Evidence for God from Science

The biggest Christian con was with YECs aligning their position with thoughts such as sola scriptura, biblical inerrancy, the Word of God, Evangelicalism, etc. Such was a 20th century move largely done in the pulpits, Sunday schools, Christian groups, Christian schools who ignored a great deal of Evangelical scholarship with deeper learning in theology and Biblical knowledge (such as those who were part of the ICBI).

Many Christians were no doubt eager to find answers to modern science questions, dinosaurs and the like. Creationist organisations like AiG and "Dr Dino's" (Kent Hovind) were perhaps really the only Christian "think tanks" in town who had resources.

My general analysis above might be wrong here, but the above seems about right given my own experiences as an Evangelical Christian and what I know.

Kurieuo wrote:The biggest Christian con was with YECs aligning their position with thoughts such as sola scriptura, biblical inerrancy, the Word of God, Evangelicalism, etc. Such was a 20th century move largely done in the pulpits, Sunday schools, Christian groups, Christian schools who ignored a great deal of Evangelical scholarship with deeper learning in theology and Biblical knowledge (such as those who were part of the ICBI).

And an after result was that many are now abandoning the faith, thinking that Christianity is anti-science nonsense. Which it isn't but still.
Remember when fundamentalism simply meant having the 5 main points down pat? Inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture, deity of Jesus, virgin birth of Jesus, the victory over sin Jesus had on the cross, and the resurrection and second coming of Jesus? Now that term has a backwards connotation, what a shame.
For more info see this:http://trisagionseraph.tripod.com/fundamentals.html

Another con was with secular Humanists taking advantage of such nonsense and redefining Christian "Fundamentalism" as something akin Islamic Fundamentalism. Foundationally, the doctrine of one set of beliefs lends itself to violence after it's military prophet, whereas "fundamental" doctrine in the other entirely different as you noted.

Etymologically, "fundamentalist" appears to have evolved into a perception of "stupid" beliefs people believe in joined to an often accepted proposition that "religion leads to violence". Theologically, and traditionally, a "fundamentalist" perhaps had no such stigmas. For example, I'm a Fundamentalist Evangelical Christian, however -- what this actually means to me and would portray to others today would no doubt be quite misleading as to who I am and even what I believe.

Again, I might be wrong in my analysis here, but this too seems about right given my own experiences with people, what gets published online, the media and as someone who'd identify as just such a Christian.

Kurieuo wrote:Another con was with secular Humanists taking advantage of such nonsense and redefining Christian "Fundamentalism" as something akin Islamic Fundamentalism. Foundationally, the doctrine of one set of beliefs lends itself to violence after it's military prophet, whereas "fundamental" doctrine in the other entirely different as you noted.

Etymologically, "fundamentalist" appears to have evolved into a perception of "stupid" beliefs people believe in joined to an often accepted proposition that "religion leads to violence". Theologically, and traditionally, a "fundamentalist" perhaps had no such stigmas. For example, I'm a Fundamentalist Evangelical Christian, however -- what this actually means to me and would portray to others today would no doubt be quite misleading as to who I am and even what I believe.

Again, I might be wrong in my analysis here, but this too seems about right given my own experiences with people, what gets published online, the media and as someone who'd identify as just such a Christian.

No I agree with you, I've noticed the same. The sad thing is they're partly right: many fundamentalists (WBC for instance) and Christian conservatives (KKK for one) give the rest a bad name.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Another con was with secular Humanists taking advantage of such nonsense and redefining Christian "Fundamentalism" as something akin Islamic Fundamentalism. Foundationally, the doctrine of one set of beliefs lends itself to violence after it's military prophet, whereas "fundamental" doctrine in the other entirely different as you noted.

Etymologically, "fundamentalist" appears to have evolved into a perception of "stupid" beliefs people believe in joined to an often accepted proposition that "religion leads to violence". Theologically, and traditionally, a "fundamentalist" perhaps had no such stigmas. For example, I'm a Fundamentalist Evangelical Christian, however -- what this actually means to me and would portray to others today would no doubt be quite misleading as to who I am and even what I believe.

Again, I might be wrong in my analysis here, but this too seems about right given my own experiences with people, what gets published online, the media and as someone who'd identify as just such a Christian.

No I agree with you, I've noticed the same. The sad thing is they're partly right: many fundamentalists (WBC for instance) and Christian conservatives (KKK for one) give the rest a bad name.

The kkk and Westboro Baptist church give the rest of Christians a bad name?

Wouldn't that kinda be like OJ Simpson and Aaron Hernandez giving the rest of the NFL players a bad name?

