Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Fw: Friday Church News Notes

Expand Messages
  • Mark Penn
    LIBERAL PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS CONTINUE THEIR DECLINE (Friday Church News Notes, January 1, 2010, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - The
    Message 1 of 8 , Jan 1, 2010
      LIBERAL PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS CONTINUE THEIR DECLINE (Friday Church News Notes, January 1, 2010, www.wayoflife.org fbns@..., 866-295-4143) - The liberal “mainstream” Protestant denominations in the United States continue their numerical decline. According to the latest Barna poll, the six largest of these denominations have lost more than one-quarter of their membership in the past 50 years. These are the American Baptist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ, and the United Methodist Church. The membership of these “churches” is also graying dramatically. Only 2% of the members are 25 years old or younger, while one-third are 60 and over. In spite of the decline in numbers, these denominations remain wealthy, generating more than $15 billion in donations, epitomizing the Laodicean age in every particular. “I know thy works, that thou art
      nei ther cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see” (Revelation 3:15-18).


      *** What isn't stated but should have been is that these are the very same chuirches that have adopted evolution and billions of years as compatible with scripure. They are also the very same churches that have attacked Israel's right to their land given to them by God and have heaped praise upon the mass murdered Fidel Castro. - Mark

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Dave Oldridge
      ... And here we see Mark singing the praises of his master, Belial! The fact is, if even ONE Christian remains true to God s Church, Belial is defeated. But
      Message 2 of 8 , Jan 1, 2010
        On 1/1/2010 1:54 PM, Mark Penn wrote:
        > LIBERAL PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS CONTINUE THEIR DECLINE (Friday Church News Notes, January 1, 2010, www.wayoflife.org fbns@..., 866-295-4143) - The liberal “mainstream” Protestant denominations in the United States continue their numerical decline. According to the latest Barna poll, the six largest of these denominations have lost more than one-quarter of their membership in the past 50 years. These are the American Baptist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ, and the United Methodist Church. The membership of these “churches” is also graying dramatically. Only 2% of the members are 25 years old or younger, while one-third are 60 and over. In spite of the decline in numbers, these denominations remain wealthy, generating more than $15 billion in donations, epitomizing the Laodicean age in every particular. “I know thy works, that thou art
        > nei ther cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see” (Revelation 3:15-18).
        >
        >
        > *** What isn't stated but should have been is that these are the very same chuirches that have adopted evolution and billions of years as compatible with scripure. They are also the very same churches that have attacked Israel's right to their land given to them by God and have heaped praise upon the mass murdered Fidel Castro. - Mark
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        And here we see Mark singing the praises of his master, Belial!

        The fact is, if even ONE Christian remains true to God's Church, Belial
        is defeated. But you go right ahead and keep selling his wares. He
        will no doubt reward you richly on earth an d hellishly in the afterlife!

        Of course YOU hate any organizations that praise mass murderers that YOU
        don't approve of. That's how the devil gets your soul.

        These organizations do have their problems, but honesty about evolution
        is not one of them. YOUR dishonesty about the subject is YOUR problem
        and it is for that that you will be judged.

        Oh, and creationism as you preach it IS compromise with the devil!


        --
        Dave Oldridge
        VA7CZ
      • Mark Penn
        Funny how all of your rants never seem to get around to accounting for grapes grown in Greenland, Northern Canada, and Yorshire. This is not possible today and
        Message 3 of 8 , Jan 2, 2010
          Funny how all of your rants never seem to get around to accounting for grapes grown in Greenland, Northern Canada, and Yorshire. This is not possible today and yet it happened 1000 years ago,  even though the famous 'Hockey Stick Graph' was altered to ignore this part of history as if it never happened..

