Jump to content


Photo

Creation Tract


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#21 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 July 2009 - 10:56 AM

Hey Adam,

I'm only familiar with the tracts, not the individual. Thanks for the information  :)

View Post

Your welcome.

The only knowledge I have of this, aside from some of the things I've gathered from reading the tracts themselves, is a recording of Walter Martin himself mentioning briefly how he was publicly maligned by Chick and Rivera for his stance of Romanism. Then Walter Martin went on to give the best apologetic I have ever heard between the relationship of protestant teaching and Roman teaching. Martin passed away 20 years ago. He'll be one of the first people I look up in heaven... well, after soaking in worship before the throne, for say about 1000 years, if time can even be stated like that. :lol:

#22 the totton linnet

the totton linnet

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Location:Winchester
  • Interests:Friends, fellowship, stuff
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Winchester, Hampshire

Posted 19 July 2009 - 02:35 PM

I have good friends who are loving fire breathing Baptists B) and they use Chick Tracts. They have a whole wall of them at the church. I wouldn't discourage anyone from using them, I would agree with the vast majority of their content but I don't care for them for personal use.

I guess their main benefit is that they are laid out in a story format. With the premises and conclusions conveniently laid out. I'm always more interested in getting past the tract to a dialogue so ice breakers make more sense for me because I want conversations.

I also feel that Jack Chick himself is a bit of an isolationist when it comes to the body of Christ. He has come down hard on fellow believers in areas that I think are divisive and not brotherly. Walter Martin is one of my all time favorite apologists and his specialty of cult apologetics was priceless in our era. Jack Chick and Alberto Rivera judged Martin harshly because of their disagreement of how to approach and discuss the issues of Roman Catholicism. Sometimes it seems that Chick's warfare is against flesh and blood and not against powers and principalities.

Please don't get me wrong. We all have feet of clay so I'm not Judging Jack T. Chick. I'm simply being open with the fact that I question some of his methods and how he has positioned himself and it shows in some of the tracts. I'm still sure we'll be dancing on the streets of gold together when it's all said and done. :)

That's my fallible opinion.

View Post

*
I love the one with a guy sitting on a park bench with a couple of sausage with big ears type demons, trying to attract his attention to girls and stuff. Suddenly "ooh look out, the enemy!!" a happy looking guy with a bible, he sits down next to the guy "shrieks and howls ooh no don't talk to him etc" of course the guy gets saved, the last caption shows Luce prodding the demons into the hottest flames for fouling up. :rolleyes:
Won some souls with T.L.Osborn tracts. He's a Yankee Doodle. :)

#23 Mankind

Mankind

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southeast

Posted 13 August 2009 - 08:28 AM

I like the Chick tracts because they are splashy and attention getting. I put them in places like hospitals, libraries, gas stations, or wherever I go. The new one just breaks my heart, until the end of course.

http://www.chick.com...059/1059_01.asp

#24 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 21 June 2010 - 08:51 PM

I like the Chick tracts because they are splashy and attention getting.  I put them in places like hospitals, libraries, gas stations, or wherever I go.  The new one just breaks my heart, until the end of course.

http://www.chick.com...059/1059_01.asp

View Post


Personally I find Chick tracts to be too bigotted to be a proper representation of Christianity. He misrepresents the tenets of other religions and basically sets up a stawman in every strip involving them. He does the same thing with evolution, such as in "Big Daddy"...a classic that brings disdain upon Christians where I have seen it discussed on other boards. I find it hard to believe that on balance these tracts do more good than harm.

#25 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 21 June 2010 - 09:13 PM

Personally I find Chick tracts to be too bigotted to be a proper representation of Christianity. He misrepresents the tenets of other religions and basically sets up a stawman in every strip involving them. He does the same thing with evolution, such as in "Big Daddy"...a classic that brings disdain upon Christians where I have seen it discussed on other boards. I find it hard to believe that on balance these tracts do more good than harm.

View Post


No offense, but evolution:

1) Does not save people.
2) Does not support the Bible or creation.
3) There are no theistic evolution crusades to bring people to Christ like Billy Graham crusades.
4) There are no theistic evolution Bible studies.
5) There are no theistic evolution tracts to bring people to Christ.
etc...

When evolution is mixed with God, denial of doing any work for the harvest of souls for the kingdom is automatically denied. Because if evolution were a driving force for what God did, or how He did it. It would also be used as a subject for salvation. But that is not what we see, is it?

