John 10:10

The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: …

Consider the words of Jesus in this passage of Scripture and their relevence to the destruction of humanity taking place all around us.  The Chief of all thieves is none other than satan himself, and it his supreme desire to steal, kill, and to destroy each and every human being made in the image of God.  In fact, through the pervasive deception of evolution theory, secular humanism, and atheism, untold multitudes of people have been duped into believing that they are nothing but merely  evolved masses of molecules with no ultimate value or real purpose in this universe.  According to this worldview, everything–their families, their work, and even their own existence–is all utterly pointless in the end.  If we consider the possible ramifications of such a hopeless view of one’s existence and the world in general, it’s plain to see the damaging effects of such a position, since people tend to behave according to their beliefs.  For instance, with no ultimate reason to value human life, why SHOULD anyone care what happens to another person, in a purely evolutionary universe?  After all, if people are just rearranged assemblages of atoms, what does it ultimately matter if they get rearranged a little more by someone else in this ‘dog eat dog’ world?  In fact, according to this misguided and twisted line of reasoning, there is no ultimate reason why extermination (of one’s self or others) SHOULDN’T be the primary means of dealing with any conflict (internal or external) in the world.

Remember, according to evolution theory, defects and weaknesses in the gene pool must be eliminated in order for the continued advancement of higher life forms to occur.  By that logic, someone suffering from, say, depression due to a chemical imbalance in their brain or some other ‘abnormality’ is doing everyone else a favor in eliminating themselves or being eliminated by someone else (along with their defective genes), sooner rather than later.  This is the type of warped and horrendously destructive reasoning that abandoning God and His Word as one’s ultimate Authority inevitably makes a person vulnerable to (Hitler, anyone?)

Fortunately, it doesn’t have to be that way.  Jesus finishes the Scripture above by providing mankind with a blessed hope and refuge from satanic deception when he says in contrast:

“I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly”. 

Part of that abundant life in Christ is the blessed assurance that comes from acknowledging the truth of God’s Word which tells us that each human life is of the utmost value and deserving of the highest esteem, since each person bears the image of the God who created them and are the object of His supreme love, as manifested by the willing sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross.  While it’s too late for those who have gone to their graves under satanic deception to undo what’s been done, you don’t have to be deceived and robbed of your intrinsic value like they were—-simply repent and submit to Jesus Christ today as both Lord and Savior.  God will save you and then transform you by the renewing of your mind unto the Truth (Romans 12:2)—–you’ve got His Word on that!  Please go to http://www.needgod.com and take the test.

 

 

Advertisements
Comments
  1. RuleofOrder says:

    “Remember, according to evolution theory, defects and weaknesses in the gene pool must be eliminated in order for the continued advancement of higher life forms to occur. ” — There is no must, and such weakness doesn’t mean advancement won’t occur. If you are going to characterize some one’s argument, its best to do it in a fashion that is truthful. Point of order, that is not evolutionary theory at all.

    “why SHOULD anyone care what happens to another person, in a purely evolutionary universe?” — Conversely, why shouldn’t they? In this view which you have created, why should no creature give care or concern for another? After all, the train of thought you espouse means if I can find utility in something, I should keep it around. In continuing that thought, the more things I find of utility, the more pleasant life can be for me, and the more likely I am to find safety in allies rather than enemies, because allies are a utility I would want. Its almost like evolutionary theory finds ways of continuing rather than going extinct, even sociologically.

    “This is the type of warped and horrendously destructive reasoning that abandoning God and His Word as one’s ultimate Authority inevitably makes a person vulnerable to (Hitler, anyone?)” — Argumetum Ad Hitlerum. You and Glenn Beck should start a podcast together. Jokes aside, have you read Mien Kampf? “I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.”

    – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2

    “To do justice to God and our own conscience, we have turned once more to the German Volk.”

    – Adolf Hitler in speech about the need for a moral regeneration of German, February 10, 1933

    “…each human life is of the utmost value and deserving of the highest esteem…” — millions that died in a storied flood disagree. Millions died, because apparently, it was God’s will. Wonder where Hitler got it from.

    Like

    • scmike2 says:

      “There is no must, and such weakness doesn’t mean advancement won’t occur. If you are going to characterize some one’s argument, its best to do it in a fashion that is truthful. Point of order, that is not evolutionary theory at all.”