          We know that the Mammoths ate lust tropical vegetation in  what is now above the artic circle:

          " Though the ground is frozen for 1,900 feet down from the surface at Prudhoe Bay, everywhere the oil companies drilled around this area they discovered an ancient tropical forest. It was in frozen state, not in petrified state. It is between 1,100 and 1,700 feet down. There are palm trees, pine trees, and tropical foliage in great profusion. In fact, they found them lapped all over each other, just as though they had fallen in that position.48 "

          48 . Lindsey Williams, The Energy Non-Crisis, 2nd edition (Kasilof, Alaska: Worth Publishing Co., 1980), p. 54.
          48 . Lindsey Williams, The Energy Non-Crisis, 2nd edition (Kasilof, Alaska: Worth Publishing Co., 1980), p. 54.
          48 . Lindsey Williams, The Energy Non-Crisis, 2nd edition (Kasilof, Alaska: Worth Publishing Co., 1980), p. 54.
          48 . Lindsey Williams, The Energy Non-Crisis, 2nd edition (Kasilof, Alaska: Worth Publishing Co., 1980), p. 54.
          48 . Lindsey Williams, The Energy Non-Crisis, 2nd edition (Kasilof, Alaska: Worth Publishing Co., 1980), p. 54.
          Did they drive SUVs or heat their homes using coal, LOLOL???  Your tax-humans-to-death-because-of-a-known-hoax never seems to get around to answering for that either. 

          Funny how folks like you and Al Gore don't and won't  give up one iota of your own lifestyle and yet your cap-and-tax based on a hoax will deprive everyone else. Al Gore is thed largest polluter is the state of Tenn. because of his Nickel Mines and yet you take your environmental marching orders from hypocrites like him.

          Let us not forget that the average lifespan in parts of Africa is 38. You see they die of respiratory illness because they have to burn dung for fuel. They have to use dung because racists like you that have all of the power you need will not allow them to have electricity for energy because of your hoax. Why don't you and Al Gore give up your cars and your electricity and use dung and die by age 38 and let them use your power?

          Mark

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Mark Penn
          [See “Is Evolution Compatible with the Bible?” on pages 402–408.]   1. Animal-like Behavior.  If humans descended from animals, why shouldn’t humans
          Message 4 of 8 , Jan 2, 2010
            [See “Is Evolution Compatible with the Bible?” on pages 402–408.]
             
