₦airaland Forum

Hi OLAADEGBU,

Yours views are acknowledged, but some of them make some of us wonder. Let me pick a few from the most recent:

OLAADEGBU:
• The Bible has absolutely no hint of ages of evolutionary development. Forcing the "days" of Genesis 1 to mean "ages" can be done, but there is no support for that idea in the rest of Scripture (Psalm 33:6-9, 148:5-6; John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:3; Revelation 4:11; etc.).

This suffers a huge problem from the onset. The 'days' in Genesis 1 could refer to 'ages'; notice I said 'could', and I do so in the simple conviction that there does not seem to be any fast-and-dry rule to hold 'day' as a literal 24hrs in the same Genesis 1.

One reason why I say so is because Genesis 1 does not hold that the age of the created universe began on what we read as the 'first' day. Prior to verse 5 (the 'first day'), there is 'the beginning' in verse 1. It was in the beginning that the heavens and the earth were created, and not rather on the first day. How long that 'beginning' is, we do not know.

• Evolution is not observed at all today. Empirical science is based on observation and verification. Nothing (from bacteria to people) is "evolving" into a "higher order." Period.

When we argue like this, perhaps it has never occured to us as Christians to examine our own argumements. Science being based on 'observation and verification' does not mean that anyone 'observed' creation 'in the beginning' either. There does not seem to be any basis for us to argue like this, because we cannot just sit back and talk about 'observation' to 'verify' anything if asked about 'the beginning'.

But that does not mean that I don't believe in creation - I do. But how do I go about 'testing' out any empirical sciences for creation that occured 'in the beginning' when was not even there to begin with?

• Fossil data does not show any transitional forms. If evolution occurred prior to recorded history, it can only be documented by the fossils embedded in the water-deposited rocks of earth. Those "missing links" are still missing.

True, 'missing links' (ie, transitional forms) are still a huge problem for Darwinism - Darwin himself had problems with fossils. But fossil alone does not falsify or validate anything - for instance, fossils do not tell us anything about 'creation' other than point back in history to their 'existence'.

• God's character absolutely forbids evolutionary methods. God's holiness demands truth, and His omniscience demands perfection. He cannot know what is best and then "create" something inferior. He wrote that He took six days to create the universe (Exodus 20:11). And He cannot lie!

I'm not persuaded that is what Exodus 20:11 states. In six days the LORD 'made' (aśah), not 'create' (bara'), the heavens and the earth and all in them. The distinction between 'bara' and 'asah' could be seen in Psalm 104:30 - God renewed the face of the earth. If one turns to Proverbs 8:22-23, we find some epochs that precede what we call the 'first day' - let's see:

'The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.'

Please look carefully at those highlighted words:

* there was a period before the works of old

* there was also 'the beginning' before the earth came into existence.

In all this, I have a problem with the idea that God "created" the universe in six days! That is simply because we're counting a convenient timescale that ignores what is written.

Just my observations.

Haha! That one is a good laugh-line. Who has been invading Pakistan before Pakistanis gave themselves the problem of the hudood law against their own women? I understand you're having a difficult time facing up to that, but who wouldn't be in your shoes if they argue vacantly as you do?

When I see more comedies, perhaps I may tease you a bit more. For now, I've got other things to peruse.

Lol, Gamine. That was indeed straight-forward.

One does not have to be a Christian to live 'anyhow' and die instantia.
But again, I guess you're spot on in putting it straight like that - especially
in light of Romans 8:13.

huxley:
A theory is a hypothesis that has passed ALL currently verificational tests applied to it thus far. And futher, has been accepted by the community of scientists who are specifically interested in this area of inquiry.

First, that is an assumption. I don't know who has dribbled that idea that a theory is a hypothesis that has passed ALL current verificational tests. What do you mean by ALL - that the theory does not have any difficulties that still puzzle its adherents? No, Darwinism still has its problems and can't be said to have passed "ALL" verificational tests - otherwise that is not longer a theory but something else.

Something accepted as a theory does not mean that it is forever incapable of being rejected.  Every good scientific theory has to pass the test of falsifiability, which is a way of demonstrating the theory false.

Huh? While I may partly grant your view, it feels inadequate. Falsifiability is not primarily about demonstrating that a theory is "false"; rather, it is about the validity of any theory as to whether it could be shown to be either of two premises: scientifically true or false (not just "prove" that it is 'false'). Therefore, passing a 'test' of falsifiability does not rest on its being false; but rather its validity as an explanatory index for any phenomena. This is why falsifiability rarely holds theories to be 'false', but instead provides the grounds for some scientists to add 'ad hoc hypotheses to existing theories' (as argued by Thomas Kuhn).

In the case of The Theory of Evolution, if it could be shown that complex animals with complex bodyplans, such as mammals existed in the pre-cambrian, that would demonstrate that the theory was false.

No, scientific paradigms are not that ad hoc, huxley. That is why philosophers of science have continued to note that 'scientists' who reason that way are not doing science. To say that "if" it could be shown that mammals existed in the pre-cambrian, then the TOE is "false" - that does not validate Darwinism at all. You're delving into the field of Paleontology - and paleotolotogists have a huge problem for Darwinists to this very moment. One could also make the same postulation of an "iff"  ('if and only if' - a biconditional logical connective) and therefore find no answers in paleontology for Darwinian claims.

I would give this simple quip: let us assume that it could ONE DAY be "proven" that mammals infact lived in the pre-cambrian, then you would find darwinists making other ad hoc hypothesis to refine Darwinism, not acknowledge it to be "false".

SO far, NOT a single tests has proved evolution false.  So as a theory it is a valid one.

Evolution (ala Darwinism) still has failed to reconcile with the scientific difficulties posed by paleontology. That one challenge alone does not necessarily invalidate evolution as a 'theory' - and that is why it is not actually seasoned to say that this or that 'theory' is to pass any 'test'. It is hypotheses that are 'tested', while theories are falsifiable.

Gamine:
What is the 'saving' from , during the 'christian walk' 

i just cant grasp where you people get your explanations from.

I like your questions, Gamine. Let me offer Galatians 1 verse 4 and see if it answers that one:

'that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father'

That perhaps is talking about "during the christian walk".

