On another note, I understand scripture verses can turn people off, but it goes the other way as well. jman on May 22, 2007 at 11:02 AM

Good point. We just have to quote it. We don’t have to pretend that everyone will accept it. (Hey, you’ll thank me later.)

True enough, Freelancer, I don’t make the rules. I don’t find the Bible quotes tough to read, just ineffective.

Ineffective for You. Please don’t talk for everyone. Thanks.

AllahP has yet another atheist post this morning over in the left column of the main page. I think we can all agree that he needs your participation in that thread .

If just one person who reads this site pauses and reflects on their life’s choices because of a Scripture reference, then it’s worth it all.

Anton, since you are so certain that people won’t change their mind or ways based on God’s Word, isn’t it ironic that you want me to change my ways based on your words?

But I do find it helpful when Bryan posts discussions to explain Evangelicals to the un-familiar or outright prejudiced.

Since the bible is the foundation of what Christians believe, why should we not use it to explain these beliefs?

NYT is probablly going to do a hit job on Christianity using churches that pick and choose (and sometimes twist) what the bible teaches. It is entirely appropriate to objectively use the Bible to set the record straight.

On another note, I understand scripture verses can turn people off, but it goes the other way as well.

so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty,but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. (Isaiah 55:11)

It may not change a lot of people’s minds, but it sure did have an impact on my life when I heard it as an agnostic.

The staff makes the rules regarding comments, not you. If you don’t want to read Scripture references, dodge anything with my name on it.

True enough, Freelancer, I don’t make the rules. I don’t find the Bible quotes tough to read, just ineffective. You’re not going to change anyone’s mind on politics by quoting Scripture. Liberals go deaf when you do so.

If we were on a religious forum, you might find me to the right of you on many Christian issues — and also, perhaps, able to out-quote you from the Bible. But in this forum I prefer to find common ground with conservatives of all or no religions. But I do find it helpful when Bryan posts discussions to explain Evangelicals to the un-familiar or outright prejudiced.

I will neither apologize for that nor cease it unless asked by the HA staff. I don’t use those quotes to browbeat people into agreeing with me, or to ascribe condemnation to people’s actions or motives, so it just shouldn’t be any tougher to read than a personal opinion.

I don’t bother asking people to refrain from profane language, though it offends me. The two reasons why I don’t are: 1) This isn’t my site, I don’t set the standards of behavior, and 2) In my experience it’s more likely to draw increased hostility against me than just ignoring it.

I can honestly say, I have only come across one off the wall preacher in my 25+ yrs of going to church to many different churches…baptist, non denominational mostly.

Do you truly think that this is the scenario that you will experience upon leaving your body?

Yes

I hear so many people say that they will ask Jesus this or that when they see Him, yet I wonder if they are just misled into thinking that Jesus will actually be interested in such things.

I think my Father would humor me.

More likely, when you see Jesus the Christ, Heaven, the works, you won’t care about any of that other stuff. You will be too elevated and blissed out to care.

Entirely possible

I don’t think the above can be proven or disproved, so I will have to wait until I meet God and ask him myself. In the mean time, I am sure others of you will offer your opinion :)

jman on May 21, 2007 at 4:39 PM

Do you truly think that this is the scenario that you will experience upon leaving your body?

I hear so many people say that they will ask Jesus this or that when they see Him, yet I wonder if they are just misled into thinking that Jesus will actually be interested in such things.

More likely, when you see Jesus the Christ, Heaven, the works, you won’t care about any of that other stuff. You will be too elevated and blissed out to care.

William

Couple of links for you Aids in Uganda and the Architect of the success. Yeah, so I’m pretty sure Hitchens is aware that a Marxist is responsible for coherent AIDS awareness and prevention in Uganda.

Cardinal Emannuel Wamala a fellow who is against condom use, period, full stop. So, once again, the disconnect for me is far to great. The securing of the eternal soul at the expense of the worldly body is stupid.

The original post was about the media’s lack of understanding of important issues within the politically significant evangelical community. I had a long paragraph in my first reply about my favorite mega-church theological issue, which is the non-use of the Apostle’s and Nicene creeds. I axed the paragraph before I hit the “submit” comment because my feelings on the creeds have no bearing on how evangelicals vote.

Let’s just stick to the politics, OK?

He also probably doesn’t mention that the church he despises is taking care of a huge number of the AIDS orphans in Africa.

It has been nearly 2,000 years and we’re still waiting for the first atheist orphanage to open somewhere. The only one I know of is the one in the movie Cider House Rules.

The age of the earth has been conceded by most Christians (though not all).

I am wondering if it is really possible to scientifically determine the age of the earth?

When God created the earth, I am assuming he created everything in a different stage of development. Adam was a fully grown man when God create him. Likewise, wouldn’t he have created saplings, mature trees, & “ancient” trees at the same time? I doubt the garden of eden was a sea of saplings two inches high!

I imagine, he would have done the same for all of the other geological features as well. Thus if we scientifically dated a rock created during the seven days, it would appear to be much older than it actually is.

I don’t think the above can be proven or disproved, so I will have to wait until I meet God and ask him myself. In the mean time, I am sure others of you will offer your opinion :)

Sure. It’s also the same Catholic church that says no to premarital/extramarital sex.

I don’t see the point in implying the Catholic church is somehow guilty (or at least complicit) in the spread of AIDS because they don’t advocate condoms when, if a person were 100% following Catholic teachings on abstinence and only having sex with your spouse, their chance of contracting AIDS (while not zero) would be much less.

JadeNYU on May 21, 2007 at 12:38 PM

Um, erm, Cardinal Alphonso Lopez de Trujillio,head of the Vatican’s family council auxilliary bishop of Rio De Janero, Cardinal Obando y Bravo of Nicaragua and Cardinal Emannuel Wamala of Uganda are certainly partially responsible for the spread of AIDS with some of their insane pronouncements regarding condoms.

From animals don’t use them to condoms not being able to stop the AIDS virus to actually saying that condoms are infected with AIDS. Yeah, so there’s a bit of a disconnect with me regarding Catholic missions caring for those dying with AIDS as opposed to them providing a way to stop the spread.

I know how AIDS is spread, you know how AIDS is spread. For the Church to misrepresent how AIDS is spread and how to stop the spread is borderline sick.

Those attributions came from Christopher Hitchens’ new book, God is not Great. Yay!

Does this also imply a literal interpretation of the Bible, as in Adam and Eve existed, Noah was however old, the world is only however many thousand years old, no evolution etc?

Those are some of the things “Fundamentalist” meant in the 1920s. The age of the earth has been conceded by most Christians (though not all). Evolution is still a minority view, though I think that has a lot to do with the in-yer-face atheism of many of its best-known proponents.

Does this also imply a literal interpretation of the Bible, as in Adam and Eve existed, Noah was however old, the world is only however many thousand years old, no evolution etc?

Dash on May 21, 2007 at 1:16 PM

Good question, Dash.

Honestly, the only true interpretation of the Bible is a literal one. In context, of course.

Genesis says that God created the earth in 6 days. If God is omnipotent as God claims then God could certainly create the world in 6 days. Is this parable or is this simple fact?

If one rejects this view of creation, then what’s the point of trying to pick and choose what else in the Bible to believe or not to believe? It makes the whole concept of the Bible pointless if everyone is free to pick and choose which parts are true and which parts are false.

Simply stated, what the Genesis account describes, is a 6 day creation period involving instantaneous creation of life during that time, with one human male (Adam) being created, and then one human female (Eve). Following is a lengthy genealogy and historical context defining the generations from Adam to Noah. This genealogy is the context giving us a short time span with regard to the history of the earth.

It is also accepted that evolution and long-earth history theory do not match up with the strict literal Biblical account.

So, either the Bible is right, or it is wrong on this point. And if the Bible is wrong on any point it can’t be inspired by omnipotent God. (I don’t care what argument one makes about man corrupting God’s original words, it is foolish to attempt arguing that mankind has the power to corrupt God’s True original Word.) The point is that if one chooses to reject any part of the Bible they effectively reject all of it, by default.

In our context today:

Point One: Either the Creation happened on purpose in a short time span (Biblically), or something else happened such as Evolution occurring by accident over millennia.

Point Two: Any theory attempting to combine Creation and Evolution denies the Genesis account and by default denies the omnipotent power of God in favor of whatever politically correct theory is currently making the rounds.

Point Three: As Christians, we can’t accept the omnipotence of God on one issue and then deny it as it suites us on another. Biblical theology just doesn’t work that way.

Sorry I meant to include a :o) to indicate that line was meant in jest. Its an inside joke between me and my Protestant wife which of course neither you or anyone else on this forum would have any knowledge of. :O)

Newman65, as a “fundie”, I don’t judge catholics to be “idol-worshipping heathens”. I judge catholicism to teach many non-Biblical ideologies as having equal authority to Scripture, and therefore erroneous. I have no animosity towards you or yours.