Why is Western Christianity So Soft?

[Phoneman-777]

Persecution is not the solution. Nor should we either be seeking it or wishing it upon ourselves.

If you open your Bible, you'll see that God allows His people to endure affliction for the purpose of purifying them. You've never heard of the Refiner's fire?

Rather, jettisoning the false assumption that the Bible is or ever was an "inerrant, singular, unified," let alone "scientific," collection of ancient writings would be a better antidote.

Of course you think the Bible is flawed because you've been taught Roman Catholic nonsense about the history of the Bible, instead of the Protestant view which is rooted in facts. Watch the documentary "Maybe On Sunday" and "A Lamp In The Darkness" on Youtube and labor under delusion no more, friend.

That way, anyone can pick up a Bible and not be deluded from childhood to expect more than what God offers, or has ever offered, in Reality. It would also go some way in alleviating us of the notion that any one Christian "denomination" has all the right answers to Life through its particular metaphysical and interpretive guesswork.

It is he who refuses to believe the Bible as the inerrant Word of God who falls victim to delusion, friend. What Roman Catholicism did cast darkness on the truth of God's Word via over 1,000 years of papal tyranny, God by virtue of the Protestant Reformation did much to undo that. It's a matter of history, not opinion.

Maybe kids could be allowed to start their study of Life with Copernicus or Galileo rather than with Luther or Calvin. In regard to Copernicus and his novel theory of Heliocentrism, Luther expressed the following ascerbic (and needless) sentiments, much like some Christians today do over other aspects of modern science: "This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the Sun to stand still, and not the Earth.” Calvin expressed similar sentiments about Copernicus' scientific outlook as well ...

God's Word is not established on man's opinions - if it says the Sun stood still, it did. You see, my God can speak from the mouth of a donkey, part the Red Sea so that people can go across on dry ground, raise dead people - pretty much DO ANYTHING that He wants. "Is there anything too hard for the Lord?"

... and now some Christians do the same with the Theory of Evolution, needlessly fearing it and thereby contributing to (but not solely causing) the conceptual and psychological "set-up" for a falling away from the Christian faith, a falling away that is increasingly rolling about in society these days.

I think we can all do better than this. Much better. So, why don't we?

The theory of evolution is simply false science, while the Fact of Creation is correct science. How any thinking person can insist this bag of contradictory nonsense is true is beyond me.

For instance, the Uniformitarian Principle teaches everything that happened in the past is explained by what we see today, and no miracles of God have ever occurred...but they quickly abandon this Principle by erroneously claiming the primitive atmosphere was "Reducing" in order to accommodate the destructive effects our current "Oxidizing" atmosphere would have on the first molecules for life that formed.

Lamarckism is regarded as "unscientific" except when the theory of evolution requires its use, such as when it wants to explain why primates began walking on their hind legs "to see over the tall grasses when they came down from trees" or why the giraffe's neck got so long "in order to reach the higher branches".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you open your Bible, you'll see that God allows His people to endure affliction for the purpose of purifying them. You've never heard of the Refiner's fire?

Yes, I'm well aware of "the Refiner's Fire" and that the Lord can and will at times allow His people to undergo persecution or suffering. But even so, I don't think that that is "what" this nation needs, especiallhy not from a bunch of Theonomists.

Of course you think the Bible is flawed because you've been taught Roman Catholic nonsense about the history of the Bible, instead of the Protestant view which is rooted in facts. Watch the documentary "Maybe On Sunday" and "A Lamp In The Darkness" on Youtube and labor under delusion no more, friend.

News Flash: ................. I'm not Roman Catholic. Where you ever got that idea in the first place, I don't know. What? Because I have a few bits and pieces of the philosophical outlook of Blaise Pascal that I hold to be true? If so, that's hardly a sound reason to assume I'm with any denomination of the Christian Faith. The fact is, I consider myself in solidarity with all other Trinitarian Christians, regardless of race, creed, or institutional favorites that they might prefer.

Maybe you should stop laboring under the delusion that you have it "all figured out." Maybe you should engage my sources in addition to your own ... I have plenty of them, about a thousand voices strong. (........Oh dear. I probably shouldn't have said that because you'll read into and misinterpret the term "thousand" for some hidden reference to Legion when I'm really referring to the fact that I have a thousand books on my shelves from which I've learned, many if not most of them Christian.........................but probably just not your preferred 'kind' of Christian).

