That's not Lon's house- and yes, they put in extra $$ on the house to care for their daughter Jill, so get a life, stop spreading false rumors, and leave them alone. If their house value went up in the past 10 years, so be it. Who cares anyways? The offering isn't paying for his house or some crazy salary.

You are actually saying that's not his house? Wow...

How about we leave the debating to the professions?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=debates_main

Enjoy!

SoWhat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How about we leave the debating to the
> professions?
>
> http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pag
> ename=debates_main
>
> Enjoy!

While we're On the topic of reasonable
Attachments:

As someone who has chosen Christianity after many seasons of doubt and a regular attendee McLean Bible Church over the last 2+ years I recommend reading the Case For Christ by Lee Strobel.

It's a fascinating book written from an Atheist's perspective when his wife comes home one day and claims she is a Christian. He goes on a quest to disprove Christianity through history, archeology, astrology, etc. The truths that he uncovers are remarkable. I pray that you read it with an open heart and open mind...

The case for christ was pretty one sided and Strobel does the Atheist side a major disservice by not asking the obvious follow up.

Also, he was not an atheist when he wrote it. He claimed to have been an atheist in his life, this is not the same thing.

Further, he only interviews conservative Christian scholars who agree with his position (I think there is mention of a counter opinion, but no interview, it's been a while since I've read it). Where is an interview with Robert Price, for instance? Burton Mack?

I recommend reading the Empty Tomb or the Verdict Challenged. Strobel's books are getting worse, btw. His case for creation utterly missed the mark and is marching Christians back into the dark ages in terms of science.

Oh yeh! a book club.

A creationist cannot and will never win a debate with a scientist or historian.

BTW - I've listened to Craig debate and read a few of his books. While he's better then some of his contemporaries, his reasoning is still not impressive enough to accept the claims of Christianity. Also, his reasoning about hell is very underwhelming.

I wonder if Jesus would have lived in the Vatican...

Ann Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder if Jesus would have lived in the
> Vatican...


uh oh...do I hear the rumblings of anti-catholicism? Be careful...there are people watching!

By the way...this was a great show/series on the early christian faith..no one should find it insulting...and very informational even to an atheist like myself.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/watch/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2009 11:12AM by Vince(1).

we will be praying for the clown who posted this crap.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BTW - I've listened to Craig debate and read a few
> of his books. While he's better then some of his
> contemporaries, his reasoning is still not
> impressive enough to accept the claims of
> Christianity. Also, his reasoning about hell is
> very underwhelming.

Can you be specific? I'm surprised you're using an ad hominem argument if you've been listening to Craig, et al.

How about some Dr. Zacharias too?

http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Listen/LetMyPeopleThink.aspx?archive=1
http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Listen/JustThinking.aspx?archive=1

Enjoy!

1-4-09
Greetings!

You have some good concerns. Having been interested in working with Kid's Quest, I learned that according to County Regulations for buildings, there are space regulations in case of any kind of emergency. This includes how many people is in a given space and location, including classrooms, nurseries, stores, offices.......! This is why after a certain timeframe, after the services have begun, no other person can be admitted in the nursery.
If I may, I'd like to bring up this matter at church, too, especially since you have the concern regarding your wife's blindness. Personally I'd love to learn Braille, and translate reading material in to Braille, and have readings on CDs. At McLean they do have the messages and the music in Braille, and the messages on tape and CD, as well as online at www.mcleanbible.org (for future reference perhaps).

As for your other concern about the size of the church, about small groups and age considerations, understandable.

I've been to small churches, and still visit a favorite of mine from time to time, and others, and in so doing get to know other people and locations, and what is being taught.

At McLean and other large and small churches, they all have varying age groups which meet separately, but they also get varying age groups together at times too, and this is so important, because life is made up of all ages.

I'm glad you and your family came. I'm sad you had a difficult time, but know that you are most welcome to come back again and visit.

Grateful for your comments.

Do you want everyone to know what you make?

The staff are not "hiding" anything. If you have this concern, go to an elder and ask them. Also, if you've gone to McLean for 20 years, then at some point, unless you missed it, in which case it is on tape/CD, Pastor Lon has indeed addressed this issue, more than once.

If this bothers you, why do you still come?
Just something to give thought to.

reply to previous posting: Posted by: BibleChurch ()
Date: August 19, 2008 07:32AM


I heard a radio ad late last night which basically said "everyone but us is going to hell". I really don't understand how 10,000+ people are suckered into joinging this gay-bashing, evolution-hating, ideology driven institution, but I certainly feel sorry for them.

also, they cause too many traffic hangups on Rt 7

Reply to above: I have some questions and comments for you to think about personally.

1) What do you think of Jesus?
2) Who do you think He is?
3) Do you believe the Bible is His inerrent Word?
4) Do you believe there is a Heaven and a Hell?
5) Do you believe you are going to Heaven when you die? And if so, why?
6) If you were to die tonight and stand before God and He were to ask you why He should let you in to His Heaven, what would you say?
7) And if you do not believe in God here on earth, or at least do not hold to His teachings in His Word for your own personal life, as well, and don't like Him or anyone who does believe in Him, why would you want to go to Heaven?
8) What has happened in your own personal life, or in the life of others you know or have known personally, which has brought you to the conclusions you have now?

Heaven and Hell are real places. If we die and don't go to Heaven, then we go to Hell, literally, forever.

If we don't want Christ in our lives here on earth, then we won't want Him in our lives in eternity - which never ends. And in Heaven, those who do go there, will be voluntarily praising Him, loving Him, loving one another as He wants us to do, worshiping Him, singing praises to Him and of Him, and so much more - honor which He deserves and has 'earned' as our Creator and the One Who chose to give His His Son Jesus, Whose earthly body perished, but He and His body were raised again so that we might have eternal life, and so that all those who do choose Him to be their Saviour, will be with Him forever.

Those who reject Him and His Word here on earth will not go to Heaven. It is only logical to note that because if people do not want Him on this earth, they won't want Him for eternity, and to be in Heaven for eternity, would be like "hell" to those who reject Him on earth and for eternity.

As for hating others who do not believe the same as the Bible truly teaches - many do not, and none should ever do so - Christ does not hate people - but does hate sin - in anyone, Christians and non-Christians. Why? because as our Creator, He also knows everything that will harm and destroy those He created and so warns us about these matters, no matter what they are. If He did not warn us, then that would not be love. He also showed us the Way of escape from that which will destroy us and one another for time and eternity. I know I'm glad He did and does.

And for any who calls themselves a Christian and does hate others, repentance is vitally necessary, and needs to know Christ and His Word deeply, and learn full obedience to Him and trust in Him, then Christians can caringly, and unswervingly reach out to those who hate the believers and the God they say they believe in, as well as His Word.

One more added note to those who say they believe in Christ - why so many breakups in marriage, and fightings among believers? What kind of witness is this? And more?

We are all human, yes, believers in Christ and nonbelievers. None are perfect in ourselves and never will be. We all do make normal non-sinning, mistakes in life, but there is also this matter that people do choose to have sinful actions and attitudes in life as well - be careful to find out what is happening in your lives. Something we all must daily do. True Christians must truly stand firm and strong in God's truth, but don't willingly be obnoxious to others. Is this easy for believers and non-believers in Christ? No. But believers in Christ have the help of the Christ and must always trust Christ for the strength, wisdom and love needed to respond properly, not react. Others do not have this wonderfu help, sadly.

I was on my deathbed a few years back, and it is a miracle I'm still here. And so many were there who cared, even some who do not believe in Christ. They were all wonderful. I'm grateful. Why do I mention this? To show that to a point, rather we believe in Christ or not, we can reach out, without hatred to others who believe differently than we do, if we choose to do so, only to a point. With Christ, we can go beyond that point if we want to, because of the unfailing faithfulnes and love of Christ. The choice is ours. This is only the beginning.

Biblechurch, no need to be sorry for those who know Christ personally, unless there still remains a real hatred in some, those, yes, I am saddened, but then, so is Christ. If so, then they too must learn. But your own comments show hatred. Anyone who has hatred in their hearts for a fellow human being, will chiefly end up destroying themselves first. It does not matter if they believe in Christ or not. Look at the world around us, and there is ample proof of self-centred hatred toward others, and most right now shows up in those who do not even begin to claim to know Christ personally.

However, Christians, take heed to this warning too - if there is hatred in your hearts, it will show in your attitudes and actions, and does. This is not Christlike at all.

All human beings have a bias for or against something. This is normal. But how are we exhibiting these bias'? Even Christ is biased and discriminatory. He hates the sin and sins that will destroy His creation, but He does not hate His creation. Again, because He does love us, He warns us of what will destroy us and those around us. Why should we hate Him because of this? or those who seek to tell of His warnings and love as well? This does not make sense in and of itself. However, again, those who say they are Christians, take heed that you are not deliberately reacting in manners which push people away from Christ, even though some will go away from Him anyway. But learn to respond, even sometimes in silence. Not always easy, but necessary.

Aside from the above, Biblechurch, you mention the traffic tie-ups - actually there is a lot of traffic, but it normally runs smoothly. One of the worst traffic tie ups I see is at malls, on 95 and the Beltway, in this area, and other places are worse. I'm born and raised here in this area, and the worst tie-ups I've seen over the years, happen because the traffic lights are not synchronized properly, most of the time, no matter how many vehicles are or are not on the roads, no matter the location. When the traffic lights are synchronized, the traffic goes more smoothly, no matter the amount of vehicles on the roads, in any direction.