Instead we get people who say things like this:

It is Christ, in very truth who saves....but should we not immediately add that at the same time it is Christ who was saved by evolution?

http://www.salvemari..... Religion.htm
http://en.wikipedia....hard_de_Chardin


You see when one mixes evolution with God, God has to take the back seat. And evolution itself becomes god. And the person whom mixes it controls his or her's origins. Making them dictate to God how God did it. Which makes them god which supports humanism and all that goes with it,

#26 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 22 June 2010 - 12:10 AM

No offense, but evolution:

1) Does not save people.
2) Does not support the Bible or creation.
3) There are no theistic evolution crusades to bring people to Christ like Billy Graham crusades.
4) There are no theistic evolution Bible studies.
5) There are no theistic evolution tracts to bring people to Christ.
etc...

When evolution is mixed with God, denial of doing any work for the harvest of souls for the kingdom is automatically denied. Because if evolution were a driving force for what God did, or how He did it. It would also be used as a subject for salvation. But that is not what we see, is it?

Instead we get people who say thing like this:
You see when one mixes evolution with God, God has to take the back seat. And evolution itself becomes god. And the person whom mixes it controls his or her's origins. Making them dictate to God how God did it. Which makes them god which supports humanism and all that goes with it,

View Post


I was discussing Chick Tracts and not "theistic evolution"...but that said, since you have changed the subject of the thread, apparently feeling the need to "call out" thestic evolution, I will make some comments.

In a strict sense I am a creationist, as I accept God as The Creator. But I disagree with much of what you say here. Of course the most basic place I disagree is that I do not consider evolution to be in conflict with the Bible. Most of your other comments are based upon where we do not agree on that point. I disagree with your position about the method He used to bring about His creation.

The only people I see making comments such those you mention about mixing science and God that forces God to take a back seat, are creationists. It is also only creationists that tend to say that evolution is God to some people. I also only see creationists make a claim that evolution forces upon us a god that supports humanism.

I reject your premise that "when evolution is mixed with God, denial of doing any work for the harvest of souls for the kingdom is automatically denied. Because if evolution were a driving force for what God did, or how He did it. It would also be used as a subject for salvation. But that is not what we see, is it?" No so-called "theistic evolutionist" I have encountered views evolution as a subject used for salvation. How is "the kingdom denied" in any way? Holding to this concept also does not prevent evangelism by many denominations.

If I change the first part of your post like this:

Young Earth Creationism

1) Does not save people.
2) Is just one interpretation of the Bible and creation.
3) There are no Young Earth Creationism crusades to bring people to Christ like Billy Graham crusades.
4) Is never discussed in most Bible studies.
5) There are few if any Young Earth Creationist tracts that effectively bring people to Christ.
etc...

Interesting that you bring up Billy Graham, who most certainly did not include Young Earth Creationism in his crusades. I am sure that he was aware that many who would have come to Jesus did not when told by YEC that "No True Christian" can accept the findings of science that point in opposition to YEC beliefs. I have known people that turned their backs on Christ and His Word for this very reason.

"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God." Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, 1997.  p. 72-74


Billy made some additional points I thought about making better than I could, so I just quoted his comments.

Those accepting some form of thestic evolution usually do not make crusades concerning the mechanisms of creation. They do not force their viewpoints on people, and rarely even bring them up until challenged by YEC. Hopefully our focus is more on Christ and His gospel, which when you think about is vastly more important than the details about how His beautiful creation came to be.

#27 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 June 2010 - 03:43 AM

Personally I find Chick tracts to be too bigotted to be a proper representation of Christianity. He misrepresents the tenets of other religions and basically sets up a stawman in every strip involving them.

View Post

Could you point out a few of his bigoted tracts (or bigoted statements with in tracts)? It’s been over thirty years since I’ve seen, much less read a Chick tract; but I don’t remember any such statements.


He does the same thing with evolution, such as in "Big Daddy"...a classic that brings disdain upon Christians where I have seen it discussed on other boards.

View Post

Of course discussions of Christianity is going to bring distain in most places we discuss it. Even Jesus said this was going to happen.


I find it hard to believe that on balance these tracts do more good than harm.

View Post


They had an impact on me way backing the day. The one I remember the most is “Holy Joe” (I think I have the title right). But again, that was over thirty years ago.

