Are We Mixing Politics with Religion? And Thoughts on Last Night’s Creation-Evolution Debate

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

[Download MP3]

Dr. Brown speaks with Pastor Bruce Bennett about the rightful role of believers in politics and then gets feedback from viewers of the Billy Nye-Ken Ham creation-evolution debate. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.

 

Hour 1:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Separation of Church and State has been misused and turned upside down; let us have our role in society.

 

Hour 2:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: I do not have an extensive scientific background, but this much I know, there’s only 1 answer that makes sense, “In the beginning God”.

 

SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!  

For you gift of $50 or more as you partner with our ministry this week, you will receive a signed copy of Dr. Brown’s 550-page commentary on Jeremiah, along with commentaries by top Old Testament scholars on Lamentations and Ezekiel. Postage Paid! (This beautiful hardcover volume totals 928 pages.)

Call 1-800-278-9978 or Order Online!

Other Resources:

Race, Religion, and Politics

What Happens When You Tamper with the Family; and Evander Holyfield Meets Big Brother

Is There a Christian Position on Immigration Reform? And Thoughts on How to Avoid Deception

47 Comments
  1. I don’t believe in total separation between the Bible and government, but only in denomination differences not being part of government.

    I believe where everyone agrees – Orthodox Jews, Conservative Protestants and Catholics, that the government should adhere to that position.

  2. Bruce Bennett believes that we should require a “biblical standard of morality” in government and schools

    But who’s Christian understanding of the bible?

    I’ll guess that most of you don’t want _my_ biblical view to be the standard in schools.

    How about the Catholics? Would you feel good if your child was led in a prayer to the Virgin Mary? That’s one Christian standard.

    Do you want a Christian Scientist teaching “Christian Science” in stead of real science? And how about an LDS teacher, teaching the Book of Mormon? They consider themselves Christian.

    “No — just real Christians!, many would demand. But who determines that? Does the local school board hold inquisitions to determine who is a real Christian? Talk about government over-reach!

    As I have long said — a strict separation of church and sate is good for the church and good for the state.

  3. David Roberts,

    Where do you draw the line with who is denomination and who is another religion?

    Do you only allow conservative and orthodox Christians to run government?

    And you want the government making legal determinations who who is a real Christian church? What a mess that would be.

    Mixing church and state is a disastrously bad idea.

  4. Greg,

    You are using the argument straight out of the liberal hand book of church and state. Look at the founders of this country and the biblical views that were the fiber of thought in the founding of this country. What we argue of separation of church in state is not at all close to the intentions of the founding of this GODLY country.
    You read it yourself in the book that you so closely studied Queer thing happened to America- Look at the founding of our most prestigious schools and the non separation of religious acumen on attending higher education. Your studied the book and can see what I am saying.

  5. So how do we determine what is right and the will of God, or what is Christian values, or what does the Bible really say about something?

    You do the best you can.

    The trouble is, so many do not do the best they can. They settle for so much less.

    Is it the best we can do by saying we don’t know what a Biblical standard of morality is?

    Greg knows, for he makes mention of Mary, Christian Science, and Book of Mormon.

    I think the majority know the difference for the most part.

  6. The big lie has been that modern man can not govern himself, so dictators rose up, but did you notice how they usually didn’t do a better job?

    What’s important in any form of government is the character that is within it.

    I believe the government of Jesus is here in part,
    that his kingdom is here in part, (for isn’t it within us, isn’t Christ in us, the hope of glory, and hasn’t his word been at work within us to some extent, having been working by the Spirit of God that is within it?) and I hope we get to see the increase of it.

    Doing the best we can isn’t always an easy thing.
    Sometimes it’s as if it’s all up hill.

  7. Greg Allen,

    Do you honestly think that Catholics get their views from Scripture alone? That is laughable, and any Catholic will tell you so. Roman Catholicism is deeply rooted in “Tradition” and the teachings of the magisterium as well.

    Christian Science isn’t even primarily reliant on the Bible but upon the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, and likewise, Mormonism believes that the Bible is correct “in so far as it is accurately translated” which seems to mean that errors and corruptions have crept in over time. Also, considering your stance on homosexuality, it is pretty clear that you are quite ashamed of Biblical teaching as well. None of these groups make any pretense to seeking to interpret the Bible in its own context, allowing it to define its own terms, and seeking to understand the intent of the author, etc.

    Finally, remember, we would *never* say that a religious idea should be accepted just because it is religious, or that a view should be accepted just because someone tries to use the Bible to support it. All we are saying is, allow religious ideas back at the debating table. Allow the Biblical view to be a view that the American people are allowed to hear and vote on in the public square. If the view is not based on scripture, or is a misuse of scripture, then the American people will get to hear both sides. Don’t demand that, just because a view is based on scripture, it must therefore be, not only rejected, but not even considered. We don’t do that for *any* other viewpoint-only religious ones. We don’t rule out republican ideas simply because they are republican or libertarian ideas simply because they are libertarian. Why do we rule out Christian ideas simply because they are Christian? It is bias and bigotry to the nth degree, and, especially in the area of ethics and morals, would have absolutely been rejected by our founding fathers.

  8. If I was a scientist, and I wanted to give my scientific best, I don’t think I would put everything of the back of evolution theory. It just doesn’t seem logical.

    I think I would rather suggest that the creative order we see, suggests that there is a divine maker who is able to make things that will last ages, and may I also suggest that he could do such things in a day if he wanted to?

    As to why the Maker would want to give such order to things of his creation, so as to let us know that he can make things to last through the ages,(if he should want it to last that long) why would he want to do it in a creation week?

    For reasons he has I suppose. Was it just to make us look into such things? Maybe so, and maybe a little bit more than just a look, I’m thinking.