The only other traffic tie-ups are due to accidents and careless drivers. I know I am not the only one who has observed this, yet this is rarely taken care of regarding the traffic lights. They are rarely ever timed properly for the safety of both the vehicles and the pedestrians - in all directions, and when it is - it is only temporary.

I remember Tyson's Corner when it was only one shopping mall. It was a breeze to get through there, and safely. Same for 7 Corners, and many other locations. Now there are so many careless drivers out there, that I truly find it refreshing to see the traffic move smoothly around McLean Bible Church. Rarely is it otherwise, at least at the times I go through there. I've heard the same from others.

Just some things to think about and carefully consider.

Thank you for sharing your concerns.

This is an added note from K to Biblechurch regarding Heaven and hell.

Yes, Hell is a real place too, but originally, God originally created Hell for satan and his wicked angels, who decided they wanted to be equal to God when satan was named lucifer and in Heaven first, something no creation of God can be -ever! As a result of Lucifer's rebellion against God, and the rebellion of many of his fellow angels, they had to be cast out of Heaven. Satan has hated God's creation ever since, and continues to deceive people in to believing that God hates us. Satan wants all of God's creation in hell with him, and sadly many believe that he cares for them, and he does not, and never has, and never will.

When sin entered the world, then people were sent there, only because they chose to do so as they rejected God, and too many still do so.

I'm so totally amazed at the patience God has with those humans He created, so that earth has lasted as long as it has, but even God's patience is running out of time, so to speak. The end of this present age, as we know it, is fast coming to a close. The next age is upon us. The first part of Christ's return, is soon.

Remember, if we don't want anything to do with Christ, His Bible, or His people, here on earth, even unto our death, we won't want any part of it in eternity. And since there are only one of two places to be, after we die, then certainly Heaven would be like 'hell' to those who hate God now.

And Biblechurch - you are cared for, far more than you could ever know, so are all people.

SoWhat Wrote: "Can you be specific? I'm surprised you're using an ad hominem argument if you've been listening to Craig, et al. "

My Response: Where's the ad-hom? I'm not saying that you shouldn't discount Craig's argument X because his character is Y or anything like that. I made a general statement about Craig and as a kicker I said I wasn't impressed about one of his arguments. In order to be an ad-hom I would have had to have said that his argument sucks because of character flaw X, Y, or Z.

An ad-hom is not simply an insult, as you seem to be indicating.

As for his specific argument, IIRC, he states that when we get to heaven (for those with the tickets), we will forget all about the people who didn't arrive in heaven (those who are being tormented in hell).

SoWhat Wrote: "How about some Dr. Zacharias too? "

My Response: What about him? I find him *several* levels below Craig. He's right on par with Kent Hovind.

BTW - that's not an ad-hom logical fallacy either, since I'm not saying that you should disregard argument X because he's several levels below Craig.

For reference on Ad-homs, please look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

"consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject."

Specifically read this:

"Merely insulting a source in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy (though it is not usually regarded as acceptable). It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the source offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount its arguments. "

it's not just 10,000+ but there are millions of Christians who believe in the veracity of the Bible. although Christians do not agree with homosexuality, we do not hate the gays. btw, gay or not, if you want to find out the truth about GOD, i challenge you to sincerely accept Christ as your Savior. it is the only way you will find out for youself whether GOD is real or not.

I would suggest if you want to find out about God, you put a loaded gun in your mouth and pull the trigger. Unlike a 2000 year old magician, this method can tell you through something that is NOT conjecture and speculation about whether there is a God (based on the same general idea that God is met in the hereafter)

The person above me is like every other xtian.. "accept christ and you will see the light"... they never know how fucking stupid they sound, do they..... it would be just as easy to accept a Quiznos sandwich as my savior, you know, and it would "learn me" just as much as reading about some dude from ancient times who may or may not have been supernatural. That is to say, xtian logic never points to anything specific that is on-it's-face believable. At least a sandwich can taste good, or not, indicating some kind of otherworldly awesomeness.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2009 12:57PM by RESton Peace.

Sieg Heil Jonie

I don't exist. Get over it.

Faith is a good and healthy thing. Religion is a bullshit crutch.

I support gay marriage (or at least same sex marriage if done by statute rather than the courts), find creationism and intelligent design silly and bereft of any inductive method and support for the same as an invitation to scientific and technological ignorance hardly a good thing in today's knowledge based economy - and am appropriately skeptical of ideologues of all stripes.

And I am not in the least bit religious.

But having been to McLean Bible, (for a funeral service), I was impressed by the care and concern that the church and the staff provided for the family. They clearly fulfilled a need at a tough time for the family and their friends. And I am impressed by those who attend there that engage in conduct that reflects concern for someone other than themselves, a rare and laudable thing these days. I came away with the view that while none of this was my cup of tea, I concluded that this and most other similar churches were as negative or harmful as one lets them be - meaning - not much, if at all. While generally finding proselytizing annoying, - let's be blunt - McLean Bible Churchers are not forcing people (as, by way of example, happens in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia) to abide by their beliefs - I just let them be.

Most of the negative comments here spring from cultural differences between an increasing number of people who view the world in secular humanist terms (or worse, they have little value core at all) and Christians. But tolerance means just that - tolerance for views of all kinds - and while I don't ascribe to many of their views, I don't feel inclined to belittle them either, and recognize them when they do in fact do good work.

I have listened to this guy Joel Osteen - and while I don't buy in to his religious message some of his sermons make darn good sense. What happened to the expectation that we should all be critical listeners and thinkers, free to parse the good from the not-so-good?

I do think high salaries and a perception of opulence are always an issue. Churches play a role in our social welfare network (and some do a great job) and are tax-exempt to boot, so inquiry into lavish practices is fair game. And I think Mr. Solomon ought to be public about his salary and compensation. Note that even if high, people will recognize that he runs a large institution (like it or not), and understand that he merits some reasonable form of compensation, including facilities for his special needs child. Transparency never hurts.

Jonie Wrote: " challenge you to sincerely accept Christ as your Savior. it is the only way you will find out for youself whether GOD is real or not."

My Response: I've done just that - it didn't help.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jonie Wrote: " challenge you to sincerely accept
> Christ as your Savior. it is the only way you will
> find out for youself whether GOD is real or not."
>
> My Response: I've done just that - it didn't help.


Accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior helps your eternal life. Not your mortal life, here on Earth.

Me-ology guys like Joel Osteen preach about how accepting Jesus will reap benefits to you now. That's not Jesus's message at all. Life is still going to suck here on Earth. It just means you won't burn in Hell forever.

_
Attachments:

Yahweh, stop wasting taxpayers' dollars and get back to work, county employee.

when confronted with this kind of discussion I usually recommended reading Dawkin's superb 1986 classic

http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703/

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Jonie Wrote: " challenge you to sincerely
> accept
> > Christ as your Savior. it is the only way you
> will
> > find out for youself whether GOD is real or
> not."
> >
> > My Response: I've done just that - it didn't
> help.
>
>
> Accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior helps
> your eternal life. Not your mortal life, here on
> Earth.
>
> Me-ology guys like Joel Osteen preach about how
> accepting Jesus will reap benefits to you now.
> That's not Jesus's message at all. Life is still
> going to suck here on Earth. It just means you
> won't burn in Hell forever.


This is what Nietzche was railing against in his book the AntiChrist. You are devaluing *this life* (the only one we actually have any evidence that exists) for the next life.

I value my life, it has meaning in and of itself. You do not value your life - it has no meaning to you, it is simply a 'waiting place' until the next life. This is what seperates us and why you and your kind are willing to kill themselves in ghastly explosions because you believe that 'God' is talking to you.

if McLean Bible Church is in China, will it be branded a "cult"?????

AttorneyForSatan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mrs. K Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lucifer, I wondered when you would come
> > calling...
>
> As Satan's attorney, I want to make it clear that
> the previous poster was not Mr. Lucifer. He is
> currently on vacation in Barbados and does not
> have internet access (I know because he calls me
> like 10 times a day to look stuff up for him on
> Wikipedia...slightly annoying).
>
> Mr. Lucifer has expressed his option of McLean
> Bible Church before, and in general he feels it is
> awesome. They allow their women to speak in
> church and even allow them to enter without their
> heads covered as Paul directs.
>
> Numbers 31.


Holy shit, this made me laugh

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jonie Wrote: "I challenge you to sincerely accept
> Christ as your Savior. it is the only way you will
> find out for youself whether GOD is real or not."
>
Jonie: With all due respect ... it is meaningless to tell people to "accept Christ" if in their mind they live in a non-Christian cosmology of uncreated matter + energy + time + chance ... just meaningless.

In order to "accept Christ" a person must first be convinced that Christianity is an accurate description what truly exists ... and that can only happen on the basis of reading or hearing what the God of Christianity has spoken into human history in the Bible.

A more useful 'challenge' is to read John, Acts, and Romans to understand what Christianity claims about reality ... and then perhaps to read Francis A. Schaeffer's "The God Who is There" and "He is There and He is not Silent" in order to contrast the hope-and-pain of a Christian cosmology with the nihilism that attends consistent chance-universe Darwinism.

To paraphrase FAS: "If the non-Christian man was consistent he would be an atheist in religion, an anarchist in politics, an irrationalist in philosophy (including a complete uncertainty concerning 'natural laws'), and completely a-moral in the widest sense."

If you think the Christians are whacked, take a look at the Muslims. At least the Christians don't express their faith by flying planes into buildings.

Goatfacedwog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you think the Christians are whacked, take a
> look at the Muslims. At least the Christians don't
> express their faith by flying planes into
> buildings.

