“A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation,” Croskey wrote.
Easy to understand how they'd want to dissolve homeschooling, then. If homeschooling is indoctrination to obedience to the state, they want to make sure that the state controls it.
Homo nexus will never exist! Mankind will never evolve into a higher lifeform! For macro-evolution only takes place in the minds of those who have rejected God!
This is a mischaracterization. Macroevolution, or "evolution as a theory of origins", is a different concept than one species changing into another over time.
Referenced here is the (plausible) theory that the Nephilim were angelic crossbreeds. I'm not sure if they were ontologically different from humanity at that point insofar as their relationship to God and his expectations from them are concerned.
"no longer bearing God's image"? So we bear the image of God in our genetic code? Is that it? Is that interpretation even within the pale of orthodoxy?
If we lose this image when we "add superhuman capabilities" due to genetic changes, why is it that these images are not lost when genetic mutations naturally occur (eg "genetic disorders")? They both stray from the path of the "image" of the genetic code, supposedly perfect and complete in Adam.
misinterpreation. If Noah was spared because he was "fully human", why weren't the other fully human people on earth spared? Is that really the rationale that scripture gives? I don't think so.
"blameless in his generation", "a righteous man" seems a more correct interpretation.
The questions readily rise to mind and on the surface seem reasonable: yet a candid look at them shows that they carry certain implications. They imply that suffering in human life is inconsistent either with the power or with the love of God: that as a God of love either He has not the power to prevent the suffering, or if He has the power then He has not the will, and is not a God of love. It is assumed that the prevention of suffering as it now affects the apparently innocent is something we should expect from a God of love who is also Almighty. Are these assumptions justified?
suffering is not evil in itself, but a symptom of a deeper evil. The Scriptures portray suffering as a consequence of sin: not necessarily the sin of the individual who suffers, but sin in the history of man and in human society.
The larger problem of suffering remains, and the only answer to be extracted from the Book of Job is that man cannot question the majesty and wisdom of God: He is the Creator and Sustainer of all life, and His works are beyond man's knowledge.