Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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


Further to “Are dinosaurs the real reason young Christians in college desert their faith?”, first, thanks to all who have contributed so far. Back to the ol’ day job tomorrow, so here goes, touching on some specific replies:

scordova at 4: Hardline YEC I think can be damaging to faith if it is taught as all or nothing. It is bad if there is an unwillingness to say, “a literal reading of the Bible suggests YEC, but the data in hand don’t make a convincing case, yet”. If instead, you get the standard line, “you’re sinning and attacking Christianty for thinking otherwise, there must be some sin in your life causing you to doubt doubting, you need to read the Bible and see that God created the world 6000 years ago”. Of course the youth will leave. That’s bullying, that’s not a reasoned defense of the faith.

Fair enough. But that is a description of fanatics who bully students. That does drive people away. But does the dinosaur effect kick in even if the pastor simply states in a friendly way that such-and-so is the denominational belief, but does not make it an issue? And suggests reading resources on both sides?

I find it hard to credit the idea that conflicts between traditional Christian lifestyle teachings and pot use, cheating on tests, buying essays, drunkenness, hookups, dabbling in the occult, doping, poor sportsmanship, gambling, and abortions would not drive most conflict. Having already mostly left the Christian frame of reference, the student then discovers that in general, the world rewards behaviours of all kinds that he has been told come at the risk of his soul. But now the price seems worth paying. He regards his old self as boring and naive.

Of course, he may end up wishing he had never met his new self. But by then he might be forty. In the meantime, stuck for an explanation, he says it was all about dinosaurs.


scordova at 9, w. respect to Tim Keller: If that’s the case, it proves exactly my point about bullying. Points the accusing finger first, doesn’t even to bother to ask and listen.

I am staying resolutely out of any discussion of the merits of pastors, noting only (perhaps controversially) that I believe there is more to be said for Keller’s approach than first appears. For the reasons I have suggested above.

Incidentally, none of this is meant, in any event, as an accusation against students. Quite the contrary. It would of course make more sense to leave a church because one wishes to live a life forbidden by New Testament-based teachings than to leave it in a quarrel over the bones of T Rex.

What is T. Rex, that thou art mindful of him? Will he be counted worthy of a place in the resurrection of the just?

drc466 at 11: I think “dinosaurs” get the blame because professors in evolutionary-fields tend to take radical atheism and open anti-religion to higher levels than, say, your average accounting or engineering professor.

Yes. Will Provine co-authored a study according to which 78% of evolutionary biologists were found to be pure naturalist atheists.

My chief reason for having no use for groups like BioLogos is that anyone who fails to see the significance of that type of finding, and continues to treat “evidence” for Darwinian evolution coming from such a quarter as if it were neutral science data … there are terms to describe such people, but we ought to focus on something constructive here.

scordova at 22 sounds like he is on the right track in dealing with the human issues.

And, as he says, the SuperBowl is starting. – O’Leary for News

Follow UD News at Twitter!

