Are dinosaurs the real reason young Christians in college desert their faith?

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 2, 2014

Culture, Darwinism, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Readers will recall that geneticist Todd Wood offered an apology recently for involvement he may have had with Tim Stafford’s The Adam Quest, which—he felt—did not treat young Earth creationists like hmself fairly. Here’s Stafford giving his own view at HuffPo:

One of the scientists I profile in my book, the well-known paleontologist Mary Schweitzer, teaches at North Carolina State University. She says that many of the undergraduates who take her course, “Dinosaur World,” come from conservative churches. “They see the data for evolution, and they are placed in an uncomfortable position, splitting their heads and their hearts. They usually choose to walk away from their faith.

Somehow I doubt that is the actual reason. Most often, I suspect, the real reason is the discovery that Biblical values against lying, stealing, casual relationships of all kinds, and corruption generally are just so not cool any more. They are not how the top people got where they are. The dinosaur is a respectable excuse because he is irrelevant to all that, and dead anyway

…

What do we want for our children? What do people on both sides want for their children? Most people would say that they want their children to be scientifically literate, and to have a chance at a career using science.

But today, being scientifically literate and having a career in science are two different things.

“Scientifically literate” means understanding why falsification is important, just for example. Having a career in science may mean campaigning against it because it threatens cherished beliefs, like the multiverse.

See also: Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.

Comments

Mapou, So sorry you have such strong feelings against YEC Christians. I do find it a bit ironic though that you yourself have such quirky interpretations of the Bible (that may be held by only a handful of people, or maybe even just one person!) but yet you have the gall to call out YEC ideas (that follow the plain meaning of Scripture and have been the main view of Christians throughout history til the 20th century) as having little biblical support and being heretical! That would be news to most of the Early Church Fathers. I don't know what principles of hermeneutics you have decided upon, but with those principles, it looks like you can make the Bible support any number of wild ideas. You don't have to be a YEC to become a child if God, but let's hope you use more reliable hermeneutics when it comes to who Jesus is and how to be saved. You certainly don't want to go wrong there. I think you got a bit too passionate back there and said some things that I hope you regret.tjguy_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

Mapou @ 43
Look man, just give it a rest.
Silence the opposing view. Yet, you compare YEC with Darwinist.
If the scriptures wanted to mean “males and females” (plural), it would have said so. Instead, it said “male and female”, adjectives that mean masculine and feminine.
Huh? Nobody is arguing that it should read "males and females". All you're showing is that we apparently agree that God did not make a bunch of males and a bunch of females at the beginning. But you're managing, even if unintentionally, to illustrate how the literal first couple is consistent with scripture here, as it would be single male and single female comprising mankind at the beginning - where the woman would have been made from the man.
Besides, being created man and woman is not a reason that a man should be joined to his wife and the two shall be one flesh.
You completely misrepresent the interpretation of a first couple (i.e. one man & one woman). Why? The first couple interpretation holds that woman was made from man. So, it only make sense that they are one flesh when man and woman get married. And this is also why Genesis 2:23 also makes sense in the original man & wife couple interpretation: The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” In contrast, a race of androgynous asexual beings (that you call "Man") does not make ready sense in that context. Because you would have to read that the female gender (woman) was being taken out of the "Man" (i.e. the race of andro-asexuals) not from male. As such, then what do you do with the non-mention of males? Neither male of female is an androgynous asexual being... So, why only specify woman (female) coming from some androgynous asexual race you call Man (no single gender)... while forgetting to mention man (i..e the male gender) coming from the androgynous asexual race known as Man. Clearly. An original literal male made first, with woman being made immediately after from part of that man makes clear and ready sense.
You insult my intelligence and the Master’s intelligence with your banalities. The reason that a married man becomes one flesh with his wife is that male and female used to be literally ONE flesh in the beginning. This is what the Master meant, IMO.
Hogwash.... and a classic case where one claims to be intellectually insulted while actually insulting another in one breath. If you have an intelligent clear case, then state it... don't deride with broad statements. But so far, you have admitted to opinions. So, don't be offended if others have different opinions.
You know, I suspect you are some kind of Bible preacher. If so, you should either resign your position or start teaching your congregation to stop taking your word for what the Bible means and do their own research and reach their own conclusions. Otherwise, you are in danger of the judgement. Those who lead the little ones astray will be held accountable and there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. You’ve been warned.
This wouldn't be the first time you extrapolated incorrectly. Furthermore, you are simultaneously insinuating that you have the correct interpretation while calling it an opinion..while deriding a simple explanation. Heed your own advice.
One of my mottos is, don’t take my word or anybody else’s word for anything. Do your own research and if you keep searching, you will find.
Don' worry. I won't take your word for it.JGuy_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

