Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
face=verdana>
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2009 04:55PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2009 09:37PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2009 11:20AM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2009 01:33PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2009 02:01PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2009 03:05PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2009 02:46PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 12:32PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 12:56PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 01:53PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 02:43PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 04:38PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 03:53PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 05:44PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 07:25PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 09:12PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2009 12:08PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2009 12:26PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2009 08:40PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2009 08:45PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2009 08:51PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2009 02:33PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2009 03:29PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2009 12:20PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2009 10:35AM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 15 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2009 01:48PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 22 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2009 12:56PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2009 02:23PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2009 05:17PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2009 06:53PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2009 06:37PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2009 02:51PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2009 04:18PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2009 04:54PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2009 05:10PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 14 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2009 06:28PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 09:40AM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 10:09AM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 10:17AM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 10:39AM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 11:43AM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 12:11PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 03:04PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 03:44PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 05:21PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2009 10:54AM by Eliot Ness.
"Christ's miracles and resurrection were objective phenomena, and Christianity was based upon them. . . . But belief in Christianity has gradually crumbled away because there has been no continuance of well-attested cognate facts. The Catholic miracles and ecstasies make belief easier for one section of Christianity; but Protestantism–which cuts off miracles at the end of Apostolic Times–has committed suicide; by making unique events of its basic phenomena it has made continued belief in them impossible." B.B. Warfield commented: On this view no man can believe in miracles who has not himself witnessed miracles. Testimony is discredited out of hand; man believes only what he has seen. Must we not go further on this ground? Can a man continue to believe in miracles unless he continues to see them? Is not memory itself a kind of testimony? Must not there be a continuous miracle in order to support continuous faith? We cannot thus chop up the continuity of life, whether of the individual or of the race, in the interests of continuous miracle. Granted that one or the other must be continuous, life or miracle; but both need not be.You are demanding what God only provided during periods of new revelation ... There are three eras in the Bible when miracles abound, and they are all times of new revelation from prophets: Moses, Elijah, and Jesus. Notably even in the book of Acts, miracles diminish after the initial coming of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles.There will, however, be an opportunity for us to see fire come down out of the sky again, during the miraculous reign of the AntiChrist ... and you will want to think twice about what you will believe if you are alive to see these events:
‘He performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth.’ Rev. 13:13,14And you are forgetting what happened after Elijah's true miracle (the 'evidence' you demand) ... Then Elijah commanded them, "Seize the prophets of Baal. Don't let anyone get away!" They seized them, and Elijah had them brought down to the Kishon Valley and slaughtered there.
Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2009 01:12PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2009 10:11AM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2009 11:01AM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2009 06:59PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 15 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2009 11:22AM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2009 02:37PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2009 07:20AM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2009 02:37PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2009 03:14PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2009 03:34PM by Eliot Ness.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
McLean Bible Church sucks
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
also, they cause too many traffic hangups on Rt 7
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: August 19, 2008 08:44AM
You feel sorry for them..and they beleive all non-believers are going to hell. Maybe it's time for everyone to worry about themselves.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: August 19, 2008 09:12AM
"Not a sermon, just a thought."
Ummm, actually, it IS a sermon.
Ummm, actually, it IS a sermon.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: August 19, 2008 09:13AM
BibleChurch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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
My wife tried going there a couple of times. She says it is like going to a shopping mall. She really didn't care for it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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
My wife tried going there a couple of times. She says it is like going to a shopping mall. She really didn't care for it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
75
()
Date: August 19, 2008 06:44PM
Just like going to almost all the churches in Tennessee.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
formerhick76
()
Date: August 20, 2008 10:08AM
I went there one Sunday with my wife and daughter.
Our first stop was at Wesley Methodist which is within walking distance of my house.
Sunday School or whatever they call it starts at 9:15am and then at 10am is the service. We show up at 9:16am and try the front door - locked. We go around the building, trying five other doors, all of which are locked. Has anyone else ever gone to a church that was locked during regular worship hours?
We see people in the far distance through one of the doors, but too far for us to pound on the door and shout. Then again, why should a supposedly open church community require effort like that to join?
My wife insists we go to McLean, so I look up a service time. First mistake was going when it was too close to our daughter's naptime. I go in and I'm wondering where the actual service is. We found it after a couple minutes of looking.
We try and bring her into the service (second mistake) when she starts acting up. So I take her outside and walk around then look for the nursery. I'm told by the nursery volunteer, sorry you can't drop her off -- something about service times (it was about 1/2 way through the service, but there seemed to be plenty of volunteers and the such in the toddler room.)
Granted there might've been a real liability or logistical reason but frankly at the time I did not feel like hearing it as I was on my last nerve. I also understand they might not want to be used as a free daycare across multiple services, but why not worry about that when/if it actually happened?
So I just take my daughter and walk off.
Having no interest in caring for a tired toddler for the next 30 minutes, I tell my wife it's time to go. (She's blind, so taking care of our daughter on the road unfortunately tends to fall onto my lap.)
Is there a way to get to know someone outside of your small group if you attend a place like McLean Bible? Over three years of going to a church in Arlington, we ended up knowing, reasonably well, a few dozen families. I'm not sure how you can make that sort of connection in a megachurch, and it just seems you'd end up hanging out with your own age/family range.
Our first stop was at Wesley Methodist which is within walking distance of my house.
Sunday School or whatever they call it starts at 9:15am and then at 10am is the service. We show up at 9:16am and try the front door - locked. We go around the building, trying five other doors, all of which are locked. Has anyone else ever gone to a church that was locked during regular worship hours?
We see people in the far distance through one of the doors, but too far for us to pound on the door and shout. Then again, why should a supposedly open church community require effort like that to join?
My wife insists we go to McLean, so I look up a service time. First mistake was going when it was too close to our daughter's naptime. I go in and I'm wondering where the actual service is. We found it after a couple minutes of looking.
We try and bring her into the service (second mistake) when she starts acting up. So I take her outside and walk around then look for the nursery. I'm told by the nursery volunteer, sorry you can't drop her off -- something about service times (it was about 1/2 way through the service, but there seemed to be plenty of volunteers and the such in the toddler room.)
Granted there might've been a real liability or logistical reason but frankly at the time I did not feel like hearing it as I was on my last nerve. I also understand they might not want to be used as a free daycare across multiple services, but why not worry about that when/if it actually happened?
So I just take my daughter and walk off.
Having no interest in caring for a tired toddler for the next 30 minutes, I tell my wife it's time to go. (She's blind, so taking care of our daughter on the road unfortunately tends to fall onto my lap.)
Is there a way to get to know someone outside of your small group if you attend a place like McLean Bible? Over three years of going to a church in Arlington, we ended up knowing, reasonably well, a few dozen families. I'm not sure how you can make that sort of connection in a megachurch, and it just seems you'd end up hanging out with your own age/family range.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mrs. K
()
Date: August 20, 2008 11:35AM
Hi,
I grew up in Wesley (my parents still go there), and I think that their current pastor and the congregation would be mortified to know that you tried to get in, but found the doors locked. The congregation is small, most everything is done by volunteers, and many are retirees. I know this is no excuse, but maybe the person unlocking the doors just hadn't gotten to those yet? Also, if you came during the summer, the worhsip hours are later then.
FYI, there is another couple that attends the church with young children and the husband is blind. They are active in the community, and I see the husband at the VW pool all the time.
We attend McLean Bible for the Deaf interpreter services, so our son stays with us, but I know that other parents of disabled children have found the Access ministry to be a great help. He's my youngest, and I've never put a non-disabled child in their normal childcare. I can't speak to why they wouldn't accept your daughter mid-service -- and I agree that seemed really strange.
There are a lot of churches in Vienna, ranging in size and belief set -- from ultra conservative to ultra liberal (one even has a lesbian pastor) -- so I think that if you keep visiting churches you are bound to find one that fits your family.
I grew up in Wesley (my parents still go there), and I think that their current pastor and the congregation would be mortified to know that you tried to get in, but found the doors locked. The congregation is small, most everything is done by volunteers, and many are retirees. I know this is no excuse, but maybe the person unlocking the doors just hadn't gotten to those yet? Also, if you came during the summer, the worhsip hours are later then.
FYI, there is another couple that attends the church with young children and the husband is blind. They are active in the community, and I see the husband at the VW pool all the time.
We attend McLean Bible for the Deaf interpreter services, so our son stays with us, but I know that other parents of disabled children have found the Access ministry to be a great help. He's my youngest, and I've never put a non-disabled child in their normal childcare. I can't speak to why they wouldn't accept your daughter mid-service -- and I agree that seemed really strange.
There are a lot of churches in Vienna, ranging in size and belief set -- from ultra conservative to ultra liberal (one even has a lesbian pastor) -- so I think that if you keep visiting churches you are bound to find one that fits your family.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: August 20, 2008 12:07PM
formerhick76 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is there a way to get to know someone outside of
> your small group if you attend a place like McLean
> Bible? Over three years of going to a church in
> Arlington, we ended up knowing, reasonably well, a
> few dozen families. I'm not sure how you can make
> that sort of connection in a megachurch, and it
> just seems you'd end up hanging out with your own
> age/family range.
My wife goes to a semi-megachurch (not McLean). The way you get to know people is by joining the various church groups (Bible Study, Women's Issues, Royal Rangers, etc). The smaller group settings allow you to get to know people.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is there a way to get to know someone outside of
> your small group if you attend a place like McLean
> Bible? Over three years of going to a church in
> Arlington, we ended up knowing, reasonably well, a
> few dozen families. I'm not sure how you can make
> that sort of connection in a megachurch, and it
> just seems you'd end up hanging out with your own
> age/family range.
My wife goes to a semi-megachurch (not McLean). The way you get to know people is by joining the various church groups (Bible Study, Women's Issues, Royal Rangers, etc). The smaller group settings allow you to get to know people.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
formerhick76
()
Date: August 20, 2008 02:13PM
Mrs. K:
Thanks for your reply -- maybe the doors @ Wesley were just stuck or something -- I don't know. The child care thing @ McLean Bible was a bit off, although there may have been a good reason. I'll admit I didn't care to hear the volunteer's explanation as by then I was on my last nerve.
We have found a welcoming church family at Holy Comforter. Members and staff have been accommodating and friendly, and we like the formality (but non-stiffness) of the services.
WashingToneLocian:
I figure the small groups were how you got to know people. I guess multiple small groups get you to know more people.
After our daughter decided 7pm was the best time to go to sleep (and said night-night routine needs to start around 5 or 5:30pm and includes dinner, bath, and a pre-sleep bottle), small groups became a thing of the past for my wife and me. So we like being able to see the same faces week in, week out.
Thanks for your reply -- maybe the doors @ Wesley were just stuck or something -- I don't know. The child care thing @ McLean Bible was a bit off, although there may have been a good reason. I'll admit I didn't care to hear the volunteer's explanation as by then I was on my last nerve.
We have found a welcoming church family at Holy Comforter. Members and staff have been accommodating and friendly, and we like the formality (but non-stiffness) of the services.
WashingToneLocian:
I figure the small groups were how you got to know people. I guess multiple small groups get you to know more people.
After our daughter decided 7pm was the best time to go to sleep (and said night-night routine needs to start around 5 or 5:30pm and includes dinner, bath, and a pre-sleep bottle), small groups became a thing of the past for my wife and me. So we like being able to see the same faces week in, week out.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mrs. K
()
Date: August 20, 2008 06:10PM
Formerhick76, glad you found a church home that you enjoy.
Pax,
Mrs. K
Pax,
Mrs. K
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
BewareOfFalseProphets
()
Date: August 20, 2008 07:21PM
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: August 20, 2008 07:58PM
BewareOfFalseProphets Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Thanks. I plan to use this often.
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Thanks. I plan to use this often.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
obxlvr
()
Date: August 22, 2008 10:09AM
Try Fairfax Community church on Braddock Rd, much smaller, non-denominational, contemporary, very family oriented...Plenty of parking : ) Their web site is fairfax.cc Hope you try it and like it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Lucifer
()
Date: August 22, 2008 11:11AM
Were all going to the same place...
MBC is for wacky, extremist idiots.
MBC is for wacky, extremist idiots.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mrs. K
()
Date: August 22, 2008 11:58AM
Lucifer, I wondered when you would come calling...
If you are calling folks who attend MBC names, then we must be doing something right.
Mrs. K
If you are calling folks who attend MBC names, then we must be doing something right.
Mrs. K
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
AttorneyForSatan
()
Date: August 23, 2008 12:20PM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
formerhick76
()
Date: August 23, 2008 08:42PM
Yes, but do any of you give proper credit to the power of TIMECUBE?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
scam church
()
Date: August 24, 2008 03:07AM
The clown that runs that church lives in a $2,000,000 home and takes a salary of over $800,000 per year. He also takes two months vacation every year.
Only an idiot would donate hard earned money to McLean Bible Church, the scam of the century.
Only an idiot would donate hard earned money to McLean Bible Church, the scam of the century.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
re: scam church
()
Date: August 24, 2008 11:22AM
Whoever posted above, you have very inaccurate information. Neither figure is close to being correct, especially his salary.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
eyGku
()
Date: August 24, 2008 12:08PM
re: scam church Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whoever posted above, you have very inaccurate
> information. Neither figure is close to being
> correct, especially his salary.
Where can we get better information? We'd be interested in the correct numbers.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whoever posted above, you have very inaccurate
> information. Neither figure is close to being
> correct, especially his salary.
Where can we get better information? We'd be interested in the correct numbers.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
formerhick76
()
Date: August 24, 2008 06:15PM
Don't non-profits have to file docs with the IRS similar to those filed by corporations? Or are they exempt since they are a church?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
LYc3M
()
Date: August 24, 2008 09:57PM
formerhick76 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't non-profits have to file docs with the IRS
> similar to those filed by corporations? Or are
> they exempt since they are a church?
I don't believe churches have to do this....hence the reason it's become a sanctuary for scoundrels.
"Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Matthew 19:23-24
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't non-profits have to file docs with the IRS
> similar to those filed by corporations? Or are
> they exempt since they are a church?
I don't believe churches have to do this....hence the reason it's become a sanctuary for scoundrels.
"Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Matthew 19:23-24
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MCA
()
Date: August 24, 2008 10:12PM
"He" lives in a huge house in Mantua on Colesbury Drive. It very well may be worth 2M...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
zippy
()
Date: August 24, 2008 11:09PM
| CONTACT US | HELP
homepage - tax administration - real estate
Main Property Search
Address Map Number
Profile
Sales
Values
Residential
Commercial
Map
Structure Size
....... MAP #: 0591 17 0007
SOLOMON LON N 8931 COLESBURY PL
Values
Current Land $317,000
Current Building $837,460
Current Assessed Total $1,154,460
Tax Exempt NO
Note
Values History
Tax Year Land Building Assessed Total Tax Exempt
2008 $317,000 $837,460 $1,154,460 NO
2007 $230,000 $1,047,270 $1,277,270 NO
2006 $230,000 $931,590 $1,161,590 NO
2005 $185,000 $930,640 $1,115,640 NO
2004 $156,000 $597,520 $753,520 NO
2003 $98,000 $597,520 $695,520 NO
2002 $88,500 $573,900 $662,400 NO
2001 $88,500 $463,500 $552,000 NO
2000 $88,500 $324,800 $413,300 NO
CURRENT RECORD
Return to Search Results
Neighborhood Sales
Printable Summary
Site Design Copyright 1999-2006 Akanda Group LLC. All rights reserved.
homepage - tax administration - real estate
Main Property Search
Address Map Number
Profile
Sales
Values
Residential
Commercial
Map
Structure Size
....... MAP #: 0591 17 0007
SOLOMON LON N 8931 COLESBURY PL
Values
Current Land $317,000
Current Building $837,460
Current Assessed Total $1,154,460
Tax Exempt NO
Note
Values History
Tax Year Land Building Assessed Total Tax Exempt
2008 $317,000 $837,460 $1,154,460 NO
2007 $230,000 $1,047,270 $1,277,270 NO
2006 $230,000 $931,590 $1,161,590 NO
2005 $185,000 $930,640 $1,115,640 NO
2004 $156,000 $597,520 $753,520 NO
2003 $98,000 $597,520 $695,520 NO
2002 $88,500 $573,900 $662,400 NO
2001 $88,500 $463,500 $552,000 NO
2000 $88,500 $324,800 $413,300 NO
CURRENT RECORD
Return to Search Results
Neighborhood Sales
Printable Summary
Site Design Copyright 1999-2006 Akanda Group LLC. All rights reserved.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
zippy
()
Date: August 24, 2008 11:27PM
| CONTACT US | HELP
homepage - tax administration - real estate
Main Property Search
Address Map Number
Profile
Sales
Values
Residential
Commercial
Map
Structure Size
....... MAP #: 0591 17 0007
SOLOMON LON N 8931 COLESBURY PL
Sales History
Date Amount Seller Buyer
08/18/1999 $475,000 SOLOMON LON N
Sales
Date 08/18/1999
Amount $475,000
Seller
Buyer SOLOMON LON N
Notes Non-representative price based on comps
Deed Book and Page 11052-0001
CURRENT RECORD
Return to Search Results
Neighborhood Sales
Printable Summary
Site Design Copyright 1999-2006 Akanda Group LLC. All rights reserved.
homepage - tax administration - real estate
Main Property Search
Address Map Number
Profile
Sales
Values
Residential
Commercial
Map
Structure Size
....... MAP #: 0591 17 0007
SOLOMON LON N 8931 COLESBURY PL
Sales History
Date Amount Seller Buyer
08/18/1999 $475,000 SOLOMON LON N
Sales
Date 08/18/1999
Amount $475,000
Seller
Buyer SOLOMON LON N
Notes Non-representative price based on comps
Deed Book and Page 11052-0001
CURRENT RECORD
Return to Search Results
Neighborhood Sales
Printable Summary
Site Design Copyright 1999-2006 Akanda Group LLC. All rights reserved.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
zippy
()
Date: August 24, 2008 11:32PM
The "Non-representative price based on comps" makes me wonder if Rezko was involved???
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
I don't know who Rezko is (or Solomon
()
Date: August 25, 2008 12:18AM
That usually means that the sale was for below market value. They can not tell you the reason, because they generally do not know.
As of 1999, the land and house were assessed at 400K+, but if you look through all of the information on the tax website, you will see that additions were built in 2000 and 2005. Thus, the original purchase in 1999 was not way out of line, but it looks like a lot of money has been put into the house since then, as it is now assessed at about 1.5 mil.
As of 1999, the land and house were assessed at 400K+, but if you look through all of the information on the tax website, you will see that additions were built in 2000 and 2005. Thus, the original purchase in 1999 was not way out of line, but it looks like a lot of money has been put into the house since then, as it is now assessed at about 1.5 mil.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mrs. K
()
Date: August 25, 2008 12:56PM
No, this pastor isn't poor. But so what? He's not claiming poverty.
A lot of homes were underpriced in Mantua during the 1990's, due to the Texaco oil/gasoline spill. After the spill was cleaned up, people came back and so did the prices. And FYI, his house value went up like every else's over the last 10 years.
Some of the work done on their house was to allow them to care for their daughter, Jill, who is severly handicapped. Jill has to be cared for medically 24/hr day, 365 days a year. Ramps and hospital-type upgrades take up a lot of space and cost a lot of money.
If any of you actually has FACTS about the MBC pastor doing anything illegal or illicit, then post them.
A lot of homes were underpriced in Mantua during the 1990's, due to the Texaco oil/gasoline spill. After the spill was cleaned up, people came back and so did the prices. And FYI, his house value went up like every else's over the last 10 years.
Some of the work done on their house was to allow them to care for their daughter, Jill, who is severly handicapped. Jill has to be cared for medically 24/hr day, 365 days a year. Ramps and hospital-type upgrades take up a lot of space and cost a lot of money.
If any of you actually has FACTS about the MBC pastor doing anything illegal or illicit, then post them.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mr. H
()
Date: September 06, 2008 04:34AM
I have gone to McLain over 20 years and I still can't find out what the pastor makes. It has always puzzled me why they don't reveal just how much the staff does make. We, the members are paying those salaries. What is there to hide?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
dLCUV
()
Date: September 06, 2008 09:06PM
Is this the place? Looks like the kind of house Jesus would have had.
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mrs. K
()
Date: September 06, 2008 10:29PM
I don't know -- is this his house?
Again, do you have proof that he's done anything illegal?
Again, do you have proof that he's done anything illegal?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
JJFlash
()
Date: September 06, 2008 11:41PM
Mrs. K Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know -- is this his house?
>
> Again, do you have proof that he's done anything
> illegal?
Why the focus on illegality? Did someone claim that he was doing something illegal?
I'm much more interested in ethical dilemmas. Like a man that preaches the word of Christ, yet doesn't live the word.
By all outward appearances, he seems to be a rich man. And who was it who said:
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."?
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know -- is this his house?
>
> Again, do you have proof that he's done anything
> illegal?
Why the focus on illegality? Did someone claim that he was doing something illegal?
I'm much more interested in ethical dilemmas. Like a man that preaches the word of Christ, yet doesn't live the word.
By all outward appearances, he seems to be a rich man. And who was it who said:
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
tubby
()
Date: September 06, 2008 11:44PM
Mr. H Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have gone to McLain over 20 years and I still
> can't find out what the pastor makes. It has
> always puzzled me why they don't reveal just how
> much the staff does make. We, the members are
> paying those salaries. What is there to hide?
What is there to hide?!?! WTF do you think there is to hide?
They don't want you suckers to know about the yachts and jets!
If you throw your hard earned money into Solomon's (or any of those blow-dried preachers') basket, you're worse than a moron.
Not a sermon, just a thought.
As for myself, I offer God my entire paycheck....I throw it up in the air, and if it comes back and hits the ground....I pick it up, God didn't want it...
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have gone to McLain over 20 years and I still
> can't find out what the pastor makes. It has
> always puzzled me why they don't reveal just how
> much the staff does make. We, the members are
> paying those salaries. What is there to hide?
What is there to hide?!?! WTF do you think there is to hide?
They don't want you suckers to know about the yachts and jets!
If you throw your hard earned money into Solomon's (or any of those blow-dried preachers') basket, you're worse than a moron.
Not a sermon, just a thought.
As for myself, I offer God my entire paycheck....I throw it up in the air, and if it comes back and hits the ground....I pick it up, God didn't want it...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
wow
()
Date: September 07, 2008 01:37AM
u guys r too much in peoples lives get a life!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Awakened
()
Date: September 07, 2008 01:38AM
wow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> u guys r too much in peoples lives get a life!
omg like no wai!
-------------------------------------------------------
> u guys r too much in peoples lives get a life!
omg like no wai!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
GOD
()
Date: September 07, 2008 01:58AM
This is a really stupid thread.
But, I forgive you.
But, I forgive you.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
JUST STICK TO GOD
()
Date: September 09, 2008 12:44AM
RELIGION MAKES NO SENCE! PEOPLE ARE JUST STUCK BELIEVING WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY. WHICH ALOT OF IT IS MADE UP. SOME INFORMATION IS CORRECT BUT MOST IS WHAT SOMEBODY SAID YOU HAVE TO DO TO GET TO HEAVEN. ALLLLL RELIGION IS THE SAME CONCEPT.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Christopher Hitchens
()
Date: September 09, 2008 09:25AM
JUST STICK TO GOD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RELIGION MAKES NO SENCE!
Dammit son, you're not doing us atheists any favors.
-------------------------------------------------------
> RELIGION MAKES NO SENCE!
Dammit son, you're not doing us atheists any favors.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
ITRADE
()
Date: September 09, 2008 06:31PM
LYc3M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> formerhick76 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Don't non-profits have to file docs with the
> IRS
> > similar to those filed by corporations? Or are
> > they exempt since they are a church?
>
> I don't believe churches have to do this....hence
> the reason it's become a sanctuary for
> scoundrels.
>
Kinda like Scientologists?
-------------------------------------------------------
> formerhick76 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Don't non-profits have to file docs with the
> IRS
> > similar to those filed by corporations? Or are
> > they exempt since they are a church?
>
> I don't believe churches have to do this....hence
> the reason it's become a sanctuary for
> scoundrels.
>
Kinda like Scientologists?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
greedy JEW turned christian
()
Date: September 15, 2008 02:52AM
Glad you guys like my house. Stop by anytime, just make sure to take off your shoes before you step on my imported Italian marble and lift the lid before you pee on my gold L embossed toilet seats. Respect to my annual sabaticcal it's only three months ! I need the time for my handicapped daughter the on I built the 3,000 square foot addition for. I hope you guys don't find out about my chartered jet flights, but then again SO WHAT !
The dopes that set in the pews at my church (family business) are so well trained that they will just keep dropping the cash in to support my $800,000 a year income. I love MCLEAN BIBLE CHURCH, it's been good to me, LOL.
Sincerely, LON Suckerthem
P.S I hope the board doesn't cut my $150,000 a month expense account, jet fuel is expensive and I'm too important to stand in line for a commercial flight.
Attachments:
The dopes that set in the pews at my church (family business) are so well trained that they will just keep dropping the cash in to support my $800,000 a year income. I love MCLEAN BIBLE CHURCH, it's been good to me, LOL.
Sincerely, LON Suckerthem
P.S I hope the board doesn't cut my $150,000 a month expense account, jet fuel is expensive and I'm too important to stand in line for a commercial flight.
Attachments:
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
greedy JEW turned christian
()
Date: September 15, 2008 02:55AM
Opsy you were not supposed to see my little boat. I bought it to spend time with my handicap daughter,
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
496
()
Date: September 15, 2008 09:03AM
Lon Suckerman??? LOL
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Jerry
()
Date: December 11, 2008 10:21AM
Actually, his daughter has profound disabilities, to include recurring, multiple seizures, requiring supports for mobility and assisted living. My hunch is that the criticisms are coming from people who otherwise profess their "tolerance."
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
please
()
Date: December 11, 2008 01:00PM
One of my best friends is a quadrapalegic--what's funny is Mr. Solomon's home has twice the square footage as my buddy's, which is also a single family home...and that's not counting the additional 1724 sf of accessory structures attached to Lon's house. Trying to justify it with his handicapped daughter is pathetic.
It's pathetic that people contribute to that "church" and I use that term loosely. Any church/religious institution that can afford to advertise on the radio on as frequent a basis as MBC does should lose its tax exempt status immediately. That church should also have to pay for the needed transportation improvements in the area to make up for all the traffic it needlessly causes the neighbors.
It is no suprise that Mr. Solomon's salary isn't public, LOL.
It's pathetic that people contribute to that "church" and I use that term loosely. Any church/religious institution that can afford to advertise on the radio on as frequent a basis as MBC does should lose its tax exempt status immediately. That church should also have to pay for the needed transportation improvements in the area to make up for all the traffic it needlessly causes the neighbors.
It is no suprise that Mr. Solomon's salary isn't public, LOL.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: December 11, 2008 01:46PM
I hate to break it to you, but Mr. Solomon works for me. All of these rich ministers do.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Rod
()
Date: December 11, 2008 03:09PM
The Greeks made a philosophy out of Christianity, I forget what the Romans did but Americans made a mega business out of it. I Corinthians gives us a glimse of what the original church was and still should be. Clergymen who are essesencial to the contemporary forms of American Christianty, are as a group stystically problematic. The original concept of leadership has been suplied from the prescent concept to the Bible. I attend a small interactive Christian group.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
ITRADE
()
Date: December 12, 2008 03:17PM
Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, his daughter has profound disabilities,
> to include recurring, multiple seizures, requiring
> supports for mobility and assisted living. My
> hunch is that the criticisms are coming from
> people who otherwise profess their "tolerance."
Sounds like she needs and excorcism...
OOPS. Wrong church.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2008 03:17PM by ITRADE.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, his daughter has profound disabilities,
> to include recurring, multiple seizures, requiring
> supports for mobility and assisted living. My
> hunch is that the criticisms are coming from
> people who otherwise profess their "tolerance."
Sounds like she needs and excorcism...
OOPS. Wrong church.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2008 03:17PM by ITRADE.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
mclean 'church"
()
Date: December 12, 2008 08:38PM
1. Lon Solomon is big on Jews for Jesus.
2. He owns in manuta and at the beach (hence the 2m is correct)
3. House on Madrillon estates in Vienna is in his name or sons, but son just moved back.
4. it is sermon and they do hate.
Odd little thing: I have a nephew...big christian..big on going to church, but he is the first to lie, be deceitful and talk negatively about those who cannot stand up for themselves.
It's those that can stand on principles and not try to change everyone else that stand in harmony.
2. He owns in manuta and at the beach (hence the 2m is correct)
3. House on Madrillon estates in Vienna is in his name or sons, but son just moved back.
4. it is sermon and they do hate.
Odd little thing: I have a nephew...big christian..big on going to church, but he is the first to lie, be deceitful and talk negatively about those who cannot stand up for themselves.
It's those that can stand on principles and not try to change everyone else that stand in harmony.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 12, 2008 09:02PM
Technically Rod, the Hebrews made Christianity out of the Greek's religion (which the Roman's were practicing).
Actually though, it can be traced back to the mystery cults of Ancient Egypt.
In any event, the church is just another business. It's angle is to get believers to think it's *not* a business.
Even though I believed for 20+ years, looking back, I'm AMAZED that so many people believe the Christian message.
Actually though, it can be traced back to the mystery cults of Ancient Egypt.
In any event, the church is just another business. It's angle is to get believers to think it's *not* a business.
Even though I believed for 20+ years, looking back, I'm AMAZED that so many people believe the Christian message.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Rod
()
Date: December 12, 2008 11:19PM
Skeptics point to a long line of dualisms that are in the Bible and exist in pagan culture. Christians consider some of them counterfeits. To the Christian there's a religion I think it's called miterism seems counter fit Christianity. Christianity is a faith based religion. Still the spread of Christianity can correctly be based on the actual resurrection of Jesus and 500 people seeing him after the resurrection and they telling others. This is something that mere story telling cannot recreate. Some Christians are converted by miraculous acts. For example the Apostle Paul was struck blind and heard Jesus voice. This is what it might take for some people. Christians believe everyone will be converted because the Bible says every knee will bow [to Jesus].
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Bob
()
Date: December 13, 2008 12:17AM
312AD: Roman emperor Constantine converts to Christianity
313AD: Constantine ends the persecution of the Christians (edict of Milan)
313AD: Constantine recognizes the Christian church
There's a lot to read here, but you can find this information at your liesure online. The point of it all is that all the stuff in the Bible is arbirtrary, and there are things that you don't see in the bible that are not there for the same arbitrary reasons. Zoroastrianism, Mithrian and Pagan believes were rolled into the Roman Emprire's new relgion. It has nothing to do with anything that might have happened to a newborn in a manger with 3 wise men who grew up to walk on water and turned water into wine and caused one loave of bread to feed thousands. This was all about the Roman Empire co-opting a growing cult or religion to maintain control. They changed everything in the new testament that threatened Roman rule, and added things to give legitimacy towards Roman rule.
The First Council of Nicaea was held in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) and convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in 325 AD. It is believed to have been the First Ecumenical council of the Christian Church by the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, the Old Catholics, and a number of other Western Christian groups. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called
the Nicene Creed. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops' (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom. From Koine Greek oikoumenikos, "ecumenical" literally means worldwide but generally is assumed to be limited to the Roman Empire, as in Augustus' claim to be ruler of the oikoumene/world; the earliest extant uses of the term for a council are Eusebius' Life of Constantine 3.6[1] around 338 "σύνοδον οἰκουμενικὴν συνεκρότει" (he convoked an Ecumenical council), Athanasius' Ad Afros Epistola Synodica in 369[2], and the Letter in 382 to Pope Damasus I and the Latin bishops from the First Council of Constantinople[3].
The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father or merely of similar substance. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two voted against Arius[1]).
Another result of the council was an agreement on when to celebrate the Resurrection, the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar. The council decided in favour of celebrating the resurrection on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, independently of the Hebrew Calendar (see also Quartodecimanism and Easter controversy). It authorized the Bishop of Alexandria (presumably using the Alexandrian calendar) to announce annually the exact date to his fellow bishops.
The Council of Nicaea was historically significant because it was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.[2] "It was the first occasion for the development of technical Christology."[2] A precedent was set for subsequent general councils to adopt creeds and canons.
Pagan religion could not all be suppressed. Many gods were admitted to the church as saints - Dionysus as St. Denis of Paris; Diana Illythia as St. Illis of Dole. The statues of Jupiter and Apollo became statues of St. Peter and St. Paul.
The Romans celebrated the Winter Solstice on December 25th as a renewing of the sun every year. In many European countries, this is called Yuletide, meaning wheel time, the cycles of time. The Church tried to put an end to this festival but failed. So, in 354 CE Pope Liberius repackaged this Pagan festival as Christmas celebrating the birth of Jesus despite the fact there is no recorded date for the event. Another Pagan festival of the Romans was Lupercalia. Romans believed believed that the goddess Juno Februata inflicted her love fever on the young and unwary in the ides of of February. This festival was converted to St. Valentine's Day.
* - "The father of ecclesiastical history," as Eusebius of Caesarea is called, wrote his famous Ecclesiastical History some years before the death of Constantine; and it does not contain this very important miracle.
Part - IV
Gospels and the other books of the New Testament are considered to be canonical or divinely inspired i.e. the New Testament was the "word of God" and that it was not written by mere mortals. Unfortunately, there were many books in circulation and God did not specify exactly which among them had his official stamp of approval. So, that task was usurped by mere mortals - the Church fathers. These men were considered some books to be divinely inspired or "orthodox." Others were considered to be heretic. Among themselves, humans have different opinions. So, at various times in history, some books went from being orthodox to being heretic and back again and so forth. The four gospels that we now have are the ones that survived the shootout. The rest were suppressed and destroyed and almost lost for ever. Incidentally, the gospel authors (who were later made St. Mark, St. John, St. Matthew and St. Luke) had written other books, which are now considered to be heretic!
One of the first list of canonical books was drawn by Marcion. His list only had one gospel (of Luke's). Iraneous, the Bishop of Hippo, considered Marcion as heretic and made a new list of 22 books, which for the first time had four gospels. All these books except the Shepherd of Hermas have made it to today's New Testament. Later, Origen created a new list which put some books under dispute. Apostolic authorship was the reason why some books became canonical while others were not. The Church wanted to identify some apostles closely with the books so as to be their authors. The final list of 27 books of the New Testament was made by Athansius, the Bishop of Alexandria, in 367 CE. The rest were considered heretic. However, not all Churches accepted this list. This is why some very old branches of Christianity have different sets of books in their New Testament.