  9. I watched the debate. It was pretty good. Nye tried to use a false dilemma in trying to portray that real science would stop and education would be damaged if creation was believed in. Ham showed real scientists that are also creationists that continue to advance science. Nye used fallacious numbers to try to show that the ark could not hold enough animals. I would have liked Ham to have addressed a few of Nye’s false assertions about the Bible also. The best thing that happened was that Ham presented the gospel of salvation.

    Shalom

  10. Jon,

    You said, “Look at the founders of this country and the biblical views that were the fiber of thought in the founding of this country. What we argue of separation of church in state is not at all close to the intentions of the founding of this GODLY country.”

    This nation was founded on the genocide of the Native Americans and slavery, so what alternate America are you referring to? Actually, this nation was founded on tradition that had G-d in it. Too many people romanticize our slave owning Founding Fathers, and ignore these truths.

    However I do agree with you in that the Church and State concept has become twisted from its early meaning.

  11. Nye wouldn’t be able to come up with one advance in true science that did not come about with God’s blessing or help, for in him we live and move and have our being.

  12. You are right Brian. Our founders were greedy, super rich slave owners who didn’t want to pay their fair share of taxes for all the services and protection the king provided. So they did what the rich always do. They riled up the impressionable youth, the children of the poor, with talk of freedom, as if it weren’t already the most free society in the world (except for the slaves). Then they sent the poor off the fight and die for them so they could get even wealthier, as the rich always do. I think if 50 year old men want to start wars they should leave the kids alone and fight it out themselves. If we made that rule all wars would stop immediately and forever. There I just solved all the world’s problems. You’re welcome.

    “Nye wouldn’t be able to come up with one advance in true science that did not come about with God’s blessing or help, for in him we live and move and have our being.”

    > Christians have fought against every new advance, discovery and scientific theory ever made since there have been Christians. Ever heard of Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin? Name scientist from the 16th, 17th, 18th, or 19th centuries that was not persecuted by Christians. You stand in the way of science and then give your God credit for it. It doesn’t get any more hypocritical than that!

  13. We need more worshipping scientists in the world that we may receive more advances in medicine, geology, and whatever else.

    It’s always been worshipping men that receive revelations.

    I believe there are many advances God has waiting but they are not being received because we have not been giving God the recognition he deserves.

    How many more people have to die because of not knowing how some illnesses can be treated? How much more pollution should the earth receive because people don’t yet know how to get energy efficiently and in new ways, how much more trouble does this world need?

  14. Van,

    “Ever heard of Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin? Name scientist from the 16th, 17th, 18th, or 19th centuries that was not persecuted by Christians. You stand in the way of science and then give your God credit for it. It doesn’t get any more hypocritical than that!”

    Lol, Galileo and Copernicus were not persecuted by Christians; they were persecuted by a Roman Catholic Church who had adopted the philosophy of Aristotle [transubstantiation is a result of that particular philosophy as well], which was based upon the popular scientific theories of the day. It was, in actuality, religion mixing with the popular scientific philosophies of the day that prevented scientific discovery. Sound familiar? Like, maybe, churches and Christians who accept Darwinian evolution?

    Copernicus and Galileo are a perfect example of why popular science is always subject to change, and why, any time the Bible is rejected in favor of popular science, it will always squelch the growth of science, because it destroys the foundation of science. Copernicus and Galileo were operating under a Christian base, and the Roman Catholic church wanted them to abandon it for an Aristitilian base, and they refused.

    And, far from being persecuted by Christians, most of the early scientists either *were* Christians, or were operating out of a Christian lifeform such as Bacon, Newton, Faraday, Pascal, as well as Galileo and Copernicus as we have mentioned. What is hypocritical is for the atheist to demand syncretism of Christianity with modern scientific theory, when it was precisely this syncretism that led to the destruction of the advancement of science in regards to Copernicus and Galileo. What is worse is it is hypocritical for the atheist to use this argument, when his view completely destroys science, because of the very destruction of knowledge that is inherent in atheism.

  15. We need more worshipping scientists in the world that we may receive more advances in medicine, geology, and whatever else.
    It’s always been worshipping men that receive revelations.

    > Knowledge has never come through revelation and it never will. Revelation is nothing more than a superstition held by people who don’t know anything about science. That would be you and every other creationist.

    “I believe there are many advances God has waiting but they are not being received because we have not been giving God the recognition he deserves.”

    > What recognition does a God deserve who lets all this suffering continue if he could stop it? 30,000 children die a painful death every day from starvation. A God that permits this deserves only our scorn and not our praise. It’s good for God that he doesn’t exist. There’s a Jewish saying that, “If God lived here on Earth people would break his window.” They surely would.

    “How many more people have to die because of not knowing how some illnesses can be treated? How much more pollution should the earth receive because people don’t yet know how to get energy efficiently and in new ways, how much more trouble does this world need?”

    > How about all the millions that died needlessly because the churchmen would not let doctors and scientists do autopsies to discover the cause of death? That went on for a thousand years and stymied medical progress and caused centuries of needless pain and suffering. Once the scientists pushed the churchmen out of the way medical progress was made while the Christians preached against the use of medicine. Today Bible believers preach against evolution which is the foundation for modern medicine. Since scientists have figured out how nature structures itself through natural selection, called the theory of evolution, they have wiped many diseases that were incurable before and in the last 120 years doubled the average lifespan of human beings. You probably would have already died from a disease that our knowledge of evolution helped us eradicate had we not discovered natural selection. You go to a doctor who uses his or her knowledge of evolution to keep you healthy and alive. You are a hypocrite of the highest order.

    “I believe it’s the population that refuses to worship God that hinders everything good.”

    > Well how come the nations in Scandinavia have a higher standard of living than we do, better schools, less crime, less poverty, more freedom and they reject God? Your statement is ridiculous. God must love the atheists because he always treats us great and lets the believers suffer.