It is he who refuses to believe the Bible as the inerrant Word of God who falls victim to delusion, friend. What Roman Catholicism did cast darkness on the truth of God's Word via over 1,000 years of papal tyranny, God by virtue of the Protestant Reformation did much to undo that. It's a matter of history, not opinion.

Again, I'm not Roman Catholic, so you can leave that idea by the wayside. But even so, the Bible doesn't NEED to be described as "inerrant." In fact, I'd go so far as to say that with Philosophy of History in tow, it doesn't really need to be designated as such or idolized as such semantically in order for it to be seen as Sacred.

God's Word is not established on man's opinions - if it says the Sun stood still, it did. You see, my God can speak from the mouth of a donkey, part the Red Sea so that people can go across on dry ground, raise dead people - pretty much DO ANYTHING that He wants. "Is there anything too hard for the Lord?"

I never said God can't do whatever it is He may want to do; but I am saying that your Hermeneutics and Exegesis might not be all that you think it is, unfortunately. And, what's more, I don't have to sit idlely by and just let you ramrod your views across the rest of us in short order. So, I don't. You're dismissal of epistemological and historical complexities that are bound up in the Bible don't just disappear because you deign to way them away by the wave of your hand via a personal claim to having "strong Faith."

And that's just the way it is. I'm sorry I have to be the one to inform you of this inconvenient matter of fact.

The theory of evolution is simply false science, while the Fact of Creation is correct science. How any thinking person can insist this bag of contradictory nonsense is true is beyond me.

Baloney! So, do you think Copernicus was "a fool" to insist on his rudimetary ideas about Helicentrism? Luther thought Copernicus was foolish. However, I DON'T! I also don't think that an utter refusal to consider various findings in modern science is one that is fully rational or reasonable.

For instance, the Uniformitarian Principle teaches everything that happened in the past is explained by what we see today, and no miracles of God have ever occurred...but they quickly abandon this Principle by erroneously claiming the primitive atmosphere was "Reducing" in order to accommodate the destructive effects our current "Oxidizing" atmosphere would have on the first molecules for life that formed.

So what? No one has to be a Philosophical Naturalist. In fact, most working scientist operationally assume Methodological Naturalism. This is where the Philosophy of Science and the Nature of Science have a part to play in discerning where theory actually applies, especially in the surreptious assumption that science somehow necessarily precludes either the supernatural acts of God or the ancient truth of Jesus Christ.

Lamarckism is regarded as "unscientific" except when the theory of evolution requires its use, such as when it wants to explain why primates began walking on their hind legs "to see over the tall grasses when they came down from trees" or why the giraffe's neck got so long "in order to reach the higher branches".

This sounds like the "Christian Science" of Morris and Parker they tried to pass off on me decades ago when I was taking a year in Bible College.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Yes, I'm well aware of "the Refiner's Fire" and that the Lord can and will at times allow His people to undergo persecution or suffering. But even so, I don't think that that is "what" this nation needs, especiallhy not from a bunch of Theonomists.

Christians need the discipline of God's law - we're hopelessly inclined toward evil until Jesus comes and changes our vile bodies into that of His spiritual body.

News Flash: ................. I'm not Roman Catholic. Where you ever got that idea in the first place, I don't know.

I never said you were. What I've said is simply a matter of history. Beside, I firmly believe they'll be zillions of Catholics in heaven, but their leadership over the centuries suggests otherwise, what with all the corruption.

Maybe you should stop laboring under the delusion that you have it "all figured out." Maybe you should engage my sources in addition to your own ... I have plenty of them, about a thousand voices strong. (........Oh dear. I probably shouldn't have said that because you'll read into and misinterpret the term "thousand" for some hidden reference to Legion when I'm really referring to the fact that I have a thousand books on my shelves from which I've learned, many if not most of them Christian.........................but probably just not your preferred 'kind' of Christian).

I prefer we just stick to the details, that the devil which is usually in them be fleshed out. As a Creationist, I became such after having studied all sides of the issue and discovered the satanic agenda that is being conducted by the one in opposition to Biblical truth.

Again, I'm not Roman Catholic, so you can leave that idea by the wayside. But even so, the Bible doesn't NEED to be described as "inerrant." In fact, I'd go so far as to say that with Philosophy of History in tow, it doesn't really need to be designated as such or idolized as such semantically in order for it to be seen as Sacred.

