I stand by the earlier assertion. With few exceptions, we all despise Hitler's actions ... but for many it's just a personal emotion, without a foundation in any 'objective morality.' | "Hitler-hate is an almost perfect example of irrational thinking in what (to Pangloss's distress)face=cursive> can be called a 'Darwinian' world-view -- where Hitler is reflexively hated as if there were moral absolutes that require men to behave differently from animals, from machines, and from Hitler." |
Nutters, you're mistaken. I didn't accuse you of anything. You disparaged Lon Solomon as a "thief" and I asked whether you would take issue with serious false accusations. Here's the dialogue: |
You wrote: "The fact that Solomon and the other fools, thieves and charlatans fall out doesn't say much about any of them and is exactly in line with history. As long as people like Solomon keep pushing the religious lie, they are the enemy of the public." |
I asked: "Would you take not issue with me, if without having met you, I called you, for example, a "pathological liar and homosexual pedophile?" |
"Fool" and "pathological liar" go to character. "Thief" and "homosexual pedophile" go to criminality -- slanderous charges if not true. |
You replied that you would find such accusations "amusing." |
Is it merely amusing to call Solomon a "thief?" |
Or is it an accusation as if there were indeed an "objective morality" to which we should all subscribe? |
You've said "I'm more than happy to assert strongly that there is no absolute objective morality." |
The obvious question is, Why should others share your personal distaste for perceived "thieves?" |
By disparaging thievery, you're arbitrarily applying "objective morality" ... perhaps on the basis of childhood conditioning in a culture with residual Christian values. |
The Christians, on the other hand, can apply "absolute morality" on the basis of their view of a created universe in which the creator has said "Do not to steal." |
Christians take thievery very seriously, which is why it's a hurtful accusation to make against a minister. |
Jesus was notably crucified between two thieves. One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!" But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." |
Not a sermon, just a thought. |
Nutters wrote: "Your last few posts seem to be advocating Genocide, Racism and Homophobia." |
Ness replies: Nonsense. I've been asking why we should consider them despicable when you are "more than happy to assert strongly that there is no absolute objective morality." |
New Testament Christians can consistently oppose "Genocide, Racism, and Homophobia" (even if some churches fell short in the past on such issues). |
In the NT, Jesus tells his disciples to go into all the world and preach the Gospel. There's no Genocide, Racism, or Homophobia there ... just mercy. |
Don't get me wrong. It's great that you oppose "Genocide, Racism, and Homophobia" but that's your arbitrary personal preference (based perhaps upon conditioning by a culture with residual Christian values). |
It just doesn't make sense to flog others with your personal values -- e.g. disparaging Lon Solomon as a "thief" -- if "there is no absolute objective morality" in a brain-dead dying impersonal cosmos. |
Pangloss wrote: "Look at Eliot's post a few posts back, he's writing about race and he uses a very derogatory term which just slipped out." |
Ness replies: It didn't "just slip out" at all. I used 'Jew' and 'nigger' just like racists do, to ask why in an impersonal 'Darwinian' universe in which "there is no absolute objective morality" we should oppose those who persecute hated minorities. |
All too often there is an asymmetry, wherein the entire world gets lectured about (essentially Christian) values of honesty and tolerance, by those operating in an innately amoral, cruel framework. A good example would be Communists preaching against, say, America's erstwhile abuse of racial minorities, while they themselves enslave and slaughter millions en route to an expected classless paradise. |
Pangloss wrote: "You are wasting our time Eliot." |
Ness asks: Then why are you still here? Whence cometh your missionary zeal to disparage Christianity? (Do you come out of a Roman Catholic background?) |
Pangloss wrote: "Um...Are you familar with John's Revelation? He brings the sword and non-believers roast in a lake of fire." |
Ness replies: Indeed, there is mercy now ... before the return of Christ. After that, there is only justice. |
(Is there anybody who doesn't wish that there were only mercy, for all, forever? |
Some nominally Christian churches operate in that zone because they do not regard the Bible as containing real words from a real God.) |
