Featured Congressman calls evolution lie from 'pit of hell'

It is not necessarily courage to agree with the world even on a Baptist Forum, especially when all are anonymous.

 

Saturneptune, thank you for the opportunity to agree to disagree. To me that means that you can I can sit around the kitchen table, in friendship, and talk about our areas of disagreement. Whether we're butting heads on politics, religion, or the best bait to catch largemouth bass, when we leave that table, our conversation can continue, in friendship, about things that we share agreement. IMO, we do share areas of agreement.

During a debate, such as this one, I'll try my best to show you why a purple plastic worm is better, even though I know you fully endorse live bait for bass. I expect you to do the same with your live bait premise. Knowing full well that it is likely that neither one of us will change our opinion based soley on the others viewpoint. That's OK as it serves a purpose. Our kitchen table conversations may make me stronger in my opinion. And, it can make me take a second look and ponder why I am so sure. Either way, when we're sitting around that eternal fishing hole, we'll both agree on what we should have used to be fishers of men.

In this purple worm vs live bait, I suspect that we are in full agreement, except on one point. And that is where a God professing politician can speak. Even within that point, we are in agreement that many politicians will say/do anything to stay in office. Many are worse than the stereotypes we often apply towards used car salesmen and lawyers.

My point, for whatever it's worth in this conversation, is that until I know for sure, I can't apply any of those stereotypes to specific individuals. I have met honest used car salesmen. I've also dealt with an attorney who mis-represented himself prior to my agreement to pay him for legal services. He agreed to represent me in a situation where he had little expertise. If he had been knowledgeable, he would have informed me, up front, that I had no legal standing in federal court, due to applicable law in my state. I knew about that law, but didn't understand the implication of same at federal level. As an attorney, who agreed to take this type of case, he should have known. He didn't and still demanded payment from me for the education he received.

To continue our conversation (if you like) I'd need more information to form an opinion about how closely this politician practices his faith. For one thing, I'm suspect of anything reported in the Huffington post. For another, with the general bias of media today, before accepting as "truth" anything I read, I want it confirmed with details. Frankly, I sick and tired of the media twisting hard news into editorial pages with half truths.

Thus, as time permits, I'm looking for more evidence of the fruit he bears. Here's an example I found this morning. He's giving his testimony before Congress. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUKnAaPvyNo Something no politician has to do these days. Suspect that many won't because it could cost them votes, even if they are true professing Christians.

Next, in my search I turned up this political ad. Even though it is political, it shows why a church would consider inviting him to speak at a sportsman's event. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUODkd9_8-E&feature=related

Here's a video on where he stands regarding protecting religious freedom. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c21fiDSO61k&feature=related

Next take a look at this. http://irregulartimes.com/index.php...ution-steps-beyond-arena-of-a-religious-test/ and the comment that follows. What ever motives are behind person speaking out for God in the public area, this is what they can anticipate will happen. How much longer do we have before no one in the public eye can testify to their belief in God without penalty much more severe than this tirade? We are getting close to, if not already there, the point a pastor cannot read scriptures nor preach on the evils of homosexualty from the pulpit without civil penalty. Who makes the laws? Politicians. Why would we seek to forbid any politician from speaking out, from any podium, in support of God's word? Whether it's the pulpit on Sunday morning, a gathering of sportsmen, or before the Congress of the United States. Somebody has to put on the armour of God. Why should we condem any imperfect individual, because he or she is a politician?

This post is already way too long. In closing one final point. I don't know about other Baptist churches, and can only speak about ours. From time to time, imperfect people, give their testimony to God from behind the microphone on the pulpit. Our Lord knows, in all likelyhood far better than I do, myself, where my failures lie. He knows how many times I've let Him down. Yet, I've given my testimony from behind that pulpit. If this sinner can do that, why should this sinner deny the same opportunity to another one, regardless of his secular vocation?

Yes, we can agree to disagree, Saturneptune. :flower:

 

It was "courage" in my book knowing he would most assuredly attract harsh criticism from many HERE. Being anonymous is not really relevant except for those rare "kooks" who enjoy being a provacateur and ranting.

 

You have a good post, Oldtimer, but I want to draw attention to the above remark.

I understand what you are trying to say, and I agree with you overall. However, politics could only be in the same vein as fishing lures in the larger context of a larger fundamental political agreement.* These days people are divided at a fundamental level.

One's politics is a description of the extent one will coerce his neighbor. These days the coersion is taking sinister turns. The state is drawing its sword less to punish evildoers, and more to coerce one to yield to immorality. Politics is sanctioning the murder of 1.5 million children a year. It is coercing you to fund it. It holds a gun to your head lest you defend the victims. It is extorting from you the money they need to support its underlying premise (Darwinism) and spread its gospel.

If I could disagree with Darwinism, and still not be subject to its political clout, i.e. forced to betray unborn children to the violence of their murderous mothers and "doctors," forced to grant sodomy social sanction, forced to ascribe to it as truth by labeling it as science, I could say I would agree to disagree. To say it these days is to yield to it. Men were not forced to receive the mark of the Beast on their foreheads. They could wear it on their hands as well. In other words, it doesn't matter what one thinks of the Beast if he yields his members as its servants.

*I'm not saying you equated politics with one's preference for a particular fishing lure, but people (and I'm not saying that you do) tend to relegate politics to the realm of trifles, and that is the thing I am addressing.