Thank you, ttalks. I'm humbled by your calm outline; though I'd seen some of your posts bearing out those aspects. Restating them again was not to floor you, but to rather confirm (or reaffirm) the point.

However, even at attempts to reaffirm anything, perhaps it may not be far fetched to reason that some issues help us to think a bit deeper, yes?

Then, I would like to note the following:

ttalks:
Here's how I see the three stages:
- the first stage of being declared saved is being saved from the condemnation brought about by the law of Moses;being justified by faith - Acts 13:39, Romans 3:25,etc.

I accede (or agree). However, that is one of the things from which we are saved among several others. When I became a Christian, the one question I sought to answer for myself was this:

    Saved from WHAT?

While "justification" is part of the answer, the real answer is simply this:

    Saved from the wrath of God.

The primary verse that outlines this for me is Romans 5:9; because when I ask myself what it is that I've been saved from, the answer in that verse is this:

   'Much more then, being now justified by his blood,
    we shall be saved from wrath through him'

In Acts 13:39, the primary thing is that the Law could not justify anyone. As such, we know for a fact that the Law was not given to everyone, certainly not to Gentiles; and people cannot be judged upon the basis of what was not committed to them. This argument is settled in Romans 2:12 -

  "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law:
   and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law"

As one who is not a Jew patristically, could I be judged upon the basis of a Law that was not committed to me as a Gentile? certainly not. Wherefore is the condemnation? Because I was a sinner "without the Law". Even without the Law, the first thing the apostle declares is found in Romans 1:18 -

  'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness
   and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness'

Again, whether within the scope of the Law or outside of it, the one thing that I understand as being saved from is this - the wrath of God revealed from heaven against all ungodliness. It does not matter whether or not it is some kinds of ungodlines, the qualifier there is ALL - "all ungodlines". This is why Isaiah says that our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.

So, in simple terms, I may not be confident to hold your view that the first spect is "being saved from the condemnation brought about by the law of Moses". Romans 2:12 tells us some who sinned without the Law would face their verdict without the law. Therefore, the first aspect for me is being saved from the wrath of God against ALL ungodliness.

- the second stage;the constantly being saved stage.This has to do with our Christian walk;living life according to Christ's provisions in the new covenant.Remember living this life is by the grace provided by Christ's sacrifice and not by our effort,so there shouldn't be any talk of us doing the saving by our effort.Living for Christ is by his grace alone.
Philipians 2:12-13 (emphasis on 13).

- The final stage.This has to do with Christ's return; the resurrection and glorification of those dead in Christ and the glorification of those in Christ still alive.
1 Peter 1(emphasis on verses 5,9,and 13).

Note: I'm posting from my phone and therefore, limited.

I appreciate your other two points. Thank you.

huxley:
Do you know about the new Nylon eating bacteria? Where did this new ability to eat nylon come from?

Em, huxley sir, "ability" is something abstract, so I don't know if you might want to rephrase that question (though I get where you're coming from).

[quote author=the_seeker link=topic=334556.msg4702023#msg4702023 date=1255119236]Evoultion however does not even qualify as a theory cos to take a line of fossils and claim that it represents a lineage is not a scienific hypothesis that is testable.[/quote]Much as I'm not a fan of the '-isms' of Darwinism , I don't think it is apt to argue that 'Evolution' does not "qualify" as a theory. What we have to understand is that Darwinism is not 'tested' alone on fossils (even Darwin himself had huge problems with fossils). He theorized, yes; whether his theory is 'testable' is another matter entirely (actually, it is the hypothesis that should be 'testable', while the theory should be 'falsifiable').

debosky:
To those using 1 Cor 16:2 to 'justify' tithing, let's examine it in detail:

Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. 2 On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money[b] in keeping with his income,[/b] saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.

Paul talks about setting aside a sum of money - nothing prescriptive in it at all - neither 10%, 1% or 99%, simply an amount in YOUR estimation, as God has prospered you.

The very verses is prescriptive. Read verse 1 and see why it was prescriptive: "as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye". Although he mentions no specific percentage - not even 23% (which is what some Christian theologians also argue is the tithe amount, people like John MacArthur; Russell Kelly drags a huge 40% as 'tithe', etc). However, those who read his epistle quite well understood that Paul was prescribing that they MEASURE out a portion of teir income commensurate with what they had earned. That was not prescriptive, you say? Good - then that verse should mean abslutely nothing to any Christian, ignoring the fact of verse 1 - 'do AS I instructed other churches!' Otherwise we may have read something like - do just about anything that comes to your head.

This collection was for 'God's people', i.e. a specific purpose, not simply fulfillment of a 'law' or 'instruction'.

Giving was not established to fulfill a 'law' other than the fulfilling the law by LOVE. Love is said to be a matter of fulfilling the Law; and you will find that there is a sharp restriction imposed on HOW Israel were to give in the OT: they were to give willingly of their own hearts and not simply to fulfill ANY law.

Tithe is 10% - I choose to give, if you CHOOSE to, then all well and good. Is there any compulsion attached to it? No.

I may also choose to give regular in the form of a tithe - and yes, I deliberately choose to do so. Not because of fulfilling any Law - but because, like you, that is what I sense the Holy Spirit movig me to do many times.

@debosky,

I would have liked to leave this subject for those inclined to splitting hairs on it. But what is worrisome is anti-tithers trying to interprete what others are saying and yet completely miss the point. Let me point out a few:

debosky:
In my view, Jesus in this case wasn't giving instructions on tithing per se, but castigating the Pharisees for being meticulous in 'obedience' to the law, but failing to do things that would improve the lives of fellow people. While you might regard it as tacit support for tithing, this is a flawed view.

The point is not that Jesus was castigating the Pharisees but implicitly giving out an instruction. What is meant by His clear statement:

" these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone" - Matthew 23:23.

If you assume that the big picture is His castigating the Pharisees, you should not even seek to lay any claim to judgment, mercy, and faith. He clearly stated that these ought to be done - on equal terms He stated that the other should not be negleted.

Jesus was clearly NOT against the practice of tithing - he wouldn't be because it served a clear role in providing for the priesthood as specified under Mosaic law.

