Congressman calls evolution lie from 'pit of hell'

[go2church]

This issue is not simply a matter of opinion. Which view becomes the guiding philosophy of law and public policy? Which one receives legal sanction as truth?

If Darwinism is not true, then you believe a lie, and any effort to defend it is irrational.

Note your own use of the word "IF".

I, nor does anyone else for that matter, have all the answers surrounding creation. There are many more questions then there are answers at this point in human history.

 

[saturneptune]

Saturneptune, you've mentioned this several times and, if I understand correctly, you base this on the link that you provided earlier.

One of the soapboxes that I often pull out these days is the need (desire?) to know as much as possible before making anything the basis of my belief. It was a tough lesson to learn with regards to what I thought I knew about evolution. (The primary subject of this thread.)

Additionally, throughout my life I've seen the truth emerge after someone was tarred and feathered. Probably the most widely known example is the Duke LaCross players accused of rape. Friends and family were ready to put them under the jail when the news reports were aired. My plea to them was to wait and see. As Paul Harvey used to say "And now for the rest of the story". Well, we've heard the rest of that story.

IMO, this is a similar situation. I want to know the rest of the story. Especially in view of the outrage that's being expressed over his remarks during his testimony at a church event. (A few minutes with a search engine will reveal the depth of hatred - valid use, IMO, in this case - that is being brought against this man. For example: (a mild one compared to some)


Using clues in the original link, I went hunting. To make a long story short, I don't know all of the truth yet.


So far, I'll I've been able to find is an allegation regarding approximately $30,000 in interest on campaign loans as noted in the referenced link. While I don't know all the truth yet, it appears the allegation that he put money in his own pocket is inaccurate. At most the allegation should have been improper handling of reporting forms for campaign finances. Forms that have been (are being) amended.



CREW - "His ethics issues stem from his failure to disclose the true source and terms of his campaign loans"


So far, there is no evidence that he's "enriching himself" from loans and campaign funds. From what I've found so far, even the loans themselves aren't questionable. How they were reported is what's being brought into question.

More later.... time to get ready to go to church for Wednesday morning Bible study -- always seeking the truth in God's word.

That is exactly were I am headed, but have to drive the van route also. Maybe some history about the experience of our church is in order. Back in the 80s, we had a long time conservative Congressman named Carroll Hubbard. He was a Democrat, yes, but extremely conservative, pro life, and generally, pro Republican in Presidential elections. He spoke at many churches in our area, ours being one. He appeared to be an upright person, and claimed a rich Christian heritage. Well, he was involved in the Postal scandal that got several Represenatives. He was convicted of several counts of fraud and served a short prison sentence. Since then, he has tried to be reelected to several state level offices without success, in fact this year, he is again running for state senate. After another Democrat serving a two year term, we elected our first Republican Congressman Ed Whitfield, and he has been in office over twenty years. I suppose that is the point where most in our church became very leary of politicians.

It would probably not be fair to say that if someone was wanting to serve others, they would not have become a politician in the first place, but surfice to say, the mud slinging back and forth to obtain power needs to be kept outside the only sacred institution left in America.

I think about how much I admired President Nixon, and then my mind turns to the quality of Presidential candidates since Reagan left office. When one thinks of the present day Congress, all one sees are political games played for this side or that side to stay in power. There is not one ounce of effort to serve American citizens. They take off more days that they assemble and do nothing. One side would like us to believe that they are taking a stand against this or that for our benefit, and the purpose at the core of their beings is continued political power and our tax dollars.

Getting back to this person, if he is going to carry his message into a church, then it is his responsibility to avoid any appearance of wrong doing, regardless if he is technically correct or not.

I would like to know how many here would have invited this guy to their church?

 

[saturneptune]

Note your own use of the word "IF".

I, nor does anyone else for that matter, have all the answers surrounding creation. There are many more questions then there are answers at this point in human history.

Again, this is not an issue of the mode of Creation, it is a question about the motive of a politician. I totally agree with Aaron and Old Timer about Creation.

 

[quantumfaith]

Note your own use of the word "IF".

I, nor does anyone else for that matter, have all the answers surrounding creation. There are many more questions then there are answers at this point in human history.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[OldRegular]

I, nor does anyone else for that matter, have all the answers surrounding creation. There are many more questions then there are answers at this point in human history.

The wording and punctuation in the above sentence indicate that you have all the answers in creation. May I say that I do also; as does the Bible. God spoke and it was so!

 

[Oldtimer]

That is exactly were I am headed, but have to drive the van route also. Maybe some history about the experience of our church is in order. Back in the 80s, we had a long time conservative Congressman named Carroll Hubbard. He was a Democrat, yes, but extremely conservative, pro life, and generally, pro Republican in Presidential elections. He spoke at many churches in our area, ours being one. He appeared to be an upright person, and claimed a rich Christian heritage. Well, he was involved in the Postal scandal that got several Represenatives. He was convicted of several counts of fraud and served a short prison sentence. Since then, he has tried to be reelected to several state level offices without success, in fact this year, he is again running for state senate. After another Democrat serving a two year term, we elected our first Republican Congressman Ed Whitfield, and he has been in office over twenty years. I suppose that is the point where most in our church became very leary of politicians.

