Every Christian, Jew, Atheist, Pagan and Muslim Will Bow Before Jesus

Phil Jensen

ADVERTISEMENT

bow_before_JesusMy goal here is not to offend. Neither is it to persuade. In matters of the spirit, there is but One capable of opening the eyes of the heart. Rather, my objective is to sow seeds of Truth so that the Holy Spirit might, according to His perfect pleasure, purpose and will, cultivate the soul as He deems just.

We Christ followers are admonished to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us (see Matthew 5:44). This obliges us to at once love and pray for, among other antichrist subsets, the 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide, including the hundreds-of-millions who faithfully embrace Muhammad’s myriad commands to violence against the Christian, the Jew and all other non-Muslims.

It is impossible to do this in our flesh and can only be accomplished through the supernatural grace and power of the Holy Spirit. It is, indeed, our great hope and prayer that every Muslim – every human being – might surrender self and come to the saving knowledge and grace of Christ Jesus, who, alone, is “the way and the truth and the life.” For, “No one comes to the Father except through [Him]” (see John 14:6).

Rick Kriebel 2016

ADVERTISEMENT

To be sure, it is the express desire of both God the Father and Christ His Son that each and every Muslim on earth should abandon Muhammad’s broad path to perdition, turnabout and move toward Christ’s narrow path to eternal life. “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

God both created and loves, in a way incomprehensible to the finite human mind, every human being ever born, or otherwise. He wove us together in our mother’s wombs and numbered our every hair. Yet God the Father has but one begotten Son. The rest of us, in order to become God’s children, must be adopted and grafted into the vine by, in and through the One who is the Son – He who is the Vine: Christ Jesus (see John 15:5).

Those who are not adopted by God are not children of God.

Woodrow Wilcox

ADVERTISEMENT

And so the Muslim is not a child of God.

Indeed, to become a child of God, we must ask God, through Christ, to adopt us. We mustn’t just believe upon Him – for “Even the demons believe that” (see James 2:19) – but, rather, we must also receive Him as Lord and Savior. We must follow Jesus, the one true God, as our only God. “But to all who believed him (Jesus) and accepted him, he gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12).

The pluralist notion that, “There are many paths to God,” is an insidious lie spread by the father of lies himself. Jesus said, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it” (Matthew 7:13).

Jesus is the “narrow gate.”

Merriam Webster defines “pluralism” as “a theory that there are more than one or more than two kinds of ultimate reality.”

To embrace pluralism is to embrace certain death.

The aim of pluralist philosophy is to muddy the waters and divert mankind from the “narrow gate” that leads to eternal salvation (Jesus), while, at one go, herding us along the “broad road” to eternal damnation (anything and everything that denies the singular and exclusive deity of Christ, or that rejects the certainty that He alone can save us from hell).

Pluralism is a non-starter. It is inherently self-contradictory and, therefore, self-defeating. Each of the world’s major religions fundamentally contradicts the other. They cannot all be true. Either one is true or none is true. Pick your “ism,” be it Muhammadism, Hinduism, Buddhism, humanism, atheism, et al., and, serving to undo each, you will find the leavening lie of pluralism.

Christ is both tolerant and intolerant, utterly exclusive and wholly inclusive. Romans 10:13 promises, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord (Jesus) will be saved.” And John 3:36 warns, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”

Not only do Muslims reject Christ, the Son of God, but those who are faithful to the teachings of their “prophet” Muhammad persecute, under flame and sword, His very body: the Christian faithful.

As I’ve said before, Islam is Christianity’s photo-negative. While Christianity brings eternal life to those choosing to surrender to Jesus, who, as He declared in no uncertain terms, is, alone, “the way and the truth and the life,” Islam brings eternal death to those who surrender to Allah, who, as declared Muhammad, is “the best of deceivers” (“[A]nd Allah was deceptive, for Allah is the best of deceivers.” [see Surah 3:54])

It’s worth again mentioning here that the Bible similarly calls Satan a deceiver. Revelation 12:9, for instance, explains that he “deceives the whole world.” Even though it is often claimed that Muslims, Christians and Jews “worship the same God,” this is so very much not so. Allah is not God. Allah is the deceiver, and, insofar as Christianity, true Christianity, spreads peace, love and truth – Islam, true Islam, spreads violence, hate and deception. Allah definitely exists. He’s just not God. Though he wanted to “ascend above the tops of the clouds” and “make [himself] like the Most High” (see Isaiah 14:14), Allah, most assuredly, is not God.

Indeed, the “best of deceivers” cares not whether we worship the idol of self, as do the secular-”progressives,” the deceiver himself, as do the Muslims, or some other false god. The deceptive one cares only that we deny God the Father, Christ His Son and the Holy Spirit, three in one.

To the Muslim, to everyone, know this: You may deny Christ until the day you die. But soon after, you will deny Him no more. Hate Him you may still, but deny Him you will not. Philippians 2:10-11 assures us, “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

The die was cast before time began. Every Christian, Jew, atheist and pagan, to include each and every Muslim on earth – or, like Muhammad, who once walked the earth – will, in the end, bow a knee in worship to Jesus.

Because “in the end” is just the beginning.

Yet, whether you bow first in this life, or first in the next, you will bow.

And the when and how will mean much.

For it will decide the where and how of your eternity.

Forgotten_Factor_Banner_Ad_653x197

ADVERTISEMENT


This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


Similar Posts:

Matt Barber is founder and editor-in chief of BarbWire.com. He is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war. (Follow Matt on Twitter: @jmattbarber).
J. Matt Barber
View all articles by J. Matt Barber
Print Friendly
  • TheNaturalist

    It must feel great to be part of the only true religion out of the thousands of false religions! Your justification for this belief is based on statements in the book that you believe is true. Does it bother you even a tiny bit that each and every other religion can and does use this exact argument?

    • It is great to be part of the only true religion out of the thousands of false ones. No other one lines up with science and reality, and no other one has such a flawless record of accuracy in its historical and scientific claims, making it relatively easy to verify its truth-claims.

      One of the best things about it is that anyone can find peace with God, if they’ll only examine the evidence objectively, admit that they fail to meet the moral standard of their Creator, and humbly ask their Creator for forgiveness.