      Hey Roo, good to hear from you again! I’m also very glad to see that you believe in the existence of ‘truth’. From a strictly evolutionary perspective, would you mind telling me how you account for abstract, invariant, universal concepts such as truth and how it is possible for you to know anything for certain to be true with only your limited experience and observations of the universe to go by (if you are going to appeal to your senses and reasoning as your basis, as you are prone to do, please cut to the chase and tell how you know that your senses and reasoning are reliable, to begin with, without engaging in vicious circularity).

      See, as a Christian, I appeal to the abstract, universal, invariant nature of the God of the Bible and His revelation to us as my basis for believing in abstract, universal, invariants (truth, logic, morality, etc.)and acting upon those beliefs. You?

      “Conversely, why shouldn’t they?”

      I told you why: After all, if people are just rearranged assemblages of atoms, what does it ultimately matter if they get rearranged a little more by someone else in this ‘dog eat dog’ world?

      So, no answer to the question(s), then? Color me disappointed.

      “In this view which you have created, why should no creature give care or concern for another? After all, the train of thought you espouse means if I can find utility in something, I should keep it around. In continuing that thought, the more things I find of utility, the more pleasant life can be for me, and the more likely I am to find safety in allies rather than enemies, because allies are a utility I would want. Its almost like evolutionary theory finds ways of continuing rather than going extinct, even sociologically.”

      Is any of that what we should be doing as individuals or a species, though? If so, why and how do you know that with certainty from a strictly evolutionary point of view?

      “I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.”
      – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2
      “To do justice to God and our own conscience, we have turned once more to the German Volk.”
      – Adolf Hitler in speech about the need for a moral regeneration of German, February 10, 1933
      “…each human life is of the utmost value and deserving of the highest esteem…” — millions that died in a storied flood disagree. Millions died, because apparently, it was God’s will. Wonder where Hitler got it from.”

      Did you have a rational complaint against either Hitler’s behavior or God’s behavior that you wanted to levy? If so, feel free to posit it. Also, please tell what absolute standard of morality you are appealing to in levying your complaint and why it necessarily applies to anyone else (especially God) in a purely evolutionary worldview.

      However, if all of this is reduced to simply your personal preference (i.e. opinion), then please state it as such, and thanks for your time in advance.

      Like

      • RuleofOrder says:

        “Hey Roo, good to hear from you again! I’m also very glad to see that you believe in the existence of ‘truth’. From a strictly evolutionary perspective, would you mind telling me how you account for abstract, invariant, universal concepts such as truth and how it is possible for you to know anything for certain to be true with only your limited experience and observations of the universe to go by (if you are going to appeal to your senses and reasoning as your basis, as you are prone to do, please cut to the chase and tell how you know that your senses and reasoning are reliable, to begin with, without engaging in vicious circularity).

        See, as a Christian, I appeal to the abstract, universal, invariant nature of the God of the Bible and His revelation to us as my basis for believing in abstract, universal, invariants (truth, logic, morality, etc.)and acting upon those beliefs. You?” —– Considering you haven’t explained Divine Revelation, I feel no compunction to answer your question about “Hows”, and in either case, its not the thrust of this conversation. Now, if you would like to answer how Divine Revelation is conducted (when, how, by what means) etc, we can progress further on that tangent.

        “So, no answer to the question(s), then? Color me disappointed.” — I feel I did answer it. Its one of those application sort of answers, that being you actually have to apply the point of view to the world you created in your example.

        “Is any of that what we should be doing as individuals or a species, though? If so, why and how do you know that with certainty from a strictly evolutionary point of view?” —- That changes the scope of your initial question. It changed essentially from why should I (or anything) care about some one else to “Should that be done”. Rather than continue to chase a series of questions, why not instead demonstrate or challenge the assertion on the table. I look forward to why my position shouldn’t be adopted.

        “Did you have a rational complaint against either Hitler’s behavior or God’s behavior that you wanted to levy? If so, feel free to posit it.” — what do you find irrational about it? Hitler emmulated God. He felt certain people were sinful, unworthy, and sought to purge them. Just like God. Your qualm is not with me giving you morals, its pointing out the hypocritical stance of some one doing God’s work.

        “However, if all of this is reduced to simply your personal preference (i.e. opinion), then please state it as such, and thanks for your time in advance.”— So, please demonstrate the “fact” of objective morality, its origins, and enforcer. Thanks in advance.

        Like

        • scmike2 says:

          “Considering you haven’t explained Divine Revelation, I feel no compunction to answer your question about “Hows”, and in either case, its not the thrust of this conversation. Now, if you would like to answer how Divine Revelation is conducted (when, how, by what means) etc, we can progress further on that tangent.”

