Surely this will silence a lot of you...

The church in England has lost it's way. Evolution is a lie, and they were right to mock it.

Originally posted by Good Wolf
Trouble is that just about very religious person I've ever spoken to all say that it is impossible to understand or believe the Bible unless it is read “in the spirit of the holy ghost”.

Partly right.
Before I was converted, the Bible didn't make any sense and I read it so I could be a Christian.
I tried to read a chapter a night.
All I saw was masonic hierarchy and babble.

In other words, you must already assume its truth before you read it, and you have to read it through filters of faith because it certainly isn’t compelling on its own without those blinders on. If it doesn’t make sense, then you’ve got to convince yourself that you must not understand it properly, and you’ve just got to try to make yourself believe it anyway somehow.
Frustrating, at the least.

Yeah, that would be frustrating!
No, you don't read it with a blind acceptance, you study it.
What may not make sense, will become clear with proper translation
that's why I use the Strongs concordance, but, because greek is so multi-faceted, it can even be ambiguous sometimes, maybe I should have taken Greek.
But, the message (maybe not the nuances and rabbit holes) is there for even a child or me! John 3:16

Originally posted by The time lord
and they try and use modern science to gain new followers into thinking the Church has found some new Biblical meaning

Church 2.0 EXTREME EDITION!!

Bah, most mainstream Churches update their stances in accordance to popular culture. Yes, to gain new followers. Tools.

Originally posted by Clearskies
Originally posted by Good Wolf

In other words, you must already assume its truth before you read it, and you have to read it through filters of faith because it certainly isn’t compelling on its own without those blinders on. If it doesn’t make sense, then you’ve got to convince yourself that you must not understand it properly, and you’ve just got to try to make yourself believe it anyway somehow.
Frustrating, at the least.

Yeah, that would be frustrating!
No, you don't read it with a blind acceptance, you study it.
What may not make sense, will become clear with proper translation
that's why I use the Strongs concordance, but, because greek is so multi-faceted, it can even be ambiguous sometimes, maybe I should have taken Greek.
But, the message (maybe not the nuances and rabbit holes) is there for even a child or me! John 3:16

That's exactly what I did. I found a greater understanding than the much more serious Christians. Trouble is that the conflicting and the contradictions became even more profound.

It's still infallible and clearly not god breathed.

Originally posted by Good Wolf

Originally posted by Clearskies
Originally posted by Good Wolf
In other words, you must already assume its truth before you read it, and you have to read it through filters of faith because it certainly isn’t compelling on its own without those blinders on. If it doesn’t make sense, then you’ve got to convince yourself that you must not understand it properly, and you’ve just got to try to make yourself believe it anyway somehow.
Frustrating, at the least.

Yeah, that would be frustrating!
No, you don't read it with a blind acceptance, you study it.
What may not make sense, will become clear with proper translation
that's why I use the Strongs concordance, but, because greek is so multi-faceted, it can even be ambiguous sometimes, maybe I should have taken Greek.
But, the message (maybe not the nuances and rabbit holes) is there for even a child or me! John 3:16

The problem is, Clearskies, that very few fundimental Christians (those that deny evolution) actually study the bible. They do, in fact, read it with blind acceptance.

Then they post things like this on the internet:

No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

When people believe this, it doesn't matter what evidence or support Evolution has.

Nothing can argue against blind faith.

Hopefully, the support of The Anglican Church will see more open minded Christians re-examine evolution and see that it is not mutually exclusive to their faith.

The Anglican Church should be an honorary member of ATS for helping to deny ignorance.

[edit on 16/9/08 by Horza]

Originally posted by Horza
The Anglican Church should be an honorary member of ATS for helping to deny ignorance.

yeah I wouldn't go that far...

They still teach many many things that need to be scrutinized further with the ATS magnifying glass.

reply to post by the_watcher


Says the person who can't possibly demonstrate it was a lie. Brilliant. Thankfully people like you are killing the church from within. Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "LA! LA! LA! LA!" repeatedly in the face of rational thought and logic.

It's your funeral - go for it.

Originally posted by the_watcher
The church in England has lost it's way. Evolution is a lie, and they were right to mock it.

yes your right lets grab our pitchforks and torches and burn the evil followers of jesus!!!!


let us tear down thier crosses and burn thier evil bibles!!!

plug your ears so thier filthy lying words of jesus dont taint us brother!!!

death to all christians !!! ....... umm ..... that follow the word of jesus!! ....darn ....... erm........ in a slighlty different way, we are the true word of god because we are shouting louder with pitchforks a waving!!

reply to post by noobfun



What are you and Dave talking about???
Because we're not Anglican and even more specifically, members of this guys flock, we're wanting to kill them?

Please, stop the insanity!

Erased it. It was a stupid post.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


'Crazy side'?