Again, I'm just sharing with you what is a matter of history. While Roman Catholicism claims to have assembled the first canon of Scripture, that claim is false. The truth is that in the early centuries before the papacy began to reign in 538 A.D., God had His Word safely kept right there in Palestine and there it was preserved until the caretakers were chased out by the Turks, and when they fled West and settled in the belly of "papal beast" as the Reformers described it, these "Byzantian Family" MSS began to call into question the "bibles" of Catholicism by men like Erasmus, and eventually led to the grand Protestant Reformation.

I never said God can't do whatever it is He may want to do; but I am saying that your Hermeneutics and Exegesis might not be all that you think it is, unfortunately. And, what's more, I don't have to sit idlely by and just let you ramrod your views across the rest of us in short order. So, I don't. You're dismissal of epistemological and historical complexities that are bound up in the Bible don't just disappear because you deign to way them away by the wave of your hand via a personal claim to having "strong Faith."

I would expect you to do nothing less, friend. The best disinfectant is sunlight, and so all of us ought to be willing to have our Biblical views examined openly to see whether they stand the test of Biblical scrutiny.

Baloney! So, do you think Copernicus was "a fool" to insist on his rudimetary ideas about Helicentrism? Luther thought Copernicus was foolish. However, I DON'T! I also don't think that an utter refusal to consider various findings in modern science is one that is fully rational or reasonable.

You misunderstood me. Luther and Calvin were not prophets, but mere theologians. Scientific accuracy should not be expected of them, nor complete theological accuracy. Luther rejected the seventh day Sabbath, which today we know has nothing to do with false Sunday sacredness, but I still respect much of what Luther said, seeing that the papacy had over 1,000 years to corrupt the truth and expecting Luther to resolve that in a few short decades is like expecting Trump to drain the swamp in four short years while being surrounded with countless swamp monsters with each holding a can of Flex-Seal.

So what? No one has to be a Philosophical Naturalist. In fact, most working scientist operationally assume Methodological Naturalism. This is where the Philosophy of Science and the Nature of Science have a part to play in discerning where theory actually applies, especially in the surreptious assumption that science somehow necessarily precludes either the supernatural acts of God or the ancient truth of Jesus Christ.

No need to reinvent the wheel. If God's Word declares a thing true, why do we need to sit around questioning it. As for science precluding God, while the Bible is not primarily concerned with science, it did manage to attain authoritative superiority early on when thousands of year before science knew anything about it, the Bible stated several facts as such.

• It told us that Pleiades is a bound cluster while Orion is shooting apart at breakneck speed.
• It told us air has weight, the stars were innumerable and unique.
• It told of the preciseness of the movement of heavenly bodies.
• That the Earth is hanging out there on nothing when paganism claimed it to be on the back of a turtle shell or Atlas' shoulder.
• It claimed "the life is in the blood" which we now know is true.

Bro, I could go on and on and on showing you how "science" showed up late to the party.

This sounds like the "Christian Science" of Morris and Parker they tried to pass off on me decades ago when I was taking a year in Bible College.

Is it any less compelling today? If my theories were as plagued with contradictions as are those that comprise evolution, I'd have long since abandoned them. Yet, you seem to cling to them, contradictions be damned.

Why is the Uniformitarian Principle held to if it's not true? Why do evolutionists continue to cling to "Reducing Atmosphere" nonsense when such an atmosphere is IMPOSSIBLE? There's only one reason why people cling to error rather than abandoning it for truth - the truth is not welcome.

 

[FireDragon76]

If I were you, I'd instead offer compassion, patience and hope to people--persons of any sort, whether they be Liberal or Conservative-- rather than pulling out your pseudo-prophetic Whammy-Stick and bashing folks over the head. Life is already existentially confusing and difficult enough as it is without self-promoting individuals like yourself taking it upon themselves to whip the rest of us into submission.

I agree.

One thing we need to do is be suspicious of gross generalization and stereotyping.

 

[FireDragon76]

Do you really think teaching kids that the Bible is a myth and there is no God using what appears to be legit science has no effect on their decision to continue believing in God or not?

Teaching evolution doesn't do that. It just demands thinking about God in more sophisticated ways than a bearded man in the sky.