    “Lol, Galileo and Copernicus were not persecuted by Christians; they were persecuted by a Roman Catholic Church who had adopted the philosophy of Aristotle [transubstantiation is a result of that particular philosophy as well], which was based upon the popular scientific theories of the day. It was, in actuality, religion mixing with the popular scientific philosophies of the day that prevented scientific discovery. Sound familiar? Like, maybe, churches and Christians who accept Darwinian evolution?”

    > Don’t forget every Christians college and university in the world that teaches science. Every one of those schools not only teaches evolution but these Christian schools go to great lengths to distance themselves from creationism in any of its disguises and the people like Dembski and Behe who promote this garbage. We don’t teach creationism because we don’t teach lies.

    “Copernicus and Galileo are a perfect example of why popular science is always subject to change, and why, any time the Bible is rejected in favor of popular science, it will always squelch the growth of science, because it destroys the foundation of science. Copernicus and Galileo were operating under a Christian base, and the Roman Catholic church wanted them to abandon it for an Aristitilian base, and they refused.”

    > That is as untrue as any lie ever told on this planet. The real reason Galileo was persecuted by Christians is because he did not believe that the Bible should be considered in science at all. “…In the discussion of natural problems we ought not to begin with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations” – Galileo Galilei

    Now do you agree with Galileo or do you think the Bible should be the basis for science? You already answered that. I rest my case. You really stuck your foot in your mouth with that comment. Hilarious! Bible believers still don’t agree with Galileo while claiming he’s one of you! Oh the lies, the lies Christians tell. Busted!

    “And, far from being persecuted by Christians, most of the early scientists either *were* Christians, or were operating out of a Christian lifeform such as Bacon, Newton, Faraday, Pascal, as well as Galileo and Copernicus as we have mentioned.”

    > Yes Christians persecuted Christians scientists whenever their findings debunked another Christians superstition. Newton waited until he was on his deathbed to reject his faith because he feared persecution from angry Christians. Christians hid the findings of Copernicus for 70 years. How is that helping scientific progress? The things you say are so false and so absolutely ridiculous!

    “What is hypocritical is for the atheist to demand syncretism of Christianity with modern scientific theory, when it was precisely this syncretism that led to the destruction of the advancement of science in regards to Copernicus and Galileo. What is worse is it is hypocritical for the atheist to use this argument, when his view completely destroys science, because of the very destruction of knowledge that is inherent in atheism.”

    > You tried to make that argment before and I already showed why that is not true. But you’re a creationist and creationists are famous for ignoring the refutations of their claims and repeating their false claims over and over and over and over again as if no objections to them were ever raised. There is nothing inherent in atheism. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God. Science does not consider God or the supernatural. Science is the study of Nature. I don’t know why I bother refuting your arguments. You just ignore the fact that your arguments are not valid and repeat them over and over and over again. Bad debating ethics reflect bad personal ethics. We atheists are sick of having to explain the difference between right and wrong and lies and truth to you believers. We really are.

  16. “Van, Can you explain apparent evidence that causes you to say that God does not exist?”

    > Yes there is actually a lot of pretty clear and convincing evidence that God does not exist. Of course it’s difficult to prove a negative. However there are a lot of things that should or should not be true if God does or does not exist. For example there is no clear evidence of the existence of any gods which is not surprising of no gods exist. Arguments for God’s existence suffer from irreparable logical flaws, which should not be the case if there really is a God. Religion demands faith and discourages attempts to verify its claims through testing and experimentation. This fact is less surprising if there is no God. Religion has a history of intolerance and violence, and this not likely to be true if there is a God. Science is a very effective way of gaining knowledge. Revelation and scriptural study are not, as people disagree about both and this fact is more likely to be true if there is no God. Religion attempts to suppress outside examination and criticism, and this fact is less surprising if there is no God. Religion has cruel, dangerous and repressive doctrines which it is morally incumbent upon us not to support. This should not be true if religion is true. There is a vast amount of religious confusion and disagreement between people who are members of the same religion. This fact is less surprising if there is no God. Religion is fragmented into sects that cannot agree on key issues of doctrine or ethics, and this should not be true of religion is true. Religions emerge in isolated areas and only then spread in space and time, rather than appearing in every society at once. If there is a God this should not be the case. The mind has a physical basis, and this fact is less like to be true if there is a God. There is too much gratuitous evil and unnecessary suffering. This should not be true if there is a God. Naturalism is the norm and supernaturalism cannot be verified which makes sense if there is no God. The Bible contains many contradictions and historical inaccuracies, and this fact is less surprising if there is no God. For the most part belief in God is a force for stagnation and against progress. This should not be true if there is a God. Atheists are no less happy or fortunate than believers and usually more so. This should not be the case if God exists.

    I think any rational person who considers all this evidence will conclude that there really is no God and things look exactly as they should if that is indeed the case. I guess you can sleep in next Sunday. What do you think?

  17. Van wrote:
    “Religion has a history of intolerance and violence, and this not likely to be true if there is a God.”

    Hmmm! Nature has a lot of intolerance and violence among countless species. Why is violence and intolerance indicative against there being a creator? It may be evidence against a certain human conception of “God,” but it may be that the creator designed it this way. It may serve His purpose. It may be His creations fault for disobeying Him.

    Van Wrote:
    “Religion has cruel, dangerous and repressive doctrines which it is morally incumbent upon us not to support. This should not be true if religion is true.”

    You have no basis to judge this. Evolutionary processes, if they are true, produce the same thing, so it would also be good evidence against evolution.

    It is a dog eat dog world since man fell from perfection. The Bible makes much more sense of the way humans interact than evolutionary doctrine.

    Van wrote:
    “There is a vast amount of religious confusion and disagreement between people who are members of the same religion. This fact is less surprising if there is no God.”

    It is only surprising if “God” wants us to be puppets. If He wants us to think and be able to chose and to love, He has to leave us with the ability and right to fail to do these things.