In 1958, Morton Smith, a theology student at Columbia University, discovered a letter which include a reference to "a secret gospel of Mark" when he was working at the Mar Saba Monastery near Jerusalem. It is a letter written by Clement of Alexandria (2nd century CE) concerning a dispute with the Carpocratians, an heterodox Christian sect. While Secret Mark may be false, the letter* is an indication of the numeous gospels that were in existence and the plurality in the treatment they accorded to Jesus Christ. It also reveals the way "official" gospel writers worked to embellish and spruce up the tale of Christ to create a more acceptable image for the new cult.
313AD: Constantine ends the persecution of the Christians (edict of Milan)
313AD: Constantine recognizes the Christian church
There's a lot to read here, but you can find this information at your liesure online. The point of it all is that all the stuff in the Bible is arbirtrary, and there are things that you don't see in the bible that are not there for the same arbitrary reasons. Zoroastrianism, Mithrian and Pagan believes were rolled into the Roman Emprire's new relgion. It has nothing to do with anything that might have happened to a newborn in a manger with 3 wise men who grew up to walk on water and turned water into wine and caused one loave of bread to feed thousands. This was all about the Roman Empire co-opting a growing cult or religion to maintain control. They changed everything in the new testament that threatened Roman rule, and added things to give legitimacy towards Roman rule.
The First Council of Nicaea was held in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) and convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in 325 AD. It is believed to have been the First Ecumenical council of the Christian Church by the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, the Old Catholics, and a number of other Western Christian groups. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called
the Nicene Creed. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops' (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom. From Koine Greek oikoumenikos, "ecumenical" literally means worldwide but generally is assumed to be limited to the Roman Empire, as in Augustus' claim to be ruler of the oikoumene/world; the earliest extant uses of the term for a council are Eusebius' Life of Constantine 3.6[1] around 338 "σύνοδον οἰκουμενικὴν συνεκρότει" (he convoked an Ecumenical council), Athanasius' Ad Afros Epistola Synodica in 369[2], and the Letter in 382 to Pope Damasus I and the Latin bishops from the First Council of Constantinople[3].
The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father or merely of similar substance. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two voted against Arius[1]).
Another result of the council was an agreement on when to celebrate the Resurrection, the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar. The council decided in favour of celebrating the resurrection on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, independently of the Hebrew Calendar (see also Quartodecimanism and Easter controversy). It authorized the Bishop of Alexandria (presumably using the Alexandrian calendar) to announce annually the exact date to his fellow bishops.
The Council of Nicaea was historically significant because it was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.[2] "It was the first occasion for the development of technical Christology."[2] A precedent was set for subsequent general councils to adopt creeds and canons.
Pagan religion could not all be suppressed. Many gods were admitted to the church as saints - Dionysus as St. Denis of Paris; Diana Illythia as St. Illis of Dole. The statues of Jupiter and Apollo became statues of St. Peter and St. Paul.
The Romans celebrated the Winter Solstice on December 25th as a renewing of the sun every year. In many European countries, this is called Yuletide, meaning wheel time, the cycles of time. The Church tried to put an end to this festival but failed. So, in 354 CE Pope Liberius repackaged this Pagan festival as Christmas celebrating the birth of Jesus despite the fact there is no recorded date for the event. Another Pagan festival of the Romans was Lupercalia. Romans believed believed that the goddess Juno Februata inflicted her love fever on the young and unwary in the ides of of February. This festival was converted to St. Valentine's Day.
* - "The father of ecclesiastical history," as Eusebius of Caesarea is called, wrote his famous Ecclesiastical History some years before the death of Constantine; and it does not contain this very important miracle.
Part - IV
Gospels and the other books of the New Testament are considered to be canonical or divinely inspired i.e. the New Testament was the "word of God" and that it was not written by mere mortals. Unfortunately, there were many books in circulation and God did not specify exactly which among them had his official stamp of approval. So, that task was usurped by mere mortals - the Church fathers. These men were considered some books to be divinely inspired or "orthodox." Others were considered to be heretic. Among themselves, humans have different opinions. So, at various times in history, some books went from being orthodox to being heretic and back again and so forth. The four gospels that we now have are the ones that survived the shootout. The rest were suppressed and destroyed and almost lost for ever. Incidentally, the gospel authors (who were later made St. Mark, St. John, St. Matthew and St. Luke) had written other books, which are now considered to be heretic!
One of the first list of canonical books was drawn by Marcion. His list only had one gospel (of Luke's). Iraneous, the Bishop of Hippo, considered Marcion as heretic and made a new list of 22 books, which for the first time had four gospels. All these books except the Shepherd of Hermas have made it to today's New Testament. Later, Origen created a new list which put some books under dispute. Apostolic authorship was the reason why some books became canonical while others were not. The Church wanted to identify some apostles closely with the books so as to be their authors. The final list of 27 books of the New Testament was made by Athansius, the Bishop of Alexandria, in 367 CE. The rest were considered heretic. However, not all Churches accepted this list. This is why some very old branches of Christianity have different sets of books in their New Testament.
In 1958, Morton Smith, a theology student at Columbia University, discovered a letter which include a reference to "a secret gospel of Mark" when he was working at the Mar Saba Monastery near Jerusalem. It is a letter written by Clement of Alexandria (2nd century CE) concerning a dispute with the Carpocratians, an heterodox Christian sect. While Secret Mark may be false, the letter* is an indication of the numeous gospels that were in existence and the plurality in the treatment they accorded to Jesus Christ. It also reveals the way "official" gospel writers worked to embellish and spruce up the tale of Christ to create a more acceptable image for the new cult.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Rod
()
Date: December 13, 2008 01:32AM
Bob quotes: The Romans celebrated the Winter Solstice on December 25th as a renewing of the sun every year. In many European countries, this is called Yuletide, meaning wheel time, the cycles of time. The Church tried to put an end to this festival but failed. So, in 354 CE Pope Liberius repackaged this Pagan festival as Christmas celebrating the birth of Jesus despite the fact there is no recorded date for the event. Another Pagan festival of the Romans was Lupercalia. Romans believed believed that the goddess Juno Februata inflicted her love fever on the young and unwary in the ides of of February. This festival was converted to St. Valentine's Day.
Me: There is no reason for Christians to celebrate Christmas, Easter. Christ and Paul and the early Christians and everyone in the bible all celebrated the Biblical holiday's mentioned in Leviticus 23.
Everyone in the Bible kept the seventh day Sabbath, from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. This is what observant Jews have done through out history. This is not what we see in the mega-church.
where THE PREACHER COMES FROM: NOT THE BIBLE!!!
We have in history, the medicine man, the shaman, the rhapsodised, the miracle worker, the witch doctor, the soothsayer and the priest who in a sense have all been with us since the fall of man. One of the first great ones was Nimrod.
The seeds of the contemporary Pasteur canny be detected in the New Testament era, Diotrephes is spoken of in 3 John 9-10 as one as one who loved to have preeminence in the church and illigitimately tool controll of it's affairs. In addition, some scholars have suggested that the doctrine of the nicolaitans that Jesus condemned is a reference of the early clergy.
Alongside humanities fallen quest for a human spiritual mediator is the obsession with the hierarchical form of leadership.
We had the Sophists which were traveling fee accepting Greek philosophers. They were a important part of Greek culture. They brought a lot of thier paganism into Christianity as they converted and continued to practice thier craft. They are the origin of the great super preachers. Much of this is the new book, "Pagan Christianity," by Frank Viola
Me: There is no reason for Christians to celebrate Christmas, Easter. Christ and Paul and the early Christians and everyone in the bible all celebrated the Biblical holiday's mentioned in Leviticus 23.
Everyone in the Bible kept the seventh day Sabbath, from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. This is what observant Jews have done through out history. This is not what we see in the mega-church.
where THE PREACHER COMES FROM: NOT THE BIBLE!!!
We have in history, the medicine man, the shaman, the rhapsodised, the miracle worker, the witch doctor, the soothsayer and the priest who in a sense have all been with us since the fall of man. One of the first great ones was Nimrod.
The seeds of the contemporary Pasteur canny be detected in the New Testament era, Diotrephes is spoken of in 3 John 9-10 as one as one who loved to have preeminence in the church and illigitimately tool controll of it's affairs. In addition, some scholars have suggested that the doctrine of the nicolaitans that Jesus condemned is a reference of the early clergy.
Alongside humanities fallen quest for a human spiritual mediator is the obsession with the hierarchical form of leadership.
We had the Sophists which were traveling fee accepting Greek philosophers. They were a important part of Greek culture. They brought a lot of thier paganism into Christianity as they converted and continued to practice thier craft. They are the origin of the great super preachers. Much of this is the new book, "Pagan Christianity," by Frank Viola
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 13, 2008 12:02PM
Rod Wrote: "Skeptics point to a long line of dualisms that are in the Bible and exist in pagan culture. Christians consider some of them counterfeits. To the Christian there's a religion I think it's called miterism seems counter fit Christianity. Christianity is a faith based religion. Still the spread of Christianity can correctly be based on the actual resurrection of Jesus and 500 people seeing him after the resurrection and they telling others. This is something that mere story telling cannot recreate. Some Christians are converted by miraculous acts. For example the Apostle Paul was struck blind and heard Jesus voice. This is what it might take for some people. Christians believe everyone will be converted because the Bible says every knee will bow [to Jesus]."
There are similarities between Christianity and mithrialism, that is for sure. Christianity has many influences and I would say that it's rather obvious that it's been helenized. Take 'Hell' for instance, which wasn't in the old testament. In the old testament, when you died you went to Sheol, which was an actual place. Hell and the duality of 'good' and 'evil' came from persian influence - ie, zoroastrianism. If you look in the book of Job, Satan was just another angel of God. He wasn't *opposed* to God as he is in the new testament.
As to the 'spread' of Christianity, I disagree. I do not think it can be traced back to an actual resurrection. The earliest source is Paul and he makes no real mention of the life of Jesus - in fact, his experiences were something like two decades AFTER the resurrection was supposed to have taken place.
We have no *real* contemporary sources for Jesus, we have after the fact, third hand accounts. As for the 500 people - I believe you are referring to the miracle that Paul mentions - but I don't think anyone should take that without a huge spoonful of salt. After all, who were these people? Is it possible that Paul was just engaging in hyperbole?
In any event, I think I might be taking your post to be actually supporting the contentions that are written. I'm not sure if you mean it in that vein (ie, you support what you are writing) or if you mean it in the sense of 'this is what Christians believe'.
There are similarities between Christianity and mithrialism, that is for sure. Christianity has many influences and I would say that it's rather obvious that it's been helenized. Take 'Hell' for instance, which wasn't in the old testament. In the old testament, when you died you went to Sheol, which was an actual place. Hell and the duality of 'good' and 'evil' came from persian influence - ie, zoroastrianism. If you look in the book of Job, Satan was just another angel of God. He wasn't *opposed* to God as he is in the new testament.
As to the 'spread' of Christianity, I disagree. I do not think it can be traced back to an actual resurrection. The earliest source is Paul and he makes no real mention of the life of Jesus - in fact, his experiences were something like two decades AFTER the resurrection was supposed to have taken place.
We have no *real* contemporary sources for Jesus, we have after the fact, third hand accounts. As for the 500 people - I believe you are referring to the miracle that Paul mentions - but I don't think anyone should take that without a huge spoonful of salt. After all, who were these people? Is it possible that Paul was just engaging in hyperbole?
In any event, I think I might be taking your post to be actually supporting the contentions that are written. I'm not sure if you mean it in that vein (ie, you support what you are writing) or if you mean it in the sense of 'this is what Christians believe'.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: December 13, 2008 12:12PM
Dear Rod...the following statement just isnt true.
Still the spread of Christianity can correctly be based on the actual resurrection of Jesus and 500 people seeing him after the resurrection and they telling others. This is something that mere story telling cannot recreate.
Many religions have experienced similar growth based on an "event" purported to be true. Probably the most recent is Joseph Smith's revelations that are the basis for today's Morman Church. In fact their growth actually surpassed early Christian growth. It wasnt until Constantine made christianity "the" religion of rome did christianity really take off.
So unless you accept Joseph Smith's revelations as true...your statement is not true. Christianity's growth was not phenominal...it doesnt necessarily have to based on a true event.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2008 06:26PM by Vince(1).
Still the spread of Christianity can correctly be based on the actual resurrection of Jesus and 500 people seeing him after the resurrection and they telling others. This is something that mere story telling cannot recreate.
Many religions have experienced similar growth based on an "event" purported to be true. Probably the most recent is Joseph Smith's revelations that are the basis for today's Morman Church. In fact their growth actually surpassed early Christian growth. It wasnt until Constantine made christianity "the" religion of rome did christianity really take off.
So unless you accept Joseph Smith's revelations as true...your statement is not true. Christianity's growth was not phenominal...it doesnt necessarily have to based on a true event.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2008 06:26PM by Vince(1).
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Hellburger
()
Date: December 13, 2008 12:28PM
Wow, between this discussion and the "best burger in nova," it has been quite a morning on FU
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 13, 2008 03:21PM
Vince, you are reading my quote of Rod. I wasn't subscribing to what you are saying I was subscribing to. Reread it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: December 13, 2008 06:26PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince, you are reading my quote of Rod. I wasn't
> subscribing to what you are saying I was
> subscribing to. Reread it.
Noted and revised...ty.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince, you are reading my quote of Rod. I wasn't
> subscribing to what you are saying I was
> subscribing to. Reread it.
Noted and revised...ty.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 13, 2008 10:33PM
Hey Vince, have you ever gotten in the middle of an argument with a Mormon and a Christian?
I find it quite bizarre. The Christian will typically attempt to take the rational high ground and say that the historical claims that the Mormon makes are ungrounded and that they are subscribing to scientifically inaccurate views.
Yet ask them about Genesis....
I find it quite bizarre. The Christian will typically attempt to take the rational high ground and say that the historical claims that the Mormon makes are ungrounded and that they are subscribing to scientifically inaccurate views.
Yet ask them about Genesis....
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Bob
()
Date: December 13, 2008 10:36PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Vince, have you ever gotten in the middle of
> an argument with a Mormon and a Christian?
>
> I find it quite bizarre. The Christian will
> typically attempt to take the rational high ground
> and say that the historical claims that the Mormon
> makes are ungrounded and that they are subscribing
> to scientifically inaccurate views.
>
>
>
> Yet ask them about Genesis....
I like the people who claim that God put fossils on the earth to test their faith.
When I was 5 years old, my mommy told me that if I wished hard enough, Santa would bring me the toys I wanted. I had a hard time believing her at 5, how do these grown people believe that God will save them if they just believe in him hard enough????
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Vince, have you ever gotten in the middle of
> an argument with a Mormon and a Christian?
>
> I find it quite bizarre. The Christian will
> typically attempt to take the rational high ground
> and say that the historical claims that the Mormon
> makes are ungrounded and that they are subscribing
> to scientifically inaccurate views.
>
>
>
> Yet ask them about Genesis....
I like the people who claim that God put fossils on the earth to test their faith.
When I was 5 years old, my mommy told me that if I wished hard enough, Santa would bring me the toys I wanted. I had a hard time believing her at 5, how do these grown people believe that God will save them if they just believe in him hard enough????
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
TheMeeper
()
Date: December 13, 2008 10:50PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
the Mormon makes are ungrounded and that they are subscribing to scientifically inaccurate views.
Q: Why should you always ask TWO Mormons to go fishing with you?
A: Cuz if you ask just one, he'll drink all your beer.
the Mormon makes are ungrounded and that they are subscribing to scientifically inaccurate views.
Q: Why should you always ask TWO Mormons to go fishing with you?
A: Cuz if you ask just one, he'll drink all your beer.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
tubby
()
Date: December 14, 2008 04:32AM
Didn't read all the shit....BUT, _any_ church that has the radio asdvertising budget that McLean Baptist apparently has is obviously a sham.
Translation: Anybody that throws coin in Lon's basket is a MORON.
Translation: Anybody that throws coin in Lon's basket is a MORON.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: December 14, 2008 08:55AM
tubby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Didn't read all the shit....BUT, _any_ church that
> has the radio asdvertising budget that McLean
> Baptist apparently has is obviously a sham.
>
> Translation: Anybody that throws coin in Lon's
> basket is a MORON.
Not a sermon, just a thought.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Didn't read all the shit....BUT, _any_ church that
> has the radio asdvertising budget that McLean
> Baptist apparently has is obviously a sham.
>
> Translation: Anybody that throws coin in Lon's
> basket is a MORON.
Not a sermon, just a thought.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
preachon
()
Date: December 14, 2008 01:15PM
WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tubby Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Didn't read all the shit....BUT, _any_ church
> that
> > has the radio asdvertising budget that McLean
> > Baptist apparently has is obviously a sham.
> >
> > Translation: Anybody that throws coin in Lon's
> > basket is a MORON.
>
>
> Not a sermon, just a thought.
Yup, Ole' Lon used to be a recreational Pharmacist (Cocaine) so preaching isn't really a stretch, (religion is an opiate for the masses). Organized religion is just an extension of government, disagree if you want but its clearly evident if you compare church/mosques/temple doctrine to the the law of the day. Here's a good religion to practice without wasting your Sunday mornings. Do the right thing when no one else is looking and try to be a decent human being.
-------------------------------------------------------
> tubby Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Didn't read all the shit....BUT, _any_ church
> that
> > has the radio asdvertising budget that McLean
> > Baptist apparently has is obviously a sham.
> >
> > Translation: Anybody that throws coin in Lon's
> > basket is a MORON.
>
>
> Not a sermon, just a thought.
Yup, Ole' Lon used to be a recreational Pharmacist (Cocaine) so preaching isn't really a stretch, (religion is an opiate for the masses). Organized religion is just an extension of government, disagree if you want but its clearly evident if you compare church/mosques/temple doctrine to the the law of the day. Here's a good religion to practice without wasting your Sunday mornings. Do the right thing when no one else is looking and try to be a decent human being.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Bob
()
Date: December 15, 2008 12:11AM
preachon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Here's a good religion to
> practice without wasting your Sunday mornings. Do
> the right thing when no one else is looking and
> try to be a decent human being.
But how do I benefit? My neighbors won't be impressed. It won't further my career. I can't look down on others.
Oh, shit, since I'm not a moron, I get it. It's called intellectually honest spirituality -- doing good because it is right.
Come on. Many of us understand this, but too many people are looking to prove themselves, or gain some advantage out of their false piousness. This is too hard for simple people to comprehend. If I buy two sandwiches at lunch and give the second one to a homeless guy, who's going to pat me on the back and tell me what a great guy I am? Why should I do that? If I buy a bottle of cold water and give it to a homeless guy in Lafayette park, and nobdy sees me do it, how will it benefit my career? I'm out $1.25 and I don't get any credit for it.
-------------------------------------------------------
Here's a good religion to
> practice without wasting your Sunday mornings. Do
> the right thing when no one else is looking and
> try to be a decent human being.
But how do I benefit? My neighbors won't be impressed. It won't further my career. I can't look down on others.
Oh, shit, since I'm not a moron, I get it. It's called intellectually honest spirituality -- doing good because it is right.
Come on. Many of us understand this, but too many people are looking to prove themselves, or gain some advantage out of their false piousness. This is too hard for simple people to comprehend. If I buy two sandwiches at lunch and give the second one to a homeless guy, who's going to pat me on the back and tell me what a great guy I am? Why should I do that? If I buy a bottle of cold water and give it to a homeless guy in Lafayette park, and nobdy sees me do it, how will it benefit my career? I'm out $1.25 and I don't get any credit for it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
whoa
()
Date: December 15, 2008 01:14AM
its hard to believe in god when you live in a world of shit
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
whoa
()
Date: December 15, 2008 01:15AM
I am in a world of shit
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Bob
()
Date: December 15, 2008 01:22AM
TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> the Mormon makes are ungrounded and that they are
> subscribing to scientifically inaccurate views.
>
>
> Q: Why should you always ask TWO Mormons to go
> fishing with you?
>
> A: Cuz if you ask just one, he'll drink all your
> beer.
I'm thinking that has some relevance to my father's experience in going to Saudi Arabia for contracts.
If it's just one mormon, he's going to say "hey, hey buddy. I'm just wondering, what are you going to do with all that beer", while if there's two of those religious nutcases, neither is willing to risk being ratted out by the other, so they let you keep your beer.
My father was brought into flophouses in Saudi Arabia where they have rented apartments with no furniture, but stocked with every imaginable form of alcohol.
My father still knew about the execution for drinking or bringing bibles sort of shit and said, nah dude, have fun. We can do this in the four seasons in Georgetown, but right now, I have a family and two kids and I'm not gonna risk any of that shit. I'll drop an Amex Gold card at the Westfields Marriot, or anywhere you want to go, and we can pay your tab, anywhere in America. Come see us.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> the Mormon makes are ungrounded and that they are
> subscribing to scientifically inaccurate views.
>
>
> Q: Why should you always ask TWO Mormons to go
> fishing with you?
>
> A: Cuz if you ask just one, he'll drink all your
> beer.
I'm thinking that has some relevance to my father's experience in going to Saudi Arabia for contracts.
If it's just one mormon, he's going to say "hey, hey buddy. I'm just wondering, what are you going to do with all that beer", while if there's two of those religious nutcases, neither is willing to risk being ratted out by the other, so they let you keep your beer.
My father was brought into flophouses in Saudi Arabia where they have rented apartments with no furniture, but stocked with every imaginable form of alcohol.
My father still knew about the execution for drinking or bringing bibles sort of shit and said, nah dude, have fun. We can do this in the four seasons in Georgetown, but right now, I have a family and two kids and I'm not gonna risk any of that shit. I'll drop an Amex Gold card at the Westfields Marriot, or anywhere you want to go, and we can pay your tab, anywhere in America. Come see us.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
joeee
()
Date: December 15, 2008 02:11PM
Were all going to the same place...
MBC is for wacky, extremist idiots.
"for god so loved the world that he gave his only begoten son that whoever shall believe in him shall NOT perish, but have ever lasting life" john 3:16
"no one gets to the father except throguh me" john 14:6
MBC is for wacky, extremist idiots.
"for god so loved the world that he gave his only begoten son that whoever shall believe in him shall NOT perish, but have ever lasting life" john 3:16
"no one gets to the father except throguh me" john 14:6
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Rod
()
Date: December 15, 2008 07:57PM
> (religion is an opiate for the masses). Organized
> religion is just an extension of government,
> disagree if you want but its clearly evident if
> you compare church/mosques/temple doctrine to the
> the law of the day. Here's a good religion to
> practice without wasting your Sunday mornings. Do
> the right thing when no one else is looking and
> try to be a decent human being.
I like it AND it's in the 'sermon' on the mount. Math 5-6
> religion is just an extension of government,
> disagree if you want but its clearly evident if
> you compare church/mosques/temple doctrine to the
> the law of the day. Here's a good religion to
> practice without wasting your Sunday mornings. Do
> the right thing when no one else is looking and
> try to be a decent human being.
I like it AND it's in the 'sermon' on the mount. Math 5-6
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Rod
()
Date: December 15, 2008 07:59PM
whoa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am in a world of shit
Take heart, there's help in God!
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am in a world of shit
Take heart, there's help in God!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Rod
()
Date: December 15, 2008 08:01PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince, you are reading my quote of Rod. I wasn't
> subscribing to what you are saying I was
> subscribing to. Reread it.
It's hard to follow this
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince, you are reading my quote of Rod. I wasn't
> subscribing to what you are saying I was
> subscribing to. Reread it.
It's hard to follow this
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: December 15, 2008 09:59PM
Rod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vince, you are reading my quote of Rod. I
> wasn't
> > subscribing to what you are saying I was
> > subscribing to. Reread it.
>
>
> It's hard to follow this
BOils down to this...the first christians never saw christ rise from the dead..and there was no unusual conversion rate to christianity after the reported rising.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vince, you are reading my quote of Rod. I
> wasn't
> > subscribing to what you are saying I was
> > subscribing to. Reread it.
>
>
> It's hard to follow this
BOils down to this...the first christians never saw christ rise from the dead..and there was no unusual conversion rate to christianity after the reported rising.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
sprinkles
()
Date: December 15, 2008 11:00PM
After calculating that I wasted 6500 hours in church the first 25 years of my life, I vowed to spend 6500 hours doing volunteer work that would actually make a difference in the world.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Rod
()
Date: December 15, 2008 11:01PM
Well there's quite a document that says Jesus did. How could such a document maintain credibility if no one witnessed? If someone just wrote it and no one witnessed it would not have credibility and no initial following. In the first century. The NT didn't just come in after that it. It had a big following up to and after the first century.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: December 16, 2008 07:14AM
Rod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well there's quite a document that says Jesus did.
> How could such a document maintain credibility if
> no one witnessed? If someone just wrote it and no
> one witnessed it would not have credibility and no
> initial following. In the first century. The NT
> didn't just come in after that it. It had a big
> following up to and after the first century.
It happens all the time...someone makes up..or hallucinates a godly vision..and it takes off as a new religion. Joseph Smith said he saw angels and god in upstate NY and started the Mormon church. Do you believe any of that really happened? They have their book of mormon...it's a formula...see god..write a book...start a religion...oh yeah! and pass the plate and donate generously.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2008 09:06AM by Vince(1).
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well there's quite a document that says Jesus did.
> How could such a document maintain credibility if
> no one witnessed? If someone just wrote it and no
> one witnessed it would not have credibility and no
> initial following. In the first century. The NT
> didn't just come in after that it. It had a big
> following up to and after the first century.
It happens all the time...someone makes up..or hallucinates a godly vision..and it takes off as a new religion. Joseph Smith said he saw angels and god in upstate NY and started the Mormon church. Do you believe any of that really happened? They have their book of mormon...it's a formula...see god..write a book...start a religion...oh yeah! and pass the plate and donate generously.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2008 09:06AM by Vince(1).
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 16, 2008 08:04AM
Rod Wrote: "Well there's quite a document that says Jesus did. How could such a document maintain credibility if no one witnessed? If someone just wrote it and no one witnessed it would not have credibility and no initial following. In the first century. The NT didn't just come in after that it. It had a big following up to and after the first century."
My Response: What you take to be self evident is actually very contentious. You say there is a document that says what Jesus did. You are referring to the New Testament, correct? If so, there are a few problems with that document:
1. The Gospels are all drawn from Mark. In otherwords, the other gospels add to Mark, manipulate it, and so on to form their own version of events. This conclusion is not contraversial in the scholarly community. Mark is dated several decades AFTER the events are supposed to have happened. If this doesn't bother you, think of how fast it takes for a rumor/urban legend/etc to spread.
2. Mark is not written as history. This is also fairly uncontraversial. Mark is teaching a message, it is not teaching history and as a matter of fact, the original Mark ends with the women going to the tomb (IIRC). The attestations of Jesus appearing were added to Mark. There are too many details in Mark (and the other gospels) that give it away that this is not history. There are discussions that the disciples could not have heard: Such as Jesus being on the cross - remember they weren't around, so how did they hear what he said? Also, how did they know that Pilot found no fault with him? How did anyone know about the temptation of Christ? How did anyone write down the events in Gesthemane (sp?), when the disciples were asleep?
3. The original documents do not have *names* on them. They were anonymous. It was only around 200 AD that the traditional names were added to them.
4. The whole dieing and resurrecting theme was *common* during the days of Jesus. In fact, the whole end of the world, there is a messiah was common. Check out Josephus - Jesus wasn't the only 'Jesus'.
5. Check out the early Christian's apologetics against the pagans. As an example, check out Justin's apologetics. He does not argue that Christianity was unique, that their beliefs were unique, instead he argues that Christian beliefs are on par with Roman beliefs. He specifically mentions virgin births of Jesus and I think Perseus - trying to suggest that the Christians weren't very different.
6. Why are there no contemporary sources for Jesus? There were at least 40 historians in and around Jerusalem at the time of Jesus and not one of them mentions him. Instead the earliest mention is decades after his death.
Which is ABSURD if you believe the new testament. Seriously, are we to believe that Saints jumped out of their graves (as in the gospel of Matthew) and NO ONE bothered to write anything?
7. Why does the earliest Christian source we have (Paul) not mention his earthly life at all? The gospels, the supposed 'witnesses' do not show up until something like forty years later. Paul never mentions any earthly life at all of Jesus. This is odd, if Jesus was a real person, don't you think?
My Response: What you take to be self evident is actually very contentious. You say there is a document that says what Jesus did. You are referring to the New Testament, correct? If so, there are a few problems with that document:
1. The Gospels are all drawn from Mark. In otherwords, the other gospels add to Mark, manipulate it, and so on to form their own version of events. This conclusion is not contraversial in the scholarly community. Mark is dated several decades AFTER the events are supposed to have happened. If this doesn't bother you, think of how fast it takes for a rumor/urban legend/etc to spread.
2. Mark is not written as history. This is also fairly uncontraversial. Mark is teaching a message, it is not teaching history and as a matter of fact, the original Mark ends with the women going to the tomb (IIRC). The attestations of Jesus appearing were added to Mark. There are too many details in Mark (and the other gospels) that give it away that this is not history. There are discussions that the disciples could not have heard: Such as Jesus being on the cross - remember they weren't around, so how did they hear what he said? Also, how did they know that Pilot found no fault with him? How did anyone know about the temptation of Christ? How did anyone write down the events in Gesthemane (sp?), when the disciples were asleep?
3. The original documents do not have *names* on them. They were anonymous. It was only around 200 AD that the traditional names were added to them.
4. The whole dieing and resurrecting theme was *common* during the days of Jesus. In fact, the whole end of the world, there is a messiah was common. Check out Josephus - Jesus wasn't the only 'Jesus'.
5. Check out the early Christian's apologetics against the pagans. As an example, check out Justin's apologetics. He does not argue that Christianity was unique, that their beliefs were unique, instead he argues that Christian beliefs are on par with Roman beliefs. He specifically mentions virgin births of Jesus and I think Perseus - trying to suggest that the Christians weren't very different.
6. Why are there no contemporary sources for Jesus? There were at least 40 historians in and around Jerusalem at the time of Jesus and not one of them mentions him. Instead the earliest mention is decades after his death.
Which is ABSURD if you believe the new testament. Seriously, are we to believe that Saints jumped out of their graves (as in the gospel of Matthew) and NO ONE bothered to write anything?
7. Why does the earliest Christian source we have (Paul) not mention his earthly life at all? The gospels, the supposed 'witnesses' do not show up until something like forty years later. Paul never mentions any earthly life at all of Jesus. This is odd, if Jesus was a real person, don't you think?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 16, 2008 08:05AM
Okay, and now for the hero savior of vietnam, taken from here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/whynotchristian.html
Hero Savior of Vietnam
Suppose I told you there was a soldier in the Vietnam War named "Hero Savior" who miraculously calmed storms, healed wounds, conjured food and water out of thin air, and then was blown up by artillery, but appeared again whole and alive three days later, giving instructions to his buddies before flying up into outer space right before their very eyes. Would you believe me? Certainly not. You would ask me to prove it.
So I would give you all the evidence I have. But all I have are some vague war letters by a guy who never really met Hero Savior in person, and a handful of stories written over thirty years later by some guys named Bill, Bob, Carl, and Joe. I don't know for sure who these guys are. I don't even know their last names. There are only unconfirmed rumors that they were or knew some of the war buddies of Hero Savior. They might have written earlier than we think, or later, but no one really knows. No one can find any earlier documentation to confirm their stories, either, or their service during the war, or even find these guys to interview them. So we don't know if they really are who others claim, and we're not even sure these are the guys who actually wrote the stories. You see, the undated pamphlets circulating under their names don't say "by Bill" or "by Bob," but "as told by Bill" and "as told by Bob." Besides all that, we also can't find any record of a Hero Savior serving in the war. He might have been a native guide whose name never made it into official records, but still, none of the historians of the war ever mention him, or his amazing deeds, or even the reports of them that surely would have spread far and wide.
Besides the dubious evidence of these late, uncorroborated, unsourced, and suspicious stories, the best thing I can give you is that war correspondence I mentioned, some letters by an army sergeant actually from the war, who claims he was a skeptic who changed his mind. But he never met or saw Hero in life, and never mentions any of the miracles that Bob, Bill, Carl, and Joe talk about. In fact, the only thing this sergeant ever mentions is "seeing" Hero after his death, though not "in flesh and blood," but in a "revelation." That's it.
This sergeant also claims the spirit of Hero Savior now enables him and some others to "speak in tongues" and "prophecy" and heal some illnesses, but none of this has been confirmed or observed by anyone else on record, and none of it sounds any different than what thousands of other cults and gurus have claimed. So, too, for some unconfirmed reports that some of these believers, even this army sergeant, endured persecution or even died for believing they "saw Hero in a revelation"--a fact no more incredible than the Buddhists who set themselves on fire to protest the Vietnam War, certain they would be reincarnated, or the hundreds of people who voluntarily killed themselves at Jonestown, certain their leader was sent by God.
Okay. I've given you all that evidence. Would you believe me then? Certainly not. No one trusts documents that come decades after the fact by unknown authors, and hardly anyone believes the hundreds of gurus today who claim to see and speak to the spirits of the dead, heal, and predict the future. Every reasonable person expects and requires extensive corroboration by contemporary documents and confirmed eyewitness accounts. Everyone would expect here at least as much evidence as I'd need to prove I owned a nuclear missile, yet the standard required is actually that of proving I own an interstellar spacecraft--for these are clearly very extraordinary claims, and as we saw above, such claims require extraordinary evidence, as much as would be needed, for example, to convince the United Nations that I had an interstellar spacecraft on my lawn. Yet what we have for this Hero Savior doesn't even count as ordinary evidence, much less the extraordinary evidence we really need.