          Of course, all of that assumes that truth can exist in your worldview, that you can recognize it when you see it, and that you can know things to be true such that they cannot be false. I have given you my worldview’s foundation for the existence of abstract, universal, invariants. If you refuse to tell how they are possible in your worldview, then that is up to you. Unfortunate, but not at all unexpected.

          “I feel I did answer it. Its one of those application sort of answers, that being you actually have to apply the point of view to the world you created in your example.”

          Feelings are nice, Roo, but I’m interested in discussing what you know to be true and how you claim to know it to be true. Looks like that is not what you came here for. Again, unfortunate but not at all unexpected.

          “That changes the scope of your initial question.”

          It doesn’t. However, if it aids you in your evasion of the topic and saves you the embarrassment of what would otherwise follow, then why not. Right? ; )

          I mean, no one needs to see what would happen if you were forced to answer the line of questioning that would naturally follow from what you have just stated (like, for instance, why it would be wrong of someone to ‘change the scope’ of their initial question if that’s what they wanted to do in your worldview and by what objective standard of argumentation it should not be done).

          “It changed essentially from why should I (or anything) care about some one else to “Should that be done”.


          Well, I would ask you why I (or anyone) should care about THAT in a strictly evolutionary universe, but, again, that would require you to face the truth about the blind faith nature of why you believe and act upon the foundational presuppositions of your worldview. Something that you understandably are clearly not up for doing. I get it.

          “Rather than continue to chase a series of questions, why not instead demonstrate or challenge the assertion on the table. I look forward to why my position shouldn’t be adopted.”


          Your evolutionary,non-Christian position? You’re seeing why it shouldn’t be adopted right now. One has to abandon any semblence of rationality with regards to their acceptance of truth, morality, and knowledge in order to even begin to try to defend what you’re propogating. Once again, very unfortunate, but not unexpected in the slightest. Thank you again for your time here. Rest assured that it hasn’t been in vain, as it is always helpful to have fresh examples of what a worldview without God ultimately amounts to. No hard feelings, though.

          “what do you find irrational about it?”

          The fact that there exists no objective, binding standard of morality in your worldview upon which to base your complaint about ANY behavior, as continues to be demonstrated.

          “Hitler emmulated God.”

          No, Hitler committed murder while God cannot, did not, and does not (by the impossibility of the contrary). Murder (unlawful killing) is absolutely morally wrong in my worldview, something that you could never justifiably claim in yours (in fact, if you’re honest, you’d have to admit that murder isn’t wrong at all in a strictly evolutionary universe where everything and everyone are merely the byproducts of time, chance, and mindless chemical reactions. Sure it may be against your personal preference, but that just makes it ‘different’ not ‘wrong’). YIKES!

          “So, please demonstrate the “fact” of objective morality, its origins, and enforcer. Thanks in advance.”

          You’ve already made it crystal clear that you aren’t really up for discussing/justifying your presuppositions here, Roo. Too bad, as I would liked to have asked you if my response to your question above should be a rational and honest one grounded in truth and, if so, why that should be the case morally in a strictly evolutionary worldview. Would’ve been fun to watch the aftermath of that one. Oh well, moot point now.

          Like

          • RuleofOrder says:

            “Of course, all of that assumes that truth can exist in your worldview, that you can recognize it when you see it, and that you can know things to be true such that they cannot be false. I have given you my worldview’s foundation for the existence of abstract, universal, invariants. If you refuse to tell how they are possible in your worldview, then that is up to you. Unfortunate, but not at all unexpected.” —- likewise, however such is not the thrust of the conversation: your incorrect statements about evolution are. You seem to operate under the assumpt that by adopting the correct world view (as you have assumed yourself to have done), it then renders you infallible. It hasn’t, you are deliberately speaking a mistakes about what evolution and how it applies to the world is.

            “Feelings are nice, Roo, but I’m interested in discussing what you know to be true and how you claim to know it to be true. Looks like that is not what you came here for. Again, unfortunate but not at all unexpected.” — No, you aren’t. Were you, you would have answered my questions about the specifics of divine revelation. As such, I consider this matter an impasse.

            “It doesn’t. However, if it aids you in your evasion of the topic and saves you the embarrassment of what would otherwise follow, then why not. Right? ; )”

            —Well, it did, and I should you how, but between the two of us, you have the most to lose should a question get answered and you not have a retort. Obviously, the tact you take is simply to pivot to a new topic, so as to avoid scrutiny about your world view. Case in point:

            “I mean, no one needs to see what would happen if you were forced to answer the line of questioning that would naturally follow from what you have just stated (like, for instance, why it would be wrong of someone to ‘change the scope’ of their initial question if that’s what they wanted to do in your worldview and by what objective standard of argumentation it should not be done).”