Clearly Christians should carry a much heavier burden of compassion for the dying, in that regard, that the dead-universe 'Darwinians.' |
Nutters ... speaking of ministers who are "thieves," the Old Testament takes it very seriously (Jeremiah 8) |
At that time, declares the LORD, the bones of the kings and officials of Judah, the bones of the priests and prophets, and the bones of the people of Jerusalem will be removed from their graves. They will be exposed to the sun and the moon and all the stars of the heavens, which they have loved and served and which they have followed and consulted and worshiped. ... all the survivors of this evil nation will prefer death to life, declares the LORD Almighty. |
Pangloss wrote: "I do not come from a Roman Catholic background. I was a literal bible believing baptist (who was involved, foolishly, in presuppositionalism)." |
Hmm. Altruistic of you, then, rather than just "cultivating your garden" to seek to rescue others from their misguided Christianity! |
By the way, I completely understand someone who vomits up the ugly anti-intellectual and/or hyper-intellectual church that does indeed "suck." |
(Nutters has probably never heard Lon talk about "the lying, cheating thing I was" as a drug dealer. Solomon's strength is that he is a self-aware former criminal (likewise some of his top-echelon staff) which is why it is hurtful to see him called a "thief" ... precisely because he was very much a "thief" at one time, and is one no more.) |
You should be very interested in this little jewel that I found online -- Schaeffer's analysis of what he was doing in Europe. He was certainly a 'presuppositionalist' like Van Til but he would never try to convince a non-Christian that he must consciously presuppose in his own mind the Ontological Trinity of Christianity, in order to even think or to exist (though he believed that to be the case). |
The focus of their thinking is very much revealed in their book titles: Van Til's first was called "The Defense of the Faith" where Schaeffer's was "The God Who is There." |
For the life of me, I cannot figure out what specific point of disagreement Van Til might have been trying to make to Schaeffer in this letter. (Though this excerpt perhaps well describes what would be Van Til's take on the approach to 'evidence' on this forum:) The “natural man” assumes that he can and must interpret himself and the facts of the universe without any reference to the God who is actually there. The “natural man” assumes that the facts of the space-time world are not what Christ, speaking for the triune God, says they are. For the natural man the facts are just there. They are contingent, i.e. not pre-interpreted by God. |
Some Van Til enthusiasts spoke against Schaeffer as being a rationalist. Shame on any of us who made either man the Evangelical 'pope.' |
Nutters, you wrote about: "... Solomon and the other fools, thieves and charlatans ... As long as people like Solomon keep pushing the religious lie, they are the enemy of the public." -- making Solomon-the-minister a fool, thief, charlatan, liar, and enemy-of-the-public. |
Harsh words to describe a man who openly talks about the "lying, cheating thing I was" (as a dope dealer). And Lon has hired other former pistol-packing criminals. This is a Christian tradition going back to the Apostle Paul: When they heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. "Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. And Saul was there, giving approval to his death. |
Solomon, who considers himself a former criminal precisely because there is "absolute objective morality" in the Bible, is with you in deploring fraud within the church: http://www.mcleanbible.org/media_player.asp?messageID=23883 |
I'm not afraid to put the words 'Jew' and 'nigger' into the mouths of Nazis. They are the ones who use those words as terms of opprobrium, not me. They are the ones who gas hated minorities, not me! |
Pangloss, looking at the Van Til letter to Schaeffer, this rings true about modern theology (slightly reformatted): When we turn to modern theology we soon discover that its major schools agree with the starting point, the method and the conclusions of modern science and philosophy. |
I can't see FAS disagreeing with this, but it reflects an Evangelical diagnosis rather than a prescription for a way to discuss modern theology with its adherents. |
Who really cares about modern theology anyway? If it's not historical with cosmological implications, then it's just 'God talk' designed to make people feel better, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn would do just as well. (Schaeffer noted that in a discussion with Karl Barth, for example, Barth said it simply "doesn't matter" whether God created the Swiss mountains outside their window.) |
