A New Religion Meeting In Christian Churches

Albert Molher, Jr., President of Southern Baptist Seminary, is as much insider and establishment as one can find in his branch of Christianity.  In an article appearing on ChristianPost.com you can read the most revealing view on religious changes afoot one can find anywhere.

Mohler sited the Dutch protestant pastor I discussed here a few blogs ago.  This pastor believes the Bible is metaphor and that the god worshipped by Christians is but one of the mind.  There were calls for the pastor’s dismissal but too many of his congregation believe as he does to make the dismissal happen.

Molher thinks this threat to the Christian faith is unique.  It is coming, not from another faith that is sweeping away the status quo, but from within the established faith.  He quotes a prominent liberal theologian, Harry Emmerson Fosdick, as saying the modern world has simply rendered traditional Christian doctrine unintellibible to the modern man.

To me, the problem is not only “modern man”, but modern youth.  Teachers and parents urge acceptance, not rejection, of people unlike themselves.  They urge accomdation of views different from one’s own.  It has been reported regularly young people are not finding a home in today’s Christian churches.

The irony of Molher’ accurate assessment of the state of affairs is that he does not suggest his branch of the faith is in error.  He, and others, seem to think their’s is the only ship on the sea.

Finding their way to a more sturdy vessel apparently is not an option.


Speakers, fun, debates, all at the Red River Freethinkers Conference, Sept 24.  Register at www.redriverfreethinkers.org

24 Responses

  1. Henry

    If I hadn’t known better, I would have thought this blog was written by a disgruntled member of Chistianity. Most of the topics are focused on Christianity. I surely would have thought an atheist blog would discuss issues concerning the atheist faith.

    1. Henry 3:13 The blog is advertised as “views of a Freethinker”. So, what I write about are those views. I’d like to hear your reaction to this blog about new things within Christianity.

      1. Henry

        Sure, Jon. Here is my reaction. The sturdy vessels are more likely to be the older church lines or those who embrace the old principles. Some churches are falling apart from within. They lost their first love. The most subtle creature is having them for lunch.

  2. Michael Ross

    Religion is defined as a belief about (not necessarily in) God or the supernatural. Madaline Murry O’hare and Jon Lingren are as religious as Billy Graham and the Pope. They have put their faith, not in God, but a cosmic accident. They are saying the we have come from monkeys and baboons, we are here by accident, life has no meaning. When we die we will go to a hole in the ground. It will be as if we never existed. Organized religion certainly has its struggles but it sure has more to offer than this.

    1. Michael 4:44 “Organized religion..has more to offer than this.” I agreed with Brad on this statement, Michael. Nonbelievers put their emphasis on living the only life we are given, this one. So did the ancient Jews. If there is one sure way to make people do what you tell them and give you their money, it is to promise they don’t have to die. Worked about four thousand years ago, it’s working today.

      As a reward for not believing myths, we are rewarded by President Bush the 1st, “I don’t consider atheists citizens–we are a Christian nation.”

    2. Evolution doesn’t say that we come from monkeys and baboons, it says we have a common origin. Which when you get right down to it many faith traditions ranging from aboriginal shamanistic faiths right up to christianity say the same thing. Some of those faith traditions further contend that humans have dominion over other forms of life, others do not. Evolution would appear to be more in line with the latter conclusion. Perhaps those from traditions which insist on humanity’s superiority are bring that ‘truth’ with them and it is coloring their understanding of evolutionary theory.

      Atheism doesn’t say that life is meaningless either.

      1. Sea– 3:05 Great comment. In addition, DNA evidence shows we did not come from “one couple”, noble Adam and the evil temptress, Eve. And, the faulty logic of intelligent design ignores the process of evolution. The odds of each individual step in the process of evolution is reasonably high.

        1. Henry

          “In addition, DNA evidence shows we did not come from “one couple”, noble Noah and the evil temptress, Eve.”

          Noah and Eve? Please explain.

          “The odds of each individual step in the process of evolution is reasonably high.”

          Not hardly. It is too slow at the current evolutionary rates to evolve life as we know it in only 4.54 billion years.

          1. Henry

            And that would be what? Perhaps a deer transforming into an elk 30,000 years ago in the span of one generation?

          2. The domestication of plants and animals, and color changes in pepper moths brought on by the industrial revolution. Immediately come to mind as examples of genetic change occuring very rapidly. I’m sure that an actual biologist could provide more and better examples.