      The only thing that bothers me about the claim to truth that other religions make is that they are false, that they don’t line up with the reality revealed in the universe around us, and that that the failure to investigate this misleads so many people into ruin.

      Are you ready to stop being your own god today, and humble yourself before your Creator?

      • TheNaturalist

        Would you agree that Christianity is a set of supernatural beliefs, such as rising from the dead, virgin birth and miracles? If so, how can any of these beliefs “line up with science and reality?”

        • I would agree that Christianity includes beliefs in certain supernatural occurrences such as a few individuals who rose from the dead, a virgin birth, and some other incidents which happened in contravention to scientific principles. Not all of the claims made by the Bible are supernatural in nature, however. Many of them have been affirmed and confirmed by scientific discovery as well as recorded history.

          Are you prepared to admit that naturalism also (in contradiction to its fundamental assertions) includes some supernatural beliefs such as:

          a) matter spontaneously coming into existence from nothing (something that has never been observed in the field or in the laboratory, and something that observational science tells us does not occur)

          b) matter spontaneously organizing itself into higher functional forms (something that has never been observed in the field or in the laboratory, and something that observational science tells us does not occur)

          c) abiogenesis (something that has never been observed in the field or in the laboratory, and something that observational science tells us does not occur)

          d) one organism giving rise to a completely different organism (something that has never been observed in the field or in the laboratory, and something that observational science tells us does not occur)

          Interestingly, the belief system in which I place my faith has a logical allowance for supernatural events within its framework, making supernatural events under certain circumstances logical within its fundamental assumptions.

          Meanwhile, the belief system in which you have placed your faith has no logical allowance for supernatural events within its framework, even as it absolutely relies on supernatural events (e.g. matter from nothing) to unfold, rendering the overall belief system inconsistent and illogical.

          Why do you place your faith in a self-contradicting, scientifically-contradicted belief system?

          • TheNaturalist

            Science makes no supernatural claims, that is the point of science and the key to its success. Where it does not know the answer, it postulates hypotheses and keeps working to gather additional evidence. If your argument relies on completely redefining science then your argument is worthless.

            Back to religion and super-naturalism. As you admit Christianity and all other religions make foundational supernatural claims. If Christ did not in fact rise from the dead, then Christianity is just another mythological story. If Joseph Smith’s vision reveling the truth and location of the golden plates was just a metal aberration, then Mormonism is just another myth.

            What about distinctions between different sects of Christianity? The Catholics think Mary ascended to Heaven, Islamists claim Christ was just a prophet etc. Even different varieties of Baptists disagree. They all make contradictory interpretations of the Bible that lead to distinct supernatural claims.

            To claim that your and only your religion is the only true one, you must somehow show that your supernatural claims are true and all the other religion’s supernatural claims are false.

            How do you determine the truth of a supernatural claim? Through faith?

            • Science indeed makes no supernatural claims.

              Unfortunately, many people who claim to be scientists and claim to adhere to science most assuredly DO make supernatural claims. And hypocritically, they make supernatural claims and insist that they are within the bounds of science-even though observational science clearly contradicts their scientific viability. And to do so within the philosophical framework that there can be no supernatural events is the height of illogic and hypocrisy.

              So again, before I waste any time exploring with you questions which you aren’t prepared to grapple, I’ll ask again:

              Are you prepared to admit that naturalism also (in contradiction to its fundamental assertions) includes some supernatural beliefs such as:

              a) matter spontaneously coming into existence from nothing (something that has never been observed in the field or in the laboratory, and something that observational science tells us does not occur)

              b) matter spontaneously organizing itself into higher functional forms (something that has never been observed in the field or in the laboratory, and something that observational science tells us does not occur)

              c) abiogenesis (something that has never been observed in the field or in the laboratory, and something that observational science tells us does not occur)

              d) one organism giving rise to a completely different organism (something that has never been observed in the field or in the laboratory, and something that observational science tells us does not occur)

              If you are, we can proceed. If you can’t, then you aren’t ready to grapple with deeper issues.

            • DCM7

              “Where [science] does not know the answer, it postulates hypotheses and keeps working to gather additional evidence.”
              Whenever someone makes a statement like that in a discussion like this one, there is a great irony: namely, that the statement does nothing to counter Christianity (which the person making the statement inevitably rejects) and nothing to support evolutionism (which the person making the statement inevitably accepts).

    • DCM7

      “It must feel great to be part of the only true religion out of the thousands of false religions!”
      You do realize that the existence of “thousands” of false religions means absolutely nothing in regards to whether there is a true one, right?

      • TheNaturalist

        I agree that the exact number of different contradictory religions is not relevant, although I have seen analysis that claims there are about 20 thousand distinct sects of Christianity. The point is they all use exactly the same method to claim theirs is the only true one.

        • DCM7

          20 thousand seems like an awfully high estimate. Even allowing that it could be true, though, the idea that each one of that many “sects” would declare itself to be the only true one — with all other denominations thus being false — just doesn’t play out in real life. And you are disingenuous in implying that it does. The differences between most denominations are minimal, and where there are differences that are not minimal, there is error that can be easily recognized and clearly pointed out.

          • Thisoldspouse

            It’s a lie, DCM. I hear it all the time, but can’t get one of these propagandists to point to an authoritative source or a listing of all these different sects. They seem to think their hear-say declaration makes it true.

        • Thisoldspouse

          You’ve ‘heard.” That’s always about the extent of it. I always laugh at these assertions that Christianity has 20 gazillion distinct and separate sects, kind of like the same number of “rights that accrue to marriage,” which are always touted, especially in courts, but never proven.

          It’s outright ridiculous to any thinking person that there could possibly be that many Christian sects. Such a claimant can just as easily say that there are 4 billion different kinds of “families” in the U.S. because there are 4 billion families, all different. Just because a Christian group “does church” differently, while holding the same critical doctrines of biblical Christianity, doesn’t make them a different sect.

          And then I ask such a person, if their claim were true, to name them.