1) I think that anyone who calls themselves a Christian and who doesn’t have the wherewithal to withstand the wolves in sheep’s clothing at college doesn’t deserve the moniker “Christian”.
Welcome to UD clive, but even as a YEC Creationist creation, I find that remark callous and insensitive to struggling Christians in college. That's exactly the attitude toward those trying to hold on to faith that doesn't help and is contrary to Scripture:
22 And have mercy on those who doubt; Jude 1:22
Harsh rebukes are probably in order for those that have seen miralces with their own eyes like many in the Bible, but not for those described in Jude 1:22 for what ever reason. Frankly, you go around looking down your nose at other people who are struggling but genuinely trying strikes me as arrogant.
-2 Less directly, Christians MUST believe that a world wide flood is responsible for the way the geologic column looks.
Not even all YEC's believe that. Again you just berate fellow believer's who you just don't agree with. I can tell you many of God's children who suffer persecution for the name of Christ may not believe that or even care. And the standard that Christ gives for his favor being upon a believer is that they are persecuted for his name. There is a difference between being mistaken and being a compromiser (a label YECs like Sarfati uses against other Christians). A compromiser deliberately changes the intended meaning of the Bible knowing what he is doing is inconsistent with truth, whereas a mistaken person merely misreads it and is mistaken.scordova_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

"Also, what’s the point of an allegory when you can tell the actual historical story? So you’re saying God decided to not tell us what actually happened, and make up a story that didn’t happen to prove a spiritual truth?
This is exactly what I'm saying.
"The actual story would have been superior to the “Allegory” in every way."
I disagree. The literal story is a parable for spiritual kindergarteners. A mere schoolmaster or tutor for the unenlightened. That why Jesus could tell people to hang the law and prophets on a single command: agape your neighbor as your self. And why Paul could call the Torah a mere "school master." (Shocking to any Torah loving Jew!) And how when God gave a command about feeding oxen, "do you think it's really oxen that God cares about?" Answer: no. Point is: the literal story is irrelevant once you know the real message behind it all. Is a literal Adam and Eve necessary? No. The whole human race is cursed for some reason that is not precisely spelled out in the pages of the Hebrew scripts. The Adam and Eve story is an obvious turn-about contra the ideas from Sumer floating around. The concepts were already fairly familiar and so were adopted and modified for a purpose. Is a literal flood necessary? No. The point was the whole earth, except a chosen few, are doomed, and will be destroyed. God will save his few. Again, the writer lifted a well known Sumerian flood tale and adapted to his purposes. What counts is the message behind the story. At this point, people who know anything about the physical sciences and the history of the Levant and Sumer should know better than to believe the tales at face value. YECs abd Biblical literalists just look foolish. It's a new day and you are expected to stop drinking milk and grow up and deal with strong meat. And by the way, while you're arguing about all of this, don't forget to love your neighbor as yourself.CentralScrutinizer_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