Schaeffer's take on Christian apologetics: |
1. Both sides agree that the unregenerate man cannot be argued into heaven apart from the Sovereign Call of God. (The Bible Today, May 1948, page 242, "Certainly the Scriptural doctrine of the Sovereignty of God forbids the elimination of compulsion,..." Page 244 "The distinction between Presuppositionalism and the philosophy of traditional Christian evidence is not by any means that the one recognizes the power of the Holy Spirit more than the other. It is agreed that arguments, inductive and deductive, are never sufficient to work the work of regeneration." "Nothing but the specific work of the Holy Spirit in conviction and regeneration can be regarded as the efficient cause of individual salvation." |
2. From the human viewpoint, neither side would say, I am sure, that it is possible for a man (remembering the fall) to simply reason from nature to a saving knowledge of nature's God without an act of personal faith. Bare knowledge without faith cannot save. (Page 244, "one may be intellectually convinced that Christianity is true and yet may reject Jesus Christ.") |
3. Neither side, I am sure, would say that it is no use talking or preaching to the unsaved man. Both sides do. Neither would either side say that the Holy Spirit does not use Christian apologetics when it pleases him to do so. Both sides certainly use apologetics in dealing with the intellectual unbeliever. |
4. As I remember Dr. Van Til's practical approach, it was to show the non-Christian that his world view, en toto, and in all its parts, must logically lead back to full irrationalism and then to show him that the Christian system provides the universal which gives avowed explanation of the universe. It is Christianity or nothing. |
5. Dr. Buswell says in considering improvements on Thomas Aquinas's arguments, page 241, that he, Dr. Buswell, would set forth certain logical conclusions to the unsaved man, based on these arguments, and then show him that "Among many hypotheses of eternal existence, the God of the Bible is the most reasonable, the most probable eternal Being." [Ness notes: Neither Van Til or Schaeffer had any interest in this form of Scholasticism.] |
6. Both sides say, in their own field, "See where your position leads, now see where Christianity leads. In the light of this comparison, Christianity is the right one." I am convinced that neither side would say that Christianity could be wrong, except "for the sake of the argument." (Page 244, "The Philosophy of the Christian evidences, which I am advocating does not differ from Presuppositionalism in that I am ever willing to admit or assume anything whatsoever contrary to Christian theism, except in the well-known logical form of an admission "for the sake of the argument'.") |
7. Therefore, it seems to me, that the problem is reduced to what apologetics is valid, and especially whether there is any room for inductive evidences being used with a common starting point. Dr. Buswell says this himself on page 244, "The distinction between the two schools is that the one denies, and the other recognizes, that the Holy Spirit uses inductive evidence and arguments from probability as instruments in the practice of evangelization and conviction, these arguments being transitive to the minds of unbelievers." |
Schaeffer's "suggested answer to this [apologetics] problem is as follows: [Ness: I think that this is excellent stuff, much more digestible than Van Til] |
A. The unsaved man is seldom consistent. |
B. If the unsaved man was consistent he would be an atheist in religion, and irrationalist in philosophy (including a complete uncertainty concerning "natural laws"), and completely a-moral in the widest sense. [Ness adds: and an Anarchist in politics.] |
C. However, most unsaved men are not atheists, irrationalists, or completely a-moral. Inconsistently, most unsaved men do have a part of the world-view which logically can only belong to Bible-believing Christianity. I personally believe this very inconsistency is a result of common grace. The sun shines on the just and on the unjust, and illogically the unsaved man accepts some of the world as it really is, just as the Christian Scientists own good restaurants and have funeral directors. |