            1. Animal-like Behavior.  If humans descended from animals, why shouldn’t humans behave like animals?
            2. Meaninglessness.  If evolution happened, why believe that life has any purpose other than to reproduce and pass on your genes? 1
            Response: Evolution did not happen. Your life has purpose and hope. God does not make mistakes. You are not an accident.
            3. Good vs. Evil. If nature is all there is, why believe there is good and evil? 2
            Response: Distinguishing good and evil requires broad, even absolute, standards—and Someone competent to set those standards. Humans instinctively know there is good and evil, right and wrong. Someone implanted that understanding in us; the laws of physics can’t.
            4. Survival of the Fittest.  If we evolved by “survival of the fittest,” then getting rid of the unfit is desirable. To conquer and exploit weaker people, businesses, or countries is just the law of the jungle from which we evolved. Mercy killings, forced sterilization, and selective breeding of humans, while unpopular with some, would be beneficial, in the long run, and very logical—if we evolved. (((Defectors to Communist countries have reported that the first two years they were taught nothing but Darwinian Evolution. Big shock! )))
            5. Communism.  Friederich Engels, one of the founders of communism, wrote Karl Marx, another founder, and strongly recommended Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species.  In response, Marx wrote Engels that Darwin’s book“contains the basis in natural history for our view [communism].”3 Marx offered to dedicate his book, Das Capital, to Darwin, but Darwin declined.
            Joseph Stalin, ruthless dictator of the Soviet Union from 1929 to 1953, killed millions of his people. Stalin read Darwin’s book as a student at a church-based school and urged others to read it.  During that time, he became an atheist.
            6. Personal Responsibility.  If everything came into existence by chance and natural processes, then we have no responsibility to some supernatural being. Religions would be a crutch for the weak-minded and superstitious. Churches would be monuments to human ignorance.
            Furthermore, if evolution happened, then we and our actions are consequences of billions of years’ worth of natural events—over which we had no control. Our responsibility for our situation is relatively small. If bad things happen to us, we are primarily victims.
            Response: We were created for a purpose, so we have great responsibility, and our Creator will hold us accountable. More will be expected from those who have been given more.
            7. Relativism.  There are no absolutes, moral or otherwise (except the fact that there are absolutely no absolutes). Your belief is just as good as mine; your truth is just as good as my truth.
            Response: Obviously, the One who created the universe, life, and humans has the authority and ability to establish timeless moral absolutes—and He has.
            8. Social Darwinism.  If life evolved, then the human mind evolved. So did products of the human mind and all social institutions: law, government, science, education, religion, language, economics, industry—civilization itself.
            Response: Technology progresses, information accumulates, and civilization often improves, but humans remain humans—with all our frailties and shortcomings. 
            9. Secular Humanism. If the “molecules-to-monkeys-to-man” idea is correct, then man is the highest form of being. Man should be the object of greatest concern, not some fictitious Creator that man actually created.
            Response: That philosophy is calledsecular humanism (a humane, intellectual-sounding term) that claims God is irrelevant and the Bible is fiction. Secular humanism will decline as people increasingly learn the scientific flaws of evolution.
            10. New Age Movement.  If people slowly evolved up from bacteria, then aren’t we evolving toward God? Aren’t we evolving a new consciousness? Aren’t we evolving into a glorious New Age?
            Response: These beliefs, built on evolution, continue to spread like a cancer, even in many churches in the world. New age beliefs also will decline as the scientific errors of evolution become known.
            11. Marriage.  If marriage is a cultural development, begun by ignorant tribes thousands of years ago, then why not change that custom, as we do other out-of-date customs? Animals don’t marry; why should people? After all, we’re just animals. If people are a product of natural processes, then why not do what comes naturally? What’s wrong with sexual activity outside of marriage as long as no one is hurt?
            Response: God instituted marriage when He created a man and a woman (Adam and Eve) and said they should become one.
            12. Racism.  If humans evolved up from some apelike creature, then some people must have advanced higher on the evolutionary ladder than others. Some classes of people should be inherently superior to others.
            Response: But that’s racism. That’s the twisted logic Hitler used to try to establish his Aryan master race and to justify killing six million Jews in the Holocaust. This does not mean that evolutionists are racists, although Charles Darwin and many of his followers of a century ago were extreme racists. However, evolution has provided the main rationale for racism. Stephen Jay Gould wrote that “Biological arguments for racism ... increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” [See Endnote 3 on page 392.] People with darker skin have suffered greatly from evolutionary racism. Belief in evolution has also caused others to suffer even more. They are victims of a greater holocaust going on all around us—abortion.
            13. Abortion.  We dispose of unwanted animals such as cats and dogs. If humans are evolved animals, why not terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Isn’t it the mother’s right?  Shouldn’t she have a “choice” in such a personal matter? After all, a fetus has no name or personality. During its first three months, it’s just a tiny glob of tissue—no more important than a little pig or rabbit. Why shouldn’t a fetus, having less value than an adult, be “terminated” if adults or society would benefit? This will help solve our population problem.  We must guide our destiny.
            Response: Abortion is the premeditated killing of an innocent, defenseless, developing (but completely human) baby. Calling an unborn child merely a “fetus” is dehumanizing. Nor should we speak of “terminating a pregnancy.” That is simply a euphemism for killing a very young human.
            Nine years after Darwin published his theory of evolution, Professor Ernst Haeckel announced that animal embryos, including unborn humans, pass through stages that mimic their evolutionary ancestors. Human embryos begin as microscopic spheres, because, Haeckel said, humans evolved from bacteria, which are sometimes microscopic spheres. Later, unborn babies look like fish, because humans evolved from fish. Still later, human embryos look like chimpanzees, because humans evolved from some apelike ancestor. So, human embryos are not yet human. Can you see the errors in this logic? Similarity does not imply a genetic relationship.
            Haeckel faked his drawings to fit his theory. In the following 140 years, hundreds of textbook writers copied these drawings, popularizing the theory. It has since been taught as fact worldwide, even in medical schools. Today the theory is completely discredited, although it is still taught.  [See “Embryology” on page 11 and page 60.]
            Unborn children are human. Each adult’s body has about 100 trillion cells. When you were just one cell inside your mother, all the marvelous, complex information that physically defines you and every organ in your body was there. Although you were tiny and immature, you were completely human when you were one cell. While you were in your mother’s womb, she was your support system, just as medical support systems are needed by some sick or elderly people. Needing a support system does not remove a person from the human race or justify killing that person.
            Although these matters have nothing to do with whether evolution is true or false, they have much to do with the importance of the issue and the adverse consequences of teaching that evolution is a fact. These social problems did not originate with evolution, but they follow logically from evolution. No doubt most evolutionists are as opposed as creationists to many of these social problems, but from an evolutionist perspective these behaviors are easily justified, rationalized, or tolerated. Evolution, while not the cause of evil, can usually defend or justify such behavior—with seeming scientific credibility.4
            Obviously, the creator of a complex machine can best provide its operating instructions. Likewise, only our Creator has the authority and ability to establish timeless moral absolutes. By what logic could anyone oppose these thirteen italicized viewpoints if there were no moral absolutes? Without moral absolutes, “right” and “wrong” will be decided by whoever is in control, but that will change from time to time. A false understanding of origins has subtle and far-reaching consequences.