To complete the analogy, many other things would rightly bother us. Little is remarkable about the stories told of Hero Savior, for similar stories apparently have been told of numerous Vietnamese sorcerers and heroes throughout history--and no one believes them, so why should we make an exception for Hero? The documents we have from Bob, Bill, Carl, and Joe have also been tampered with--we've found some cases of forgery and editing in each of their stories by parties unknown, and we aren't sure we've caught it all. Apparently, their stories were used by several different cults to support their causes, and these cults all squabble over the exact details of the right cause, and so tell different stories or interpret the stories differently to serve their own particular agenda. And the earliest version, the one told by Bob, which both Bill and Joe clearly copied, added to, and edited (which Carl might have done, too, perhaps by borrowing loosely from Joe), appears to have been almost entirely constructed out of passages from an ancient Vietnamese poem, arranged and altered to tell a story full of symbolic and moral meaning. These and many other problems plague the evidence, leaving it even more suspect than normal.
This Hero Savior analogy entirely parallels the situation for Jesus.[7] Every reason we would have not to believe these Hero Savior stories applies to the stories of Jesus with all the same force. So if you agree there would be no good reason to believe these Hero Savior stories, you must also agree there is insufficient reason to believe the Jesus Christ stories. Hence I am not a Christian because the evidence is not good enough. For it is no better than the evidence proposed for Hero Savior, and that falls far short of the burden that would have to be met to confirm the very extraordinary claims surrounding him.
Hero Savior of Vietnam
Suppose I told you there was a soldier in the Vietnam War named "Hero Savior" who miraculously calmed storms, healed wounds, conjured food and water out of thin air, and then was blown up by artillery, but appeared again whole and alive three days later, giving instructions to his buddies before flying up into outer space right before their very eyes. Would you believe me? Certainly not. You would ask me to prove it.
So I would give you all the evidence I have. But all I have are some vague war letters by a guy who never really met Hero Savior in person, and a handful of stories written over thirty years later by some guys named Bill, Bob, Carl, and Joe. I don't know for sure who these guys are. I don't even know their last names. There are only unconfirmed rumors that they were or knew some of the war buddies of Hero Savior. They might have written earlier than we think, or later, but no one really knows. No one can find any earlier documentation to confirm their stories, either, or their service during the war, or even find these guys to interview them. So we don't know if they really are who others claim, and we're not even sure these are the guys who actually wrote the stories. You see, the undated pamphlets circulating under their names don't say "by Bill" or "by Bob," but "as told by Bill" and "as told by Bob." Besides all that, we also can't find any record of a Hero Savior serving in the war. He might have been a native guide whose name never made it into official records, but still, none of the historians of the war ever mention him, or his amazing deeds, or even the reports of them that surely would have spread far and wide.
Besides the dubious evidence of these late, uncorroborated, unsourced, and suspicious stories, the best thing I can give you is that war correspondence I mentioned, some letters by an army sergeant actually from the war, who claims he was a skeptic who changed his mind. But he never met or saw Hero in life, and never mentions any of the miracles that Bob, Bill, Carl, and Joe talk about. In fact, the only thing this sergeant ever mentions is "seeing" Hero after his death, though not "in flesh and blood," but in a "revelation." That's it.
This sergeant also claims the spirit of Hero Savior now enables him and some others to "speak in tongues" and "prophecy" and heal some illnesses, but none of this has been confirmed or observed by anyone else on record, and none of it sounds any different than what thousands of other cults and gurus have claimed. So, too, for some unconfirmed reports that some of these believers, even this army sergeant, endured persecution or even died for believing they "saw Hero in a revelation"--a fact no more incredible than the Buddhists who set themselves on fire to protest the Vietnam War, certain they would be reincarnated, or the hundreds of people who voluntarily killed themselves at Jonestown, certain their leader was sent by God.
Okay. I've given you all that evidence. Would you believe me then? Certainly not. No one trusts documents that come decades after the fact by unknown authors, and hardly anyone believes the hundreds of gurus today who claim to see and speak to the spirits of the dead, heal, and predict the future. Every reasonable person expects and requires extensive corroboration by contemporary documents and confirmed eyewitness accounts. Everyone would expect here at least as much evidence as I'd need to prove I owned a nuclear missile, yet the standard required is actually that of proving I own an interstellar spacecraft--for these are clearly very extraordinary claims, and as we saw above, such claims require extraordinary evidence, as much as would be needed, for example, to convince the United Nations that I had an interstellar spacecraft on my lawn. Yet what we have for this Hero Savior doesn't even count as ordinary evidence, much less the extraordinary evidence we really need.
To complete the analogy, many other things would rightly bother us. Little is remarkable about the stories told of Hero Savior, for similar stories apparently have been told of numerous Vietnamese sorcerers and heroes throughout history--and no one believes them, so why should we make an exception for Hero? The documents we have from Bob, Bill, Carl, and Joe have also been tampered with--we've found some cases of forgery and editing in each of their stories by parties unknown, and we aren't sure we've caught it all. Apparently, their stories were used by several different cults to support their causes, and these cults all squabble over the exact details of the right cause, and so tell different stories or interpret the stories differently to serve their own particular agenda. And the earliest version, the one told by Bob, which both Bill and Joe clearly copied, added to, and edited (which Carl might have done, too, perhaps by borrowing loosely from Joe), appears to have been almost entirely constructed out of passages from an ancient Vietnamese poem, arranged and altered to tell a story full of symbolic and moral meaning. These and many other problems plague the evidence, leaving it even more suspect than normal.
This Hero Savior analogy entirely parallels the situation for Jesus.[7] Every reason we would have not to believe these Hero Savior stories applies to the stories of Jesus with all the same force. So if you agree there would be no good reason to believe these Hero Savior stories, you must also agree there is insufficient reason to believe the Jesus Christ stories. Hence I am not a Christian because the evidence is not good enough. For it is no better than the evidence proposed for Hero Savior, and that falls far short of the burden that would have to be met to confirm the very extraordinary claims surrounding him.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
quantum
()
Date: December 16, 2008 09:20AM
Professor Pangloss - not sure if I follow everything that you are relating, but I do think the study of the historical (as opposed to the theological) Jesus is both healthy and fascinating. The historical Jesus was not generally studied with a critical eye for centuries for fear of offending the religious powers that be. The last thirty years has reflected an emerging and vibrant pattern of critical (not religious) historical study. And I think that all major religions would benefit from critical historical treatment - a difficult concept for many ascribe to some variants of faith, whether it be those at the McLean Bible church, Mormons, or any number of Muslim adherents. But in the end we benefit from separating history from theology, just as we do separating science and the inductive method from religion. By the way, I am by no means even a rank amateur on this subject, but have respect for a few divinity professors from my alma mater that are just making tremendous headway in this area.
In any event, on the topic of McLean Bible Church. I listen to Solomon's sermons occasionally and find them to be formulaic, simplistic, and overly conclusory in nature. I also find them at times to be intolerant, and am amused and at times a bit disgusted at his open criticism of other elements of faith, including Mormons (giving rise to the notion that the Mormon church is stealing his paying customers to his chagrin). And I am fascinated at how many people apparently digest his message without much heartburn. His sermons are not without some merit - his constant reminders that it is fairly easy in this life to go off the rails without some sort of moral construct (he wouldn't call it that, it is my term) are good reminders for us all. But it all comes at a price (including my unyielding desire to question and think), and it just isn't my cup of tea.
I hesitate to be more critical of this church (and many others like it) because they do in fact do good things for the community, and it does provide meaning to some people's lives. And I think criticism of entities such as this church would be far more persuasive if they were balanced and fair - not sure I quite get there on this score but again I do think there is a need to be fair with religious organizations because there is frankly a lot of good work they do that is wrongly overlooked or trivialized.
In any event, on the topic of McLean Bible Church. I listen to Solomon's sermons occasionally and find them to be formulaic, simplistic, and overly conclusory in nature. I also find them at times to be intolerant, and am amused and at times a bit disgusted at his open criticism of other elements of faith, including Mormons (giving rise to the notion that the Mormon church is stealing his paying customers to his chagrin). And I am fascinated at how many people apparently digest his message without much heartburn. His sermons are not without some merit - his constant reminders that it is fairly easy in this life to go off the rails without some sort of moral construct (he wouldn't call it that, it is my term) are good reminders for us all. But it all comes at a price (including my unyielding desire to question and think), and it just isn't my cup of tea.
I hesitate to be more critical of this church (and many others like it) because they do in fact do good things for the community, and it does provide meaning to some people's lives. And I think criticism of entities such as this church would be far more persuasive if they were balanced and fair - not sure I quite get there on this score but again I do think there is a need to be fair with religious organizations because there is frankly a lot of good work they do that is wrongly overlooked or trivialized.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
496
()
Date: December 16, 2008 09:25AM
Professor Pangloss, meet Spunky.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Jimmy
()
Date: December 16, 2008 09:56AM
Hey, it's a good gig. If the congregation wants to pay the guy six figures and perhaps his million-dollar home in Mantua, that's their choice. The sermons must be pretty enthralling. Jesus would likely commend the pastor's entrepreneurial spirit.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
quantum
()
Date: December 16, 2008 10:21AM
Jimmy - you are indeed correct. It is a very good gig.
The cynical could state that is is really another sales career.
The cynical could state that is is really another sales career.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Berdhuis
()
Date: December 16, 2008 10:30AM
quantum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hesitate to be more critical of this church (and
> many others like it) because they do in fact do
> good things for the community, and it does provide
> meaning to some people's lives. And I think
> criticism of entities such as this church would be
> far more persuasive if they were balanced and fair
> - not sure I quite get there on this score but
> again I do think there is a need to be fair with
> religious organizations because there is frankly a
> lot of good work they do that is wrongly
> overlooked or trivialized.
I think you're right, Quantum, but there is so much more that congregations could do (but only together, not alone) if it weren't for our pride-driven obsession to evangelize people strictly into our own groups/denominations. The fear of accepting historical and theological differences of opinion have tragically undone what Christianity could be right now.
I am always leery of a positive message with strings attached, and sometimes wonder if it would have been better not getting that message to begin with.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hesitate to be more critical of this church (and
> many others like it) because they do in fact do
> good things for the community, and it does provide
> meaning to some people's lives. And I think
> criticism of entities such as this church would be
> far more persuasive if they were balanced and fair
> - not sure I quite get there on this score but
> again I do think there is a need to be fair with
> religious organizations because there is frankly a
> lot of good work they do that is wrongly
> overlooked or trivialized.
I think you're right, Quantum, but there is so much more that congregations could do (but only together, not alone) if it weren't for our pride-driven obsession to evangelize people strictly into our own groups/denominations. The fear of accepting historical and theological differences of opinion have tragically undone what Christianity could be right now.
I am always leery of a positive message with strings attached, and sometimes wonder if it would have been better not getting that message to begin with.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: December 16, 2008 10:36AM
Alright, all you church people. I have a question that Christians should be able to answer:
What are the 10 commandments?
What are the 10 commandments?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Bob
()
Date: December 16, 2008 10:45AM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alright, all you church people. I have a question
> that Christians should be able to answer:
>
> What are the 10 commandments?
ain't thems those first 10 lines of the constitution?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alright, all you church people. I have a question
> that Christians should be able to answer:
>
> What are the 10 commandments?
ain't thems those first 10 lines of the constitution?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 16, 2008 10:53AM
Actually there are two sets of 'ten' commandments...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 16, 2008 10:54AM
As for the question of the historical Jesus - obviously I don't see it as a given. I'd flavor myself more of an agnostic on the question. I don't know whether a man named Jesus actually did exist, but I see no reason to accept his existence anymore then I would Hercules, Perseus, etc.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: December 16, 2008 11:18AM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually there are two sets of 'ten'
> commandments...
Which should be familiar to any Christian that's read Exodus. Moses smashed the first set about not killing, stealing, fucking your neighbor's wife, etc. They were re-written by God, and were drastically different from the first set; God actually made his covenant with Israel based on the second set.
If Vince actually knew anything about religion, he might be able to discuss it in a clear, rational manner. I guess research and critical thinking are a lot harder than just writing "Khristians are dumb, there is no god, lol."
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually there are two sets of 'ten'
> commandments...
Which should be familiar to any Christian that's read Exodus. Moses smashed the first set about not killing, stealing, fucking your neighbor's wife, etc. They were re-written by God, and were drastically different from the first set; God actually made his covenant with Israel based on the second set.
If Vince actually knew anything about religion, he might be able to discuss it in a clear, rational manner. I guess research and critical thinking are a lot harder than just writing "Khristians are dumb, there is no god, lol."
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Rod
()
Date: December 16, 2008 11:31AM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Actually there are two sets of 'ten'
> > commandments...
>
> Which should be familiar to any Christian that's
> read Exodus. Moses smashed the first set about
> not killing, stealing, fucking your neighbor's
> wife, etc. They were re-written by God, and were
> drastically different from the first set; God
> actually made his covenant with Israel based on
> the second set.
>
> If Vince actually knew anything about religion, he
> might be able to discuss it in a clear, rational
> manner. I guess research and critical thinking
> are a lot harder than just writing "Khristians are
> dumb, there is no god, lol."
I don't know of any sane society ever existing where murder, stealing and fucking your neighbors wife is the norm. I don't think diffrent ten commandments would be sustained by scriptural examination.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Actually there are two sets of 'ten'
> > commandments...
>
> Which should be familiar to any Christian that's
> read Exodus. Moses smashed the first set about
> not killing, stealing, fucking your neighbor's
> wife, etc. They were re-written by God, and were
> drastically different from the first set; God
> actually made his covenant with Israel based on
> the second set.
>
> If Vince actually knew anything about religion, he
> might be able to discuss it in a clear, rational
> manner. I guess research and critical thinking
> are a lot harder than just writing "Khristians are
> dumb, there is no god, lol."
I don't know of any sane society ever existing where murder, stealing and fucking your neighbors wife is the norm. I don't think diffrent ten commandments would be sustained by scriptural examination.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: December 16, 2008 12:42PM
I know plenty about religion..and I use that knowledge as a basis for saying Khristians are dumb....and mean spirited.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
quantum
()
Date: December 16, 2008 01:08PM
Pangloss - I think the almost unanimous view of historians is that Jesus did exist. The details of course are subject to interpretation and argument.
Prophets and those claiming to messiahs were not unusual in Roman Judea. It is fair to state that from a historical perspective Jesus was among them.
And separating history from theology of course is challenging; nevertheless it is a worthy endeavor for those interested in that kind of scholarship.
Berdhuis - I am not a Christian myself, but I am not ready to lay the generally negative views on Christians all on Christians themselves, although like anyone else, they need to help themselves and do better. There are significant portions of our culture, and particularly our media and in academia, that demonize Christians unfairly and often inaccurately. And they do so out of a sense of intellectual and cultural snobbery and a concept of political economy that finds private virtue threatening. This is not to say that churches and Christians are above legitimate criticism - indeed the McLean Bible Church's huge edifice and seeming large expenditures on salaries for its leaders are legitimate grounds for criticism -- as well are its expressions of intolerance that issue from time to time -- all fair game to me. But so much of criticism is myopic - it ignores the good works churches often do, and the vast number of people within those organizations that do the right thing for very little (or no) recompense. I see that as a non-Christian and am appropriately respectful (or better put, try to be). Churches are in particular threatening to the left, secular culture that dominates our media and discourse, because private acts of virtue and charity detract from the assumption that all good and hope springs eternal from the edifice of a strong monolithic state. And rather than debate that assumption, it is much easier (and intellectually lazy, by the way) to simply conclusorily deride people of faith, and to do so emotionally without resort to facts and rigor.
And let's get this from the abstract to the concrete. A local church recently held a winter coat drive in the neighborhood. And frankly, it wasn't my rear end that was out the door on a cold Saturday morning collecting the coats so unfortunate people won't freeze. And it wasn't some Government agency either. So again, while dedicated to the notion of fair criticism, fair criticism means giving due regard for kind and caring people such as this.
Prophets and those claiming to messiahs were not unusual in Roman Judea. It is fair to state that from a historical perspective Jesus was among them.
And separating history from theology of course is challenging; nevertheless it is a worthy endeavor for those interested in that kind of scholarship.
Berdhuis - I am not a Christian myself, but I am not ready to lay the generally negative views on Christians all on Christians themselves, although like anyone else, they need to help themselves and do better. There are significant portions of our culture, and particularly our media and in academia, that demonize Christians unfairly and often inaccurately. And they do so out of a sense of intellectual and cultural snobbery and a concept of political economy that finds private virtue threatening. This is not to say that churches and Christians are above legitimate criticism - indeed the McLean Bible Church's huge edifice and seeming large expenditures on salaries for its leaders are legitimate grounds for criticism -- as well are its expressions of intolerance that issue from time to time -- all fair game to me. But so much of criticism is myopic - it ignores the good works churches often do, and the vast number of people within those organizations that do the right thing for very little (or no) recompense. I see that as a non-Christian and am appropriately respectful (or better put, try to be). Churches are in particular threatening to the left, secular culture that dominates our media and discourse, because private acts of virtue and charity detract from the assumption that all good and hope springs eternal from the edifice of a strong monolithic state. And rather than debate that assumption, it is much easier (and intellectually lazy, by the way) to simply conclusorily deride people of faith, and to do so emotionally without resort to facts and rigor.
And let's get this from the abstract to the concrete. A local church recently held a winter coat drive in the neighborhood. And frankly, it wasn't my rear end that was out the door on a cold Saturday morning collecting the coats so unfortunate people won't freeze. And it wasn't some Government agency either. So again, while dedicated to the notion of fair criticism, fair criticism means giving due regard for kind and caring people such as this.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 16, 2008 01:15PM
quantum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss - I think the almost unanimous view of
> historians is that Jesus did exist. The details
> of course are subject to interpretation and
> argument.
>
Most historians do believe that there is a historical person at the core of the Jesus myth, this is true. I don't see any reason to hold to this, so I differ from them.
> Prophets and those claiming to messiahs were not
> unusual in Roman Judea. It is fair to state that
> from a historical perspective Jesus was among
> them.
> And separating history from theology of course is
> challenging; nevertheless it is a worthy endeavor
> for those interested in that kind of scholarship.
True.
> Berdhuis - I am not a Christian myself, but I am
> not ready to lay the generally negative views on
> Christians all on Christians themselves, although
> like anyone else, they need to help themselves and
> do better. There are significant portions of our
> culture, and particularly our media and in
> academia, that demonize Christians unfairly and
> often inaccurately. And they do so out of a
> sense of intellectual and cultural snobbery and a
> concept of political economy that finds private
> virtue threatening. This is not to say that
> churches and Christians are above legitimate
> criticism - indeed the McLean Bible Church's huge
> edifice and seeming large expenditures on salaries
> for its leaders are legitimate grounds for
> criticism -- as well are its expressions of
> intolerance that issue from time to time -- all
> fair game to me. But so much of criticism is
> myopic - it ignores the good works churches often
> do, and the vast number of people within those
> organizations that do the right thing for very
> little (or no) recompense. I see that as a
> non-Christian and am appropriately respectful (or
> better put, try to be). Churches are in particular
> threatening to the left, secular culture that
> dominates our media and discourse, because private
> acts of virtue and charity detract from the
> assumption that all good and hope springs eternal
> from the edifice of a strong monolithic state.
> And rather than debate that assumption, it is much
> easier (and intellectually lazy, by the way) to
> simply conclusorily deride people of faith, and to
> do so emotionally without resort to facts and
> rigor.
>
> And let's get this from the abstract to the
> concrete. A local church recently held a winter
> coat drive in the neighborhood. And frankly, it
> wasn't my rear end that was out the door on a cold
> Saturday morning collecting the coats so
> unfortunate people won't freeze. And it wasn't
> some Government agency either. So again, while
> dedicated to the notion of fair criticism, fair
> criticism means giving due regard for kind and
> caring people such as this.
I completely agree with this sentiment.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss - I think the almost unanimous view of
> historians is that Jesus did exist. The details
> of course are subject to interpretation and
> argument.
>
Most historians do believe that there is a historical person at the core of the Jesus myth, this is true. I don't see any reason to hold to this, so I differ from them.
> Prophets and those claiming to messiahs were not
> unusual in Roman Judea. It is fair to state that
> from a historical perspective Jesus was among
> them.
> And separating history from theology of course is
> challenging; nevertheless it is a worthy endeavor
> for those interested in that kind of scholarship.
True.
> Berdhuis - I am not a Christian myself, but I am
> not ready to lay the generally negative views on
> Christians all on Christians themselves, although
> like anyone else, they need to help themselves and
> do better. There are significant portions of our
> culture, and particularly our media and in
> academia, that demonize Christians unfairly and
> often inaccurately. And they do so out of a
> sense of intellectual and cultural snobbery and a
> concept of political economy that finds private
> virtue threatening. This is not to say that
> churches and Christians are above legitimate
> criticism - indeed the McLean Bible Church's huge
> edifice and seeming large expenditures on salaries
> for its leaders are legitimate grounds for
> criticism -- as well are its expressions of
> intolerance that issue from time to time -- all
> fair game to me. But so much of criticism is
> myopic - it ignores the good works churches often
> do, and the vast number of people within those
> organizations that do the right thing for very
> little (or no) recompense. I see that as a
> non-Christian and am appropriately respectful (or
> better put, try to be). Churches are in particular
> threatening to the left, secular culture that
> dominates our media and discourse, because private
> acts of virtue and charity detract from the
> assumption that all good and hope springs eternal
> from the edifice of a strong monolithic state.
> And rather than debate that assumption, it is much
> easier (and intellectually lazy, by the way) to
> simply conclusorily deride people of faith, and to
> do so emotionally without resort to facts and
> rigor.
>
> And let's get this from the abstract to the
> concrete. A local church recently held a winter
> coat drive in the neighborhood. And frankly, it
> wasn't my rear end that was out the door on a cold
> Saturday morning collecting the coats so
> unfortunate people won't freeze. And it wasn't
> some Government agency either. So again, while
> dedicated to the notion of fair criticism, fair
> criticism means giving due regard for kind and
> caring people such as this.
I completely agree with this sentiment.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Berdhuis
()
Date: December 16, 2008 02:09PM
Quantum,
Again, in general, I agree with you. However, there are some tawdry examples of Christianity gone awry, despite whatever incidental charity may have been borne from them, that make me wonder if we would have been better off if that particular ministry never saw the light of day: Jim and Tammy Faye Baker's PTL Club comes immediately to mind. There are others.
Again, in general, I agree with you. However, there are some tawdry examples of Christianity gone awry, despite whatever incidental charity may have been borne from them, that make me wonder if we would have been better off if that particular ministry never saw the light of day: Jim and Tammy Faye Baker's PTL Club comes immediately to mind. There are others.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Berdhuis
()
Date: December 16, 2008 03:06PM
By the way, Quantum, do you ascribe the left to a coalition of institutions, or issues? You've railed against it in this forum, and I just want to make sure I understand you precisely.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: December 16, 2008 03:36PM
The world would be a better place if all religions were eliminated. Not that a single problem would be solved if we did...people would still make up reasons to hate other people...but at least the debate would be elevated.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2008 09:51PM by Vince(1).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2008 09:51PM by Vince(1).
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Rod
()
Date: December 16, 2008 08:29PM
Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The world would be a better place if all religions
> were eliminated. Not that a single problem would
> be solved if we did...peole would still make up
> reasons to hate other people...but at least the
> debate would be elevated.
I agree Vince. It seems to me that God had in mind more of a barbeque and after dinner get discussion based on the story of God meeting with Abraham. There was no formal prayers, theologies, dogma, order of the service, sermons, pews, pulpits.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The world would be a better place if all religions
> were eliminated. Not that a single problem would
> be solved if we did...peole would still make up
> reasons to hate other people...but at least the
> debate would be elevated.
I agree Vince. It seems to me that God had in mind more of a barbeque and after dinner get discussion based on the story of God meeting with Abraham. There was no formal prayers, theologies, dogma, order of the service, sermons, pews, pulpits.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Father Guido Sarduchi
()
Date: December 20, 2008 11:21PM
I heard through the grapevine Lon Solomon sells absolution vouchers much in the same way the early Catholic church used to. If you pay a certain amount to MBC you in turn receive a grant of absolution for any one of your sins...even the touching of little children.....Hmmm that's funny....I wondered why I saw so many priests attending service at a bible church....
can anyone confirm or deny this???
can anyone confirm or deny this???
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mandy
()
Date: December 20, 2008 11:24PM
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
tubby
()
Date: December 21, 2008 12:34AM
Anybody that throws their hard earned dollars into Lon's basket is an idiot.
Not a sermon, just a fact.
Not a sermon, just a fact.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Bob
()
Date: December 21, 2008 04:56AM
Father Guido Sarduchi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I heard through the grapevine Lon Solomon sells
> absolution vouchers much in the same way the early
> Catholic church used to. If you pay a certain
> amount to MBC you in turn receive a grant of
> absolution for any one of your sins...even the
> touching of little children.....Hmmm that's
> funny....I wondered why I saw so many priests
> attending service at a bible church....
>
>
>
>
>
> can anyone confirm or deny this???
Well, if that were true, then in that case, at least, I'd have to say "more power to him!" because anyone stupid enough to believe that they can "buy forgiveness" ain't that bright in the first place and has no business having money.
I never even understood the concept of "confession" the way many people believe it works, that by telling a priest all the bad things you did and then saying a few hail marys and a few our fathers, everything is right in the world and God won't hold a grudge. I especially can't comprehend how stupid you'd need to be to think that slipping the priest a little cash is going to work any better. Can stupid people buy their way into heaven????
-------------------------------------------------------
> I heard through the grapevine Lon Solomon sells
> absolution vouchers much in the same way the early
> Catholic church used to. If you pay a certain
> amount to MBC you in turn receive a grant of
> absolution for any one of your sins...even the
> touching of little children.....Hmmm that's
> funny....I wondered why I saw so many priests
> attending service at a bible church....
>
>
>
>
>
> can anyone confirm or deny this???
Well, if that were true, then in that case, at least, I'd have to say "more power to him!" because anyone stupid enough to believe that they can "buy forgiveness" ain't that bright in the first place and has no business having money.
I never even understood the concept of "confession" the way many people believe it works, that by telling a priest all the bad things you did and then saying a few hail marys and a few our fathers, everything is right in the world and God won't hold a grudge. I especially can't comprehend how stupid you'd need to be to think that slipping the priest a little cash is going to work any better. Can stupid people buy their way into heaven????
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
ThatsRidiculous!
()
Date: December 21, 2008 10:28AM
Father Guido Sarduchi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I heard through the grapevine Lon Solomon sells
> absolution vouchers much in the same way the early
> Catholic church used to. If you pay a certain
> amount to MBC you in turn receive a grant of
> absolution for any one of your sins...even the
> touching of little children.....Hmmm that's
> funny....I wondered why I saw so many priests
> attending service at a bible church....
Say what you will about the WalMart aura of that traffic monstrosity, the incessant commercialism and self promotion by Solomon- NO ONE is selling absolution.
You are a hater who is trying to drop an untrue turd and stir things up. Get real and get a life.
>
>
> can anyone confirm or deny this???
-------------------------------------------------------
> I heard through the grapevine Lon Solomon sells
> absolution vouchers much in the same way the early
> Catholic church used to. If you pay a certain
> amount to MBC you in turn receive a grant of
> absolution for any one of your sins...even the
> touching of little children.....Hmmm that's
> funny....I wondered why I saw so many priests
> attending service at a bible church....
Say what you will about the WalMart aura of that traffic monstrosity, the incessant commercialism and self promotion by Solomon- NO ONE is selling absolution.
You are a hater who is trying to drop an untrue turd and stir things up. Get real and get a life.
>
>
> can anyone confirm or deny this???
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
lolol
()
Date: December 21, 2008 01:31PM
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...
You are actually saying that's not his house? Wow...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
SoWhat
()
Date: December 26, 2008 03:28PM
How about we leave the debating to the professions?
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=debates_main
Enjoy!
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=debates_main
Enjoy!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Reasonable
()
Date: December 27, 2008 12:43AM
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:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
AC
()
Date: December 30, 2008 11:26AM
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...
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...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 30, 2008 11:56AM
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.
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Martha
()
Date: December 30, 2008 01:21PM
Oh yeh! a book club.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: December 30, 2008 02:51PM
A creationist cannot and will never win a debate with a scientist or historian.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 30, 2008 02:58PM
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Ann
()
Date: January 03, 2009 10:55AM
I wonder if Jesus would have lived in the Vatican...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: January 03, 2009 11:11AM
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).
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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).
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
truthsayer
()
Date: January 04, 2009 01:08PM
we will be praying for the clown who posted this crap.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
SoWhat
()
Date: January 04, 2009 07:22PM
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!
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
KL
()
Date: January 04, 2009 11:53PM
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.
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
K
()
Date: January 05, 2009 12:06AM
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.
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
K
()
Date: January 05, 2009 01:13AM
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.
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
K
()
Date: January 05, 2009 01:28AM
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.
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 05, 2009 11:05AM
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. "
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. "
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
jonie
()
Date: January 12, 2009 12:37PM
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
RESton Peace
()
Date: January 12, 2009 12:57PM
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.
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Yahweh
()
Date: January 12, 2009 01:06PM
I don't exist. Get over it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: January 12, 2009 01:19PM
Faith is a good and healthy thing. Religion is a bullshit crutch.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
not sure i agree
()
Date: January 12, 2009 03:08PM
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.
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 12, 2009 03:22PM
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.
My Response: I've done just that - it didn't help.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: January 12, 2009 03:25PM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
dude
()
Date: January 12, 2009 04:30PM
Yahweh, stop wasting taxpayers' dollars and get back to work, county employee.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
watchmaker
()
Date: January 12, 2009 05:33PM
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/
http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703/
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 13, 2009 11:33AM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
justgiveme
()
Date: January 13, 2009 12:37PM
if McLean Bible Church is in China, will it be branded a "cult"?????
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
gykgyk
()
Date: January 15, 2009 03:44AM
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
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 17, 2009 11:05AM
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."
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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."
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Goatfacedwog
()
Date: January 17, 2009 11:33AM
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: January 17, 2009 12:44PM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
TRICKIE
()
Date: January 17, 2009 12:49PM
Oh just join a Catholic church. They are more normal. Plus they don't care how you dress at Mass.
Trickie
Trickie
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Goatfacedwog
()
Date: January 17, 2009 01:31PM
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.
Being capable of doing something and actually doing it are two entirely different things.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Steve Wilhite
()
Date: January 17, 2009 01:41PM
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.
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 17, 2009 05:55PM
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.'
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.'
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Goatfacedwog
()
Date: January 17, 2009 06:02PM
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: January 17, 2009 06:16PM
Goatfacedwog Wrote:
> Being capable of doing something and actually
> doing it are two entirely different things.
Jonestown.
> Being capable of doing something and actually
> doing it are two entirely different things.
Jonestown.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Walter Sobcheck
()
Date: January 18, 2009 10:04AM
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.
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
dono
()
Date: January 18, 2009 10:12AM
McLean Bible is a business networking group - everyone knows that. Bring your business cards!!!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: January 18, 2009 10:22AM
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).
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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).
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: January 18, 2009 11:17AM
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Cotton Mather
()
Date: January 18, 2009 11:28AM
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.
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: January 18, 2009 02:06PM
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?
> 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?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Cotton Mather
()
Date: January 18, 2009 02:15PM
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.
Trying to prove or disprove matters of faith is ultimately an exercise in futility.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 18, 2009 04:34PM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 18, 2009 04:40PM
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?
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Goatfacedwog
()
Date: January 18, 2009 04:46PM
"Goatfacedwog" ... harsh name ... are you too a survivor of the British [Outward Bound?] educational system?
Too fuckin right!
Too fuckin right!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 19, 2009 10:39AM
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.)
-------------------------------------------------------
> "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.)
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Goatfacedwog
()
Date: January 19, 2009 12:01PM
Indubitably. I think.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: January 19, 2009 12:08PM
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!
> 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!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 19, 2009 12:32PM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: January 19, 2009 01:05PM
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
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Cotton Mather
()
Date: January 19, 2009 01:50PM
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.
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 19, 2009 01:52PM
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).
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.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:
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].
"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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: January 19, 2009 02:40PM
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
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 19, 2009 03:03PM
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.)
3) It's not 'madness' to fear annihilation. Physicist Heinz Pagels used to dream about falling off of a mountain:
> -------------------------------------------------
> 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?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.
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!
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."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.
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."
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 19, 2009 03:30PM
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.]
edit by Cary: closed open "bold" tag
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2009 08:54PM by Cary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: January 19, 2009 04:27PM
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.
> 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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Rectumite
()
Date: January 19, 2009 04:30PM
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......
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......
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
dono
()
Date: January 19, 2009 04:36PM
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.
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: January 19, 2009 04:36PM
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
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 19, 2009 04:40PM
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.You have to stand on Christian ground to swing your sword against 'unChristian' values.
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Rectumite
()
Date: January 19, 2009 04:44PM
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...
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...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: January 19, 2009 04:54PM
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
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 19, 2009 06:04PM
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.
----------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Genevieve
()
Date: January 19, 2009 07:08PM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
...
>
> 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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 19, 2009 07:14PM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 19, 2009 07:28PM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 19, 2009 07:41PM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 19, 2009 07:51PM
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?
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: January 19, 2009 08:48PM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 20, 2009 07:34AM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Cotton Mather
()
Date: January 20, 2009 09:57AM
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.
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 20, 2009 10:01AM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 20, 2009 10:02AM
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Cotton Mather
()
Date: January 20, 2009 10:05AM
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]
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]
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 20, 2009 10:19AM
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.
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 20, 2009 10:21AM
You do realize I'm not numbers, don't you?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Cotton Mather
()
Date: January 20, 2009 10:24AM
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 20, 2009 10:29AM
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?
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Cotton Mather
()
Date: January 20, 2009 10:33AM
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 20, 2009 10:39AM
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Cotton Mather
()
Date: January 20, 2009 10:48AM
That's what I suspected. It appears that Numbers has slunk off like a whipped cur.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 20, 2009 11:22AM
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.
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."
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).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.
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.
Scientists speculate about "the first three minutes" and the "last minutes" of the cosmos -- but it is all 'theoretical theory.'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."
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).
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."
Re: McLean Bible Church (I hope to remember not to use the last word previously used by others)
Posted by:
K
()
Date: January 20, 2009 11:27AM
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.
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church (I hope to remember not to use the last word previously used by others)
Posted by:
Cotton Mather
()
Date: January 20, 2009 11:29AM
That was the most sensible post on this entire thread. Thank you.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 20, 2009 11:31AM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 20, 2009 11:53AM
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: January 20, 2009 12:00PM
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?
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Genevieve
()
Date: January 20, 2009 12:01PM
"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!