#28 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 22 June 2010 - 10:46 AM

I was discussing Chick Tracts and not "theistic evolution"...but that said, since you have changed the subject of the thread, apparently feeling the need to "call out" thestic evolution, I will make some comments.


You are a theistic evolutionist. And you have a problem with tracts that do bring people to salvation. So I combined the two as the bases of why you do have a problem.

In a strict sense I am a creationist, as I accept God as The Creator. But I disagree with much of what you say here. Of course the most basic place I disagree is that I do not consider evolution to be in conflict with the Bible. Most of your other comments are based upon where we do not agree on that point. I disagree with your position about the method He used to bring about His creation.


Does God lie? Evolution says He did lie. And if you don't think so, then show where in the creation that evolution is supported?

In fact, since Genesis does not support evolution at all. Would you re-write it or just remove it? The reason I ask is because to make the Bible not conflict with evolution (science) one has to re-write or remove Genesis to make it work.

Evolution is the direct opposite of creation for a reason. The person who thought it up, and the ones who supported from the very beginning were either X-Christians (Darwin), or admitted atheists (Lyell, Huxley, and Haeckel).

The only people I see making comments such those you mention about mixing science and God that forces God to take a back seat, are creationists. It is also only creationists that tend to say that evolution is God to some people. I also only see creationists make a claim that evolution forces upon us a god that supports humanism.


Either you take the Bible literally because God cannot lie (YEC), or you don't and try to insert things that clearly don't fit (theistic evolution). Creation existed way before evolution. So if creation is a lie, then everyone who believed it before evolution went to Hell.

1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

When you omit, change, or remove. You also change God to what "you" want Him to be. Which makes God into a Genie to do your bidding.

I reject your premise that "when evolution is mixed with God, denial of doing any work for the harvest of souls for the kingdom is automatically denied. Because if evolution were a driving force for what God did, or how He did it. It would also be used as a subject for salvation. But that is not what we see, is it?" No so-called "theistic evolutionist" I have encountered views evolution as a subject used for salvation. How is "the kingdom denied" in any way? Holding to this concept also does not prevent evangelism by many denominations.

If I change the first part of your post like this:

Young Earth Creationism

1) Does not save people.
2) Is just one interpretation of the Bible and creation.
3) There are no Young Earth Creationism crusades to bring people to Christ like Billy Graham crusades.
4) Is never discussed in most Bible studies.
5) There are few if any Young Earth Creationist tracts that effectively bring people to Christ.
etc...


Evolution is implied twice in God's word:

rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

deut 32:18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.

Do you not think that an all knowing God would not know that evolution would be a huge part of what man would believe and try to prove?

Interesting that you bring up Billy Graham, who most certainly did not include Young Earth Creationism in his crusades. I am sure that he was aware that many who would have come to Jesus did not when told by YEC that "No True Christian" can accept the findings of science that point in opposition to YEC beliefs. I have known people that turned their backs on Christ and His Word for this very reason.
Billy made some additional points I thought about making better than I could, so I just quoted his comments.


Billy Graham was more of an expert on the human condition and how God could help them. Not every person who evangelizes will know a lot about creation and science in order to make a intelligent decision based on enough information.

Also, those who turn their backs because they prefer man's truth over God's truth is their own fault. Reversing the guilt to blame YEC's for it will not change the reality of how we will be judged upon standing before Christ or God.

But if you want to play the blame game. I can bet there are 100 times more people who have totally lost their faith in God because of evolution. So hows does a supposed tool for God also work as a tool for Satan?

Those accepting some form of thestic evolution usually do not make crusades concerning the mechanisms of creation. They do not force their viewpoints on people, and rarely even bring them up until challenged by YEC. Hopefully our focus is more on Christ and His gospel, which when you think about is vastly more important than the details about how His beautiful creation came to be.

View Post


Which supports what I said in that list. What is true you should not be ashamed of. I am not ashamed of YEC because it is fully supported in God's word. Kingdom works means you use all the knowledge of the Bible to convince people of salvation. If you prefer not to use evolution as a salvation subject, it's because you know something yet are unwilling to admit it.

I find that most theistic evolutionists think that believing this way bridges some type of Gap. There is a reason the gap exists from the very beginning of the idea. It never belonged. And Darwin was not comparing notes with the Bible as he thought it up.