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • PIASAN@aol.com
            From: Mark Penn Funny how all of your rants never seem to get around to accounting for grapes grown in Greenland, Northern Canada, and Yorshire. This is not
            Message 5 of 8 , Jan 2, 2010
              From: Mark Penn
              Funny how all of your rants never seem to get around to accounting for grapes
              grown in Greenland, Northern Canada, and Yorshire. This is not possible today
              and yet it happened 1000 years ago, even though the famous 'Hockey Stick Graph'
              was altered to ignore this part of history as if it never happened..
              ***********
              Pi:
              No one has said any of those things hasn't happened. No one has said there are not major swings in climate that are completely independent of human activity.

              Funny how all your rants never get around to addressing things we ACTUALLY say.
              ************


              Mark:
              We know that the Mammoths ate lust tropical vegetation in what is now above the
              artic circle
              ************
              Pi:
              Of what possible relevance is that to whether or not global warming is taking place today? The fact is that glaciers are in retreat all over the globe. The fact is that Arctic sea ice is disappearing at an alarming rate.
              ************


              Mark:
              Funny how folks like you and Al Gore don't and won't give up one iota of your
              own lifestyle and yet your cap-and-tax based on a hoax will deprive everyone
              else. Al Gore is thed largest polluter is the state of Tenn. because of his
              Nickel Mines and yet you take your environmental marching orders from hypocrites
              like him.
              *************
              Pi:
              You must be mistaking us for people who make a lot of money. I'm a school teacher and Dave is a priest. You must also be mistaking me for someone who gives a feces what Al Whore.... er Gore says. Finally, I don't recall anyone here endorsing cap-and-trade.

              In other words, your arguing with a fantasy opponent.
              *************


              Mark:
              Let us not forget that the average lifespan in parts of Africa is 38. You see
              they die of respiratory illness because they have to burn dung for fuel.
              *********
              Pi:
              No. They die as infants and because of AIDS.
              *********


              Mark:
              They have to use dung because racists like you that have all of the power you need
              will not allow them to have electricity for energy because of your hoax.
              **************
              Pi:
              No. They have to use dung because there is no other affordable fuel available to them. They don't have electricity because they can't afford to build the power plants.
              **********


              Mark:
              Why
              don't you and Al Gore give up your cars and your electricity and use dung and
              die by age 38 and let them use your power?
              ***********
              Pi:
              Why don't you join the rest of us on planet Earth?

              oh nevermind..... you're not worth the time.....

              Hopefully, Danny will respond to a serious question with a substantive answer....