I was reared as a fundamentalist Baptist in the Upper Midwest. On Sundays, my family attended Sunday School and Bible Study, paired with morning and evening services, respectively. (Both of my parents taught SS classes, and my father led the morning Children's Church service.) Wednesday night meant both Bible Study and Prayer Meeting, and some Thursday evenings found me participating in soul-winning and visitation events with my father. The church took a firm stance on Biblical literalism and inerrancy, distancing itself even from the GARBC, which it called "hypocritical" and "left-leaning." I also attended the church-run school, complete with daily Bible Studies and Friday Chapel services, for the first nine years of my education. I was pressured during all of that time to become either a pastor or missionary, just as the girls my age were pressured to become the wives of pastors and missionaries. One could say that, as a youngster, I had a little bit of Bible -- or at least a particular pastor's interpretation of it -- thrown my way. :) After four years of a public education at the local high school, however, I was leaning more toward Literature or Biology, and my decision to ignore the "warnings" of my church and to attend a public Division II university, also in the Upper Midwest, had nothing to do with evolution. On the contrary, I was a staunch YEC who had read Gish, Denton, et al, and as an eleventh-grader had written a research paper proposing that the Genesis Flood had ultimately been responsible for exterminating the dinosaurs. While earning a B.S. in Zoology, I never once heard a professor or fellow student badmouth a Creation Scientist, as we called ourselves in those days. Everyone always answered my questions patiently, attentively, and seriously. After graduating, I worked as a TA for some Comparative Chordate Morphology dissection labs before transferring to the Communications department (and eventually finishing my M.S. with them). I want to point out that evolution wasn't the only reason I walked away from my faith. Here are a few others: * Anthropology * Comparative folklore / mythology / religion * Scholarly approach to Old and New Testaments * GOTG * Personal experience with agnostics and atheists practicing humility, compassion, and moderation without fear of suffering supernatural disfavor * Personal experiece with self-proclaimed Christian men abusing their wives, with self-proclaimed Christian parents abusing their children, and with self-proclaimed Christians acting so un-Christ-like But evolution was one of the most important to me, mostly because of my childhood fascinations with -- geek alert! -- taxonomy and paleontology. And after studying both Scientific Creationism and evolution in pretty detailed fashion, this former Born Again Christian honestly concluded that a Dobzhansky paraphrase was in order: Nothing in Biology makes more sense than evolution, at least at the level I was studying it. While dissecting cats, sharks, salamanders, etc, I personally never saw common design; instead, I saw descent with modification, a concept supported by the ideas outlined in "Origin" -- comparative anatomy, biogeography, artificial selection, homology, etc. Naturally, this change in my worldview forced me to reject a literal interpretation of some passages of Genesis, but I still attended a more modern Baptist church for two years before finally walking away from it all (for the reasons listed previously). That was twenty years ago, and it was a move I've never regretted. Since then, endogenous retroviruses, human chromosome 2, and the prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik have all provided additional support for evolution. The details and mechanisms will undoubtedly be revised over and over again as new facts are uncovered, but the ideas that populations change over time, and that all life on Earth is descended from a single common ancestor (or a small number of common ancestors), are most likely here to stay. My $2E-02...PasserBy11_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

CentralScrutinizer @41 Not it you consider the entire framework to be one of allegory. This is how many early Christians and Jews interpreted the OT. ------------------------------------------------------- Actually I agree that much of the Old Testament in an allegory. This is pretty standard doctrine. The Jews are an image of the church. The sacrifice of the lamb foreshadows the sacrifice of the Christ. That being said, they are an allegory that actually lived and breathed. Jesus was referred to as a "Second Adam" in that he was beginning a new people. Be that as it may, there is no sense that Jesus looked at the old testament as an allegory only. He spoke of it as actual history. And he should know, he was there. Also, what's the point of an allegory when you can tell the actual historical story? So you're saying God decided to not tell us what actually happened, and make up a story that didn't happen to prove a spiritual truth? The actual story would have been superior to the "Allegory" in every way. I think that anyone in love with the allegory concept is afraid to have faith that God actually spoke through the scriptures. Sure, if the scriptures are proven false, then by all means lets be honest, but there is little reason to give up on them thus far. Flood geology has much going for it. In fact, it explains what we see so much better than the eons described by the modern naturalist, uniformitarian doctrine. Masses of bones, oil deposits, trees running through multiple strata, human products in coal deposits, carbon in everything, dinosaur blood vessels, and more. I might not have all the answers, but I believe the bible describes the world we live in better than Darwinist world view. I am more and more confident every day.Clive_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