Name that band!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: January 20, 2009 12:03PM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 20, 2009 12:19PM
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?
-------------------------------------------------------
> "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?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 20, 2009 12:23PM
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?
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?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Cotton Mather
()
Date: January 20, 2009 12:30PM
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?
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?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Cotton Mather
()
Date: January 20, 2009 12:36PM
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.
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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: January 20, 2009 12:38PM
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.
> 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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 20, 2009 12:39PM
You should cite wikipedia (and any other quotes), when you use it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Cotton Mather
()
Date: January 20, 2009 12:52PM
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.
Your ignorance is truly stupefying. The "our country" bit is further proof. What country do you think this was in the 17th century? Who won the presidential election of 1620, you ignoramus.
Your ignorance is truly stupefying. The "our country" bit is further proof. What country do you think this was in the 17th century? Who won the presidential election of 1620, you ignoramus.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 20, 2009 01:37PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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 rosy? That we chuck
> truth and reason in favor of that which makes us
> feel better?
-------------------------------------------------------
1) "Ignore reality" begs the question!
2) Christianity is far from a "rosy worldview." On the contrary, it looks ahead, with tears, to "sinners in the hands of an angry God."
3) Nihilism can be 'rosy' ... because there is only sporadic 'justice' and the punishment seldom fits the crime. Dateline and 20/20 have made an industry of such unsolved cases (Jon Benet Ramsey, for example).
4) The Christian can leave ultimate justice to God, forgiving because he has been forgiven. Paul wrote: "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord." (Romans 12).
5) If I thought that Christianity were not "true and reasonable" I would be the first to rejoin Bill Maher in aggressive Agnosticism (Atheism being dogmatic).
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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 rosy? That we chuck
> truth and reason in favor of that which makes us
> feel better?
-------------------------------------------------------
1) "Ignore reality" begs the question!
2) Christianity is far from a "rosy worldview." On the contrary, it looks ahead, with tears, to "sinners in the hands of an angry God."
3) Nihilism can be 'rosy' ... because there is only sporadic 'justice' and the punishment seldom fits the crime. Dateline and 20/20 have made an industry of such unsolved cases (Jon Benet Ramsey, for example).
4) The Christian can leave ultimate justice to God, forgiving because he has been forgiven. Paul wrote: "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord." (Romans 12).
5) If I thought that Christianity were not "true and reasonable" I would be the first to rejoin Bill Maher in aggressive Agnosticism (Atheism being dogmatic).
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 20, 2009 01:45PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 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 rosy? That we chuck
> > truth and reason in favor of that which makes
> us
> > feel better?
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> 1) "Ignore reality" begs the question!
It's one of the premises to my point.
> 2) Christianity is far from a "rosy worldview." On
> the contrary, it looks ahead, with tears, to
> "sinners in the hands of an angry God."
You can say what you like, however I'd think that an eternity in 'heaven' strongly disagrees with you.
> 3) Nihilism can be 'rosy' ... because there is
> only sporadic 'justice' and the punishment seldom
> fits the crime. Dateline and 20/20 have made an
> industry of such unsolved cases (Jon Benet Ramsey,
> for example).
This seems beside the point. I also don't see the relevance of pointing to Jon Benet Ramsey. Is it your presumption that the parents did it and that this was obvious?
> 4) The Christian can leave ultimate justice to
> God, forgiving because he has been forgiven. Paul
> wrote: "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave
> room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is
> mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord."
> (Romans 12).
I'm sorry, what's the relevance to what I wrote?
> 5) If I thought that Christianity were not "true
> and reasonable" I would be the first to rejoin
> Bill Maher in aggressive Agnosticism (Atheism
> being dogmatic).
This remains to be seen.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 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 rosy? That we chuck
> > truth and reason in favor of that which makes
> us
> > feel better?
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> 1) "Ignore reality" begs the question!
It's one of the premises to my point.
> 2) Christianity is far from a "rosy worldview." On
> the contrary, it looks ahead, with tears, to
> "sinners in the hands of an angry God."
You can say what you like, however I'd think that an eternity in 'heaven' strongly disagrees with you.
> 3) Nihilism can be 'rosy' ... because there is
> only sporadic 'justice' and the punishment seldom
> fits the crime. Dateline and 20/20 have made an
> industry of such unsolved cases (Jon Benet Ramsey,
> for example).
This seems beside the point. I also don't see the relevance of pointing to Jon Benet Ramsey. Is it your presumption that the parents did it and that this was obvious?
> 4) The Christian can leave ultimate justice to
> God, forgiving because he has been forgiven. Paul
> wrote: "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave
> room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is
> mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord."
> (Romans 12).
I'm sorry, what's the relevance to what I wrote?
> 5) If I thought that Christianity were not "true
> and reasonable" I would be the first to rejoin
> Bill Maher in aggressive Agnosticism (Atheism
> being dogmatic).
This remains to be seen.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 20, 2009 02:25PM
Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bill Maher is angry and aggressive? If anyone is
> angry and aggressive, it's you and Cotton "picker"
> Mather.
------------------------------------------------
1) I have sought to be neither angry nor aggressive nor dismissive of others' views, even where we completely disagree.
2) The Apostle Paul is the role model here. He wrote to the Romans: "I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel."
3) It always hurts to talk about these issues, which is why most of us ignore them and live in 'romantic' fantasies. E.g.,
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bill Maher is angry and aggressive? If anyone is
> angry and aggressive, it's you and Cotton "picker"
> Mather.
------------------------------------------------
1) I have sought to be neither angry nor aggressive nor dismissive of others' views, even where we completely disagree.
2) The Apostle Paul is the role model here. He wrote to the Romans: "I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel."
3) It always hurts to talk about these issues, which is why most of us ignore them and live in 'romantic' fantasies. E.g.,
Our most-prolific fictional TV is homicide-obsessed ... Law & Order, CSI ... crimes are solved and justice is dispensed, like LensCrafters, in about an hour.
The brilliantly written Desperate Housewives opens with a Garden-of-Eden scene. Murder is trivialized. The always-condescending narrator is the spirit of a suicide housewife. Implicitly and sometimes explicitly, the show tells us every week what we all long to hear ... that personality continues and everything is OK for everybody after death, be it natural or suicide or murder.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: January 20, 2009 02:53PM
Eliot Ness has very pretty posts. This place is always so drab.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 20, 2009 03:16PM
Rectumite Wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------
> I think Elliot Ness must have found Lon Solomon's stash!
>
> If Solomon is doing it for God's sake alone, why take $800,000
> out of the baskets and live in a $2 million dollar house?
--------------------------------------------------------
1) Apparently McLean Bible Church does not publish the salaries of its 250 employees ... does anyone know where the alleged salary $800k figure originated?
2) Fairfax County tax records show that the Solomon family's house cost $475k in 1999 (apx. $590k in today's dollars) and is now assessed at $1.15 million.
Q1: Who controls and audits MBC's finances ... and has anybody ever accused MBC of mismanaging money?
Q2: What should Lon Solomon's salary be?
Q3: How much should Solomon's house be worth, and how often should he downsize his housing in order to undercut our recent outrageous real estate inflation?
Q4: How many hours-per-week has Solomon worked since 1980 when he began at McLean Bible Church? What has his average hourly wage been over the past 30 years?
----------------------------------------------------------------
> I think Elliot Ness must have found Lon Solomon's stash!
>
> If Solomon is doing it for God's sake alone, why take $800,000
> out of the baskets and live in a $2 million dollar house?
--------------------------------------------------------
1) Apparently McLean Bible Church does not publish the salaries of its 250 employees ... does anyone know where the alleged salary $800k figure originated?
2) Fairfax County tax records show that the Solomon family's house cost $475k in 1999 (apx. $590k in today's dollars) and is now assessed at $1.15 million.
Q1: Who controls and audits MBC's finances ... and has anybody ever accused MBC of mismanaging money?
Q2: What should Lon Solomon's salary be?
Q3: How much should Solomon's house be worth, and how often should he downsize his housing in order to undercut our recent outrageous real estate inflation?
Q4: How many hours-per-week has Solomon worked since 1980 when he began at McLean Bible Church? What has his average hourly wage been over the past 30 years?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 20, 2009 03:43PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
> 2) Fairfax County tax records show that the
> Solomon family's house cost $475k in 1999 (apx.
> $590k in today's dollars) and is now assessed at
> $1.15 million.
Is that this month? Next month it'll be $1 million. The month after that, it'll be $950k....By Summer if this economic environment keeps up, it'll be $500k...
> 2) Fairfax County tax records show that the
> Solomon family's house cost $475k in 1999 (apx.
> $590k in today's dollars) and is now assessed at
> $1.15 million.
Is that this month? Next month it'll be $1 million. The month after that, it'll be $950k....By Summer if this economic environment keeps up, it'll be $500k...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 20, 2009 07:55PM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness has very pretty posts. This place is
> always so drab.
Thank you sir ... I'll make them prettier still as I determine what HTML syntax the Wikimedia system supports on this forum.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness has very pretty posts. This place is
> always so drab.
Thank you sir ... I'll make them prettier still as I determine what HTML syntax the Wikimedia system supports on this forum.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 20, 2009 08:36PM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
"Faith is a good and healthy thing. Religion is a bullshit crutch."
Ness replies:
I agree, if you are referring to hypocritical, narcissistic, womanizing, greedy Elmer Gantry 'religion' ...
as opposed to honest, intelligent, informed 'faith' in Jesus as the Messiah of historic Reformation Christianity.
-------------------------------------------------------
"Faith is a good and healthy thing. Religion is a bullshit crutch."Ness replies:
I agree, if you are referring to hypocritical, narcissistic, womanizing, greedy Elmer Gantry 'religion' ... as opposed to honest, intelligent, informed 'faith' in Jesus as the Messiah of historic Reformation Christianity.Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
SRE
()
Date: January 21, 2009 09:27AM
Elliot... while you are at it, learn how to close your tags.
That's OK.... I did it for you.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2009 12:38PM by SRE.
That's OK.... I did it for you.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2009 12:38PM by SRE.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 21, 2009 09:50AM
SRE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Elliot... while you are at it, learn how to close
> your tags.
The forum cautiously encapsulates each of our posts within a class="PhorumReadBodyText" DIV ...
-------------------------------------------------------
> Elliot... while you are at it, learn how to close
> your tags.
The forum cautiously encapsulates each of our posts within a class="PhorumReadBodyText" DIV ...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: January 21, 2009 06:34PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> "Faith is a good and healthy thing. Religion is
> a bullshit crutch."
> Ness replies:
> I agree, if you are referring to hypocritical,
> narcissistic, womanizing, greedy Elmer Gantry
> 'religion' ...
> as opposed to honest, intelligent, informed
> 'faith' in Jesus as the Messiah of historic
> Reformation Christianity.
nah...
Faith is a dumb and unhealthy thing - especially when proof of other explanations is freely available
Religion is worse
Science has done away with the need or justification for either
Time to condemn them both into the trashcan of history along with slavery and running around in mammoth skins and just move on...
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> "Faith is a good and healthy thing. Religion is
> a bullshit crutch."
> Ness replies:
> I agree, if you are referring to hypocritical,
> narcissistic, womanizing, greedy Elmer Gantry
> 'religion' ...
> as opposed to honest, intelligent, informed
> 'faith' in Jesus as the Messiah of historic
> Reformation Christianity.
nah...
Faith is a dumb and unhealthy thing - especially when proof of other explanations is freely available
Religion is worse
Science has done away with the need or justification for either
Time to condemn them both into the trashcan of history along with slavery and running around in mammoth skins and just move on...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: January 21, 2009 07:21PM
I think we'll know in 20 years where we're going with religion. If the number of religious people hasn't been cut at least in half by then, we're all in big trouble. That's assuming some religious nut hasn't blown us all to Kingdom Cum by then.
A lot has been made during the inauguration about how far we've come with civil rights since the 50's and 60's. In basically 40-50 years, we've all but done away with racism and segregation (aside from a few idiots here and there). So the next logical step in the right direction is putting religion behind us and getting on with life as we know it. That includes doing away with voodoo, witchcraft, Satan worship and all this other nonsense that many people still believe in. Sure, it's cool in the movies and it's still fun to imagine and fantasize about, but it bothers me that it's still a big part of politics, which it has absolutely no place in.
I was glad to hear Obama recognize "non-believers" in his speech yesterday, but there was still WAY too much preaching, praising, hands on bibles and then today (Wednesday), a damn church service.
Black folks finally got their president, I hope Americans have the courage some day to elect a secular or "non-believer" as well.
A lot has been made during the inauguration about how far we've come with civil rights since the 50's and 60's. In basically 40-50 years, we've all but done away with racism and segregation (aside from a few idiots here and there). So the next logical step in the right direction is putting religion behind us and getting on with life as we know it. That includes doing away with voodoo, witchcraft, Satan worship and all this other nonsense that many people still believe in. Sure, it's cool in the movies and it's still fun to imagine and fantasize about, but it bothers me that it's still a big part of politics, which it has absolutely no place in.
I was glad to hear Obama recognize "non-believers" in his speech yesterday, but there was still WAY too much preaching, praising, hands on bibles and then today (Wednesday), a damn church service.
Black folks finally got their president, I hope Americans have the courage some day to elect a secular or "non-believer" as well.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 21, 2009 11:03PM
Nutters, Mephisto, & friends ...
I mentioned our animated correspondence to Dr. Caroline Crocker today.
If you're not afraid of being 'Expelled,' she refers you to these books which academia seems to want
to see burned rather than read. (Especially Icons of Evolution and The Edge of Evolution.)
BTW, she has published a brief response to Expelled Exposed and is writing a book about her adventures.
I mentioned our animated correspondence to Dr. Caroline Crocker today.
If you're not afraid of being 'Expelled,' she refers you to these books which academia seems to want
to see burned rather than read. (Especially Icons of Evolution and The Edge of Evolution.)
BTW, she has published a brief response to Expelled Exposed and is writing a book about her adventures.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 22, 2009 08:51AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters, Mephisto, & friends ... I mentioned our
> animated correspondence to Dr. Caroline Crocker
> today.
> If you're not afraid of being 'Expelled,' she
> refers you to these books which academia seems to
> want to see burned rather than read. (Especially
> Icons of Evolution and The Edge of Evolution.)BTW,
> she has published a brief response to Expelled
> Exposed and is writing a book about her
> adventures.
I've read Icons and Behe's first book - I am far from impressed by that pseudoscience. It relies on an appeal to ignorance mainly. I've also seen bits of Expelled and it strains credulity. ID is no more credible then when Pailey argued for it in the 1800's. The modern proponents have failed to construct a valid scientific theory. ID is no more legitimate then afrocentricism, holocaust denial, flat-earthism, phlogistan, and the rest. It should be treated as those ideas are.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2009 08:57AM by Professor Pangloss.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters, Mephisto, & friends ... I mentioned our
> animated correspondence to Dr. Caroline Crocker
> today.
> If you're not afraid of being 'Expelled,' she
> refers you to these books which academia seems to
> want to see burned rather than read. (Especially
> Icons of Evolution and The Edge of Evolution.)BTW,
> she has published a brief response to Expelled
> Exposed and is writing a book about her
> adventures.
I've read Icons and Behe's first book - I am far from impressed by that pseudoscience. It relies on an appeal to ignorance mainly. I've also seen bits of Expelled and it strains credulity. ID is no more credible then when Pailey argued for it in the 1800's. The modern proponents have failed to construct a valid scientific theory. ID is no more legitimate then afrocentricism, holocaust denial, flat-earthism, phlogistan, and the rest. It should be treated as those ideas are.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2009 08:57AM by Professor Pangloss.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: January 22, 2009 08:54AM
Numbers Wrote:
>
> I was glad to hear Obama recognize "non-believers"
> in his speech yesterday, but there was still WAY
> too much preaching, praising, hands on bibles and
> then today (Wednesday), a damn church service.
> Black folks finally got their president, I hope
> Americans have the courage some day to elect a
> secular or "non-believer" as well.
I think there has been more then one closet non-believers in the Oval Office.
>
> I was glad to hear Obama recognize "non-believers"
> in his speech yesterday, but there was still WAY
> too much preaching, praising, hands on bibles and
> then today (Wednesday), a damn church service.
> Black folks finally got their president, I hope
> Americans have the courage some day to elect a
> secular or "non-believer" as well.
I think there has been more then one closet non-believers in the Oval Office.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 22, 2009 08:56AM
I just read Dr. Crocker's response. In particular I find it odd that she refers readers to popular books that have not gone through peer review, instead of scientific article which have. It strikes me as obvious that the ID proponents wish to be seperated from creationists - even though their beginnings stem from creationists (and Philip Johnson and his 'wedge'). Instead of waging a scientific war of ideas, ID proponents (modern creationists) are running a media campaign.
Where are their scientific theories?
Where are their empirical tests?
Where are their peer reviewed journal articles?
Where are their scientific theories?
Where are their empirical tests?
Where are their peer reviewed journal articles?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 22, 2009 09:14AM
Seriously, intelligent design doesn't only seek to destroy science (ie, it wishes to legitimize the appeal to ignorance as empirical evidence), it is also destroying religion. So we are now to believe that god created parasites - created wasps that lay their larva into catapillers, which then grow and eat the *still living* catapiller from the inside out.
Yes, that's brilliant design. Almost as brilliant as designing the Mexican tetra with eyes.
Keep the poor reasoning outside of science. Not only is intelligent design simply a god of the gaps, it doesn't explain anything. Why are our bodies 'designed' with our respiratory systems and our digestive systems close to one another? Is it because god likes to watch us choke?
Yes, that's brilliant design. Almost as brilliant as designing the Mexican tetra with eyes.
Keep the poor reasoning outside of science. Not only is intelligent design simply a god of the gaps, it doesn't explain anything. Why are our bodies 'designed' with our respiratory systems and our digestive systems close to one another? Is it because god likes to watch us choke?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: January 22, 2009 10:04AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters, Mephisto, & friends ... I mentioned our
> animated correspondence to Dr. Caroline Crocker
> today.
> If you're not afraid of being 'Expelled,' she
> refers you to these books which academia seems to
> want to see burned rather than read. (Especially
> Icons of Evolution and The Edge of Evolution.)BTW,
> she has published a brief response to Expelled
> Exposed and is writing a book about her
> adventures.
I don't follow Christianity because of the idea that it's supposed to be perfect, faultless, and the one true religion. However, all it takes is one tiny, little, insignificant contradiction to show that everything about the faith must be questioned. If one thing is not perfect and true, then one must question everything.
For example... I posted this in another thread, but it's relevant.
-------
For Jesus to be the messiah predicted in the Old Testament, he had to fulfill ALL of the Old Testament prophecies. One of them specifically states that he had to be a descendant of King David.
Bible lineage is traced through the man's side of the family, and Jacob is listed as a descendant of King David. However, God got Mary pregnant, not Jacob, which means that Jesus didn't fulfill all of the prophecies and thus cannot be the messiah. If Jacob boned Mary, then it wasn't a virgin birth, which means that Jesus didn't fulfill all of the prophecies and thus cannot be the messiah.
------
The church proper was NOT started by Jesus. It was started by Paul, who was known as Saul, a high-ranking pharisee and active persecuter of christians. He saw that no matter how hard he cracked down on them, the faith was still spreading. So he goes out into the middle of the desert all alone and has a vision of Jesus, comes back, and formalizes this new religion.
Need more evidence of how badly man has fucked this religion up? Do an image search for Jesus, and you'll find a lot of pictures of a handsome, bearded white man, instead of the dark-skinned, ugly jew that he actually was. But who would want to follow that? So we change a couple details here and there to make it "work" better, and ta da! we go from Jesus's message of love and peace to Ted Haggard sucking dick for meth.
I hope when you go to church, your wife covers her head and does not say a word, because the bible was very specific about that. Also, since homosexuality is an abomination as mentioned in Leviticus, and Jesus came to "fulfill the law, not abolish it," that means you also can't eat crab, lobster, or calamari, and if you touch your wife when she's bleeding from her vagina, you need to leave your community for ten days.
Oh, and if your daughter gets brutally raped but does not cry out for help, we stone your daughter.
Thanks, but I just don't think Christianity is for me.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters, Mephisto, & friends ... I mentioned our
> animated correspondence to Dr. Caroline Crocker
> today.
> If you're not afraid of being 'Expelled,' she
> refers you to these books which academia seems to
> want to see burned rather than read. (Especially
> Icons of Evolution and The Edge of Evolution.)BTW,
> she has published a brief response to Expelled
> Exposed and is writing a book about her
> adventures.
I don't follow Christianity because of the idea that it's supposed to be perfect, faultless, and the one true religion. However, all it takes is one tiny, little, insignificant contradiction to show that everything about the faith must be questioned. If one thing is not perfect and true, then one must question everything.
For example... I posted this in another thread, but it's relevant.
-------
For Jesus to be the messiah predicted in the Old Testament, he had to fulfill ALL of the Old Testament prophecies. One of them specifically states that he had to be a descendant of King David.
Bible lineage is traced through the man's side of the family, and Jacob is listed as a descendant of King David. However, God got Mary pregnant, not Jacob, which means that Jesus didn't fulfill all of the prophecies and thus cannot be the messiah. If Jacob boned Mary, then it wasn't a virgin birth, which means that Jesus didn't fulfill all of the prophecies and thus cannot be the messiah.
------
The church proper was NOT started by Jesus. It was started by Paul, who was known as Saul, a high-ranking pharisee and active persecuter of christians. He saw that no matter how hard he cracked down on them, the faith was still spreading. So he goes out into the middle of the desert all alone and has a vision of Jesus, comes back, and formalizes this new religion.
Need more evidence of how badly man has fucked this religion up? Do an image search for Jesus, and you'll find a lot of pictures of a handsome, bearded white man, instead of the dark-skinned, ugly jew that he actually was. But who would want to follow that? So we change a couple details here and there to make it "work" better, and ta da! we go from Jesus's message of love and peace to Ted Haggard sucking dick for meth.
I hope when you go to church, your wife covers her head and does not say a word, because the bible was very specific about that. Also, since homosexuality is an abomination as mentioned in Leviticus, and Jesus came to "fulfill the law, not abolish it," that means you also can't eat crab, lobster, or calamari, and if you touch your wife when she's bleeding from her vagina, you need to leave your community for ten days.
Oh, and if your daughter gets brutally raped but does not cry out for help, we stone your daughter.
Thanks, but I just don't think Christianity is for me.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Cotton Mather
()
Date: January 22, 2009 10:18AM
Oh, and if your daughter gets brutally raped but does not cry out for help, we stone your daughter.
You are being disingenuous. This is in line with fundamentalist Islam, not Christianity, fundamentalist or otherwise. The fact that you need to either reach back to the Roman era for "evidence" or lie outright to support your position merely shows that your position is based on nothing but bias and hatred.
You are being disingenuous. This is in line with fundamentalist Islam, not Christianity, fundamentalist or otherwise. The fact that you need to either reach back to the Roman era for "evidence" or lie outright to support your position merely shows that your position is based on nothing but bias and hatred.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: January 22, 2009 10:31AM
Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, and if your daughter gets brutally raped but
> does not cry out for help, we stone your daughter.
>
>
> You are being disingenuous. This is in line with
> fundamentalist Islam, not Christianity,
> fundamentalist or otherwise. The fact that you
> need to either reach back to the Roman era for
> "evidence" or lie outright to support your
> position merely shows that your position is based
> on nothing but bias and hatred.
Uh, oh! Someone needs to read their Bible!
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:23-24;&version=31;
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, and if your daughter gets brutally raped but
> does not cry out for help, we stone your daughter.
>
>
> You are being disingenuous. This is in line with
> fundamentalist Islam, not Christianity,
> fundamentalist or otherwise. The fact that you
> need to either reach back to the Roman era for
> "evidence" or lie outright to support your
> position merely shows that your position is based
> on nothing but bias and hatred.
Uh, oh! Someone needs to read their Bible!
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:23-24;&version=31;
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Cotton Mather
()
Date: January 22, 2009 10:57AM
Which happens to be the Old Testament, AKA The Talmud. So why not attack the Jews as well? They don't adhere to that archaic admonition either.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 22, 2009 11:09AM
Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which happens to be the Old Testament, AKA The
> Talmud. So why not attack the Jews as well? They
> don't adhere to that archaic admonition either.
Why do you suppose it's in the Bible, Cotton? Do you think that, at one time, God permitted it and now he's against it? Do you think it's just cultural baggage and it shouldn't be read as a law?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which happens to be the Old Testament, AKA The
> Talmud. So why not attack the Jews as well? They
> don't adhere to that archaic admonition either.
Why do you suppose it's in the Bible, Cotton? Do you think that, at one time, God permitted it and now he's against it? Do you think it's just cultural baggage and it shouldn't be read as a law?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: January 22, 2009 11:12AM
Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which happens to be the Old Testament, AKA The
> Talmud. So why not attack the Jews as well? They
> don't adhere to that archaic admonition either.
Uh, oh! Someone needs to read their Bible!
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&verse=17&version=31&context=verse
By your logic, we aren't bound by the Ten Commandments anymore, and homosexuality is not an abomination. Unless you're openly admitting that it's completely acceptable to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are "real".
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which happens to be the Old Testament, AKA The
> Talmud. So why not attack the Jews as well? They
> don't adhere to that archaic admonition either.
Uh, oh! Someone needs to read their Bible!
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&verse=17&version=31&context=verse
By your logic, we aren't bound by the Ten Commandments anymore, and homosexuality is not an abomination. Unless you're openly admitting that it's completely acceptable to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are "real".
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: January 22, 2009 11:13AM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cotton Mather Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Which happens to be the Old Testament, AKA The
> > Talmud. So why not attack the Jews as well?
> They
> > don't adhere to that archaic admonition either.
>
>
> Why do you suppose it's in the Bible, Cotton? Do
> you think that, at one time, God permitted it and
> now he's against it? Do you think it's just
> cultural baggage and it shouldn't be read as a
> law?
And what else has God changed his mind about?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cotton Mather Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Which happens to be the Old Testament, AKA The
> > Talmud. So why not attack the Jews as well?
> They
> > don't adhere to that archaic admonition either.
>
>
> Why do you suppose it's in the Bible, Cotton? Do
> you think that, at one time, God permitted it and
> now he's against it? Do you think it's just
> cultural baggage and it shouldn't be read as a
> law?
And what else has God changed his mind about?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: January 22, 2009 11:51AM
"He was for it, before he was against it", lol.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 22, 2009 12:34PM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For Jesus to be the messiah predicted in the Old Testament, he had to fulfill ALL of the Old Testament prophecies. One of them specifically states that he had to be a descendant of King David.
>
> Bible lineage is traced through the man's side of the family, andJacob [Joseph] is listed as a descendant of King David. However, God got Mary pregnant, not Jacob [Joseph], which means that Jesus didn't fulfill all of the prophecies and thus cannot be the messiah.
Ness replies:color=black> with notes from Chuck Missler, who points out that Jesus was indeed a legal descendant of David by virtue of the specific exception in the Torah, which was associated with daughters of Zelophehad.
Missler, just FYI, is a very rational Naval Academy grad and former Ph.D. 'rocket scientist' (yup, missiles) who will gutsily go right into a science fiction conference and challenge the UFO-obsessed audience to consider that if Christianity is true, the Bible is a prophecy-authenticated 'extraterrestrial' communication whose Christian cosmology therefore merits their inspection.
-------------------------------------------------------
> For Jesus to be the messiah predicted in the Old Testament, he had to fulfill ALL of the Old Testament prophecies. One of them specifically states that he had to be a descendant of King David.
>
> Bible lineage is traced through the man's side of the family, and
Ness replies:color=black> with notes from Chuck Missler, who points out that Jesus was indeed a legal descendant of David by virtue of the specific exception in the Torah, which was associated with daughters of Zelophehad.
| For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the Throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. (Isaiah 9:6-7) |
|
1) Mary was of the line of David, but through Nathan (the second surviving son of Bathsheba), not Solomon. 2) Applying the provisions of the Zelophehad exception, Heli, the father of Mary, properly adopted Joseph as his son-in-law. 3) The significance of the Davidic Covenant is one of the most impacting aspects surrounding the Christmas season. 4) The ultimate destiny of Jesus to rule on the Throne of David was confirmed by the Angel Gabriel in his famed announcement to Mary. 5) However, David’s throne didn’t exist in Jesus’ day. In fact, the gift of gold by the Magi made possible their flight to Egypt to evade the impending threat from Herod’s throne until that danger had elapsed. The subsequent years, raising the child in Nazareth (under the stigma of ostensible illegitimacy), were certainly more difficult that we can imagine. |
Missler, just FYI, is a very rational Naval Academy grad and former Ph.D. 'rocket scientist' (yup, missiles) who will gutsily go right into a science fiction conference and challenge the UFO-obsessed audience to consider that if Christianity is true, the Bible is a prophecy-authenticated 'extraterrestrial' communication whose Christian cosmology therefore merits their inspection.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 22, 2009 01:05PM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By your logic, we aren't bound by the Ten Commandments anymore, and homosexuality is not an abomination. Unless you're openly admitting that it's completely acceptable to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are "real".
Homosexuality is not specifically mentioned in the Ten Commandments. However, the Apostle Paul, in the blistering anthropology of Romans 1, reaffirms that homosexuality is abnormal and sinful, despite that fact that many of us are born that way ... just as we are some born alcoholics, etc. (Christianity asserts that in addition to "Intelligent Design" there was a "Curse" ... which could well be called a "Death Sentence Re-design" of fallen and distorted mankind.)
I repeat my assertion that in an uncreated, chance Darwinian cosmology there is never a basis for "ought" rather than "is." You may not like bestiality, or child rape, or murder ... but you have no 'cosmological' basis for legislating against them, whereas Christianity does.
-------------------------------------------------------
> By your logic, we aren't bound by the Ten Commandments anymore, and homosexuality is not an abomination. Unless you're openly admitting that it's completely acceptable to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are "real".
Homosexuality is not specifically mentioned in the Ten Commandments. However, the Apostle Paul, in the blistering anthropology of Romans 1, reaffirms that homosexuality is abnormal and sinful, despite that fact that many of us are born that way ... just as we are some born alcoholics, etc. (Christianity asserts that in addition to "Intelligent Design" there was a "Curse" ... which could well be called a "Death Sentence Re-design" of fallen and distorted mankind.)
| The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. | |
| For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. | |
| For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. | |
| Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. | |
| Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. | |
| Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. |
I repeat my assertion that in an uncreated, chance Darwinian cosmology there is never a basis for "ought" rather than "is." You may not like bestiality, or child rape, or murder ... but you have no 'cosmological' basis for legislating against them, whereas Christianity does.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 22, 2009 01:09PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > For Jesus to be the messiah predicted in the Old
> Testament, he had to fulfill ALL of the Old
> Testament prophecies. One of them specifically
> states that he had to be a descendant of King
> David.
> >
> > Bible lineage is traced through the man's side
> of the family, and Jacob is listed as a
> descendant of King David. However, God got Mary
> pregnant, not Jacob , which means that Jesus
> didn't fulfill all of the prophecies and thus
> cannot be the messiah.
>
> Ness replies: with notes from Chuck Missler, who
> points out that Jesus was indeed a legal
> descendant of David by virtue of the specific
> exception in the Torah, which was associated with
> daughters of Zelophehad.
>
> For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is
> given: and the government shall be upon his
> shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful,
> Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father,
> The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his
> government and peace there shall be no end, upon
> the Throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order
> it, and to establish it with judgment and with
> justice from henceforth even for ever. (Isaiah
> 9:6-7)
> 1) Mary was of the line of David, but through
> Nathan (the second surviving son of Bathsheba),
> not Solomon.
>
> 2) Applying the provisions of the Zelophehad
> exception, Heli, the father of Mary, properly
> adopted Joseph as his son-in-law.
>
> 3) The significance of the Davidic Covenant is one
> of the most impacting aspects surrounding the
> Christmas season.
> 4) The ultimate destiny of Jesus to rule on the
> Throne of David was confirmed by the Angel Gabriel
> in his famed announcement to Mary.
> 5) However, David’s throne didn’t exist in Jesus’
> day. In fact, the gift of gold by the Magi made
> possible their flight to Egypt to evade the
> impending threat from Herod’s throne until that
> danger had elapsed. The subsequent years, raising
> the child in Nazareth (under the stigma of
> ostensible illegitimacy), were certainly more
> difficult that we can imagine.
> Missler, just FYI, is a very rational Naval
> Academy grad and former Ph.D. 'rocket scientist'
> (yup, missiles) who will gutsily go right into a
> science fiction conference and challenge the
> UFO-obsessed audience to consider that if
> Christianity is true, the Bible is a
> prophecy-authenticated 'extraterrestrial'
> communication whose Christian cosmology therefore
> merits their inspection.
You got one little problem there...The bible specifically states that Joseph was the son of Heli:
"Luke 23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli"
So, while what you are saying might be true (no actual evidence in favor of it - just speculation), the *bible itself* says something different.
Unless you are referring to a different verse?
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > For Jesus to be the messiah predicted in the Old
> Testament, he had to fulfill ALL of the Old
> Testament prophecies. One of them specifically
> states that he had to be a descendant of King
> David.
> >
> > Bible lineage is traced through the man's side
> of the family, and Jacob is listed as a
> descendant of King David. However, God got Mary
> pregnant, not Jacob , which means that Jesus
> didn't fulfill all of the prophecies and thus
> cannot be the messiah.
>
> Ness replies: with notes from Chuck Missler, who
> points out that Jesus was indeed a legal
> descendant of David by virtue of the specific
> exception in the Torah, which was associated with
> daughters of Zelophehad.
>
> For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is
> given: and the government shall be upon his
> shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful,
> Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father,
> The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his
> government and peace there shall be no end, upon
> the Throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order
> it, and to establish it with judgment and with
> justice from henceforth even for ever. (Isaiah
> 9:6-7)
> 1) Mary was of the line of David, but through
> Nathan (the second surviving son of Bathsheba),
> not Solomon.
>
> 2) Applying the provisions of the Zelophehad
> exception, Heli, the father of Mary, properly
> adopted Joseph as his son-in-law.
>
> 3) The significance of the Davidic Covenant is one
> of the most impacting aspects surrounding the
> Christmas season.
> 4) The ultimate destiny of Jesus to rule on the
> Throne of David was confirmed by the Angel Gabriel
> in his famed announcement to Mary.