As difficult as it is for me to defend muslims, I can say that their excuse for being the worst of Jehovah's blind witlessnesses is their lack of education and the horrible luck of being born into a muslim society.
Whereas most christians get decent educations and have little to no excuse for being so silly. They have all the tools readily available to learn proper history and science, but refuse to because they're terrified of their glorious Gods retribution for trying to ask questions.

Yes, muslims did fly planes into our buildings and are undoubtably incredibly stupid, but christians are capable of doing the same thing and there isn't a lot of difference between a muslim and a hardcore christian. They're both playing without a full deck of cards.

Oh just join a Catholic church. They are more normal. Plus they don't care how you dress at Mass.

Trickie

Yes, muslims did fly planes into our buildings and are undoubtably incredibly stupid, but christians are capable of doing the same thing...

Being capable of doing something and actually doing it are two entirely different things.

I can say that their excuse for being the worst of Jehovah's blind witlessnesses is their lack of education and the horrible luck of being born into a muslim society.

Check the backgrounds of the 9-11 hijackers. Most of them were highly educated, Mohammed Atta was an engineer, and none of them came from impoverished backgrounds. Your premise, among many of your other attributes no doubt, is flawed.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Goatfacedwog Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> Whereas most christians get decent educations and
> have little to no excuse for being so silly.
>
> They have all the tools readily available to learn
> proper history and science, but refuse to because
> they're terrified of their glorious God's
> retribution for trying to ask questions.
> --------------------------------------------------

1) Sir Isaac Newton was a convinced Christian. So are many highly 'educated' historians and scientists.

2) The real issue is not 'education' ... it's cosmogony.

3) Today's theoretical physicist (while positing almost scholastic string theory to explain the cosmos) nevertheless postulates an impersonal 'blind watchmaker' -- if anybody -- behind the cosmos. Everything that is, is by faith considered to be the result of impersonal matter + energy + time + chance following the mysterious 'Big Bang.'

4) A chance Darwinian cosmos is a tragic world to live in. Nothing matters (pun intended) because the projected heat-death of the universe annihilates everybody and everything. There is no 'morality.' We may not like Hitler, but who's to say that the convinced Darwinist Hitler was 'wrong' to try to wipe out what he considered an inferior breed of men?

5) The Christians see a different, personal beginning. It's still a tragic world to live in, but not without hope ... because death is not annihilation, and there is 'justice' to come.

6) The honest Christian must still say that we live in a tragic world, because the 'reality' includes horrible cruelty by a fallen Mankind [and fallen 'angel-kind,' if you will] created with such immense moral significance that the God of the Bible did not simply snuff out either Man or the fallen angels.

7) The great 'moral' significance of Man is put into perspective the horrible cruelty inflicted on Jesus, willingly accepted by Jesus when he was flogged, beaten, and then crucified in the place of men.

8) Read John, Acts, and Romans if you want a perspective on Christian cosmology -- you'll find 'Intelligent Design' coupled with a 'death-sentence redesign' as a result of a real 'moral' Fall in space-time history ... with real 'moral guilt,' as opposed to mere 'guilt feelings.'

9) You can disagree with the Christians' cosmology, but you shouldn't sneer at it ... it answers more questions than Darwin, about why we love and why we hate.

10) A consistent Darwinian can only say 'is' ... he can never say 'ought.' A consistent Christian can say both (with tears, because what 'is' is so horrible in many ways).

11) Some us are former militant atheists -- with massive Ivy League credentials -- who took the time to read the 'Book' [in English, Greek, and Hebrew] and consider Christianity as well as Darwinism.

12) Isaac Newton was doubtless born smarter than any of us on this forum ... and he bowed what he considered his 'created' intelligence before the Christian Creator whose cosmos he studied. Newton was not ashamed to think God's thoughts after him.

13) There is now, furthermore, a substantial body of serious scientific study of Creation, the Flood, and 'Intelligent Design.' They sell 'em and read 'em at McLean Bible Church ... and the not-too-dumb [Jewish!] Ben Stein had fun pulling Darwinism's leg in the film "Expelled."

14) You will have to come to terms with your own forthcoming death, in one way or another ... so at least take an informed look-see at Christianity before you write it off as a mere narcotic for the 'uneducated.'

Everything you said is correct. One thing though, I didn't write what you quoted me as writing. I was responding to that idiot who calls himself Numbers. He wrote that. Just to clarify.

Goatfacedwog Wrote:

> Being capable of doing something and actually
> doing it are two entirely different things.


Jonestown.

Jonestown.

This idiotic answer proves that you are too stupid to know how stupid you are. If you think that Jonestown is an example of mainstream religon, must less Christianity then you really are in the hall pf fame of pig-ignorance.

McLean Bible is a business networking group - everyone knows that. Bring your business cards!!!

Walter Sobcheck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jonestown.
>
> This idiotic answer proves that you are too stupid
> to know how stupid you are. If you think that
> Jonestown is an example of mainstream religon,
> must less Christianity then you really are in the
> hall pf fame of pig-ignorance.


Those people there were christians, whether they were "mainstream" or not. They worshipped the biblical Jesus and God.
My point is that christians can be just as easily duped into doing crazy shit. Jonestown also shows how the line between God and politics is often blurred based on your particular churches agenda. Being a sheep and following the sheep herder is the very nature of christianity (and many other religions).

What I know of Sir Isaac Newton is that he was very much an enlightened man...meaning he did not accept much of the voodoo in Christian dogma. For instance..he did not believe in the trinity of god. That alone would seperate him from the body of christendom.

What I know of Sir Isaac Newton is that he was very much an enlightened man...meaning he did not accept much of the voodoo in Christian dogma. For instance..he did not believe in the trinity of god. That alone would seperate him from the body of christendom.

Well, you know very little about Sir Isaac Newton and no doubt very little about most everything else. Newton was a highly religious man who produced a substantial volume of work on biblical hermeneutics. By the way, why is Christian dogma any more "voodoo" than any other dogma? It's all based on faith. Scientific exercises to prove or disprove it for that matter are exercises in futility.

Cotton Mather Wrote:

> It's all based on faith. Scientific exercises to prove or
> disprove it for that matter are exercises in
> futility.

And if you had your way, we shouldn't even try, right?

And if you had your way, we shouldn't even try, right?

Trying to prove or disprove matters of faith is ultimately an exercise in futility.

Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trying to prove or disprove matters of faith is
> ultimately an exercise in futility.
-------------------------------------------------------

* It's one thing to perform deductive testing of hypotheses (science) within the created cosmos where we live -- this we and Newton, can and should do.

* But with respect to non-reproducible past history, and with respect to what is 'outside' the physical cosmos, that is where Christians take God's word for things ... that's what 'faith' is.

* You can't go back in time and 'prove' the Resurrection of Jesus.

* You can't outside the physical universe and perform gas chromatography on an angel or devil.

* To a man whose presupposition is that we are all merely something kicked up out of the slime by chance, even the Resurrection of a dead body would not automatically force him to the conclusion that Christianity is true. He would see it as merely a chance event.

* If a Christian has 'faith' that the Bible speaks truly about history and about the future, it is because God has changed his heart to believe what he has read in the Bible. Yes, it is a matter of supernatural grace.

* But Christians expect the Bible to speak truly about history, because God has said so often and so clearly that He cannot lie. That's why Christians love Biblical archaeology, which increasingly confirms the historicity of the Old and New Testament.

* Members of what is really the secular "Church of Darwin," take a great deal on faith too ... based upon an ad hominem faith in the current priests of academia.

* There are great parallels between our current 'faith' in the reality of man-made global warming, and 'faith' in the historicity of impersonal Evolution. Both are what people -want- to believe, and they believe both with scant command of the scientific data.

* Intellectually, most men are 'team players' and root for their own team.

* The Christians have, of late, been the most independent thinkers ... thinking against received academic orthodoxy about Creation, the Genesis Flood, and Intelligent Design.

* Academia, as always, has been reactionary ... and not just in biology ... Paul Feyerabend used to complain about the 'Quantum Cardinals' of modern physics.

* It's a jungle out there ... but the Truth is Out There also.

* Christian physicists can die relaxed, knowing that one day they can ask God if, for example, parity is conserved. Newton believed that a personal God really is there before, during, and after his life.

* The non-Christian scientist will die in despair expecting that after his annihilation, he will never ever know what was accurate, or inaccurate, in contemporary cosmological theory.

* And yet non-Christian men devote their entire lives to the pursuit of truth in physics. Christians should honor this. It is a real point-of-contact between believers and unbelievers -- both are starved to know what is really Out There.

Goatfacedwog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Everything you said is correct. One thing though,
> I didn't write what you quoted me as writing. I
> was responding to that idiot who calls himself
> Numbers. He wrote that. Just to clarify.
-------------------------------------------------------

Sorry! The Quoting mechanism of this forum leaves much to be desired.

"Goatfacedwog" ... harsh name ... are you too a survivor of the British [Outward Bound?] educational system?

"Goatfacedwog" ... harsh name ... are you too a survivor of the British [Outward Bound?] educational system?

Too fuckin right!

Goatfacedwog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Goatfacedwog" ... harsh name ... are you too a
> survivor of the British educational system?
>
> Too fuckin right!
-------------------------------------------------------

My condolences.

One reason for the proverbial British "stiff upper lip" is because so many have learnt as children not to cry -- when at age 8 they are sent away from home to sex-segregated schools, where they are sometimes sexually abused by older boys (and masters!).

Furthermore, enforced liturgical Church of England Christianity can be a rival to Rome for ritualistic inauthenticity.