I don't think so.
Evolution IS the crazy side.
Even in my days of drugs and debauchery, I still believed there was something greater than ourselves, whether it be god or goddess or aliens.

Darwin should have apologized(sp) for HIS racism and the seed he planted, 'survival of the fittest'!
That's what I think.

reply to post by Clearskies


First off, whether you believe this or not, Evolution and belief in God are NOT mutually exclusive.

Secondly, one can believe in God and not be a Christian.

I myself have always believed in God, the theory of evolution, and never in the Church.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

Originally posted by Clearskies

Darwin should have apologized(sp) for HIS racism and the seed he planted, 'survival of the fittest'!
That's what I think.

Well I am not entirely convinced his 'intent' was to plant that seed. Maybe that was just the circumstantial aftermath. I don't know. I am not well read enough on him.

Hey I am still waiting on countless apologies from the Christian Churches. So you and me both

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

Looks like the Catholic Church had to go one better

Catholic Church Ready to Accept Aliens as Brothers

My, how the world is changing!

Next thing we will be seeing is Bush inviting Ahmadinejad to dinner on the White House lawn

This will add further weight to the decision of the Catholic Church to accepting evolution.

And now the Anglican Church

I wonder how this now bodes for the Creationist movement?

Will it loose even more support from mainstream religion?

Edit - addition of info



[edit on 16/9/08 by Horza]

Originally posted by Clearskies

What are you and Dave talking about???
Because we're not Anglican and even more specifically, members of this guys flock, we're wanting to kill them?

Please, stop the insanity!

it was a pre-emptive it serves a purpose ^_^

Darwin should have apologized(sp) for HIS racism and the seed he planted, 'survival of the fittest'!
That's what I think.

1+1+1+1 = 37 1/2

Darwin created a theory to explain natural change in animals

some one with racist ideals took an already known practice of selective breeding applied it people then corrupted Darwinism to make it sound right to the public

survival of the fittests (*) = any creature fit enough to survive long enough to breed , how is this natural process the same as a goverment by force stopping people it considers unfit to help populate the human race from breeding

someone WHO WASNT DARWIN decided to turn a PRACTICE THAT HAD BEEN KNOWN FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS to humans instead of animals. he used the timing and discussions that followed the origins publication to PUSH HIS OWN AGENDA

Darwinism says people evolved different shades of skin colour and eye colour and hair colour and heigh,t nose width and a whole pile of other differances for a reason and its a good reason to help them survive thier specific enviroment

no where did he then say now we know why they are different lets kill them becasue they are different


* the fittest life from Darwinian standards turn out to be microbes, does that then mean he hated every life form with more then one cell and they should be forcably stopped from breeding?


natural selection and selective breeding may both have select in the title but the meaning very different

go learn about the thoery of evolution then come back and argue against it from a viewpoint of knowledge


[edit on 17/9/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 17/9/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by noobfun
someone WHO WASNT DARWIN decided to turn a PRACTICE THAT HAD BEEN KNOWN FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS to humans instead of animals. he used the timing and discussions that followed the origins publication to PUSH HIS OWN AGENDA

Really?
Didn't you read my other post, where I quoted Darwin himself???

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."



"A most important obstacle in civilized countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been strongly insisted on by Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton, namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support themselves and their children in comfort. . .Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shown by Dr. Duncan they produce many more children. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: 'The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits..."

No, you didn't.
I know a little about the evolutionary theory.

reply to post by Clearskies


I see my responses to you didn't meet your fancy. That's fine. I was hoping to discuss some more though.

It's called "The Theory of Evolution", not the 'evolutionary theory' btw.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Or 'evolutionary science'! :p
I used to believe in G-d and, I didn't know Him AT ALL.
The Bible says the devils also believe and tremble.......
I never received pardon for my soul and a RELATIONSHIP until I repented and accepted JESHUA(Jesus) as Lord.

You don't BELIEVE in a church or man for your salvation, contrary to the roman church and many others!
See my thread on the inquisition, MANY people were tortured for the pope and his church.

As for a more American controversy;
Did you know NO witches were burned at the Salem witch trials?
Salem witch trial facts.





[edit on 17-9-2008 by Clearskies]

Clearskies.

Firstly, those exscripts don't suggest at all that Darwin was a racist, they point to an observation of human sociology.

Secondly, even if they did and he was a racist, the Theory of Evolution still holds the scientific high ground because of the millions of pieces of evidence that support it, not to mention the fact that it has, is and will continue to be observed, both in the lab and the field.

Thirdly, having a crack at Darwin is not tantamount to evidence that the theory is wrong, so you're wasting your breath. What you're doing is Ad Hominem, which last I checked is not very well liked by the mods on ATS

Lastly, this is not a thread about Darwin as a person or his values, this is about the leading christian churches and their views on Darwinism.


And hey, at lest they are being respectable about the whole thing.

[edit on 9/17/2008 by Good Wolf]