That's good reasoning and a fresh breather instead of people (even pastors) who argue that Jesus would never have supported tithing. I actually heard a pastor teach that idea to his congregation.

In all his teachings about the KINGDOM of heaven/Kingdom of God, no tithing is mentioned - that is a clear omission that is telling in my view.

That is not a telling omission - that is a huge excuse. Let me show you a few things that you will not find in the Gospels where Jesus discussed the KINGDOM:

* He made no mention of Melchizedek - none, nada, zilch.
But Christianity is rested on expressly the statement that
Jesus is 'made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec'
- Heb. 6:20 for example.

* He made no mention of of Himself as High Priest - none, nada, zilch.
But we know that Christ as our High Priest is central to our Christian faith:
should we then call these examples the same as telling omissions?

If we're going to seek the things of Christ, we do so not because He did not say something directly. Rather, we seek to understand what He conveys to us in the body of apostolic teachings. In this case, we cannot claim that NONE of the apostles mentioned anything about tithes. For me, I would rather say that nowhere do we find anyone condemning tithes - not in the OT nor in the NT.

The tithing (as under the law) which Jesus was speaking of related primarily to bringing food items to the temple, not money, and to the Levites who had no inheritance.

There you go again.

1. The Levites indeed had an inheritance - Scripture mentions both:
'the cities of the Levites'
and
'the houses of the cities of their possession'
Leviticus 25:32.

2. If the Levites never had any inheritance - nothing at all - then how come Scripture says that some Israelites could BUY houses from the same Levites? Leviticus 25:33?

3. Look carefully at Joshua 21 and see how the Levites got their inheritance. I'm always weary that some theologians often argue against these plain facts or otherwise excuse them away!

More to the point is that you guys seem to be holding a very rigid interpretation of the Gospels and the experiences of the Jews. Please consult any good reference of Jewish scholarship on the Torah - there you will find that even the Jews do not hold that 'tithes' is ONLY food items. Have you heard of the terumah?

He mentioned tithe of dill and cumin not money, and definitely did not teach any of this to his disciples. We hear of no collections of dill and cumin monthly, weekly or at any other frequencies.

Tithes are not determined by how frequently they are given nor are they restricted to dill and cumin. Abraham knew nothing about such 'dill and cumin' and yet what he gave to Melchizedek were not harvested from farms. Did Scripture miss noting that what Abraham gave were called tithes as well? Why being so rigid?

No one can claim the law is wrong, because it is NOT.

Yeah; but we can make a sound claim that the way many Christains are reading the Law is WRONG!

However, due to the sinful nature, the law is unable to achieve reconnection with God.

What do you mean by "reconnection"?

This verse simply says the law is intrinsically Good - because it was handed down by God. Again, what did the law say about tithes? It referred to food, and only money if it was burdensome to bring the food to the temple/priest.

Did I hear you say "and only money if. . "? Okay, I'll keep that in mind.

And what was the PURPOSE of tithing as under the law? To provide for Levites, who had no inheritance in Israel.

Please stop. The Levites HAD INHERITANCE - we just have missed HOW they got their inheritance and keep making this unbalanced assertion. See why I ahve problems with us Christians misreading the law?

Gamine:
@viaro
Exactly, Paul explains it all in Romans 7

Okay.

Romans 8:8, 'In the flesh' doesnt mean physical flesh for goodness sake

I understand your context of 'in this flesh'; and in my referencing Romans 8:8 I did not mean that it meant 'physical flesh'. Sorry for the mix up.

Period? I didn't have much hope you would even try to address the Pakistan scenario. Good boy.

ttalks:
if u check some of my posts on this thread, u'll notice that I tried to maintain that salvation/being saved is not something that has been achieved yet.

While I appreciate many things you've discussed (quite lucid in several places), I might've have missed a few other points. Forgive me.

The journey to achieving it only begins with having faith in Christ.
So, the issue of losing one's salvation can't really be said to be since we do not have it yet.

That is looking at only one aspect.

The context in which we are 'being' saved appertains to many things; but there is also a sense of finality in salvation which sees God's work as complete and already done!

   * the future sense:

    'Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls' - 1 Peter 1:9

    'kept by the power of God . . . unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time' - 1 Peter 5:9

    Christ shall 'appear the second time without sin unto salvation' - Heb. 9:28

  * the perfect sense:

    'according to his mercy he saved us' - Tit. 3:5

    God 'hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling' - 2 Tim. 1:9

     ' by grace are ye saved through faith' - Ephesians 2:8


  * the present continuous sense:

  'continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee'
   - 1 Tim. 4:16

   'work out your own salvation with fear and trembling' - Php. 2:12

You see that these three aspects are not narrowed down to just one aspect. I see them as saying:

   * you are saved - now - if you truly believe

   * you will receive the end of your salvation

   * daily live a lifestyle of having being saved

God does both the first two on our behalf and for us; but the third is OUR own responsibility. We cannot do anything to "save" us on our own merit (Ephesians 2:8 - 'not of yourselves'); but as to our responsibilities and responses, we should work out our own salvation (Php. 2:12).

we can only lose our way towards achieving it.

Well, that makes me think that if someone loses his or her way towards "achieving" salvation, then they cannot be saved. I see it simply this way: God saves the lost - He comes to seek and to save the lost (Luke 19:10). If the lost tries to lose his way towards "achieving it", how does he yet arrive there? And if he does arrive there, won't that make such a person actually BOAST of his own works as the basis of being saved (because he "acheived" it)?

Just my thinking.

I say this in the context or understanding that Salvation is the end of our faith;the goal of our faith which is achieved when Christ comes and we are glorified.

I noted that; but also that it is only one aspect and not the whole - as outlined above.

Gamine:
I dont know why you guys are bent on a past, present and future sin

Well, I would not like to hold on that as the central thing.

Its not a matter of what you desire, Paul said, the things he would wants to do, he cant. .e.t.c i cant remember

Perhaps you were pointing to Romans 7 (especially verses 14 - 16). No?

You are in this flesh, you are prone to sin.

Partly true. But someone might quickly raise the objection that those who are "in the flesh" cannot please God (Romans 8:8). Yet, I understand your context.