America has a skin-color problem, but much less of a 'class' problem (unless you have, say, a thick, slow 'Gomer Pyle' [Alabama] southern accent.)

Indubitably. I think.

Eliot Ness Wrote:

> One reason for the proverbial British "stiff upper
> lip" is because so many have learnt as children
> not to cry -- when at age 8 they are sent away
> from home to sex-segregated schools, where they
> are sometimes sexually abused by older boys (and
> masters!).


YOU! Yes you! Stand still, laddy!

Rod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Christians believe everyone will be converted because
> the Bible says every knee will bow.
-------------------------------------------------------

Not quite the right terminology. The Bible makes it clear that everyone one will be convinced ... not that every one will be 'converted.' Many of those knees will be forced to the ground.

Converted Christians have, by definition, already voluntarily bowed to God, both metaphysically and morally. They no longer live in a Star Trek universe, but rather in a Biblical cosmology.

Paul writes about the future universal 'bowing of the knee' in Romans 14:

"Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. It is written: 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.' So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God."

Paul was quoting from Isaiah 45, which is an address to Cyrus the Great which gives an amazing picture of God's ego, of which fallen Man's [and Satan's] are distorted analogues. (Go to www.biblegateway.com and read Isaiah 45, if you have never done so.)

Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear.They will say of me, 'In the LORD alone are righteousness and strength.' All who have raged against him will come to him and be put to shame. ... All the makers of idols will be put to shame and disgraced; they will go off into disgrace together.

That Jesus, as God, sublimated this enormous ego to become the 'suffering servant' who was beaten, flogged, spat upon, and crucified ... is all the more staggering in light of what God has said about the future of celebrity of Jesus. You can see this remarkable contrast in Philippians 2:

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Our worst 20th/21st century idolatries are political and scientific. Entire cultures bow the knee to perceived super-heroes whose authoritarian regimes promise to create 'new men' and usher in Heaven on Earth, after the removal of the Jews-bourgeoisie-religion-or whatever.

Even those of you who live in a Star Trek universe, have not escaped 'bowing of the knee' in one form or the other. It's really just a question of who you respect/worship, not whether.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rod Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Christians believe everyone will be converted
> because
> > the Bible says every knee will bow.
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> Even those of you who live in a Star Trek
> universe, have not escaped 'bowing of the knee' in
> one form or the other. It's really just a question
> of who you respect/worship, not whether.

You people are mad

Marx was right - you people are so scared of your own shadows that you insist on clinging to discredited world views, pledging obedience to bizarre religious hierarchies and completely ignoring what evidence based science has shown us about how the physical universe, the living world and our minds work.

I have never and will never bow my knee to anyone - let alone a set of religious nutters still spouting dogmatic claptrap straight from the middle ages

Just carry on counting angels on pinheads and remember to stay out of the traffic

Jonestown - Those people there were christians, whether they were "mainstream" or not. They worshipped the biblical Jesus and God.
My point is that christians can be just as easily duped into doing crazy shit. Jonestown also shows how the line between God and politics is often blurred based on your particular churches agenda. Being a sheep and following the sheep herder is the very nature of christianity (and many other religions).

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Jim Jones was a communist and an atheist who derided Christianity. He preached what he call "Apostolic Socialism"
Maybe you should restrict your posts to something you actually know about, limited though that may be.

tubby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you throw your hard earned money into Solomon's
> (or any of those blow-dried preachers') basket,
> you're worse than a moron.
-------------------------------------------------------

1) You are stereotyping Lon Solomon and 'misunderestimating' his humility -- he does not at all hide the fact that he was once a "lying, cheating, potty-mouthed" drunk/drugged-up hippie dope dealer.

2) In fact, Solomon often speaks against what you correctly call "blow-dried preachers" and asks the congregation to pray for him, that he will never thus disgrace the church.

3) "Integrity of Leadership" was precisely the subject of yesterday's (Sun, Jan 18 2009) sermon (3:10 ff).

Over the last 50 years there is probably no single area where we as the Evangelical church have failed more seriously, where we have failed more egregiously, than in this issue.

You know that over the last 50 years there has been a steady stream of pastors and televangelists and radio preachers and prominent Christian business leaders and politicians who have been caught in one scandal after another, and the result is that we have now reached the point in America where the average secular American believes that all of Evangelical Christianity is a hoax. They believe the Church is just out to get your money. And they believe that every Christian leader is basically a crook.

Now this bad behavior on the part of so many Christian leaders, however, is totally foreign to the Biblical model ... to the contrary, the Bible is adamant in its demand that there must be integrity, and morality, and honesty, and Godly uprightness on the part of Christian leaders.

In Timothy Chapter 3, the Bible says that an Elder, and by extension any Christian leader, must be "above reproach," [the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money].

4) Solomon is an extrovert, to be sure, but up-close-and-personal I can tell you that his obvious role model is none of TV's vainglorious "blow-dried preachers" but rather reformed SOBs like John Newton, once a cruel and drunken slave trader, whose tombstone reads:

"John Newton ... once an infidel and libertine, a servant of slaves in Africa, was, by the rich mercy of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, preserved, restored, pardoned, and appointed to preach the faith he had long labored to destroy."

5) Newton wrote the hymn Amazing Grace (which has been expropriated by secular singers like Judy Collins) and in that hymn, Newton calls himself a "wretch" rather than a hero. This is clearly Solomon's vision of himself, and every Christian.

6) Few of TV's peacock pseudo-faith-healing "blow-dried preachers" have ever been punched in the face while talking gently on the streets of New York, handing out "Jews for Jesus" literature.

7) You gotta listen to the man's sermons, in which he talks about the strict oversight of MBC's finances and the use of those finances, before blasting him as just another "blow-dried preacher." It's a mischaracterization.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tubby Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If you throw your hard earned money into
> Solomon's
> > (or any of those blow-dried preachers') basket,
> > you're worse than a moron.
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> 1) You are stereotyping Lon Solomon and
> 'misunderestimating' his humility -- he does not
> at all hide the fact that he was once a "lying,
> cheating, potty-mouthed" drunk/drugged-up hippie
> dope dealer.
>


Brilliant - we should have people like this run all our institutions

... oh wait....

Smells like scam - but what's new?

Time to close them all down - start by removing tax and land use privileges from all religious institutions

nutters Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------
> You people are mad.
>
> Marx was right - you people are so scared of your
> own shadows that you insist on clinging to
> discredited world views, pledging obedience to
> bizarre religious hierarchies and completely
> ignoring what evidence based science has shown us
> about how the physical universe, the living world
> and our minds work.
> -------------------------------------------------

1) Nutters ... blecch! ... Marx is precisely one of the super-heroes to whose postulated 'dialectic' modern men bow their minds and create terrible tyrannies in search of Heaven-on-Earth. (Marx, by way of militant Communism, is surely the godfather of more hate-filled slaughter than anyone who ever lived.)

Are you aware of the utterly scholastic character of modern physics' postulated string theory debates?

Science still barely has a clue about "how the physical universe works" (especially with respect to gravitation) or how the physical universe was formed ... and you can be sure that tomorrow's theories will be radically different from today's theories!

2) The real 'damnation' in the back of the mind of any secular scientist is that after they close the lid on his coffin (and consign his brain and his body to annihilation, either by decay beneath ground or incineration in an oven) the Church-of-Darwin member has no rational hope of ever learning the truth to which he dedicated his entire life -- only the expectation of the ultimate 'heat-death' of mankind and the entire cosmos.

3) It's not 'madness' to fear annihilation. Physicist Heinz Pagels used to dream about falling off of a mountain:

"... in cold terror I fell into the abyss."

Pagels then escaped into irrational Romanticism, making "peace with the darkness":

But in the dream, he wrote, he then realized that "what I embody, the principle of life, cannot be destroyed." He continued: "It is written into the cosmic code, the order of the universe. As I continued to fall in the dark void, embraced by the vault of the heavens, I sang to the beauty of the stars and made my peace with the darkness."

Pagels in fact died in a fall from a mountain, in 1989.

Christians do not passively "make peace with the darkness" of annihilation. They believe the physics of Jesus (rather than Marx) who said said: "My Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

4) I say again, the ferocious search for 'true truth' is real common ground between Christians and serious secular scientists ... but the Christians have hope of one day knowing the truth, after their death and resurrection, about the physics of a created cosmos. Tragically, neither Pagels nor Einstein had any such hope.

nutters Wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Brilliant - we should have people like this { reformed drug dealer Lon Solomon }
> run all our institutions!
--------------------------------------------------------------
It wouldn't hurt ... because as former criminals they would harbor few 'Boy Scout' illusions about human nature, and would not reflexively project virtue onto elected leaders.

I hope that I'm not insulting you by applauding your cynical view of human nature ... It's almost 'Christian.'
[You're on common ground here with the Christian-influenced framers of our limited-government Constitution.]

Question: In a Darwinian cosmology, Why would any man rationally be anything other than an amoral, Nihilist/Anarchist? Are you in fact a 'Romantic?'

edit by Cary: closed open "bold" tag



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2009 08:54PM by Cary.

Cotton Mather Wrote:

> You really have no idea what you're talking about.
> Jim Jones was a communist and an atheist who
> derided Christianity. He preached what he call
> "Apostolic Socialism"


Your referring to the political structure of Jim Jones.
The fact is that the people at Jonestown, went there to get away from the laws and restrictions of the US. As a group, they worshipped Jesus and the biblical God. Haven't you ever listened to the tape of the final moments?
It's YOU that has been drinking Kool Aid and can't deal with reality and the truth.