jguy @42: Was there a watery flood according to the bible… If not why the specific assertion in 2 Peter:
That's not "the Bible", that's a dubious text that contained within most Christian Bibles. Whoever wrote it (probably not the apostle Peter) apparently believed in a literal flood narrative. Good for him. But he seems to be kindergartener just like most literalists.CentralScrutinizer_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

JGuy @38, Look man, just give it a rest. If the scriptures wanted to mean "males and females" (plural), it would have said so. Instead, it said "male and female", adjectives that mean masculine and feminine. Besides, being created man and woman is not a reason that a man should be joined to his wife and the two shall be one flesh. You insult my intelligence and the Master's intelligence with your banalities. The reason that a married man becomes one flesh with his wife is that male and female used to be literally ONE flesh in the beginning. This is what the Master meant, IMO. You know, I suspect you are some kind of Bible preacher. If so, you should either resign your position or start teaching your congregation to stop taking your word for what the Bible means and do their own research and reach their own conclusions. Otherwise, you are in danger of the judgement. Those who lead the little ones astray will be held accountable and there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. You've been warned. One of my mottos is, don't take my word or anybody else's word for anything. Do your own research and if you keep searching, you will find.Mapou_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

Was there a watery flood according to the bible... If not why the specific assertion in 2 Peter: 2 Peter 3:3-6(NASB) 3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.”5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. ------ If it's an admonishment of a sort to think not that the world at that time was destroyed by water..then what else could this possibly mean?JGuy_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

Clive @20: If you throw away the meaning of death and the historical event of the flood, you throw away the substance of Christianity. Not it you consider the entire framework to be one of allegory. This is how many early Christians and Jews interpreted the OT. What might be, for example, the substance behind the Adam-sin-death allegory? A vast rebellion against the Elohim, in which pre-incarnate humans (the real you and me) took place. Your current incarnation is an prison cell with no recollection of this vast rebellion. Is this the reality of the situation? If may or may not be, but it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see that the OT narrative need not be literal AT ALL for the death of Jesus to be efficacious against the rebellion for which it stands against.CentralScrutinizer_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

Mapou @ 38
suckerspawn:
Mapou As a Christian, I’ll let Christ help me with this. Matthew 19: 4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
Thank you. Actually, this was the verse that convinced me that the original humans were both male and female, i.e., androgynous. Jesus was responding to a question from the Pharisees about the legality of divorce. What Jesus is saying in that verse is that, in the beginning, male and female were not separate (divorced) and that this is the reason that man and woman become one flesh in marriage. Of course, this is what the book of Genesis says if you read it carefully.
As I stated above. This does not more easily mean what you are interpreting it to mean. Also, there is a subtle inconsistency in your interpretation. The quote above reads: 4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? You are interpreting the them to mean a race of individuals. I don't think a YEC would disagree in the sense that it is referring to mankind (the two people Adam and Eve). So, the they refers to mankind. Though, you thnk the they were a race of androgynous - consequently asexual - people. And then reading further that it means all of the individuals in the race(mankind) were male and female. That is, when it says 'male and female', you apply this to the unit individual (which isn't specified in the quote) - but you do not apply it to mankind itself (which is specified as evident by the word they). But if you take that the they applies to the "they" (mankind), and say it is saying THEY were male and female... then imposing the male and female on the individual (which was never mentioned in the text) on the group, you end up with a population that is male and female...made up of males..and females... not male-female hybrids. So, MANKIND was male and female... not every individual of mankind. Again, if we say... a coed group (analogous to mankind as a group) is male and female... we clearly do not mean that the coed group is made of hybrids.JGuy_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