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • PIASAN@aol.com
              From: Mark Penn 1. Animal-like Behavior. If humans descended from animals, why shouldn’t humans behave like animals? ********* Pi: (1) Irrelevant to the
              Message 6 of 8 , Jan 2, 2010
                From: Mark Penn
                1. Animal-like Behavior. If humans descended from animals, why shouldn’t humans
                behave like animals?
                *********
                Pi:
                (1) Irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution. (2) Um... we ARE animals.
                *********


                Mark:
                2. Meaninglessness. If evolution happened, why believe that life has any
                purpose other than to reproduce and pass on your genes?
                ************
                Pi:
                Irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution.
                ************


                Mark:
                3. Good vs. Evil. If nature is all there is, why believe there is good and
                evil?
                ************
                Pi:
                Irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution.
                ************


                Mark:
                4. Survival of the Fittest. If we evolved by “survival of the fittest,” then
                getting rid of the unfit is desirable.
                *************
                Pi:
                (1) Irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution. (2) Gross misrepresentation of what is meant by "fittest".
                *************


                Mark:
                5. Communism.
                *******
                Pi:
                (1) Irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution. (2) An attempt to "poison the well".
                *******


                Mark:
                6. Personal Responsibility. If everything came into existence by chance and
                natural processes, then we have no responsibility to some supernatural being.
                ***********
                Pi:
                Irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution.
                **********


                Mark:
                7. Relativism. There are no absolutes, moral or otherwise (except the fact that
                there are absolutely no absolutes). Your belief is just as good as mine; your
                truth is just as good as my truth.
                **********
                Pi:
                Irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution.
                ***********


                Mark:
                8. Social Darwinism.
                ************
                Pi:
                Irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution.
                ************


                Mark:
                9. Secular Humanism.
                *******
                Pi:
                Irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution.
                *******


                Mark:
                10. New Age Movement
                **************
                Pi:
                Irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution.
                ************


                Mark:
                11. Marriage.
                ***********
                Pi:
                Irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution.
                ***********


                Mark:
                12. Racism
                **********
                Pi:
                Irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution.
                ***********


                Mark:
                13. Abortion.
                *********
                Pi:
                Irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution.
                ***********


                Mark:
                Although these matters have nothing to do with whether evolution is true or
                false,
                ************
                Pi:
                Exactly.
                ************


                Mark:
                they have much to do with the importance of the issue and the adverse
                consequences of teaching that evolution is a fact.
                *************
                Pi:
                So, we should suppress the teaching of mainsream science?
                ************


                Mark:
                These social problems did not originate with evolution
                ***********
                Pi:
                Exactly. So why do you endorse suppressing the teaching of something that didn't cause the problems?
                ************


                Mark:
                but they follow logically from evolution
                ************
                Pi:
                Not necessarily.... unless you distort evolution beyond all recognition.
                ***********


                Mark:
                No doubt most evolutionists are as opposed as creationists to many of these social
                problems
                ***********
                Pi:
                No kidding. But they are SOCIAL problems. Evolution is a biological science. Besides you oppose the findings of a lot of other sciences (astronomy and physics come to mind) that have nothing at all to do with evolution.
                ***********


                Mark:
                Evolution, while not the cause of evil,
                can usually defend or justify such behavior—with seeming scientific
                credibility.
                ***********
                Pi:
                If I were arguing this as a YEC, I'm not so sure I'd even mention this one... given the history of religions.
                ************


                Mark:
                Likewise, only our Creator has the authority and ability to
                establish timeless moral absolutes.
                ************
                Pi:
                Evolution has nothing to do with moral absolutes. Leave that to the philosophers and theologians.





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Dave Oldridge
                ... There WAS a warm interval about 1000 years ago, but it did NOT affect the major glaciers in the manner that the present event is doing. But th grapes were
                Message 7 of 8 , Jan 2, 2010
                  On 1/2/2010 1:14 PM, Mark Penn wrote:
                  > Funny how all of your rants never seem to get around to accounting for grapes grown in Greenland, Northern Canada, and Yorshire. This is not possible today and yet it happened 1000 years ago, even though the famous 'Hockey Stick Graph' was altered to ignore this part of history as if it never happened..