Einstein was correct...organized religions are no more then fairy tales told by your parents.
Face it folks...when we die we get eaten by worms.
Self centered,needy people have a problem accepting that.They are weak minded.

The holier than thou group are a scary bunch.Remember, the terrorists who flew
planes into our buildings were devoutly religious too.
In 2000 years Koresh,Jones and Manson will have their own holy books.

Not a sermon......

first I call 'bb code violation' on all you mo-fo's

second, agree or not George Carlin had this classic outlook

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2009 04:46PM by dono.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Question: In a Darwinian cosmology, Why would any
> man rationally be anything other than an amoral,
> Nihilist/Anarchist? Are you in fact a
> 'Romantic?'
>

There's no such thing as a 'Darwinian cosmology'

There is the very consistent body of Science that includes cosmology to explain the very large and Darwinian evolution to explain the process and diversity of life. Cosmology doesn't care about Darwinism, but Darwinism builds on the chemistry that physics and cosmology have given us.

Evolutionary thinking gives a clear framing for why consciousness and emotions have developed.

It also gives a very nuanced way of thinking about

* our individual emotional predispositions
* the variability amongst individuals and why there is such variability
* why we behave irrationally on many occasions and why the little lizard brain pokes through
* why we have dispositions toward outdated social behaviors that previously provided advantage

It also explains why the rational analysis of the universe is not always reflected in our local behaviors.

'Mind is what the brain does', and the architecture of the brain is the sum of the evolutionary pressures we have been through.

As a result, its not incompatible to understand that physics doesn't give a damn about us - but that we've evolved to give a damn about ourselves.

It also suggests why the capacity for irrational and anti-social behavior remains within society at the level required for resilience of the species.

The fact that there is no absolute moral framework to the universe, physics and biology do not recognize right and wrong, pretty or ugly etc - does not mean that we have not evolved beneficial mechanisms which use them as local abstractions to enable and manage individual behavior in a social context.

Science and evolutionary thinking take you to a clearer understanding of why society is more successful than anarchy, and why behaviors that facilitate society tend to be most successful - yet in extremis need to be bolstered by more anti-social behaviors

In fact, Nutters, with all due respect ... I challenge your strong objections to greed and hypocrisy within the Church. What's 'wrong' about them?

You are in fact espousing Christian values, not Darwinian ones.

A cruel, greedy, hypocritical individual is more likely to 'survive' as the 'fittest' in a chance cosmos of mere 'natural selection.'

A Christian, on the other hand, can anguish about those values, and can oppose them, because they are out of synch with ultimate Reality, viz., the personality and character of the uncreated God of the Bible.

You have to stand on Christian ground to swing your sword against 'unChristian' values.

I think Elliot Ness must have found Lon Solomans stash!

If Soloman is doing it for Gods sake alone, why take $800,000. out of the baskets and live in a 2 million dollar house? Hummm...

Not a sermon...

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In fact, Nutters, with all due respect ... I
> challenge your strong objections to greed and
> hypocrisy within the Church. What's 'wrong' about
> them?
>
> You are in fact espousing Christian values, not
> Darwinian ones.
>
> A cruel, greedy, hypocritical individual is more
> likely to 'survive' as the 'fittest' in a chance
> cosmos of mere 'natural selection.'
>
> A Christian, on the other hand, can anguish about
> those values, and can oppose them, because they
> are out of synch with ultimate Reality, viz., the
> personality and character of the uncreated God of
> the Bible.
>
> You have to stand on Christian ground to swing
> your sword against 'unChristian' values.

There's no incompatibility - and I certainly am not espousing any Christian values - Christians can feel free to espouse behaviors that have been indicative of the long term survival of many social structures and religions - Ebola-like religions and cults don't last long but they do occur on a regular basis

As you suggest, 'cruel, greedy and hypocritical individuals' do very well in society - including, or especially, within religions and religious organizations

The fact that society provides an ecology for rapists, bag-snatchers and con-men to prosper doesn't mean that the rest of society shouldn't have rules and behaviors to eliminate them or reduce their impact

You'll have a hard time presenting any evidence for your 'ultimate reality'... scary stories and fairy stories passed their sell-by-dates long ago

Faith was a useful cohesive tool when we didn't understand how the universe and natures works around us

nutters Wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------
> There's no such thing as a 'Darwinian cosmology.'
>
> The architecture of the brain is the sum of the
> evolutionary pressures we have been through ...
>
> ... there is no absolute moral framework to the universe.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Sure there is a 'Darwinian cosmology.' We all grew up in it.

It's George Lemaitre's Big Bang out of nothing (into entropy, nothingness) popularized by George Gamov's book One, Two, Three ... Infinity."

It's our culture's cosmic presupposition of spontaneous matter + energy + time + chance + nothing outside of that.

It's Carl Sagan's Cosmos where "evolution is fact, not a theory." (Carl, as a personality, was annihilated by his beloved 'Cosmos' in 1996.)

Our high priests are Einstein, Sagan, and Hawking ... and their God is silent ... He doesn't inspire Moses or Jesus or anyone else to write or speak authoritatively.

Instead of Moses and the Prophets, our religious history and prophecy are science fiction: 'Star Wars' and 'Star Trek.'

We have only romantic hopes for continued individual consciousness rather than annihilation by death ... people talk about 'in my next life' but they don't really mean it ... and Hollywood eulogists frequently state that the recently deceased so-and-so is 'looking down on us' but they don't really mean it.

Yet we irrationally cheer the Bielski partisans of the movie Defiance, who protect Jews, rather than the devoutly Darwinist stronger Nazi killers of Jews ... as if there were an objective morality in the universe.

Few can live consistently within our 'Darwinian cosmology.' Christianity explains that by stating that even fallen and rebellious Man cannot completely eradicate his created sense of morality.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
>
> Question: In a Darwinian cosmology, Why would any
> man rationally be anything other than an amoral,
> Nihilist/Anarchist? Are you in fact a
> 'Romantic?'
>


Close your bold tag or don't use bold.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Jonie Wrote: "I challenge you to sincerely
> accept
> > Christ as your Savior. it is the only way you
> will
> > find out for youself whether GOD is real or
> not."
> >
> Jonie: With all due respect ... it is meaningless
> to tell people to "accept Christ" if in their mind
> they live in a non-Christian cosmology of
> uncreated matter + energy + time + chance ... just
> meaningless.
>
> In order to "accept Christ" a person must first be
> convinced that Christianity is an accurate
> description what truly exists ... and that can
> only happen on the basis of reading or hearing
> what the God of Christianity has spoken into human
> history in the Bible.
>
> A more useful 'challenge' is to read John, Acts,
> and Romans to understand what Christianity claims
> about reality ... and then perhaps to read Francis
> A. Schaeffer's "The God Who is There" and "He is
> There and He is not Silent" in order to contrast
> the hope-and-pain of a Christian cosmology with
> the nihilism that attends consistent
> chance-universe Darwinism.
>
> To paraphrase FAS: "If the non-Christian man was
> consistent he would be an atheist in religion, an
> anarchist in politics, an irrationalist in
> philosophy (including a complete uncertainty
> concerning 'natural laws'), and completely a-moral
> in the widest sense."


I've read the bible.

Also, you make a strawman by saying that an atheist universe (which is what I suppose you *meant* by darwinism) is a chance endeavor. Then again, it's easier to argue against a mischaracterization then to argue against what they actually believe.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Goatfacedwog Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > Whereas most christians get decent educations
> and
> > have little to no excuse for being so silly.
> >
> > They have all the tools readily available to
> learn
> > proper history and science, but refuse to
> because
> > they're terrified of their glorious God's
> > retribution for trying to ask questions.
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> 1) Sir Isaac Newton was a convinced Christian. So
> are many highly 'educated' historians and
> scientists.
>

I don't argue that Christians can't be rational or intelligent, but Newton was also an alchemist. ;-)


> 2) The real issue is not 'education' ... it's
> cosmogony.
>

No, I'd say it's education - Some Christians feel the need to insert there religion into science class.

> 3) Today's theoretical physicist (while positing
> almost scholastic string theory to explain the
> cosmos) nevertheless postulates an impersonal
> 'blind watchmaker' -- if anybody -- behind the
> cosmos. Everything that is, is by faith considered
> to be the result of impersonal matter + energy +
> time + chance following the mysterious 'Big
> Bang.'
>

This isn't actually the case - then again, I don't know which physicists you are referring to. Most physicists posit that the universe acts according to various models. Some related to string theory, others do not.

> 4) A chance Darwinian cosmos is a tragic world to
> live in. Nothing matters (pun intended) because
> the projected heat-death of the universe
> annihilates everybody and everything. There is no
> 'morality.' We may not like Hitler, but who's to
> say that the convinced Darwinist Hitler was
> 'wrong' to try to wipe out what he considered an
> inferior breed of men?
>

This is incoherent - 'Darwinian' would refer to 19th century evolutionary theory. NOT cosmology. Further, nihilism is a metaphysical view, not a consequence of accepting modern science (even though you reference 19th century science).

Morality, just like value, starts at the individual. You can pretend that god creates value, but you are only deluding yourself because you would first have to value what that god values.

> 5) The Christians see a different, personal
> beginning. It's still a tragic world to live in,
> but not without hope ... because death is not
> annihilation, and there is 'justice' to come.
>

This life we live, to the Christian, is worthless. That's the ironic thing in what you are saying. If you were honest with us, you would admit to nihilism.