sixthbook:
Mapou, you are the only person I have ever seen claim that: “the Adam in the garden of Eden is not the same person as the Adam outside of the garden.” So apparently only a few (or one) people are “careful to read the ancient text of the book of Genesis (using an interlinear Hebrew-English translation)”?
You know, when Jesus exhorted his followers with the words "search and you shall find", he was really telling them to become researchers, i.e., scientists. In the old days, research used to be a pain in the asteroid. But now, widespread literacy, the internet and Google have changed all that. Nobody has an excuse anymore unless you are poor and do not know how to read. So, to repeat the wise words of the Master, search and you shall find.Mapou_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

suckerspawn:
Mapou As a Christian, I’ll let Christ help me with this. Matthew 19: 4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
Thank you. Actually, this was the verse that convinced me that the original humans were both male and female, i.e., androgynous. Jesus was responding to a question from the Pharisees about the legality of divorce. What Jesus is saying in that verse is that, in the beginning, male and female were not separate (divorced) and that this is the reason that man and woman become one flesh in marriage. Of course, this is what the book of Genesis says if you read it carefully.Mapou_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

Matzke:
This specific going-to-college issue has been known for decades, and the root cause of the common “crisis of faith” is known too: students find out that evolution/old earth actually does make sense
They don't "find out" anything. They are told what to believe about Evolution and they are trained not to question it. It's little more than indoctrination into a new religion. Get kids into a room, shut the door, and tell them if they don't agree with you, then they're stupid. Gee, I wonder what they'll end up believing after a couple years? This is why we are left with the pitiful situation today where millions of Darwin-drones are shuffling around claiming the very instance of a mutation is evidence that fish can turn into people given enough time. Your religion's strength in numbers is based on confusion and equivocation.lifepsy_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

Mapou @ 17 The Trinity is nonsense and a lie, of course. Jesus himself said “I and the Father are ONE” and “I am in the Father and the Father is in me”. This is analogous to the right and left hemispheres of the brain. It is pure yin and yang. Christ helps us again. John 17: 20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.suckerspawn_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

Mapou As a Christian, I'll let Christ help me with this. Matthew 19: 4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?suckerspawn_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

'Joe, I left Christianity without leaving Jesus Christ. You can do the same. Stephen' That's interesting SteRusJon. I did the same at one time, without realising it.Axel_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT}

I believe the problem that Joe and others have with the doctrine of the Trinity, is that instead of taking Father Son and Holy Ghost as aspects of the Holy Trinity, concepts, the Church, taking its lead from Christ's own oft-iterated words, refers to them as 'persons', and holds them to be such. This seems to be where the problem lies, the paradox, the mystery. And, yet, Joe, should we not expect the mystery and paradoxes to proliferate the closer we approach our transcendent God? However there is an aspect to all this which the Catholic Church identified long, long ago: and that is the family aspect of our God, unique to Christianity. We are told by Christ in the Gospels that all fatherhood comes from God the Father... and, of course, fatherhood predicates a family. But it doesn't stop there by any manner or means, in view of the Vine, the Mystical Body of Christ, wherein, by adoption, the children of Light will be incorporated, as sort of spiritual clones of Jesus, the Head of the Body. And, moreover, we are in communion with our deceased relatives in purgatory of Heaven, having access to them through our prayers. What tickles me to bits, as a returned Catholic, after leaving the Church in infancy, is that frequently prayers of the liturgy, when we pray to any member of the Most Holy Trinity involve petitioning the other two members, as well. And the same goes for petitioning the saints and holy souls; almost all, if not indeed all, other than in the litanies, will end by petitioning the grace and good offices of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It's a 'family' religion through and through in the most exalted sense of that word; one we're not that familiar with outside the context of the Faith, yet which finds its fulfilment in the life of the Holy Trinity and the Communion of Saints. I read recently that the great convert, scholar-priest and bible-translator, Ronald Knox, remarking on how the Catholic church was composed of the whole 'world and his wife' in terms of social classes, rogues and vagabonds of every stripe, as well as more obvious saints (though he didn't put it quite like that) almost boasted that the Catholic church was the only one where you could see a notice in the porch, 'Mind your umbrella'! Oddly enough, I remember a nun in West Australia saying to me, 'If you bring a prayer book, don't leave it in the church, or it will disappear!'Axel_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT}