tjguy: The foundation of the Bible is Jesus Christ, not Genesis. However I didn't say nor did I intend to imply that Genesis is unimportant. I see Genesis as the introduction to the drama of the ages. In the first three chapters we see all the main characters and themes. First God, and two of the three persons of the Trinity: Jesus and the Spirit. The whole of creation. The human race in Adam and Eve. Free will which allows for wrong choices, resulting in banishment from the initially perfect environment. Redemption. Satan and his offspring--demons. Angels. All of those are clearly there, regardless of whether a person views those chapters as literal or figurative. RalphDavidWestfall
tjguy i don't think so. first true Christians never lose their faith. Second MOST evangelical kids stay in the faith relative to historical numbers. No different then the 1930's. I don't see pressure having any impact. I do think its a misunderstanding of identity. its really regular protestants, white or black, who leave lukewarm protestantism. they just don't understand species here. Robert Byers
So yeah, I think Tim Keller (and Texas prof Jay Budziszewski) have it nailed. Darwinism is not usually persuasive for its basic science, but for its lack of basic morals.
They have it nailed for some individuals but not for others. That description would fit well with promoters of Darwinism like Dawkins who defended the idea of having a mistress and lying about it. But like medical diagnosis, not one medicine or procedure is appropriate for every condition, and the mechanism of leaving or doubting the faith is different for everyone. In my case, my near departure from the Christian faith was precipitated by my father's terminal illness and the feeling of God's indifference to my struggles and unanswered questions. If a pastor accused me of expressing doubts off the bat by saying, "what sort of sins are you wanting to participate in that make you want to stop believing?" I'd be pretty upset, and hope God would teach that guy a few lessons in sensitivity and let him experience what it's like to be falsely accused like that. Suppose a person comes to a pastor hoping to have his faith strengthened during his time of crisis and the question of ID or creation is pretty important to helping him believe in God, and instead off the bat that person gets accused of trying to find reasons to disbelieve because he is intent on getting involved in an immoral lifestyle ( lying, cheating, abusing women for pleasure, etc.). If someone is intent on doing these things, why would they bother to even visit a pastor to express their doubts? That's why Keller's remark I found particularly offensive. 13 years ago I had a terminally ill father whom I cared for beyond words, and I needed hope and evidence that somehow God had a plan and that evidence from creation and might offer some comfort that God hand something good in mind in the end. (Btw, your essays on the book of Job have been a source of personal inspiration as well as the class notes from the class you taught in Alabama) Sorry I must take issue with an Elder and Pastor in my own denomination, but nothing in the Bible says to address sincere doubters in such a way, in fact that is contrary to Jude 1:22
22 And have mercy on those who doubt;
Falsely insinuating someone of having committed certain deeds and having a lifestyle merely because they are asking for their doubts and questions to be answered isn't being merciful to the doubter. No one simple explanation is fundamental to why people disbelieve, and it certainly isn't always because they're intent on finding and excuse to live immorally. Darwinism isn't just attractive because of its lack of morals, it is believable because it accords with the average person's private thoughts that go something like: "the world is evil, I don't see God at work, therefore He either doesn't care or is non-existent." As far as we can tell, the sickness and early death of Darwin's own daughter had some influence on his world view that the Designer is non existent or at best indifferent or at worse deliberately cruel. scordova
Our views on Genesis determine how we view God’s Word compared to the authorities of this world. Is science more trustworthy than God’s Word? How about anthropology, history, archeology, psychology, etc.
The problem is not science versus God's word. The problem is God's word versus what some jackass preacher claims what God's word means. The Master did not say, let some jackass preacher do your searching for you and accept what he finds. The exhortation is given to one and all: "Search and you shall find". Everybody is responsible for their own searching. Preachers should get out of the way and stop bullying people to accept their interpretation of the Bible. As the Master said, they shall be accountable for their deceptions. Mapou
seventrees, Thanks for your observations. This tread was specifically regarding Christian belief, so being a Christian creationist I felt free to speak with respect to the faith I hold dear. I think today's church does not relate well how we can reconcile God's love with so much of the personal pain. John the Baptist, whom the Lord called the greatest of all prophets until the New Testament, is a story very close to my heart. It must have been difficult for John the Baptist to see Messiah walking the Earth, knowing Jesus was the Messiah, and then the Messiah did not stop John's imprisonment nor execution. John testified of Christ, served the Lord, and when the Lord came, and even when John could see him, the Lord did not stop the terrible things happening to John. Of all people it would seem John was the most worth of the Lord's help and intervention! It would