Also, most theistic evolutionists believe in a type of universalism. Where most all people will go to Heaven, and only the real bad people go to hell. In other words, where Christ says:

rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

That even the lukewarm will enter Heaven.

But still, you don't see evolution used in tracts to save people. What is of God has the drawing power unto salvation. Why?

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

God has control over the drawing power to His Son. Which means that what draws people unto salvation first has to be approved of by God. Which explains why evolution does not meet that criteria.

#29 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 24 June 2010 - 07:07 AM

Could you point out a few of his bigoted tracts (or bigoted statements with in tracts)? It’s been over thirty years since I’ve seen, much less read a Chick tract; but I don’t remember any such statements.
Of course discussions of Christianity is going to bring distain in most places we discuss it. Even Jesus said this was going to happen.
They had an impact on me way backing the day. The one I remember the most is “Holy Joe” (I think I have the title right). But again, that was over thirty years ago.

View Post


My point about bringing disdain upon Christianity was that those who were angered were not angry at Christ or Christianity per se, but with the hatred in Jack Chick's works. Some made this a guilt by association thing.

He did a strip about Muslims claiming that they worshipped a moon god. Muhammad basically split from being a worshipper in what he thought was a pure form of Jewish belief. I think this idea is false and based upon poor archeology and ignoring what is contained in the Koran.

In another about Mormon missionaries, "The Visitors"... false claims about Mormon doctrine are made. Much is based upon writings of early Mormon leaders that have not been central to the Mormon faith in about 150 years. It claims that Mormons believe God is having "spirit children" to this day, which I don't think they ever taught. It cites a non-official book that claimed that non-valiant spirits in a pre-existence were born with black skins. The author himself later repudiated this as did the President of the Mormon church. This is making claims of racism beyond the real facts. The strip claims Mormons teach that Jesus was married to Mary and Martha. This is not official doctrine and Mormon missionaries would never teach this.

"The Death Cookie" and other tracts take a swing at Catholics. This one is one of the worst in terms of hate-mongering, but it does have a comic sub-plot involving a cat and bird.

Here are just a few things you will "learn" if you start reading Chick tracts and comic books:

The Catholic Church keeps "the name of every Protestant church member in the world" in a "big computer" in the Vatican for use in future persecutions.

But the conspiracy is much broader than this, and it has been going on for a very long time. In the sixth century, for instance, Catholic leaders manipulated the Arabian tribesman Mohammed into creating the religion of Islam to use as a weapon against the Jews and to conquer Jerusalem for the pope.
   
The Jesuits instigated the American Civil War, supporting the Confederate cause and seeking to undermine the Union. When they failed, they arranged the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.Later, they formed the Ku Klux Klan.

"Jesuits worked closely with Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin" to create Communism, and it was "believed that soon . . . Communism would rise up as the new strong daughter of the Vatican." It was Rome that instigated the Bolshevik Revolution and the murder of the czar’s family. The Communist "liberation theology" movement also is a Vatican plot.

The Nazi Holocaust of the 1940s was a Vatican-controlled attempt to exterminate Jews and heretics.Further, "Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were backed by the Vatican for the purpose of setting up a one-world government to usher in the ‘Millennial Kingdom’ under Pope Pius XII."
   
The Vatican conspiracy is so extensive that, through the Jesuits, Rome controls the Illuminati, the Council on Foreign Relations, international bankers, the Mafia, the Club of Rome, the Masons, and the New Age movement.
   
The Jesuits created the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, Unity, Christian Science, and other religious groups.
   
"Pope John Paul II has been a good Communist for many years" and engineered a phony assassination attempt against himself in 1981 to shame Islam into warming relations with the Vatican, since the would-be killer was a Muslim.

Tracts are only one of the ways Chick spreads his messages of hate and paranoia. His website (www.chick.com) lists large-size comic books, posters, booklets, books, videos, and DVDs for sale. Still, it is the tracts for which he is most famous. According to Chick Publications, more than 500 million of them have been distributed.


Catholics

#30 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 24 June 2010 - 07:42 AM

You are a theistic evolutionist. And you have a problem with tracts that do bring people to salvation. So I combined the two as the bases of why you do have a problem.
Does God lie? Evolution says He did lie. And if you don't think so, then show where in the creation that evolution is supported?

In fact, since Genesis does not support evolution at all. Would you re-write it or just remove it? The reason I ask is because to make the Bible not conflict with evolution (science) one has to re-write or remove Genesis to make it work.