> 6) The honest Christian must still say that we
> live in a tragic world, because the 'reality'
> includes horrible cruelty by a fallen Mankind
> created with such immense moral significance that
> the God of the Bible did not simply snuff out
> either Man or the fallen angels.

The honest Christian would recognize that such a world is incoherent with an omnimax god.

>
> 7) The great 'moral' significance of Man is put
> into perspective the horrible cruelty inflicted on
> Jesus, willingly accepted by Jesus when he was
> flogged, beaten, and then crucified in the place
> of men.
>

How? This simply makes no sense.

> 8) Read John, Acts, and Romans if you want a
> perspective on Christian cosmology -- you'll find
> 'Intelligent Design' coupled with a
> 'death-sentence redesign' as a result of a real
> 'moral' Fall in space-time history ... with real
> 'moral guilt,' as opposed to mere 'guilt
> feelings.'


You might as well read the Zoroastrian texts.

>
> 9) You can disagree with the Christians'
> cosmology, but you shouldn't sneer at it ... it
> answers more questions than Darwin, about why we
> love and why we hate.
>

It superficially answers more questions then Darwin, because Christianity is a worldview, Darwin was only a man. Your comparing apples to oranges.

> 10) A consistent Darwinian can only say 'is' ...
> he can never say 'ought.' A consistent Christian
> can say both (with tears, because what 'is' is so
> horrible in many ways).
>

Nonsense, Hume damns the Christian with the same criteria. Why 'ought' we do such and such? Because god says so? Why should we listen to god? And when you realize you can't actually answer that any better then the atheist, you'll come to the actual problem.

> 11) Some us are former militant atheists -- with
> massive Ivy League credentials -- who took the
> time to read the 'Book' and consider Christianity
> as well as Darwinism.
>

Okay. What is 'Darwinism'?

> 12) Isaac Newton was doubtless born smarter than
> any of us on this forum ... and he bowed what he
> considered his 'created' intelligence before the
> Christian Creator whose cosmos he studied. Newton
> was not ashamed to think God's thoughts after
> him.


Newton was also slightly crazy and stuck a needle in his eye. But that is beside the point - if the only argument for god you have is that Newton believed, then you don't really have an argument.

>
> 13) There is now, furthermore, a substantial body
> of serious scientific study of Creation, the
> Flood, and 'Intelligent Design.' They sell 'em and
> read 'em at McLean Bible Church ... and the
> not-too-dumb Ben Stein had fun pulling
> Darwinism's leg in the film "Expelled."
>

No, there is no substantial body of serious scientific study. You *MUST* be joking here. Further, Expelled pulled the wool over your eyes. If you actually accept the premise it pushes - that the theory of evolution leads to the holocaust then you need to take a basic reasoning course.

> 14) You will have to come to terms with your own
> forthcoming death, in one way or another ... so at
> least take an informed look-see at Christianity
> before you write it off as a mere narcotic for the
> 'uneducated.'

Funny, both the Muslims and the Mormons said the same thing, and yet, not one of the three of you can give me any good reason to believe what you are preaching.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In fact, Nutters, with all due respect ... I
> challenge your strong objections to greed and
> hypocrisy within the Church. What's 'wrong' about
> them?
>
> You are in fact espousing Christian values, not
> Darwinian ones.
>
> A cruel, greedy, hypocritical individual is more
> likely to 'survive' as the 'fittest' in a chance
> cosmos of mere 'natural selection.'
>
> A Christian, on the other hand, can anguish about
> those values, and can oppose them, because they
> are out of synch with ultimate Reality, viz., the
> personality and character of the uncreated God of
> the Bible.
>
> You have to stand on Christian ground to swing
> your sword against 'unChristian' values.


So much wrong packed into so little text. Look, it's apparent that you aren't very familiar with evolutionary theory. You call it 'darwinism' and inflate it to a worldview. This is common practice with creationists, unfortunately.

In any event, Spencer coined 'survival of the fittest' and it doesn't refer to the individual that is most 'greedy', most 'cruel', or most 'hypocritical'. Evolutionary theory, the modern theory, does a good deal explaining the variety of species and it does a good deal more then that. It provides a frame work explanation for a whole host of biological phenomenon.

Christianity does not, it oversteps its bounds when it tries to assert things about the physical world. It simply doesn't have the tool kit that science does. Take the following question, for example:

Why does sexual reproduction exist? When I refer to sexual reproduction, I do not just mean male and female, X and Y. As you might know, there are species out there with more then two sexes.

So, how might Christianity explain sexual reproduction?

God says so? That's not an explanation.

Evolution explain sexual reproduction in a variety of manners - but the simplist is that sexual reproduction provides an organism with a means of shuffling genetics so as to better fit it's environment.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nutters Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> --------
> > There's no such thing as a 'Darwinian
> cosmology.'
> >
> > The architecture of the brain is the sum of the
> > evolutionary pressures we have been through ...
> >
> > ... there is no absolute moral framework to the
> universe.
> --------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
> Sure there is a 'Darwinian cosmology.' We all grew
> up in it.
>
> It's George Lemaitre's Big Bang out of nothing
> (into entropy, nothingness) popularized by George
> Gamov's book One, Two, Three ... Infinity."
>

You are conflating many schools of science and labelling it 'darwinian', in an incoherent mish-mash. You might as well call it 'modern science'. You don't want to do that because you want to make it sound like a belief system (ie, on par with Christianity), so you dishonestly characterize it as 'darwinian'.

> It's our culture's cosmic presupposition of
> spontaneous matter + energy + time + chance +
> nothing outside of that.
>

Not necessarily and it's not a presupposition, it's inductive reasoning based off of the avaliable evidence.

> It's Carl Sagan's Cosmos where "evolution is
> fact, not a theory." (Carl, as a personality, was
> annihilated by his beloved 'Cosmos' in 1996.)

Actually I thought Gould was the first to coin that. His point was that evolution is theoretical (ie, it explains phenomenon in the scientific sense) and it is a fact (ie, common descent).

>
> Our high priests are Einstein, Sagan, and Hawking
> ... and their God is silent ... He doesn't inspire
> Moses or Jesus or anyone else to write or speak
> authoritatively.
>

This is more silly nonsense out of the Philip Johnson school of media studies. As though labelling them 'high priests' makes accepting science akin to accepting religion.

> Instead of Moses and the Prophets, our religious
> history and prophecy are science fiction: 'Star
> Wars' and 'Star Trek.'

You are getting a little bizarre here.

>
> We have only romantic hopes for continued
> individual consciousness rather than annihilation
> by death ... people talk about 'in my next life'
> but they don't really mean it ... and Hollywood
> eulogists frequently state that the recently
> deceased so-and-so is 'looking down on us' but
> they don't really mean it.
>

Again, this is Christian nihilism intruding upon naturalistic metaphysics. Accepting reality and the finiteness of it, one actually finally *values* life. This is what Nietszche (sp?) was referring to when he was talking about owning your own death.

> Yet we irrationally cheer the Bielski partisans of
> the movie Defiance, who protect Jews, rather than
> the devoutly Darwinist stronger Nazi killers of
> Jews ... as if there were an objective morality
> in the universe.

I see what you did there - because the Nazi's accepted Eugenics, that means Darwinism was the route of their crimes. As opposed to the antisemtism of milleniums past. I forget, was it Origin of the Species that caused the inquisition?

>
> Few can live consistently within our 'Darwinian
> cosmology.' Christianity explains that by stating
> that even fallen and rebellious Man cannot
> completely eradicate his created sense of
> morality.


Christianity does not *explain* anything - think about it, what does it mean to say a 'fallen and rebellious man cannot completely eradictae his created sense of morality'. What does it mean to create morality? How does one do that?

You sound like a presuppositionalist. Are you? If so, do you accept Clark or Van Till's view of epistemology?

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> >
> > 1) Sir Isaac Newton was a convinced Christian.
> So
> > are many highly 'educated' historians and
> > scientists.
> >
>
> I don't argue that Christians can't be rational or
> intelligent, but Newton was also an alchemist.
> ;-)

The key issue here is that Newton was alive at the beginning of the rational science revolution.

Many of the core impossibilities of a creationist universe had not been observed at the time, and hence a creationist view was the only acceptable view

Similarly the fact that Darwin was a christian only says anything about the prevailing knowledge at the time - not the implications of what he uncovered. Its like saying that the sun must still be consumed at night because that's what the Egyptian scientists believed.

This was all before Mendel, Crick and Watson, Quantum Mechanics, real measurement of the large scale behaviour of the universe or even detailed analysis of the fossil record which starts with nothing, progresses through bacteria to more complex organisms all in chronological sequence.

Science provides a consistent, constantly improving, testable process for explanation of the universe, in all its scale from just after the big bang until the present day. It explains why chemistry works the way it does, it explains why life proliferates and adapts the way it does and it explains why we think the way we think. It knows where its limits are at any time - for example, we can't yet model the fine grain detail of the human brain, but we know enough to have a good idea how it works that aligns with what we can see and what happens when its damaged or affected chemically - and we know that there is no 'immortal soul' lurking in there. When it finds gaps or inconsistencies, it defines experiments or seeks observations to adapt and improve.

The scientific model is now good enough that there is no gap for a deity - no unexplained mystery which requires divine magic - no "oh sh*t, I got that bit wrong, I'll just pencil over that bit with some parlor-trick", no 'chosen people', no mystics, shamens or witches.

Religion explains nothing - its intellectually dead,

Science and religion have nothing in common. Science is a process anyone can replicate which produces data and models anyone can understand and critique. At worst religion is a tool to manipulate the scared and uneducated - at best its an anesthetic

What science tells us is that all social decisions and laws are of our own making - they have no 'value' outside of our local environment - and that society is about making shared decisions and trade-offs, not parroting

It tells us that when we break things, no-one is going to magically fix them for us.