> 5) However, David’s throne didn’t exist in Jesus’
> day. In fact, the gift of gold by the Magi made
> possible their flight to Egypt to evade the
> impending threat from Herod’s throne until that
> danger had elapsed. The subsequent years, raising
> the child in Nazareth (under the stigma of
> ostensible illegitimacy), were certainly more
> difficult that we can imagine.
> Missler, just FYI, is a very rational Naval
> Academy grad and former Ph.D. 'rocket scientist'
> (yup, missiles) who will gutsily go right into a
> science fiction conference and challenge the
> UFO-obsessed audience to consider that if
> Christianity is true, the Bible is a
> prophecy-authenticated 'extraterrestrial'
> communication whose Christian cosmology therefore
> merits their inspection.
You got one little problem there...The bible specifically states that Joseph was the son of Heli:
"Luke 23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli"
So, while what you are saying might be true (no actual evidence in favor of it - just speculation), the *bible itself* says something different.
Unless you are referring to a different verse?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 22, 2009 01:12PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I repeat my assertion that in an uncreated, chance
> Darwinian cosmology there is never a basis for
> "ought" rather than "is." You may not like
> bestiality, or child rape, or murder ... but you
> have no 'cosmological' basis for legislating
> against them, whereas Christianity does.
I will repeat that you haven't demonstrated this assertion and that Christianity falls on exactly the same sword.
Further, even supposing what you say is true, so what? It doesn't mean that Christianity *is* true, just that we would have no basis for morality.
In other words, you need more to stand on here.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I repeat my assertion that in an uncreated, chance
> Darwinian cosmology there is never a basis for
> "ought" rather than "is." You may not like
> bestiality, or child rape, or murder ... but you
> have no 'cosmological' basis for legislating
> against them, whereas Christianity does.
I will repeat that you haven't demonstrated this assertion and that Christianity falls on exactly the same sword.
Further, even supposing what you say is true, so what? It doesn't mean that Christianity *is* true, just that we would have no basis for morality.
In other words, you need more to stand on here.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: January 22, 2009 01:20PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> stuff...
Your boy Missler cites 2 Samuel 5:14 as a reference to Mary being the son of Nathan, second child of Bathsheba.
David didn't meet Bathsheba until 2 Samuel 11.
-------------------------------------------------------
> stuff...
Your boy Missler cites 2 Samuel 5:14 as a reference to Mary being the son of Nathan, second child of Bathsheba.
David didn't meet Bathsheba until 2 Samuel 11.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: January 22, 2009 01:23PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> More stuff...
You're absolutely right; Paul specifically mentions homosexuality in the New Testament.
However, Paul is not the Son of God; the actual Son of God never said anything about homosexuality. Paul is a turncoat pharisee that decided to jump on board with the winning team.
If you're following Paul's authority, I will assume that women in your church cover their heads and do not say a word.
-------------------------------------------------------
> More stuff...
You're absolutely right; Paul specifically mentions homosexuality in the New Testament.
However, Paul is not the Son of God; the actual Son of God never said anything about homosexuality. Paul is a turncoat pharisee that decided to jump on board with the winning team.
If you're following Paul's authority, I will assume that women in your church cover their heads and do not say a word.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: January 22, 2009 01:29PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You got one little problem there...The bible
> specifically states that Joseph was the son of
> Heli:
>
> "Luke 23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years
> old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so
> it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli"
>
> So, while what you are saying might be true (no
> actual evidence in favor of it - just
> speculation), the *bible itself* says something
> different.
>
> Unless you are referring to a different verse?
When I said Jacob in an earlier post, I meant Joseph. Whoops.
Anyway, Matthew 1:16 states that Joseph's father is Jacob. Luke 3:23 says that it's Heli. I say it's irrelevant, because Joseph was not Jesus's father, and the fact that the Bible states that he is is inherently false.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You got one little problem there...The bible
> specifically states that Joseph was the son of
> Heli:
>
> "Luke 23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years
> old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so
> it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli"
>
> So, while what you are saying might be true (no
> actual evidence in favor of it - just
> speculation), the *bible itself* says something
> different.
>
> Unless you are referring to a different verse?
When I said Jacob in an earlier post, I meant Joseph. Whoops.
Anyway, Matthew 1:16 states that Joseph's father is Jacob. Luke 3:23 says that it's Heli. I say it's irrelevant, because Joseph was not Jesus's father, and the fact that the Bible states that he is is inherently false.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 22, 2009 01:35PM
I've heard the argument that Luke actually refers to Mary, and this is strained and unsupported. It smacks of wishful thinking. The more reasonable explanation is that Luke didn't know, but had to retrofit Jesus to the Davidic lineage. He was unaware of the other lineage.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Cotton Mather
()
Date: January 22, 2009 01:49PM
By your logic, we aren't bound by the Ten Commandments anymore, and homosexuality is not an abomination. Unless you're openly admitting that it's completely acceptable to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are "real".
All well and good but then why don't you express any contempt for the other two parts of the Abrahamic trio, Judaism and Islam? You save all your bile for Christianity. The irony of all this is that I myself am not particularly religious. What I do loathe though are hypocritical attacks on people of faith,as long as those people are Christians, by those who are forever running around telling everyone how "tolerant" they are. Maybe you should just learn to live and let live. Or, to use the current vernacular, celebrate diversity.
All well and good but then why don't you express any contempt for the other two parts of the Abrahamic trio, Judaism and Islam? You save all your bile for Christianity. The irony of all this is that I myself am not particularly religious. What I do loathe though are hypocritical attacks on people of faith,as long as those people are Christians, by those who are forever running around telling everyone how "tolerant" they are. Maybe you should just learn to live and let live. Or, to use the current vernacular, celebrate diversity.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 22, 2009 01:56PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've read Icons and Behe's first book ...
> The modern proponents [of Intelligent Design] have failed to construct a valid scientific theory.
1) Glad to know that somebody has actually read about ID before dismissing the concept.
2) Without a 'time machine,' how do you create a 'valid scientific theory' about the past ... other than by examining the present?
3) Christians do not necessarily expect to explain everything in physics or biochemistry ... indeed, God might keep some things a mystery even after the Resurrection.
4) One of the 'damnations' of any Naturalistic Man is that he will die -- be annihilated -- without ever knowing the 'Truth' that he believes is "Out There" ... even if his successors find that 'Truth' before the projected heat death of the cosmos.
5) To paraphrase Francis Schaeffer:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've read Icons and Behe's first book ...
> The modern proponents [of Intelligent Design] have failed to construct a valid scientific theory.
1) Glad to know that somebody has actually read about ID before dismissing the concept.
2) Without a 'time machine,' how do you create a 'valid scientific theory' about the past ... other than by examining the present?
3) Christians do not necessarily expect to explain everything in physics or biochemistry ... indeed, God might keep some things a mystery even after the Resurrection.
4) One of the 'damnations' of any Naturalistic Man is that he will die -- be annihilated -- without ever knowing the 'Truth' that he believes is "Out There" ... even if his successors find that 'Truth' before the projected heat death of the cosmos.
5) To paraphrase Francis Schaeffer:
 | "If a Darwinian man was consistent with his presuppositions, 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." |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: January 22, 2009 01:57PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've heard the argument that Luke actually refers
> to Mary, and this is strained and unsupported. It
> smacks of wishful thinking. The more reasonable
> explanation is that Luke didn't know, but had to
> retrofit Jesus to the Davidic lineage. He was
> unaware of the other lineage.
My arguments are based around two universal Christian beliefs:
1. The word of God is infallable.
2. The Bible is the word of God.
If you have to be a biblical scholar to understand and explain the plainly-written contradictions in the Bible, doesn't that give these scholars the opportunity to twist the word of God to meet their own goals and interpretations?
Oh. Wait.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've heard the argument that Luke actually refers
> to Mary, and this is strained and unsupported. It
> smacks of wishful thinking. The more reasonable
> explanation is that Luke didn't know, but had to
> retrofit Jesus to the Davidic lineage. He was
> unaware of the other lineage.
My arguments are based around two universal Christian beliefs:
1. The word of God is infallable.
2. The Bible is the word of God.
If you have to be a biblical scholar to understand and explain the plainly-written contradictions in the Bible, doesn't that give these scholars the opportunity to twist the word of God to meet their own goals and interpretations?
Oh. Wait.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 22, 2009 02:07PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I've read Icons and Behe's first book ...
> > The modern proponents have failed to construct
> a valid scientific theory.
>
> 1) Glad to know that somebody has actually read
> about ID before dismissing the concept.
> 2) Without a 'time machine,' how do you create a
> 'valid scientific theory' about the past ... other
> than by examining the present?
First it has to be an actual explanation. Theories in science are broad explanations of laws, facts, and phenomenon. We do not need time machines in order to test theories (if we did, foriensic science would be moot).
> 3) Christians do not necessarily expect to explain
> everything in physics or biochemistry ... indeed,
> God might keep some things a mystery even after
> the Resurrection.
That could be true - but I see it as another problem with Christianity. In any event, my main contention was that ID doesn't explain anything either. Hence it's more religious then scientific.
> 4) One of the 'damnations' of any Naturalistic Man
> is that he will die -- be annihilated -- without
> ever knowing the 'Truth' that he believes is "Out
> There" ... even if his successors find that
> 'Truth' before the projected heat death of the
> cosmos.
That's your subjective opinion. As I've said, I agree with Nietzsche that death is the only thing that *can* actually give this life value.
Both are actually irrelevant to the truth though, so I fail to see why you continually bring this up.
> 5) To paraphrase Francis Schaeffer:
> "If a Darwinian man was consistent with his
> presuppositions, 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."
Good for Schaeffer. What this doesn't mean is:
1. That it's actually true (he doesn't back it up logically). This is only Schaeffer's opinion.
2. That even if it were true, that atheism is not true.
In essense, it's a red herring to distract from the fact that Christianity doesn't have any better answers or any reason to compell reasoned belief.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I've read Icons and Behe's first book ...
> > The modern proponents have failed to construct
> a valid scientific theory.
>
> 1) Glad to know that somebody has actually read
> about ID before dismissing the concept.
> 2) Without a 'time machine,' how do you create a
> 'valid scientific theory' about the past ... other
> than by examining the present?
First it has to be an actual explanation. Theories in science are broad explanations of laws, facts, and phenomenon. We do not need time machines in order to test theories (if we did, foriensic science would be moot).
> 3) Christians do not necessarily expect to explain
> everything in physics or biochemistry ... indeed,
> God might keep some things a mystery even after
> the Resurrection.
That could be true - but I see it as another problem with Christianity. In any event, my main contention was that ID doesn't explain anything either. Hence it's more religious then scientific.
> 4) One of the 'damnations' of any Naturalistic Man
> is that he will die -- be annihilated -- without
> ever knowing the 'Truth' that he believes is "Out
> There" ... even if his successors find that
> 'Truth' before the projected heat death of the
> cosmos.
That's your subjective opinion. As I've said, I agree with Nietzsche that death is the only thing that *can* actually give this life value.
Both are actually irrelevant to the truth though, so I fail to see why you continually bring this up.
> 5) To paraphrase Francis Schaeffer:
> "If a Darwinian man was consistent with his
> presuppositions, 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."
Good for Schaeffer. What this doesn't mean is:
1. That it's actually true (he doesn't back it up logically). This is only Schaeffer's opinion.
2. That even if it were true, that atheism is not true.
In essense, it's a red herring to distract from the fact that Christianity doesn't have any better answers or any reason to compell reasoned belief.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 22, 2009 02:10PM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, Matthew 1:16 states that Joseph's father is Jacob. Luke 3:23 says that it's Heli.
I say it's irrelevant, because Joseph was not Jesus's father, and the fact that the Bible states that he is, is inherently false.
1) Why do you assert that Joseph was not Jesus' biological father? (Unless perhaps you accept the Scriptures' contention that the Holy Spirit was?!)
2) Jacob biologically, Heli by adoption ... simply different perspectives.
3) If there is no God, all of the Biblical genealogy is irrelevant anyhow, signifying nothing ... because the covenants with 'God' would be nothing but the grand delusions of fiction writers.
-------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, Matthew 1:16 states that Joseph's father is Jacob. Luke 3:23 says that it's Heli.
I say it's irrelevant, because Joseph was not Jesus's father, and the fact that the Bible states that he is, is inherently false.
1) Why do you assert that Joseph was not Jesus' biological father? (Unless perhaps you accept the Scriptures' contention that the Holy Spirit was?!)
2) Jacob biologically, Heli by adoption ... simply different perspectives.
3) If there is no God, all of the Biblical genealogy is irrelevant anyhow, signifying nothing ... because the covenants with 'God' would be nothing but the grand delusions of fiction writers.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: January 22, 2009 02:10PM
Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By your logic, we aren't bound by the Ten
> Commandments anymore, and homosexuality is not an
> abomination. Unless you're openly admitting that
> it's completely acceptable to pick and choose
> which parts of the Bible are "real".
>
>
> All well and good but then why don't you express
> any contempt for the other two parts of the
> Abrahamic trio, Judaism and Islam? You save all
> your bile for Christianity. The irony of all this
> is that I myself am not particularly religious.
> What I do loathe though are hypocritical attacks
> on people of faith,as long as those people are
> Christians, by those who are forever running
> around telling everyone how "tolerant" they are.
> Maybe you should just learn to live and let live.
> Or, to use the current vernacular, celebrate
> diversity.
Start a thread about how the McLean Synagogue sucks, or the McLean Mosque sucks, and I'll happily weigh in when I read something that makes me call bullshit.
I was also a fanatical Christian for the first 20 years of my life, and my brother is now a minister at the Non-Denominational Bible Church that I attended for 6 years. It's not easy to critically examine the things you believe in and abandon them when you find them inadequate.
If I was calling Christians stupid or saying that everything they believe is a joke, then it would accurately be called "bile." Having a differing opinion and backing that opinion up with facts (or at the very least, persuasive arguments) is called "debating."
-------------------------------------------------------
> By your logic, we aren't bound by the Ten
> Commandments anymore, and homosexuality is not an
> abomination. Unless you're openly admitting that
> it's completely acceptable to pick and choose
> which parts of the Bible are "real".
>
>
> All well and good but then why don't you express
> any contempt for the other two parts of the
> Abrahamic trio, Judaism and Islam? You save all
> your bile for Christianity. The irony of all this
> is that I myself am not particularly religious.
> What I do loathe though are hypocritical attacks
> on people of faith,as long as those people are
> Christians, by those who are forever running
> around telling everyone how "tolerant" they are.
> Maybe you should just learn to live and let live.
> Or, to use the current vernacular, celebrate
> diversity.
Start a thread about how the McLean Synagogue sucks, or the McLean Mosque sucks, and I'll happily weigh in when I read something that makes me call bullshit.
I was also a fanatical Christian for the first 20 years of my life, and my brother is now a minister at the Non-Denominational Bible Church that I attended for 6 years. It's not easy to critically examine the things you believe in and abandon them when you find them inadequate.
If I was calling Christians stupid or saying that everything they believe is a joke, then it would accurately be called "bile." Having a differing opinion and backing that opinion up with facts (or at the very least, persuasive arguments) is called "debating."
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Cotton Mather
()
Date: January 22, 2009 02:16PM
If I was calling Christians stupid or saying that everything they believe is a joke, then it would accurately be called "bile." Having a differing opinion and backing that opinion up with facts (or at the very least, persuasive arguments) is called "debating."
Your allegation that mainstream Christians actually believe in stoning rape victims to death is a bilious attack. There is no debate in an absurd allegation such as that.
Your allegation that mainstream Christians actually believe in stoning rape victims to death is a bilious attack. There is no debate in an absurd allegation such as that.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 22, 2009 02:18PM
MrMephisto - I believe Cotton might be mistaking you for Numbers, as he has had some difficulty (not without reason!) with the quotes on this board.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 22, 2009 02:19PM
My bad, I was mistaken.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: January 22, 2009 02:21PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1) Why do you assert that Joseph was not Jesus'
> biological father? (Unless perhaps you accept the
> Scriptures' contention that the Holy Spirit
> was?!)
I thought that was the point of the whole "Jesus is the Son of God, born unto this world by the virgin Mary. Putting aside the questions of lineage, the Bible is very specific about the virgin birth. So Joseph couldn't have boned Mary if Jesus was God in the flesh.
> 2) Jacob biologically, Heli by adoption ... simply
> different perspectives.
It doesn't say anything about adoption or biology, but that's sort of irrelevant, anyway. I don't think God would have put this entire plan into motion just to eke by on a legal technicality.
> 3) If there is no God, all of the Biblical
> genealogy is irrelevant anyhow, signifying nothing
> ... because the covenants with 'God' would be
> nothing but the grand delusions of fiction
> writers.
I'm not saying there is no God. It's good to believe in something; faith can get you through the hard times, make the good times seem sweeter, and be a consistent thing to hold on to in a very unstable world. If you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and you're going to heaven when you die, good for you. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. Faith is belief in something even if you don't have the evidence to prove it.
Religion is rarely more than men deceiving men in order to control or exploit them, saying, "here is our evidence, now have faith in us and our words." That's crap.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1) Why do you assert that Joseph was not Jesus'
> biological father? (Unless perhaps you accept the
> Scriptures' contention that the Holy Spirit
> was?!)
I thought that was the point of the whole "Jesus is the Son of God, born unto this world by the virgin Mary. Putting aside the questions of lineage, the Bible is very specific about the virgin birth. So Joseph couldn't have boned Mary if Jesus was God in the flesh.
> 2) Jacob biologically, Heli by adoption ... simply
> different perspectives.
It doesn't say anything about adoption or biology, but that's sort of irrelevant, anyway. I don't think God would have put this entire plan into motion just to eke by on a legal technicality.
> 3) If there is no God, all of the Biblical
> genealogy is irrelevant anyhow, signifying nothing
> ... because the covenants with 'God' would be
> nothing but the grand delusions of fiction
> writers.
I'm not saying there is no God. It's good to believe in something; faith can get you through the hard times, make the good times seem sweeter, and be a consistent thing to hold on to in a very unstable world. If you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and you're going to heaven when you die, good for you. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. Faith is belief in something even if you don't have the evidence to prove it.
Religion is rarely more than men deceiving men in order to control or exploit them, saying, "here is our evidence, now have faith in us and our words." That's crap.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: January 22, 2009 02:29PM
Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your allegation that mainstream Christians
> actually believe in stoning rape victims to death
> is a bilious attack. There is no debate in an
> absurd allegation such as that.
Uh, oh! Someone needs to read the Bible...
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:23-24;&version=31
... and the rest of my posts.
"Also, since homosexuality is an abomination as mentioned in Leviticus, and Jesus came to 'fulfill the law, not abolish it,' that means you also can't eat crab, lobster, or calamari, and if you touch your wife when she's bleeding from her vagina, you need to leave your community forten seven days.
Oh, and if your daughter gets brutally raped but does not cry out for help, we stone your daughter (as mentioned in http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:23-24;&version=31)."
If the Old Testament is the Talmud and the Talmud is only for Jews, then why do we have the Old Testament in the Bible, and why does our supposedly Christian nation have the Ten Commandments in court houses?
Unless, of course, again, you'd like to state that it's OK to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you follow.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your allegation that mainstream Christians
> actually believe in stoning rape victims to death
> is a bilious attack. There is no debate in an
> absurd allegation such as that.
Uh, oh! Someone needs to read the Bible...
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:23-24;&version=31
... and the rest of my posts.
"Also, since homosexuality is an abomination as mentioned in Leviticus, and Jesus came to 'fulfill the law, not abolish it,' that means you also can't eat crab, lobster, or calamari, and if you touch your wife when she's bleeding from her vagina, you need to leave your community for
Oh, and if your daughter gets brutally raped but does not cry out for help, we stone your daughter (as mentioned in http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:23-24;&version=31)."
If the Old Testament is the Talmud and the Talmud is only for Jews, then why do we have the Old Testament in the Bible, and why does our supposedly Christian nation have the Ten Commandments in court houses?
Unless, of course, again, you'd like to state that it's OK to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you follow.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 22, 2009 02:31PM
I could swear that the bible also mentions that if a woman is raped that she would have to marry the rapist.
This was the mentality of the time, that women were property and that a 'spoiled' woman was damaged goods.
This was the mentality of the time, that women were property and that a 'spoiled' woman was damaged goods.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: January 22, 2009 02:34PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I could swear that the bible also mentions that if
> a woman is raped that she would have to marry the
> rapist.
>
> This was the mentality of the time, that women
> were property and that a 'spoiled' woman was
> damaged goods.
Yup. That's Deuteronomy 22:28. If you rape a virgin who's not engaged to be married, you gotta pay her dad 50 sheckles and marry her, and you can never divorce her.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2009 02:35PM by MrMephisto.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I could swear that the bible also mentions that if
> a woman is raped that she would have to marry the
> rapist.
>
> This was the mentality of the time, that women
> were property and that a 'spoiled' woman was
> damaged goods.
Yup. That's Deuteronomy 22:28. If you rape a virgin who's not engaged to be married, you gotta pay her dad 50 sheckles and marry her, and you can never divorce her.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2009 02:35PM by MrMephisto.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Cotton Mather
()
Date: January 22, 2009 02:48PM
Unless, of course, again, you'd like to state that it's OK to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you follow.
You are so full of hatred for Christianity that you have no objectivity. You know full well that Christians profess to believe in the words and teachings of Jesus Christ. You cite ancient Jewish law to smugly "prove" some point known only to yourself, about Christianity. Ok, so the religion is not for you. But you have no right to tell people whose lives it has changed and to whom it gives comfort to that they are deluded, especially when all you can come up with are archaic and irrelevant proscriptions.
You are so full of hatred for Christianity that you have no objectivity. You know full well that Christians profess to believe in the words and teachings of Jesus Christ. You cite ancient Jewish law to smugly "prove" some point known only to yourself, about Christianity. Ok, so the religion is not for you. But you have no right to tell people whose lives it has changed and to whom it gives comfort to that they are deluded, especially when all you can come up with are archaic and irrelevant proscriptions.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Naru Hodo
()
Date: January 22, 2009 02:49PM
I could swear that the bible also mentions that if a woman is raped that she would have to marry the rapist.
Well, that explains where Mr. Mephisto came from!
Well, that explains where Mr. Mephisto came from!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: January 22, 2009 03:12PM
Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unless, of course, again, you'd like to state that
> it's OK to pick and choose which parts of the
> Bible you follow.
>
> You are so full of hatred for Christianity that
> you have no objectivity. You know full well that
> Christians profess to believe in the words and
> teachings of Jesus Christ. You cite ancient Jewish
> law to smugly "prove" some point known only to
> yourself, about Christianity. Ok, so the religion
> is not for you. But you have no right to tell
> people whose lives it has changed and to whom it
> gives comfort to that they are deluded, especially
> when all you can come up with are archaic and
> irrelevant proscriptions.
1. Ok, so going JUST by the words and teachings of Jesus Christ, homosexuality is now OK, since, y'know, Jesus never said anything about gay people.
2. Jesus plainly said that he came to fulfill that ancient Jewish law, not abolish it. Go read your Bible.
3. Go read my response about faith to Eliot Ness. Then go fuck yourself for putting words in my mouth.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unless, of course, again, you'd like to state that
> it's OK to pick and choose which parts of the
> Bible you follow.
>
> You are so full of hatred for Christianity that
> you have no objectivity. You know full well that
> Christians profess to believe in the words and
> teachings of Jesus Christ. You cite ancient Jewish
> law to smugly "prove" some point known only to
> yourself, about Christianity. Ok, so the religion
> is not for you. But you have no right to tell
> people whose lives it has changed and to whom it
> gives comfort to that they are deluded, especially
> when all you can come up with are archaic and
> irrelevant proscriptions.
1. Ok, so going JUST by the words and teachings of Jesus Christ, homosexuality is now OK, since, y'know, Jesus never said anything about gay people.
2. Jesus plainly said that he came to fulfill that ancient Jewish law, not abolish it. Go read your Bible.
3. Go read my response about faith to Eliot Ness. Then go fuck yourself for putting words in my mouth.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: January 22, 2009 04:10PM
Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All well and good but then why don't you express
> any contempt for the other two parts of the
> Abrahamic trio, Judaism and Islam? You save all
> your bile for Christianity.
Personally, I split my bile up equally between the 3, if that helps. There's enough bile FROM all 3 to fill every toilet in the world, 10 times over.
-------------------------------------------------------
> All well and good but then why don't you express
> any contempt for the other two parts of the
> Abrahamic trio, Judaism and Islam? You save all
> your bile for Christianity.
Personally, I split my bile up equally between the 3, if that helps. There's enough bile FROM all 3 to fill every toilet in the world, 10 times over.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Overseer
()
Date: January 22, 2009 05:14PM
Good evening to you all,
Thanks so much for your interest in McLean Bible Church. Actually, the teachings of MBC come straight from the Word of our Maker,aka Bible, as best as they understand it. And, part of His Word says "...know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Truly, I wish all of you really knew the truth about MBC, because that would set you free from your hatred and blindness. Regardless, MBC members love you anyway, because that is what the Lord Jesus went to the cross for - to provide THE way to eternal life in heaven and not torment in hell FOREVER!! It's all your decision!
Thanks for listening (reading) and considering where you are going. Don't wait; you may not get another opportunity! Love you all.
Thanks so much for your interest in McLean Bible Church. Actually, the teachings of MBC come straight from the Word of our Maker,aka Bible, as best as they understand it. And, part of His Word says "...know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Truly, I wish all of you really knew the truth about MBC, because that would set you free from your hatred and blindness. Regardless, MBC members love you anyway, because that is what the Lord Jesus went to the cross for - to provide THE way to eternal life in heaven and not torment in hell FOREVER!! It's all your decision!
Thanks for listening (reading) and considering where you are going. Don't wait; you may not get another opportunity! Love you all.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Cotton Mather
()
Date: January 22, 2009 05:39PM
Personally, I split my bile up equally between the 3, if that helps. There's enough bile FROM all 3 to fill every toilet in the world, 10 times over.
You shouldn't let things like this get you so upset. What difference to does it really make to you what some stranger believes? As I said earlier, live and let live. It's all pretty meaningless in the final analysis anyway.
You shouldn't let things like this get you so upset. What difference to does it really make to you what some stranger believes? As I said earlier, live and let live. It's all pretty meaningless in the final analysis anyway.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Cotton Mather
()
Date: January 22, 2009 05:43PM
Go read my response about faith to Eliot Ness. Then go fuck yourself for putting words in my mouth.
Fuck you too asshole! You are a bilious cretin with serious personality issues, not the least of which is an obvious inferiority complex which manifests itself in your amusing attempts to portray yourself as an intellectual. So fuck you too.
Fuck you too asshole! You are a bilious cretin with serious personality issues, not the least of which is an obvious inferiority complex which manifests itself in your amusing attempts to portray yourself as an intellectual. So fuck you too.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: January 22, 2009 06:00PM
That's another gripe I have: the "it's your decision" bit. It's like telling someone, "Hey, I love you unconditionally, and I want you to believe that. Good? Ok. Now, if you don't do everything I tell you to do from now on, I'm going to shove a red-hot poker straight up your ass."
Christians don't know what's going to happen in the hereafter anymore than the rest of us, but they have faith. I hope they frolic about on clouds with angel wings and gossamer kiss for all eternity, with seventy-two virgins blowing them at the same time. But their religion says, "we do know, and unless you do what we say and give us money, you are fucked."
Here's one: I've been baptized, taken communion, accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, all that. I still believe that God and Jesus exist somewhere. I probably fuck a little more than I should,and my porn addiction is starting to creep even me out, but I've never killed/raped/intentionally stolen from anyone. I offer to buy homeless people food, I always keep my promises, and am by most standards, an all-around nice guy. According to Jesus, I'm going to Heaven when I die. 'Twas the men that came after him and established his church that said I'm not.
There's a big difference between something being FROM God and being INSPIRED by God. Modern-day miracles and everything that Jesus said falls into the former category; everything else falls into the latter. If you believe the letters that Paul and Timothy wrote are from God, then how do you know that God DIDN'T tell that crazy lady to drown her children? Maybe that's part of his Divine Plan.
And the absolute worst part is, some asshole in the Bible said that I would go to hell and suffer for eternity if I even asked these questions. Fuck that guy.
This post was way longer than it was supposed to be.
Christians don't know what's going to happen in the hereafter anymore than the rest of us, but they have faith. I hope they frolic about on clouds with angel wings and gossamer kiss for all eternity, with seventy-two virgins blowing them at the same time. But their religion says, "we do know, and unless you do what we say and give us money, you are fucked."
Here's one: I've been baptized, taken communion, accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, all that. I still believe that God and Jesus exist somewhere. I probably fuck a little more than I should,and my porn addiction is starting to creep even me out, but I've never killed/raped/intentionally stolen from anyone. I offer to buy homeless people food, I always keep my promises, and am by most standards, an all-around nice guy. According to Jesus, I'm going to Heaven when I die. 'Twas the men that came after him and established his church that said I'm not.
There's a big difference between something being FROM God and being INSPIRED by God. Modern-day miracles and everything that Jesus said falls into the former category; everything else falls into the latter. If you believe the letters that Paul and Timothy wrote are from God, then how do you know that God DIDN'T tell that crazy lady to drown her children? Maybe that's part of his Divine Plan.
And the absolute worst part is, some asshole in the Bible said that I would go to hell and suffer for eternity if I even asked these questions. Fuck that guy.
This post was way longer than it was supposed to be.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: January 22, 2009 06:14PM
Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are a bilious cretin
> with serious personality issues, not the least of
> which is an obvious inferiority complex which
> manifests itself in your amusing attempts to
> portray yourself as an intellectual.
Thanks for the diagnosis, Doc. How much do I owe you?
> So fuck you too.
That's a real Christian attitude. Aren't you supposed to be setting the example and asking yourself what Jesus would do?
Here's your proof of a kind and loving God, motherfucker.
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are a bilious cretin
> with serious personality issues, not the least of
> which is an obvious inferiority complex which
> manifests itself in your amusing attempts to
> portray yourself as an intellectual.
Thanks for the diagnosis, Doc. How much do I owe you?
> So fuck you too.
That's a real Christian attitude. Aren't you supposed to be setting the example and asking yourself what Jesus would do?
Here's your proof of a kind and loving God, motherfucker.
Attachments:
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 22, 2009 07:28PM
Christians who don't agonize about the deformity of the world as we know it, are living in a happy-face dream world.
I'm with Schaeffer when he said that "If Christianity isn't true, then it's a very cruel joke." and that he "could not live in this world" if he thought that it had been created as it now is.
My expressed difference with Dr. Crocker is that I can't imagine arguing "Intelligent Design" without accounting for its catastrophic results -- particularly man's inhumanity to man, and our inevitable death.
Modern science considers Man to be simply energy particles, extended and more complex. Christianity says that Man is more than that, and accounts for the cruelty and the death sentence.
I'm with Schaeffer when he said that "If Christianity isn't true, then it's a very cruel joke." and that he "could not live in this world" if he thought that it had been created as it now is.
My expressed difference with Dr. Crocker is that I can't imagine arguing "Intelligent Design" without accounting for its catastrophic results -- particularly man's inhumanity to man, and our inevitable death.
Modern science considers Man to be simply energy particles, extended and more complex. Christianity says that Man is more than that, and accounts for the cruelty and the death sentence.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 22, 2009 08:38PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Christians who don't agonize about the deformity
> of the world as we know it, are living in a
> happy-face dream world.
>
> I'm with Schaeffer when he said that "If
> Christianity isn't true, then it's a very cruel
> joke." and that he "could not live in this world"
> if he thought that it had been created as it now
> is.
>
I'm curious then, since this world is nothing compared to hell, how would it be possible to be happy in heaven?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the logic behind this: Your god is responsible for this cruelity, yet you call him good and worship him?
> My expressed difference with Dr. Crocker is that I
> can't imagine arguing "Intelligent Design" without
> accounting for its catastrophic results --
> particularly man's inhumanity to man, and our
> inevitable death.
Intelligent design also accounts for our motives? I'm not sure what you mean here, can you rephrase?
>
> Modern science considers Man to be simply energy
> particles, extended and more complex. Christianity
> says that Man is more than that, and accounts for
> the cruelty and the death sentence.
And you don't think modern science accounts for cruelty and death?
Also, it seems to me that Christianity is contradicted by the cruelty and death sentence, since it makes an all good god responsible for evil.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Christians who don't agonize about the deformity
> of the world as we know it, are living in a
> happy-face dream world.
>
> I'm with Schaeffer when he said that "If
> Christianity isn't true, then it's a very cruel
> joke." and that he "could not live in this world"
> if he thought that it had been created as it now
> is.
>
I'm curious then, since this world is nothing compared to hell, how would it be possible to be happy in heaven?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the logic behind this: Your god is responsible for this cruelity, yet you call him good and worship him?
> My expressed difference with Dr. Crocker is that I
> can't imagine arguing "Intelligent Design" without
> accounting for its catastrophic results --
> particularly man's inhumanity to man, and our
> inevitable death.
Intelligent design also accounts for our motives? I'm not sure what you mean here, can you rephrase?
>
> Modern science considers Man to be simply energy
> particles, extended and more complex. Christianity
> says that Man is more than that, and accounts for
> the cruelty and the death sentence.
And you don't think modern science accounts for cruelty and death?
Also, it seems to me that Christianity is contradicted by the cruelty and death sentence, since it makes an all good god responsible for evil.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: January 22, 2009 08:40PM
Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You shouldn't let things like this get you so
> upset. What difference to does it really make to
> you what some stranger believes? As I said
> earlier, live and let live. It's all pretty
> meaningless in the final analysis anyway.
There's a big difference what some stranger believes when he/she affects state and federal policies based on what I, and a growing population, feel are fairy tales and superstitions.
Honestly, do you YOU feel comfortable knowing that someone who literally believes in the Noah's Ark story, Adam and Eve, buried golden tablets or some kid at the bottom of a well is making decisions that can affect the whole world?
If so, may I suggest packing up and moving to Iran, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan where you'll be surrounded by like-minded people, such as yourself.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You shouldn't let things like this get you so
> upset. What difference to does it really make to
> you what some stranger believes? As I said
> earlier, live and let live. It's all pretty
> meaningless in the final analysis anyway.