Evolution is the direct opposite of creation for a reason. The person who thought it up, and the ones who supported from the very beginning were either X-Christians (Darwin), or admitted atheists (Lyell, Huxley, and Haeckel).
Either you take the Bible literally because God cannot lie (YEC), or you don't and try to insert things that clearly don't fit (theistic evolution). Creation existed way before evolution. So if creation is a lie, then everyone who believed it before evolution went to Hell.

1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

When you omit, change, or remove. You also change God to what "you" want Him to be. Which makes God into a Genie to do your bidding.
Evolution is implied twice in God's word:

rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

deut 32:18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.

Do you not think that an all knowing God would not know that evolution would be a huge part of what man would believe and try to prove?
Billy Graham was more of an expert on the human condition and how God could help them. Not every person who evangelizes will know a lot about creation and science in order to make a intelligent decision based on enough information.

Also, those who turn their backs because they prefer man's truth over God's truth is their own fault. Reversing the guilt to blame YEC's for it will not change the reality of how we will be judged upon standing before Christ or God.

But if you want to play the blame game. I can bet there are 100 times more people who have totally lost their faith in God because of evolution. So hows does a supposed tool for God also work as a tool for Satan?
Which supports what I said in that list. What is true you should not be ashamed of. I am not ashamed of YEC because it is fully supported in God's word. Kingdom works means you use all the knowledge of the Bible to convince people of salvation. If you prefer not to use evolution as a salvation subject, it's because you know something yet are unwilling to admit it.

I find that most theistic evolutionists think that believing this way bridges some type of Gap. There is a reason the gap exists from the very beginning of the idea. It never belonged. And Darwin was not comparing notes with the Bible as he thought it up.

Also, most theistic evolutionists believe in a type of universalism. Where most all people will go to Heaven, and only the real bad people go to hell. In other words, where Christ says:

rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

That even the lukewarm will enter Heaven.

But still, you don't see evolution used in tracts to save people. What is of God has the drawing power unto salvation. Why?

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

God has control over the drawing power to His Son. Which means that what draws people unto salvation first has to be approved of by God. Which explains why evolution does not meet that criteria.

View Post


I am against tracts that lie and foster hatred based upon those lies. If someone is brought to Jesus through these it is a miracle. But I'll bet more souls are lost than gained by Chick Tracts. Jack Chick is quite possibly in it largely for the money.

This subject about how YEC have a disdain for those who do not have the same trouble reconciling modern science and their Christian faith has been endlessly debated. I am tired of being involved in such with YEC because they almost inevitably start into saying or implying that to believe other than the way they do is to call God a liar. They claim or imply a conspiracy by scientists to oppose God using evolution when none existed. Darwin was troubled by what he found in his studies and the conflicts it caused with his faith. It was not that he lost his faith and then set out to disprove God. Then they cite scriptures that do not make the points they are trying to support.

I don't hold to same literal interpretation of Genesis. It neither supports or rejects evolution in my opinion. The Bible is not a science book and never was intended to be one. This ends up being a difference of opinions with the major difference that non-YEC usually do not claim that that a contrary interpretation is against God's word but just a misunderstanding. There are far more important places of focus than to get hung up on Genesis.

. Creation existed way before evolution. So if creation is a lie, then everyone who believed it before evolution went to Hell.


I don't know what point you are making here unless it is something about the history of science. But to me it does not matter since salvation is not based upon a belief in "creation"or "evolution"....it comes from belief in Christ. Why would anybody's belief in "creation" cause them to go to hell?

But you have succeeded in turning the discussion away from what the thread was about...that said, once again I have little interest in continuing this because The YEC side ends up condemning the other side and really has no interest in what others say.
I also think that Billy Graham probably knows more about theology than you give him credit, more than either you or I do. I would bet he also has a firmer grasp on science than the average YEC.

#31 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 24 June 2010 - 04:24 PM

I am against tracts that lie and foster hatred based upon those lies. If someone is brought to Jesus through these it is a miracle. But I'll bet more souls are lost than gained by Chick Tracts. Jack Chick is quite possibly in it largely for the money.


If there are no absolutes, and truth is relative, what makes a lie a lie?