    Van Wrote:
    “Religions emerge in isolated areas and only then spread in space and time, rather than appearing in every society at once. If there is a God this should not be the case.”

    Why not. If “God” wants to reveal Himself to a certain group of people and have them spread the good news, that is His business. If you are wanting a fair, mamby pamby sort of liberal for a god then you may have a point. The real issue is that “God” has not lived up to your expectations. In other words, you already have chosen yourself to be your god. How could the real “God” lower Himself to your silly notions? There is plenty of scientific confusion and disagreement out there too. Does this negate that science is real?

    Van Wrote:
    “The mind has a physical basis, and this fact is less like to be true if there is a God.”

    This reasoning comes from a mind with a physical basis, so how can we trust that its logic is correct concerning spiritual things?

    Van wrote:
    “There is too much gratuitous evil and unnecessary suffering.”

    How do you know that there would not be more if there was no god?

    Van wrote:
    “The Bible contains many contradictions and historical inaccuracies, and this fact is less surprising if there is no God.”

    You have shown no such thing in any post at any time. It is an unfounded assertion. What you have done in the past is proven that you do not know the difference between poetry and prose or between literal and symbolic language.

    Van wrote:
    “For the most part belief in God is a force for stagnation and against progress.”

    If evolution is true, there is no definition of progress. It just is what it is and is goes where it goes. Progress requires a goal and plan. If you concede a goal or a plan, you have conceded a “God.”

    Van wrote:
    “Atheists are no less happy or fortunate than believers and usually more so.”

    Hmmm! Not according to the polls.

    http://atheism.about.com/od/Atheist-Agnostic-Belief-Survey/fl/Atheists-Happiness-Satisfaction-Survey.htm

    http://www.skepticink.com/dangeroustalk/2012/10/11/atheism-has-a-suicide-problem/

    http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/interesting-statistics-contrasting-atheism-and-christianity/

    http://www.wnd.com/2007/07/42582/

  18. Van Wrote:
    “Religion has a history of intolerance and violence, and this not likely to be true if there is a God.”

    I have to add that the atheist regimes of the world have been and continue to be way more intolerant and violent than countries founded upon Christianity.

  19. Van,

    The real question is, “Why did anyone ever think up the idea of a creator a god if there isn’t one?”

    “I do not think there is a demonstrative proof (like Euclid) of Christianity, nor of the existence of matter, nor of the good will and honesty of my best and oldest friends. I think all three are (except perhaps the second) far more probable than the alternatives. The case for Christianity in general is well given by Chesterton…As to why God doesn’t make it demonstratively clear; are we sure that He is even interested in the kind of Theism which would be a compelled logical assent to a conclusive argument? Are we interested in it in personal matters? I demand from my friend trust in my good faith which is certain without demonstrative proof. It wouldn’t be confidence at all if he waited for rigorous proof. Hang it all, the very fairy-tales embody the truth. Othello believed in Desdemona’s innocence when it was proved: but that was too late. Lear believed in Cordelia’s love when it was proved: but that was too late. ‘His praise is lost who stays till all commend.’ The magnanimity, the generosity which will trust on a reasonable probability, is required of us. But supposing one believed and was wrong after all? Why, then you would have paid the universe a compliment it doesn’t deserve. Your error would even so be more interesting and important than the reality. And yet how could that be? How could an idiotic universe have produced creatures whose mere dreams are so much stronger, better, subtler than itself?”
    ― C.S. Lewis

  20. Van, it seems to me that since Jesus exists, then God also exists. We have proof that Jesus exists.

    We also have proof that the world exists, which also speaks of the glory of God.

    Those are two witnesses you seem to not wish to recognize.

  21. Interesting blend of topics for the programme, as usual. I would be interested to know what other people think about the actual topics of ‘Dr Brown’s show.

    For example, was the debate a constructive one? Bo, in comment no 10, referred to the actual debate and how it was conducted. Did it seem better or worse as a result of having Mr Nye and Mr Ham, who are not Professors. Was it more accessible?

    Do these sort of debates — which are quite popular at the moment — likely to make someone radically adjust his point of view?

    If separation of Church and State means that children are not even aware of the difference between a Sikh and a Hindu, then that’s not a good thing. RE — learning about religion as an academic subject — is compulsory here in the UK, and it is different from a worship group. We also have those, which are held out of lesson time. It has helped us to be more knowledgeable and welcoming as a nation.

    The state church is actually one of the weakest parts of the Christian community here. Most of hte spiritual action is in the less institutional churches. That’s also a good debate — is it actually better for the church to be disconnected from the state?

  22. “Hmmm! Nature has a lot of intolerance and violence among countless species. Why is violence and intolerance indicative against there being a creator? It may be evidence against a certain human conception of “God,” but it may be that the creator designed it this way. It may serve His purpose. It may be His creations fault for disobeying Him.”

    > Let me get this straight. God knew in advance that his creation was going to disobey him, but yet he punishes them anyway? So God blames his creation for his own mistakes? Is that what you are accusing God of? If a person behaved like that in our society, he would labeled a sadistic sociopath. This is a good example of how religion can distort a person’s sense of morality, point the moral compass in the wrong direction. You should be horrified at that kind of behavior but instead anything God does is just fine with you because it’s God.

    “You have no basis to judge this. Evolutionary processes, if they are true, produce the same thing, so it would also be good evidence against evolution.”

    > You have no basis from which to tell me what I can judge and what I can’t. I just demonstrated the kind of judgment you have. Evolution doesn’t produce any doctrines. It is a natural process.

    “It is a dog eat dog world since man fell from perfection. The Bible makes much more sense of the way humans interact than evolutionary doctrine.”

    > There’s no such thing as evolutionary doctrine. Doctrine is what religions use to control people’s minds.

    “It is only surprising if “God” wants us to be puppets. If He wants us to think and be able to chose and to love, He has to leave us with the ability and right to fail to do these things.”