There's a big difference what some stranger believes when he/she affects state and federal policies based on what I, and a growing population, feel are fairy tales and superstitions.
Honestly, do you YOU feel comfortable knowing that someone who literally believes in the Noah's Ark story, Adam and Eve, buried golden tablets or some kid at the bottom of a well is making decisions that can affect the whole world?
If so, may I suggest packing up and moving to Iran, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan where you'll be surrounded by like-minded people, such as yourself.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: January 22, 2009 08:42PM
Other than a megalomaniacal maniac, who would even want to be worshipped?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 22, 2009 10:27PM
Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Other than a megalomaniacal maniac, who would even want to be worshipped?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Other than a megalomaniacal maniac, who would even want to be worshipped?
| You have made am astute observation ... the God of the Bible has an enormous ego, of which Man's and Satan's are deformed analogues. The ego of God is very much to the forefront in the Old Testament, but is remarkably suppressed by Jesus in the New Testament (who submits to being spat upon, flogged, beaten, and crucified) until after the Resurrection, when even 'doubting Thomas' worships him as "My Lord and my God.". |
| N.B. that if Christianity is true, then in the past Satan solicited 'worship' from Jesus: "... the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me." Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only." Matthew 4 |
| N.B. that if Christianity is true, then in the future: "All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast — all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world." Revelation 13 |
| N.B. that 'worship' is very serious stuff: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." Revelation 14 |
| The really tough question to ask is not about 'worship' -- because that is a 'given' in the Bible -- it's the question that Bill Maher asked in 'Religulous': If God is going to destroy Satan, what is he waiting for? |
| The God of the Bible is totally sovereign, yet states that he is not the author of evil: "You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil; with you the wicked cannot dwell. The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who do wrong." Psalm 5 |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 22, 2009 11:08PM
Overseer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> " ... part of [the Bible] says "...know the truth and the truth shall set you free."
> Truly, I wish all of you really knew the truth about MBC, because that would set you free from your hatred and blindness.
-------------------------------------------------------
> " ... part of [the Bible] says "...know the truth and the truth shall set you free."
> Truly, I wish all of you really knew the truth about MBC, because that would set you free from your hatred and blindness.
| 1) This sentiment from "Overseer" probably comes from an Elder or Minister at MBC: (English "overseer" = Greek 'episkopos' (ἐπίσκοπος, from "epi" ἐπί "over" and "skopos" σκοπός "seeing"). |
| 2) The Biblical context is different: "To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." |
| 3) I therefore disagree with Overseer, despite his kind sentiment. One can "know the truth about MBC" and still hate MBC because of its message. Indeed, most of the invective on this forum clearly stems from an intense dislike of MBC's Christian 'cosmology' wherein Man is created and therefore subordinate as well as truly, morally guilty. |
| 4) To be "set free" you have to 'pour contempt on all your pride' and bow the knee both metaphysically and morally to the God of the Bible. "There's the rub" (to quote a Shakespearean cosmological soliloquy about death) ... because fallen Man, like fallen Satan, is nothing if not insubordinate and proud. |
| 5) In fact, Hamlet would do well on this forum: "To die — to sleep. To sleep — perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub! For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause." |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
K (will go back to using KL-since 2 "K"s on the blog)
()
Date: January 23, 2009 12:26AM
to:
Posted by: Father Guido Sarduchi ()
Date: December 20, 2008 11:21PM
I heard through the grapevine Lon Solomon sells absolution vouchers much in the same way the early Catholic church used to. If you pay a certain amount to MBC you in turn receive a grant of absolution for any one of your sins...even the touching of little children.....Hmmm that's funny....I wondered why I saw so many priests attending service at a bible church....
can anyone confirm or deny this???
Answer: No sir
Only Christ can forgive and cleanse people from sin
Thank you for asking
Posted by: Father Guido Sarduchi ()
Date: December 20, 2008 11:21PM
I heard through the grapevine Lon Solomon sells absolution vouchers much in the same way the early Catholic church used to. If you pay a certain amount to MBC you in turn receive a grant of absolution for any one of your sins...even the touching of little children.....Hmmm that's funny....I wondered why I saw so many priests attending service at a bible church....
can anyone confirm or deny this???
Answer: No sir
Only Christ can forgive and cleanse people from sin
Thank you for asking
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
kl
()
Date: January 23, 2009 12:33AM
to:
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by: Professor Pangloss ()
Date: December 30, 2008 11:56AM
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.
Answer:
Sir, The fact that Lee Strobal was a strong atheist, shows that he does know what he is talking about. He is a voice of experience, just as you are a voice of experience of what you currently believe in.
You see: religion is the definition of a belief system, rather that belief system is true or not, and rather it is atheistic or not - all are belief systems, thus all belief systems are some sort of religion-true or not true. And all belief system are based on a form of faith. All human beings always have had faith in something or someone, even if that someone is their own self.
Thank you for sharing.
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by: Professor Pangloss ()
Date: December 30, 2008 11:56AM
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.
Answer:
Sir, The fact that Lee Strobal was a strong atheist, shows that he does know what he is talking about. He is a voice of experience, just as you are a voice of experience of what you currently believe in.
You see: religion is the definition of a belief system, rather that belief system is true or not, and rather it is atheistic or not - all are belief systems, thus all belief systems are some sort of religion-true or not true. And all belief system are based on a form of faith. All human beings always have had faith in something or someone, even if that someone is their own self.
Thank you for sharing.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
kl
()
Date: January 23, 2009 12:49AM
K Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Some clarification in the following quote from K (kl):
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?<Should read "believers in Christ, and those who do not believe 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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Some clarification in the following quote from K (kl):
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?<Should read "believers in Christ, and those who do not believe 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.
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
kl
()
Date: January 23, 2009 12:56AM
Yahweh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't exist. Get over it.
Answer:
You are right "yahweh" - you do not exist as the One True God - because you are not He. You are only a human being, created by the One True Yahweh. The same goes for all of God's creation. None could ever be equal with Him or greater than He. Lucifer (now named satan) found that out, and is now brainwashing people into believing they can be equal to or greater than God. Why, because He wants all of God's creation in Hell with him for all eternit
y. People were created in the image of God, and so satan hates God's creation. Image of God? What does this mean?
God is sinless, pure, honorable in every way, loving, caring, unselfish, and so much more - which humans, in themselves, are not, though any resemblance of any of these attributes in anyone, is only because we are created by Him, and it is He Who gave us life and the breath of life.
So much to be grateful for.
Thank you for sharing
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't exist. Get over it.
Answer:
You are right "yahweh" - you do not exist as the One True God - because you are not He. You are only a human being, created by the One True Yahweh. The same goes for all of God's creation. None could ever be equal with Him or greater than He. Lucifer (now named satan) found that out, and is now brainwashing people into believing they can be equal to or greater than God. Why, because He wants all of God's creation in Hell with him for all eternit
y. People were created in the image of God, and so satan hates God's creation. Image of God? What does this mean?
God is sinless, pure, honorable in every way, loving, caring, unselfish, and so much more - which humans, in themselves, are not, though any resemblance of any of these attributes in anyone, is only because we are created by Him, and it is He Who gave us life and the breath of life.
So much to be grateful for.
Thank you for sharing
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
kl
()
Date: January 23, 2009 01:05AM
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.
Answer:
Professor Pangloss, you sound like a former classmate of mine, and possibly a former high school professor I once had. You sound like you are searching, perhaps sincerely, and have been disappointed.
In reality though, when one truly has begun to know Christ personally, and learn His ways in their life, as God intends, then this will help. The path is not always easy, but oh so precious.
I hope you will seek Him again, and open your heart for His truth. God stated that those who truly seek the truth, will find it, and His truth will make you/us free. - free from within, even in the midst of struggles we go through in our lives, and being human and being on this earth, we do go through struggles, and sometimes far more than just struggles - none ever easy.
But Professor Pangloss, and whomever else is reading - Christ is worth it all.
My heart goes out to you and pray you will someday soon find His truth for yourself. Keep seeking Him. I'm so glad He "seeks" us first. He already knows who we are, and has since before the beginning of time, does now, and always will, yet He loves us still.
Thank you Professor Pangloss, for sharing your heart.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Answer:
Professor Pangloss, you sound like a former classmate of mine, and possibly a former high school professor I once had. You sound like you are searching, perhaps sincerely, and have been disappointed.
In reality though, when one truly has begun to know Christ personally, and learn His ways in their life, as God intends, then this will help. The path is not always easy, but oh so precious.
I hope you will seek Him again, and open your heart for His truth. God stated that those who truly seek the truth, will find it, and His truth will make you/us free. - free from within, even in the midst of struggles we go through in our lives, and being human and being on this earth, we do go through struggles, and sometimes far more than just struggles - none ever easy.
But Professor Pangloss, and whomever else is reading - Christ is worth it all.
My heart goes out to you and pray you will someday soon find His truth for yourself. Keep seeking Him. I'm so glad He "seeks" us first. He already knows who we are, and has since before the beginning of time, does now, and always will, yet He loves us still.
Thank you Professor Pangloss, for sharing your heart.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: January 23, 2009 01:05AM
Or what if God as we know Him is really Lucifer (now named Satan), who invented Judaism and Christianity to draw us away from Allah (peace be upon him) and the One True Islamic Faith?
Satan (now named Mephistopheles) is a masterful, cunning deceiver.
Satan (now named Mephistopheles) is a masterful, cunning deceiver.
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
kl
()
Date: January 23, 2009 01:14AM
RESton Peace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Answer:
RESTon Peace: from the first sentence, it sounds like you, and so many like you, are deeply hurting, and have been hurt in some way or another, and possibly by some who say they are Christians. If this is the case, it is no wonder you feel as you do. Sometimes it sounds like an old cliche, but nevertheless true, Seek the Christ and Who He is, for He never fails us, never has, and never will. Sadly, people will fail, rather they want to or not, simply because we all are human, rather we are Christians or not.
By your first sentence, for starters, it sounds to me like you are very desperate, scared, and perhaps contemplating suicide yourself. Don't do it, for then it will forever be too late for you. There are those who really do care.
And again, to Christians, and there are many out there who really do care, nevertheless, still Christians need to really learn Who Christ really is. He is not any "pie in the sky" being, as He is so much being treated as, in today's climate, and music and so much more. I know I'll be knocked down by referring to the music, but go for it. Many do not understand the roots of the music of today-the heavy duty rock, etc, which is dangerous in more ways than one.
But currently, I'm not here to discuss the music, that will come at a later time, in a different situation.
In the meantime RESTon Peace. I do hope and pray that you too will find true hope in your life, and soon.
Thank you for sharing.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Answer:
RESTon Peace: from the first sentence, it sounds like you, and so many like you, are deeply hurting, and have been hurt in some way or another, and possibly by some who say they are Christians. If this is the case, it is no wonder you feel as you do. Sometimes it sounds like an old cliche, but nevertheless true, Seek the Christ and Who He is, for He never fails us, never has, and never will. Sadly, people will fail, rather they want to or not, simply because we all are human, rather we are Christians or not.
By your first sentence, for starters, it sounds to me like you are very desperate, scared, and perhaps contemplating suicide yourself. Don't do it, for then it will forever be too late for you. There are those who really do care.
And again, to Christians, and there are many out there who really do care, nevertheless, still Christians need to really learn Who Christ really is. He is not any "pie in the sky" being, as He is so much being treated as, in today's climate, and music and so much more. I know I'll be knocked down by referring to the music, but go for it. Many do not understand the roots of the music of today-the heavy duty rock, etc, which is dangerous in more ways than one.
But currently, I'm not here to discuss the music, that will come at a later time, in a different situation.
In the meantime RESTon Peace. I do hope and pray that you too will find true hope in your life, and soon.
Thank you for sharing.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
RESton Peace
()
Date: January 23, 2009 01:38AM
KL: From the first sentence, you epitomized my exact sentiment about christians and their self-loving bullshit. I hope you take my advice and shoot yourself. I hope you leave a large amount of brain matter on the walls, and that your face is blown clean off, so as to prevent a closed casket.
Not that a casket will be needed. You have no family or friends who care about you... you have totally turned yourself over to Jesus Christ, and since he's been dead for almost 2000 years now, he is not available to find your corpse, notify the authorities, and make arrangements months later, when you have finally been identified via a hodgepodge of medical and public records. Your rotting corpse could be fed to dogs, and that would have more attendants than any other funeral your sad life would draw.
Make amends with your so-called savior now, because Jesus Christ can and will sodomize you and all your children in hell. For this I have prayed.
Not that a casket will be needed. You have no family or friends who care about you... you have totally turned yourself over to Jesus Christ, and since he's been dead for almost 2000 years now, he is not available to find your corpse, notify the authorities, and make arrangements months later, when you have finally been identified via a hodgepodge of medical and public records. Your rotting corpse could be fed to dogs, and that would have more attendants than any other funeral your sad life would draw.
Make amends with your so-called savior now, because Jesus Christ can and will sodomize you and all your children in hell. For this I have prayed.
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
kl
()
Date: January 23, 2009 02:00AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rectumite Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> --------------
> > I think Elliot Ness must have found Lon
> Solomon's stash!
> >
> > If Solomon is doing it for God's sake alone, why
> take $800,000
> > out of the baskets and live in a $2 million
> dollar house?
> --------------------------------------------------
> ------
>
> 1) Apparently McLean Bible Church does not publish
> the salaries of its 250 employees ... does anyone
> know where the alleged salary $800k figure
> originated?
>
> 2) Fairfax County tax records show that the
> Solomon family's house cost $475k in 1999 (apx.
> $590k in today's dollars) and is now assessed at
> $1.15 million.
>
> Q1: Who controls and audits MBC's finances ... and
> has anybody ever accused MBC of mismanaging
> money?
> Q2: What should Lon Solomon's salary be?
> Q3: How much should Solomon's house be worth, and
> how often should he downsize his housing in order
> to undercut our recent outrageous real estate
> inflation?
> Q4: How many hours-per-week has Solomon worked
> since 1980 when he began at McLean Bible Church?
> What has his average hourly wage been over the
> past 30 years?
Answer: how many hours have you worked? how much is or was your house worth? Look at all the large houses in this area and in many other areas, which do NOT belong to Lon, and which are worth in the billions. How much do you make? Are you in debt because of recklessness with credit cards? That is mismanagement, isn't it? and so on.
And no, their funds are not being mismanaged.
Just something to think about?
Thank you for sharing
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rectumite Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> --------------
> > I think Elliot Ness must have found Lon
> Solomon's stash!
> >
> > If Solomon is doing it for God's sake alone, why
> take $800,000
> > out of the baskets and live in a $2 million
> dollar house?
> --------------------------------------------------
> ------
>
> 1) Apparently McLean Bible Church does not publish
> the salaries of its 250 employees ... does anyone
> know where the alleged salary $800k figure
> originated?
>
> 2) Fairfax County tax records show that the
> Solomon family's house cost $475k in 1999 (apx.
> $590k in today's dollars) and is now assessed at
> $1.15 million.
>
> Q1: Who controls and audits MBC's finances ... and
> has anybody ever accused MBC of mismanaging
> money?
> Q2: What should Lon Solomon's salary be?
> Q3: How much should Solomon's house be worth, and
> how often should he downsize his housing in order
> to undercut our recent outrageous real estate
> inflation?
> Q4: How many hours-per-week has Solomon worked
> since 1980 when he began at McLean Bible Church?
> What has his average hourly wage been over the
> past 30 years?
Answer: how many hours have you worked? how much is or was your house worth? Look at all the large houses in this area and in many other areas, which do NOT belong to Lon, and which are worth in the billions. How much do you make? Are you in debt because of recklessness with credit cards? That is mismanagement, isn't it? and so on.
And no, their funds are not being mismanaged.
Just something to think about?
Thank you for sharing
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
kl
()
Date: January 23, 2009 02:02AM
kl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Rectumite Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > --------------
> > > I think Elliot Ness must have found Lon
> > Solomon's stash!
> > >
> > > If Solomon is doing it for God's sake alone,
> why
> > take $800,000
> > > out of the baskets and live in a $2 million
> > dollar house?
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > ------
> >
> > 1) Apparently McLean Bible Church does not
> publish
> > the salaries of its 250 employees ... does
> anyone
> > know where the alleged salary $800k figure
> > originated?
> >
> > 2) Fairfax County tax records show that the
> > Solomon family's house cost $475k in 1999 (apx.
> > $590k in today's dollars) and is now assessed
> at
> > $1.15 million.
> >
> > Q1: Who controls and audits MBC's finances ...
> and
> > has anybody ever accused MBC of mismanaging
> > money?
> > Q2: What should Lon Solomon's salary be?
> > Q3: How much should Solomon's house be worth,
> and
> > how often should he downsize his housing in
> order
> > to undercut our recent outrageous real estate
> > inflation?
> > Q4: How many hours-per-week has Solomon worked
> > since 1980 when he began at McLean Bible
> Church?
> > What has his average hourly wage been over the
> > past 30 years?
>
>
> Answer: how many hours have you worked? how much
> is or was your house worth? Look at all the large
> houses in this area and in many other areas, which
> do NOT belong to Lon, and which are worth in the
> billions. How much do you make? Are you in debt
> because of recklessness with credit cards? That is
> mismanagement, isn't it? and so on.
> And no, their funds are not being mismanaged.
> Just something to think about?
> Thank you for sharing
oh yes, how would you like your salary published for the whole world to see?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Rectumite Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > --------------
> > > I think Elliot Ness must have found Lon
> > Solomon's stash!
> > >
> > > If Solomon is doing it for God's sake alone,
> why
> > take $800,000
> > > out of the baskets and live in a $2 million
> > dollar house?
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > ------
> >
> > 1) Apparently McLean Bible Church does not
> publish
> > the salaries of its 250 employees ... does
> anyone
> > know where the alleged salary $800k figure
> > originated?
> >
> > 2) Fairfax County tax records show that the
> > Solomon family's house cost $475k in 1999 (apx.
> > $590k in today's dollars) and is now assessed
> at
> > $1.15 million.
> >
> > Q1: Who controls and audits MBC's finances ...
> and
> > has anybody ever accused MBC of mismanaging
> > money?
> > Q2: What should Lon Solomon's salary be?
> > Q3: How much should Solomon's house be worth,
> and
> > how often should he downsize his housing in
> order
> > to undercut our recent outrageous real estate
> > inflation?
> > Q4: How many hours-per-week has Solomon worked
> > since 1980 when he began at McLean Bible
> Church?
> > What has his average hourly wage been over the
> > past 30 years?
>
>
> Answer: how many hours have you worked? how much
> is or was your house worth? Look at all the large
> houses in this area and in many other areas, which
> do NOT belong to Lon, and which are worth in the
> billions. How much do you make? Are you in debt
> because of recklessness with credit cards? That is
> mismanagement, isn't it? and so on.
> And no, their funds are not being mismanaged.
> Just something to think about?
> Thank you for sharing
oh yes, how would you like your salary published for the whole world to see?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
kl
()
Date: January 23, 2009 02:05AM
eyGku Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> re: scam church Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Whoever posted above, you have very inaccurate
> > information. Neither figure is close to being
> > correct, especially his salary.
>
>
> Where can we get better information? We'd be
> interested in the correct numbers.
just something to think about:
what is your salary? How much is your house worth?
-------------------------------------------------------
> re: scam church Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Whoever posted above, you have very inaccurate
> > information. Neither figure is close to being
> > correct, especially his salary.
>
>
> Where can we get better information? We'd be
> interested in the correct numbers.
just something to think about:
what is your salary? How much is your house worth?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
kl
()
Date: January 23, 2009 02:09AM
kl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eyGku Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > re: scam church Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Whoever posted above, you have very
> inaccurate
> > > information. Neither figure is close to
> being
> > > correct, especially his salary.
> >
> >
> > Where can we get better information? We'd be
> > interested in the correct numbers.
>
> just something to think about:
> what is your salary? How much is your house
> worth?
and do you wish to share with everyone publicly, what your salary is and what your house is worth? Is this really necessary? for you or for anyone else? Not really.
Even if Lon were rich, there is nothing wrong with being rich. It is hard to be poor yes. Lon has just worked wisely in managing the pay he does get. He has hit hard times like so many of us, too. Life is not any easier for him than it is for the rest of us, though on the surface it may seem like that to many.
Thank you for sharing.
-------------------------------------------------------
> eyGku Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > re: scam church Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Whoever posted above, you have very
> inaccurate
> > > information. Neither figure is close to
> being
> > > correct, especially his salary.
> >
> >
> > Where can we get better information? We'd be
> > interested in the correct numbers.
>
> just something to think about:
> what is your salary? How much is your house
> worth?
and do you wish to share with everyone publicly, what your salary is and what your house is worth? Is this really necessary? for you or for anyone else? Not really.
Even if Lon were rich, there is nothing wrong with being rich. It is hard to be poor yes. Lon has just worked wisely in managing the pay he does get. He has hit hard times like so many of us, too. Life is not any easier for him than it is for the rest of us, though on the surface it may seem like that to many.
Thank you for sharing.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
kl
()
Date: January 23, 2009 02:15AM
tubby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. H Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I have gone to McLain over 20 years and I still
> > can't find out what the pastor makes. It has
> > always puzzled me why they don't reveal just
> how
> > much the staff does make. We, the members are
> > paying those salaries. What is there to hide?
>
>
> What is there to hide?!?! WTF do you think there
> is to hide?
>
> They don't want you suckers to know about the
> yachts and jets!
>
> If you throw your hard earned money into Solomon's
> (or any of those blow-dried preachers') basket,
> you're worse than a moron.
>
> Not a sermon, just a thought.
>
>
> As for myself, I offer God my entire paycheck....I
> throw it up in the air, and if it comes back and
> hits the ground....I pick it up, God didn't want
> it...
Then what is your salary? Why are you going to McLean if you hate it so much? Or are you there just to cause trouble? That's what it sounds like.
Just posing questions for you to think about and be honest about.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. H Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I have gone to McLain over 20 years and I still
> > can't find out what the pastor makes. It has
> > always puzzled me why they don't reveal just
> how
> > much the staff does make. We, the members are
> > paying those salaries. What is there to hide?
>
>
> What is there to hide?!?! WTF do you think there
> is to hide?
>
> They don't want you suckers to know about the
> yachts and jets!
>
> If you throw your hard earned money into Solomon's
> (or any of those blow-dried preachers') basket,
> you're worse than a moron.
>
> Not a sermon, just a thought.
>
>
> As for myself, I offer God my entire paycheck....I
> throw it up in the air, and if it comes back and
> hits the ground....I pick it up, God didn't want
> it...
Then what is your salary? Why are you going to McLean if you hate it so much? Or are you there just to cause trouble? That's what it sounds like.
Just posing questions for you to think about and be honest about.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
kl
()
Date: January 23, 2009 02:22AM
JUST STICK TO GOD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RELIGION MAKES NO SENCE! PEOPLE ARE JUST STUCK
> BELIEVING WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY. WHICH
> ALOT OF IT IS MADE UP. SOME INFORMATION IS CORRECT
> BUT MOST IS WHAT SOMEBODY SAID YOU HAVE TO DO TO
> GET TO HEAVEN. ALLLLL RELIGION IS THE SAME
> CONCEPT.
No, all religions are not the same. But it is true that many really do simply believe what other people say, without truly seeking to find out for themselves.
So I challenge all who read - take a sincere and honest read throught the entire bible - the OT and the NT - the 16ll King James Version and the Hebrew Scriptures, and sincerely ask God that if He is truly real, that He will reveal Himself and His truth to you. And do this without interjecting other peoples opinions. Let the Bible speak for itself. And then if you have genuine honest questions, go to someone who believes the bible is the literal Word of God - because it is, and that God is Who He says He is - because He is.
If you are really wanting to know, in time, you'll learn the truth firsthand. If you are just pretending, then you won't know until etermity arrives. It is as simple as that.
Honestly seeking the truth about God, is in some ways, no different than seeking the truth in other subject matters.
Thank you for sharing
-------------------------------------------------------
> RELIGION MAKES NO SENCE! PEOPLE ARE JUST STUCK
> BELIEVING WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY. WHICH
> ALOT OF IT IS MADE UP. SOME INFORMATION IS CORRECT
> BUT MOST IS WHAT SOMEBODY SAID YOU HAVE TO DO TO
> GET TO HEAVEN. ALLLLL RELIGION IS THE SAME
> CONCEPT.
No, all religions are not the same. But it is true that many really do simply believe what other people say, without truly seeking to find out for themselves.
So I challenge all who read - take a sincere and honest read throught the entire bible - the OT and the NT - the 16ll King James Version and the Hebrew Scriptures, and sincerely ask God that if He is truly real, that He will reveal Himself and His truth to you. And do this without interjecting other peoples opinions. Let the Bible speak for itself. And then if you have genuine honest questions, go to someone who believes the bible is the literal Word of God - because it is, and that God is Who He says He is - because He is.
If you are really wanting to know, in time, you'll learn the truth firsthand. If you are just pretending, then you won't know until etermity arrives. It is as simple as that.
Honestly seeking the truth about God, is in some ways, no different than seeking the truth in other subject matters.
Thank you for sharing
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
shut the fuck up KL
()
Date: January 23, 2009 04:54AM
hey Kl did you have to make 18 different responses and quote people in every single fucking one. I liked christ before- but now i think hes a douche, thanks man.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
kl is a douche
()
Date: January 23, 2009 04:55AM
you can try and rationalize the bible all you want, but the truth is, the bible is the word of MAN. Can you talk to gOD? Can I? If you hear the voice of gOD than i suggest you see a doctor, because you're clearly dilusional.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: January 23, 2009 07:40AM
shut the fuck up KL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I liked christ before- but now i think hes a
> douche, thanks man.
+1
-------------------------------------------------------
> I liked christ before- but now i think hes a
> douche, thanks man.
+1
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 23, 2009 08:10AM
kl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Answer:
> Sir, The fact that Lee Strobal was a strong
> atheist, shows that he does know what he is
> talking about. He is a voice of experience, just
> as you are a voice of experience of what you
> currently believe in.
No offense, but this is not true. The fact that I was a very strong Christian prior to my deconversion gives me no more authority then the reverse does for Strobel. Arguments are what matter. FURTHER, it is a fact that he was *NOT* an atheist when he started writing that book. Strobel admits to this in the first few pages.
> You see: religion is the definition of a belief
> system, rather that belief system is true or not,
> and rather it is atheistic or not - all are belief
> systems, thus all belief systems are some sort of
> religion-true or not true. And all belief system
> are based on a form of faith. All human beings
> always have had faith in something or someone,
> even if that someone is their own self.
> Thank you for sharing.
I'm not entirely sure i agree with this - I can't see how epistemological skepticism requires 'faith' per say, but this is regardless. Atheism is not a belief system as I think you imply here. It is incorporated into belief systems (as is theism).
> Answer:
> Professor Pangloss, you sound like a former
> classmate of mine, and possibly a former high
> school professor I once had. You sound like you
> are searching, perhaps sincerely, and have been
> disappointed.
That could be a fair estimation - but during the months that my deconversion took, I wouldn't say I was 'searching' per say. I wanted very dearly to be right about God. I just couldn't convince myself. I prayed every day (a few times a day) and deconversion hurt. My bias was to find a reason to believe, which is why I wouldn't characterize myself as searching - since in my mind, searching implies a non bias viewpoint.
> In reality though, when one truly has begun to
> know Christ personally, and learn His ways in
> their life, as God intends, then this will help.
> The path is not always easy, but oh so precious.
The reality is this is what you believe. You cannot demostrate it to be true and as such, I remain unconvinced.
> I hope you will seek Him again, and open your
> heart for His truth. God stated that those who
> truly seek the truth, will find it, and His truth
> will make you/us free. - free from within, even in
> the midst of struggles we go through in our lives,
> and being human and being on this earth, we do go
> through struggles, and sometimes far more than
> just struggles - none ever easy.
> But Professor Pangloss, and whomever else is
> reading - Christ is worth it all.
>
> My heart goes out to you and pray you will someday
> soon find His truth for yourself. Keep seeking
> Him. I'm so glad He "seeks" us first. He already
> knows who we are, and has since before the
> beginning of time, does now, and always will, yet
> He loves us still.
> Thank you Professor Pangloss, for sharing your
> heart.
I disagree with you on many levels here, but you are free to believe as you wish.
> So I challenge all who read - take a sincere and
> honest read throught the entire bible - the OT and
> the NT - the 16ll King James Version and the
> Hebrew Scriptures, and sincerely ask God that if
> He is truly real, that He will reveal Himself and
> His truth to you. And do this without
> interjecting other peoples opinions. Let the
> Bible speak for itself. And then if you have
> genuine honest questions, go to someone who
> believes the bible is the literal Word of God -
> because it is, and that God is Who He says He is -
> because He is.
You didn't write this to me, but I have taken that challenge, twice now, and the second time I did it did a good job of convincing me that Christianity was not true. The problem you are having is that you are looking through the lense of intense faith. You need to approach Christianity as though you were an outsider. Pretend it is Hinduism as best you can, and then see what you make of it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Answer:
> Sir, The fact that Lee Strobal was a strong
> atheist, shows that he does know what he is
> talking about. He is a voice of experience, just
> as you are a voice of experience of what you
> currently believe in.
No offense, but this is not true. The fact that I was a very strong Christian prior to my deconversion gives me no more authority then the reverse does for Strobel. Arguments are what matter. FURTHER, it is a fact that he was *NOT* an atheist when he started writing that book. Strobel admits to this in the first few pages.
> You see: religion is the definition of a belief
> system, rather that belief system is true or not,
> and rather it is atheistic or not - all are belief
> systems, thus all belief systems are some sort of
> religion-true or not true. And all belief system
> are based on a form of faith. All human beings
> always have had faith in something or someone,
> even if that someone is their own self.
> Thank you for sharing.
I'm not entirely sure i agree with this - I can't see how epistemological skepticism requires 'faith' per say, but this is regardless. Atheism is not a belief system as I think you imply here. It is incorporated into belief systems (as is theism).
> Answer:
> Professor Pangloss, you sound like a former
> classmate of mine, and possibly a former high
> school professor I once had. You sound like you
> are searching, perhaps sincerely, and have been
> disappointed.
That could be a fair estimation - but during the months that my deconversion took, I wouldn't say I was 'searching' per say. I wanted very dearly to be right about God. I just couldn't convince myself. I prayed every day (a few times a day) and deconversion hurt. My bias was to find a reason to believe, which is why I wouldn't characterize myself as searching - since in my mind, searching implies a non bias viewpoint.
> In reality though, when one truly has begun to
> know Christ personally, and learn His ways in
> their life, as God intends, then this will help.
> The path is not always easy, but oh so precious.
The reality is this is what you believe. You cannot demostrate it to be true and as such, I remain unconvinced.
> I hope you will seek Him again, and open your
> heart for His truth. God stated that those who
> truly seek the truth, will find it, and His truth
> will make you/us free. - free from within, even in
> the midst of struggles we go through in our lives,
> and being human and being on this earth, we do go
> through struggles, and sometimes far more than
> just struggles - none ever easy.
> But Professor Pangloss, and whomever else is
> reading - Christ is worth it all.
>
> My heart goes out to you and pray you will someday
> soon find His truth for yourself. Keep seeking
> Him. I'm so glad He "seeks" us first. He already
> knows who we are, and has since before the
> beginning of time, does now, and always will, yet
> He loves us still.
> Thank you Professor Pangloss, for sharing your
> heart.
I disagree with you on many levels here, but you are free to believe as you wish.
> So I challenge all who read - take a sincere and
> honest read throught the entire bible - the OT and
> the NT - the 16ll King James Version and the
> Hebrew Scriptures, and sincerely ask God that if
> He is truly real, that He will reveal Himself and
> His truth to you. And do this without
> interjecting other peoples opinions. Let the
> Bible speak for itself. And then if you have
> genuine honest questions, go to someone who
> believes the bible is the literal Word of God -
> because it is, and that God is Who He says He is -
> because He is.
You didn't write this to me, but I have taken that challenge, twice now, and the second time I did it did a good job of convincing me that Christianity was not true. The problem you are having is that you are looking through the lense of intense faith. You need to approach Christianity as though you were an outsider. Pretend it is Hinduism as best you can, and then see what you make of it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Win With Winnie
()
Date: January 23, 2009 01:58PM
This is what Winston Churchill had to say about Islam. Now let's watch all the vile Christian haters try to say that Christianity is as bad or worse than Mohammedanism.
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 23, 2009 02:01PM
I see Islam as no better or worse then Christianity, or for that matter, Judiasm or Hinduism.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Win With Winnie
()
Date: January 23, 2009 02:49PM
I see Islam as no better or worse then Christianity, or for that matter, Judiasm or Hinduism.
Well bully for you.
Well bully for you.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: January 23, 2009 03:40PM
kl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> just something to think about:
> what is your salary?
I make around 100 quadrillia-billia-jillion/yr (before taxes) for working, not by telling people my interpretation of a book written about a bunch of desert nomads and a jewish zombie.
EDIT: It is literally a metric fuck ton of cash. They have to cart it in via dump truck. I swim around in that shit like Uncle Scrooge.
Bitches.
I also do not receive any tax breaks, government benefits, or any of the other perks that a church enjoys, which is probably why...
> How much is your house worth?
... I rent a one-bedroom apartment for about $1,300 a month, instead of owning a mansion.
Fuck you.
EDIT #6: Fuck you.
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2010 10:52PM by MrMephisto.
-------------------------------------------------------
> just something to think about:
> what is your salary?
I make around 100 quadrillia-billia-jillion/yr (before taxes) for working, not by telling people my interpretation of a book written about a bunch of desert nomads and a jewish zombie.
EDIT: It is literally a metric fuck ton of cash. They have to cart it in via dump truck. I swim around in that shit like Uncle Scrooge.
Bitches.
I also do not receive any tax breaks, government benefits, or any of the other perks that a church enjoys, which is probably why...
> How much is your house worth?
... I rent a one-bedroom apartment for about $1,300 a month, instead of owning a mansion.
Fuck you.
EDIT #6: Fuck you.
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2010 10:52PM by MrMephisto.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
GodCallsYouOut
()
Date: January 23, 2009 05:48PM
Overseer Wrote:
> Truly, I wish all of you really knew
> the truth about MBC, because that would set you
> free from your hatred and blindness.
The publish the financial documents, Pilate! Let the truth set us free.
We're waiting.