No, "your job" is to better understand people, as well as the actuality of the pitfalls of a modern Church that makes way too make self-assured and grandiose overtures toward an undemonstrable absoluteness.

While, like you, I have little use for the 'Willow Creek' brand of churchianity. I'm an existentialist and with that being that case, I'm more concerned about Reality as Reality is rather than what anyone would ideally put in place of it and jump around in gunny sacks exclaiming, "Truth, truth, truth, there be here ... !!!"

And if the Christian Church has to take a few bumps and bruises, or even mental fractures along the way in order to find the actuality of its faith and its overly affirmed patronization of the Bible-----------THEN SO BE IT!!! If Christianity is 'real,' then Christ will still be standing at the helm of it All after the Bible has been placed throughly through the meat grinder of Modern Criticism.

Being that things are NOT all rosey for the Christian Church in the present moment, I'd humbly suggest that you change your tune and seek to help folks instead find hope rather than lavish upon them heapings of pseudo-guilt and condemnation as potential "motivators" toward belief and faithfulness.

Kapeesh? ... I hope so.

I also agree with this. Last time I checked, faith was a Christian virtue. Faith doesn't mean having all the answers, necessarily. It often means being faithful despite not having all the answers.

The problem, as I see it, is that too many Anglo-American Evangelicals associate faith with programmatic religious ideologies and dogmas. The infamous "10 impossible things to believe before breakfast". This is not a notion of faith that would be recognizable to Jesus of Nazareth. Not only that, but now Christianity, as commonly perceived, has not only lost its scientific credibility, but often its moral credibility as well, due to the frequent Christian accomodation of hypocrsiy, prejudice, and favoratism.

 

[RileyG]

Teaching evolution doesn't do that. It just demands thinking about God in more sophisticated ways than a bearded man in the sky.

Amen. We have to move beyond our childish images of God. That's what an adult faith is all about.

 

[BeyondET]

Do you really think teaching kids that the Bible is a myth and there is no God using what appears to be legit science has no effect on their decision to continue believing in God or not?

Again do you have data? If there's no evidence that it is happening its a myth.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Christians need the discipline of God's law - we're hopelessly inclined toward evil until Jesus comes and changes our vile bodies into that of His spiritual body.

"Vile" bodies? ..... Vile ??????

What?

Nah. Our bodies aren't "vile." And if we're going to get 'theological" about it, then I'm going to land somewhere closer to an anthropology reflecting what I find when reading J. Richard Middleton's, The Liberating Image: The IMAGO DEI in Genesis 1 (2005).

I never said you were. What I've said is simply a matter of history. Beside, I firmly believe they'll be zillions of Catholics in heaven, but their leadership over the centuries suggests otherwise, what with all the corruption.

I prefer we just stick to the details, that the devil which is usually in them be fleshed out. As a Creationist, I became such after having studied all sides of the issue and discovered the satanic agenda that is being conducted by the one in opposition to Biblical truth.

Again, I'm just sharing with you what is a matter of history. While Roman Catholicism claims to have assembled the first canon of Scripture, that claim is false. The truth is that in the early centuries before the papacy began to reign in 538 A.D., God had His Word safely kept right there in Palestine and there it was preserved until the caretakers were chased out by the Turks, and when they fled West and settled in the belly of "papal beast" as the Reformers described it, these "Byzantian Family" MSS began to call into question the "bibles" of Catholicism by men like Erasmus, and eventually led to the grand Protestant Reformation.

I would expect you to do nothing less, friend. The best disinfectant is sunlight, and so all of us ought to be willing to have our Biblical views examined openly to see whether they stand the test of Biblical scrutiny.

You misunderstood me. Luther and Calvin were not prophets, but mere theologians. Scientific accuracy should not be expected of them, nor complete theological accuracy. Luther rejected the seventh day Sabbath, which today we know has nothing to do with false Sunday sacredness, but I still respect much of what Luther said, seeing that the papacy had over 1,000 years to corrupt the truth and expecting Luther to resolve that in a few short decades is like expecting Trump to drain the swamp in four short years while being surrounded with countless swamp monsters with each holding a can of Flex-Seal.

No need to reinvent the wheel. If God's Word declares a thing true, why do we need to sit around questioning it. As for science precluding God, while the Bible is not primarily concerned with science, it did manage to attain authoritative superiority early on when thousands of year before science knew anything about it, the Bible stated several facts as such.