This subject about how YEC have a disdain for those who do not have the same trouble reconciling modern science and their Christian faith has been endlessly debated. I am tired of being involved in such with YEC because they almost inevitably start into saying or implying that to believe other than the way they do is to call God a liar. They claim or imply a conspiracy by scientists to oppose God using evolution when none existed. Darwin was troubled by what he found in his studies and the conflicts it caused with his faith. It was not that he lost his faith and then set out to disprove God. Then they cite scriptures that do not make the points they are trying to support.


And you are here for what reason? And what do you have to disagree with in order to prove it?

I don't hold to same literal interpretation of Genesis. It neither supports or rejects evolution in my opinion. The Bible is not a science book and never was intended to be one. This ends up being a difference of opinions with the major difference that non-YEC usually do not claim that that a contrary interpretation is against God's word but just a misunderstanding. There are far more important places of focus than to get hung up on Genesis.


No literal word means no literal God.

I don't know what point you are making here unless it is something about the history of science. But to me it does not matter since salvation is not based upon a belief in "creation"or "evolution"....it comes from belief in Christ. Why would anybody's belief in "creation" cause them to go to hell?


James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Knoweth = knowledge. So as a believer learns what the word says, they are held accountable for it. Why? Because the word is where we even learn about God or His Son. So greater knowledge concerning God = Greater judgment.

But you have succeeded in turning the discussion away from what the thread was about...that said, once again I have little interest in continuing this because The YEC side ends up condemning the other side and really has no interest in what others say.


No. I have brought the problem to it's core issue. And it's ironic about the rest that you say because I can make examples from your side that are the same as what you accuse the other of doing.

I also think that Billy Graham probably knows more about theology than you give him credit, more than either you or I do. I would bet he also has a firmer grasp on science than the average YEC.

View Post


Maybe. But about science. He is only smarter that any other YEC because he agrees with you. According to evolutionists, anyone who agrees with them is always smarter than anyone who don't. If you need an example, Look at what evolutionist did to Ben Stein just because he disagrees. And he is more educated than most. But now he is considered stupid for what reason? Because he disagreed with the one subject that makes everyone smart just by agreeing. <_<

You complain about debating YEC, but yet no one forced you to join this forum did they?

#32 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 26 June 2010 - 01:04 AM

"I am against tracts that lie and foster hatred based upon those lies. If someone is brought to Jesus through these it is a miracle. But I'll bet more souls are lost than gained by Chick Tracts. Jack Chick is quite possibly in it largely for the money."

If there are no absolutes, and truth is relative, what makes a lie a lie?


Yes, what I said is my opinion. You may disagree with that or you can make a declaration of philosophy that avoids giving your own opinion. But to me to knowingly bear false witness is not a thing to be taken lightly.

"This subject about how YEC have a disdain for those who do not have the same trouble reconciling modern science and their Christian faith has been endlessly debated. I am tired of being involved in such with YEC because they almost inevitably start into saying or implying that to believe other than the way they do is to call God a liar. They claim or imply a conspiracy by scientists to oppose God using evolution when none existed. Darwin was troubled by what he found in his studies and the conflicts it caused with his faith. It was not that he lost his faith and then set out to disprove God. Then they cite scriptures that do not make the points they are trying to support."

And you are here for what reason? And what do you have to disagree with in order to prove it?


In a previous post I said my reason was to defend the science of geology from misconception, and also to defend Christianity. I will defend Christianity against misconceptions as well as geology. To accomplish this I will disagree with misconceptions as I find them.

"I don't hold to same literal interpretation of Genesis. It neither supports or rejects evolution in my opinion. The Bible is not a science book and never was intended to be one. This ends up being a difference of opinions with the major difference that non-YEC usually do not claim that that a contrary interpretation is against God's word but just a misunderstanding. There are far more important places of focus than to get hung up on Genesis."

No literal word means no literal God. 


Interesting idea, but wrong in my opinion. There could be a literal God with no word at all at, literal or of any other form or kind.

"I don't know what point you are making here unless it is something about the history of science. But to me it does not matter since salvation is not based upon a belief in "creation"or "evolution"....it comes from belief in Christ. Why would anybody's belief in "creation" cause them to go to hell?"

James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Knoweth = knowledge. So as a believer learns what the word says, they are held accountable for it. Why? Because the word is where we even learn about God or His Son. So greater knowledge concerning God = Greater judgment.