Another way to look at it would be that being "prone" to sin is not the position of the Christian. He/she is not 'prone' to sin; but as they yield to God, they find they are inclined to righteousness (if I may quote Romans 6:11-16).

Still, im getting the vibe that people here Do NOT sin.

People DO sin, even though we are not supposed to live that way. I might've have been getting similar ideas but was reserved so I don't risk misreading anyone.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=335009.msg4701601#msg4701601 date=1255112672]Firstly I repeat, he answered NO questions! To you he's given the best answers and why not, you're christian for petes sake. But to the rest of us absolute hogwash it is.[/quote]I'm not here to trade gutters with you - if that were the case, you're simply a smallfry.

My observations have nothing to do with whether or not I'm a Christian - pete's sake or not, what you ought to have focused on is discussing issues, not hyperventilating. The answers he gave were not quoted by me as the "best answers"; rather, I only opined that his answers may not have satisfied you. Consequently, I noted that the same things could be said about you or worse since you either chose to zip up and say nothing or else discovered in hindsight that you were just too challenged to score your zeros.

Secondly what is wrong with my view if I consider christians to be "dogmatic" or "brainwashed"? Aint it my personal opinion of which am legally allowed to express?

I didn't say anything was wrong with your personal opinion - and that was why I helped you to see that it was rather uninitelligent since someone could use the same rule of thumb and slice you seven ways as they choose.

Your bible (core of your faith) calls atheists FOOLS, so did jesus to the pharisees, yet we don't see you harping on about how immoral the bible is.

My dear, it is not only the Bible that notes atheists as fools; in the course of my visiting Nairaland I remember another self-acclaimed atheist (buda atum) has taken a well-deserved swipe on folks like you. However, this thread is not about who's a fool or not - it was rather about what was the SOLE basis of the outworkings of the modern world. Did you miss that? That would be sad indeed.

However, it is not only atheists that are directly addressed as fools in the Bible - others have been described with similar qualifiers. For example,

** slanderers and liars are also fools - Proverbs 10:18

** mischievous fellows are also fools - Proverbs 10:23

** those who despise their fathers are also fools - Proverbs 15:5

** those who have no inclination to understanding are also fools - Proverbs 18:2

** contentious people are also fools - Proverbs 18:6
      (you would have to wonder that people who are too quickly contentious
      begin to wonder why their arguments are foolish)

** he that is perverse in his lips is also a fool - Proverbs 19:1

** those who must meddle and never cease from strife are fools - Proverbs 20:3

** He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool - Proverbs 28:26

The cap on all these is that fools are not painted by the religion they claim but by their outlooks and attitudes in relating with other people. Yes, whether one "claims" to be an atheist or a theist makes no difference if they qualify their lifestyles by any of the qualifiers above - and more that have not been mentioned.

Everytime people quip that 'your book calls atheists fools', I wait until they qualify themselves by all the other qualifiers to prove the point - because a fool is not simply a non-religious person but includes religious folks who cannot be reasonable in their attitudes. This is why I noted that my premise here on Nairaland is not to trade gutters with you or anyone else; and if the cap fits, you're welcome to be my entertaining guest.

Your religion considers me a fool what stops me from equally regarding christians as deluded based on what I think or do I have to write it in some book and back date it 2000 years in order to make it permissible?. . . . This people and their hypocrisy sef!

My religion does not consider you a fool. . unless you actually try to convince me so, regardless my religion or anyone else's. That atheism should justify why you see Christians as deluded says a lot about how rational a person you have tried to demonstrate. But there again, not all atheists act the way you do.

Yea, you do that.

I do what?

By all means state your concerns or has huxley expressly denied you that right?

Did I opine that huxley denied me anything? Or have you missed where I have carefully stated my concerns? Are you actually reasoning things through?

Good for you!

And what credit has that done for you?

You are indeed self-righteous.

Thank you. Go find yours.

Err, asking disconcerting questions like "how have you tried to help out modernity by your overheated reaction" is purely against the rules of derailment.

And who has stated that "rule" - or was that a knee jerk you quickly fantacised in hindsight?

If you're hell bent on maintaining this self-righteous charade I suggest you get aquainted with the rules.

What rules? You're simply boring.

ttalks:
Which shows the point that i have tried to pass one way or another that claiming to believe in Christ/have faith in Christ alone is not a guarantee for salvation or a proof of salvation.
Your lifestyle or your works would help determine the authenticity of such a faith.
That is what James 2:17-26 is saying.

Thank you for reminding me.

Abuzola:
@timmy, ofcourse the christian, is G. Bush a muslim or hitler a jew ?

G. Bush being a 'Chrsitian' does not mean all Americans are Christians. There are many Moslems in the USA, and when some moslems think that Americans are all bad and this and that, they should remember that include American moslems. The same Americans are the ones helping many Moslem countries to find themselves and better their own lives - and the cases of Pakistani moslems raping their own moslem women does not rise from the American dream. The Hudood law was little known until moslems in Pakistan started asking for Western democracy to question those hudood laws.

May I also ask a few questions about losing one's salvation:

* at what point does one lose his or her salvation?

* is it possible for one to be saved again after having lost their salvation?

* if one can be saved again after losing salvation, what is the process involved?

Those for now. Thanks.

What about the question of one who "rejects" the faith by his lifestyle?

For me, they didn't have the faith in the first place. How?

Let's remind ourselves that some who live contrary to the Gospel of Christ are variously described in Scripture:

* they are called 'false brethren' (Galatians 2:4)

* sometimes described as 'false prophets' (2 Peter 2:1-2)

* certain men who creep in unwares (Jude v. 4)

Jude is especially bold to state that such men live a lascivious lifestyle - and that is how they "deny the Lord and Saviour". Yes, they still say Christian things, love religious things, etc - but they have not truly received the saving faith of Christ.

Of course, I don't have all the answers, but just trying to help outline things according to the questions that arise.

Interesting discussion, may I join in?

I think some mis-communication is crossing between discussants. Salvation is viewed in various contexts instead of one. But the common understanding that seems to be discussed here is the one about receiving the 'gift' of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ.

The comes the question of the ages: can one lose their salvation?
Some say yes, others say no.

