[Vision2020] Re: Religious Diversity Education

[Luke]

Hello, Ted:

> I really doubt that the words "under God" will be removed by law from the
> pledge of allegiance soon.
> Why do you say this?  What evidence do you have?

Well, for one, the fact that someone actually tried it. In our relativistic
age, some people like to argue that the name "God" is too religious. For
example, a Hindu would be insulted; the official total of Hindu gods has
risen to 30,000,000. Our society today likes to make the exception the rule,
and sooner or later the Supreme Court will make a ruling taking out "under
God."
BTW, it was added around1930; previously there was no "under God." What goes
in
can be taken back out.


> But the point is, how can you say the schools deny God's existence with
> millions of students all over the US saying this pledge with the words
> "under God."  Sounds like acknowledging God's existence to me.

It doesn't matter if they say once a week the word "God" when they are being
taught that there is no god in their science classes all year.


> You have an extreme interpretation of what it means to believe in God that
> forces you to take extreme positions.  Like your position on biology and
> evolution.  Science does not deny the possibility of the soul and an
> afterlife.  This is a matter of religious faith.

The two are intertwined. Science is directly connected to religion; there's
no coincidence that most of today's leading Darwinists are convinced there
is no God. They believe we came from monkeys, and the only logical
conclusion to evolutionary thinking is not that there is probably no God,
but that there IS no God. You should check out the past debates between Will
Provine and Philip Johnson, and you will hear exactly what I am saying,
except not from a Christian but from an atheist, Mr. Provine!


> said, a matter of religious faith.  Many very brilliant scientists who
> believe in evolution are also Christians.  They have a different view of
> these issues that allows them to accept the science of evolution and
believe
> in Christ.

That doesn't make evolution true. Due to irreducible complexity, gene
density, and DNA, we can know for certain that evolution doesn't work.


> I do not have any blinders on.  I am open to many interpretations of the
> world around me on issues of science, spirituality and God etc.
>

Ah, you have proved my point. Your blinders kept you from seeing the actual
point of what I was saying. What I said was that you had blinders on
regarding what is actually taught in the public schools.

> Thanks for the exchange.  I hope your faith serves you well!  I just wish
> you would with a bit more humility consider that other faiths might have
> value and truth that you are not acknowledging.

I'm not saying that my faith is great because Luke Nieuwsma believes it; no,
I am saying that God's sacrifice is so great, so wonderful that it is free
to all men; this is not
pride, this is called certainty. Ergo, I claim that Jesus Christ is the only
way to happiness, joy, and salvation.


> The world does not have to be an all or nothing proposition on issues of
> spirituality and faith.

Whoop! There goes absolute truth. There goes logic.
Ted, it rather does have to be this or that. I've said it several times, but
I'll say it again.
1)There is absolute truth. Either something is true, or it is false. Easy to
understand.
2)Therefore, there can only be one true religion, though many false ones.
You cannot have two contradictory religions (e.g. Christianity and Buddhism)
true at the same time. So no, all ways do not lead to God. And no, we're not
all on the same road. Either you're on the straight and narrow, or you're on
the broad and crooked.

Take care, and God bless,

Luke