  • Christopher R Weiss

    Which version of Christianity is the “right” one? The largest is Catholicism, but we wouldn’t have some many other denominations if the majority of Christians thought they were right. What about the Mormons? They have an extra holy book. Of course, most people who call themselves “Christians” think the Book of Mormon is at best a drug and exposure induced hallucination. How about the Calvinists? Baptists? Quakers? Congregationalists? Jehovah Witnesses???

    You can call all these sects “Christian,” but they have some pretty significant theological differences. Some even understand Jesus differently. They can’t all be right.

    If someone were to convert to Christianity, which denomination should they choose? Why? Which ones would put them on the wrong side of Jesus?

    • The right version of Christianity is the one that follows Christianity’s authoritative holy book: the Bible. Follow the Bible faithfully and you’ll never go wrong.

      • stevewhiteraven

        But Jesus didn’t call you to follow a book , he called you to follow him, The book was mostly written by people who had never seen Jesus in his life time and was put together by a Roman emperor and a various followers of different books , some were rejected and never made it to the bible yet they might be the “right ” why is Paul (Saul) considered most authoritative in the bible, when as we know in modern times there are many who claim to be speaking for god yet ignored because its about control and religion not knowing your god in any way .
        The problems with the Abrahamic religions is that they all believe they are the right one as much as you believe you are the right one and if you think about it ..none of them can be right because they were made by man.
        If Jesus existed (and even as a pagan i am sure the man existed) he was a man of peace and a powerful speaker with some amazingly good views on life but not a god just a great man of his time but so was Buddha Confucius and many others

        • DCM7

          “The book… was put together by a Roman emperor and a various followers of different books”
          The process by which the New Testament (which actually seems to be what you’re referring to) was assembled was not belated and willy-nilly as you seem to have been told. You appear to be taking the word of someone who is themselves uninformed.

          “none of them can be right because they were made by man”
          Actually, a lot of what makes Christianity stand out — positively to those who accept it, and negatively to those who reject it — is the fact that it is totally *not* what mankind would come up with to suit himself.

          “he was a man of peace and a powerful speaker with some amazingly good views on life but not a god just a great man of his time”
          As others have pointed out, Jesus did not in any way give us the option of considering him to be just a “good man.” He was either who he clearly said he was — God in the flesh — or an outright liar. And all the evidence points to the former.

          “Jesus didn’t call you to follow a book, he called you to follow him”
          An interesting and rather insightful statement, but Jesus did make it clear that the book — the Word of God — pointed to him.

        • How do you follow him if you have never met him? You follow the instructions he wrote down. He instructed certain people to write down what he wanted his human creations to know and do.

          The Old Testament canon was settled long before the Roman emperor you mention was ever born. The New Testament canon was also almost entirely settled long before the Roman emperor you mention came along. How was it settled? Based on the apostolic authority of those who wrote the New Testament books or directly approved the writing of those books, and the early church fathers who knew those apostles and writers.

          Jesus was only one of three things, can could only be one of three things. Either he was a liar (for claiming he was God when he was not God), and a liar is not someone to be followed. Or he was a lunatic (for claiming he was God and thinking he was God, when he was not God), and a nut job is not someone to be followed. Or he actually was the Lord of all Creation that he claimed to be-in which case, he is to be followed by all of his creations.

          That is the choice before you today. Are you going to take the time to examine the truth claims and the veracity of the Bible, or are you going to march into eternity on your own terms, and get a very big and disturbing surprise? Because just as the person who doesn’t believe the laws of the land apply to them and breaks them gets a big surprise one day when law enforcement catches up to him and finds they really do apply to him.

          It’s your choice. Choose wisely.

          • stevewhiteraven

            Ok replying to both you and DCM7 ..I was thinking of only the new testament and the relevance of the council of Nicaea under Constantine who being the first council to represent all of Christendom ,The council was called because allot of bishops were teaching different things various theologies one of the main was at this meeting it was decided that Jesus was indeed God .i think it s was light from light or something along those lines .
            but didn’t Jesus himself deny that he was god ?.
            The rest was more from a Pagan [perspective or should i say from my pagan perspective that of p-personal relationship from the presence of your god we as pagans who follow gods (not all do ) have a relationship with those gods we communicate its not about belief its about knowing , belief is abstract a scientist can believe in dark matter even though he cant see feel or touch it or even prove its existence other that by pointing and saying this is the effect it has .
            But you ‘ believe in water because you know water is real and exists and without it you have no life yet it is not God .
            And i still wonder why Saul was so important in biblical text .
            So i suppose my statement forms a question .Can you have the relationship with God/Jesus as there presence and knowledge passed to you to walk with your god and see through his eyes do you feel the pain and love and all the emotions of those yu meet through his eyes , do you touch a tree and fell the spirit within the very nature and presence of your god or is it as i perceive Christianity trying to follow a book that lets be honest no one follows fully because allot isn’t PC these days .

            sorry if i ramble trying to make sense of thoughts in words is sometimes hard 🙂

            many blessings

            • DCM7

              “didn’t Jesus himself deny that he was god ?”
              Most certainly not. You may be thinking of a passage that can sort of be misread that way, but elsewhere he makes it very clear who he claimed to be… so clear that some were ready to stone him for it.

              “i perceive Christianity trying to follow a book that lets be honest no one follows fully because allot isn’t PC these days”
              I’m not sure what you mean by “no one follows fully,” unless you (like so many others) are confused about how the Old Testament (many of whose rules are expressly *not* meant to be followed today) fits into things.

            • I’m sorry, but I really didn’t follow at all what you are trying to say or ask.

      • Christopher R Weiss

        Should we follow the old testament, the new testament, the King James, American Standard Version, Common English, English Standard, new International Version, …. There are dozens of different versions and some have translations in some passages that give very different meanings.

        The old testament basically requires people to follow a very strict Kosher lifestyle. However, people say that Jesus brought a new covenant. People then selectively cite the old testament, which of course has the ten commandments. However, Jesus gives us a “new commandment.”

        It is all so very confusing and contradictory.

        • DCM7

          “Should we follow the old testament, the new testament”
          Both testaments have their place and their role. This is not hard to learn about, but too many people just don’t bother — and then try to discuss the respective testaments as if they know something about them.

