Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another… if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us. 13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit…

We love, because He (God) first loved us. (1 John 4: 7-19)

As I’ve stated before, I find the whole naturalist point of view dehumanizing!

Whether or not naturalism is “dehumanizing” depends on one’s views about nature in general and about animal life in particular. The point of view expressed by DB and Mike could be put as follows:

1) If Darwinism is true, then there is no difference in kind between humans and all other animals.
2) All other animals are mere “meat,” without any spiritual dimension to their existence.
3) Therefore, if Darwinism is true, then human beings have no spiritual dimension to their existence.

It needs to be pointed out, apparently, that (2) is separate from (1); neither depends on the other, and there’s no inconsistency in affirming (1) while rejecting (2). Thus, accepting (1) need not lead to accepting (3).

See, I can draw pictures too, and evolution can validate them for me. We might as well have crucified a frog or a rat on the cross 2000 years ago. Same difference. Man is meat.

As I’ve stated before, I find the whole naturalist point of view dehumanizing!

Also, Mike, liked the analogy!!!

Thanks. I often wonder about the “last 11 blank pages”.

Here’s a nice picture for Darwinists:

Imagine the human of the future. Complete with wings, beak, talons and feathers. A talking bird, able to fly up to great distances, and at great speeds. Able to write books, make music, build bombs, form governments, play baseball, etc…

See, I can draw pictures too, and evolution can validate them for me. We might as well have crucified a frog or a rat on the cross 2000 years ago. Same difference. Man is meat.

Unfortunately in a way they already do recruit children.

Yes, I know. I taught in the public schools. I was being facetious.

It seems to me that this is part of the difference between indoctrination and education. Indoctrination tends towards imagery, emotional conditioning or propaganda which achieves an “overwhelming” effect while education tends toward literacy, rational argumentation and in the end a person is left with a mind which is capable of critical thinking.

And yet, in educational psychology, we were warned not to indoctrinate. Of course, they meant speaking of God and truth!

“…education (SHOULD) tends toward literacy, rational argumentation and in the end a person is left with a mind which is capable of critical thinking.” (which then would lead to young people who could problem solve effectively, and use their God given creativity and skills for the good of many!)

Couldn’t have said it any better!

Also, Mike, liked the analogy!!!

Not at all, that article was all just scientific facts that have nothing to do with the urge to merge! I was surprised that they mentioned embryos. Note that people generally do not understand the natural processes or laws that are forming an embryo. There are theories and so on but generally it is not well understood. These are things that they can see “evolving”/unfolding empirically and sit there and watch forming and transforming right before their eyes. Yet they use embryos to argue that they have a general understanding of how every single embryo, organism and life form came to its current specification and species. They argue that an imaginary sort of formation happens in millions of years even as the formation of millions of life forms goes on at the moment. It seems to me that they should spend less time imagining things about the past and more time studying how life unfolds now without trying to mix empirical observations with imaginary events in the past. (Note the old gill-slit canard, apparently human embryos are fish-like and then reptilian and so on. Don’t worry if you don’t see why anyone would actually argue that. You have to imagine things in a certain way to see things that way.)

Unfortunately in a way they already do recruit children.

Yeah, they call it “public school education”.

Unfortunately in a way they already do recruit children. Note the reaction to Johnathan Wells when he tried to take on Haeckel’s embryos. Darwinism often proceeds based on blurred imagery that is generally false and has little to do with the empirical evidence, depictions of apes-like creatures evolving into humans typically make use of imagery of this sort. In contrast, the Christian religion is based on the Word which lets language speak for itself. It seems to me that this is part of the difference between indoctrination and education. Indoctrination tends towards imagery, emotional conditioning or propaganda which achieves an “overwhelming” effect while education tends toward literacy, rational argumentation and in the end a person is left with a mind which is capable of critical thinking.