Religion vs. Spiritual Reality | Religion Spirituality | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Religion vs. Spiritual Reality
May 28, 2018
2:16 pm
Avatar
pgardner2358
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 17
Member Since:
May 28, 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I am perturbed, flabbergasted, and disturbed by the continuing efforts of ignorant, misguided, and scripturally incorrect religious people to foist their misconceptions, under the guise of ‘scientific theories’ (creationism, intelligent design, etc.) upon the educational system. ANY school of thought which has ANY supernatural mechanisms as a means is inherently disqualified to be a scientific discipline. In addition to the obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula, these attempts are a huge misrepresentation of spiritual reality and Biblical truth; and are a tremendous disservice to God and His interests concerning the human race. Please objectively consider the enclosed information. May it finally put to rest the ‘red herring’ of an evolution/Genesis conflict. Should you find it to be of value, feel free to disseminate it as far and wide as you wish.

            The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.

            Evolutionists for non­scientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.

 

...The more famous subject of Darwin's uniformitarianism, usually termed "evolution," comes to the front. This is always a controversial and emotional subject, and is usually discussed in a quasi‑scientific manner. 128

 

 

Evolution was, in its conception, an applied extension to biology of the school of thought known as uniformitarianism. Evolution itself is a logical explanation of the information that it correlates, and the evidence of the appropriate scientific fields has consistently verified the mechanisms necessary for substantiating the validity of evolution. Evolution, while it is not a proven process in the strictest sense, is completely valid in its viability and is the only logical process (i.e., one amenable to scientific analysis) so tenable.

 

Modern humanists, increasingly anti‑Genesis in outlook, were growing in numbers and in positions of importance, especially in academic circles. To Voltaire, for instance, any mention of the Flood was offensive; it implied too much of God, or of judgment, or of the Judeo‑Christian heritage. Despite evidence left by fossils and sedimentary strata, as well as literary heritages, a Biblical Flood was taboo to him, and to many others.

Voltaire was somewhat typical of the anti‑spiritual humanists of his day. He was thoroughly anti‑Christian and anti‑Judaistic. He felt that the burial of the Bible in general and the Genesis record in particular, would be a great service to mankind.130

 

 

The human error in the promotion and promulgation of evolution was, and still is, of two aspects: Firstly, as we shall see later on in this chapter, the school of thought that gave rise to the theory of evolution­- Uniformitarianism‑ is totally in contradiction to scientific evidence. Uniformitarianism was founded on insufficient and incomplete data, and the motives for its adoption were more anti‑Genesis than they were pro‑scientific.

                            

The second mistake, resulting from the same anti‑spiritual motivation as the first, was in the use of evolution as one pillar of a mechanistic explanation capable of circumventing the problem of first cause, i.e., the origination of everything. Evolution is merely a process and is not an explanation of actual creation; the explanation of creation per se does not lie within the realm of scientific explanation.

 

The only distinct meaning of the word "natural" is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as such requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once.132

 

The only distinct meaning of the word "natural" is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as such requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once.132

 

 

The author of the above is referring to the implications of natural as is connotated by the term "natural selection." The very working mechanism of evolution implies intelligence behind such a process no less so than does that of a supernatural divine creation.

 

I see no good reason why the views given in this volume (the Origin of Species and the Descent of Mari) should shock the religious feelings of anyone.... A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as liable a conception of the Deity to believe that he created a few original forms capable of self development into other and needful forms as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws. 133

(These are Charles Darwin's own words here)

 

 

The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.

 

Evolutionists for non­scientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.

Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-­Creation" argument.

 

The orthodox Christians escaped the greater error altogether; but, nevertheless gave clear testimony to the influence of the popular belief in their interpretation of the commencing chapter of Genesis. For they made the first verse signify the creation of a confused mass of elements, out of which the heavens and earth were formed during the six days, understanding the next sentence to be a description of this crude matter before God shaped it. And their opinion has descended to our days. But it does not appear to be substantiated by Scripture, as we shall presently see, and the guile of the serpent may be detected in its results. For how great a contest has it provoked between the Church and the World!

 

            For we are told that in the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth; but the Scriptures never affirm that He did this in the six days. The work of those days was, as we shall presently see, quite a different thing from original creation: they were times of restoration, and the word asah is generally used in connection with them.

               Now asah signifies to make, fashion, or prepare out of existing material; as, for instance, to build a ship, erect a house, or prepare a meal.139

 

Today, to be pro‑spiritual and to appreciate the Judeo‑Christian heritage, one must, it seems, be anti‑scientific. This is a common consensus; it is a mirage.140

 

 

To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.

 

A Message for the Human Race

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online:
50 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10236

bionic: 9870

at1with0: 9243

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 24084

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 31

Topics: 8717

Posts: 123449

Newest Members:

Mann Spencer, Dreckz de Majid, Boadicea, hoangnganvy1993, D S, PDonnelly, Viatorem, Sharon, mack robine, Observer

Administrators: John Greenewald: 579, blackvault: 1776