BTW: In general the androgynous man(race) claim relies on interpreting this verse: [Genesis 1:27 - NASB] "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." To interpret the part "male and female He created them" to mean that individual people (of whoever was created) were all male and female within each individual... thus androgenous... Claiming that this is 'clearly the case' has fairly obvious fatal flaw. How/where? Because the logic used is that man(kind) is made male and female is being applied to the unit individual, and as such means that individuals are male and female. However, there is no reason to assume that this is referring to individuals in the race view, especially since it is more than one person... Because using the same reasoning - if not better - one can more simply read this to mean the group is male and female, in the sense that the group is made of male and female.... Just like we use in modern vernacular, you can say a coed group is both male and female... Does that mean coed groups are made of androgynous people? Clearly not. In fact, it is odd to make the distinction between male and female at a start if people asexual beings..and thus male and female have no initial meaning.JGuy_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
01:36 AM
1
01
36
AM
PDT}

Mapou. To be a bit more clear as it regard to the point above... when I am referring to your " androgynous man claim"... I'm referring more in particular to the 'Adam' = 'a race' claim, not the physical properties of the first man.JGuy_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT}

Mapou. If what you said is true, then you should be able to support your androgynous man theory by pointing to a historically prevailing pattern that Jews interpreted Adam as a race of people. Good luck finding such historical case. Keep in mind, this is not a mere plead to authority, this is a challenge to your claim that it's so obvious to anyone that reads an interlinear Hebrew-English translation... surely, if that is true, then Jews will refer to Adam as a race, and not a single man. What do you think the prevailing pattern is in Jewish history? I think you will find that it was always a single man... not a race.. and because of this, your assertion of some obvious androgynous man claim falls flat on it's face.JGuy_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT}

Joe @ 14
The reason I left Christianity isn’t because of the donosaurs. It is because I found out that the Trinity was contrived, not derived.
Contrived implies deliberate scheming at some point in the past - explain who schemed and with what incentive.JGuy_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT}

You really think students are taught by professors that lying and cheating are cool in college . . .
Folks, I think Nick might be referring to the tactics of the NCSE, or those associated with or defended by the NCSE. You know, the Dover tactics. Or the attacks on Sternberg. Or the more recent tactics by what's-his-face, the climate alarmist who impersonated a board member of a private organization and carried out illegal acts. Ya know, as long as it's for the right cause. Or come to think of it, maybe Nick does have a conscience and that is why Nick left the NCSE . . . ----- All kidding aside, I do have to agree that there are plenty of people within the faith community who do a disservice to the faith community by taking unreasonable/unsupportable positions and sticking to them with tenacity. ----- That said, we do need to correct the egregious misrepresentation Nick put forward: ". . . students ~~find out~~ are indoctrinated that evolution . . . actually does make sense, and does have tons of evidence, and are bullied and intimidated, both scholarly and professionally, if they dare question the evolutionary storyline . . . and that they were lied to (intentionally or not) by their ~~church/pastors/community/home schooling~~ professors and teachers that taught them a line of imaginary bull about materialistic origins throughout their upbringing." There. Fixed it.Eric Anderson_{February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT}

Mapou, you are the only person I have ever seen claim that: "the Adam in the garden of Eden is not the same person as the Adam outside of the garden." So apparently only a few (or one) people are "careful to read the ancient text of the book of Genesis (using an interlinear Hebrew-English translation)"?sixthbook_{February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT}