> Truly, I wish all of you really knew
> the truth about MBC, because that would set you
> free from your hatred and blindness.
The publish the financial documents, Pilate! Let the truth set us free.
We're waiting.
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
kl
()
Date: January 23, 2009 09:14PM
RESton Peace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KL: From the first sentence, you epitomized my
> exact sentiment about christians and their
> self-loving bullshit. I hope you take my advice
> and shoot yourself. I hope you leave a large
> amount of brain matter on the walls, and that your
> face is blown clean off, so as to prevent a closed
> casket.
>
> Not that a casket will be needed. You have no
> family or friends who care about you... you have
> totally turned yourself over to Jesus Christ, and
> since he's been dead for almost 2000 years now, he
> is not available to find your corpse, notify the
> authorities, and make arrangements months later,
> when you have finally been identified via a
> hodgepodge of medical and public records. Your
> rotting corpse could be fed to dogs, and that
> would have more attendants than any other funeral
> your sad life would draw.
>
> Make amends with your so-called savior now,
> because Jesus Christ can and will sodomize you and
> all your children in hell. For this I have
> prayed.
Answer: Dear RestonPeace, Thank you so much for replying. I'm saddened though, that you still show so much hatred. I do not hate you, and my first reply is out of a caring heart. You are very much hurting.
As for family and friends who care about me - yes I do have these, and am so grateful for them. You speak about a situation you do not know about. I do not know about yours either, but I am also human, and know what hurting is also, and we all as humans have varying degrees of the same or similar reactions or responses to what we go through in life, and we can choose to react, as you are doing, or pray for and forgive those who oppose us and the world of people whom God loves, including you.
If I were to die, which I almost did a few years ago, and my body went to the dogs, no matter, as my spirit would immediately go in to Heaven with Christ, which I'm so grateful for, not because of me, but because of Christ Himself.
Shoot myself? Sir, that would be self-murder, of which God also speaks out against murder. Murder is hatred. Hatred is rebellion, and according to God, rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. And a practice of true witchcraft is worship of satan himself, and their hearts are for the death of others. This is murder which is sin.
You know, even if Christ were not real, though He is real, I would rather believe in Him than not do so. I'm grateful He is real. I hope and pray you too will find this to be true, you and many others.
I pray for God's best blessings for you, for now and for ever.
So long for now.
-------------------------------------------------------
> KL: From the first sentence, you epitomized my
> exact sentiment about christians and their
> self-loving bullshit. I hope you take my advice
> and shoot yourself. I hope you leave a large
> amount of brain matter on the walls, and that your
> face is blown clean off, so as to prevent a closed
> casket.
>
> Not that a casket will be needed. You have no
> family or friends who care about you... you have
> totally turned yourself over to Jesus Christ, and
> since he's been dead for almost 2000 years now, he
> is not available to find your corpse, notify the
> authorities, and make arrangements months later,
> when you have finally been identified via a
> hodgepodge of medical and public records. Your
> rotting corpse could be fed to dogs, and that
> would have more attendants than any other funeral
> your sad life would draw.
>
> Make amends with your so-called savior now,
> because Jesus Christ can and will sodomize you and
> all your children in hell. For this I have
> prayed.
Answer: Dear RestonPeace, Thank you so much for replying. I'm saddened though, that you still show so much hatred. I do not hate you, and my first reply is out of a caring heart. You are very much hurting.
As for family and friends who care about me - yes I do have these, and am so grateful for them. You speak about a situation you do not know about. I do not know about yours either, but I am also human, and know what hurting is also, and we all as humans have varying degrees of the same or similar reactions or responses to what we go through in life, and we can choose to react, as you are doing, or pray for and forgive those who oppose us and the world of people whom God loves, including you.
If I were to die, which I almost did a few years ago, and my body went to the dogs, no matter, as my spirit would immediately go in to Heaven with Christ, which I'm so grateful for, not because of me, but because of Christ Himself.
Shoot myself? Sir, that would be self-murder, of which God also speaks out against murder. Murder is hatred. Hatred is rebellion, and according to God, rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. And a practice of true witchcraft is worship of satan himself, and their hearts are for the death of others. This is murder which is sin.
You know, even if Christ were not real, though He is real, I would rather believe in Him than not do so. I'm grateful He is real. I hope and pray you too will find this to be true, you and many others.
I pray for God's best blessings for you, for now and for ever.
So long for now.
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
kl
()
Date: January 23, 2009 09:19PM
kl Wrote: By the way RESTon Peace (Peace is something I hope you will have one day soon) All people, by nature, are self loving, rather they believe in Christ or not. The difference is, that many who do not believe in Christ don't care if they continue like this. And most true Christians wants that to change in their lives, and it is a growing and learning process, like so many things in life. And a true believer in Christ, if he/she wants to will learn to let Christ change them,and the ways in their lives which are selfish and to become people who lack selfishness, but this can only be by the power and strength of a wonderful loving and patient God. Those who do not know Christ, does not have this strength to draw on.
Again, I pray for God's best blessing for you.
-------------------------------------------------------
> RESton Peace Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > KL: From the first sentence, you epitomized my
> > exact sentiment about christians and their
> > self-loving bullshit. I hope you take my
> advice
> > and shoot yourself. I hope you leave a large
> > amount of brain matter on the walls, and that
> your
> > face is blown clean off, so as to prevent a
> closed
> > casket.
> >
> > Not that a casket will be needed. You have no
> > family or friends who care about you... you
> have
> > totally turned yourself over to Jesus Christ,
> and
> > since he's been dead for almost 2000 years now,
> he
> > is not available to find your corpse, notify
> the
> > authorities, and make arrangements months
> later,
> > when you have finally been identified via a
> > hodgepodge of medical and public records. Your
> > rotting corpse could be fed to dogs, and that
> > would have more attendants than any other
> funeral
> > your sad life would draw.
> >
> > Make amends with your so-called savior now,
> > because Jesus Christ can and will sodomize you
> and
> > all your children in hell. For this I have
> > prayed.
>
>
> Answer: Dear RestonPeace, Thank you so much for
> replying. I'm saddened though, that you still
> show so much hatred. I do not hate you, and my
> first reply is out of a caring heart. You are
> very much hurting.
> As for family and friends who care about me - yes
> I do have these, and am so grateful for them. You
> speak about a situation you do not know about. I
> do not know about yours either, but I am also
> human, and know what hurting is also, and we all
> as humans have varying degrees of the same or
> similar reactions or responses to what we go
> through in life, and we can choose to react, as
> you are doing, or pray for and forgive those who
> oppose us and the world of people whom God loves,
> including you.
> If I were to die, which I almost did a few years
> ago, and my body went to the dogs, no matter, as
> my spirit would immediately go in to Heaven with
> Christ, which I'm so grateful for, not because of
> me, but because of Christ Himself.
>
> Shoot myself? Sir, that would be self-murder, of
> which God also speaks out against murder. Murder
> is hatred. Hatred is rebellion, and according to
> God, rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. And a
> practice of true witchcraft is worship of satan
> himself, and their hearts are for the death of
> others. This is murder which is sin.
>
> You know, even if Christ were not real, though He
> is real, I would rather believe in Him than not do
> so. I'm grateful He is real. I hope and pray you
> too will find this to be true, you and many
> others.
> I pray for God's best blessings for you, for now
> and for ever.
> So long for now.
Again, I pray for God's best blessing for you.
-------------------------------------------------------
> RESton Peace Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > KL: From the first sentence, you epitomized my
> > exact sentiment about christians and their
> > self-loving bullshit. I hope you take my
> advice
> > and shoot yourself. I hope you leave a large
> > amount of brain matter on the walls, and that
> your
> > face is blown clean off, so as to prevent a
> closed
> > casket.
> >
> > Not that a casket will be needed. You have no
> > family or friends who care about you... you
> have
> > totally turned yourself over to Jesus Christ,
> and
> > since he's been dead for almost 2000 years now,
> he
> > is not available to find your corpse, notify
> the
> > authorities, and make arrangements months
> later,
> > when you have finally been identified via a
> > hodgepodge of medical and public records. Your
> > rotting corpse could be fed to dogs, and that
> > would have more attendants than any other
> funeral
> > your sad life would draw.
> >
> > Make amends with your so-called savior now,
> > because Jesus Christ can and will sodomize you
> and
> > all your children in hell. For this I have
> > prayed.
>
>
> Answer: Dear RestonPeace, Thank you so much for
> replying. I'm saddened though, that you still
> show so much hatred. I do not hate you, and my
> first reply is out of a caring heart. You are
> very much hurting.
> As for family and friends who care about me - yes
> I do have these, and am so grateful for them. You
> speak about a situation you do not know about. I
> do not know about yours either, but I am also
> human, and know what hurting is also, and we all
> as humans have varying degrees of the same or
> similar reactions or responses to what we go
> through in life, and we can choose to react, as
> you are doing, or pray for and forgive those who
> oppose us and the world of people whom God loves,
> including you.
> If I were to die, which I almost did a few years
> ago, and my body went to the dogs, no matter, as
> my spirit would immediately go in to Heaven with
> Christ, which I'm so grateful for, not because of
> me, but because of Christ Himself.
>
> Shoot myself? Sir, that would be self-murder, of
> which God also speaks out against murder. Murder
> is hatred. Hatred is rebellion, and according to
> God, rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. And a
> practice of true witchcraft is worship of satan
> himself, and their hearts are for the death of
> others. This is murder which is sin.
>
> You know, even if Christ were not real, though He
> is real, I would rather believe in Him than not do
> so. I'm grateful He is real. I hope and pray you
> too will find this to be true, you and many
> others.
> I pray for God's best blessings for you, for now
> and for ever.
> So long for now.
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
kl
()
Date: January 23, 2009 09:35PM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or what if God as we know Him is really Lucifer
> (now named Satan), who invented Judaism and
> Christianity to draw us away from Allah (peace be
> upon him) and the One True Islamic Faith?
>
> Satan (now named Mephistopheles) is a masterful,
> cunning deceiver.
Answer:
One day soon, all will know who the One true God and Saviour is, One Who loves and cares for all of His creation, yet hates sin.
As for Islam,even Islam recognizes that Jesus lived, and calls Him a prophet, though He is more than just a prophet.
I've also learned from a Muslim, that Islam states that all prophets cannot lie. If this is the case, and Islam states that all prophets do not and cannot lie, and Islam states that Jesus is a prophet, then is He lying when He states that He is God?
However, Islam is not the only religion out there that makes similar claims. Someone speaks the truth and someone isn't. It is up to the individuals to decide what they are going to believe - and in the end when the final Judgement day comes, or a person dies first, then the truth will really be known, regardless of the claims of all people, whomever they are.
All religions are a 'true' faith of some sort, meaning that they truely teach what they believe, including atheism, but are they The True Faith? Only one can be - which is it? That fact is already established, yet it is still up to the individual to decide for themselves what they want to believe. Even then, in the final analysis the truth will be revealed, and yet, already has been.
Thank you most kindly for sharing.
By the way, you are right in this, satan really is a cunning deceiver, so beware of false prophets and teachers.
Again, thank you for sharing.
I too pray for God's best blessing for you and all.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or what if God as we know Him is really Lucifer
> (now named Satan), who invented Judaism and
> Christianity to draw us away from Allah (peace be
> upon him) and the One True Islamic Faith?
>
> Satan (now named Mephistopheles) is a masterful,
> cunning deceiver.
Answer:
One day soon, all will know who the One true God and Saviour is, One Who loves and cares for all of His creation, yet hates sin.
As for Islam,even Islam recognizes that Jesus lived, and calls Him a prophet, though He is more than just a prophet.
I've also learned from a Muslim, that Islam states that all prophets cannot lie. If this is the case, and Islam states that all prophets do not and cannot lie, and Islam states that Jesus is a prophet, then is He lying when He states that He is God?
However, Islam is not the only religion out there that makes similar claims. Someone speaks the truth and someone isn't. It is up to the individuals to decide what they are going to believe - and in the end when the final Judgement day comes, or a person dies first, then the truth will really be known, regardless of the claims of all people, whomever they are.
All religions are a 'true' faith of some sort, meaning that they truely teach what they believe, including atheism, but are they The True Faith? Only one can be - which is it? That fact is already established, yet it is still up to the individual to decide for themselves what they want to believe. Even then, in the final analysis the truth will be revealed, and yet, already has been.
Thank you most kindly for sharing.
By the way, you are right in this, satan really is a cunning deceiver, so beware of false prophets and teachers.
Again, thank you for sharing.
I too pray for God's best blessing for you and all.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
kl
()
Date: January 23, 2009 09:41PM
shut the fuck up KL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hey Kl did you have to make 18 different responses
> and quote people in every single fucking one. I
> liked christ before- but now i think hes a
> douche, thanks man.
Answer: All the responses are to separate individuals, like this one.
Whom, even though you meant to use 'douche' in a negative way, you obviously don't understand the function of a douche. The function of the douche is to clean out impuritys. And this is what Christ does for us, He cleans out impurities in the lives of people, and makes them whole and clean.
What an interesting comparison.
Thanks, and I pray for God's best for you as well.
-------------------------------------------------------
> hey Kl did you have to make 18 different responses
> and quote people in every single fucking one. I
> liked christ before- but now i think hes a
> douche, thanks man.
Answer: All the responses are to separate individuals, like this one.
Whom, even though you meant to use 'douche' in a negative way, you obviously don't understand the function of a douche. The function of the douche is to clean out impuritys. And this is what Christ does for us, He cleans out impurities in the lives of people, and makes them whole and clean.
What an interesting comparison.
Thanks, and I pray for God's best for you as well.
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
kl
()
Date: January 23, 2009 10:12PM
Thank you so much, Professor, for replying. I really appreciate your kind approach. This speaks well of you.
You give much to ponder, yet I know in the end, that Christ must be first, and I must continue to learn to let Him be first.
What do you understand Christianity to be?
For me, I understood as a child, from within my very spirit, that He is God, but chose not to let Him be my Saviour for a few years after that. Why was this? One reason is, I understood that He has a standard of perfection, though so far different than the standards of perfection people have for themselves and others. I knew I could never reach that perfection on my own. I had a really bad temper, and though I was taught to love and care for others, I had trouble to some degree learning to forgive and not hate. This was in me, alone. I'm so grateful that my Mom sought to teach me to love God, and to love and care for others and to forgive others who might hurt me, and there were some, even in school who tried to do so, and they did to others as well. I knew I could not make the grade. I knew I could not live up to His standards, certainly not in my own strength. But now, I realize I do not have to, though it still is not always easy, as He gives strength to those who know Him and want Him to change them in to better people, people who truly care for others, beyond our own human capabilities. We are always in a learning state, sometimes failing, but still going forward, for many-I wish all.
Sometimes it is good to try to put ourselves in the shoes of others, in order to try to understand them, if at all possible, so it is important to listen, first, and not criticize, rather the person is Hindu or not. I'd like to try to understand just a little more deeply where you are coming from, if appropriate.
What really is going on inside of you and in your life, at least this is something you seem to be working on anyway. What is your lifestyle? Again the questions are for your thinking through. The public does not need to know every detail about other people, this then would become gossip, and this too is sin.
Usually a person's lifestyle will dictate what a person ends up believing.
As for atheism - it is a belief system, because this is what many people do believe in. As for Lee Strobel, what I was sharing is that since he had been an atheist before, he could draw upon experiences in his life before he became a believer in Christ.
Professor, you stated you once were a strong Christian but now you aren't. You are drawing upon your own experiences of the past, with what you understand Christianity to be.
We all have experiences - past present, and eventually future, which then will become present, and then in the past.
You give some good challenges to me too, Professor, and gratefully, challenges which encourage me to seek deeper in to God's Word for His truth and to want to get to know Him better, yet also, to learn to hear and care for others more deeply.
I need to close for now, but hope to continue our discussion (and I'm glad this is a discussion), My former professor in high school was also a preacher, though he did not believe that Jesus is God. He loved the Bible as literature, and believed it should be taught in the schools, as literature. It did not bother him, though, that if anyone, in reading it started believing it, he felt that that person had the right to, and he was right. Strange, he was a preacher, as well as an English teacher, and yet almost atheistic in his leanings, or at least agnostic. But you know, I liked him, and was glad he was my English teacher. His questions and comments were challenging, and he was kind with it. I often wonder where he is now, and what he is doing. I sure hope all is well with him.
You remind me a little of that English teacher, and sir, this is a complement.
Gratefully,
kl
==============================
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> kl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Answer:
> > Sir, The fact that Lee Strobal was a strong
> > atheist, shows that he does know what he is
> > talking about. He is a voice of experience,
> just
> > as you are a voice of experience of what you
> > currently believe in.
>
> No offense, but this is not true. The fact that I
> was a very strong Christian prior to my
> deconversion gives me no more authority then the
> reverse does for Strobel. Arguments are what
> matter. FURTHER, it is a fact that he was *NOT*
> an atheist when he started writing that book.
> Strobel admits to this in the first few pages.
>
>
> > You see: religion is the definition of a belief
> > system, rather that belief system is true or
> not,
> > and rather it is atheistic or not - all are
> belief
> > systems, thus all belief systems are some sort
> of
> > religion-true or not true. And all belief
> system
> > are based on a form of faith. All human beings
> > always have had faith in something or someone,
> > even if that someone is their own self.
> > Thank you for sharing.
>
> I'm not entirely sure i agree with this - I can't
> see how epistemological skepticism requires
> 'faith' per say, but this is regardless. Atheism
> is not a belief system as I think you imply here.
> It is incorporated into belief systems (as is
> theism).
>
> > Answer:
> > Professor Pangloss, you sound like a former
> > classmate of mine, and possibly a former high
> > school professor I once had. You sound like
> you
> > are searching, perhaps sincerely, and have been
> > disappointed.
>
> That could be a fair estimation - but during the
> months that my deconversion took, I wouldn't say I
> was 'searching' per say. I wanted very dearly to
> be right about God. I just couldn't convince
> myself. I prayed every day (a few times a day)
> and deconversion hurt. My bias was to find a
> reason to believe, which is why I wouldn't
> characterize myself as searching - since in my
> mind, searching implies a non bias viewpoint.
>
> > In reality though, when one truly has begun to
> > know Christ personally, and learn His ways in
> > their life, as God intends, then this will help.
>
> > The path is not always easy, but oh so
> precious.
>
> The reality is this is what you believe. You
> cannot demostrate it to be true and as such, I
> remain unconvinced.
>
> > I hope you will seek Him again, and open your
> > heart for His truth. God stated that those who
> > truly seek the truth, will find it, and His
> truth
> > will make you/us free. - free from within, even
> in
> > the midst of struggles we go through in our
> lives,
> > and being human and being on this earth, we do
> go
> > through struggles, and sometimes far more than
> > just struggles - none ever easy.
> > But Professor Pangloss, and whomever else is
> > reading - Christ is worth it all.
> >
> > My heart goes out to you and pray you will
> someday
> > soon find His truth for yourself. Keep seeking
> > Him. I'm so glad He "seeks" us first. He
> already
> > knows who we are, and has since before the
> > beginning of time, does now, and always will,
> yet
> > He loves us still.
> > Thank you Professor Pangloss, for sharing your
> > heart.
>
> I disagree with you on many levels here, but you
> are free to believe as you wish.
>
> > So I challenge all who read - take a sincere
> and
> > honest read throught the entire bible - the OT
> and
> > the NT - the 16ll King James Version and the
> > Hebrew Scriptures, and sincerely ask God that
> if
> > He is truly real, that He will reveal Himself
> and
> > His truth to you. And do this without
> > interjecting other peoples opinions. Let the
> > Bible speak for itself. And then if you have
> > genuine honest questions, go to someone who
> > believes the bible is the literal Word of God -
> > because it is, and that God is Who He says He is
> -
> > because He is.
>
> You didn't write this to me, but I have taken that
> challenge, twice now, and the second time I did it
> did a good job of convincing me that Christianity
> was not true. The problem you are having is that
> you are looking through the lense of intense
> faith. You need to approach Christianity as
> though you were an outsider. Pretend it is
> Hinduism as best you can, and then see what you
> make of it.
You give much to ponder, yet I know in the end, that Christ must be first, and I must continue to learn to let Him be first.
What do you understand Christianity to be?
For me, I understood as a child, from within my very spirit, that He is God, but chose not to let Him be my Saviour for a few years after that. Why was this? One reason is, I understood that He has a standard of perfection, though so far different than the standards of perfection people have for themselves and others. I knew I could never reach that perfection on my own. I had a really bad temper, and though I was taught to love and care for others, I had trouble to some degree learning to forgive and not hate. This was in me, alone. I'm so grateful that my Mom sought to teach me to love God, and to love and care for others and to forgive others who might hurt me, and there were some, even in school who tried to do so, and they did to others as well. I knew I could not make the grade. I knew I could not live up to His standards, certainly not in my own strength. But now, I realize I do not have to, though it still is not always easy, as He gives strength to those who know Him and want Him to change them in to better people, people who truly care for others, beyond our own human capabilities. We are always in a learning state, sometimes failing, but still going forward, for many-I wish all.
Sometimes it is good to try to put ourselves in the shoes of others, in order to try to understand them, if at all possible, so it is important to listen, first, and not criticize, rather the person is Hindu or not. I'd like to try to understand just a little more deeply where you are coming from, if appropriate.
What really is going on inside of you and in your life, at least this is something you seem to be working on anyway. What is your lifestyle? Again the questions are for your thinking through. The public does not need to know every detail about other people, this then would become gossip, and this too is sin.
Usually a person's lifestyle will dictate what a person ends up believing.
As for atheism - it is a belief system, because this is what many people do believe in. As for Lee Strobel, what I was sharing is that since he had been an atheist before, he could draw upon experiences in his life before he became a believer in Christ.
Professor, you stated you once were a strong Christian but now you aren't. You are drawing upon your own experiences of the past, with what you understand Christianity to be.
We all have experiences - past present, and eventually future, which then will become present, and then in the past.
You give some good challenges to me too, Professor, and gratefully, challenges which encourage me to seek deeper in to God's Word for His truth and to want to get to know Him better, yet also, to learn to hear and care for others more deeply.
I need to close for now, but hope to continue our discussion (and I'm glad this is a discussion), My former professor in high school was also a preacher, though he did not believe that Jesus is God. He loved the Bible as literature, and believed it should be taught in the schools, as literature. It did not bother him, though, that if anyone, in reading it started believing it, he felt that that person had the right to, and he was right. Strange, he was a preacher, as well as an English teacher, and yet almost atheistic in his leanings, or at least agnostic. But you know, I liked him, and was glad he was my English teacher. His questions and comments were challenging, and he was kind with it. I often wonder where he is now, and what he is doing. I sure hope all is well with him.
You remind me a little of that English teacher, and sir, this is a complement.
Gratefully,
kl
==============================
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> kl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Answer:
> > Sir, The fact that Lee Strobal was a strong
> > atheist, shows that he does know what he is
> > talking about. He is a voice of experience,
> just
> > as you are a voice of experience of what you
> > currently believe in.
>
> No offense, but this is not true. The fact that I
> was a very strong Christian prior to my
> deconversion gives me no more authority then the
> reverse does for Strobel. Arguments are what
> matter. FURTHER, it is a fact that he was *NOT*
> an atheist when he started writing that book.
> Strobel admits to this in the first few pages.
>
>
> > You see: religion is the definition of a belief
> > system, rather that belief system is true or
> not,
> > and rather it is atheistic or not - all are
> belief
> > systems, thus all belief systems are some sort
> of
> > religion-true or not true. And all belief
> system
> > are based on a form of faith. All human beings
> > always have had faith in something or someone,
> > even if that someone is their own self.
> > Thank you for sharing.
>
> I'm not entirely sure i agree with this - I can't
> see how epistemological skepticism requires
> 'faith' per say, but this is regardless. Atheism
> is not a belief system as I think you imply here.
> It is incorporated into belief systems (as is
> theism).
>
> > Answer:
> > Professor Pangloss, you sound like a former
> > classmate of mine, and possibly a former high
> > school professor I once had. You sound like
> you
> > are searching, perhaps sincerely, and have been
> > disappointed.
>
> That could be a fair estimation - but during the
> months that my deconversion took, I wouldn't say I
> was 'searching' per say. I wanted very dearly to
> be right about God. I just couldn't convince
> myself. I prayed every day (a few times a day)
> and deconversion hurt. My bias was to find a
> reason to believe, which is why I wouldn't
> characterize myself as searching - since in my
> mind, searching implies a non bias viewpoint.
>
> > In reality though, when one truly has begun to
> > know Christ personally, and learn His ways in
> > their life, as God intends, then this will help.
>
> > The path is not always easy, but oh so
> precious.
>
> The reality is this is what you believe. You
> cannot demostrate it to be true and as such, I
> remain unconvinced.
>
> > I hope you will seek Him again, and open your
> > heart for His truth. God stated that those who
> > truly seek the truth, will find it, and His
> truth
> > will make you/us free. - free from within, even
> in
> > the midst of struggles we go through in our
> lives,
> > and being human and being on this earth, we do
> go
> > through struggles, and sometimes far more than
> > just struggles - none ever easy.
> > But Professor Pangloss, and whomever else is
> > reading - Christ is worth it all.
> >
> > My heart goes out to you and pray you will
> someday
> > soon find His truth for yourself. Keep seeking
> > Him. I'm so glad He "seeks" us first. He
> already
> > knows who we are, and has since before the
> > beginning of time, does now, and always will,
> yet
> > He loves us still.
> > Thank you Professor Pangloss, for sharing your
> > heart.
>
> I disagree with you on many levels here, but you
> are free to believe as you wish.
>
> > So I challenge all who read - take a sincere
> and
> > honest read throught the entire bible - the OT
> and
> > the NT - the 16ll King James Version and the
> > Hebrew Scriptures, and sincerely ask God that
> if
> > He is truly real, that He will reveal Himself
> and
> > His truth to you. And do this without
> > interjecting other peoples opinions. Let the
> > Bible speak for itself. And then if you have
> > genuine honest questions, go to someone who
> > believes the bible is the literal Word of God -
> > because it is, and that God is Who He says He is
> -
> > because He is.
>
> You didn't write this to me, but I have taken that
> challenge, twice now, and the second time I did it
> did a good job of convincing me that Christianity
> was not true. The problem you are having is that
> you are looking through the lense of intense
> faith. You need to approach Christianity as
> though you were an outsider. Pretend it is
> Hinduism as best you can, and then see what you
> make of it.
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 23, 2009 10:38PM
kl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you so much, Professor, for replying. I
> really appreciate your kind approach. This speaks
> well of you.
Thank you. You have been cordial as well.
> You give much to ponder, yet I know in the end,
> that Christ must be first, and I must continue to
> learn to let Him be first.
>
> What do you understand Christianity to be?
Were you to ask me this a decade or so ago, I would have a ready answer - something close to a fundamentalist's approximation. Today though, I'm not sure I can give a clear and cut explanation. I understand Christianity to be a religion - a set of beliefs that a portion of the population holds true. These beliefs are supposed to influence the individual in the way they live and how they act. These beliefs are the lense in which they view the world. Outside of that very general definition, I'm afraid it becomes a lot more muddled.
> For me, I understood as a child, from within my
> very spirit, that He is God, but chose not to let
> Him be my Saviour for a few years after that. Why
> was this? One reason is, I understood that He has
> a standard of perfection, though so far different
> than the standards of perfection people have for
> themselves and others. I knew I could never reach
> that perfection on my own. I had a really bad
> temper, and though I was taught to love and care
> for others, I had trouble to some degree learning
> to forgive and not hate. This was in me, alone.
> I'm so grateful that my Mom sought to teach me to
> love God, and to love and care for others and to
> forgive others who might hurt me, and there were
> some, even in school who tried to do so, and they
> did to others as well. I knew I could not make
> the grade. I knew I could not live up to His
> standards, certainly not in my own strength. But
> now, I realize I do not have to, though it still
> is not always easy, as He gives strength to those
> who know Him and want Him to change them in to
> better people, people who truly care for others,
> beyond our own human capabilities. We are always
> in a learning state, sometimes failing, but still
> going forward, for many-I wish all.
When you write this it makes me think of Freud's idea that god was basically a substitute for a parent or father figure. It seems odd for me to view God in this way, as God could not possess these attributes in any way feasibly known to human beings. I also reject the idea of perfection. What is perfection? How do you objectively define it?
What is your opinion of the proximity between your view of God and that of a father figure? Does this disturb you?
> Sometimes it is good to try to put ourselves in
> the shoes of others, in order to try to understand
> them, if at all possible, so it is important to
> listen, first, and not criticize, rather the
> person is Hindu or not. I'd like to try to
> understand just a little more deeply where you are
> coming from, if appropriate.
I can appreciate that.
> What really is going on inside of you and in your
> life, at least this is something you seem to be
> working on anyway. What is your lifestyle? Again
> the questions are for your thinking through. The
> public does not need to know every detail about
> other people, this then would become gossip, and
> this too is sin.
I would say nothing unusual, really. I have a wife and child and I haven't ever really done anything that would be considered all that bad. The only thing that tends to separate me from my friends is that I go through periods where I am intensely interested in something. I research and study it - sometimes for years. The intensity eventually subsides and is replaced. For the past decade, or so, I have been interested in religion and philosophy.
> Usually a person's lifestyle will dictate what a
> person ends up believing.
I'm not sure about that. I think the methods from which we reason and/or were raised dictate what a person believes. For example, the vast majority of people share their parent's religion. This disturbed me as a believer, and I would often wonder why *I* had been so lucky to have been born in the correct religion.
I'm curious - if you were born into hinduism, do you think you would be a Christian today?
> As for atheism - it is a belief system, because
> this is what many people do believe in. As for
> Lee Strobel, what I was sharing is that since he
> had been an atheist before, he could draw upon
> experiences in his life before he became a
> believer in Christ.
I strongly disagree with this. Atheism, and for that matter theism, is not a belief system. They are positions on whether or not God exists. Belief systems have distinct epistemologies and ways of viewing the world - these cannot be ascertained from knowing whether or not someone is an atheist.
To use a loose example; there are supernaturalistic atheists as well as naturalistic ones (same for theists).
I suppose I thought you were trying to establish credibility for Strobel simply because he was an atheist. My objection would be off target here.
> Professor, you stated you once were a strong
> Christian but now you aren't. You are drawing
> upon your own experiences of the past, with what
> you understand Christianity to be.
Yes, however I wasn't arguing that my experience led any credibility to my arguments. This is the distinction I was trying to make.
> We all have experiences - past present, and
> eventually future, which then will become present,
> and then in the past.
>
> You give some good challenges to me too,
> Professor, and gratefully, challenges which
> encourage me to seek deeper in to God's Word for
> His truth and to want to get to know Him better,
> yet also, to learn to hear and care for others
> more deeply.
I'm curious - I suppose you believe in what amounts to an 'unknowable God', correct?
If this is the case, then what does it mean to say you want to get to know Him better? If you can, by definition, never really know God, then wouldn't that mean that everything you currently think you know about God is wrong? If it's not, how would you know?
> I need to close for now, but hope to continue our
> discussion (and I'm glad this is a discussion), My
> former professor in high school was also a
> preacher, though he did not believe that Jesus is
> God. He loved the Bible as literature, and
> believed it should be taught in the schools, as
> literature.
I have no problem with that - in fact, I like the idea of having a 'religious studies' course or three for students to study religions. I think it would go a long way towards tolerance.
>It did not bother him, though, that
> if anyone, in reading it started believing it, he
> felt that that person had the right to, and he was
> right. Strange, he was a preacher, as well as an
> English teacher, and yet almost atheistic in his
> leanings, or at least agnostic. But you know, I
> liked him, and was glad he was my English teacher.
> His questions and comments were challenging, and
> he was kind with it. I often wonder where he is
> now, and what he is doing. I sure hope all is
> well with him.
>
> You remind me a little of that English teacher,
> and sir, this is a complement.
>
> Gratefully,
> kl
> ==============================
I do take that as a compliment and thank you for engaging in this conversation with me.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you so much, Professor, for replying. I
> really appreciate your kind approach. This speaks
> well of you.
Thank you. You have been cordial as well.
> You give much to ponder, yet I know in the end,
> that Christ must be first, and I must continue to
> learn to let Him be first.
>
> What do you understand Christianity to be?
Were you to ask me this a decade or so ago, I would have a ready answer - something close to a fundamentalist's approximation. Today though, I'm not sure I can give a clear and cut explanation. I understand Christianity to be a religion - a set of beliefs that a portion of the population holds true. These beliefs are supposed to influence the individual in the way they live and how they act. These beliefs are the lense in which they view the world. Outside of that very general definition, I'm afraid it becomes a lot more muddled.
> For me, I understood as a child, from within my
> very spirit, that He is God, but chose not to let
> Him be my Saviour for a few years after that. Why
> was this? One reason is, I understood that He has
> a standard of perfection, though so far different
> than the standards of perfection people have for
> themselves and others. I knew I could never reach
> that perfection on my own. I had a really bad
> temper, and though I was taught to love and care
> for others, I had trouble to some degree learning
> to forgive and not hate. This was in me, alone.
> I'm so grateful that my Mom sought to teach me to
> love God, and to love and care for others and to
> forgive others who might hurt me, and there were
> some, even in school who tried to do so, and they
> did to others as well. I knew I could not make
> the grade. I knew I could not live up to His
> standards, certainly not in my own strength. But
> now, I realize I do not have to, though it still
> is not always easy, as He gives strength to those
> who know Him and want Him to change them in to
> better people, people who truly care for others,
> beyond our own human capabilities. We are always
> in a learning state, sometimes failing, but still
> going forward, for many-I wish all.
When you write this it makes me think of Freud's idea that god was basically a substitute for a parent or father figure. It seems odd for me to view God in this way, as God could not possess these attributes in any way feasibly known to human beings. I also reject the idea of perfection. What is perfection? How do you objectively define it?
What is your opinion of the proximity between your view of God and that of a father figure? Does this disturb you?
> Sometimes it is good to try to put ourselves in
> the shoes of others, in order to try to understand
> them, if at all possible, so it is important to
> listen, first, and not criticize, rather the
> person is Hindu or not. I'd like to try to
> understand just a little more deeply where you are
> coming from, if appropriate.
I can appreciate that.
> What really is going on inside of you and in your
> life, at least this is something you seem to be
> working on anyway. What is your lifestyle? Again
> the questions are for your thinking through. The
> public does not need to know every detail about
> other people, this then would become gossip, and
> this too is sin.