            There is noting wrong about it, however it would not serve to come to a conclusion. Were I to hazard a guess, it would seem as though you think a “evolutionary” world view is one of chaos in which nothing can be arrived at for a specific purpose. Is this correct? (simple yes or no, try answering a question, its refreshing).

            “Your evolutionary,non-Christian position? You’re seeing why it shouldn’t be adopted right now. One has to abandon any semblence of rationality with regards to their acceptance of truth, morality, and knowledge in order to even begin to try to defend what you’re propogating. Once again, very unfortunate, but not unexpected in the slightest. Thank you again for your time here. Rest assured that it hasn’t been in vain, as it is always helpful to have fresh examples of what a worldview without God ultimately amounts to. No hard feelings, though.” — I don’t really see a challenge in her, Mr. Sc. Your conflating your repetition of asking questions with the actual state of affairs. I see nothing factual, mostly just emotional arguments, or at the very least a circular situation. Again.

            “The fact that there exists no objective, binding standard of morality in your worldview upon which to base your complaint about ANY behavior, as continues to be demonstrated.” — Ah, a binding standard. Interesting choice of words. What exactly has bound anyone to anything to allow for the current ‘evils’ in the world?

            ““Hitler emmulated God.”

            No, Hitler committed murder while God cannot, did not, and does not (by the impossibility of the contrary). Murder (unlawful killing) is absolutely morally wrong in my worldview,

            It is until God deems it moral. As he did when he flooded the earth, had Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed, turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt, demanded various blood sacrifices, etc. What you are actually calling moral is God’s arbitrary view. You, however, in your supplication simply have decided one entities arbitrary is a moral standard.

            ” something that you could never justifiably claim in yours (in fact, if you’re honest, you’d have to admit that murder isn’t wrong at all in a strictly evolutionary universe where everything and everyone are merely the byproducts of time, chance, and mindless chemical reactions” — ah, so I was correct, then. You feel chaos and evolution are the same thing, and that nothing of a great achievement could be accomplished. Instead, you defer to an agency of dubious existence.

            . “Sure it may be against your personal preference, but that just makes it ‘different’ not ‘wrong’). YIKES!” — wrong in of itself is a personal construct. Here, lets play your game. Why is something that is “wrong” something to be avoided?

            Like

            • scmike2 says:

              “however such is not the thrust of the conversation: your incorrect statements about evolution are. You seem to operate under the assumpt that by adopting the correct world view (as you have assumed yourself to have done), it then renders you infallible. It hasn’t, you are deliberately speaking a mistakes about what evolution and how it applies to the world is.”

              Of course, all of that assumes that truth can exist in your worldview, that you can recognize it when you see it, and that you can know things to be true such that they cannot be false. I have given you my worldview’s foundation for the existence of abstract, universal, invariants. If you refuse to tell how they are possible in your worldview, then that is up to you.

              “No, you aren’t. Were you, you would have answered my questions about the specifics of divine revelation. As such, I consider this matter an impasse.”

              Of course, all of that assumes that truth can exist in your worldview, that you can recognize it when you see it, and that you can know things to be true such that they cannot be false. I have given you my worldview’s foundation for the existence of abstract, universal, invariants. If you refuse to tell how they are possible in your worldview, then that is up to you.

              “Well, it did, and I should you how, but between the two of us, you have the most to lose should a question get answered and you not have a retort. Obviously, the tact you take is simply to pivot to a new topic, so as to avoid scrutiny about your world view. ”

              Of course, all of that assumes that truth can exist in your worldview, that you can recognize it when you see it, and that you can know things to be true such that they cannot be false. I have given you my worldview’s foundation for the existence of abstract, universal, invariants. If you refuse to tell how they are possible in your worldview, then that is up to you.

              “There is noting wrong about it, however it would not serve to come to a conclusion.”

              What’s wrong with that?

              “Were I to hazard a guess, it would seem as though you think a “evolutionary” world view is one of chaos in which nothing can be arrived at for a specific purpose. Is this correct? (simple yes or no, try answering a question, its refreshing).”

              Of course, all of that assumes that truth can exist in your worldview, that you can recognize it when you see it, and that you can know things to be true such that they cannot be false. I have given you my worldview’s foundation for the existence of abstract, universal, invariants. If you refuse to tell how they are possible in your worldview, then that is up to you.

              “I don’t really see a challenge in her, Mr. Sc. Your conflating your repetition of asking questions with the actual state of affairs. I see nothing factual, mostly just emotional arguments, or at the very least a circular situation. Again.”