    > If God wanted you to think then the Bible wouldn’t demand that you keep your thoughts in captivity. No free thinker, no one who has learned the art of critical thinking would ever fall for that kind of indoctrination.

    “Why not. If “God” wants to reveal Himself to a certain group of people and have them spread the good news, that is His business. If you are wanting a fair, mamby pamby sort of liberal for a god then you may have a point. The real issue is that “God” has not lived up to your expectations. In other words, you already have chosen yourself to be your god. How could the real “God” lower Himself to your silly notions?”

    > How could God let all these false religions crop up then? A person’s religion can almost always be predicted to be the religion of their land and of their parents. You could have been born in Saudi Arabia and right now you’d be a Muslim, or in India and a Hindu, or in Hollywood and you’d be a Scientologist, Utah and you’d be a Mormon. Everyone of you, no matter what religion, feels so fortunate to have happened to be born into the one true religion.

    “There is plenty of scientific confusion and disagreement out there too. Does this negate that science is real?”

    > When scientists disagree, they settle the issue with evidence. When religions disagree they settle the issue by killing each other.

    “This reasoning comes from a mind with a physical basis, so how can we trust that its logic is correct concerning spiritual things?”

    > We can’t trust people who use illogical arguments to foist their spirituality on the rest of us.

    “How do you know that there would not be more if there was no god?”

    > Well there is no God. But it seems like if there is a kind and merciful God there would not be as much evil and suffering. However we’ve already established that you do not believe in a kind and merciful God like some other Christians do. They haven’t read the Bible carefully have they?

    “You have shown no such thing in any post at any time. It is an unfounded assertion. What you have done in the past is proven that you do not know the difference between poetry and prose or between literal and symbolic language.”

    > I suppose you could write all the scientific blunders in the Bible off as symbolic language. I have no problem with that. Can you tell me how many brothers David had? What was Solomon’s mother’s name and what was her father’s name? What did the men traveling to Damascus with Paul witness? Where was Rachel buried?

    “If evolution is true, there is no definition of progress. It just is what it is and is goes where it goes. Progress requires a goal and plan. If you concede a goal or a plan, you have conceded a “God.”

    > I’m not talking about evolution. I’m talking about social progress. Today Bible believers are fighting against gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research just as they fought against integration and the use of medicines and vaccines in the past. History is going to take a very dim view of the behavior of Bible believers just as it has always done in the past. Only now, in an age of information young people know about this and are running from Christianity in astounding numbers. Big thanks to Ken Ham for helping that process along. Because of this Christianity is kind of like a balloon flying around the room backwards with all the air rushing out of it as it dies a very quick death.

    “Hmmm! Not according to the polls.”
    http://atheism.about.com/od/Atheist-Agnostic-Belief-Survey/fl/Atheists-Happiness-Satisfaction-Survey.htm

    > This one’s a Barna poll and Barna is a pro-Christian propaganda machine. So the numbers aren’t any good. You have to know how Barna words their questions. They’ll ask people if they think babies should be murdered to which horrified people say “Of course not.” Then we have a Barna poll that says “a huge majority is against abortion!” It’s ridiculous, irresponsible and totally dishonest. However this was posted on an atheist/agnostic site which noted the fact that atheists in America are targets of a lot of hatred, animosity, discrimination, and bigotry and that atheists are the most distrusted and disliked minority in America and it would be a shock if this didn’t make atheists less satisfied and more unhappy. Yet despite all this atheists are not going to surrender their brains to a bunch of obviously untrue religious nonsense just to have a false sense of happiness.

    http://www.skepticink.com/dangeroustalk/2012/10/11/atheism-has-a-suicide-problem/

    > I couldn’t find this article but this is a great site! Thanks for turning me on to it. You should read this stuff yourself. The problem with this argument though, is it’s based on the correlation means causation fallacy.

    http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/interesting-statistics-contrasting-atheism-and-christianity/

    > This was another Barna poll and on a Christian website. Again, I have first hand experience with Barna. I know the questions they asked in several polls and how they were skewed to get the answers the particular Christian organizations that hired them wanted to get for their own propaganda purposes.

    http://www.wnd.com/2007/07/42582/

    > Then this last one is uses a little smoke and mirrors to make the argument that it isn’t true that the divorce rate among Bible believers is higher than the national average. The divorce rate in the Bible Belt is twice as high as the national average and so is the abortion rate, and there aren’t very many atheists living there. Atheist women use birth control so the women getting abortions are not atheists. What’s ironic and really hilarious though, is the article then takes aim at Barna and shows how they willfully distort statistics to get the results their customers want, essentially disqualifying two of the other three articles Bo posted links to! How funny is that? Perhaps Bo should read the articles he posts links to. I think these polls are skewed anyway because the atheists are much more likely to be honest in answering questions about how happy they are. As soon as the Christians realize what the poll is about they are much more likely to try to represent their religion in a positive light than they are to admit to any unhappiness and especially any doubt in their lives.”

    “I have to add that the atheist regimes of the world have been and continue to be way more intolerant and violent than countries founded upon Christianity.”

    > What atheist regimes? There have never been any atheist regimes. I suppose you are talking about communist regimes. Communism is not an atheistic philosophy. The all-powerful, omniscient, omnipresent God of Christianity is simply replaced by the all-powerful, omniscient, omnipresent State. So most atheists think communism is just as nutty as religion with all of its unrealistic utopian fantasies and pie-in-the-sky promises. What country was founded upon Christianity? Not this one. That religion isn’t mentioned in any of our founding documents and I can’t think of one where it is or was.

    “The real question is, “Why did anyone ever think up the idea of a creator a god if there isn’t one?”

    > God was invented to explain mysteries. When you finally discover how things really work you don’t need him anymore. “Religion is the obsessional neurosis of mankind; like the obsessional neurosis of children, it arose out of the Oedipus complex… [It is] a parallel to the neurosis which the civilized individual must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity.” – Sigmund Freud.

    “Van, it seems to me that since Jesus exists, then God also exists. We have proof that Jesus exists.”

    > That’s ridiculous. What is your proof that Jesus exists? That you believe in him? There is no evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed let alone that he exists now.

    “We also have proof that the world exists, which also speaks of the glory of God.
    Those are two witnesses you seem to not wish to recognize.”

    > We have satisfactory naturalistic explanations for the world and the rest of the universe as we currently observe it. “God did it” just doesn’t cut it anymore. You’re living in the past.

    “Van I encourage you to test the claims of scripture to find out that it is true.”

    > What makes you think I didn’t do that a long time ago? I found out that none of the stories in the Bible can be verified using sources independent of the Bible. I found that the existence of the major figures in the Bible from Adam to Jesus cannot be verified by any sources independent of the Bible. Had you known that before you bought into this particular superstition you would not have let yourself become indoctrinated. Now you are afraid to question the authority of the Bible so you can’t really let yourself consider what I just told you and check it out for yourself. Once you have been taught to keep your thoughts in captivity your mind is not your own. Your mind has been trained not to go certain places, consider certain ideas without bias, or to think certain thoughts. The problem is that these places, these thoughts are what leads to the truth. So a Christian with his or her mind held in captivity to superstition can never find the truth. This is the hideous purpose of indoctrination.

    “Do these sort of debates — which are quite popular at the moment — likely to make someone radically adjust his point of view?”

    > Not often. This debate should never have happened. Evolution has been settled science for over a century, which is how long Christians colleges and universities have been teaching it now. Evolution denialism is no different or less absurd than flat-earthism. I think everybody who watched the debate saw that. It’s so sad to watch people try to rationalize a story about a 600 year old man building wooden ship the size of an aircraft carrier because they desperately think they need to in order to avoid being tortured in hell for all eternity. I just can’t imagine how frightened a person has to be to try to do something like that.

    “If separation of Church and State means that children are not even aware of the difference between a Sikh and a Hindu, then that’s not a good thing. RE — learning about religion as an academic subject — is compulsory here in the UK, and it is different from a worship group. We also have those, which are held out of lesson time. It has helped us to be more knowledgeable and welcoming as a nation.”

    > The problem is that in this country, when teachers show that Christianity is just another bogus religion the parents will have a fit. I don’t know why. The kids are likely going to find that out in college anyway.

    “The state church is actually one of the weakest parts of the Christian community here. Most of hte spiritual action is in the less institutional churches. That’s also a good debate — is it actually better for the church to be disconnected from the state?”

    > This whole separation of church and state thing can be used to demonstrate an interesting point. Suppose the president announced that the Constitution was going to be amended so that the United States was going to let religion to play a role in government affairs. The Bible believers would rejoice. That is until Mr. Obama informed us that he and Congress decided that religion was going to be Islam. Then these Bible believers would screaming that we must have separation of church and state! We must keep religion out of politics! Bible believers want to mix politics and religion as long as it’s THEIR religion.

  23. Van,

    You live and think in a very small box. There would be no such thing as a free moral choice without the ability to choose evil. YHWH allowed evil to be a possibility. We chose it. Now it haunts us. Now it has produced disease and predictors and worst of all evolutionist atheists that think that they are smarter than their creator 🙂

    And yes atheists try to disown Communist governments because they are the logical outworking of atheist belief when atheists are able to take over. All atheists are self worshipers and are just as faith based in their worship and presuppositions as creationists, but atheists will not be intellectually honest with themselves or the rest of us about this unfounded faith in their own minds that they think came from random chance.

    “I do not think there is a demonstrative proof (like Euclid) of Christianity, nor of the existence of matter, nor of the good will and honesty of my best and oldest friends. I think all three are (except perhaps the second) far more probable than the alternatives. The case for Christianity in general is well given by Chesterton…As to why God doesn’t make it demonstratively clear; are we sure that He is even interested in the kind of Theism which would be a compelled logical assent to a conclusive argument? Are we interested in it in personal matters? I demand from my friend trust in my good faith which is certain without demonstrative proof. It wouldn’t be confidence at all if he waited for rigorous proof. Hang it all, the very fairy-tales embody the truth. Othello believed in Desdemona’s innocence when it was proved: but that was too late. Lear believed in Cordelia’s love when it was proved: but that was too late. ‘His praise is lost who stays till all commend.’ The magnanimity, the generosity which will trust on a reasonable probability, is required of us. But supposing one believed and was wrong after all? Why, then you would have paid the universe a compliment it doesn’t deserve. Your error would even so be more interesting and important than the reality. And yet how could that be? How could an idiotic universe have produced creatures whose mere dreams are so much stronger, better, subtler than itself?”
    ― C.S. Lewis

  24. Van, violence proves there is a God who let man decide if he would obey him or go another way.
    A violent world became the result of sin.

    Van, there is no legitimate way to explain the creation of the world without God creating it. It just doesn’t add up. It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

  25. You live and think in a very small box.

    > That is hilarious! I’m not the one who has to keep their thoughts in captivity Bo, you are. You are doing a great job of that too. You live in a creationist bubble and reality is something you refuse to deal with.

    There would be no such thing as a free moral choice without the ability to choose evil. YHWH allowed evil to be a possibility. We chose it. Now it haunts us. Now it has produced disease and predictors and worst of all evolutionist atheists that think that they are smarter than their creator 🙂

    > That is a very stupid explanation for disease and the existence of predators. Science has a much more comprehensive explanation which is based on facts rather than religious dogma and nonsense.

    And yes atheists try to disown Communist governments because they are the logical outworking of atheist belief when atheists are able to take over. All atheists are self worshipers and are just as faith based in their worship and presuppositions as creationists, but atheists will not be intellectually honest with themselves or the rest of us about this unfounded faith in their own minds that they think came from random chance.