have been easy to think, with Jesus being right there, even accepting John's baptism, that Jesus didn't care. It takes much thought to see the love of Jesus Christ toward John the Baptist in that story, but when we can see it, we see Jesus' love for us. So few Christians will discern it, and it will take much looking to see God's love for John the Baptist in that story, but it's there because the story is explained in the rest of the Bible, and done so in a way that will not be perceived unless one is willing to see it. The explanation is summarized in verses like 2 cor 4:17. But it will not be comprehended unless one is willing to look carefully and see! Christian suffering is made meaningful for those that find eternal life in Christ, but for those outside of Jesus, the saying applies: "life is hard, then you die". I respect the religious views of others, but at some point there will be irreconcilable conflict between the Christian view and that of any other religion. The teachings of Christ, when cherry picked, can be made to sound so compatible with other religions, but it's basic message that He is the only way will be inevitably offensive to many. It has been challenging sometimes to navigate the Big Tent and keep the peace given the Christian message at some point will be offensive to other religious views. I'm glad I at least had the chance to share the Christian view, and I hope it will help some Christians who are wanting to have faith and hope in Christ but cannot find it. When they reach the point they can see the love of Christ toward John the Baptist, then they can understand the love of Christ toward them. It will take discernment to see it because the explanation is not easily accessible, and that is by design, just like Jesus parables which were not easily understood! scordova
The hermeneutical discussions of the theodicy problem are fascinating, but responding to the title of this post, I'd like to mention what "actually" goes on at a East coast university. My twin daughters attended a prominent Ivy League school wherein the freshman orientation week included a plea to "experiment" with safe sexual encounters (e.g. condoms) which would be provided free by the health center. Lest this be too big a hurdle, all the floor monitors were to stock punch bowls in all the lounges just in case the students had forgotten to stuff their pockets with them. You will notice what they didn't do. No dino bones on display in the lounge. No free trilobite fossil paperweights. No flies-in-amber necklaces for giggling freshmen. So yeah, I think Tim Keller (and Texas prof Jay Budziszewski) have it nailed. Darwinism is not usually persuasive for its basic science, but for its lack of basic morals. Robert Sheldon
Greetings. Scordova, with what you typed, I will just say what I see. What you typed is an argument from evil (the emotional argument). I dislike the way this argument is used by a set of people. This is why: They fail to see what each religion states on this issue. Before you think I am not considering what you typed, please, be patient with me to get my drift. Let us take Christianity in this case. I made this statement before: “Jesus, who is God, suffered. Therefore, God does not exist.” In the context of what you wrote, I could say “Jesus, who is God, suffered. Therefore God does not really care.” Anyone with a fair mind who reflects on Jesus’ life as stated in Scriptures will notice that there’s something wrong with the above conclusion. I do not like to discuss these things on UD given that UD takes in people of different religious and philosophical backgrounds (which I am not against, by the way). I have to respect that. But the reason I state this is this: Misunderstanding any religion plays a role in these issues for some people. If people could see that this is one of their mistakes, they might see things differently. Of course, this will not answer many nagging questions. There will be some things which we might not understand while we’re here. But at least it might make one see that some of us concluding that God is aloof is a probable misunderstanding, at least in the context of Judeo-Christianity. I think this is one of the things Job saw. (It is the book of Job which made me reconsider the fact that I might be misunderstanding some things). seventrees
Ralph says:
The last time I looked, the Bible still said we receive eternal life through faith that ?Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,? rather than based on our viewing the early chapters of Genesis as literal. How about telling young people that there are multiple ways of understanding Genesis? And then providing reasoned expositions of alternatives, for example the framework interpretation. That of course should be taught within the context that such interpretations are of little importance in comparison to faith in the literally resurrected Christ, and all the while also reinforcing the point that the behavior of followers of Jesus should reflect his teachings.
Ralph, fair enough. A literal interpretation of Genesis is not a necessary condition of salvation, however, don't make the mistake of thinking it is unimportant for that reason. How we interpret the foundation of the Bible, from page 1 through chapter 11 of Genesis, the section of the Bible most quoted in the Bible, sets the stage for how we interpret the rest of the Bible. Kids are not stupid. If they see us playing word games with the Bible from page one, it is easy to lose confidence in God's Word. Our views on Genesis determine how we view God's Word compared to the authorities of this world. Is science more trustworthy than God's Word? How about anthropology, history, archeology, psychology, etc. What do we do when these experts disagree with the Bible? Do we subjugate the Bible to the opinions of these experts as well? Why or why not? There is a real danger of sliding little by little away from faith when we give science authority to trump the clear meaning of God's Word. For instance, take the global flood of Noah. If you believe in a global flood, it is logically inconsistent to believe the rocks and the fossils in those rocks are millions of years old. It makes much more sense to see the rocks and fossils as evidence of a global flood. DNA, red blood cells, etc. in dinosaur fossils show the problems evolutionists have of maintaining their views in millions of years. http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue Why is an old earth view and a global flood view contradictory? It's simple! Either the flood laid down those continent wide sedimentary layers of rocks or they were laid down by slow geological processes over millions of years like evolutionists believe. The millions of years and a global flood cannot both claim the rocks and fossils as evidence. One or the other must be true. (Although, someone suggested to me the other day that God could have erased the evidence of a global flood after the flood. lol! If that were the case, then you could never do science because you would never be able to be sure that what we see in the world shows us what actually happened.) So our beliefs about Genesis have a big influence on how we interpret other passages of Scripture all through the Bible. For that reason, it is quite an important issue! I don't think God intends us to have that much freedom in arbitrarily changing the meaning of His Word to suit the current in vogue interpretations of modern science or whatever else might appeal to us. tjguy
Robert says:
Evangelical christians kids never leave their faith because of evolutionism. Rather its just ordinary protestant type kids. ... Its just old line protestant denominations that lose kids because they already are not strong about biblical inerrancy. Its a non issue.
Robert, that's a little bit naive. Evangelical Christian kids also leave the faith if they are not well grounded in the Judeo Christian worldview. There are other factors as well that they run into in college besides creation/evolution. They are normal kids with normal desires. Peer pressure, temptations, desire for things(modern idolatry, etc. all can contribute to this problem. Your assertions are a bit too simplistic. Creationism is an issue even in evangelical circles. More and more, even evangelicals are becoming progressive and adopting non creationist positions. tjguy
The last time I looked, the Bible still said we receive eternal life through faith that ?Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,? rather than based on our viewing the early chapters of Genesis as literal. How about telling young people that there are multiple ways of understanding Genesis? And then providing reasoned expositions of alternatives, for example the framework interpretation. That of course should be taught within the context that such interpretations are of little importance in comparison to faith in the literally resurrected Christ, and all the while also reinforcing the point that the behavior of followers of Jesus should reflect his teachings. Part of the process of becoming intellectually mature is learning about nuances and subtleties. Truth can be communicated, sometimes even more effectively, by material that isn't literally true in all respects. (I'm assuming that the reader is aware that the Bible uses a lot of metaphors and many other types of figures of speech.) Is religious dogmatism the most effective way of dealing with the dogmatism of scientism? Wouldn't students be better off learning to deal with complexities in both of these areas rather than just functioning at the level of ?bumper sticker thinking?? RalphDavidWestfall
One common expression of former believers explaining the loss of their faith is, "it doesn't work for me." A previously believing person will think: "God doesn't seem to do anything to help me. I wish he'd help, but I do more for myself and others than He does. Praying to Him seems useless since my life doesn't get better for doing so." In response, many trying to reconvert this prodigal son of their unbelief will say something like "but Jesus died for your sins, therefore he cares, you should be grateful for that! What's the matter with you?" At that point the prodigal son will break the conversation thinking,
"Is that your best answer? If you believe that such illogical statements are evidence of love and goodness, and that it demands my gratitude, then I want nothing to do with you or your faith! If Jesus loves me, he'll heal my sick father, he'll keep people from hurting me, he'll protect me from harm, he'll say something to me in ways that I can hear so I won't feel like I'm just talking to a rock. I don't need him dying on the cross, I need him showing up to help me when I'm really in need. If he won't help me, what's the benefit anyway of believing and seeking him? If I were God I would not subject my loved ones to sickness, dangers, toils, and snares like He does. Why should I believe he'll be doing any thing for me today or tomorrow, much less eternity? And if there is no benefit of believing, what's the point of believing?"
I'm not trying to be irreverent, but just describing what might really be on the heart of a would-be disbeliever. Those are the things he's feeling, but he may repress himself from articulating it that way to others and even to himself. I remember a minister shouting once at the top of his lungs "God loves you." Over the years as I recalled the incident, his screaming reminded me more of an empty desperate sales pitch, actually more like whining and pleading for people to believe that God loves them. Rather than being persuading me to believe God loves humanity, it sounded so hollow -- like he was trying to persuade himself of something he himself doubted in light of all the suffering in the human condition. Instead, my observation would almost be that if there is a God, He's actively making sure humanity suffers, and thus he has wrath towards humanity. (And actually, the Bible teaches outside of Christ, humanity is under His wrath, not his grace. And even for those under grace, Christ said, "in this world you'll have tribulation."). Can we help someone like the disbeliever I just described? Will intellectual arguments be persuasive enough? What can we possibly say that will make it worth their while to even reconsider returning to the faith in light of these considerations plus all the supposed disproofs being thrown his way everyday. For a moment, let me put myself in this prodigal son's place. Let's suppose in addition to me disbelieving, that I'm also in a relationship with someone I love and who loves me. It is a love that seems so much more genuine and thrilling than anything experienced in church where all that comes out of the pulpit and fellow parishioners is a never ending litany of how I just don't measure up. By way of contrast, my companion seems to love everything about me, and my soul somehow feels more alive than it ever did in church. Having money and respect also seem to give me thrills that I don't get out of boring church services. What sort of apologetic will work then? Will the question of the age of dinosaurs mean much on the scale of things in light of these issues? In light of all of the above, I actually find it miraculous anyone finds need of God and still believes given all the difficulties of remaining in the faith. So what improbable transformations will bring a wayward heart back to faith? The journey back to faith begins when one realizes eternal life might be the only way to make sense of all this suffering, that the momentary light afflictions of this life makes the next life more meaningful. As Paul said: For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, 2 Cor 4:17 But on what basis can we in eternal life? How do we have a credible case this isn't just a wishful fable! Wouldn't it be better to find evidence there is a God, and the God has actually communicated to humanity how we can have this eternal life? It's when someone reaches the point that evidence is needed to identify the message of God over that of human fabrication that questions of ID, creation, palentology, dinosaurs, archaeology become personally significant. What brought me to that point where I felt I needed God's help and salvation? Ironically, the writings of one of my favorite atheists:
Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins -- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built. Bertrand Russell
which reminds me of this Psalm by Moses
Lord, you have been our dwelling place[a] in all generations. 2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. 3 You return man to dust and say, “Return, O children of man!”[b] 4 For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night. 5 You sweep them away as with a flood; they are like a dream,like grass that is renewed in the morning: 6 in the morning it flourishes and is renewed; in the evening it fades and withers. 7 For we are brought to an end by your anger; by your wrath we are dismayed. 8 You have set our iniquities before you, our secret sins in the light of your presence. 9 For all our days pass away under your wrath; we bring our years to an end like a sigh. 10 The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away. 11 Who considers the power of your anger, and your wrath according to the fear of you? 12 So teach us to number our days that we may get a heart of wisdom. 13 Return, O Lord! How long? Have pity on your servants! 14 Satisfy us in the morning with your steadfast love, that we may rejoice and be glad all our days. 15 Make us glad for as many days as you have afflicted us, and for as many years as we have seen evil. 16 Let your work be shown to your servants, and your glorious power to their children. 17 Let the favor[d] of the Lord our God be upon us, and establish the work of our hands upon us; yes, establish the work of our hands!
When I was at that point that I was understanding my need of eternal life, then the question of ID, creation, and many other things had significance. Prior to that, I wouldn't have cared less. For someone who has already felt little need of God, much less being right with Him, then the supposed disproofs of the Bible through evolutionism and paleontology and dinosaur bones are but final nails in the coffin of his faith that was probably long dead. Sure we might need to remove some of those nails, but resurrecting that dead faith will take a lot more than answering questions about dinosaur bones. scordova
If the bible is read in English and also understood from the original Hebrew language that it was originally written in there would be no problem for Christians because the word used in genesis for day is YOM and as hugh Ross has correctly stated many times YOM can mean literal day or indefinite time period. That is why in regards to day-age it's very important to understand things Ike this for any. Christian. wallstreeter43
Evangelical christians kids never leave their faith because of evolutionism. Rather its just ordinary protestant type kids. Conservative means nothing about identity here. in fact in evangelical circles origin things are never seen as a problem with conversion or staying with the faith. Its seen as irrelevant. its hard to get creationist speakers in evangelical churches. little interest. Its just old line protestant denominations that lose kids because they already are not strong about biblical inerrancy. Its a non issue. Robert Byers
Of related note: Christianity Gave Birth To Science - Dr. Henry Fritz Schaefer - video http://vimeo.com/16523153 The History of Christian Education in America Excerpt: The first colleges in America were founded by Christians and approximately 106 out of the first 108 colleges were Christian colleges. In fact, Harvard University, which is considered today as one of the leading universities in America and the world was founded by Christians. One of the original precepts of the then Harvard College stated that students should be instructed in knowing God and that Christ is the only foundation of all "sound knowledge and learning." http://www.ehow.com/about_6544422_history-christian-education-america.html Bruce Charlton's Miscellany - October 2011 Excerpt: I had discovered that over the same period of the twentieth century that the US had risen to scientific eminence it had undergone a significant Christian revival. ,,,The point I put to (Richard) Dawkins was that the USA was simultaneously by-far the most dominant scientific nation in the world (I knew this from various scientometic studies I was doing at the time) and by-far the most religious (Christian) nation in the world. How, I asked, could this be - if Christianity was culturally inimical to science? http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/10/meeting-richard-dawkins-and-his-wife.html The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped (the 17 year slide in SAT scores with the removal of prayer from school) – David Barton – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930 AMERICA: To Pray Or Not To Pray - David Barton - graphs corrected for population growth http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/graphs.html you can see the dramatic difference, of the SAT scores for private Christian schools compared to public schools, at this following site; Aliso Viejo Christian School – SAT 10 Comparison Report http://www.alisoviejochristianschool.org/sat_10.html It is also very interesting to point out that even though Christianity has a incredible track record of being very conducive for scientific progress, higher education, and also being very helpful to the education of children in grade-school, Christianity is, in spite of its unmatched track record in education and scientific progress, treated with severe prejudice in higher education in America today. Majority of American University Professors have Negative View of Evangelical Christians – 2007 Excerpt: According to a two-year study released today by the Institute for Jewish & Community Research (IJCR), 53% of non-Evangelical university faculty say they hold cool or unfavorable views of Evangelical Christians – the only major religious denomination to be viewed negatively by a majority of faculty. Only 30% of faculty hold positive views of Evangelicals, 56% of faculty in social sciences and humanities departments hold unfavorable views. Results were based on a nationally representative online survey of 1,269 faculty members at over 700 four-year colleges and universities. Margin of error is +/- 3%. ,,, Only 20% of those faculty who say religion is very important to them and only 16% of Republicans have unfavorable views of Evangelicals; the percentages rise considerably for faculty who say religion is not important to them (75%) and among Democrats (65%).,,, “This survey shows a disturbing level of prejudice or intolerance among U.S. faculty towards tens of millions of Evangelical Christians,,, One-third of all faculty also hold unfavorable views of Mormons, and among social sciences and humanities faculty, the figure went up to 38%. Faculty views towards other religious groups are more positive: Only 3% of faculty hold cool/unfavorable feelings towards Jews and only 4% towards Buddhists. Only 13% hold cool/unfavorable views of Catholics and only 9% towards non-Evangelical Christians. Only 18% hold cool/unfavorable views towards atheists. A significant majority – 71% of all faculty – agreed with the statement: “This country would be better off if Christian fundamentalists kept their religious beliefs out of politics.” By comparison, only 38% of faculty disagreed that the country would be better off if Muslims became more politically organized. per lifesite news Frank Turek - Intellectual Predators - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeBn-TP-yds&list=PLxhOdbmDO0te3DMjpgtgywalBvLOTA5QD&index=9 Slaughter of the Dissidents - Dr. Jerry Bergman - video lecture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_ygt_mqzO8 Apparently tolerance in academia only means tolerating those who are no real threat to the preferred worldview of atheistic materialism/naturalism. This severe prejudice against professing Christians simply should not be. Indeed, in an sane America, colleges should be fighting over, and recruiting, the brightest Christian high school students instead of despising them. Of note, Finland now has the best education system in the world, and not so surprisingly Finland I found that it has a very strong prayer ethic,,, Finland is much more: Excerpt: The main Lutheran and Orthodox churches are constitutional national churches of Finland with special roles in ceremonies and often in school morning prayers.,,, Over half of Finns say they pray at least once a month, the highest proportion in Nordics,,, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=170263&mesg_id=170358 bornagain77

Leave a Reply