Yes, I agree in general. I'm not sure that greater knowledge of God is in a straight equation with greater judgment. But I do not agree that evolution or belief in an old earth have anything to do with this. That is possibly a difference between us I guess.

"But you have succeeded in turning the discussion away from what the thread was about...that said, once again I have little interest in continuing this because The YEC side ends up condemning the other side and really has no interest in what others say."

No. I have brought the problem to it's core issue. And it's ironic about the rest that you say because I can make examples from your side that are the same as what you accuse the other of doing.


No, you really went off subject. Say that I had been a Muslim making the same original post giving my opinion about Chick tracts. Let us go one step further and say that I was a Muslim that does not agree with evolution. Your response right out of the gate was a thesis about evolution being incorrect and not about the tracts, which was not the subject at hand.

"I also think that Billy Graham probably knows more about theology than you give him credit, more than either you or I do. I would bet he also has a firmer grasp on science than the average YEC.

Maybe. But about science. He is only smarter that any other YEC because he agrees with you. According to evolutionists, anyone who agrees with them is always smarter than anyone who don't. If you need an example, Look at what evolutionist did to Ben Stein just because he disagrees. And he is more educated than most. But now he is considered stupid for what reason? Because he disagreed with the one subject that makes everyone smart just by agreeing. rolleyes.gif


You have interjected something that I didn't post and then continued on to to argue with the strawman you created. I didn't make any claim about Graham's intelligence, but you insinuate that I did. I clearly do not think Ben Stein is stupid. I know he is very intelligent and all the posts I have seen "evolutionists" make him are not about his native intelligence, but that they feel he twists facts to convey messages that are not always true. My thought about Graham is that he is better read about science than the average YEC. For that matter he is also better read than the average person in general.

You complain about debating YEC, but yet no one forced you to join this forum did they?


I said I was tired of being confronted by YEC about my Christian beliefs in a way or form that I do not use in retaliation. This was also in context of the fact that "evolution" and "theistic evolution" were not a subject of the thread until you decided to made the discussion veer in that direction instead of staying on subject.

Usually some form of "No True Scotsman" is set forth by YEC when they set out to criticize Christians who do no agree with their specific YEC beliefs. I think any believing Christian would find an accusation that they are no a Christian and that they are calling God a liar would be hurtful. The basis for that liar statements is another strawman. The person making the accusation makes a claim for what scripture says. Then they claim to believe otherwise makes the person who believes differently someone who calls God a liar. That person does not because they do not hold to the accuser's interpretation. I think we would both agree that a believing Christian would not call God a liar, at least not and feel good about it. It is inconsistent with how Christians view God in my opinion.

#33 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 26 June 2010 - 02:08 AM

Yes, what I said is my opinion. You may disagree with that or you can make a declaration of philosophy that avoids giving your own opinion. But to me to knowingly bear false witness is not a thing to be taken lightly.


So what is the false witness that is being beared?

In a previous post I said my reason was to defend the science of geology from misconception, and also to defend Christianity. I will defend Christianity against misconceptions as well as geology. To accomplish this I will disagree with misconceptions as I find them.


And when it comes to your defense of God's word and the defense of evolution which happens to disagree. Which will you "always" Choose? Therefore what you put before God becomes god.

Interesting idea, but wrong in my opinion. There could be a literal God with no word at all at, literal or of any other form or kind.


To believe in evolution, does it not require you to believe in it literally to a point and deny certain parts of the Bible that conflict?

Yes, I agree in general. I'm not sure that greater knowledge of God is in a straight equation with greater judgment. But I do not agree that evolution or belief in an old earth have anything to do with this. That is possibly a difference between us I guess.


What you or I believe does not make a difference on the reality of God, creation, or His judgment. What God's word says does. And if you think God's word is not true, then in Heaven God will ask you to prove that. And what would be your answer?

No, you really went off subject. Say that I had been a Muslim making the same original post giving my opinion about Chick tracts. Let us go one step further and say that I was a Muslim that does not agree with evolution. Your response right out of the gate was a thesis about evolution being incorrect and not about the tracts, which was not the subject at hand.


So what you are saying here is that a person's world view does matter because it does not effect his opinion on an issue such as this? And that the real problem is my world view and not yours?