    > Actually it’s you who can’t bring yourself to be intellectually honest about atheism, science or communism. You don’t know ANYTHING about those things which is why you believe the ridiculous things that you believe. None of the leaders running China or Russia today condone the actions of their predecessors so your argument is one big fail, just like every other argument you make.

    Van, violence proves there is a God who let man decide if he would obey him or go another way.
    A violent world became the result of sin.

    > Arguments don’t get any weaker than that. That is religious dogma, not science.

    Van, there is no legitimate way to explain the creation of the world without God creating it. It just doesn’t add up. It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

    > Saying, “God did it” is not a legitimate way to explain anything because that explains absolutely nothing. So it is God that doesn’t add up, doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. You believe what you do because you don’t know anything at all about science, especially cosmology and biology. If the stuff the universe is made of, matter and energy have always existed, then there simply is no role for God to play in the creation of anything. If God could always have existed so could have mass-energy and that is exactly science tells us. Therefore you hate and fear science as all creationists do. So all of you twist yours brains trying to believe what you know is not true. Have fun with that.

    Bo,
    Don’t bother posting and of C.S. Lewis’s absurd drivel. I know he’s a big hero to Bible believers but Lewis had no critical thinking skills whatsoever and his arguments are moronic as arguments can be. Besides Lewis accepted evolutionary theory and did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ. So his beliefs are a lot closer to those of an atheist than they are to your superstitions. Instead of wasting your time reading religious nonsense and lies why don’t you pick up a science book and learn something about the real world and how things really work in it?. Put down the magic and the hocus-pocus of Christianity and enjoy the fascinating world of science. It’s much more interesting.

  26. Van,

    You do not know how to understand what you read. You misrepresent Lewis and Communist belief in atheism. You do not understand Paul or Moses or David. You probably do this purposely to support you failed logic.

  27. How foolish an argument that would say that since there is chaos and violence in this world, it proves not consequences of disobedience to God, or the existence of the Devil, but rather the absence of God, that is to say, that God does not exist!

    Crazy.

    To look at the world God has made and to say that God does not exist doesn’t make any sense. It’s a stupid thing to do.

  28. > A Bible believer is telling me I don’t know how to understand what I read. That’s pretty funny. Paul, Moses and David never existed. Try to find a reference to any of them outside of the Bible. And every argument you make fails because of one logical fallacy or another.

    “To look at the world God has made and to say that God does not exist doesn’t make any sense. It’s a stupid thing to do.”

    > No, looking at the world and insisting it took magic and God to make it without a offering a shred of evidence to back it up is a stupid thing to do,

  29. Van,

    You have made yourself irrelevant because of you insistence that historical figures never existed. Not only do you not understand what you read, you buy into the most ridiculous of things that you do read.

  30. Agreed Bo, No one with an ounce of credibility could go on a forum and claim that David, or other historical figures ever existed. To do so would be the same as saying that Lincoln never existed, or that France is a imaginary North Pole. Give me someone who thinks that the bible is a fairy tale, and I can have that person waiting in front of his fire place for Santa Claus. Van, what would you like for Christmas this year?

  31. Van, Though God’s power is awesome and is infinitely above our understanding, he doesn’t practice the art of magic, and though his ways are past our finding out, he doesn’t practice sorcery.

    Consider this life as a test.

    How do you suppose we are doing, in his opinion?

  32. Van,

    We love God because he loved us first. 1 John 4:19

    Do you love God, Van? If you don’t, this verse speaks volumes. What it tells me is that you have never experienced His love, so how can you possibly love Him at all. It’s impossible for you to love God because you haven’t experienced His love for you.

    How do you even begin to discover His love? It’s not by scientific methods, not even by creationist theories. It doesn’t work that way, and it never will.

    Matthew 18:1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 18:2 He called a child, had him stand among them, 18:3 and said, “I tell you the truth, unless you turn around and become like little children, 2 you will never enter the kingdom of heaven! 18:4 Whoever then *humbles* himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

    The key word here is “humbles”. I believe humility and seeking are the keys to finding God/The Holy Spirit. If you don’t humble yourself you’ll find that many times you will be put in humbling situation, the end of your rope, seeking God. That’s how I found The Holy Spirit, I was in a situation that humbled me, and I started seeking God because of the fear and overwhelming hopelessness I was filling. I feel that pride is the key reason people don’t find God, know it all’s who know in their own mind that there is no God. Again, humble yourself and seek, what are you waiting for, some scientific proof? It will never happen, and you will never find Him that way. And you will miss out on knowing your Creator. How tragic!

    Looks how many scriptures there are when you search “humble” on the net bible (right hand side):
    https://net.bible.org/#!search/humble

    And look how many there are when you search “seek” (on the right hand side):
    https://net.bible.org/#!search/seek

    I have nothing against you or your views. You’re the majority, but Jesus Himself said it will be the minority who will find Him.

    7:13 “Enter through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 7:14 But the gate is narrow and the way is difficult that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

    7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door 10 will be opened for you. 7:8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

    James 4:6 But he gives greater grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud, but he gives grace to the humble.”

    If you HUMBLE yourself enough to put in the effort to SEEK Him. That grace will be the reason you find Him.