 

Why does the divide continue to be between political beliefs, ie, for example, evolution or Creationism? That is not the question. The question is, why does a local New Testement Church allow a politiican to speak within its confines?

This is the bottom line. Each church is autonomous. If a particular local church wants to allow a politician to speak, then that is their right. They can also choose to have beer at the next church pot luck and have a rap band preform during morning worship.

 

The question is much more than that, SN. Nothing was brought into this thread that isn't eminently relevant, and that doesn't put your objections to rest.

 

Then why do we agree about Creationism 100% and totally different about the presence of a politician in the house of God?

 

Conditioning, most likely.

 

LOL, you got a point.

 

So he can give his personal testimony and let people know more about his belief. He might also be a member of that church.


You can see Rep. Broun's talk here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9BREymSq_A

Personal testimony 26:30 - 32:00

Evolution comments 34:55 - 35:40 (and more)

 

It is a matter of opinion to interpret Genesis 1-11 (in particular) in a literal manner. There are good, God fearing people who don't do so. To equate your opinion as God's opinion and other opinions as from Satan while knowing it is a matter of interpretation is fundamentalist.

It can only be this way, there are no other options - to not agree with ME is to disagree with God and agree with Satan. See in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc...

 

I have no problem with embryology as long as it is not an excuse for abortion. However, I believe that the concepts [they are not theories] of evolution and the Big Bang are anti-God. If that makes me a fundamentalist then so be it!

 

That's fine, you're membership card is in the mail.

 

Some Questions....

So.....you don't believe it is EVER RIGHT to come to the place in Christian belief where you take a narrow, one-sided, dogmatic, live and die by that belief, "this is my conviction" position? What is wrong with being a fundamentalist?

For the record...I happen to dogmaticly believe that the first 11 Chapters of Genesis (and more of course) is the real historical foundation upon which the truth of the rest of the Word of God is built. If you discount any of that then you might as well discard the rest of the Bible. That is ground worth fighting for. I believe people can be saved and not understand all of the truth in the Bible when they are first born-again BUT....I don't believe anyone can be genuinely saved and persist in rejecting any part of it as being untrue. That is my personal opinion but I am extremely comfortable with it. You can't accept by faith the Lord Jesus Christ, one of whose names is "the Word" (John 1:1-3,14) and reject any part of the scriptures as untrue or unauthoritative. Nowwhere in scripture is there ANY evidence of the lie we call evolution. God created the universe,this world,and every living thing on it by the word of His mouth and His mighty will. End of story (at least about that). Any other theory is a lie of Satan.

Bro.Greg

 

Yes, I heard most of the talk. No where did he mention in his testimony enriching himself from questionable loans and campaign funds.

 

This issue is not simply a matter of opinion. Which view becomes the guiding philosophy of law and public policy? Which one receives legal sanction as truth?

If Darwinism is not true, then you believe a lie, and any effort to defend it is irrational.

 

Saturneptune, you've mentioned this several times and, if I understand correctly, you base this on the link that you provided earlier.

One of the soapboxes that I often pull out these days is the need (desire?) to know as much as possible before making anything the basis of my belief. It was a tough lesson to learn with regards to what I thought I knew about evolution. (The primary subject of this thread.)

Additionally, throughout my life I've seen the truth emerge after someone was tarred and feathered. Probably the most widely known example is the Duke LaCross players accused of rape. Friends and family were ready to put them under the jail when the news reports were aired. My plea to them was to wait and see. As Paul Harvey used to say "And now for the rest of the story". Well, we've heard the rest of that story.

IMO, this is a similar situation. I want to know the rest of the story. Especially in view of the outrage that's being expressed over his remarks during his testimony at a church event. (A few minutes with a search engine will reveal the depth of hatred - valid use, IMO, in this case - that is being brought against this man. For example: (a mild one compared to some)

Using clues in the original link, I went hunting. To make a long story short, I don't know all of the truth yet.

So far, I'll I've been able to find is an allegation regarding approximately $30,000 in interest on campaign loans as noted in the referenced link. While I don't know all the truth yet, it appears the allegation that he put money in his own pocket is inaccurate. At most the allegation should have been improper handling of reporting forms for campaign finances. Forms that have been (are being) amended.

CREW - "His ethics issues stem from his failure to disclose the true source and terms of his campaign loans"

So far, there is no evidence that he's "enriching himself" from loans and campaign funds. From what I've found so far, even the loans themselves aren't questionable. How they were reported is what's being brought into question.

More later.... time to get ready to go to church for Wednesday morning Bible study -- always seeking the truth in God's word.

 

Wow!!!

Amen OT....thank you for all your "fair and balanced" hard work and investigation about this matter. Methinks you would make a great investigative reporter! God bless you brother. I'll look forward to meeting you one day (and benefiting from the experience). You are a far better "detail" person that I am....probably more patient as well.:thumbsup:

Bro.Greg:type:

 

Come now Bro. Greg, you know that is not what I was saying. There are foundational truths that anchor Christianity and to remove or compromise them in some way ends up destroying Christianity itself. The divinity of Jesus and the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus are just a couple of examples.

A literal 6 day 24 hour creation is not however one of those foundational truths. Ones salvation does not hinge on your acceptance of this interpretation.