D. Therefore, the average unsaved man has two parts to his world-view. (1.) In as far as he is logical in his unbelief his "system" is hopeless and has no contact with the Christian system. This would include, if completely logical, a complete cynicism (or skepticism) to the natural world so that he could not be sure that the atoms which constitute the chair he sits on will not suddenly arrange themselves into a table, or even that the atoms may not disappear entirely. If logical he would have no contact with reality and I believe suicide would be the only logical answer. It would be completely "other" to the true world, which God has made. (2) Some men have come to the above state, but very few. The rest have much in their thinking which only logically belongs in the Christian system. There are all degrees of this intellectual "cheating." The modernistic Christian is the greatest cheater. The cynic, who is just short of suicide but continues to bring more life into this world by his, to him, a-moral actions when logically he should be erasing all life possible from this, again to him, hopeless world, cheats the least./td> |
E. Notice that those who cheat the least have least of that which belongs logically only to the Bible-believing Christian, those who cheat the most have the most. |
F. Thus, illogically men have in their accepted world-views, various amounts of that which is ours. But, illogical though it may be, it is there and we can appeal to it. |
G. The Lord uses this degree of illogical reality the unsaved man has in his false world. The Lord shows some men their bankruptcy as they use a microscope, some as they fall in love, and some as they fear to die. When the bankruptcy is perceived then Christ may be seen as the answer. No man can accept Christ as Saviour until his need at some level is apparent to him. Certainly in this the Holy Spirit has used the illogical in the unsaved man's world-view. It is not apart from the Holy Spirit, nor could it be possible without the predestination of the Sovereign God. Many look at the beauty of the moon at night and do not want eradication, fall in love and do not want it to end in blackness, or fear to die, without by these things being brought to Christ, but God can and does use these illogical things in unsaved men to bring some of them to salvation. As a matter of fact, no one who has ever been saved has failed to have such an experience. Christ told the woman at the well of her sin before she was ready to hear of Him as Messiah. But if she had been completely logical in her unsaved condition she would not have cared about her sin. There can be no doubt that, first, she was of the elect, and second, the Holy Spirit used this which was illogical in her. Election includes the means as well as the end. |
H. Now if God does so use, certainly we may also in our preaching and apologetics, pray that the Holy Spirit will use them. To the extent that the individual is illogical we have a point of contact. Therefore, to a certain type we preach of sin and point out to him that by his sin he has been brought down to the gutter. To some we give Dr. Machen's book, The Virgin Birth. To some we appeal to fulfilled prophecy. To some we use the classical arguments. To some we use the philosophical approach. We show them the alternatives, whether it is the man in the gutter or the philosophically minded unbeliever. We use what point of contact we can get. If they flee from the nearer contacts into the distant we pursue them there. In either case it is Christ or death. It is Christ or Diana, Christ or Modernism, Christ or irrationality, Christ or suicide. So it goes. The last step back to which we press them is into the blackness of irrationality, and if they are already there we ask them why they haven't committed suicide. As a matter of fact we could preach or testify to no one without touching some point of common contact which is there because of his illogical double position. If the unsaved man were completely logical, and so had no point of common contact, we could not reach him for he owuld have taken his life and so be out of our reach. |
I. In conclusion then, I do not think the problem is impossible. The answer rests in the fact that the unsaved man is not logical and therefore I can agree to both the statements that (1) the un-Christian system* and the Christian system "have absolutely no common ground whatever on any level, for, when the world view is seen as a whole, it necessarily evinces metaphysics, a metaphysics which governs every level of meaning." (Page 247, The Bible Today, May, 1948, quoting Dr. Carnell); and also (2) that there is a point of contact with the unsaved man. Incidentally, I think it is worthwhile also to call attention to the fact that after we are converted we do not hold the whole Christian world view consistently either. Many people are Christians with very little of a full Christian world view. I remember Dr. Machen saying "no one knows how little a man has to know to be saved." I agree, and we should never forget either that none of us will be completely consistent until we are fully glorified. To the unsaved man that which is present which is Christian is inconsistent, and to the saved man that which is present which is un-Christian in thinking or life is inconsistent too. |