    Have you ever read Dr. Brown’s own testimony and how he discovered The Holy Spirit? He’s not alone, many Christians have been changed forever because of His presence: http://askdrbrown.org/about/personal-testimony/

    And this is what I experienced when I encounter The Holy Spirit, after being humbled and seeking him out:

    But one night, my mom prayed over me in tongues. My body felt flooded with such an intense amount of love, total acceptance of you out of pure love for you. It’s a love that goes beyond us, it’s a love that exposes us (we see our truly sinful state in the presence of a Holy God), it’s a love that will bring you tears of joy because you didn’t know you could be loved so much, it’s a love that the person standing next to you can’t give because only God can love you so much! His love permeates every part of your being. I just remember crying and asking God to, “Use me! Use me!!” As I thought to myself what a horrible shame for others to never experience His love for them. That’s when I reached out to God, and that’s sometimes what it takes for us to come to Him. If you don’t humble yourself, many times a situation will humble you, and He will allow you to get there because all it leaves you with is looking for hope in Him. My life changed when I experienced the tangible presence of God through The Holy Spirit. I never experienced such an overwhelming feeling of love for me, it changed my whole idea of God, and that He was real. All my life there was that God thing hovering over my head, I felt like there was a God, but I didn’t really know for sure. When you’re young, also, you don’t tend to humble yourself and seek Him, other things seem much more important, but as you get older they get older with you, less important. You don’t find Him by your own personal beliefs, you don’t find Him by scientific method. You get past what you think you know, you get past your own intellect that hinders you. You humble yourself and seek Him, pushing all those other ideas of why He doesn’t exist out of the way. You open those closed gates to your heart and RECEIVE. And once you feel His presence, it changes you FOREVER, and those sins become less desirable and more easily overcome because you aren’t doing it in your own power, but by His.”

    This comes down to you and Him, how much are you willing to humble yourself to seek Him out and know who He is. IT IS POSSIBLE TO KNOW GOD, get that in you, it was the whole reason you were created. He wants to be your Father, He wants to have a relationship with you. By His Spirit you will know Him, and because of the fall of mankind we don’t see Him now face to face, so our relationship now consists of God’s Word, Prayer and Praise and Worship. In this and knowing His presence you will change as a person, you will see the world as He does, you will be amazed by how much you love people and want to share Jesus with them because of your excitement! You will reflect who God is because you allowed Him to mold you, and you will reflect his glory.

    Don’t miss out on Him, you will never regret knowing Him, and He will honor you if you humble yourself today and seek Him out!

    As the bible tells us, the true god of this age is Satan, blame him for all the earth’s woes, and don’t allow him to deceive you! He is the god of this age, which is a small sliver of time compared to The One True God, The God Who is Eternal!

  33. I read your post Jess. I don’t believe any of that stuff. If there is God who wants a relationship with me then he can tell me that himself. I’m not about to take your word or anybody else’s on that.

    There was another debate last night. This one was between a cosmologist named Sean Carrol and theologian William Lane Craig. I would encourage everyone to get some popcorn and snacks and watch this long debate. The cosmologist showed how theism is not compatible with modern science. William Craig pretty showed the same thing.

  34. RE the Van post below
    ___________________________________________________

    >I read your post Jess. I don’t believe any of that stuff. If there is God who wants a relationship with me then he can tell me that himself.

    All who read this pray for Van that he will hear the VOICE.

  35. That VOICE would have to be audible and I would need a witness or two to verify what I heard. I think we all know why that isn’t going to happen now don’t we? God never talks to more than one person at a time does he? Gee, I wonder why that is. No I don’t. We all know God is imaginary. Christians can be defined as people who pretend otherwise.

  36. Van,

    Once again, you do not know much about which you speak. YHWH spoke audibly to the whole nation of Israel from Sinai. They were pretty scared. And because it was not in their heart to obey, they failed to follow Him. The same would happen to you if you heard YHWH speak audibly, unless you have a change of heart. You will have to stop worshiping yourself first. Then you may be able to hear YHWH even if He doesn’t speak to you out loud. And for that to happen, you will have to go through some pretty tough times in your life…and even then you may still shake your fist at YHWH like Stalin is purported to have done on his death bed. Strange how those that say they don’t believe in a deity have a personal hate toward him. Their actions speak louder than words. They believe and tremble.

    And for the record, there were at least 3 more times in the Bible that YHWH spoke audibly and more than one person heard.

  37. “Once again, you do not know much about which you speak. YHWH spoke audibly to the whole nation of Israel from Sinai.”

    > Sinai? You must be kidding! Zeus spoke from Mount Olympus too. Sinai, the most famous mountain not on any maps. Let’s see God speaks from an imaginary mountain. I think we can safely assume that particular God is imaginary as well.

    “They were pretty scared….. And for that to happen, you will have to go through some pretty tough times in your life…”

    > We’ve all heard stories of how people find Jesus in jail or when they are suicidal or whatever. If the going gets tough, I’m not going to hope for some kind of supernatural intervention because that could cause me to miss an opportunity in which self-reliance could have helped me.

    “and even then you may still shake your fist at YHWH like Stalin is purported to have done on his death bed. Strange how those that say they don’t believe in a deity have a personal hate toward him. Their actions speak louder than words. They believe and tremble.”

    > Stalin was a deist, not an atheist.

    “And for the record, there were at least 3 more times in the Bible that YHWH spoke audibly and more than one person heard.”

    > That is not “for the record.” That is part of a religious fairy tale as I already demonstrated.

  38. Van,

    You have demonstrated nothing except that you do not know what the Bible says, that you do not know what a first cousin is, that you do not know the difference between figurative and literal language, and that you arrogant beyond belief…or should I say that you are arrogant because of your belief that you are infallible and all knowing. That is about all you have truly demonstrated to those that read this web site. And for the record Mt Sinai has been located and it is in Arabia just as the Bible says.

  39. Van,

    “Raised in the Georgian Orthodox faith, Stalin became an atheist. He followed the position that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. His government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.[96]”

    96. Pospielovsky, Dimitry V. (1988) A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice, and the Believer, vol 2: Soviet Anti-Religious Campaigns and Persecutions, St Martin’s Press, New York p. 89

    From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

  40. Van, I have prayed that G_d will speak to you.
    You will hear an answer to this prayer, please update the board later with that answer.

  41. Well God did not speak to me. So we can safely assume that there is no God. But we all knew that anyway now didn’t we?

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*