Those who believe that salvation can be lost put it in a formula ('OSAS' - [b]o[/b]nce [b]s[/b]aved [b]a[/b]lways [b]s[/b]aved) which they argue is unbiblical. Of course, this position (rejecting OSAS) has huge problems and is not a water-tight argument that stands Biblical scrutiny (IMO).

Many people believe in the OSAS doctrine; although because opposers have largely misrepresented this position, many people are not confident to uphold this view. However, the common denominator here is that salvation is not something we "earn" since it is a gift. Yet, it has its problems too.

I'd like to address some of the queries that Gamine proffered earlier on:

this is what im asking about.

When we accept Jesus Christ as our savior and all,
believing in the things he did for us.
Does 'sin' have any hold on us?

Theoretically, 'sin' has no hold on the believer.
Experientially, 'sin' dwells in the believer - see Romans 7:17 and 20.

However, for the the Christian believer it is said that "sin shall not have dominion over you" - Romans 6:14. And for that reason, he/she is to live a victorious life in dependence on the power of the Holy Spirit.

It may be difficult to grasp, but yet simple. The reason why our experience shows our struggle with 'sin' is because we still live in our bodies that are subject to the same experiences as everyone else in a fallen creation. Indeed, the Bible states this plainly:

* first, we have at present what is described as "our vile body" (Php. 3:20-21)

* second, we hope for the redemption of our body (Romans 8:23)

Sin is sometimes personified while at other times is seen objectively as the actions we commit.

Do we have to atone for sins we still commit?

No, for we cannot even atone for any sin - past or present. It is Christ who does that, not we ourselves.

if i die as im committing adultery, will i still go to hell?

I think someone else has answered that question. But let me elaborate upon it.

A truly born again believer would not desire what is contrary to the new nature that he/she has received in Christ. But it is a known fact that some born again believers commit shameful sins (we see this in many worldviews as well). What happens then? Here's a direct answer to your question (or similar) -

In 1 Corinthians 5 we find a scenario where this was happening - someone was known to be living in fornication, such that even unbelievers were ashamed of what was involved (see verse 1). Christians ought not to ignore such issues or be proud about anything in this regard (verse 2). But was that believer losing his salvation? I don't read it so, especially when we read verse 5:

   'deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh,
    that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus'

If that person died, the body is destroyed - but what happens to the 'real' person - the 'spirit' of the person?

Again, in other types of sins commited by Christians, it may result in death - for the apostle John makes clear that there is a sin unto death and one that is not unto death. But in Corinthians where this question comes up, we read this:

  'For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep' (I Corinthians 11:30)

'Sleep' in context there is death - they die in the body. But do they lose their salvation? If so, how?

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=335009.msg4700781#msg4700781 date=1255105666]Firstly, this question was directed at christians since they would have better knowlege and understanding of biblical laws and injunctions from their so-called "God". . . . The guy (a known christian) answered no question rather vaguely stating the way of the lord is bla bla[/quote]I don't think you're correct to say that he (ie, Tonye-t) answered no questions. He offered some answers, even though you may not have been satisfied with them. That said, your reaction was unjustified, for his answers (or answers from anyone else) were not sufficient for you to directly slice him personally as 'brainwashed', 'dogmatic' or 'ridiculous'. Someone else may also sling mud and call you worse than those for the same reasons as that you DID NOT answer any questions yourself!

I'm tempted but I'll refrain and allow the OP (huxley) address your concerns as to the topic.

I'll be patient - and grateful when he does.

But i'll have you know christians severally on this forum have prescribed the bible as applicable in all spheres of life and relevant in this modern world. . Infact they've flat out declared it  the solution to EVERY problem.

I recognize that from the replies of others - and I already explained that in context I may agree. If the key words are "applicable" and "relevant", the answer is a resounding yes - and I gave some examples for you to see my context. Where I'm not so sure I opined that my answer (note, 'my answer', not everyone's answer) may be a No - and I also gave some examples in context. It all depends on what you view to be EVERY problem associated with 'modernity'. And yet, how is it that atheists would direct questions at others and not provide answers for their own musings? What use is it to you personally that the question should be directed at Christians while at the same time not saying anything of substance to the concerns that those Christians bear out? I'm just wondering.

So yes, there's a backdrop to this thread,  if out of ignorance you're " wondering if anyone has posited that any SINGULAR basis is adequate for the outworkings of the modern world", the fault is yours and not ours,

I already acknowledged my ignorance thereto, which is no bad thing. Asking questions for clarification does not lead to one's grave - it helps put things in context and promote a good discourse. How does that trouble you?

If you're truly all "self-righteous" like you're desperately trying to seem you'd know derailing a thread is against the rules.

First, I'm not self-righteous. Second, that is a very unintelligent remark. Third, whose rules have I gone against in asking questions for clarification and then acknowledging that I did not know who and who were making some statements? Your desperation is truly miserable, for false assumptions and misreading people say nothing to your credit.

Now, when you're done mislabelling people with your vacuous reactions, can we see some sensible posts from you? If not, my respects.

Deep Sight:
I recall very clearly that the Jewish Carpenter who you worship as God stated when asked about salvation - that men need observe only two laws - love of God and love of fellow man.

How do you interprete that?

I'm sorry to disappoint you; but Jesus Christ the Son of God whom I confess as Lord and Saviour did not make salvation to rest upon the observance of any laws. I admit upfront that my understanding may be poor, but at least I know that He did not present salvation as a matter of observing only two (or even any) laws. Let me explain:

1. Jesus Himself held that salvation is settled upon believing Him for who He is.

2. Loving God and loving one's neighbour would not settle anything, because it would again mean that His redeeming work on the Cross was unnecessary.

3. What about other solid pronouncements He made, such as those with the very unmistakeable "EXCEPT. . ."?? Here are a few:

>> Matthew 18:3 -
"Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven"

>> Luke 13:3 -
"I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

>> John 3:3 -
"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

>> John 6:53 -
"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you."

Now, do these mean that one could be claiming to love God and neighbour and yet be lost if they reject those other attestations with the "EXCEPT" this and that? The answer is obvious - the enquirer can dismiss them and stay with observing only two laws; but they should remember that there was a man who said "All these things have I kept from my youth up", and yet at the end, he "went away sorrowful"  (see Matthew 19:18-22).

Moving on now -

Was Abraham a Christian? Elijah? Moses?

Not that I know of; but didn't Jesus Himself say something of Abraham regarding Him? Here:
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad" (John 8:56)

As of Moses, Jesus Himself said: "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me " (John 5:46). Compare this with Hebrews 11:27 which records of Moses that he "endured, as seeing him who is invisible" - that is as seeing Christ.

The point in all this? Simple: I don't think the idea of slavation on two laws is valid. I may be mistaken; but the above are my reasons as to why that idea is not valid. Do share yours, please.

Yes. . . ?

Yes.

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=335009.msg4700662#msg4700662 date=1255104879]Vairo you are right, but i wont stress again,else he cries foul of posing double id as its his testimony. and claims i am you and you are me . . .mr intelligent atheist indeed! [/quote]Lol, being 'right' (or 'wrong') is relative. But why do Nairalanders have this thingy about 'double ID'? Just today alone someone asked me a similar question. But there goes.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=335009.msg4699949#msg4699949 date=1255099965]I see you just registered today so don't know much about your views but its general knowlege christianity holds the bible as the "solution" to EVERY problem. . . Noetic has said that severally.[/quote]I may agree in part with many people from their various contexts - depending on what "problem" you're looking at. I've tried to reason out a few above; but again I wonder see that I was completely lost in assuming that anyone has ever tried to postulate that the Bible is the SOLE basis for the outworkings of the modern world.

I asked that question initially because I was hoping to see some people come forward and put that theory forward. Okay, first off, I must say that I'm a Christian - and even at that, my views are my own, and I cannot speak for any other Christian or believer (whatever they may believe). My personal views do not adequately establish anything for anyone - which is why I often likie to ask some questions and stay with the discussion side of things.

Ask me straight out: 'Could The Modern World Work Solely On The Basis Of Biblical Laws'?
My answer: Yes and No.

That could raise some dust, but let me explain.

Yes, in context that "modernity" has various perspectives of discussions. Ask yourself (as I would ask myself): what is modernity - and the answers would be worlds apart. If I take a certain context as my working premise and look at the problems of modernity on the individual level (such as disputes in businesses), I would posit that the Biblical "laws" stand resolutely as a YES to these problems.

But if I look at your context (perhaps "fertility treatment, blood/organ donations", etc), I may grant you an answer of No. Why? Simple: because the Bible was not given to arbitrate on such matters to make modernity to function on such indices. I could also argue again that that idea is weak because fertility treatment, etc do not address disputes in businesses. Where do we go from there?

Again, I'm looking at context, not arguemements that are not useful - especially with outbursts of who is 'brainwashed' , 'dogmatic' or 'ridiculous'.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=335009.msg4700147#msg4700147 date=1255101463]. . .what is wrong with you?[/quote]I felt like asking that same question directly at you: what really is wrong with people like you?

You tried to slice the previous poster carelessly while at the very same time not having addressed the basic issue or question. There are issues, and numerous questions. Some have given their own opnions without thinking anyone to be either 'brainwashed' or 'dogmatic'. For my own part, I wonder if anyone has posited that any SINGULAR basis is adequate for the outworkings of the modern world (not to mention that nobody has addressed what modernity actually is!). Such issues as 'fertility treatment, blood/organ donations and the likes' do not address the basic question of whether they are adequate as the SOLE basis for the outworking of the modern world. On the other hand, there are qualities in modernity that such fertility, blah blah do not even address at all, and one can choose their poison on such abstraction.

Even going further, how does mastubation provide the basis of the outworkings of the modern world? Or even disputes between nations over natural resources, or deal with aggressive individuals or nations? Which one SOLE basis could you postulate for the outworkings of the modern world? And how far reaching has that SOLE basis worked out modernity?

I remember in another thread by pastorAIO that forced me to register - the personal insults are rife on Nairaland. How have you tried to work out modernity by your overheated reactions? When could we find people keeping a good head when discussing issues?

Hmm, religion is this and that and the other. While you're bashing religion, I wonder that you're inclined to cherish your own religion. 'Your own' - I meant the OP and some who take his view. Let me explain:

The question again: 'Stop & Think: Did God Create Any Religion?'

Maybe not - and that also means that He did not create your own either. The first thing you ought to have done is ask yourself whether God created your own religion while asking if He created any religion for that matter. But having tried to polarise opinions to lean towards your cherished idea, you assumed that -

religion was the genesis of descrimination we have in the world today

- and that is a truly pathetic conclusion to draw.

Gamine on page 1 gave a sound advice: "Maybe you should stop and think about what Religion actually is" - and then went on to provide a contextual definition of what religion is, including -

(a) a religion is a set of tenets and practices

(b) religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions

(c) religion could also refer to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

Yes, we all have shared convictions and therefore find ourselves in group identities which hold certain tenets and practices. You may deny that is also true of your cultural ID; but it cannot be denied that you seem to hold certain convictions which you look out for from others who take your own view?

Not only that, but think again about the following from Gamine:

Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”[7] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions.

So, in summary, we could re-state: "religion refers to one's primary worldview" - that is, following the context of sociologists and athropologists. I agree: because even certain atheist authors have noted that there are "atheistic religions", not because those atheistic religions believe in a 'Creator GOD', but rather because they have the same features that point them out as "religions". These atheist religions have their own cultural identities, abstract set of ideas, values, experiences, tenets, practices and shared convictions. These all go to the point that they refer to "one's primary worldview", and indeed they dictate one's thoughts and actions.

Apply them to yourself: and you will find that your concerns dictate your thoughts and actions as well as shape your primary worldview. You have convictions (hurray - even if your conviction is that "religion was the genesis of descrimination we have in the world today" - that's just one of your convictions which some people share religiously with you). But one thing you cannot deny: the sociological and anthropological dimensions of the meaning of "religion" feature quite well in your worldview.