WTL wrote: "Anybody who says that Christians tried to stop Hitler or the Nazis is kidding themselves. Maybe a few individuals recognized what kind of threat Hitler was, but Hitler actively recruited Christians." |
Ness replies: We're in Google-wars territory here, of course ... but not withstanding a few pro-forma Hitler pronouncements (from Mein Kampf, cited by WTL) do we really think that der Fuehrer expected to receive support from the believing Church for a Nazi ideology that made 'the State' supreme over every area of life? |
"The worldview of National Socialism is today the common property of the whole German people. All unprejudiced citizens of good will have made National Socialist thinking so deeply their own that it provides the support for every question of life and provides direction for every action." "The National Socialist worldview ... is not a theory, but rather is clearly bound to reality. National Socialist thinking comes from experience. It is a worldview based on the facts and on reality." "Even today, National Socialism's racial thinking has implacable opponents. Freemasonry, Marxism, and the Christian churches make common cause in this matter." "The Christian church ... rejects racial thinking by claiming that 'All men are equal before God.' All who are of the Christian faith, be they Jew, a Negro from the jungle, or white, are better and more valuable to it than a German who is not a Christian. Saving faith is the only bond." "Despite these major opponents, however, racial thinking is constantly winning ground. Truth is gradually winning." |
I did some digging ... Hitler's lip service notwithstanding, the idea that he was really recruiting Christians is nonsensical in light of the content of the Hitler Youth manual shown to the left. The author of the recently-published Swastika Against the Cross writes about Hitler Youth and Nazi anti-Christianity: Only clergymen were allowed to teach religious classes, and those clergymen were forced to teach according to the anti-Christian instructions of the Nazi Ministry of Education. When in Wurrtemberg, clergymen refused to follow Nazi teachings on religion, seven hundred were banned from the classroom. The Nazis did not stop there: Christian prayers were banned from the public classroom and crucifixes were physically removed as well. |
No matter how much the Roman Catholic church may have misbehaved with respect to Nazi Germany, and no matter how much 'Christian' rhetoric Hitler may have employed, the fact remains that the Hitler Youth manual and movement (cited above) strongly denounces Christianity, especially Hitler's birthright Roman Catholic Church. Jesus wept over Jerusalem, as he went there to be crucified ... seeing ahead to the coming Roman slaughter. Hitler, in contrast, would surely have done his little jig at the sight of hundreds of Jews being crucified daily. Who can forget this 'hymn' from Cabaret? Tomorrow Belongs to Me |
McLean Bible Church's senior pastor is a converted Jew who is very active in the loving evangelism of Jews, rather than their extermination which was Hitler's regime's goal. |
McLean Bible Church, like other Reformation churches, does not accept the claim of absolute, present-day Apostolic authority for the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) ... and therefore does not live in (what I call) the RC's 'gingerbread house', built on top of the Bible, with its new 'priesthood' and 'saints' and 'sacraments' not to mention remarkable doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption of Mary. |
Remember that historically the Roman Catholic Church (which has long been accused of collusion with Hitler) has been no friend of the Evangelical Church. |
Indeed, Rome would consider McLean Bible Church to be heretical. |
It is also noteworthy that whenever an individual or group begins to claim present-day Apostolic or Prophetic authority for new 'revelation,' there is invariably a wholesale departure from Biblical Christianity. E.g., the Mormon Church, the Seventh-Day Adventists, et al. |
Pangloss asks what I would do if suddenly I thought Christianity weren't true? |
The Apostle Paul has the answer: I face death every day! That is as certain, brothers, as it is that I am proud of you in the Messiah, Jesus our Lord. If I have fought with wild animals in Ephesus from merely human motives, what do I get out of it? If the dead are not raised, “Let’s eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” |
I would not, however, waste time on this bulletin board trying to bludgeon others out of their hope and into my despair. What would be the point? (Except perhaps to share the misery of meaninglessness.) |