It would probably not be fair to say that if someone was wanting to serve others, they would not have become a politician in the first place, but surfice to say, the mud slinging back and forth to obtain power needs to be kept outside the only sacred institution left in America.

I think about how much I admired President Nixon, and then my mind turns to the quality of Presidential candidates since Reagan left office. When one thinks of the present day Congress, all one sees are political games played for this side or that side to stay in power. There is not one ounce of effort to serve American citizens. They take off more days that they assemble and do nothing. One side would like us to believe that they are taking a stand against this or that for our benefit, and the purpose at the core of their beings is continued political power and our tax dollars.

Getting back to this person, if he is going to carry his message into a church, then it is his responsibility to avoid any appearance of wrong doing, regardless if he is technically correct or not.

I would like to know how many here would have invited this guy to their church?

First, I'm probably as leary of politicans, as you are, in general. Far, far too many these days are crooks, IMO. I'm most familiar with those at our local government levels and for 9 out of every 10 I'd spit out the fruit they bear. FWIW and for example, as a Republican I've even voted for Democrat candidates for county commissioner if they are associated, in any way, with land development in the private sector. I've seen too many go into local politics just to be in the position to affect how local government can line their pockets.

Like you, I've seen political leaders disgraced at a minimum and those serving jail time, too. Part of my point is that I've also the same thing with "Christian" religious leaders. Pastors, too, have been disgraced and some have gone to jail. There are preachers both disgraced and undisgraced that I wouldn't want to set foot in our church. That is unless they come to confess their sins and repent.

Back to political leaders.... Using 9 out of 10, as mentioned above, individually I don't put all 10 in the same catagory. Sometimes there's 1 out of 10 to consider. That's what I'm doing right now. Considering that Paul Broun may be, indeed, 1 out of 10. So far, he appears to be just that.

I'm not saying he's anything close to being perfect. No human being on this earth, including me, can come within a country mile of doing everything they should to walk in perfect accord with our Saviour. I stumble everyday. Some days far worse than others. Because I fail, does that mean that I should be labeled a lukewarm Christian and be spued out of our church? Should I label ALL politicians the same way, including those who give testimony to our Lord? Or, should I look for the 1 on 10?

Agree with you that we should try to avoid giving the appearance of evil in everything we do and say. That's far easier to say than to do in real life. If I want to make vanilla extract from vanilla beans I have to go to the ABC store for the alcohol needed. If a church member sees me coming out with a brown paper bag, they have to make a choice. Either seek the truth or tell the congregation that Oldtimer is a drunk.

Here I'm seeking the truth of what has been considered evil that may be based only on "appearance". From what I've gathered so far, a third party firm was hired to do the paperwork necessary for compliance with campaign reporting requirements. A particular form was not submitted. (Can't remember the schedule number/ID of that form.) While Broun and his campaign committee have responsibility for making sure that everything is done correctly, my question is was he aware, at the time, that the appearance of evil was underway? So far, there's nothing that indicates that he was.

IMO, we should support these 1 in 10, everytime we find them, regardless of whether they are politicians, lawyers, used car salesmen, or any other occupation that carries a similar sterotype. For these 1 in 10, give them the benefit of doubt, until it's proven that they are, indeed, dispicable. If that happens, cast them aside as the trash they are. Wipe their dust off our feet.

Thanks to In The Light, I finally was able to listen to his entire testimony. I'd looked for it but had only found the short version that was being used against him. I listened with the intent to see if it was a campaign speech disguised as a testimony. The only campaigning I heard was against the same one at whom we should all throw mud at every God given opportunity.

In closing, and in answer to your last question. Yes, if I were in the position to do so, I would invite him to speak before our congregation, based on what I know at this time. His testimony, while varying in details, was very similar to the one given by the lead speaker at our last sportsman event. Men did come to Christ that night, some of which we didn't know about until months later. If Paul Broun can lead one lost soul to Christ through his testimony, it doesn't matter whether he's a politician or a ____________ when he steps to the microphone .

 

[Oldtimer]

Amen OT....thank you for all your "fair and balanced" hard work and investigation about this matter. Methinks you would make a great investigative reporter! God bless you brother. I'll look forward to meeting you one day (and benefiting from the experience). You are a far better "detail" person that I am....probably more patient as well.:thumbsup:

Bro.Greg:type:

Thank you for your kind words, Brother Greg.

I know that we'll be meeting someday. Perhaps not in this time on earth, as we'll have eternity in fellowship with each other and our Saviour. To learn, first hand, from Him "The rest of the story".

 

[Oldtimer]

Come now Bro. Greg, you know that is not what I was saying. There are foundational truths that anchor Christianity and to remove or compromise them in some way ends up destroying Christianity itself. The divinity of Jesus and the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus are just a couple of examples.