• It told us that Pleiades is a bound cluster while Orion is shooting apart at breakneck speed.
• It told us air has weight, the stars were innumerable and unique.
• It told of the preciseness of the movement of heavenly bodies.
• That the Earth is hanging out there on nothing when paganism claimed it to be on the back of a turtle shell or Atlas' shoulder.
• It claimed "the life is in the blood" which we now know is true.

Bro, I could go on and on and on showing you how "science" showed up late to the party.

Is it any less compelling today? If my theories were as plagued with contradictions as are those that comprise evolution, I'd have long since abandoned them. Yet, you seem to cling to them, contradictions be damned.

Why is the Uniformitarian Principle held to if it's not true? Why do evolutionists continue to cling to "Reducing Atmosphere" nonsense when such an atmosphere is IMPOSSIBLE? There's only one reason why people cling to error rather than abandoning it for truth - the truth is not welcome.

Ok. From all you're saying here, it sounds to me like you're coming from a Seveth Day Adventist position. Why you didn't just use "Seventh Day Adventist" in your forum ID tag, I don't know.

But the answer as to why I "cling" to my own viewpoint is simple: I've had not only my own life experiences, I've also read my own set of sources and undergone my own path of education by which I've formed my Worldview.

... you just happen to have read a difference set of sources than mine and have come to a different Worldview. It's no wonder that you have the particular understanding that you do about what Reality is, how it works and what to expect from it. On the whole, this is to be expected since we live in a highly pluralistic society with the freedom to make our own choices for personal inquiry.

Whatever our philosophical and theological differences may be, I'm not "hoping" that persecution ensues upon any communities or upon any specific demographic segments of fellow Americans in any shape or form.

If you want to "hope" for persecution upon Christians, then be my guest. But my hope is invested elsewhere, in other things that Christ can do (one of which is to redirect and bring some compassion into our personal philosophy ... ) .

 

[Phoneman-777]

Teaching evolution doesn't do that. It just demands thinking about God in more sophisticated ways than a bearded man in the sky.

The only thing sophisticated about the spreading abroad of contradictory, unscientific, pseudoscience lies is how cleverly Satan has managed to deceive not only atheists, but also those who claim to follow Christ yet refuse to believe CHRIST'S OWN WORDS when He confirme the Creation account.

The level of arrogance it takes to claim unobserved Cosmic, Chemical, Stellar and Planetary, Organic, and Macro evolution are established by the singularly observable Micro-evolution is second only to the display of arrogance by those who exalt "human wisdom" above the Word of God - the most egregious form of idolatry there is.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Again do you have data? If there's no evidence that it is happening its a myth.

Evolution and Personal Faith: How Christian University Students Resolve the Conflict - Article - BioLogos

Nearly all students receive some kind of science education and many experience tension between what they are taught at home and what they learn in school. How should that tension be addressed?

biologos.org

We all know or know of a young person who left for college believing in the Bible and come home a non-believer. Isn't even the loss of one "one too many"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Evolution and Personal Faith: How Christian University Students Resolve the Conflict - Article - BioLogos

Nearly all students receive some kind of science education and many experience tension between what they are taught at home and what they learn in school. How should that tension be addressed?

biologos.org

We all know or know of a young person who left for college believing in the Bible and come home a non-believer. Isn't even the loss of one "one too many"?

Uh... ... .... the qualitative study you've all too briefly cited via Biologos.org doesn't actually offer support for your point here, Phoneman777.

Since you've posted this source in such a will-nilly fashion, I'm beginning to wonder what it is you're really up to here ...

 

[BeyondET]

Evolution and Personal Faith: How Christian University Students Resolve the Conflict - Article - BioLogos

Nearly all students receive some kind of science education and many experience tension between what they are taught at home and what they learn in school. How should that tension be addressed?

biologos.org

We all know or know of a young person who left for college believing in the Bible and come home a non-believer. Isn't even the loss of one "one too many"?

You proved my point, the study you quoted didn't find any evidence.

Quote below is part of their conclusion.

"Our study’s findings have two messages for Evangelicals who are interested in better understanding how such students reconcile evolution and personal religious beliefs: first,

the findings demonstrate that those who accept evolution can remain committed to their religious beliefs.

In this study, an acceptance of evolution did not diminish participants’ view of God or the importance they placed on the Bible."