          “There are dozens of different versions and some have translations in some passages that give very different meanings.”
          But never do the differences involve any major doctrinal point. And where the differences may be confusing, one always can check out commentaries, learn about the meanings of key words from the original language (as with a Strong’s concordance), or just understand the context, either internal (the Bible as a whole) or external (historical). All this has been done by countless people who are actually willing to take the effort to learn, and what they find has been remarkably consistent. The ideas that “you can make the Bible say anything,” or that “no one can really understand what the Bible says,” are just bogus excuses for not learning.

          “people say that Jesus brought a new covenant [but] then selectively cite the old testament, which of course has the ten commandments.”
          There is no problem or contradiction here, at least when the people involved know what they’re talking about. It is generally anti-Christian people who cherry-pick from the OT to make some invalid point, usually along the lines of assuming everything in it is supposed to apply directly to modern Christians.

          “It is all so very confusing and contradictory.”
          No, some people just make it that way for themselves.

        • It doesn’t have to be confusing at all. We follow the wisdom of the ENTIRE Bible (Old and New Testament). While some translations are more accurate than other, almost all of them are more accurate than enough for any person to understand all the important truths and most of the ancillary ones.

          If you read the New Testament along with the Old Testament, you will find that the ritual and dietary laws of the Old Testament, designed to teach us symbolic lessons, were no longer necessary after the New Covenant was established by Jesus. The moral law (i.e. what is right and wrong with regard to man’s relationship to his creator and to other human beings) remains in effect.

          Read the book through from the beginning of the Old Testament to the end of the New, preferably with the aid of some good commentary books (J. Vernon McGee wrote some excellent, easy to understand ones many years ago, or Matthew Henry), and it will all start to come together.

          • TheNaturalist

            Then how is it that Christians follow exactly your procedure laid out above, but come to different and contradictory outcomes?

            • DCM7

              If the differences and contradictions involve anything significant, then something in the procedure isn’t being followed. It’s not like we haven’t seen this many times, you know.

            • There are no legitimate differences and outcomes on the major tenets. These are quite clear.

              There are, however, a myriad of lesser points that the Bible does not make fully clear (Why not? Because they are not essential to finding and understanding the most important truths, and no written work can clarify the sum total of all knowledge in the universe) may be interpreted slightly differently by different people based on different levels of knowledge and experience.

              I have attended a number of denominations over the years, and have friends in a great number of Christian denominations. We may not agree on what is the best type of worship music, the best order of service, or even on the exact meaning of baptism. But we all agree on the major tenets of Christianity (e.g. that God created the universe and everything that is in it, that humanity is in rebellion against its Creator, that Jesus Christ paved the only way of reconciliation between rebellious man and his Creator, etc.).

              The fact that there are differences in the way some Christians evaluate lesser doctrines of the Bible in no way makes the main tenets any less reliable than does the fact that differences in the way power is generated and power plants are constructed makes electricity any less real or reliable in its properties.

              You will find no two people or groups in lockstep agreement on even the most solid and empirical of facts in the universe, yet somehow Christianity (dealing with a plethora of topics infinitely more complex and intangible) in the hands of several billion people of diverse backgrounds and knowledge and experience is held to an exponentially higher standard of agreement? Myopia at best, hypocrisy at worst. The fact that there is agreement on the major tenets (as plain as they are) among billions of diverse human beings is a miracle in itself.

              The “differences in Christianity” argument is nothing more than a distraction and an excuse to avoid coming to terms with the truth.

            • Thisoldspouse

              Contradictory? How so?

          • Christopher R Weiss

            Well…. and there’s the rub. We have biblical literalists, which have created entire versions of Christianity in direct conflict with reality. You can see this most obviously in groups like Answers in Genesis. One step up you have groups like the Discovery Institute, who fight with evolutionary biology but not necessarily like AIG. Finally, you have groups like the Catholic Church who reconcile reality and the bible my identifying allegory and metaphor. Beyond just the issue of evolutionary biology, the degree to which things are allegory, metaphor and literally true varies greatly and there is no codex that makes this obvious or indisputable.

            Many Christians claim the bible is the absolute source of truth. However, this can’t be right since so much is open to interpretation and many have different interpretations that are equally supportable. Some groups like AIG have interpretations that cannot possibly be true such as claiming the earth is less than 10k years old, that Noah’s flood was a real global event, etc.

            My problem with many Christians is the strength with which they make assertions that are very mushy in terms of support.

            • DCM7

              “Some groups like AIG have interpretations that cannot possibly be true such as claiming the earth is less than 10k years old, that Noah’s flood was a real global event, etc.”

              Where do you get the idea that these things are not true (much less, cannot possibly be true)? This, apparently, is what you’ve long been taught to believe.

              Some of us have looked into these things for ourselves, apparently much more deeply than you have (or, at any rate, outside of the “popular thinking” bubble), and we’ve found — to the best of our ability to know anything — that the so-called “young” earth and Noah’s flood are indeed true, and it is the opposing ideas that cannot possibly be true.

              We’re well aware that this puts us at direct odds with a lot of popular, even “expert” opinion. But we’re also aware that going along with what’s popular and comfortable to believe is *never* a path to truth. And we’re aware that ours is a dangerous time in which to trust popular opinion — especially given how much outright abuse there is of concepts like “science” and “expert.”

              If you’re taking the concept of “evolutionary biology” and trying to present it as “reality,” be aware that you’re essentially volunteering to take on a burden of proof (because evolution is supposed to be “firmly proven science”) that neither you nor anyone else has ever come anywhere near meeting.

              • Christopher R Weiss

                You have inadvertently made my point exactly.

                Let’s look at Noah’s flood. First we have to ignore physics. There simply is not enough water on the planet earth to cover the surface. I have heard some argue that God flattened the surface and then rebuilt the land. You would think that would leave some kind of evidence. Next we have to look at the supply of fresh water. Covering the surface of the earth with the oceans even when diluted would have left brackish water behind on top of soaking the entire surface in salt water for a year. This would have destroyed all the arable land, making it impossible for most plants to grow again. Moreover, there would be no freshwater fish or amphibians since brackish water would kill off these animals. Ignoring physics and water, we have the biodiversity problem. Since all land and air animals were on the ark, they all would have dispersed from the ark. Why are marsupials concentrated in Australia when they could survive on most of the remaining continents as well? Why is the animal life on Madagascar so different (lemurs)? Why are there old and new world monkeys? Evolution can occur in bursts, but if the earth is less than 10k years old, there simply aren’t enough generations to account for the differences we see.