              Of course, all of that assumes that truth can exist in your worldview, that you can recognize it when you see it, and that you can know things to be true such that they cannot be false. I have given you my worldview’s foundation for the existence of abstract, universal, invariants. If you refuse to tell how they are possible in your worldview, then that is up to you.

              “It is until God deems it moral. As he did when he flooded the earth, had Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed, turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt, demanded various blood sacrifices, etc. What you are actually calling moral is God’s arbitrary view.”

              Of course, all of that assumes that truth can exist in your worldview, that you can recognize it when you see it, and that you can know things to be true such that they cannot be false. I have given you my worldview’s foundation for the existence of abstract, universal, invariants. If you refuse to tell how they are possible in your worldview, then that is up to you. Until then, thank you for sharing YOUR arbitrary views here. I shall put them with the rest.

              ” You, however, in your supplication simply have decided one entities arbitrary is a moral standard.”

              See above. I would also add that, since God is Sovereign, absolute, invariant, and universal, those standards (logic, morality, etc.) derived from His character cannot (and are not) arbitrary by the impossibility of the contrary. Moot point now, though, since you (understandably) don’t really want to discuss the presuppositions of your worldview and how you justify them with me. I’m cool with that.

              “ah, so I was correct, then. You feel chaos and evolution are the same thing, and that nothing of a great achievement could be accomplished. Instead, you defer to an agency of dubious existence.”

              Of course, all of that assumes that truth can exist in your worldview, that you can recognize it when you see it, and that you can know things to be true such that they cannot be false. I have given you my worldview’s foundation for the existence of abstract, universal, invariants. If you refuse to tell how they are possible in your worldview, then that is up to you.

              “wrong in of itself is a personal construct.”

              So the contrary to that statement (and all of your other ones) is not objectively incorrect from your point of view, but only subjectively so? Good to know. So much then for the subjective claims that I have made ‘incorrect’ (i.e. wrong) statements here regarding evolution, etc. then. No wonder you don’t want to go deeper into this.

              “Here, lets play your game. Why is something that is “wrong” something to be avoided?”

              Of course, all of that assumes that truth can exist in your worldview, that you can recognize it when you see it, and that you can know things to be true such that they cannot be false. I have given you my worldview’s foundation for the existence of abstract, universal, invariants. If you refuse to tell how they are possible in your worldview, then that is up to you.

              Too bad, too, as I would love to have asked you (again) if answers to your questions should comport with truth and logical laws or if such behavior is only your personal preference, but not objectively right (i.e. correct). Moot point now, though.

              Like

              • RuleofOrder says:

                “Of course, all of that assumes that truth can exist in your worldview, that you can recognize it when you see it, and that you can know things to be true such that they cannot be false. I have given you my worldview’s foundation for the existence of abstract, universal, invariants. If you refuse to tell how they are possible in your worldview, then that is up to you.” —- Let me be plain on this one, since it seems to be what passes an an answer for you to avoid scrutiny of your position.

                Between the two of us, I compiled axioms that you agree with to come to a conclusion. You disagreed with the conclusion but at least agreed with the axioms. That, I can’t help. In return, you have named what you consider to be your foundation, however have not described anything about it. To wit:

                What is divine revelation?
                When does it occur?
                How did it turn your irrationality into rationality?
                What were you doing immoral before it was divinely revealed to you that you were immoral?
                How do you know that you were doing something immoral or irrational in general, as you cannot rationally relate pre-revelation to post-revelation?

                While I don’t expect you to answer these questions, they -were- touched on by me about my “world view” in previous conversations, you simply disagreed with them.

                Side note:

                “There is noting wrong about it, however it would not serve to come to a conclusion.”

                What’s wrong with that?

                Did you read what you were replying to? ‘There is nothing wrong with that’. The question literally was answered before you asked it. Are you confident these are the type of replies you want your readership to observe of you?

                As I stated, previously, its not me whom has anything to lose by answering questions, as I attempted to do in previous conversations. Your disagreement with answers not withstanding, you have provided nothing beyond the name of your ‘process’. I hope we can look into that in the future, but the prospect seems remote.

                Like

                • scmike2 says:

                  Of course, all of that assumes that truth can exist in your worldview, that you can recognize it when you see it, and that you can know things to be true such that they cannot be false. I have given you my worldview’s foundation for the existence of abstract, universal, invariants. If you refuse to tell how they are possible in your worldview, then that is up to you. Gotta crawl before you walk, after all.

                  Thanks again for your time, Roo.

                  Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s