            It puts a smile on my face when a creationist uses the obsurdity of an elk changing into a deer in a single generation as a counter arguement against evolution and seeming in support of a theory that contends man was molded from clay in a single day.

            It like Democrats lambasting Republicans for opposing the payroll tax cut. Even if you win you lose.

          3. Henry

            “domestication of plants and animals”

            A smile comes to my face. Your example of domestication involves intelligent guidance from man as opposed to a random mutation. Nice example.

            “color changes in pepper moths brought on by the industrial revolution.”

            Correlation ≠ causality. Was the color change brought on by random genetic mutation or was the pepper moth inbred with another exotic moth which was a stowaway on a ship? Inquiring and skeptical minds want to know.

          4. Henry

            I’ll give you home brewed skepticism. We know that the Plasmodium falciparum requires one-hundred-billion-billion (10²º) organisms in order to develop resistance to chloroquine. That is just one relatively simple feature of amino acid alteration for resistance. Applying that rate of mutation to a deer to elk conversion, we can see where the theory of evolution completely falls apart. Let’s assume the average deer weighs 100 pounds. Let’s give the theory of evolution the benefit of the doubt and say that evolution can instantaneously make all necessary genetic mutations in one generation from one species to another. If the rate of mutation for a deer to elk is at the same rate as observed in Plasmodium falciparum, that is one in every (10²º) organisms, we would have evidence of (100 x 10²º) pounds of deer carcasses, fossils, and bodies necessary for the transformation to take place. We know the mass of the earth to be (132000 x 10²º) pounds and that the crust consists of approximately 1% of the mass of the earth. Therefore, the mass of the crust would be approximately 1320 x 10²º) pounds. Therefore, 7.5% of the earth’s crust should consist of deer bodies, carcasses, and fossils in order to achieve the mutation only from deer to elk under the most favorable conditions. The rest of the animal kingdom is not considered, nor the evolution prior to the deer.

            It is indeed not only a factor of time. It is indeed a factor of space as well. Where are all the fossils and bodies? Where would we put all of them to achieve evolution? This evolution deal when given the extreme benefit of the doubt is not working out very well.

          5. Henry 11:50 Perhaps you already know about this blog, but if you don’t I’d reccommend you post your theory there. The blog author is PZ Myers, a prof at Un. of Minnesota–Morris. He was here last Sept and is coming again.


            I mention this because in this evening’s blog PZ discusses the big difference between how evolutionary scientists do there work and how it is portrayed by creationists. The scientists make hypothises about each individual adaptation and then test it.

          6. Henry

            Jon, thanks for the reference. I would have to dismiss my back of the napkin calculation as being a theory. I am not even sure if it would qualify as a hypothesis. Again, I am but a mere layman. I pulled the basis for my calculation from Dr. Behe’s book. Dr. Behe provided the statistic of the observed rate of evolution. I took it from there with the calculation in relation to deer/elk as a proportion of the earth’s crust’s mass. Therefore, I can claim any error if present.

          7. entech

            The Moth changes in Britain are not a good example of evolution. However, what happened was that the moth spent life cycle was strongly related to the Silver Birch. The Silver Birch has a motley grey and white bark, the moths were grey and white in fairly even proportions the grey and white varieties were equally visible to the predator birds. The area in the centre of England where all this took place was called the black country, while named because of all the coal mining and inefficient use of the coal belching black smoke everywhere. The birch trees were affected and the bark became predominantly darker – this made the white moths more visible against the background of the trees and thus more easily visible to birds of prey. The result was that the paler variety of this moth virtually disappeared in a very short time – not evolution but a beautiful example of natural selection, the more visible moths failed to survive to procreate, so “selection” gave an advantage to the darker variety; natural selection is a prime aspect of Evolution. No interbreeding this part of Britain is as far from the sea as it is possible to get.

            Isn’t Behe the one who was laughed off the stage at Dover when his major supporters disappeared into the wood work

          8. Henry

            If I were an evolutionist, I would be very interested in the measured rate of evolution. I wouldn’t want all those deer carcasses to start piling up.

  3. Bob

    I don’t get what’s wrong with evolution. Its amazing to me that we as a species (apes) are bright enough to discover evolution in the first place, despite how simple evolution is really.
    And now we are mapping the whole genome, and discovering that what we used to call junk DNA, isn’t junk, that it has a purpose. WE are divine, us humans are divine. We will go and live in space in the not too distant future and probably seed this part of our galaxy eventually, certainly our own solar system. Its humbling what we are doing in the sciences, and exciting and awe inspiring.

Comments are closed.