That's not nihilism, its responsibility - a framework for understanding who we are and what we do.

nutters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Eliot Ness Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > >
> > > 1) Sir Isaac Newton was a convinced
> Christian.
> > So
> > > are many highly 'educated' historians and
> > > scientists.
> > >
> >
> > I don't argue that Christians can't be rational
> or
> > intelligent, but Newton was also an alchemist.
> > ;-)
>
> The key issue here is that Newton was alive at the
> beginning of the rational science revolution.
>
> Many of the core impossibilities of a creationist
> universe had not been observed at the time, and
> hence a creationist view was the only acceptable
> view


Hm...I'm not so sure it is as cut and dry as that. Even before the Newtonian revolution and the science around that time, Christians weren't necessarily married to the current fundamentalist's interpretation of the bible. While I agree to an extent with what you are saying, I guess my disagreement stems from the fact that the Christian scholars going back to Augustine did not accept creationism as it's currently taught. Augustine, if I remember correctly, thought that Genesis was not a literal history.

>
> Similarly the fact that Darwin was a christian
> only says anything about the prevailing knowledge
> at the time - not the implications of what he
> uncovered. Its like saying that the sun must still
> be consumed at night because that's what the
> Egyptian scientists believed.

Right - Darwin lost his Christianity due to his daughter's death - not because of the science he uncovered.


>
> This was all before Mendel, Crick and Watson,
> Quantum Mechanics, real measurement of the large
> scale behaviour of the universe or even detailed
> analysis of the fossil record which starts with
> nothing, progresses through bacteria to more
> complex organisms all in chronological sequence.
>
> Science provides a consistent, constantly
> improving, testable process for explanation of the
> universe, in all its scale from just after the big
> bang until the present day. It explains why
> chemistry works the way it does, it explains why
> life proliferates and adapts the way it does and
> it explains why we think the way we think. It
> knows where its limits are at any time - for
> example, we can't yet model the fine grain detail
> of the human brain, but we know enough to have a
> good idea how it works that aligns with what we
> can see and what happens when its damaged or
> affected chemically - and we know that there is no
> 'immortal soul' lurking in there. When it finds
> gaps or inconsistencies, it defines experiments or
> seeks observations to adapt and improve.
>
> The scientific model is now good enough that there
> is no gap for a deity - no unexplained mystery
> which requires divine magic - no "oh sh*t, I got
> that bit wrong, I'll just pencil over that bit
> with some parlor-trick", no 'chosen people', no
> mystics, shamens or witches.

Yes, science is the best method for determining what reality consists of, however it's good to note that it's not absolutist.


>
> Religion explains nothing - its intellectually
> dead,

I agree that religion, for the most part, does not actually explain anything. To say that god did X or Y is not to explain in the sense that we use it in science. I don't agree that it's intellectually dead - a lot of good things have come as the result of religious people, religious ideas, etc. The trouble is that a lot of bad things have come as well. I think that religion has served it's purpose and run its course. Humans need to progress past it.

>
> Science and religion have nothing in common.
> Science is a process anyone can replicate which
> produces data and models anyone can understand and
> critique. At worst religion is a tool to
> manipulate the scared and uneducated - at best its
> an anesthetic
>
> What science tells us is that all social decisions
> and laws are of our own making - they have no
> 'value' outside of our local environment - and
> that society is about making shared decisions and
> trade-offs, not parroting

I'm not convinced that science tells us about morality in that fashion. It sounds as though you are against prescriptive morality - which isn't wrong, but it sounds as though you are chucking a lot of metaphysical notions out with religion. I could be reading you wrong here though.


>
> It tells us that when we break things, no-one is
> going to magically fix them for us.
>
> That's not nihilism, its responsibility - a
> framework for understanding who we are and what we
> do.


Well, *it could be incorporated* with nihilism, but it doesn't have to be. Science is a methodology and as such it can be incorporated with a lot of different metaphysics. In any event, as I've said, I agree with Nietzche in his assessment that Christianity is nihilistic. Christianity denies that this life is worth living. In Christianity, what is truly worth living is the *next* life.

Your referring to the political structure of Jim Jones.
The fact is that the people at Jonestown, went there to get away from the laws and restrictions of the US. As a group, they worshipped Jesus and the biblical God. Haven't you ever listened to the tape of the final moments?
It's YOU that has been drinking Kool Aid and can't deal with reality and the truth.


Even a cursory reading of the life of Jim Jones and hie People's Temple would show that everything I said is correct. He was an atheist who mocked Christianity. You are letting your biases get in the way of the facts. However, even if the benighted Jonestown people were Christians that is no reflection on Christianity as a whole. Of course, why I am discussing this with a person who can't tell the difference between "you're" and "your" is one question I can't answer.

Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your referring to the political structure of Jim
> Jones.
> The fact is that the people at Jonestown, went
> there to get away from the laws and restrictions
> of the US. As a group, they worshipped Jesus and
> the biblical God. Haven't you ever listened to the
> tape of the final moments?
> It's YOU that has been drinking Kool Aid and can't
> deal with reality and the truth.
>

Actually it was flavor-aid, not kool aid.


>
> Even a cursory reading of the life of Jim Jones
> and hie People's Temple would show that everything
> I said is correct. He was an atheist who mocked
> Christianity. You are letting your biases get in
> the way of the facts. However, even if the
> benighted Jonestown people were Christians that is
> no reflection on Christianity as a whole. Of
> course, why I am discussing this with a person who
> can't tell the difference between "you're" and
> "your" is one question I can't answer.


Ah, the 'no true scotsman' logical fallacy. Look, you can argue that he wasn't living up to Christian principles, I might even agree with you to an extent here; but to argue he was an atheist, simply because he didn't live up to what *you* consider to be true christian principles is absurd. Next you'll be trying to tell us that Muhammad was an atheist.

Actually scratch that - Seems I need to do some further reading on Jim. He stated he was an atheist. Until I read further, my tentative apologies.

Sorry to ruin your fantasy.FYI:

By the Spring of 1976, Jones began openly admitting even to outsiders that he was an atheist.[39] Despite the Temple's fear that the IRS was investigating its religious tax exemption, by 1977 Marceline Jones admitted to the New York Times that, as early as age 18 when he watched his then idol Mao Zedong overthrow the Chinese government, Jim Jones realized that the way to achieve social change through Marxism in the United States was to mobilize people through religion.[35] She stated that "Jim used religion to try to get some people out of the opiate of religion," and had slammed the Bible on the table yelling "I've got to destroy this paper idol!" [35]

Fantasy?

What are you smoking? I haven't been arguing about Jonestown - I said only a few things there. You need to take a step back.

In any event, you can't completely side step Christianities influence on Jim, according to his own words:

" He taught some pretty damn good things at feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, uh, maybe a little paternalistic, but it’s still uh— all the emphasis of the judgment of character— the only time he ever mentioned judgment at all was in Matthew 25, and it had to do totally with what you were doing for other people, so we— we emphasize the teachings of Christ, but um, we’re a— we are as um— we’re the most unusual church I’ve ever run into, in— in this sense, uh, and we state in the church— I would’ve loved to have been in the foundation. For some years, I’ve been talking to our attorneys to try to get in a foundation, but we have such an influence in the denomination— Our bishop was here Sunday, that’s why we wanted you to meet him and the president of our— of our denomination, I don’t know whether you’re familiar with the— the— the denomination, it’s called the Disciples of Christ. It includes the FBI Director [Clarence Kelley], [Former President] Lyndon Baines Johnson, I think, Senator Monsdale [Sen. Walter Mondale] to give you some background of it—
"

http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/Tapes/Tapes/TapeTranscripts/Q622.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/20/2009 10:21AM by Professor Pangloss.

You do realize I'm not numbers, don't you?

So any wrong committed by any person in any way associated with Christianity, regardless of how loosely, is automatically an indictment of Christianity as a whole? By that logic, and I use that term loosely, the Madoff scandal is an indictment of Judaism and Bin Laden is an indictment of Islam. Such thinking is biased and narrow-minded in the extreme.

Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So any wrong committed by any person in any way
> associated with Christianity, regardless of how
> loosely, is automatically an indictment of
> Christianity as a whole? By that logic, and I use
> that term loosely, the Madoff scandal is an
> indictment of Judaism and Bin Laden is an
> indictment of Islam. Such thinking is biased and
> narrow-minded in the extreme.


Are you actually reading anything I'm writing here?

Let's go over this. Here is what I wrote:

"Ah, the 'no true scotsman' logical fallacy. Look, you can argue that he wasn't living up to Christian principles, I might even agree with you to an extent here; "

I said that you *could* argue that he wasn't living up to Christian principles

Which makes your statement above, "So any wrong committed by any person in any way associated with Christianity, regardless of how loosely, is automatically an indictment of Christianity as a whole?"

Completely incoherent, since this is *EXACTLY NOT* what I was proposing.

The meat of my objection -
"but to argue he was an atheist, simply because he didn't live up to what *you* consider to be true christian principles is absurd. Next you'll be trying to tell us that Muhammad was an atheist."

Was off target, since Jim was apparently an atheist. Hence my questioning of your motives was wrong, which I addressed in my very next post.

Understand?

Aren't you the one who cited Jim Jones to make a point against Christianity? the response function on this site leaves much to be desired.

No, I wasn't - that was 'Numbers'. I accused you of a 'no true scotsman' fallacy because of what I thought your motives were. Then I found out that Jim was an atheist and I apologized for being mistaken.