What drove you out of belief? Was it perhaps academic exposure to Evolution? (Did you come out of a fundamentalist [i.e. anti-intellectual] Christian school system?) |
Understand that I had never heard of Biblical Christianity before I became a militant atheist ... I only knew boarding school weekly Church of England symbolic ritual, without any connection to history. We heard far more Khalil Gibran ("The Prophet") and Gospel-of-Thomas-like gibberish read in morning meditations, than Bible. To my knowledge, there was only one Bible in the entire school -- and that was in the school library, and nobody read it. What Bible we knew, was from Church of England chant. Roman Catholic boys went to the local RC church. Jews and Muslims were excused from chruch attendance altogether. Here's some of Gibran's Romantic gibberish: For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? And what is to cease breathing, but to free the breath from its restless tides, that it may rise and expand and seek God unencumbered? Only when you drink from the river of silence shall you indeed sing. And when you have reached the mountain top, then you shall begin to climb. And when the earth shall claim your limbs, then shall you truly dance. |
Vince(1) would imprison and then execute every priest, pastor, mullah, monk, rabbi to put an end to the insanity of faith. We are every one already under a death sentence ... why should we execute these men ahead of their appointed time? Should we applaud the crucifixion of Jesus too? He talked at great length about "faith" in the sense of believing that God had spoken truth into history by means of Old Testament prophets ... and that God was speaking truth into history by Jesus' own words: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words will not pass away!" Is the "insanity" issue here life-after-death? "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him to life on the last day." |
Nutters wrote:"You keep harping back to this idea of 'faith' that claims to get around the fact that you have no evidence, no big gap in science and that your explanations are incompatible with what we see around us - and use that to justify whatever dumb idea or policy comes into your heads." |
|
"Asshat:" |
complained about Christian persecution of gays ... you won't find any persecution of Gays at McLean Bible Church, even though same-sex activity, just like opposite-sex adultery, is unbiblical. |
stated that Being a moral person has nothing to do with religion. ... I disagree ... 'morality' is a meaningless romantic concept in an uncreated cosmos ... what is 'moral' in a chance universe, other than perhaps the will of the [temporary current] majority? ... a character in Batman: The Dark Knight put this Nihilism well: "It's a cruel world. In cruel world, the only 'justice' is 'chance.' |
The consistent man, in an uncreated universe, would have the guts to be completely 'a-moral' and would not confuse his childhood 'moral' conditioning with objective reality. In other words, if it feels good do it ... and who cares if it hurts someone else? ... since "we're all dead in the long run." It's arbitrary and "Boy Scout" to behave otherwise in such a world ... though most people cannot really live as Anarchists, and so they romantically 'borrow' morality from the fading Christian culture around us, and project it on everybody else. |
Vince(1) says: If I thought the execution of Christ would have stopped all religious beliefs ... I'd applaud it. But as history has shown ... it didn't. It is obviously a human trait to need to believe in something bigger than ourselves. Perhaps that need helped us in our evolutionary development from apes ... but we need to find a less harmful/more productive way to focus that need. |
1) What makes you think that that the cosmos "evolved" from a singularity and that we in turn "evolved from apes?" |
2) Why, if Man is just something kicked up out of the slime by chance, do we need a more "productive focus for our obvious human trait to need to believe in something bigger than ourselves?" Who cares about "productivity" if we're all dead in the long run? That's a 'romantic' importation of 'values' in a cosmos that simply doesn't care as it kills us off, one-by-one. |
Christians, on the other hand -- to the extent that they operate in a the created, personal universe of the Bible -- can have 'values' based upon the "Truth that is Out There." ... as ugly and deformed as the current world is. They cannot be Nihilists (despite frequent protestations to the contrary on this forum) any more than Jesus was a Nihilist. |
(It was "Mrs. Calabash". Watch old performances by Jimmy Durante, and you'll hear him say "Goodnight, Mrs. Calabash wherever you are." Mrs. Miniver is a war movie with Greer Garson. |