                Many Christians accept science, and prior to the 20th century most important scientists were Christian. For example, the Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest. The largest group of Christians is the Catholic Church, and the leadership of the church accepts Genesis as metaphor and allegory.

                Reading the bible word for word as true leads to absurdities. Why would God provide so much evidence contradicting Genesis? Either God is a trickster or Genesis is not meant to be taken literally.

                You can argue that you are right, but there over half a billion Christians who would claim that you were wrong.

                I have been trained in science and seen things like mutation and selection up close in personal. I started my career working in a molecular biology lab. This is not some empirical dogma, but first hand experience.

              • DCM7

                “There simply is not enough water on the planet earth to cover the surface.”
                That may be true if you assume the earth’s present landscape, with high mountains that didn’t exist earlier. But it’s a clearly wrong assumption. The flood itself vastly altered the earth’s landscape.

                “if the earth is less than 10k years old, there simply aren’t enough generations to account for the differences we see.”
                That’s really just an opinion, and it’s not supported by evidence.

                “there over half a billion Christians who would claim that you were wrong”
                Even if that were true (and it probably isn’t), what does that prove? Truth isn’t determined by majority vote.

                “I have been trained in science and seen things like mutation and selection up close in personal. I started my career working in a molecular biology lab.”
                Then you should know better than anyone else what mutations cannot do: create volumes of new genetic information such as evolution would require.

                You do raise an interesting question about salt vs. fresh water, and I will have to see what I can find about that one. What I’ve found in the long run, though, is that the evidence against evolutionism is so impossibly overwhelming that a few good-sounding arguments for it aren’t going to add up to much. That’s something that you, will all your knowledge and intelligence, clearly have yet to discover (or acknowledge) for yourself.

            • There is no conflict between Christianity and reality. Even the most literal reading of the Bible that I have come across does not conflict with reality (in fact, it tends to be the more liberal and allegorical “readings” that conflict more with reality).

              The way to read the Bible correctly is the same way to read any written document correctly: in context. Almost every written document provides contextual clues as to how what is written is to be interpreted.

              For example, the context of Genesis (recounting the creation of the universe and the early days of life on earth) is clearly literal. It takes a great deal of mental gyration (and/or acceptance of contrary fallacy) to take it any other way, because the context is clearly literal and factual. (And you only assume the earth cannot be less than 10,000 years old because you have accepted flawed conjecture that passes itself off as empirical science).

              The same is true of the historical books of the Bible. They clearly recount historical facts, including dates, names and places. The only way to contextually accept them is literally.

              Prophetic and poetic books are filled with allegory and symbolism, and the context makes this clear. These are more challenging to understand, but a great amount of information can be gleaned from them by examining context.

              If your lover told you, “I’m dying to see you,” you wouldn’t interpret that to mean her life was about to terminate. Why? Contextual clues would tell you that she feels great distress that she is not currently with you, not that she is about to cease living.

              Of course the Bible can be the absolute source of truth. But as I mentioned in another comment, when you’re dealing with several billion people of very diverse educational and experiential backgrounds, many people will view portions that are less clear on relatively minor details in different ways. All Christian groups (that aren’t deliberately substituting their own agenda for the clear teaching of the Bible) agree on the major tenets of the Bible. No written work can make every detail completely clear on every possible point of every possible subject. It is impossible within the scope of the finite and flawed human mind that takes it in (not to mention finding enough paper and ink to catalog it all). God provided enough information for human beings to understand that he is the Creator of the universe and everything in it, that humanity has rebelled against and violated his standard of behavior, and that God has provided a way to be reconciled to him through Jesus Christ.

              Finally, you said “My problem with many Christians is the strength with which they make assertions that are very mushy in terms of support.” Interestingly, I have a great problem with atheists and naturalists who make with great strength assertions that are not only mushy in terms of support, but are flat-out contradicted by observational science (see my other comments).

              There are some claims made by the Bible that cannot be proven by observational science…but at least it makes no claims that are flatly contradicted by the framework of its own fundamental assumptions as is the case with materialism and naturalism.

              • Christopher R Weiss

                Please see my other remarks on how the great flood would be world killer and doesn’t mesh with what we see today with respect to biodiversity.

                My single question would be why does God provide so much evidence that the Genesis is false? Why do we have evidence like starlight that is billions of light years away? Why do we have ice packs that when you count the layers makes them over 100,000 years old (think rings on a tree)? I could go on but the basic and reproducible evidence that the earth is old than 10,000 years old is overwhelming. We can find sites where men were first farming over 30,000 years ago.

              • DCM7

                “Why do we have evidence like starlight that is billions of light years away?”
                A tough question for creationists, but there are factors involved that make things tough for evolutionists as well. Too much speculation & information to get into here, but this point is not an “out” for you.

                “over 100,000 years old”
                “reproducible evidence that the earth is old[er] than 10,000 years old”
                “sites where men were first farming over 30,000 years ago”
                The problem with all these claims, and many others like them, is that you’re assuming definite knowledge where there is in fact only interpretation and speculation. This has all been dealt with elsewhere. We’ve seen it over and over.

              • Under the right circumstances, there is more than enough water to completely cover the surface of the earth. Like most materialists/naturalists, you look at the world around you today and assume things have always been the way they are today. That is not only arrogant, it is foolish in the extreme.

                If the earth’s surface was much more smooth and flat in pre-flood times, there is more than enough water in the oceans today to have covered that land area completely (without even tapping into the immense amounts of water that are below the earth’s surface today). Have you ever considered that possibility, or the possibility that the ocean basins might have sunk/dropped and the water slid off the land areas and into those basins, and this settling in the ocean basins might have pushed the plates of the earth and made the land rise even higher? Evidently not.

                You also assume that the surface area of the earth would have been the same immediately after the flood as it is today, completely ignoring the likelihood that settling of the oceans may have progressed over many years or even centuries, as well as the rise of land area and mountains, the breaking of land dams holding back large bodies of waters, etc.

