God made man in His own image. Our immortal soul is stamped with the three faculties ofGreetings,
Free will is, like "evolution", a weak human concept, a half-baked attempt at easing the feeble human ego of its woes concerning the problem of evil.
Fear not: human salvation or damnation are God's prerogative, radical acceptance the sole faith/destiny.
1. Yes God is infinitely good and perfect and all-powerful, and humans are mere nothings compared to Him strictly speaking. But humans are made in His image, and our immortal souls reflect the Immortality of God, and the faculties of our souls reflect the Divine Trinity. Of course I say reflect, because in His perfection, He made us in His image, but we are not like God of course, as St. Michael the Archangel says (and his very name means) "who is like God?" This is the great mystery of creation. But think of the dignity of humans as well, that God would choose to dwell with us, and choose the Holy Theotokos as His own Mother, and choose to humble Himself to become human? That is the great mystery of the Incarnation. Lots to think about.1. I can understand the argument that God created the possibilty for evil and good to give the possibility of free will. For all the "potential" humans have we are in no way equal to God, Atleast in this form and this life. God is by definition perfect.
2. So i wonder why would he create something inferior in relation to himself. Maybe for the joy of creating, just because he can? Why not create something more on par with himself? Humans have dogs, Still the bond between dogs and humans can never truly measure up to a strong bond that exists between humans.
3. If a person was never exposed to christianity or religion in general, are they at fault for their souls condemnation? All people are prone to being influenced by external circumstances?
4. On an emotional/intuitive level God feels like the answer to me.
5. On a logical level i sometimes think that we exist simply because everything in this world can either be defined as something or nothing. You cannot have something without nothing and vice versa, their definitions depend on each other.
From the morning after Christmas 1859, when T. H. Huxley launched Darwin's career by reviewing The Origin of Species in the Times, the success of Darwin's revolutionary biology depended upon the persona of Darwin as the Anglified version of the scientific revolutionary, the disinterested observer, in the mode of Newton, just explaining how things were and, almost as an afterthought, kicking out the supports from underneath the notion of God as creator and nature as embodying a sense of purpose.
Darwin failed in the latter project as much as the former. He was never able to give one instance of a species evolving, nor was he able to banish purpose from the world of biology without postulating miracles that demanded even more credulity than what he thought was demanded by the Christian religion, but the legend persisted. Tyndale declared in 1870 that a "mind like that of Darwin can never sin wittingly against either fact or law." John Dewey, representing the American branch of the Darwinian establishment, declared that "the Origin of Species foreswears inquiry about absolute origins and absolute finalities," without seeing that he contradicted himself by making that statement.
The French caught the ideological spin of Darwinism well when the authors of the fifth volume of the Encyclopedie française, after consulting that nation's leading biologists, concluded that the theory of evolution was "impossible." "Evolution," they continued in a memorable phrase, "is a kind of dogma in which its priests no longer believe but which they keep presenting to their people".
The insult is especially galling coming from the descendants of the Encyclopedists in the land the bequeathed the term revolution to the modern world. France would continue its revolutionary ways throughout the nineteenth century and into the next all the way up to 1968. The English, however, had chosen for themselves a different course, one emphasizing science as epitomized by Darwin, Herbert Spencer, and the claque of journalistic enthusiasts who spread the religion to the masses, who accepted it with a credulity that made the faith of the Middle Ages seem tepid by comparison.
E Michael Jones is excellent. His books are worth every penny.Here's another quote on the subject by E. Michael Jones, this being from Monsters From The Id, pg. 142. I can't recommend his work enough, but you all know that already.
It may be right to see Huxley's life and work as contributing to the secularisation of British society which gradually occurred over the following century. Ernst Mayr said "It can hardly be doubted that [biology] has helped to undermine traditional beliefs and value systems"—and Huxley more than anyone else was responsible for this trend in Britain. Some modern Christian apologists consider Huxley the father of antitheism, though he himself maintained that he was an agnostic, not an atheist. He was, however, a lifelong and determined opponent of almost all organised religion throughout his life, especially the "Roman Church... carefully calculated for the destruction of all that is highest in the moral nature, in the intellectual freedom, and in the political freedom of mankind". In the same line of thought, in an article in Popular Science, Huxley used the expression "the so-called Christianity of Catholicism," explaining: "I say 'so-called' not by way of offense, but as a protest against the monstruous assumption that Catholic Christianity is explicitly or implicitly contained in any trust-worthy record of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth."
One of the first and most important naturalists to be convinced by Origin of the reality of evolution was the British anatomist Thomas Henry Huxley. Huxley recognized that unlike the earlier transmutational ideas of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, Darwin's theory provided a mechanism for evolution without supernatural involvement, even if Huxley himself was not completely convinced that natural selection was the key evolutionary mechanism. Huxley would make advocacy of evolution a cornerstone of the program of the X Club to reform and professionalise science by displacing natural theology with naturalism and to end the domination of British natural science by the clergy. By the early 1870s in English-speaking countries, thanks partly to these efforts, evolution had become the mainstream scientific explanation for the origin of species.
Damn I didn't know that! Up until 1993 in Quebec we were still reading the Bible in Class! Yeah Francophone Quebec is a different breed... but that's still a 30 Year Gappush for tyrannical control of the entire economy.
"The humanism religion teaches that humans are our own gods and we determine our own destiny. This is the religion that is taught in the public schools today, which has replaced Christianity in 1963 in the America, when the Bible was removed from public schools.
Of course no one admits that humanism is taught in the public schools today, because the bible was removed in order to claim that public tax money cannot be used to teach religions. Yet, creationism was replaced with the teaching of evolution, which is one of the foundation values of the humanistic religion.
Humanism is the belief that we are self justification, there are no absolute truths, and right and wrong are determined by each individual’s personal values.
In part 1 I listed the 7 causes of tyranny that are gaining support."
I personally have no issues believing in evolution while still being a Christian.
It's an unnecessary belief though. Occam's razor (abbreviated): minimize the number of assumptions you need to live in the world. If you already believe in an all-powerful God who can create the entire universe, there's no reason to have an additional belief in evolution. You may just leave it up as a divine mystery unexamined. The reason naturalists cling onto evolution is because they have no other hope in explaining the world.
The argument that might be used is that the "God hypothesis" complicates the problem rather that simplifying it. Meaning that you explain something that is very complex, (biological life) with something even more complex. (God) Then a Christian might reply that God has always existed, and then...well, there is no end to this line of argumentation. But referring to Occam`s razor is not really valid here.
Belief in God is pretty simple. Also Occam's razor was historically literally a defense of God, not a reddit scientism.
But it might really be that simple. Something cannot come from nothing, so creation had to come from a first mover. This is what we call God. From this point we can learn about Him and deduce many things by working forward through time via the prophets, then through to Jesus, then the Catholic Church He established through Peter, and so on.The argument that might be used is that the "God hypothesis" complicates the problem rather that simplifying it. Meaning that you explain something that is very complex, (biological life) with something even more complex. (God) Then a Christian might reply that God has always existed, and then...well, there is no end to this line of argumentation. But referring to Occam`s razor is not really valid here.