The whole 'young earth' doctrine is easy refute both scientifically and Biblically. It is a pathetically absurd doctrine. Anybody who is careful to read the ancient text of the book of Genesis (using an interlinear Hebrew-English translation) can see that the Adam in the garden of Eden is not the same person as the Adam outside of the garden. In fact, the first Adam does not even represent a single person but a race of beings who were originally both male and female (androgynous). The garden of Eden story is highly metaphorical, what with symbolic fruits and trees and a talking, deceiving snake. Some Biblical scholars have argued convincingly that Genesis is a compilation of several stories written by different authors. People lose their faith in Christianity because, when they grow up and go out into the world, they realize that so much of what they were taught in church is just a pile of bovine excrement. The Darwinists and atheists, of course, waste no time to capitalize on this. And they are winning.Mapou_{February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

Personally, I believe that the main reason that many YEC Christians in college find their faith shaken is because of their adherence to rigid, dogmatic interpretations that are foisted upon them by authoritarian leaders in their local congregation. It is relatively easy to sway such persons away from their seemingly-bulletproof beliefs because they simply reveal a personality that desires to follow in-line with a strong authoritative voice. Such a person's rigid, but brittle foundation, is easily destroyed by another authoritarian voice; they simply trade one unfounded belief for another.OldArmy94_{February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

Nicely stated, Sal. What infuriates me is when professors present their pet theories as fact, misrepresent what's currently believed in Science or what's recorded in the Bible, and use browbeating tactics against students who hold different opinions, including eye-rolling, shaking their head in disbelief, ridicule, and in some cases blatant discrimination. Students are ill-equipped to deal with such bullying while trying to remain respectful and pass the class with an acceptable grade. These are all reprehensible abuses of their positions of authority regardless of the position being promoted, attacked, or defended. For example, I "learned" that o Judaism (and Christianity) is simply another Canaanite religion. o Yahweh had a consort/wife named Asherah (not true, Asherah in the Septuagint is sacred grove or shrine in Greek, note the similarity with the goddess Ashteroth). o The Bible promotes rape, forcing women to marry their rapists (laughably false). The Bible distinguishes between forcible, illicit, and seductive sex. The penalty for rape is death. In contrast, less than 5% of rapists in the U.S. serve any time in prison for their crime. o Psalm 29 among others was plagiarized word-for-word from an earlier Ugaritic text recovered in Ras Shamrah (there's only a similarity in that both are ancient near eastern poetry, and they both glorify the power of God in nature). o Genesis is a derivative of the Epic of Gilgamesh---that Yahweh battled Yam of the great deep in both mythologies. o The story of Jesus Christ is simply a version of the story of Apollo. o That the Bible never claims that the Messiah will have a virgin birth (while the Masoretic text uses the word Almah, young woman, the pre-Christian Septuagint uses the word Parthenos, virgin, which is also confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls). o That Psalm 22:16, never said that they pierced his (Messiah's) hands and his feet. In Hebrew, the difference is between k'ari (like a lion) and karu (pierced, dug, or burrowed) and has been attributed to a convenient scribal error shortening a vav/waw to a yod (which is possible), and accidentally inserting an aleph (oops, I had a spazz attack and my hand slipped). A pre-Christian Dead Sea scroll fragment confirms the word karu, pierced. o That the 69 "weeks" (literally sevens) from the time of Artaxerxes' proclamation to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple until "Messiah is cut off" (which can be confirmed using calendar calculations) cannot have been a prophecy because Jews don't consider Daniel to be a prophet. And so on. Incidentally, according to one source, when Jesus answered John's query from prison, he left out one part of the old testament quote, namely that "prisoners will be set free." This might well have been a coded communication from Jesus letting John know that he would not be freed. Check it out. -QQuerius_{February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

