Anti-christian Rhetoric

[Guest 92g]

The amount of anti-christian rhetoric is pretty high these days. Its seems as if the media has jumped on a couple of issues, e.g. Judge Moore and the 10 commandments in Al., to try an make it look as if the "religious right" is controlling the politics in this country.

 

As a result, they are really fanning the flames, of anti-christian sentiment, I guess we could really say is the spirit of "Anti-Christ" at work in the world.

 

I know a christian couple, of which the wife was born in Germany. She told me her parents said that part of the way the Nazi's created all of the hatred against the Jews was to use the press to blame everything on them.

 

Terry

[Guest The Deacon]

In America today it is unacceptable to criticize a religion. Unless, of course, it is Christianity. I have given the matter some thought, and it seems that the reason is obvious: Christianity is true, and is therefore seen as dangerous to the self centerd hedonistic life preferred by many. Satan is the ruler of this world, and he only has one enemy: Christ. So there is every reason to support "tolerance" of what is false, and hatred and fear of what is true.

 

But we must not be surprised, or even overly concerned, because the Bible has given us clear warning of what the cost of discipleship is. And "Few there be that find it".

[Phaedrus 0]

The Kansas State School Board in compliance with the No Child Left Behind Act had to define science. Kansas was the only state in the union that defined it in such a way was as to accept only naturalistic explanations. By the way, naturalism is not science, its an antitheisitic philosophy that has nothing to do with real science. When Intelligent Design proponets pointed this out the media started saying that they were trying to get them to teach the supernatural in science class.

 

That is what rhetoric does it minipulates your words in an attempt to persude those around you. Nevermind what the actual truth is, the point is persuation of large groups. It's like the old saying in politics, throw enough mud on the wall and some of it will stick.

[Guest Admin3]

But what's not being told is who had to be removed in order for this defining could be done. The evolutionists got together and devised a smear campaign on the head of the school board to make sure she was not relected. The person to take her place was a anti-christian evolutionist activist. Who, along with his friends, wrote up the paper that defined science as only a naturalistic way to explain something in the teaching process.

 

This was not done on a vote by the people. It was done because the newly elected head of the school board had the power to do it. And used his bias views to keep creation out of school. It was the very first thing he did upon entering office. And it was the main goal to getting elected. Shut out creation and I.D. Take away their voice. This just shows how much a threat this is to science.

[Phaedrus 0]

But what's not being told is who had to be removed in order for this defining could be done. The evolutionists got together and devised a smear campaign on the head of the school board to make sure she was not relected. The person to take her place was a anti-christian evolutionist activist. Who, along with his friends, wrote up the paper that defined science as only a naturalistic way to explain something in the teaching process.

Sounds like the stadegy the used to infiltrate Christian seminars, get into key postitions and control the policy. If that was the agenda it has backfired on them, it brought attention to valid criticisms of Darwinism.

 

Dr. Philip S. Skell, speaking as a member of the National Academy of Sciences wrote an open letter to the Kansas State School Board with this to say:

 

"I have been following the controversy over the adoption of new science standards in your state with interest. I am writingâ€â€Âas a member of the National Academy of Sciencesâ€â€Âto voice my strong support for the idea that students should be able to study scientific criticisms of the evidence for modern evolutionary theory along with the evidence favoring the theory.

 

All too often, the issue of how to teach evolutionary theory has been dominated by voices at the extremes. On one extreme, many religious activists have advocated for Bible-based ideas about creation to be taught and for evolution to be eliminated from the science curriculum entirely. On the other hand, many committed Darwinian biologists present students with an idealized version of the theory that glosses over real problems and prevents students from learning about genuine scientific criticisms of it."

 

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/in...%20News&id=2568

 

 

This was not done on a vote by the people. It was done because the newly elected head of the school board had the power to do it. And used his bias views to keep creation out of school. It was the very first thing he did upon entering office. And it was the main goal to getting elected. Shut out creation and I.D. Take away their voice. This just shows how much a threat this is to science.

2834[/snapback]

They want to equate evolution with biology and biology with science, so that anyone who dares question evolution is an enemy of science. This is pure, undiluted nonesense. Biology does not need darwinism, is doesn't need the single common ancestor model, it doesn't need fossils, it doesn't need a lot of old dirt and rocks. Biology is the study of living systems, not dead relics and by the way, biology tells us nothing about our primordial past.

 

They have made a radical and hotly contested suggestion to the Kansas State School Board that has evolutionists running for cover. Teach students biology and the other natural sciences and let them decide for themselves if it's God's handywork or pure chance. Just outragous. :ph34r: