Critique of Jeri Massi's "Destroyer of the Faith"

[DrJamesAch]

A Critique of Jeri Massi's "Destroyer of the Faith". Do Baptists really use an atheistic model of creationism to explain the universe? Should we keep up with science? What about them hypocrites in the church? Are they legitimate excuses to reject Christianity? http://wp.me/p2K6Yn-gT

Oh, and for the person on here that posted on Jeri's blog that attempted to created a parody of me, a "Phd in theology"? You can do better than that!

 

[quantumfaith]

A Critique of Jeri Massi's "Destroyer of the Faith". Do Baptists really use an atheistic model of creationism to explain the universe? Should we keep up with science? What about them hypocrites in the church? Are they legitimate excuses to reject Christianity? http://wp.me/p2K6Yn-gT

Oh, and for the person on here that posted on Jeri's blog that attempted to created a parody of me, a "Phd in theology"? You can do better than that!

Science does not argue against faith, some (perhaps many) SCIENTISTS do, but science does not.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Science does not argue against faith, some (perhaps many) SCIENTISTS do, but science does not.

I would agree with you on that which is why Paul made the distinction of science FALSELY so-called.

There were many early "Christians" (I say that parenthetically because some were from the RCC) that were renowned scientists that argue for creation and were opposed to Darwin.

This article though was mostly against the atheistic model of scientific explanation of the origins of the universe, and the hypocrisy that JM displayed in claiming to believe the Bible, but requiring that Christians keep apprised of recent scientific discoveries as if they may somehow bring forth new evidence indicting creationism. If one believes the Biblical account of creation, they will always believe that account if they are consistent in their faith, and no new evidence will refute that. And if no evidence has the potential of contradicting the Biblical accounts of creation, then there should be no requirement that Christians as a whole need to remain current on scientific discoveries. Not that such a study is not profitable, but to vilify fundamentalism based on the lack of Christians that are not as versed in science as an atheist may be creates an absurd standard on which to judge fundamentalists.

 

[Yeshua1]

I would agree with you on that which is why Paul made the distinction of science FALSELY so-called.

There were many early "Christians" (I say that parenthetically because some were from the RCC) that were renowned scientists that argue for creation and were opposed to Darwin.

This article though was mostly against the atheistic model of scientific explanation of the origins of the universe, and the hypocrisy that JM displayed in claiming to believe the Bible, but requiring that Christians keep apprised of recent scientific discoveries as if they may somehow bring forth new evidence indicting creationism. If one believes the Biblical account of creation, they will always believe that account if they are consistent in their faith, and no new evidence will refute that. And if no evidence has the potential of contradicting the Biblical accounts of creation, then there should be no requirement that Christians as a whole need to remain current on scientific discoveries. Not that such a study is not profitable, but to vilify fundamentalism based on the lack of Christians that are not as versed in science as an atheist may be creates an absurd standard on which to judge fundamentalists.

You ant to know what is the defition of 'absurd?"

Its the biology textbook of my high school son, that triesto explain Darwinism and origins of Life, but ends up showing than ANY explanation that does not include"in the begininng, God" id flawed and doomed from the start!