scordova @9 I totally agree that Keller’s thinking on evolutionism misses the mark. However, he does correctly convey that Christianity is ultimately about a relationship with Jesus Christ, and when an individual has a weak relationship with Him, or does something to damage the relationship, rather than repent, they may start looking for a way out. It is unfortunate that Keller currently does not see the slippery slope that a dogmatic evolutionary professor provides for a student whose relationship with Christ is strained. I pray that soon, Keller will realize his own unbiblical position regarding evolutionism.
My view is that regarding a college student struggling with their faith, there is probably no one-size-fits-all solution, and it takes discernment to understand what one is dealing with. For example, I know I shouldn't eat certain foods to excess, but I do. If I reach out and ask help in dealing with this it is not a question of belief of right or wrong, but a cry for encouragement to avoid that food. So we might say we have students that: 1. aren't actively involved in sin, don't want to sin, but have serious intellectual doubts that the Bible is even true (that was me 13 years ago) 2. actively involved in serious sin, believe in the Christian faith, but like craving bad foods is really not so much needing intellectual conviction but strength to change and endure 3. someone involved in serious sin, wants to just sooth his conscience and persuade himself he can do his own thing 4. someone now actively hostile to the faith Personally, I wouldn't even deal with #3 and #4, if someone decides the want out and will actively find ways to suppress the truth, no point in talking. For #2, one might have to be a bit of a coach. For #1, I would treat as the Lord dealt with John the Baptist when John was having doubt, the Lord told him to consider the evidence (the blind see, the deaf hear, the dead are raised). In the modern day it entails dealing with the physical evidence. There was absolutely NO ONE in my circle that could answer my questions about science and archaeology, I had to learn it on my own, and sometimes had to learn through the process of arguing with guys like Nick. :-) There are probably many other nuanced situation that are not in my list. I think sometimes we look at the Bible and see the Lord rebuking people for lack of belief, but sometimes we have to know the context. The Lord rebuked the children of Israel especially because they were witnesses of miracles, and same for the Lord rebuking the Apostles. His tone however was different for John the Baptist facing death and not understanding (perhaps) why the Messiah was letting him be imprisoned rather than being a saved from physical imprisonment. Paul's tone in Act 17 was very different for people that had no regard for the Bible, and that really is the model of apologetics toward the modern world. One of my occasional ministries is the Freethinkers at James Madison University. I meet a lot of Christians in that group just on the brink of leaving the faith, and they happily share their questions with me, and I try to answer as best as I can. For all those that were at the brink that I met, I'm pleased to say, none of them left the faith, and I'm glad I had a chance to play a small part. One in particular heard the seesaw arguments between myself and one of Nick's associates at Pandas Thumb who is a professor at James Madison, Jason Rosenhouse. I'm pleased to say, the evidence won the day and the student remained a Christian, but it took many weeks of dialogue, and the young man was an extraordinarily gifted chemistry student. There were other science students, particularly biology students who attended my ID talks. I knew they came to my talks because they got to hear stuff they wouldn't hear in church. :-)
22 And have mercy on those who doubt; 23 save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment[g] stained by the flesh. Jude 1:22-23
PS And now the Superbowl is startingscordova_{February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

Joe, I left Christianity without leaving Jesus Christ. You can do the same. StephenSteRusJon_{February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

Nothing to do with dinosaurs, but one of the reasons I “deserted the faith” during college was due to watching the drama club’s production of Inherit the Wind. I remember walking away from the theater thinking how horrible religious people were and how noble scientists were. Then I happened to read Edward Larson’s Summer for the Gods about the real story of the Scopes trial. It took a while for me to accept how wrong public perception was about the trial participants and how naïve I had been to think the caricatures presented in the theatrical production were in any way connected to reality. If science really were just about the facts and truth and reproducible results, there is no way this propaganda would have been created or allowed to continue. Looking back now, I would describe the experience of watching this play as a version of “2 minutes of hate” from 1984.Piltdown2_{February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply