Want Some Answers ???


Hi Mike, you wrote,

>>How do you rationalize this? There are roughly 6 billion people on earth today. As far as i can tell through various articles 70 percent arent christian. Now subtract one billion for the people who dont believe anything. That leaves 3.2 billion people who dont agree with you much less each other. Can they all be wrong and your the only one whose isrite? That sounds closed minded to me.<<

In what way are you trying to apply this? If the subject matter is evolution, then there are thousands of top scientists worldwide who reject it for good reason. Evolution is accepted as fact by a majority of scientists, but one should remember that scientific principles are not established by majority vote. And not the first time scientists have been wrong (ie Alchemy). People don't get the truth about evolution from the media, schools, museum’s or literature from evolutionists. The impression from evolutionists is that we are not supposed to have an open mind regarding evolution. Just accept and don't question (closed mindedness).

Or is it about belief in God? Then, there's billions world-wide who believe there's a God and I don't think they're ‘
closed-minded’. Belief in God is a reasonable explanation for life. When I told one guy [via phone] that “God is the only reasonable explanation for life”, he said, “That’s a religious belief”. Sure, humans are spiritual creatures - God is a Spirit [Jn.4:24]. But, when I look around, and see design, order and laws everywhere. That’s something tangible. I understand and use design, order and laws everyday, they are real and don’t occur by chance. And that’s not a religious view but an observation of fact. I don't need 'faith' to believe in a Creator, all I need is eyes that can see and a brain that works.

So I don't see it as a matter of one who is right and everyone else wrong. But most of the groups on my website are well known for been "
closed-minded". That's partly why I write them. And it’s obvious from the emails, Skeptics cling to evolution regardless of huge problems with the theory. Extremely un-rational don't you think? You wrote,

>>I read and e-mail conversation between mark and tim it was very interesting, sevaral times mark refered to scientist creating myths in the favor of evolution and how one could see evolution as a way to debunk god.Did mark forget about the days when the church told every one that the earth was flat or that it was the center of the universe.<<

Sceptics fail to realize it was the Roman Catholic Church (also undertaking an Inquisition 1633) that persecuted Galileo. They also persecuted 'Protestants' but Sceptics ignore that. Sceptics judge Christianity by what was a corrupt religious organization. Yet 'the church' had adopted the Ptolemaic framework and interpreted the Bible according. And it was the secular defenders of the framework who persuaded the Church leaders that Galileo was contradicting the Bible. Yet only some clergy supported the Ptolemaic system. The main hostility to Galileo [who was a Christian] came from the prevailing ‘scientific’ establishment – the Aristotelians at the Universities [A.Koestler ‘The Sleepwalkers’: A History of Man’s Changing Vision of the Universe Lon. Hutchinson 1959 pg.427]. Leading Roman Catholic theologians praised Galileo’s model [Ibid pg.447-448].

So did Galileo disprove the Bible? No he would have been shocked at the thought. He accepted biblical authority more faithfully than church leaders today. The four main heroes of heliocentrism – Copernicus Galileo, Kepler, and Newton – were all creationists, and also the great astronomers Herschel and Maunder. And what does the Bible say? It refers to “the circle of the earth” [Isa.40:22]. The Hebrew word ‘khug’ denotes ‘roundness’ (See also Job 26:7). Passages that mention the rising and setting sun were from the poetry books of the Bible and not intended to teach a particular astronomical model but explain understandable events [as we use the terms]. Christ knew about the roundness of the earth [Lk.17:34-36]. He stated different people experience night, morning, and midday at the same time (the axis rotation allows the sun to shine on different areas at different times). You wrote,

>>The church called the scientific work of those days blasphemy and men were discredited as charlatans.<<

I wish this were true. For 2,000 years science held to Aristotle’s classic theory of the Fourfold Symmetry. It was embraced by all the alchemists and philosophers and dominated and delayed the progress of science until 17th century. Scientists and chemists of every corner of civilization used cryptic symbols and codes [useless today] and believed they could turn base metals into gold. And make an elixir of eternal life. In the 15th century those who claimed to have turned base metals into gold wore fur-trimmed caps as a sign they had been successful.

I think the great scientist Francis Bacon [a Christian] was one of a few who "
discredited" this false science. Just as some reject evolution today, as a false belief that does nothing for science and the advancement of knowledge. Yet the ‘Dark Ages’ were not named because scientist were "discredited as charlatans", but because the corrupt Roman Catholic Church suppressed the light of the Bible from the common man. You wrote,

>>So the leaving out important information has and still goes both ways. Mark also how the church has made life better for people and evolution hasnt. He must have forgotten the countless wars fought in the name of god (ie all the Crusades)<<

The "
Crusades" were basically Roman troops marching down into the Holy Land to "free Jerusalem" or protect Palestine from the Saracen forces who captured it. [A.C. Krey. The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eye-witnesses and Participants. (Princeton: 1921), pp. 256-262]. History has shown many who have died under the banner of Christianity were anything but Christian. I wouldn't say the Crusaders (slaughtered by the Muslims), those murderous armies from the Pope of Rome, were martyrs for the faith of the gospel. They were 'Christians' particularly by name, not by the 'new birth' (Jn.3:3-7 Titus 3:5 1 Pe.1:3). Those born of the Spirit (Jn.3:8) are "led by the Spirit" (Rom.8:14) if anyone has not the Spirit of God they are "none of" God's children (Rom.8:9). They thought they were doing something for God yet God's Word (the Bible) was largely hidden from them. So why blame the church today?

But if there’s no God, war is never right or wrong. It’s all apart of man's long-suffering painful evolution. The hero of evolution is death. We must have more death or there will be no evolution and progress. Skeptics have no standard of right and wrong (but their opinions). Yet they imply all evil comes from Bible believing Christians who take the Bible literally and believe God made the world in six days. They blame Christians for evil and all the wars throughout all history, which is utter nonsense.

The truth is, “
the church has made life better for people” far more than evolution, and that’s proven by charitable work and the Gospel. The Great Commission is to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. The command to ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’ is far better than the ‘dog eat dog’ - ‘the survival of the fittest’ nonsense.

‘Men’ are the reason for countless wars. Wars are a sign of fallen humanity and that the Bible is correct, man fell into sin and rebelled against God. But the good news of the gospel offers God’s grace and mercy, peace, hope, love and eternal life. Evolution however, [the philosophy of communism] oppresses and denies freedom. Atheistic Evolution says nothing is right or wrong, nothing worth dying for, it leads to despair and darkness. Even so, "
countless wars", and what men do ‘in the name of god’ doesn't deny there is a Creator, but it does proves man is a rebellious creature. The Bible cries out in ‘name of God’ for justice, truth, peace, love, freedom, and good will to all men on earth. I’m all for that and evolution hasn't anything to compare. In fact, the phone guy told me “evolution has no answers”, how can that “make life better”? You wrote,

>>or the countless peacful inhabitants of north and south america that were vanquished by the diseases the conquistadors and there priest brought to america. These missionary trips go into a society that needs no outside influence. Of couse every now and then they need food and medical attention but it costs them there belief in a higher power and there way of life. Sure we will feed you and cloth you just worrship our god because if you dont you and your family wont go to the land of milk and honey.<<

Some people prefer paganism and living in a world of their own. But that didn't stop Charles Darwin arriving in Tierra del Fuego [South America]. He described the inhabitants as ‘miserable degraded savages’. They were regarded as more closely related to animals than Englishmen. The only thing Darwinian evolution brought to South America was racism. He taught some groups of peoples are less evolved than others and for years evolutionists profiled human skulls attributing ‘sub-human’ status to some. Darwin acknowledged that the effects of the gospel on the Fuegians meant that he had been wrong about them, but this was not the result of regarding them (and all mankind) as created in the ‘God’s image’ [Gen.1:26]. His racist and inaccurate assessment of tribal peoples was not so much intrinsic to his nature, as it was the logical consequence of his evolutionary views and the associated rejection of the authority of the Word of God.

Food, health and clothing are important, but spiritual needs are also important. But how sad is the false belief system of evolution, which has been used since its inception to dull people to the moral absolutes of Scripture, whether justifying Nazism, Stalinism, the abortion holocaust, indifference to starvation in Africa, or the maltreatment of indigenous people. God’s Word has always stated that He has ‘made of one blood [ie from one man Adam] all nations of men’ [Acts 17:26cf 1 Cor.15:45]. All people have the right to hear the message of God's love. You wrote,

>>These are people who you help but you also steal their souls.<<

But it's Christ who really cares for our “souls”. And it's sinful desires which "war against our soul" [1 Pe.2:11]. If you want to be afraid, don't be afraid of me, I don't steal souls, "...be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell" [Mt.10:28]. As the Creator, God has the right to hold all souls as responsible to Him for the life they lead. You wrote,

>>Christianity is a militant religion just like the muslims.<<

There's big differences between Christianity and Islam. Allah is a cold distant God from his creation. So 'great' He acts impersonal and both good and evil come from him. Whatever Allah chooses becomes right; so any true standard of righteousness or ethics is hard to discern. For the Christian, calling God 'Father' evokes thoughts of love, compassion, tenderness and protectiveness, but not so for the Muslim. To him, a father is strict, with no emotion, never expresses love, and is bound to his family by duty, not devotion. It's blasphemous to call Allah your father, it's like saying that your mother and Allah had sexual intercourse to produce you. Allah cannot offer mercy, love or ultimate sacrifice on mankind's behalf as the God of the Bible offers. You wrote,

>>You force your beliefs upon someone else, they arent given the freedom of choice because you scare people with your propaganda tactics.<<

I can’t "force" any to accept any "belief". In fact, Sceptics reject a right belief by default without reason. But with the good news comes bad news. And we must make a 'choice'.

The good news is that the Creator God loves us, but hates sin. So He came to earth and died for our sin, so we should repent and accept His free gift of forgiveness and eternal life. With that comes a message of warning to those who ignore it. That's not my ‘
propaganda’. We know wrong deserves punishment and that ‘scares’ us. God says, "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life" [Deut. 30:19]. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." [Acts 17:30-31].

True Christianity is more about "
freedom of choice" than any belief. Live in a Muslim or Communist country. Evolutionary philosophy is the intellectual basis of all anti-Christian systems that have plagued man for centuries. It served Hitler as the rationale for Nazism and Marx as the supposed scientific basis for communism. It is the basis of the various modern methods of psychology and sociology that treat man merely as a higher animal and which have led to the misnamed "new morality" and ethical relativism. Its whole effect on the world and mankind has been harmful and degrading. You wrote,

>>You cant give definte proof that christianity is better than any other religion out there or that it has helped the human race.<<

True "Christianity" is not a "religion". Religion tries to find God, Christianity is God reaching down to man. Religion is man’s ultimate search for God; Christianity is God’s search for man. True Christianity is not a religion; it’s a relationship with a Person. Christianity is God’s solution to man’s predicament. Religion in reality is man’s question and Christianity is the answer. Christianity says man is sick. Man has a problem – look around; look at the hatred, prejudice, murder, injustice, cruelty, greed etc. The problem with man is the problem of man. The only medicine for the sick world is God’s pill. That’s why it’s faith that makes all the difference in the world.

And is it better? Yes three reasons :-
[1] All men equal. Taking the Bible literally, means all men are created in God's likeness, and life is valuable and precious. Murder and killing is foreign to God's original created order. Abortion is murder because life is a gift from God. Brotherly love, compassion, and goodness are the best values to live by. And they are seen in what God has done for me. 'God loves me' is the best news I've heard.
[2] Changed lives. True Christians have changed lives. Once thieves, drunks, murders, immoral, and gamblers are totally changed. Even those who would once punch you, or steal your money are different. Those who had nothing to live for, now overflowing with new life.
[3] Practical love. Christians are called to submit to “every authority instituted among men” [Rom.13:1. 1 Pe.2:13]. And to “one another out of reverence for Christ” [Eph5.21]. This submission is by free
choice to do what’s right unto God, to others and self, with love. To practice a mutual concern to surrender one’s own interests to those of others [Rom.12.10 Phi.2.3-4]. You wrote,

>>Other than that i kind of agree with mark on evolution, the possibility that life spontaneously started with out some kind of initial intervention. However the hole 6000 year old earth is really far fetched.<<

Actually the age of the earth can be neither proven or disproved by science. When evolutionists say ‘millions of years’ there’s no proof, the dates are ultimately determined by the theory (ie how long needed for evolution to occur). Evolutionists repeatedly suffer greatly from embarrassingly young dates to their model. Consider this: if a specimen is older than 50,000 years, it has been calculated that it would have such a small amount of Carbon-14 that for practical purposes it would show an infinite radiocarbon age. So it was expected that most deposits such as coal, gas, etc. would be undatable by this method. In fact, of thousands of dates in the journals Radiocarbon and Science to 1968, only a handful were classed "undatable"— most were of the sort which should have been in this category. This is especially remarkable with samples of coal and gas supposedly produced in the Carboniferous period 300 million years ago!

Some examples of dates which contradict orthodox (evolutionary) views: Coal from Russia from the "Pennsylvanian", supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years [Radiocarbon, vol. 8 1966]. Natural gas from Alabama and Mississippi (Cretaceous and Eocene, respectively) should have been 50 million to 135 million years old, yet Carbon-14 gave dates of 30,000 to 34,000 years, respectively [Radiocarbon, vol. 8 1966]. Bones of a sabre-toothed tiger from the LaBrea tar pits (near Los Angeles) supposedly 100,000-one million years old, gave a date of 28,000 years [Radiocarbon, vol. 10 1968]. A freshly killed seal dated by Carbon-14 showed it had died 1300 years ago [Antarctic Journal, vol. 6 (Sept-Oct 1971 p.211]. Living mollusc shells were dated at up to 2,300 years old [Science, vol. 141 1963 pp. 634-637]. Living snails’ shells showed they had died 27,000 years ago [Science, vol. 224 1984 pp. 58-61].

A quotation from a respected anthropological journal highlights the nature of the problem: "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious ... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted." [Lee, R.E., 1981. Radiocarbon, Ages in Error. Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol. 19, No. 3, p. 9]. So the radiocarbon dating method is certainly no embarrassment to the Biblical creationist who believes in a young earth. In fact, when fully understood in accord with modern data, it seems to give support to this position.

For a summary of the problems with dating methods and evidence for a young earth, see the publication 'Bone of Contention' by Sylvia Baker, publ. CSF. P.O. 302, Sunnybank, Qld. 4109, Australia, or obtainable in the USA from Institute for Creation Research, P.O. 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021. For more evidence, see "It’s a Young World After All", by P.Ackerman, obtainable from Creation Science Foundation. You wrote,

>>I have read many other articles from different web sites about this and some of the information is stunning but it leaves somthing to be desired. I belive in god but not christianity or any other religion for that matter. Its derived from god by man and you cant trust man history shows this quite well.<<

It would be strange if the Creator is unknown. What’s He doing? Why allow His creatures to remain in the dark? Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” [Jn.14:6]. Perhaps you reject Him because it suits your life style. I believe He has revealed Himself in His “Word” - the Bible. I’m satisfied it’s a truthful and actuate record. But I’m not pushing “religion”. Christianity is not a religion but a relationship. And what people need is not religion but reality. In all religions the leaders pointed a way to God but Jesus pointed to Himself as God.

There's many reasons ones becomes a Christian, with me it was the overpowering conviction of God's love and the Christian faith is true. If it's not true, its not worth believing. If it is true it is true for all. If it’s true for someone somewhere, it is true for everyone everywhere. You wrote,

>>I did however enjoy your website and lookforward to reading some of the more lenghty articles. Thanks for listening or reading i guess a response would be nice but isnt expected. sincerely mike<<

Thanks Mike, appreciated.