That's what I suspected. It appears that Numbers has slunk off like a whipped cur.

Wow ... vigorous discussion since last night. I'll read it all later today.

Let me just make the point that I am referring to what could perhaps best be called "contemporary Romantic cultural Darwinism" ... which is the received cosmology of our era.

That's an impersonal Big Bang of matter/energy/time + chance, followed by the entropy-inevitable heat death of the universe in a whimper (or a Big Rip).

Mankind [and perhaps space aliens] are, in this formulation, just something kicked up out of the slime by chance, however much they may prance and dance and posture as more than that.

When you get into serious scientific Darwinism, you are dealing with other issues, which are often cloaked in romantically teleological garb -- such as the wacky assertion that animals seek to 'propagate their genes' ... as if they understood DNA.

Scientists speculate about "the first three minutes" and the "last minutes" of the cosmos -- but it is all 'theoretical theory.'

Tragically, the only thing they are sure of with respect to the future, is that they won't be here to see it personally, no matter how passionately they study and debate it during their brief lives.

It takes tremendous fatalism to live happily with a culturally Darwinian perspective of the future. Indeed, academia lionizes those who can muster up gallows humor (like the late Randy Pausch at Carnegie Mellon).

For the Christians poking around in this complex creation, it's an entirely different world. For them, the music and the science go on forever, because there is a Creator who is coming back to resurrect them, and re-create the now-cursed cosmos ... Peter and John write about "the destruction of the heavens by fire, [when] the elements will melt in the heat" and God will create a "new heaven and a new earth."

All of which is, of course, just "pie-in-the-sky" to the 'Darwinian' who must sadly look ahead to saying 'Goodbye forever' to everything and everybody, and then integrate with the void.

For him science, like philosophy, "begins in wonder and ends in despair."

Just a quick partial reply to WashingTone Locian, and others here, from K:
All human beings and all of nature, are special to our Creator, Jesus Christ. Reminder, He does hate sin, and so should we, but never hate the person.
And yes, knowing Christ personally, for real, does make a positive difference in the life of the person, both on earth and for eternity.

Sadly, as I read over remarks, there continues to be bitterness all around, and continuous verbal attacks. Those who claim to be true Christians, if you continue to call people names, and show bitterness, then you are not representing the true Christ, at all. We are all human and can be tempted to do so, but it is not right, and we become worse than those who do not know Christ personally, because we should know better. Our strength is in Christ, not ourselves, or our own plans or words or actions.

Those who do not know Christ personally may gloat over the fact that some who name Christ as their own, react, but do not gloat, for Christ holds every human being accountable, and will do so in the future as well.

Christ loves us and continues to show mercy on His creation, and does not want any of us to be slaves or robots. We freely choose Him or we do not, yet He lovingly draws us to Himself. We should be honored that our Creator does love us as He does, and humbled by it, which is no disgrace, but a blessing and so very special.

Life is not easy for any of us in this world, and all has something to offer we can learn from, but let each of us learn in a productive and positive manner, not tearing each other apart, as so many in this world are doing.

Take care each of you who write in these blogs - I pray for God's best for each of us - we need it.

Gratefully - as I am learning from each and hope to be able to help others as well.

That was the most sensible post on this entire thread. Thank you.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow ... vigorous discussion since last night. I'll
> read it all later today.
>
> Let me just make the point that I am referring to
> what could perhaps best be called "contemporary
> Romantic cultural Darwinism" ... which is the
> received cosmology of our era.
>

I have no idea what you are talking about here.


> That's an impersonal Big Bang of
> matter/energy/time + chance, followed by the
> entropy-inevitable heat death of the universe in a
> whimper (or a Big Rip).

Which has nothing to do with Darwin, evolution, or any implied darwinism. You are linking darwin with cosmology, with no apparent rhyme or reason.

>
> Mankind are, in this formulation, just something
> kicked up out of the slime by chance, however much
> they may prance and dance and posture as more than
> that.
>

This is not what modern evolutionary theory states.

> When you get into serious scientific Darwinism,
> you are dealing with other issues, which are
> often cloaked in romantically teleological garb --
> such as the wacky assertion that animals seek to
> 'propagate their genes' ... as if they understood
> DNA.

What is 'scientific darwinism'? It sounds as though you are reading *way* too much discovery instute dogma.

As to animals seeking to propagate their genes, yes, they have no conscious awareness of it, it is akin to consumption in this respect.

> Scientists speculate about "the first three
> minutes" and the "last minutes" of the cosmos --
> but it is all 'theoretical theory.'

What do you mean by 'theory' in this sense?

>
> Tragically, the only thing they are sure of with
> respect to the future, is that they won't be here
> to see it personally, no matter how passionately
> they study and debate it during their brief lives.
>

So?

>
> It takes tremendous fatalism to live happily with
> a culturally Darwinian perspective of the future.
> Indeed, academia lionizes those who can muster up
> gallows humor (like the late Randy Pausch at
> Carnegie Mellon).
>

I still do not see the link or purpose for you to be calling it "Darwinian" other then to conflate issues in a deceptive manner.

Frankly, you do not seem to see the significance of death - it's what gives our life meaning. You are completely ignoring this.

> For the Christians poking around in this complex
> creation, it's an entirely different world. For
> them, the music and the science go on forever,
> because there is a Creator who is coming back to
> resurrect them, and re-create the now-cursed
> cosmos ...

Sort of - The Christian is mired in nihilism and has an anti-intellectual bias. These are the routes of the Christian religion.

Peter and John write about "the
> destruction of the heavens by fire, the elements
> will melt in the heat" and God will create a "new
> heaven and a new earth."
>
> All of which is, of course, just "pie-in-the-sky"
> to the 'Darwinian' who must sadly look ahead to
> saying 'Goodbye forever' to everything and
> everybody, and then integrate with the void.
>
> For him science, like philosophy, "begins in
> wonder and ends in despair."


Only if a Christian seeks to believe in strawmen.

BTW, the angry aggressively-Agnostic Bill Maher gets 'gallows humor' in the face of annihilation ... the 'hymn' that plays over the closing credits of his film "Religulous" is Talking Heads' absurdist-yet-'romantic' Road to Nowhere.

Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's what I suspected. It appears that Numbers
> has slunk off like a whipped cur.

You are such an idiot.
Jim Jones originally gathered his "flock" under the guise of christian religion. It was a church when it all started. It wasn't until he had a large faithful following that he convinced his sheep to become communists and denounce religion. Which is the point of the post that you objected to about how gullible religious people can be, how christians can be easily duped and the blurry line between religion and politics.

BTW, since when did being a communist preclude you from being a christian? Ever hear the the russian orthodox church, which most russian people adhere to?

"The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."

Name that band!

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BTW, the angry aggressively-Agnostic Bill Maher
> gets 'gallows humor' in the face of annihilation
> ... the 'hymn' that plays over the closing credits
> of his film "Religulous" is Talking Heads'
> absurdist-yet-'romantic' Road to Nowhere.


Bill Maher is angry and aggressive? If anyone is angry and aggressive, its you and Cotton "picker" Mather.

Genevieve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world
> today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with
> their lips, then walk out the door and deny him by
> their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world
> simply finds unbelievable."
>
> Name that band!


DC Talk?

Let's be frank, Elliot. Let's suppose you are right for a second - that modern science leads to a nihilistic "soul crushing" worldview.

Are you suggesting that we ignore reality in favor of a worldview that's more rosey? That we chuck truth and reason in favor of that which makes us feel better?

Bill Maher is angry and aggressive? If anyone is angry and aggressive, its you and Cotton "picker" Mather.

So, anyone who disagrees with you is angry and aggressive? Typical. A dimwit like you, too pig-ignorant and poorly educated to even know who Cotton Mather was would feel that way wouldn't he?

Jim Jones originally gathered his "flock" under the guise of christian religion. It was a church when it all started. It wasn't until he had a large faithful following that he convinced his sheep to become communists and denounce religion. Which is the point of the post that you objected to about how gullible religious people can be, how christians can be easily duped and the blurry line between religion and politics.

BTW, since when did being a communist preclude you from being a christian? Ever hear the the russian orthodox church, which most russian people adhere to?

Your utter ignorance of history is mind-boggling. You know nothing of the history of communism or much else for that matter. The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed. Orthodox priests and believers were variously tortured, sent to prison camps, labor camps or mental hospitals, and executed. Many Orthodox (along with people of other faiths) were also subjected to psychological punishment or torture and mind control experimentation in order to force them give up their religious convictions.Thousands of churches and monasteries were taken over by the government and either destroyed or converted to secular use. It was impossible to build new churches. Practicing Orthodox Christians were restricted from prominent careers and membership in communist organizations (the party, the Komsomol). Anti-religious propaganda was openly sponsored and encouraged by the government, which the Church was not given an opportunity to publicly respond to. The government youth organization, the Komsomol, encouraged its members to vandalize Orthodox Churches and harass worshippers. Seminaries were closed down, and the church was restricted from using the press.
Of course, to a biased, narrow-minded, historically ignorant fool like you this is no doubt all news.

Cotton Mather Wrote:

> So, anyone who disagrees with you is angry and
> aggressive? Typical. A dimwit like you, too
> pig-ignorant and poorly educated to even know who
> Cotton Mather was would feel that way wouldn't he?


Cotton Mather was an idiot that sent our country in the opposite direction, as all religious power hungry people do. I suppose you look up to him, though.
Thanks for proving my point.

You should cite wikipedia (and any other quotes), when you use it.