The problem with atheism seeking arbitrary "values" and "productivity" is that it winds up dealing with Vince's "obviously human need to believe in something bigger then ourselves" by singing hymns (Pete Seeger, Joan Baez, Luke Kelly) to imaginary immortals like "Joe Hill" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYS0zal7ObI&feature=related ... or worse, the "Fatherland" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUwpLyIDIJw&feature=related with imagined values like "Arbeit macht frei" (Work makes free = Work brings freedom). |
Vince, you're bashing the "insanity of faith" ... but there is plenty of it in 'Romantic' atheism that pops 'values' and 'productivity' out of the Magician's hat. |
Vince(1) writes: "Heyyyy...don't knock Pete Seeger..or romance...it is nice to see you finally admit that it is romance and and voodoo out of the magic hat that is the correct comparison between religion and atheism. I agree! |
Disagree. Romanticism pulls the voodoo out of a million magic hats. Christianity examines a single, albeit complex, source: the Bible. |
Seeger and Baez are brilliant musicians, but their passionate preaching of virtue and morality is baseless. Essentially "No enemies to the Left" and "worker"=good, "management"=bad. |
Joe Hill is their romantic 'immortal' ... "I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night, Alive as you or me: Said I, but Joe you’re ten years dead; I never died said he. I never died said he." |
Of course, nobody really thinks that Joe Hill rose from the dead. It's all just feel-good Romantic symbolisim ... in contrast to Biblical Christianity, which presents a cosmos created by a God who raised Christ from the dead in the past, and will raise all men from the dead in the future. |
Speaking of "No enemies to the Left" ... reportedly, Seeger has apologized for being a Stalin booster, saying: "I should have asked to see the gulags when I was in U.S.S.R [in 1965]". |
It is truly amazing that so many people project so much virtue on utterly tyrannical leaders, based entirely upon those tyrants' rhetoric as opposed to their deeds. Read the New Testament account of the life of Christ to see a completely opposite kind of ruler -- especially at the end of each Gospel, in his comportment when on trial in Jerusalem. |
Asshat wrote: "In other words you are saying that morality is doing what is "right" under the fear of punishment? (eternal hell fire). Because that sounds like the opposite of being a "good" person to me. |
Fear and love ... Deuteronomy 10:12 "Now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require from you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all His ways and love Him, and to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul." ... Christian morality relates to who/what is perceived as really "Out There" ... in contrast to, say, 'Romantic' atheism which pulls ethical rabbits out of magical hats. |
What real basis or motivation for "morality" is there in an uncreated world? Mere majority opinion? The current cultural consensus? Why would the consistent 'Darwinian' be anything other than 'a-moral' -- like the uncreated cosmos itself -- no matter how he/she had been culturally conditioned? |
Nutters writes: Individual 'morals' can be best thought of as a set of memes which sit on top of evolutionary adaptations/predispositions in the brain related to social behavior, or as the conscious representation of the behavior of those underlying mechanisms, mediated by our evolved linguistic skills. The more pervasive across time and cultures they are, the more likely they are to be artifacts of lower level machinery. Its just [a] differently evolved version of that which we see in other species, extended by the particular capabilities of the human brain. Where 'morals' provide long term competitive advantage, they will be selected for and propagate. Their 'value' is solely competitive, rather than absolute. |
Ness tips his hat to Nutters! This is an honest, consistent reduction of man to machine, without 'Romantic' rabbit-from-magic-hat tricks. |
Christianity, in contrast, says that Man is not a mere machine, but rather a brilliantly-designed-but-morally-fallen-and-accountable creation. |
More Than A Believer observes: "Based on probability factors...any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 10 to the 50th. You do the math. |
'Darwinians' have a lot of 'faith' in the Goddess Tyche, especially where symbiotic adaptations and irreducible complexity are concerned. |
However, I will say that to argue for Intelligent Design without at the same time arguing for Christianity's Creation + Fall + Curse + Redemption, is to posit a God who is the Devil, creating Man and Animals designed to die by slaughtering each other. |
