There Is NO Controversy

Dr. Joshua Swamidass, “a Christian and career scientist,” wrote in the Wall Street Journal  last week:

“First, the age of the Earth and the rejection of evolution aren’t core Christian beliefs. Neither appears in the Nicene or Apostle’s Creed. Nor did Jesus teach them. Historical Christianity has not focused on how God created the universe, but on how God saves humanity through Jesus’ death and resurrection. . . .

…there is simply NO controversy in the scientific world about the age of the Earth or evolution. Evidence points to a 4.5 billion-year-old planet.

The evidence for evolution is just as strong. In the past, evolution rested on ambiguous fossil evidence, but now it rests on much clearer DNA evidence that increases exponentially every month. Fully appreciating this evidence takes a lot of time, reading and patience. And it is not appropriate to “teach the controversy” in science class because there is NO ongoing debate in the scientific community comparable to the theological debate.

The evolution debate is NOT a scientific controversy, but a theological controversy about a non-central Christian doctrine.”

(My emphasis throughout)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324469304578141673721798486.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

YEC’s just need to get their logic and good-sense on.  Think…we (science) have actual real evidence…you are fighting a loosing battle

Advertisement

The Holocaust of the Children

Quote of the day

“It is literally impossible for a moral, powerful and competent creator deity to exist, and for core Christian doctrine to be correct. This is because the extraordinary amount of human suffering statistically measured by the death of immature humans caused by disease, reproductive defects and other natural causes – the Holocaust of the Children — has been as maximal as possible, and only a small percentage of adult humans have been able to make a free will choice regarding their eternal fate. The host of theological absurdities that result from the failure of a creator to protect the innocent children further wrecks Christian doctrine. It follows that there is no godly basis for the pro-life movement because there is no evidence that a god favors life over premature death. Nor is religion able to provide a moral basis for individual or societal morality, a fact confirmed by the actual conditions present in the most successful modern nations.”—GS Paul

see more Lolcats and funny pictures

Is The Christian Trinity Real?

Hi daymore,

In response to your Feb. 28, 2008 reply:
I am posting a reply to you in a regular column. I hope you don’t mind.

You write to my question of the trinity: “About trinity I can’t explain it to you. I can’t explain how telepathy works either. But I know it works. I live with many other mystries in life. Do you have answers to all questions about life that you live with, like how the food that you eat becomes blood and marrow? If you decide to eat only after you could explain fully how metabolism works, I bet you’ll never be able to eat.”

I don’t need explanation for digestion; that has been explained very adequately by doctors. Nor for telepathy, as I swear my wife can read my mind. The Trinity has not been.

You are basically saying to me that the Trinity is a mystery and could not be explained to me. I don’t care for the mumbo-jumbo I have been given as an answer to this question by you and others… I mean that in a nice way…perhaps I might explain it to you. 🙂

Matt. 26:39, “Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.”

If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.)

John 8:17, 18, “[Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.”

So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father.

Acts 7:55, 56 reports that Stephen was given a vision of heaven in which he saw “Jesus standing at God’s right hand.”

John 14:28, “[Jesus said:] If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.”

Matthew 27:54, But the army officer and those with him watching over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things happening, grew very much afraid, saying: “Certainly this was God’s Son.”

The fact is, the word “trinity” does not even once occur in the Holy Bible. Nor are such expressions as “one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” or “one substance with the Father,” found in the Bible. To the contrary, the Bible speaks of Christ as “the beginning of the creation by God,” and says, “The head of the Christ is God.” (Rev. 3:14; 1 Cor. 11:3) Thus, the New Catholic Encyclopedia says of the Trinity: “It is not, as already seen, directly and immediately the word of God.”-Volume 14, page 304.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia also states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”-(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”-(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The Encyclopedia Americana says: “Christianity derived from Judaism, and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road that led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”-(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

My interpretation of all of the above is that there is no “Trinity,” it is all made up; and men, specifically Early Catholic hierarchy, were the makeupees. This was done in the 4th. century AD, is not mentioned in either testament…I doubt it’s true.

Now perhaps you could try again. There are too many discrepancies going on in that Bible, or at least people seem to keep making them up.

Also, where in the Bible does it mention “rapture?” But, that’s for another time.

One Persons Take on Creation

The following is a reply to a correspondence entered into with someone who answered one of my posts.

Hi Ms. Stegall,
I understand that correspondence is harder than setting in front of a person and talking about difficult subjects. One cannot see the other persons facial movements, hear tone of voice and such, so I just want to say upfront that if I somehow sound mean or badgering, or something I write sounds disrespectful to you, please know that it would be entirely accidental, and if you let me know what it was, I will honestly apologize.

You Write;>>”I will list my primary reason as my sole reason and that is, for the sake of circular reasoning – I am in love with my Creator because of the proof in His very Creation.”<<

What do you consider proofs of his creation? Your existence, the universe, our world, all of the above, or none of the above?

What would your Proof be? i.e., any physical proofs, or are they just feelings, or senses?

You write:>> “Let me explain: Did you ever notice that even creation sings the song of redemption?”<<

With respect and good intention, I will ask: what does that mean; it’s not meaningful at all to me. 🙂

You write:>> “There is death of the day into night and the resurrection of the morning? There is the death of the flowers into the ground in the fall and resurrection in the spring? Even so, the seasons, there is the death of what is recognized as “life” in the winter, and just as the flower, it resurrects into life again in the spring.”<<

I must confess, that perhaps because of my upbringing, I think of day into night and the changing of the seasons in a purely physical-earth goes around sun, earth rotates, way. I know that ancient peoples thought they had to pray to the gods to bring back plants, sun, and so on. Once I had been taught about what was happening physically, I never thought about it any other way. But, I do consider the changing seasons a truly beautiful thing to behold.

You write:>>” I am in love for I am loved. I not only get to read freely of this redemption but I also get to see it over and over again, every day, every season, every year.”<<

That is a beautiful thought, and I will leave it totally alone.

You write:>> “I sincerely hope this solitary reasoning does not stand isolated but is recognized to have worth within the promises found in the Bible. I fear, however, using Scripture upon which to draw my argument, I would create further unrest. So, I will comfortably place my justification of my love for my Creator in creation itself.”<<

The first sentence is unclear to me: do you mean that you hope your answers are consistent with Biblical doctrine? Again, with respect: I read other blog’s about religion and see sentences that are similar to the above and my brain goes blank.
I am very comfortable with Scripture, and hold them in respect, although I don’t believe most of it. If a Scripture is able to convey your thoughts easier–please feel free to use them with me.

Your patience with me is appreciated no end, and I value the thoughts that you write about to me. I look forward to any further answers.

Many thanks for your time.