Why Do GOod Christians Always Forget the Meaning of the Fall?

 John Lennox is probably the best, though certainly at least one of the best, debates against the atheists on the side of Christianity.  I heard him against Richard Dawkins a while back and here he is in another debate though I don't know who he is debateing this time as I've only heard his talk.  As usual he's excellent.

BUT.  Why is it that so many otherwise good solid orthodox Christians stumble on the Problem of Pain>  Ireally don't get it.  He said that this is the biggest problem he's had to face in his Christian life.  Why?   Surely the Fall explains it all.  The Fall is certainly orthodox theology, why is it so often forgotten in this context?

This world is not the world God created, this is a world destroyed by sin and by judgment for sin brought by God, especially in the worldwide Flood of Noah.  From the moment our first parents disobeyed God by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which He had forbidden to them, we hvave been subject to every kind of injury, disease and death, every kind of suffering and pain.  All these things are the death that God said would be the consequence of their disobedience and because we are all the genetic descendants of Adam we inherit the death that he brought into the world.    Jesus has brought us healing for the Fall but it isn't yet a full healing and won't be until He has returned and reclaimed His Creation.

A Blast At Science's Contemptible Misrepresentation of Christianity

 I'm SO tired of hearibng this from the smug "science" people  and stheists who  attack "religion" as a mental aberration.  Richard Dawkins carries on in this way and here's someone else, another scientist, doing the same thing.  I don't know who he is and I don't care.  I heard about half a minute of this video and had to write this post:

Steven Weinberg: All Time Best Arguments Against Religion #1 - YouTube

<br>'<br>

PuhLEEZE stop lumping Protestant Christianity with Islam for starters, there is NO similarity between the two "religions>"  None.  Zip, nada, none.    RThere is also very little commonality between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.  Whther they are guilty of this charge orf not I'm not even going to speculate, I'm only concerned to correct the complete misrepresentation of Protestantism.

<br>

<br>

This guy says the main conflict between science and "religion" is tin the method of approach to trtuh.  Supposely all "religion" decides questions of truth on the basis of authority, and science does not.  Again I'm not going to consider to what extent this charge may or may not be true of Islam or Roman Catholicism, but it most certainly is false concerning Protestantism.

<br>

<br>

The word Dawkins likes is "faith" to stand for the most vilified method of "religion."  Supposedly "religion" applies "faith" every question of every kind.  Yikes.  Again leave aside Islam and ROmanism.  I doubt it's even true of those two false religions but it most certainly is not true of Protestant Christianity, which is TRUE Christianity.  The biblical definition is "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseeen."  THAT's how we use faith.  Fiath is our necessary posture toward GOD and toward the things of God.  We are exhorted over and over again in scripture to believe, believe in what scripture is telling is about GOD, not in anything else.  Believe in Christ, beliecve He is the Messiah, believe in tghe miracles He performed, believe in the accounts of his life and in fact all the accounts of the Bible.  WE ARE NOT ASKED TO APPLY FAITH TO ANY OTHER QUESYIONS.  Certainly not to scientific questions.  And it is so utterly ridiculous and annoying that the could think such a think I'm having trouble sstaying calm as I write this.

<br>

<br>

Faith is necessary with things of the spirit that we cannot observe.  We must trust those who have witnessed them and lived them, that's the only way we can know about them.   The miracles were cddone to authenticate the claims of Christ to be Christ.  We weren't there, we have no choice but to believe or disbelieve what tthe writers of the Bible report about them to us.   Jesus was willing to show thomas His wounds to prove to Him empirically that He did indeed die and rise again, but He also said "blessed are those who did not see and yet believewd."  We are to truth trustworthy people.  Thomsa  had refused to believe what the other disiples had told Himj.  He was blessed to get the direct proof, but the majority of believers don't get that kind of proof.  We are relegated to treusting the witnesses, and there are scroes and scrores of switnesses who in my judgment are utterly trustworthy, from the writers of the Bible to the people they write about to people who have believede tghe Bible accounts from that time on.

<br>

<br>

WE DO NOT USE FAITH TO DETERMINE THE TRUTHS OF SCFIENCE.  In fact it was biblical treuth that was the original impetus to empirical science and if it had not existed we woudl still be flouding ing around with the old weird "science" of the Early Greeks an Romans and Aristotle

It's no doubt all about the Creation-Evolution debate, which they think is about science but evolution is barely a science at all because being a historical science, about events in the past that can never be replicated or tested, it has to remain noothing but speculation.   And since it contradicts the Bible we reject it both on the basis of our faith in the Bible and on the scientific reasoning creqationists have brought to bear on evolution's claims.    Faith has nothing to do with true science, science that is based on observation, but evolution is not based on observation, it can't be, it's purely invention. 

The Molecular Basis of Life

This is just plain astonishing.  I've seen many of these by now but wanted to post this one because it includes more of the story than some others I've seen.  this stuff is mind-blowing.  Microsopic molecules, proteins and whatnot, behave like sentient beings, craetures with minds that obey some kindof commands to perform their complicated tasks for the replication of DNA.   

,br><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fpHaxzroYxg" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<br>

<br>

I dn't know why I can't get the video to come up for me burt here's the URL to the page:

<br>

<br>

The Molecular Basis of Life - YouTube

<br>

<br>

The most mind-boggling thing of all of course is how all these processes result in the features that make up a living organism.  How does the production of a protein by a gene result in a trait such as, oh, hair color or whatnot?   I don't think I've ever seen anyone even attempt to explain that.