                You also assume that the salinity of the oceans today would have been the same a few thousand years ago. Again, arrogant and extremely foolish assumptions.

                You also assume that animal life on the earth is not adaptable and could not have adapted over time to different conditions on both land and water.

                The unfounded and myopic assumptions you make are truly breathtaking, and then you claim the statements of the Bible are unviable. Amazing!

                Accepting the contextually literal portions of the Bible as contextually literal will never lead you wrong. Only when you make unfounded and myopic assumptions, and couple those with a belief that the unproven (and often unfounded) assumptions that are passed off as “science” really are science will you consider the Bible impossible and inconsistent with science.

                God provides an incredible amount of evidence that the Genesis account is accurate. In fact, the Genesis account fits better with the empirical evidence available than does the vast majority of the wild-eyed conjecture of so-called scientists today (including your assumption that ice layers and tree rings mean what you think they mean, even though evidence disproves your assumptions).

                TheNaturalist was willing to admit that many of the ideas in which he was placing his faith were oversold. It would be nice if you could do the same, but it’s not looking like it so far.

                When you can admit that the following key claims of your philosophy are supernatural and in contradiction to actual science, we might be able to have a reasonable conversation:

                a) matter spontaneously coming into existence from nothing (something that has never been observed in the field or in the laboratory, and something that observational science tells us does not occur)

                b) matter spontaneously organizing itself into higher functional forms (something that has never been observed in the field or in the laboratory, and something that observational science tells us does not occur)

                c) abiogenesis (something that has never been observed in the field or in the laboratory, and something that observational science tells us does not occur)

                d) one organism giving rise to a completely different organism (something that has never been observed in the field or in the laboratory, and something that observational science tells us does not occur)

                Are you ready to admit that these fundamental assumptions of materialists/naturalists are unsupported by actual science?

              • While you ponder the scientific unviability of the most critical elements of materialistic and naturalistic philosophy, here are a couple of presentations to consider regarding the questions you raised:

                https://answersingenesis.org/media/video/science/flood-geology/

                https://answersingenesis.org/media/video/science/distant-starlight/

              • Christopher R Weiss

                I am sorry. AIG is not a site worthy of anyone’s time. Their horrible distortions and misrepresentations amount to lunacy.

              • No, nothing that reveals the fallacy of your religion’s faith claims is worthy of your time. Please continue the lunacy of believing in a self-contradictory fantasy that attempts to pass itself off as”science”.

              • DCM7

                “Their horrible distortions and misrepresentations amount to lunacy”
                So basically your line of argument is now reduced to mere name- calling? Well, I referred you to somewhere else. Are you just going to name-call it as well?

                You have made an intelligent, though ultimately biased and fallacious, attempt to question things that you personally don’t believe. Are you willing to subject your own beliefs to a similar level of questioning?

    • DCM7

      “they have some pretty significant theological differences. Some even understand Jesus differently. They can’t all be right.”
      And they’re not. To expand on Bob’s point: “significant theological differences” are frequently outright errors. And where there is error, there is inevitably a significant departure from what the Bible clearly lays out.

      • TheNaturalist

        So the religion you follow relies on the correct version of Bible with no errors? The problem is that all other religions based on the Bible also make the same claim. How do you determine which version of the Bible is error free?

        • DCM7

          In asking that question, you appear not to have bothered reading through the comments here.

          • Which is very typical.

            • TheNaturalist

              I have read through the comments here. The problem is that there has been no satisfactory answer. They all come down to “my interpretation is correct, yours is wrong.”

              • DCM7

                I’m not sure what kind of answer would satisfy you, especially since you appear not to be asking questions to actually learn.

                There is much more here than just “my interpretation is correct” — there is some of the “why” certain things are correct and why others are not. And that is much more than you’ve attempted to provide.

              • There are satisfactory answers (and there is neither time nor space to fully provide them here). They do not require interpretation. They require being able to follow the facts where they lead (and abandoning ideas that are contradicted by evidence and logic). As a former evolutionist myself who has had countless conversations with evolutionists since I became a “former” one, I can tell you that very few people possess what it takes to challenge their most fundamental assumptions, and fewer still who have the courage to follow the evidence where it leads.

                But that doesn’t have to describe you.

      • Christopher R Weiss

        Telling the difference is too often a matter of opinion.

        • DCM7

          Well, in your opinion, anyway. 😉

  • TheNaturalist

    I appreciate the interesting discussion; I have learned some new ideas from you. I still find claims of religions adherents that their religion is the only one that is true unjustified and dangerous. I have certainly gained a better understanding of how the Christians commenting on this thread think. I agree that scientists need to be careful in limiting their claims to within the scope of naturalism, I see that disagreements among Christians are perhaps minimal and not that important while disagreements among distinct religions are important, but I am not convinced that there is a way to determine which conflicting supernatural claims are true.

    A while ago I enjoyed a book on religion that made an important distinction between the “i”, “we” and “it” voice. Science needs to stay within the “it” voice since it works with in objective reality. Here is where religious claims are unreliable and most often incorrect. Religions are fine in the “we” and “I” voice, where they can make contributions to healthy functioning societies and personal belief. By making this distinction among the scope of religious claims, most science vs. religious conflicts can be minimized.

    I would urge Christians NOT to take such an arrogant and condescending tone in their proclamations. I think they would make more converts that way and help avoid violence among distinct religions groups.

    • It is indeed dangerous…in the absence of knowledge. However, if you’ve investigated thoroughly and have a high degree of confidence that you’ve found the correct answers, it would make no sense to act or fell uncertain in such a case.

      I appreciate your candor and honesty about the discussion we’ve had here. Having had countless such discussions over the years with atheists, naturalists and evolutionists, I can tell you that such an admission is EXTREMELY rare.

      You are also correct about the limitations of science. The scientific community and we in the “audience” would do well to remember these limitations. Unfortunately, many within the scientific community put forth their ideas and assumptions as if they were empirical fact. This is not only misleading, it stymies honest discussion as well as the pursuit of understanding itself. In short, in recent decades, science has taken it upon itself to answer the “big questions” of philosophy, even though it is fundamentally and by definition incapable of performing this role.