                  There WAS a warm interval about 1000 years ago, but it did NOT affect
                  the major glaciers in the manner that the present event is doing. But
                  th grapes were in "Vinland" not Greenland and grapes are STILL grown in
                  that place (Nova Scotia).
                  >
                  >
                  > We know that the Mammoths ate lust tropical vegetation in what is now above the artic circle:
                  >
                  WE know no such thing. I challenge you to produce serious scientific
                  evidence for this claim. Mammoths were c0old-weather pachyderms and
                  lived on the fringes of northern arboreal forests and even on tundra.
                  If you don't think tundra can support a large herbivore, I urge you to
                  argue the matter with a musk-ox.

                  > " Though the ground is frozen for 1,900 feet down from the surface at Prudhoe Bay, everywhere the oil companies drilled around this area they discovered an ancient tropical forest. It was in frozen state, not in petrified state. It is between 1,100 and 1,700 feet down. There are palm trees, pine trees, and tropical foliage in great profusion. In fact, they found them lapped all over each other, just as though they had fallen in that position.48"
                  >
                  > 48 . Lindsey Williams, The Energy Non-Crisis, 2nd edition (Kasilof, Alaska: Worth Publishing Co., 1980), p. 54.
                  > 48 . Lindsey Williams, The Energy Non-Crisis, 2nd edition (Kasilof, Alaska: Worth Publishing Co., 1980), p. 54.
                  > 48 . Lindsey Williams, The Energy Non-Crisis, 2nd edition (Kasilof, Alaska: Worth Publishing Co., 1980), p. 54.
                  > 48 . Lindsey Williams, The Energy Non-Crisis, 2nd edition (Kasilof, Alaska: Worth Publishing Co., 1980), p. 54.
                  > 48 . Lindsey Williams, The Energy Non-Crisis, 2nd edition (Kasilof, Alaska: Worth Publishing Co., 1980), p. 54.
                  > Did they drive SUVs or heat their homes using coal, LOLOL??? Your tax-humans-to-death-because-of-a-known-hoax never seems to get around to answering for that either.
                  >
                  > Funny how folks like you and Al Gore don't and won't give up one iota of your own lifestyle and yet your cap-and-tax based on a hoax will deprive everyone else. Al Gore is thed largest polluter is the state of Tenn. because of his Nickel Mines and yet you take your environmental marching orders from hypocrites like him.
                  >
                  The ancient remains of tropical foliage will be incorporated in
                  permafrost if the region drifts to an arctic location and becomes
                  glaciated. The depth at Prudhoe bay indicates a period of about half a
                  million years to freeze to that depth.

                  I don't take marching orders from anyone. YOU take yourse from Mammon,
                  Moloch and Belial. Good luck with those "gods."

                  > Let us not forget that the average lifespan in parts of Africa is 38. You see they die of respiratory illness because they have to burn dung for fuel. They have to use dung because racists like you that have all of the power you need will not allow them to have electricity for energy because of your hoax. Why don't you and Al Gore give up your cars and your electricity and use dung and die by age 38 and let them use your power?
                  >
                  >
                  I'm all in favour of them having nice shiny coolant-moderated nuclear
                  reactors to provide them with all the electricity they can use. What is
                  YOUR problem with that?

                  And stop trying to feed me egregious LIES. It doesn't work and only
                  proves you are stupid.



                  --
                  Dave Oldridge
                  VA7CZ
                • Dave Oldridge
                  ... Who cares if your private interpretation of scripture is compatible with reality? It s your fantasy. deal with the dissonance. But is creationism
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jan 2, 2010
                    On 1/2/2010 1:30 PM, Mark Penn wrote:
                    > [See “Is Evolution Compatible with the Bible?” on pages 402–408.]
                    Who cares if your private interpretation of scripture is compatible with
                    reality? It's your fantasy. deal with the dissonance.

                    But is creationism compatible with the Bible? Creationism set out to
                    lie to the American public, claiming that their ideas were motivated by
                    science when, in fact, their propaganda was motivated by their religious
                    belief that the Bible is an inerrant oracle.