RickD wrote: The kkk and Westboro Baptist church give the rest of Christians a bad name?

Wouldn't that kinda be like OJ Simpson and Aaron Hernandez giving the rest of the NFL players a bad name?

Apparently to many non believers they do.

And Charles Manson gives the rest of atheists a bad name.

RickD wrote:And Charles Manson gives the rest of atheists a bad name.

I would've said Dawkins does, since he helped start the militant atheist movement, whether intentionally or not.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

RickD wrote:And Charles Manson gives the rest of atheists a bad name.

I would've said Dawkins does, since he helped start the militant atheist movement, whether intentionally or not.

And you'd be wrong to generalize like that. Just like it would be wrong to equate millions of Christians with the KKK or WBC.

RickD wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

RickD wrote:And Charles Manson gives the rest of atheists a bad name.

I would've said Dawkins does, since he helped start the militant atheist movement, whether intentionally or not.

And you'd be wrong to generalize like that. Just like it would be wrong to equate millions of Christians with the KKK or WBC.

You're right, I apologize.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

RickD wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

RickD wrote:And Charles Manson gives the rest of atheists a bad name.

I would've said Dawkins does, since he helped start the militant atheist movement, whether intentionally or not.

And you'd be wrong to generalize like that. Just like it would be wrong to equate millions of Christians with the KKK or WBC.

You're right, I apologize.

I think there's a tendency for us Christians to think of atheists as the enemy. Maybe many of us forget that some of us were once atheists. I'm not saying that you believe that, I just think generalizing like that, can perpetuate an us against them mentality. Which isn't good for anyone, imo.

I don't feel too sorry for Hovind. He made his own bed and sowed his own seeds. I don't know a whole lot about his tax issues except what he really was doing was "structuring". Basically when you "structure" payments and income in such a way to avoid bank reporting requirements. All pretty easy to prove, just follow the electronic and paper trail. Most tax cases are 10 years old before ending in court so he could have avoided prison but chose to be hard headed.

First heard of Hovind when he started jumping James White about his "mistreatment" of Gail Riplinger. That lead to some of his totally bogus lectures about bible translations, especially his clinging to KJV-onlyism. If you lack the discernment to be alerted to false information, then you really really should pay attention to people who try to correct your errors. But Hovind elected to compound his errors by attacking someone who knows the subject and triple compound by defending a kook.
AFIK he has not apologized to White or publicly confessed his errors of spreading lies about Bible history and transmission.

Then that lead to Hovind and his YEC stuff. He was irritating when "debating" others like Dr. Hugh Ross. He played so fast and loose with semi-facts and plain old fictional claims nobody could take him serious except a blind supporter.

He certainly has a long track record of two things: reckless disregard for truth/facts and failing to heed correction; and worse IMHO failing to admit his errors and apologize. Until he demonstrates different behavior he remains on the fast talking huckster list.

RickD wrote:And Charles Manson gives the rest of atheists a bad name.

Kim Jong Un also.

I've always found Kent Hovind to be a fraud in presenting his YEC position, being more of a used car salesman or auctioneer. So I wasn't very surprised to hear he had been arrested for tax evasion. He also had a list of priors long before the final warrant for his arrest was issued. He was indicted on almost 60 counts of obstruction, fraud, contempt... I really can't reconcile him as being Christian. Hovind's defense being that it was God's money, not the state, yet if he were Christian he'd know the words of his master. "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's.” He did neither of these commands, but kept the money for himself. He should have paid his taxes or applied for some kind of exemption.

"Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?"

I'm not confident in saying he's a believer, since he never admitted his wrong doing, no repentance. The more I research his background, the more suspicious I become of his integrity and innocence. If anyone here can present a plausible case for his defense, I'd be interested in hearing it.

yorican67 wrote:I've always found Kent Hovind to be a fraud in presenting his YEC position, being more of a used car salesman or auctioneer. So I wasn't very surprised to hear he had been arrested for tax evasion. He also had a list of priors long before the final warrant for his arrest was issued. He was indicted on almost 60 counts of obstruction, fraud, contempt... I really can't reconcile him as being Christian. Hovind's defense being that it was God's money, not the state, yet if he were Christian he'd know the words of his master. "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's.” He did neither of these commands, but kept the money for himself. He should have paid his taxes or applied for some kind of exemption.

"Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?"

I'm not confident in saying he's a believer, since he never admitted his wrong doing, no repentance. The more I research his background, the more suspicious I become of his integrity and innocence. If anyone here can present a plausible case for his defense, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Apparently the IRS Commisoner has apologized for arresting him and others. http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/hovind.php