      While excessive arrogance on the part of Christians cannot be excused, I have no doubt that the overbearing arrogance of many atheists, evolutionists, etc. has something to do with the “back at you” attitude from many Christians, especially in frustration to those atheists and evolutionists who adamantly refuse to even examine the evidence or admit the shortcomings of available knowledge. You’re probably right that we Christians would get farther in convincing others if we could avoid responding in kind with arrogance, but we Christians remain fallen human beings even after having accepted God’s truth, so it’s hard to rise above that.

      Thanks again for your thoughtfulness. If you continue pondering these things and pursuing the truth where ever it leads, you will no doubt find it eventually.

  • There were answers to your supposed problems in the material at the links I provided yesterday. No one can help you if you reject explanations because they prove your worldview doesn’t have all the answers.

    Again, before you’re ready to have a mature and productive conversation on this topic, you need to come to terms with the fact that several critical claims of your philosophy are supernatural and in contradiction to actual science:

    a) matter spontaneously coming into existence from nothing (something that has never been observed in the field or in the laboratory, and something that observational science tells us does not occur)

    b) matter spontaneously organizing itself into higher functional forms (something that has never been observed in the field or in the laboratory, and something that observational science tells us does not occur)

    c) abiogenesis (something that has never been observed in the field or in the laboratory, and something that observational science tells us does not occur)

    d) one organism giving rise to a completely different organism (something that has never been observed in the field or in the laboratory, and something that observational science tells us does not occur)

    Are you ready to admit that these fundamental assumptions of materialists/naturalists are unsupported by actual science?

    • Christopher R Weiss

      The theory evolution does not depend on a -c, and with respect to d, the dramatic changes in the biopshere show clearly that the fauna and flora on the planet have changed drastically in the 4B years that life has existed on earth. There was a time when no mammals existed, there was a time when no birds existed, there was a time no reptiles existed, there was a time when no land animals existed, there was a time when no flowering plants existed, there was a time no woody plants existed, etc. You can clearly trace the overlapping emergence of these life forms without ever knowing how life started. Evolution is not contradictory to the existence of God. It only contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis. Moreover, evolution represents and overlapping and cyclic bush and not the clean tree or linear development so often misrepresented and lampooned by literal creationists.

      No one can state scientifically how life started, no one can explain how the great expansion of the Big Bang initiated, and no can state with certainty whether matter was created or always existed. These are the reasons why when people make the claim “God created everything” it is not a scientific question. It is a statement of faith. The possible existence of God is perfectly consistent with the Big Bang - God initiated the great expansion and/or brought all matter into existence. Even if it can be shown that life emerged through “natural” processes without direct intervention, the claim that God created the mechanisms through which life emerged cannot be refuted. Faith cannot be refuted by science, but faith cannot refute science either. These are two non-overlapping areas of study/belief/human experience. Religious people are wrong when they claim that Genesis refutes evolution, geology, chemistry and physics, and scientists are wrong if they state that they can disprove God based on science.

      With respect to more complex things emerging from simpler things, this has most certainly been observed. For example, a common form of mutation is gene doubling. This is when a single gene or a sequence is repeated in a chromosome. It results in longer protein chains, and based on repeated and related patterns it shows how more complex proteins such as enzymes can emerge from simpler proteins. This has been observed and documented.

      Beyond just the changes in the biosphere over time, speciation has been observed frequently among many different types of animals, including transitions. For example, some species of skink (lizards) in east Africa have stopped producing young in eggs and now give birth to live young following a mammalian style of fetal development using a placenta, etc. We have two distinct groups/species of egg laying mammals (monotremes) whose morphology more closely resembles reptiles than mammals. I could go on, but this idea that transition has never been observed is false.

      There are many claims in creationist material with the qualifier “never observed” that are simply false.

      Many people suffer from hubris, and the faithful are just as vulnerable. To say that you “know” that the our understanding of the natural world is wrong and the bible is literally true is to make a claim about knowing the mind of God that you should know is impossible. Our understanding of the world is never static, and we have accumulated more science in the last 150 years than in all of human history combined previously. Why did God wait so long for us to discover these things? The bible itself says that man cannot know the mind of God. The bible is supposed to be the inspired word of God, but it was still written down by men, translated by men, and interpreted by men. Can you claim then to know the mind of God and that your interpretation is correct? For example, the ages of Noah and Adam are clearly a mistranslation. The word for lunar month was minstranslated as year. Rather than admit this mistake, people have arrogantly claimed these people lived hundreds of years rather than 60-90 years they probably lived to be when you divide their translated ages by 13. What other errors can we find? The words were written in ancient dead languages and today’s people are making their best guesses. The belief that the bible was inspired by God is not contradicted by the claim that sections such as Genesis are not literally true.

      This whole conflict is completely silly and the result of human pride. Some scientists have attacked all religion with science as the antidote, while many believers have attacked science by using a literal interpretation of the bible. The debate is unnecessary and unproductive. Literal creationists are driving away some believers and some scientists are driving believers away from science. Both perspectives are destructive. Our lifespans have doubled because of what we have learned as a species. However, this is not proof that all religious beliefs are false.

      In answer to your last question, you are making dependency claims for science that are false, and you are basing your question on the false assumption that we live on a young earth. Consequently, no, I will not admit that there are fundamental assumptions for science that are not scientifically valid. Rather, I assert you don’t understand empirical inquiry because you are trying to overturn empirical inquiry with statements of your faith. Questions without empirical answers are not a refutation of science, and empirical observations that narrow the scope of some religious beliefs by contradicting the literal bible do not amount to proof that God does not exist.

      • Oh, yes it does. In order for there to even BE organisms in the first place, (a) matter had to come into existence, (b) it had to be organized into a higher functional firm, and (c) it had to become living.

        While the creationist cannot prove that life began at the hands of God, there is at least a written record which explains the basics of how it happened, and that written record harmonizes with what we see in the universe around us.

        Meanwhile, for the materialist/naturalist explanation to be true, science has to be violated in at least the three aforementioned areas.