You have interjected something that I didn't post and then continued on to to argue with the strawman you created. I didn't make any claim about Graham's intelligence, but you insinuate that I did. I clearly do not think Ben Stein is stupid. I know he is very intelligent and all the posts I have seen "evolutionists" make him are not about his native intelligence, but that they feel he twists facts to convey messages that are not always true. My thought about Graham is that he is better read about science than the average YEC. For that matter he is  also better read than the average person in general.


What you said: I would bet he also has a firmer grasp on science than the average YEC.

You did the interjection here. I just took what you said and applied it. So what you say is not what you mean? Having debated for more than 10 years, I know what's being implied. Not my problem if you have to beat around the bush so that you can always back peddle on everything you say.

I said I was tired of being confronted by YEC about my Christian beliefs in a way or form that I do not use in retaliation. This was also in context of the fact that "evolution" and  "theistic evolution" were not a subject of the thread until you decided to made the discussion veer in that direction instead of staying on subject.


If you are that committed to evolution to where you prefer to cause strife in the Body of Christ. Why not just fully commit to evolution and deny God totally? You already have made it clear that you don't and won't get along with any Christian who dares to take the word literally. And that you won't accept correction from the word but will correct the word using evolution. You are more than 90% totally denying God, it's just one more step.

You might be offended by what I say, but anyone whom will not commit, and has a problem with people who will. Does more harm to the body of Christ than a admitted atheist. How? Because you discourage those who have the guts to step beyond the norm and become a better Christian. Instead you make people feel guilty and embarrassed for doing this. It's not my problem that you are unwilling to commit and yet try to blame others for what you refuse to do. Yes I am offended.

Do you actually think evolution is going to be your free pass during judgment for denying the word of God?

Usually some form of "No True Scotsman" is set forth by YEC when they set out to criticize Christians who do no agree with their specific YEC beliefs. I think any believing Christian would find an accusation that they are no a Christian and that they are calling God a liar would be hurtful. The basis for that liar statements is another strawman. The person making the accusation makes a claim for what scripture says. Then they claim to believe otherwise makes the person who believes differently someone who calls God a liar. That person does not because they do not hold to the accuser's interpretation. I think we would both agree that a believing Christian would not call God a liar, at least not and feel good about it. It is inconsistent with how Christians view God in my opinion.

View Post


So is it Christ or Darwin that sits on the right hand of God?
Does Christ's shed blood save you, or Darwin's theory?
Will the world end if people upon this planet deny evolution?
Will God accept you into heaven based on your denial or acceptance of His Alpha (creation).
And if your goal as a Christian is to enter Heaven, then why chance it by accepting what is not supported in God's word? Is evolution worth risking eternal damnation over?

#34 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 03 August 2016 - 02:34 PM

No offense, but evolution:

1) Does not save people.
2) Does not support the Bible or creation.
3) There are no theistic evolution crusades to bring people to Christ like Billy Graham crusades.
4) There are no theistic evolution Bible studies.
5) There are no theistic evolution tracts to bring people to Christ.
etc...

When evolution is mixed with God, denial of doing any work for the harvest of souls for the kingdom is automatically denied. Because if evolution were a driving force for what God did, or how He did it. It would also be used as a subject for salvation. But that is not what we see, is it?

Instead we get people who say things like this:


You see when one mixes evolution with God, God has to take the back seat. And evolution itself becomes god. And the person whom mixes it controls his or her's origins. Making them dictate to God how God did it. Which makes them god which supports humanism and all that goes with it,

 

Evolution becomes at least a paradigm by which the world is saved, but to take the list that you gave there. 

 

1) Does not save people.
2) Does not support the Bible or creation.
3) There are no theistic evolution crusades to bring people to Christ like Billy Graham crusades.
4) There are no theistic evolution Bible studies.
5) There are no theistic evolution tracts to bring people to Christ.

 

In a way this all exists, but in another direction:
1) Evolution forms the basis for several "emancipation" ideologies, like Marxism. 

2) Evolution does support a Materialistic Cosmology and Ontology.

3) There is "crusades" to promote Evolution by Academics, Dawkins probably being the most famous apostle

4) There was higher text criticism to deconstruct the biblical text and to claim that it contradicts "historical record" insinuating that what Historians believe about the past is a precise reflection about the real past. Evolution fits that mode of thinking since it can be used to contradict the earliest part of Genesis.

5) There is lots of literature to promote Evolution, to a large extend paid and promoted for by the tax payer and government, it's essential to prime kids for secular humanism. Doubts about Evolution as "truth" would make this more difficult. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users