 

[Phoneman-777]

You proved my point, the study you quoted didn't find any evidence.

Quote below is part of their conclusion.

"Our study’s findings have two messages for Evangelicals who are interested in better understanding how such students reconcile evolution and personal religious beliefs: first,

the findings demonstrate that those who accept evolution can remain committed to their religious beliefs.

In this study, an acceptance of evolution did not diminish participants’ view of God or the importance they placed on the Bible."

It establishes that conflict arises in Christian homes! Good gravy, man, can't you see that?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It establishes that conflict arises in Christian homes! Good gravy, man, can't you see that?

I'm sorry to have to be the one to point this out to you, but the actual study cited in the biologos article you referred to does anything BUT establish the point which you're all too quick to affirm.

Winslow, Mark W., John R. Staver, and Lawrence C. Scharmann. "Evolution and personal religious belief: Christian university biology‐related majors' search for reconciliation." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 48, no. 9 (2011): 1026-1049.​

​

Moreover, I'm an example of a person who can believe in the Theory of Evolution AND believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person. Not only that, but despite my understanding of evolution, this doesn't prevent me from holding the Life, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ as being a highly plausible event (or advent).

 

[Phoneman-777]

I'm sorry to have to be the one to point this out to you, but the actual study cited in the biologos article you referred to does anything BUT establish the point which you're all too quick to affirm.

Winslow, Mark W., John R. Staver, and Lawrence C. Scharmann. "Evolution and personal religious belief: Christian university biology‐related majors' search for reconciliation." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 48, no. 9 (2011): 1026-1049.​

​

Moreover, I'm an example of a person who can believe in the Theory of Evolution AND believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person. Not only that, but despite my understanding of evolution, this doesn't prevent me from holding the Life, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ as being a highly plausible event (or advent).

This is the title and heading of the article, and is all that is needed for the purpose of our discussion:

Evolution and Personal Faith: How Christian University Students Resolve the Conflict​

Nearly all students receive some kind of science education and many experience tension between what they are taught at home and what they learn in school. How should that tension be addressed?​

​

So, what we have here is proof that "tension" and "conflict" arises in Christian homes when Christian families send their Christian kids to Christian universities and are taught pagan science. Do you think any of this tension leads to the abandonment of Christian faith?


Answers in Genesis is a great resource to find out how the teaching of evolution is harming students, based on Burma Research and the like. A principle reason young people give for leaving revolves around the age of the Earth, and the perceived "hypocrisy" that we are told to believe the Bible as it's written, but at the same time we're told how "millions of years" is fact.

Already Compromised

answersingenesis.org

Should we ban the teaching of evolution "if only to save one from eternal death" as many claim we ought to ban guns "if only to save one life"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is the title and heading of the article, and is all that is needed for the purpose of our discussion:

Evolution and Personal Faith: How Christian University Students Resolve the Conflict​

Nearly all students receive some kind of science education and many experience tension between what they are taught at home and what they learn in school. How should that tension be addressed?​

No. A title and heading of an article is definitely NOT ENOUGH for the purpose for which you're reaching. By trying to superficially refer to the article, you're attempting to assert a point that the article itself does not provide. Anyone who reads it in its entirety and has a notion of intelligence and integrity can see that ...

So...........................uh..............................NO! NO! NO!

You should be ashamed of yourself. Maybe stop obfuscating? 'Cuz that is what you're doing here. You've already undercut your credibility here and no one should be tempted to blindly follow what you're implying.

On top of this, the boogieman in all of this isn't the Theory of Evolution but rather the worldly insistence upon Raw Materialism (or more specifically, "the love of Mammon" and all of the human failure that can come with it).

​

So, what we have here is proof that "tension" and "conflict" arises in Christian homes when Christian families send their Christian kids to Christian universities and are taught pagan science. Do you think any of this tension leads to the abandonment of Christian faith?


Answers in Genesis is a great resource to find out how the teaching of evolution is harming students, based on Burma Research and the like. A principle reason young people give for leaving revolves around the age of the Earth, and the perceived "hypocrisy" that we are told to believe the Bible as it's written, but at the same time we're told how "millions of years" is fact.

Already Compromised

answersingenesis.org

Should we ban the teaching of evolution "if only to save one from eternal death" as many claim we ought to ban guns "if only to save one life"?

Should we ban the teaching of evolution? NO.