        You can’t have your cake and eat it, too (well, not if you’re intellectually honest or don’t want to be a brazen hypocrite). Either you believe in the exclusivity of materialistic/naturalistic processes, or you don’t. And if you claim you do, then you are confined to looking ONLY to science for your explanations. Your explanations can’t depend on alleged events which are contradicted by the science you claim to place your faith in.

        Science clearly teaches (because this is what has been observed both in the field and in the laboratory) that

        1. Matter does not come into existence spontaneously from nothing

        2. Matter does not spontaneously organize itself into higher functional forms

        3. Life does not spontaneously come into existence from lifeless materials.

        You can think up as many neat and spectacularly exciting “What if’s” you want. That doesn’t make them science.

        Since you are unwilling to operate according to some rather basic standards of intellectual honesty, it is impossible to help you understand anything, and there is clearly no reason to waste any more time when you can’t even come to terms with reality.

        If you ever become willing to accept reality and the limitations of science, let me know, and we can then have a meaningful dialog.

      • DCM7

        “Evolution is not contradictory to the existence of God”
        You need to learn some history. Evolutionism was *designed* to eliminate the idea of God. There’s a reason people who choose not to believe in God become evolutionists.

        “a common form of mutation is gene doubling”
        That’s what’s known as a “rescuing hypothesis.” No natural mechanism exists that can actually create (not merely copy) genetic information, so something has to be called upon that can appear to solve this problem.

        “speciation has been observed frequently among many different types of animals”
        No one (at least with any knowledge) ever pretended there couldn’t be different “species” (an arbitrary classification) of the same “kind” of animal. Genetic changes can and do result in variation; they just can’t create information that wasn’t there before.

        “Our understanding of the world is never static, and we have accumulated more science in the last 150 years than in all of human history combined previously.”
        And much of what’s been learned in that 150 years has proven fatal to the evolutionary hypothesis, which endures because so many refuse to let go of it.

        “The word for lunar month was minstranslated as year. Rather than admit this mistake, people have arrogantly claimed these people lived hundreds of years rather than 60-90 years they probably lived to be when you divide their translated ages by 13.”
        That’s an interesting claim, but it’s neither supportable nor necessary. The idea of long lives in the past is supported by some extra-Biblical sources, and the vast reduction of lifespans after the Flood makes perfect genetic sense.

        “Literal creationists are driving away some believers”
        This is claimed over and over again, and demonstrated to be completely false over and over again.

        You’re clearly a very intelligent guy, but you’re putting an awful lot of effort into being convinced *that* certain things are true rather than discovering *whether* they’re true.

  • DCM7

    “How come there are no Kangaroos in Africa or South America or temperate areas of southern Europe or Asia?”
    My question to you is, what does it prove that they’re not in those places? That’s entirely circumstantial. If there were kangaroos in those places, then you’d just find some other circumstantial argument. Overall, the evidence against your position is much, much weightier than the little shadows of doubt that you try to cast on the opposite position.

    “I have spent a great deal of time reading from AIG and creation.com.”
    Then you have clearly come away from them with learning, especially the latter. Actually, your claim about “not the slightest hit of a response” casts some serious doubt regarding how much time you’ve even actually spent (again, especially on the latter).

    “reference these sites as having valid interpretations of scientific evidence”
    And yet I don’t hear anything from you showing that they don’t have valid interpretations. In the light of what I’ve read at creation.com in particular, you are essentially taking on the role of a feather calling a piano “weightless.” The more you write, the less convincing you sound.

    • Christopher R Weiss

      You missed the point on the kangaroo question. Why are almost all marsupials in the world in Australia? Why are all almost all species of lemurs on Madagascar? Why are there no old world monkey species in South America? The concentration of species speaks to geographic isolation and evolution and not the dispersal you would see if all land animals emerged from an Ark.

      I have read creation.com and AIG, and having been trained in the sciences, I see a radical reinterpretation of evidence in a way that is not supportable. These sites are guilty of confirmation bias without actually looking to see if their conclusions hold up. For example, they will point to places where sedimentary layers are inverted as an attack on the geological column without recognizing the near global consistency everywhere else. They will claim that the rapid die off during the flood explains the chalk cliffs of Dover without acknowledging that the density of life required for that amount of calcium in such a short period of time would choke off all other species in the nearby ocean. This is not circumstantial evidence but glaring holes in the explanations in these web sites and their research.

      What AIG and creation.com are guilty of is starting with a conclusion (Genesis is literally true and the earth is young) and explaining away contradictions to this conclusion. Science is the great pool of skepticism. No theory is treated as dogma, and all science is considered only a hypothesis until is confirmed with data. Better data always trumps any theory. Even the theory of relativity was considered just a set of hypotheses until experimental data was used to confirm it such as the ability of gravity to bend light.

      When you won’t even consider the possibility that the bible is allegory and metaphor, the only things you will look for are interpretations that confirm your conclusion. This is what is fundamentally wrong with young earth and literal creationism.

      • DCM7

        “You missed the point on the kangaroo question.”
        No, I just pointed out that, while it may appear to support something, it does nothing to actually *prove* it.

        “Science is the great pool of skepticism. No theory is treated as dogma, and all science is considered only a hypothesis until is confirmed with data.”
        So it’s claimed, and yet anyone who’s paying attention can see that evolution is the big, fat exception to this.

        Ultimately, your fatal mistake is this: Like the scientists that you’ve learned from, you refuse to simply let the evidence show what it shows, but instead have to interpret everything as if evolutionism *must* be true — and will settle for any explanation that will help it keep appearing true. And the more complex and technical-sounding the explanation, the better.

        Whatever else you or anyone else of intelligence may manage to come up with, the fact remains that the creation of life from non-life could *not* happen by the laws of nature; matter simply does not do what it’s supposed to have done. And the descent of all life from a common ancestor also could *not* happen, and the evidence that *really* should be there if it did simply is not there.

        The ability to interpret evidence (often with great effort) as if something happened is *not* proof that it did or could. And it certainly does not negate proof that it didn’t and couldn’t.

  • Gyst53

    See any similarities from Paul’s warning to our behavior today?

    The apostle Paul similarly foretold the overall self-seeking mind-set that would dominate people’s thinking in the last days: “But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying its power”

    2 Timothy 3:1-5