A literal 6 day 24 hour creation is not however one of those foundational truths. Ones salvation does not hinge on your acceptance of this interpretation.

Go2church, we have no idea of the thief's interpretation of anything when he hung on a cross beside our Saviour. The only thing we know for sure is that he asked Jesus to remember him. We know that because it was recorded in the scriptures.

When we cast doubt on creation as recorded in Genesis, don't we also cast doubt on.....

Luke 23: KJB
41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

It took me a long time to realize that's exactly what I was doing with my theistic evolution interpretation of God's word. Even today, satan keeps trying to push the shadows of those doubts back into my mind's thinking. As time goes on, it's becoming easier and easier to push them out again. As I now have help that I also failed to acknowledge back in the days of my own interpretation of Genesis.

 

[OldRegular]

If God did not create why would He redeem?

 

[Revmitchell]

If God did not create why would He redeem?

Who said He did not create?

 

[Baptist4life]

So.....you don't believe it is EVER RIGHT to come to the place in Christian belief where you take a narrow, one-sided, dogmatic, live and die by that belief, "this is my conviction" position? What is wrong with being a fundamentalist?

For the record...I happen to dogmaticly believe that the first 11 Chapters of Genesis (and more of course) is the real historical foundation upon which the truth of the rest of the Word of God is built. If you discount any of that then you might as well discard the rest of the Bible. That is ground worth fighting for. I believe people can be saved and not understand all of the truth in the Bible when they are first born-again BUT....I don't believe anyone can be genuinely saved and persist in rejecting any part of it as being untrue. That is my personal opinion but I am extremely comfortable with it. You can't accept by faith the Lord Jesus Christ, one of whose names is "the Word" (John 1:1-3,14) and reject any part of the scriptures as untrue or unauthoritative. Nowwhere in scripture is there ANY evidence of the lie we call evolution. God created the universe,this world,and every living thing on it by the word of His mouth and His mighty will. End of story (at least about that). Any other theory is a lie of Satan.

Bro.Greg

:applause: :applause: :applause:

 

[OldRegular]

Who said He did not create?

Some on this Forum seem to have doubts!

 

[preachinjesus]

Like who?

Instead of making blanket statements and veiled accusations, why don't you let us all know who doesn't believe God created.

We will all benefit from the exchange and opportunity for clarity.

 

[Revmitchell]

Some on this Forum seem to have doubts!

It has been my experience that everyone I have come across on this board over the many years believes that God created everything according to a strict interpretation of the creation account in Genesis or some others believe God created everything through the method of evolution otherwise known as theistic evolution. Just because that is wrong does not justify the accusation that they do not believe God created everything.

 

[Aaron]

Note your own use of the word "IF".

I, nor does anyone else for that matter, have all the answers surrounding creation. There are many more questions then there are answers at this point in human history.

We have been given more than you wish to accept. Why is it that Darwinism receives legal sanction, and Intelligent Design does not?

 

[Revmitchell]

We have been given more than you wish to accept. Why is it that Darwinism receives legal sanction, and Intelligent Design does not?

Because they are afraid of it and its possible influence.

 

[OldRegular]

It has been my experience that everyone I have come across on this board over the many years believes that God created everything according to a strict interpretation of the creation account in Genesis or some others believe God created everything through the method of evolution otherwise known as theistic evolution. Just because that is wrong does not justify the accusation that they do not believe God created everything.

Evolution is not creation and that is a fact! Now some may like to toy with evolution and delude themselves into thinking it is compatible with Scripture but it is not! And that is a fact.

 

[Revmitchell]

Evolution is not creation and that is a fact! Now some may like to toy with evolution and delude themselves into thinking it is compatible with Scripture but it is not! And that is a fact.

And that is irrelevent. You accused people of not believing God created creation. Just because they have that wrong does not lead to they do not believe God created. They can be wrong on how He did it and still believe He created everything. You have created a strawman.

 

[OldRegular]

The following remarks by leading evolutionists [ref. The Modern Creation Trilogy by Henry M. and John. D. Morris] show the absurdity of theistic evolution.

Nobel prize winning biologist Jacques Monod writes:

“Natural selection is the blindest most cruel way of evolving new species. .... I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.”

Evolutionist A. J. Mattell is even more perceptive:

“Those liberal and neo-orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam there was no fall; and if there was no fall, there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result the whole biblical system of salvation collapses. .... Evolution thus becomes the most potent weapon for destroying the Christian faith.”

I would note that the group Bio-Logos is pushing the fallacy that evangelicals must adopt the concept of evolution or die!

 

[Revmitchell]

Evolutionist A. J. Mattell is even more perceptive:

Quote:
“Those liberal and neo-orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam there was no fall; and if there was no fall, there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result the whole biblical system of salvation collapses. .... Evolution thus becomes the most potent weapon for destroying the Christian faith.”

And he is correct. But that still does not add up to Theistic Evolutionists do not believe God created everything. They can and do hold that God used the evolutionary process to create everything.