                    The root of the tree (at least as far as it developed in the twentieth
                    century) is rotten and the tree continues to bear sick fruit.
                    Creationism teaches lies about science and teaches Christians that lying
                    about science and suborning science teachers to lie to children is a
                    necessary thing for Christian salvation. The touble is, that is heresy
                    by definitions older than the Church. Those who teach such abominations
                    (and YOU do) are an abomination in the sight of the Most High. You have
                    simply excommunicated yourselves from the deity you lie about serving
                    and you have done it by giving your service to the father of lies.

                    >
                    >
                    > 1. Animal-like Behavior. If humans descended from animals, why shouldn’t humans behave like animals?
                    We do. There are, of course, differences. For example a chimp will
                    avoid wasted moves in a puzzle if it can see that they are wasted,
                    whereas a human child is likely to repeat a learned ritual even though
                    it is obvious that some of the ritual moves are unnecessary. A tame
                    wolf, confronted with an insoluble problem will just keep worrying at
                    it, whereas a dog will look to a human for help.

                    Animals have souls that are suited to their natures. Humans are the
                    animals that have human souls.

                    >
                    > 2. Meaninglessness. If evolution happened, why believe that life has any purpose other than to reproduce and pass on your genes? 1
                    > Response: Evolution did not happen. Your life has purpose and hope. God does not make mistakes. You are not an accident.
                    Whether or not we are accidents, we are under God's universal
                    sovereignty. Creationists believe that the incantation 'random chance'
                    places limitations on that sovereignty. Christians don't believe in
                    such limitations.

                    >
                    > 3. Good vs. Evil. If nature is all there is, why believe there is good and evil? 2
                    > Response: Distinguishing good and evil requires broad, even absolute, standards—and Someone competent to set those standards. Humans instinctively know there is good and evil, right and wrong. Someone implanted that understanding in us; the laws of physics can’t.
                    >
                    The laws of physics are not about good vs. evil. But human nature is
                    what it is.
                    > 4. Survival of the Fittest. If we evolved by “survival of the fittest,” then getting rid of the unfit is desirable. To conquer and exploit weaker people, businesses, or countries is just the law of the jungle from which we evolved. Mercy killings, forced sterilization, and selective breeding of humans, while unpopular with some, would be beneficial, in the long run, and very logical—if we evolved. (((Defectors to Communist countries have reported that the first two years they were taught nothing but Darwinian Evolution. Big shock! )))
                    >
                    Getting rid of the unfit is neither desirable nor undesirable. It JUST
                    HAPPENS. Gravity exists and pulls things towards the center of the
                    earth. That is no excuse for throwing people off cliffs.

                    > 5. Communism. Friederich Engels, one of the founders of communism, wrote Karl Marx, another founder, and strongly recommended Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species. In response, Marx wrote Engels that Darwin’s book“contains the basis in natural history for our view [communism].”3 Marx offered to dedicate his book, Das Capital, to Darwin, but Darwin declined.
                    > Joseph Stalin, ruthless dictator of the Soviet Union from 1929 to 1953, killed millions of his people. Stalin read Darwin’s book as a student at a church-based school and urged others to read it. During that time, he became an atheist.
                    >

                    Stalin espousedsuch a distorted idea of evolution that he had biologists
                    who knew better sent to Siberia.

                    > 6. Personal Responsibility. If everything came into existence by chance and natural processes, then we have no responsibility to some supernatural being. Religions would be a crutch for the weak-minded and superstitious. Churches would be monuments to human ignorance.
                    > Furthermore, if evolution happened, then we and our actions are consequences of billions of years’ worth of natural events—over which we had no control. Our responsibility for our situation is relatively small. If bad things happen to us, we are primarily victims.
                    > Response: We were created for a purpose, so we have great responsibility, and our Creator will hold us accountable. More will be expected from those who have been given more.
                    Yet all we get more of from creationists is lies and libels.

                    [remaining filthy libels deleted]

                    You people really serve your demon well. Just know that, in the end, he
                    will eat your souls!


                    --
                    Dave Oldridge
                    VA7CZ
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.