But when it comes to examining a particular set of beliefs and convictions that identifies certain groups of people, we find the same thing yet again! Let's examine something you said:

"Religion is like a virus once it enters your system you are done"

Okay, so according to sociologists and anthropologists, you may have a religion on the basis of what have been outlined above ('cultural identities, abstract set of ideas, values, experiences, tenets, practices and shared convictions' - all of these things do not necessarily mean belief in "GOD", but as a religion they point to one's primary worldview). And if that is true, does your own "religion" (ie, your convictions) act like a virus to undo you? If again you answer in the affirmative, I can respect your religion (even though I won't say anything about it being a virus).

Deep Sight:
Mr. Atheists, i have just one question for you.

1. Does the number "1" exist?

2. Who created the number "1?"

3. Does Space exist?

4. Who created space?

5. Does "Time" exist?

6. Who created "Time".

Lol, you had "just one question" for him but slammed "just six questions" on the table. Just kidding.

Anyhow, this is classic:

Frankly i am tired of this intellectual laziness.

It's true; but it's not enough to just say that it is intellectual laziness; we shoulod go one step further to show why that is so - and you have done quite well, viz:

Is it not obvious to you that the fact that you do not know the maker of something is not sufficient to conclude that that "something" does not exist.

Re: 'Who created the Creator'?

I find this question quite interesting as it is amusing at the same time. It's not new; but pardon me in saying that it is a hollow piece breezingly aired by the likes of Dawkins which neither himself nor anyone else parroting him has dared to answer with substance. However, in a number of ways it could be answered:

1. The questioner has asked a question he needs to answer for himself. This is because he made a postulation that 'God' needed a creator; but what is so sad is that he does not tell us how the Creator is by necessity in need of a creator.

2. If the questioner is able to show the basis to justify that questioner, the logical point is that he needs then to go and tell us who the creator of the Creator is, and then list the eternal regression of 'creatoral' creators. Would that be asking too much? I don't think so; because if he cannot do that simple thing, he does not need to throw it at others and hide behind the scenes chuckling to himself.

3. Theists have not claimed that there was/is a 'creator' that created the Creator - so the burden would fall upon the one who is convinced that the question of "who created the Creator" is a valid one. Since an atheist believes there could be a 'creator' who creator THE Creator, he needs to show others who that 'creator' could be - both by necessity and valdiation. Failing to do so only presents the enquirer as both mischievous and unintelligent.

4. Let's look at one more thing: was that question a 'scientific' one or just the pep-talk of the typical atheist? No, I'm not taking a jab at any atheist; but I'm looking to engage your deepest thinking. If you postulate that it is a 'scientifically' valid one, then we need to hold you accountable for one thing: how do you determine "a creator" (any creator) by scientific postulations? Just how?

5. The logical next step would be inescapable: if the Creator (or any creator for that matter) could be scientifically detected through any theories for that purpose, the inescable logical next step would be to abandon the atheistic commitment to naturalism. If indeed the atheist could provide a basis for his own question, then he would need to acknowledge indeed that things do not just appear on their own - such as the fallacy of biological life originating from inorganic rocks.

Recap: is there a 'creator' who created the Creator?

The atheist asks the question on an assumption - that there ought to have been one. That's no problem, because theists have not made that claim or proffered grounds to lead to that idea. Therefore, the one who makes that postulation on the grounds that ought to have been a 'creator' who brings the Creator into existence, it is the questioner who should present his own postulation as a matter of necessity and validity.

Where does this lead? It leads to this: if and only if (iff) there is any validity for a regression to such a postulation, it would be a cool idea - which necessitates that there IS indeed a CREATOR - the atheist is probably searching for him.

I'm familiar with discussions in other fora.

I see where you're coming from, pastorAIO. But here's something that quizzed me:

Pastor AIO:
Nobody is perfect and the fact that most of us have done what is being complained about does not mean it is not a good idea.

I don't understand and don't want to risk assuming anything. But I thought that might've been a small slip. Perhaps you meant to say: "does not mean it is a good idea", no? Maybe not, but I'm also conscious of my slip.

If threads were better moderated then the quality of the forum will improve for everybody even if all of us have been guilty of hurling personal insults before.

True - and that is what experience brings out in all of us. We learn by our various slips; so my apologies where I might have crossed the line.

What you're saying is like, because we have all broken the law at some point or the other we have no right to strive for a better law enforcement in society.

Far from it. What I was trying to say was that there is a better way to complain instead of pitting it merely at just Christians and Moslems. Those who are not religious have also done the same things within the purview of that complaint, and the insults galour would not disappear woosh if no Christian or Moslem ever uttered an acid against anyone. That's why I tried to outline my observations and noted that we (including me before joining Nairaland) are all guilty - and if sectors are to be pointed out, it should not be just xtians vs moslems.

All the same, good observation - the insults should be monitored, and good sense be promoted.

KunleOshob:
Iam sure what you mean is the "Law of Gravity" gravitational force is a well established and proven law unlike evolution which is merely a theory and remains unproven to date. i am sure you know the difference btw laws and theories in science.

I'm not playing PRO for huxley or anyone else; but I would risk assuming that he knows for himself the difference between scietific laws and theories.

That said, it is actually worrisome for people to keep throwing this banter about evolution being "merely" this or that. Lol, let us remember that in science, theories that are classed as "scientific theories" are NOT disproven simply because people find some fault or difficulties in them. No. So many other theories (including the ones huxley listed as examples) still have their own difficulties to this very day - yet, no one would dare argue scientifically that they are "unproven".

I would recommend that many thinkers take a leaf from Popper:
"science aims at true explanatory theories, yet it can NEVER PROVE, or justify, any theory to be true, not even if it is a true theory". A lot of us who argue about the "proof" or "disproof" of evolution simply are not arguing scientifically (IMO).

Simply put: the TOE is not a "mere" theory - it has not be "disproven" after so many arguments until now. Why do I think so? It is not that I accept Darwinian evolutionary theory as 'true'; but rather that, as a theory, it has not been FALSIFIED in its explanatory indices. It does not mean that it will not be falsified; but rather that scientists have not postulated any other theory to "disprove" the TOE.

Theories don't work because someone finds fault in some aspects; rather, falsification that disproves any theory is established on SCIENTIFIC analysis. One does not "prove" gravity because we can see that objects fall to the ground - that is not science. Rather, gravity is proven for its merit because it has verifiable and testable formulations that are constantly being challenged scientifically. Until scientists can work hard to postulate hypothesis that birth testable theories for the falsification of evolution, it is not scientific to say that it has been "disproven" or it is "merely" a theory.

If we are going to talk science, we ought to be using its own vocabulary.

huxley:
No one who is well educated in the matters of science, religions and philosophy would ever claim that Science disproves God or that Evolution disproves God.

I'm happy to note that is coming from you. That is why you should have reserved your rreactionary passion by opening up with the statement that the OP was another 'ignorant Christian' while at the same time your consequent statement hardly addressed the part you highlighted in her (or his) post.

These are particularly sloppy statements and anyone who makes pronouncements like this deserves to be taken to task.

Perhaps so - and I had to resist taking you to task. What's the use, really? A better way would have been to share things in context, not sling mud. Just like in the statement you posted in hindsight ("a better way of conveying the message would be something like. . .", and then it would have been more plausible to begin by addressing the issue directly rather than starting the way you did.

A better way of conveying the message would be something like this;

The results of some of our best sciences and rational enterprise makes the belief of the traditional gods (eg Abrahamic gods)  unjustified or unwarranted.

That statement still is unclassified, unwarranted, unscientific and unthoughtful. No, I'm not attacking your person nor taking you to task, but let me share why your statement does not hold substance here:

1. Results: no scientific result of any well-conducted scientific research makes any religious belief unjustified or unwarranted. WHY? For one reason: the scientist himself would first have had to make a HYPOTHESIS pointing out clearly that such a research was aimed at making religious belief unwarranted. It is like starting out to research a biological phenomenon and then publishing "results" about religious phenomena! This is what I call fantasy - they don't correlate, and that is why such a "result" does not warrant or justify anything that it did not set out to do in the first place!

2. The idea of "best sciences" is a misnomer - scientifically speaking, that idea only exist in the clouds, it is not sustanined on the ground where facts are dealt with. Science is science - it is simply that.

3. Science is NOT a worldview and thus cannot be used to make belief UNjustified or UNwarranted. This is where THEORIES are necessary - and that was why I sadly noted that you didn't convince me in your initial post that you understood what theories are actually about (I take it back if that sounds like a bit offkey). But the reason why I noted issues about the AIMS of science is that one cannot arrive at any "results" without first postulating some hypotheses that birth testable theories. What "testable theories" make your "best sciences" conclude that belief in deities are UNwarranted and UNjustified? It is not enough to just make such vacuous statement where we know that no scientits has done any research delving into the realities that science itself says nothing about.

Science, by itself, is not in the business of disproving things.

There you go. So, what then gives your the idea that the "best sciences" makes other phenomena UNjustified or UNwarranted? Until you can "prove" by scientifically testable theories, you cannot claim your neighbour on this page is ignorant (nor can I be so brash as to claim so).

It is in the business of revealing the truth about the nature of reality.  It is up to the individual to formulate their worldview either based on the fruits of science or in contravention of these results.

Nope, and thrice no. First, it is true that science is in the business of revealing the 'truth' about naturalistically detectable phenomena; but also true is that it is not simply the nature of reality. Your idea of "reality" is not reality in all its ramifications. There are realities of which the sciences say nothing about. But there again, science does not stand as a bragado - doing things and asking others to formulate their worldview based on the fruits of the researches of any scientist! Let me ask you this pointedly, huxley: on what scientific law do you base your worldview of abstract entities and qualities - such as hate, love, fear, jingoism. What sciences establish a basis for formulating any of those realities? If you don't know, try not pushing science for what it is not and for what it does not do. That is one reason Karp Popper noted that:

  "science aims at true explanatory theories,
    yet it can NEVER PROVE, or justify, any theory to be true, not even if it is a true theory"

We need to humbly know where to begin and the boundaries of our assumptions. This is why it just does not come across as intelligent for anyone to make statements that are clearly in flight.

It is grossly unscientific to preceed the word THEORY with the adjective MERE.

I see your point, and partly agree. This is why the misnomer of "best sciences" is as grossly misleading as well. Science is science - and nothing more. An adjective or qualifier is a personal preference; and if personal preferences are now allowed in certain quarters, then there should be no quarrels with people positing that evoloution is a mere theory.

We see this particularly from opponents of The Theory of Evolution.

Those "opponents" include scientists themselves.

I listed the other scientific theories because if it is justified in describing TToE with the adjective MERE or MERELY, it must also be reasonably in describing the others as such.

My observation about your initial response is that it misses the highlighted part in your quote by a million miles. Let me repeat them in two slices:

  (a) "If anyone claims that sciences have disproved God,
  he has to demonstrate that experiment which has achieved this feat.

  (b) Appeal to evolution, which is a mere theory, will not do the job."

Your concern is with (b) above, not with (a). I have not seen any reseacher setting out a scientific hypothesis that points out a THEORY of anything that DISPROVES belief in any deity. By extension, nor have I seen any researcher that sets forth any THEORY of anything that "PROVES" atheism one way or the other. Where are the sciences in those worldviews or persuasions?

Now, the part of "appeal to evolution"  as a "mere theory" raises concerns. For me, that does not even warrant or justify anything, because in context of the OP's concern, it still holds that Evolution does not "disprove" God. For many (especially atheists), the qualifier of "mere" raises hell and dust - but even if someone were to substitute that with "brilliant" and make it "brilliant theory", it still does not change the point that Evolution cannot be used as an appeal to make belief in any deity to be either UNjustified or UNwarranted. The point is not so much on what TOE is, but that an appeal to the TOE does not DISPROVE the reality of deitistic beliefs or phenomena. TOE is not a theory about religion; and no one in their right minds would even begin to "formulate their worldview" based on "the fruits of science evolution".

I hope you can keep the context and see where I'm coming from?

If you disagree, can you say why it would be wrong in saying;

1) Merely Cell Theory

2) Merely The theory of Gravity

3) Merely Atomic Theory?

You can see my response above is not that gullible. Repeat:

It is grossly unscientific to preceed the word THEORY with the adjective MERE.

I see your point, and partly agree.This is why the misnomer of "best sciences" is as grossly misleading as well