this was the work of pagans?

 

[LittleNipper]

Source?

Source?

Source proving this was the work of pagans?

Source proving that this was the work of pagans?

Sir, one only has to look to the major issues of the Reformation. You want a source. I've read all kinds of books. Public school world history is usually watered down so as to not "offend" various religious groups. But even if you do research on the life and times of Martin Luther, you will find that the "church of Rome" had become little more then a purveyor of indulgences. The Jewish disciples would have hated statues in conjunction to worship and yet by the Dark Ages and Middle Ages this was the rule and not the exception. You need to do some research yourself. I've come to many conclusions simply by comparing the New Testament Church with that which usurped it.

 

[Self Improvement]

The Dark Ages occurred when the "Church" was infiltrated by hedonists and pagans looking to be members of the new Roman Empire State Religion.

Really? I could have sworn it was the fall of the Roman empire that sparked the Dark Ages.

P.S.
When Rome adopted Christianity as its official religion most of the pagans converted anyway .

But I guess they weren't True Christians(TM)

 

[Risen from the Dust]

I think its because you believe it would be morally wrong to kill 42 little children for making fun of a bald man, and so that the little children were actually rebellious teenagers that were mauled, but not killed for making fun of a bald man. I think you do this because you feel the need for creative interpretations of everything that you think contradicts your religious views because you cannot face reality.

Ed

And I think you've just levelled quite few personal attacks against me -- especially since you missed where I already explained that there are plenty of real instances in Joshua where I thought that God was too harsh on the people they were conquering (instances where God really did command thousands of men, women and children -- including little infants -- to be totally destroyed).

In other words, the accounts in Joshua are real examples of things that I feel are morally wrong and I've fully admitted it. Yet people are trying to make a big deal about me defending Elisha the prophet calling on the Lord to maul these 42 teens by two bears -- even after it's been explained over and over again why I don't think it means what others thought it did?

If I was simply worried about something contradicting my religious views, why would I attempt to defend and recast Elisha as nicer person over 42 teens and then turn around and admit that Joshua and company slaughtered thousands of people, including men, women, and children -- and at the direct commandment of God at that?

Ed, just a reminder: Could you please answer my questions?

I am intrigued to know exactly what you mean by your apparent slanderous accusations levelled against me for defending the account of Elisha -- especially in light of what I've repeatedly explained in regards to the Book of Joshua and the real violence recorded within it against everyone including "little babies".

To draw conclusions about one defending Elisha's Scriptural account with the suggestion that an ad hoc explanation is being employed to make it fit one's theology, especially in light of what's already been confessed concerning the violence recorded in Joshua, seems to require a very incoherent style of logic being employed to "read the mind" of those who post here.

If you wish, you can contact me in private via PM if you want to discuss this subject further -- so as not to derail this thread further from it's original subject matter more than it already has.

Thank you.

 

[corvus_corax]

Sir, one only has to look to the major issues of the Reformation. You want a source. I've read all kinds of books. Public school world history is usually watered down so as to not "offend" various religious groups. But even if you do research on the life and times of Martin Luther, you will find that the "church of Rome" had become little more then a purveyor of indulgences. The Jewish disciples would have hated statues in conjunction to worship and yet by the Dark Ages and Middle Ages this was the rule and not the exception. You need to do some research yourself. I've come to many conclusions simply by comparing the New Testament Church with that which usurped it.

Ive read all kinds of books as well. Yay.

All Im asking for is a source that confirms that it was PAGANS that did everything you claimed.
Or are you claiming that the Catholic Church was a pagan institution?

 

[PMM]

1. If Evolution is true, what does that mean to a Christian's spiritual life?

A Christian is defined as a "Christ-person". In other words, Jesus Christ indwells that person. Here are some reasons Christians do not accept evolution:
1. Evolution requires death and destruction in order to progress. The concept of millions of years with dinosaurs dying out before humans means death happened before humans (Adam). The Bible teaches that death entered the world due to Adam's sin. Hence, if death was there before Adam, the Bible is not true.
2. Jesus died to pay the penalty for death. This is the death referred to above. The Bible describes Jesus as the "second man" (since Adam was the first). Adam brought death into the world; Jesus brought life. If death existed before Adam, Jesus' death is meaningless and the Christian's spiritual life is based on a lie.
3. Jesus accepted the literal interpretation of creation and quoted it. If the historical facts of creation described the Bible are not true, Jesus was a liar.
4. The Biblical fact that death did not enter the world until Adam is confirmed by God's decree at the end of each creation day that it was "good". If death existed before Adam, it would not be "good".
5. Christians base their morality on the Bible ... not that they always follow it, but they try. If evolution is true, there is no standard for morality. Babies can be aborted and eaten if evolution is true (depending on the culture).

 

[corvus_corax]

A Christian is defined as a "Christ-person". In other words, Jesus Christ indwells that person. Here are some reasons Christians do not accept evolution:

(emphasis added)
You may want to rephrase that to "Here are some reasons that some Christians do not accept evolution".
Dont want to be breaking forum rules, now do we?

 

[Lucretius]

5. Christians base their morality on the Bible ... not that they always follow it, but they try. If evolution is true, there is no standard for morality. Babies can be aborted and eaten if evolution is true (depending on the culture).

Evolution is not a lifestyle, it's a scientific theory. If I accept gravity does that mean I grow up to be a cold-blooded killer?

 

[Hydra009]

If evolution is true, there is no standard for morality. Babies can be aborted and eaten if evolution is true (depending on the culture).

*bangs head on desk*

 

[Asimov]

Evolution is not a lifestyle, it's a scientific theory. If I accept gravity does that mean I grow up to be a cold-blooded killer?

Obviously, because then you drop babies off of skyscrapers.

 

[corvus_corax]

*bangs head on desk*

For your pleasure, a gif that will be frequently used-

 

[Vastavus]

Obviously, because then you drop babies off of skyscrapers.

See Lucretius, if you didn't believe in gravity, those babies have could have lived.

 

[PMM]

Evolution is not a lifestyle, it's a scientific theory.

This only proves the common delusion among evolutionists. If you base your world view on chance mutations resulting in an accident called "you", you have no basis for morality other than that which you believe to be "right".

 

[Nathan Poe]

This only proves the common delusion among evolutionists. If you base your world view on chance mutations resulting in an accident called "you", you have no basis for morality other than that which you believe to be "right".

non-sequitor.

 

[Hydra009]

This only proves the common delusion among evolutionists. If you base your world view on chance mutations resulting in an accident called "you", you have no basis for morality other than that which you believe to be "right".

Yay, I get to use it now!

 

[Lucretius]

This only proves the common delusion among evolutionists. If you base your world view on chance mutations resulting in an accident called "you", you have no basis for morality other than that which you believe to be "right".

Science is not morality. That's philosophy's field of expertise.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

This only proves the common delusion among evolutionists. If you base your world view on chance mutations resulting in an accident called "you", you have no basis for morality other than that which you believe to be "right".

No, this demonstrates a common delusion among creationists. Morality has absolutely nothing to do with evolution or chance mutations, any more than it has to do with gravity or germ theory.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

This only proves the common delusion among evolutionists. If you base your world view on chance mutations resulting in an accident called "you", you have no basis for morality other than that which you believe to be "right".

And your basis for morality is not something that which you believe to be "right?"