You have yet another fallacy running here. Maybe stop making conflations?

Morever, I'm not "Liberal."

 

[Phoneman-777]

No. A title and heading of an article is definitely NOT ENOUGH for the purpose for which you're reaching. By trying to superficially refer to the article, you're attempting to assert a point that the article itself does not provide. Anyone who reads it in its entirety and has a notion of intelligence and integrity can see that ...

So...........................uh..............................NO! NO! NO!

You should be ashamed of yourself. Maybe stop obfuscating? 'Cuz that is what you're doing here. You've already undercut your credibility here and no one should be tempted to blindly follow what you're implying.

On top of this, the boogieman in all of this isn't the Theory of Evolution but rather the worldly insistence upon Raw Materialism (or more specifically, "the love of Mammon" and all of the human failure that can come with it).


Should we ban the teaching of evolution? NO.

You have yet another fallacy running here. Maybe stop making conflations?

Morever, I'm not "Liberal."

You can read all about how evolution is destroying the faith of Christians in the book, "Already Compromised" and you will find all the "data" you need - I won't demand an apology when you find out you're wrong

 

[FireDragon76]

You can read all about how evolution is destroying the faith of Christians in the book, "Already Compromised" and you will find all the "data" you need - I won't demand an apology when you find out you're wrong

Creationism destroyed my faith as a college student....

 

[rockytopva]

I believe the true church is made up of many congregations... In which we all have our issues. I would not want to recommend a congregation these days without knowing the senior pastor...

The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches. Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; - Revelation 1:20 - Revelation 2:1

Ephesus - Messianic - Beginning with the Apostle to the Circumcision, Peter
Smyrna - Martyr - Beginning with the Apostle to the Un-Circumcision, Paul
Pergamos - Orthodoxy formed in this time... Pergos is a tower... Needed in the dark ages
Thyatira - Catholicism formed in this time - The spirit of Jezebel is to control and to dominate.
Sardis - Protestantism formed in this time- A sardius is a gem - elegant yet hard and rigid
Philadelphia - Wesleyism formed in this time - To be sanctioned is to acquire it with love.
Laodicea - Charismatic movement formed in this time - Beginning with DL Moody, the first to make money off of ministry

Candlesticks - Seven church congregations
Stars - Individuals within the congregations, all held in the right hand of Christ
Seals - The seven seals sealed each congregation within the lambs book of life
Angels - The current preacher to the congregation.

And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon. - Revelation 5:4

Why is Western Christianity So Soft? It is because in my opinion that we fit within the times and geographies of the Laodicean church.

 

[Paidiske]

Evolution and Personal Faith: How Christian University Students Resolve the Conflict​

Nearly all students receive some kind of science education and many experience tension between what they are taught at home and what they learn in school. How should that tension be addressed?​

​

So, what we have here is proof that "tension" and "conflict" arises in Christian homes when Christian families send their Christian kids to Christian universities and are taught pagan science. Do you think any of this tension leads to the abandonment of Christian faith?

In some ways this is not really the heart of this thread, but I wanted to respond to it any way.

A bit of background; I was raised in a non-church-going home by parents who were lapsed Catholics but had picked up an eclectic grab-bag of ideas along the way; including that they rejected evolution as a scientific theory, which is what they tried to teach us as well. Straight out of school I did a science degree, majoring in genetics and immunology, and I had to deal with the fact that the religious ideas I'd been raised with at home, and the scientific ideas I was encountering at university, did not integrate neatly.

So yes, there was tension and conflict. But you know what? Accepting that tension and working through the conflict was immensely enriching. I have a better grasp of the science, and a far, far deeper knowledge of theology (to the point of a masters' degree in it), than I ever would have if I'd simply accepted a simplistic presentation of either end of the tension. And I have come to a point where I am able to integrate my faith and my scientific knowledge in, if I dare say so of myself, a mature and healthy way.

So no, tension or conflict doesn't lead to abandonment of faith (for most of us, anyway). It leads to deepening and maturing of faith. If Christian parents are afraid of that process, it's likely to stunt their children rather than protect them.

More on topic; why is western Christianity so soft? There are, perhaps, many contributing factors, but I would want to highlight this, at least; churches - of all denominations - have taken our people for granted and failed to live up to our obligations in worship, teaching and service. And then we wonder why people conclude that the church has little to offer them, when all too often, they are correct.