There is only cold comfort in standalone ID. It's like telling a child: "Good News. You're not an orphan! We've found your father!!" ... "Bad News. He's a homicidal maniac and he's going to kill you." |
By the way, no one mentioned Darwin's 200th birthday last week, on the same day as Abraham Lincoln. (Both are still dead. I've read that Lincoln had become a convinced Christian before his death. [Despite his wife's obsession with the occult.] Anybody know anything about that?) |
More Than A Believer wrote: " ...going back to the Neanderthal days ... they all believe in something larger than themselves." |
Certainly sensitive 'Darwinists' believe in something larger. I remember reading Loren Eiseley's Immense Journey which is full of (Romantic) poetry to nature: There is no logical reason for the existence of a snowflake any more than there is for evolution. |
I see that on the Eiseley family's tombstone is written: "We loved the earth but could not stay." |
Like philosophy, non-Christian science "begins in wonder and ends in despair." |
Pangloss writes: "I don't believe you were an atheist at all. I think you are claiming to be one because many of your intellectual heroes were." |
You don't trust anybody to tell the truth, do you? I was in fact excused from mandatory Church of England services when I began to just sit there and not participate. Met Schaeffer thereafter (through an outside music teacher to whom I confided my newfound atheism) but spent nearly a year as a 'practicing' atheist (so to speak), listening to discussions every weekend. |
Why would a Christian be surprised to find that other religions parallel and even mimic Christianity ... if there is a real, created, fallen Devil with the intelligence attributed to him in Scripture? |
Seems to me that the hardest issue for Christians to deal with, is the one raised by Bill Maher in his attack film Religulous: Why is God waiting to destroy the Devil? [What kind of covenant must there have been in place to leave what was apparently the most intelligent creature, the now-rebellious angel Satan, as the "Prince of this world?" And to have to send Jesus "to destroy the works of the Devil?" The Bible is quite silent about this issue.] |
Pangloss quotes Darwin as saying: "I was not, however, able to annul the influence of my former belief, then almost universal, that each species had been purposely created." |
Sounds like Darwin was dealing with his own presuppositions. (Or is he lying too?) |
Ness asked: Why would a Christian be surprised to find that other religions parallel and even mimic Christianity? |
Pangloss replied: "Because it's in opposition to what the bible directly teaches." |
Ness notes: I don't understand that answer. Paul wrote severely about Satanic "false apostles" even within the early Church: I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. Such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve. |
I say again that one of the hardest things for reflective Christians to bear, is that God permits Satan this sort of power. It's stomach-wrenching. |
Funny cartoon. | On another subject ... in re: alleged parallels between Christianity's dying/resurrected God and pagan mythology, here's an interesting piece from the UK: http://www.bede.org.uk/frazer.htm |
Huh? Bede speaks as a Christian, but does that make his scholarship therefore automatically suspect? Looks like a very good article to me. http://www.bede.org.uk/frazer.htm |
"Normal relativism?" OK. I'll grant you that most non-Christian men are relativists at heart, despite their 'Romantic' rabbit-out-of-a-magic-hat moralities. |
"Arbitrary subjectivism?" Conceptually, Christianity is arguably one of the least "arbitrary" and "speculative" moralities in action, working as it does from a static revelation. Granted there is no robotic uniformity, even among Bible believers. Arguably the most 'unanswered' of Jesus' prayers for his followers was in the garden, John 17:20ff. "My prayer is not for [my disciples] alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. ... May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."This 'unity' seems to have been very much true in the early Jerusalem church where the Christians practiced voluntary communalism of property, but has certainly not been distinctive of the church thereafter. |
Pangloss writes: "The guy is a presuppositionalist, his reasoning can be discarded (since it's technically *NOT* reasoning)." |
Ness comments: "Oh, Puleez." Here ... answer these questions 'non-presuppositionally': Did Jesus exist at all? If so, where did his paternal DNA come from? And where is his body is now? |
Likewise, same questions about Isaac Asimov? |