I would say nothing unusual, really. I have a wife and child and I haven't ever really done anything that would be considered all that bad. The only thing that tends to separate me from my friends is that I go through periods where I am intensely interested in something. I research and study it - sometimes for years. The intensity eventually subsides and is replaced. For the past decade, or so, I have been interested in religion and philosophy.
> Usually a person's lifestyle will dictate what a
> person ends up believing.
I'm not sure about that. I think the methods from which we reason and/or were raised dictate what a person believes. For example, the vast majority of people share their parent's religion. This disturbed me as a believer, and I would often wonder why *I* had been so lucky to have been born in the correct religion.
I'm curious - if you were born into hinduism, do you think you would be a Christian today?
> As for atheism - it is a belief system, because
> this is what many people do believe in. As for
> Lee Strobel, what I was sharing is that since he
> had been an atheist before, he could draw upon
> experiences in his life before he became a
> believer in Christ.
I strongly disagree with this. Atheism, and for that matter theism, is not a belief system. They are positions on whether or not God exists. Belief systems have distinct epistemologies and ways of viewing the world - these cannot be ascertained from knowing whether or not someone is an atheist.
To use a loose example; there are supernaturalistic atheists as well as naturalistic ones (same for theists).
I suppose I thought you were trying to establish credibility for Strobel simply because he was an atheist. My objection would be off target here.
> Professor, you stated you once were a strong
> Christian but now you aren't. You are drawing
> upon your own experiences of the past, with what
> you understand Christianity to be.
Yes, however I wasn't arguing that my experience led any credibility to my arguments. This is the distinction I was trying to make.
> We all have experiences - past present, and
> eventually future, which then will become present,
> and then in the past.
>
> You give some good challenges to me too,
> Professor, and gratefully, challenges which
> encourage me to seek deeper in to God's Word for
> His truth and to want to get to know Him better,
> yet also, to learn to hear and care for others
> more deeply.
I'm curious - I suppose you believe in what amounts to an 'unknowable God', correct?
If this is the case, then what does it mean to say you want to get to know Him better? If you can, by definition, never really know God, then wouldn't that mean that everything you currently think you know about God is wrong? If it's not, how would you know?
> I need to close for now, but hope to continue our
> discussion (and I'm glad this is a discussion), My
> former professor in high school was also a
> preacher, though he did not believe that Jesus is
> God. He loved the Bible as literature, and
> believed it should be taught in the schools, as
> literature.
I have no problem with that - in fact, I like the idea of having a 'religious studies' course or three for students to study religions. I think it would go a long way towards tolerance.
>It did not bother him, though, that
> if anyone, in reading it started believing it, he
> felt that that person had the right to, and he was
> right. Strange, he was a preacher, as well as an
> English teacher, and yet almost atheistic in his
> leanings, or at least agnostic. But you know, I
> liked him, and was glad he was my English teacher.
> His questions and comments were challenging, and
> he was kind with it. I often wonder where he is
> now, and what he is doing. I sure hope all is
> well with him.
>
> You remind me a little of that English teacher,
> and sir, this is a complement.
>
> Gratefully,
> kl
> ==============================
I do take that as a compliment and thank you for engaging in this conversation with me.
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: January 24, 2009 12:00AM
I love to discuss religion with people in a civilized manner, but it's almost impossible when every response is along the lines of, "Whatever, Christianity is the only real faith, suck the pipe."
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Cotton Mather
()
Date: January 24, 2009 01:47PM
I love to discuss religion with people in a civilized manner, but it's almost impossible when every response is along the lines of, "Whatever, Christianity is the only real faith, suck the pipe."
Or when every response is "Christianity is superstitious nonsense for the dim-witted." Which all goes to show the ultimate futility of discussing matters of faith.
Or when every response is "Christianity is superstitious nonsense for the dim-witted." Which all goes to show the ultimate futility of discussing matters of faith.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: January 24, 2009 01:53PM
Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love to discuss religion with people in a
> civilized manner, but it's almost impossible when
> every response is along the lines of, "Whatever,
> Christianity is the only real faith, suck the
> pipe."
>
> Or when every response is "Christianity is
> superstitious nonsense for the dim-witted." Which
> all goes to show the ultimate futility of
> discussing matters of faith.
frankly, discussing anything with dim-wits who push superstitious nonsense is a futile exercise - time to take away those nice little tax and development advantages which make pushing this outdated junk so attractive
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love to discuss religion with people in a
> civilized manner, but it's almost impossible when
> every response is along the lines of, "Whatever,
> Christianity is the only real faith, suck the
> pipe."
>
> Or when every response is "Christianity is
> superstitious nonsense for the dim-witted." Which
> all goes to show the ultimate futility of
> discussing matters of faith.
frankly, discussing anything with dim-wits who push superstitious nonsense is a futile exercise - time to take away those nice little tax and development advantages which make pushing this outdated junk so attractive
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Cotton Mather
()
Date: January 24, 2009 02:40PM
frankly, discussing anything with dim-wits who push superstitious nonsense is a futile exercise - time to take away those nice little tax and development advantages which make pushing this outdated junk so attractive
Or trying to discuss anything with hate-filled,intolerant bigots like you.
Or trying to discuss anything with hate-filled,intolerant bigots like you.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: January 24, 2009 03:55PM
Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> frankly, discussing anything with dim-wits who
> push superstitious nonsense is a futile exercise -
> time to take away those nice little tax and
> development advantages which make pushing this
> outdated junk so attractive
>
> Or trying to discuss anything with
> hate-filled,intolerant bigots like you.
Its very simple - you can either look around you and see how the world actually works using the tried and trusted scientific method - or you can spout random bits of scripture
Faith only works where there are reasonable unexplained gaps to fill - they've all gone. We have very good consistent explanations for observed phenomena at the level of the cosmos, the quanta and the mind, across timescales from femto-second to the age of the universe - with a reasonable expectation that our understanding and models will continue to improve - there's no dark cupboard left a creator or a personal god, or any dark spaces under the bed for monsters and demons.
Its not bigotry to point out that science and religion are no longer compatible,
Its time that we stopped pandering to outdated superstitions and giving special exemptions to the institutions that have grown up around them
If religion had no damaging impacts on individuals and society, it wouldn't be worth bothering with, but it does.
There is no god, the world is more than 6000 years old, dinosaurs weren't planted to confuse us and the grand canyon wasn't cut in a day - move on
-------------------------------------------------------
> frankly, discussing anything with dim-wits who
> push superstitious nonsense is a futile exercise -
> time to take away those nice little tax and
> development advantages which make pushing this
> outdated junk so attractive
>
> Or trying to discuss anything with
> hate-filled,intolerant bigots like you.
Its very simple - you can either look around you and see how the world actually works using the tried and trusted scientific method - or you can spout random bits of scripture
Faith only works where there are reasonable unexplained gaps to fill - they've all gone. We have very good consistent explanations for observed phenomena at the level of the cosmos, the quanta and the mind, across timescales from femto-second to the age of the universe - with a reasonable expectation that our understanding and models will continue to improve - there's no dark cupboard left a creator or a personal god, or any dark spaces under the bed for monsters and demons.
Its not bigotry to point out that science and religion are no longer compatible,
Its time that we stopped pandering to outdated superstitions and giving special exemptions to the institutions that have grown up around them
If religion had no damaging impacts on individuals and society, it wouldn't be worth bothering with, but it does.
There is no god, the world is more than 6000 years old, dinosaurs weren't planted to confuse us and the grand canyon wasn't cut in a day - move on
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 24, 2009 05:24PM
I'm in NY for the weekend ... have just begun trying to catch up with the recent posts here ... wish that everybody would edit the carriage returns out of quotations so that this forum could be more h o r i z o n t a l
and
less
vertical.
and
less
vertical.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 24, 2009 06:15PM
Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Honestly, do you YOU feel comfortable knowing that someone who literally believes in the Noah's Ark story, Adam and Eve, buried golden tablets [Mormons/Joseph Smith] or some kid at the bottom of a well [Islam/the occulted 12th imam] is making decisions that can affect the whole world?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Honestly, do you YOU feel comfortable knowing that someone who literally believes in the Noah's Ark story, Adam and Eve, buried golden tablets [Mormons/Joseph Smith] or some kid at the bottom of a well [Islam/the occulted 12th imam] is making decisions that can affect the whole world?
| 1) You're right ... Christianity stands or falls on the historicity of the Bible. |
| 2) Hence the intense interest and online debate about the Genesis Flood (e.g., Dr. Walter Brown's site). |
| 3) Those who believe in an historical Adam and Eve, and Genesis Flood ... subscribe to Christian ethics -- Jesus' command to love your neighbor as yourself. |
| 4) Historically, those inspired by Darwin's 'vision' (specifically National Socialists and Communists) have slaughtered millions -- absurdly, meaninglessly, without responsibility -- in a universe condemned to an entropy-inevitable heat death. |
| 5) So yeah, I'd absolutely rather have a conscience-bound Christian "in charge" rather than a 'visionary' who is willing to slaughter to achieve a Master Race or Classless Society or Global Caliphate. |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: January 24, 2009 07:04PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Honestly, do you YOU feel comfortable knowing
> that someone who literally believes in the Noah's
> Ark story, Adam and Eve, buried golden tablets or
> some kid at the bottom of a well is making
> decisions that can affect the whole world?
>
> 1) You're right ... Christianity stands or falls
> on the historicity of the Bible.
>
> 2) Hence the intense interest and online debate
> about the Genesis Flood (e.g., Dr. Walter Brown's
> site).
>
> 3) Those who believe in an historical Adam and
> Eve, and Genesis Flood ... subscribe to Christian
> ethics -- Jesus' command to love your neighbor as
> yourself.
>
> 4) Historically, those inspired by Darwin's
> 'vision' (specifically National Socialists and
> Communists) have slaughtered millions -- absurdly,
> meaninglessly, without responsibility -- in a
> universe condemned to an entropy-inevitable heat
> death.
>
> 5) So yeah, I'd absolutely rather have a
> conscience-bound Christian "in charge" rather than
> a 'visionary' who is willing to slaughter to
> achieve a Master Race or Classless Society or
> Global Caliphate.
>
That's such a dumb-ass line of reasoning its not even funny
The proportion of the worlds population slaughtered at each stage in history is by far dominated by religious believers - including the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians, the carnage of medieval Europe, the crusades, the British empire, the French empire, the Portuguese Empire, the Inquisition, the Spanish invasion of South America, the American war in Indochina, the Iran-Iraq war etc etc - I guess the difference is that they claimed that their reason was because god told them it was okay
People kill people - regularly and in huge numbers - end of story
Linking a belief in science with being a Nazi or a Communist is a particularly vile and unfounded accusation straight out of the 1950s or the Reagan era - or the playbook unthinking ant-antisemitism - with no justification whatsoever. I'd waver that a smaller percentage of people who believe in science were ever nazis or communists than religious believers who thought it was okay to slaughter their religious rivals or anyone of a different skin color.
Similarly trying to link scientists with religious maniacs of another persuasion attempting a Caliphate is the most bizarre suggestion
And honestly, YES, I do feel more than uncomfortable having anyone who believe is biblical literalism in charge of anything
Frankly, your thinking is so bizarrely stuck in the middle ages, its amazing
> 2) Hence the intense interest and online debate
> about the Genesis Flood (e.g., Dr. Walter Brown's
> site).
Its not a real debate - its an 'angels-on-a-pin-head' farce of religious extremists.
Take a metro to the Smithsonian and see the Burgess Shale if you want to look at the real timeline
> 1) You're right ... Christianity stands or falls
> on the historicity of the Bible.
>
and hence its fallen
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Honestly, do you YOU feel comfortable knowing
> that someone who literally believes in the Noah's
> Ark story, Adam and Eve, buried golden tablets or
> some kid at the bottom of a well is making
> decisions that can affect the whole world?
>
> 1) You're right ... Christianity stands or falls
> on the historicity of the Bible.
>
> 2) Hence the intense interest and online debate
> about the Genesis Flood (e.g., Dr. Walter Brown's
> site).
>
> 3) Those who believe in an historical Adam and
> Eve, and Genesis Flood ... subscribe to Christian
> ethics -- Jesus' command to love your neighbor as
> yourself.
>
> 4) Historically, those inspired by Darwin's
> 'vision' (specifically National Socialists and
> Communists) have slaughtered millions -- absurdly,
> meaninglessly, without responsibility -- in a
> universe condemned to an entropy-inevitable heat
> death.
>
> 5) So yeah, I'd absolutely rather have a
> conscience-bound Christian "in charge" rather than
> a 'visionary' who is willing to slaughter to
> achieve a Master Race or Classless Society or
> Global Caliphate.
>
That's such a dumb-ass line of reasoning its not even funny
The proportion of the worlds population slaughtered at each stage in history is by far dominated by religious believers - including the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians, the carnage of medieval Europe, the crusades, the British empire, the French empire, the Portuguese Empire, the Inquisition, the Spanish invasion of South America, the American war in Indochina, the Iran-Iraq war etc etc - I guess the difference is that they claimed that their reason was because god told them it was okay
People kill people - regularly and in huge numbers - end of story
Linking a belief in science with being a Nazi or a Communist is a particularly vile and unfounded accusation straight out of the 1950s or the Reagan era - or the playbook unthinking ant-antisemitism - with no justification whatsoever. I'd waver that a smaller percentage of people who believe in science were ever nazis or communists than religious believers who thought it was okay to slaughter their religious rivals or anyone of a different skin color.
Similarly trying to link scientists with religious maniacs of another persuasion attempting a Caliphate is the most bizarre suggestion
And honestly, YES, I do feel more than uncomfortable having anyone who believe is biblical literalism in charge of anything
Frankly, your thinking is so bizarrely stuck in the middle ages, its amazing
> 2) Hence the intense interest and online debate
> about the Genesis Flood (e.g., Dr. Walter Brown's
> site).
Its not a real debate - its an 'angels-on-a-pin-head' farce of religious extremists.
Take a metro to the Smithsonian and see the Burgess Shale if you want to look at the real timeline
> 1) You're right ... Christianity stands or falls
> on the historicity of the Bible.
>
and hence its fallen
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 24, 2009 07:17PM
Pangloss wrote: Freud's idea [was] that god was basically a substitute for a parent or father figure. It seems odd for me to view God in this way, as God could not possess these attributes in any way feasibly known to human beings.
| You're omitting the word "fabricated" from Freud's view. |
| The "father" metaphor is everywhere in the Bible, and is used by Jesus and God to describe their relationship. ("This is my beloved Son. Hear ye him.") |
| Goddess worship, and the "mother" metaphor, are non-Christian. Intriguingly, Roman Catholicism has progressively elevated Jesus' mother Mary to god-like status ... despite the fact that she plays only a small role in the NT after Jesus' birth, and disappears from history after Acts Chapter 1. |
| It's dogmatic to assert that "God could not possess these attributes in any way feasibly known to human beings." |
| Why couldn't a personal God communicate his 'attributes' to his creatures in human language? (It is an Eastern religion presupposition that God is unknowable and "could not" do so.) |
| Jesus' view of Scripture is precisely that a personal God communicated with his personal creatures in human language -- in Hebrew to Moses and the Prophets. |
| Jesus also told his disciples that if they have seen him, they have seen God (specifically, "the Father"), |
| Paul's view of Scripture was the same as Jesus' ... "pasa graphe theopneustos" ... all scripture is god-breathed. |
| In fact, the word 'prophet' means 'spokesman' rather than future-predictor. (pro=for, phemein=speak) Prophets sometimes described the future (as it is known to God), but more importantly they spoke human words to human beings as given to them by God. |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 24, 2009 07:52PM
Nutters wrote: "Take a look at the Burgess Shale if you want to see the [evolutionary] timeline."
Ness comments: Burgess shale is a problem for Darwinists, not Christians. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html
Ness comments: Burgess shale is a problem for Darwinists, not Christians. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html
| “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.” Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 348. |
| “The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.” Ibid., p. 344. |
| “To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” Ibid., p. 350. |
| “The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” Ibid., p. 351. |
| “The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.” Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65. |
| "Strange Cambrian fossils, thought to exist only in the Burgess Shale of western Canada, have been discovered in southern China." (L. Ramsköld and Hou Xianguang, “New Early Cambrian Animal and Onychophoran Affinities of Enigmatic Metazoans,” Nature, Vol. 351, 16 May 1991, pp. 225–228.) (Jun-yuan Chen et al., “Evidence for Monophyly and Arthropod Affinity of Cambrian Giant Predators,” Science, Vol. 264, 27 May 1994, pp. 1304–1308.) "Evolving so many unusual animals during a geologic period is mind-boggling. But doing it twice in widely separated locations stretches credulity to the breaking point. According to the theory of plate tectonics, China and Canada were even farther apart during the Cambrian." “Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin.” T. Neville George, “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,” Science Progress, Vol. 48, No. 189, January 1960, p. 5. |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 24, 2009 09:18PM
Nutters wrote:
Ness replies: Ummm ... though Communism claims to be "scientific" socialsim, I submit that it (and Nazism) are clearly Darwinian cults ...
| "Linking a belief in science with being a Nazi or a Communist is a particularly vile and unfounded accusation straight out of the 1950s or the Reagan era - or the playbook unthinking ant-antisemitism - with no justification whatsoever. |
| I'd wager that a smaller percentage of people who believe in science were ever nazis or communists than religious believers who thought it was okay to slaughter their religious rivals or anyone of a different skin color. |
Ness replies: Ummm ... though Communism claims to be "scientific" socialsim, I submit that it (and Nazism) are clearly Darwinian cults ...
| 1) Nazism was an occult-laden Darwinian-based religion, with sacred documents ("Mein Kampf") and a Messiah (Der Fuehrer) and an eschatology (the 1000-year Reich). |
| 2) Communism is a non-occult Darwinian-based religion, with sacred documents ("Das Kapita" and "The Communist Manifesto") and prophets (Marx, Engels, Lenin) and an eschatology (the Classless Society). |
| 3) Both Nazism and Communism promote a form of 'Jihad' to wipe out their enemies (Jews, Capitalists), though neither offers any hope of personal immortality to their adherents ... just annihilation for a perceived good cause. |
| 4) The Christians at McLean Bible Church do not "slaughter their religious rivals." They are trying to save lives because their Messiah, Jesus, commanded his disciples to "love their neighbors as themselves" and to "preach the Gospel" of grace. |
5) Jesus promised his followers something that neither Darwin, Lenin, nor Hitler ever did -- personal immortality:"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life." |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 24, 2009 09:41PM
Nutters wrote:
"We have very good consistent explanations for observed phenomena at the level of the cosmos, the quanta and the mind, across timescales from femto-second to the age of the universe." (Surely you jest! All of these areas of inquiry are in constant scientific flux, and are under constant discussion by serious scientists, both Christian and non-Christian.)
"It's not bigotry to point out that science and religion are no longer compatible," (It may not be "bigotry" but it's embarrasignly imprecise ... but you are correct to point out that a "scientific' faith in an impersonal, chance Darwinian origin of species is incompatible with the personal Christian creation related in the Bible.)
"There is no god ..." (This is a presupposition -- and as such, it is an article of "faith.")
"We have very good consistent explanations for observed phenomena at the level of the cosmos, the quanta and the mind, across timescales from femto-second to the age of the universe." (Surely you jest! All of these areas of inquiry are in constant scientific flux, and are under constant discussion by serious scientists, both Christian and non-Christian.)
"It's not bigotry to point out that science and religion are no longer compatible," (It may not be "bigotry" but it's embarrasignly imprecise ... but you are correct to point out that a "scientific' faith in an impersonal, chance Darwinian origin of species is incompatible with the personal Christian creation related in the Bible.)
"There is no god ..." (This is a presupposition -- and as such, it is an article of "faith.")
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: January 24, 2009 09:44PM
I love these Intelligent Design idiots. They want to say that Evolution didn't happen because there are a couple of areas where we don't have enough information to fill in all of the blanks. I guess they would argue that gravity didn't exist until Newton or that the Earth really was the center of the Universe until Copernicus.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
OMG
()
Date: January 24, 2009 09:46PM
dude, who fucked the font up? If there was a god this would have never happened!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: January 24, 2009 10:12PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters wrote: "Take a look at the Burgess Shale
> if you want to see the timeline."
>
> Ness comments: Burgess shale is a problem for
> Darwinists, not Christians.
Nah - no problem for scientists... sorry!
The fact that neither you nor I will show up in the fossil record is just indicative of how it forms - its not encyclopedic of all individuals or species that existed at any given location, at any given time or globally across time.
What it does do, definitively, is to show you a subset of life as it evolved and adapted over time - timestamped by the chemistry and physics of the rock.
Just look at how few T-rex's we've found - it limits what we can know about them - but we certainly know where some of them were and when
That there was an explosion of multi-cellular experiments at different points is in no way surprising or inconsistent. In fact, the more we know about how the processes of replication work in different kinds of life forms from the profligate swapping amongst viruses and bacteria to the sophisticated regulatory systems in more complex animals such as ourselves replete with old viral DNA, the more we see how elegant and powerful the mechanisms are
The fact that scientists have to estimate from the incomplete record the paths that evolution took, the rates of change and the causes of those rate changes does not affect the fundamental agreement amongst scientists as to the evolutionary process at work.
The evolution has taken place over the last 3-4 billion years is adequately shown by the fossil record and universally accepted amongst scientists. Creationists falsely try to label any area of ongoing scientific discussion justification for some god or other.
The fossil record documents, incompletely, the emergence and changes in life over time on earth - evolution as a mechanism provides a very good explanation for how it happened. Genetic science is giving us deep insights into the historical detail.
Its clear that we can't replay the precise lives of every organism that ever lived and died on earth from the evidence of the fossil record and the history represented in the genomes of those species still around. But it is clear that science, and specifically evolution, give a very good explanation for the detail that we can see within the limits of the remaining record, our current scientific instruments and our evolving understanding of the way information is propagated across and within generations.
While evolution tells us about the details of life, cosmology tells us about the grand sweep of the universes history - that our planet is unexceptional, that our star is like billions of others, amongst billions of galaxies colliding or passing through each other over billions of light years, that the heavy elements that make up much of the earth were formed in the nuclear cores of earlier stars, now long gone.
Quantum mechanics and complexity science are beginning to show us how the detailed information which the fine grain structure and state of the universe represents at any time works.
The timescales of cosmology and our improving understanding of the behavior of truly complex systems such as the nuclear furnaces of stars tell us something fundamental about whether the end states of a universe could be designed a priori.
No deity is required to explain the evolution of life on earth, or the physics of the cosmos. Worse than that, for creationists, one doesn't even help you.
What quantum mechanics and quantum information processing show us is that to predict the state at any time of a given chaotic quantum system which is highly dependent on starting conditions, you need a quantum system that undertakes the same number of quantum calculations - there are no shortcuts. Hence, if you posit that some grand creator set the universe in flow with the express aim of producing serfs who could worship it via personal conversation, you also need to posit that the creator is a system at least as complex as the universe operating over the timescales of the universe able to predict necessary starting conditions to produce the subservient end state through the chaotic processes of star burn, nuclear decay, chemistry, genetic information processing, mutation through incident radiation etc etc etc. Which suggests that the idea of a chatty personal god is somewhat more than unlikely.
so
1. everything we see around us can be explained without recourse to a deity
2. there is no evidence of a deity or anything supernatural
3. having a deity doesn't help you
Creationists falsely attempt to characterize the detailed process of science testing and refining its models to explain apparent inconsistencies as new evidence is uncovered by new instruments and insights as a failure.
What they fail to accept is that creationism is not borne out by the evidence and that invoking religious doctrine or faith does nothing to explain the way the universe is the way it is and that we are the way we are. Religion and creationism are left over relics of our old scared past, when we didn't have the tools to explain how basic physical phenomena like light, materials or life worked.
Their time is passed - move on
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters wrote: "Take a look at the Burgess Shale
> if you want to see the timeline."
>
> Ness comments: Burgess shale is a problem for
> Darwinists, not Christians.
Nah - no problem for scientists... sorry!
The fact that neither you nor I will show up in the fossil record is just indicative of how it forms - its not encyclopedic of all individuals or species that existed at any given location, at any given time or globally across time.
What it does do, definitively, is to show you a subset of life as it evolved and adapted over time - timestamped by the chemistry and physics of the rock.
Just look at how few T-rex's we've found - it limits what we can know about them - but we certainly know where some of them were and when
That there was an explosion of multi-cellular experiments at different points is in no way surprising or inconsistent. In fact, the more we know about how the processes of replication work in different kinds of life forms from the profligate swapping amongst viruses and bacteria to the sophisticated regulatory systems in more complex animals such as ourselves replete with old viral DNA, the more we see how elegant and powerful the mechanisms are
The fact that scientists have to estimate from the incomplete record the paths that evolution took, the rates of change and the causes of those rate changes does not affect the fundamental agreement amongst scientists as to the evolutionary process at work.
The evolution has taken place over the last 3-4 billion years is adequately shown by the fossil record and universally accepted amongst scientists. Creationists falsely try to label any area of ongoing scientific discussion justification for some god or other.
The fossil record documents, incompletely, the emergence and changes in life over time on earth - evolution as a mechanism provides a very good explanation for how it happened. Genetic science is giving us deep insights into the historical detail.
Its clear that we can't replay the precise lives of every organism that ever lived and died on earth from the evidence of the fossil record and the history represented in the genomes of those species still around. But it is clear that science, and specifically evolution, give a very good explanation for the detail that we can see within the limits of the remaining record, our current scientific instruments and our evolving understanding of the way information is propagated across and within generations.
While evolution tells us about the details of life, cosmology tells us about the grand sweep of the universes history - that our planet is unexceptional, that our star is like billions of others, amongst billions of galaxies colliding or passing through each other over billions of light years, that the heavy elements that make up much of the earth were formed in the nuclear cores of earlier stars, now long gone.
Quantum mechanics and complexity science are beginning to show us how the detailed information which the fine grain structure and state of the universe represents at any time works.
The timescales of cosmology and our improving understanding of the behavior of truly complex systems such as the nuclear furnaces of stars tell us something fundamental about whether the end states of a universe could be designed a priori.
No deity is required to explain the evolution of life on earth, or the physics of the cosmos. Worse than that, for creationists, one doesn't even help you.
What quantum mechanics and quantum information processing show us is that to predict the state at any time of a given chaotic quantum system which is highly dependent on starting conditions, you need a quantum system that undertakes the same number of quantum calculations - there are no shortcuts. Hence, if you posit that some grand creator set the universe in flow with the express aim of producing serfs who could worship it via personal conversation, you also need to posit that the creator is a system at least as complex as the universe operating over the timescales of the universe able to predict necessary starting conditions to produce the subservient end state through the chaotic processes of star burn, nuclear decay, chemistry, genetic information processing, mutation through incident radiation etc etc etc. Which suggests that the idea of a chatty personal god is somewhat more than unlikely.
so
1. everything we see around us can be explained without recourse to a deity
2. there is no evidence of a deity or anything supernatural
3. having a deity doesn't help you
Creationists falsely attempt to characterize the detailed process of science testing and refining its models to explain apparent inconsistencies as new evidence is uncovered by new instruments and insights as a failure.
What they fail to accept is that creationism is not borne out by the evidence and that invoking religious doctrine or faith does nothing to explain the way the universe is the way it is and that we are the way we are. Religion and creationism are left over relics of our old scared past, when we didn't have the tools to explain how basic physical phenomena like light, materials or life worked.
Their time is passed - move on
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: January 25, 2009 12:58AM
Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or when every response is "Christianity is
> superstitious nonsense for the dim-witted." Which
> all goes to show the ultimate futility of
> discussing matters of faith.
Again, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that the contradictions need to be acknowledged instead of being glossed over. But you're a fanatic, there's no reasoning with you.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or when every response is "Christianity is
> superstitious nonsense for the dim-witted." Which
> all goes to show the ultimate futility of
> discussing matters of faith.
Again, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that the contradictions need to be acknowledged instead of being glossed over. But you're a fanatic, there's no reasoning with you.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2009 08:19AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Honestly, do you YOU feel comfortable knowing
> that someone who literally believes in the Noah's
> Ark story, Adam and Eve, buried golden tablets or
> some kid at the bottom of a well is making
> decisions that can affect the whole world?
>
> 1) You're right ... Christianity stands or falls
> on the historicity of the Bible.
>
> 2) Hence the intense interest and online debate
> about the Genesis Flood (e.g., Dr. Walter Brown's
> site).
>
> 3) Those who believe in an historical Adam and
> Eve, and Genesis Flood ... subscribe to Christian
> ethics -- Jesus' command to love your neighbor as
> yourself.
>
> 4) Historically, those inspired by Darwin's
> 'vision' (specifically National Socialists and
> Communists) have slaughtered millions -- absurdly,
> meaninglessly, without responsibility -- in a
> universe condemned to an entropy-inevitable heat
> death.
>
> 5) So yeah, I'd absolutely rather have a
> conscience-bound Christian "in charge" rather than
> a 'visionary' who is willing to slaughter to
> achieve a Master Race or Classless Society or
> Global Caliphate.
>
I'm sorry Elliot, but you are ignoring the millenium of anti-semitism in Europe when you ascribe people to 'Darwins' vision. You need to back up your assertions with facts - something that I've been asking you to do for a while now.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Honestly, do you YOU feel comfortable knowing
> that someone who literally believes in the Noah's
> Ark story, Adam and Eve, buried golden tablets or
> some kid at the bottom of a well is making
> decisions that can affect the whole world?
>
> 1) You're right ... Christianity stands or falls
> on the historicity of the Bible.
>
> 2) Hence the intense interest and online debate
> about the Genesis Flood (e.g., Dr. Walter Brown's
> site).
>
> 3) Those who believe in an historical Adam and
> Eve, and Genesis Flood ... subscribe to Christian
> ethics -- Jesus' command to love your neighbor as
> yourself.
>
> 4) Historically, those inspired by Darwin's
> 'vision' (specifically National Socialists and
> Communists) have slaughtered millions -- absurdly,
> meaninglessly, without responsibility -- in a
> universe condemned to an entropy-inevitable heat
> death.
>
> 5) So yeah, I'd absolutely rather have a
> conscience-bound Christian "in charge" rather than
> a 'visionary' who is willing to slaughter to
> achieve a Master Race or Classless Society or
> Global Caliphate.
>
I'm sorry Elliot, but you are ignoring the millenium of anti-semitism in Europe when you ascribe people to 'Darwins' vision. You need to back up your assertions with facts - something that I've been asking you to do for a while now.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2009 09:03AM
> 2) Hence the intense interest and online debate
> about the Genesis Flood (e.g., Dr. Walter Brown's
> site).
Let's also remember that Walt Brown has been refuted *BY CREATIONISTS*
http://www.answersincreation.org/rebuttal/other/center_scientific_creationism.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brown_(creationist)#Claims_and_criticism
> 4) Historically, those inspired by Darwin's
> 'vision' (specifically National Socialists and
> Communists) have slaughtered millions -- absurdly,
> meaninglessly, without responsibility -- in a
> universe condemned to an entropy-inevitable heat
> death.
I had to address this bit of nonsense. You do realize that the Nazi's got their euthenasia ideas from the US don't you?
Seriously, blaming Darwin for this is essentially the same kind of reasoning as blaming Christianity for the branch davidians.
But if you want to play this unreasoned game, let's remember that Christians didn't believe that black people were the same species as human beings (do you accept this belief?):
Creationists From Darwin's Day:
George Price was one of the early anti-evolutionists who contributed significantly to the pseudoscientific "discoveries" of creationism in the late 1800's and early 1900's. His main problem was with the fossil layer and the contention of scientists who said that these layers could be used to date the fossils they contained. The below passage was written by E.G. White, who was a seventh day Adventist, and right below the passage is a written insight to some of the early creationist ideas of mankind's origins.
"If there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast, which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere...
Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men."[1] (Written by E.G. White).
Price comments on this passage by saying: "I am sure that Sister White's statements were given very providentially for our guidance...I am confident that if they had not been given us, we ourselves would now be in confusion and perplexity over this 'species' question..."[1]
What exactly are these people saying? In the book Fads and Fallacies, Martin Gardner clears up any mystery:
"In his opinion, the men who lived before the flood were so completely destroyed that no fossil remains have been found. '...Since we are told that the Lord wished to destroy that ungodly race, He probably did a good job of it and buried them so deeply that we have not yet discovered their remains," he [Price] writes. The fossil human bones which have been uncovered are, he believes, those of men who lived after the flood.
Early Adventists frequently referred to certain primitive tribes-such as the African bushmen, Hottentots, and Digger Indians-as examples of degenerate hybrids, and on a few occasions, the entire Negro race. Price does not go quite this far. He thinks the Negro and Mongoloid races are degenerate types produced by amalgamation of the pure races God created at the Tower of Babel. Modern apes, however are probably hybrid men. Here are Price's words on this matter:
PRICES' WORDS: ***"There are no clear and positive evidences from paleontology which would prove that the existing anthropoid apes existed before the great world cataclysms, or the Deluge. These present day anthropoid apes may be just as much a product of modern conditions as are the Negroid or the Mongolian types of mankind. And if I were compelled to choose between saying the apes are degenerate or hybridized men and that man is a developed ape, I am sure it would not take me very long to decide which it would be. Nor do I think it ought to take any well-informed scientist long to make the choice."[1]***
What Price is saying is that apes are not actually a separate species; instead they are a degenerated form of mankind who has become so since the flood. He regards certain racial groups with being more degenerated then other ones and they are closer to apes then other races (presumably the Caucasian race-as Price was Eurocentric and white).
In another passage from Fads and Fallacies, Martin explains some of the justifications for racism for bible believing Christians:
"In the early history of the United States, when racial feelings were the greatest, many books and pamphlets were written to prove the Negro inferior. It is difficult, however, to find a single work of this type that purports to be written by a professional anthropologist. Most of it is religious in character, relying chiefly on the Bible for support. There are many variations, but the basic themes of these shabby works are that God created different races which He did not intend to intermarry, and that the Negroes were ordained a race of servants."[2]
If you notice that this belief is directly correlated to Price's belief that the intermingling of the races was a displeasure of God's and one of the reasons for the flood (at least according to E.G. White, whom Price supports).
Martin continues a little later to say:
"It seems impossible now that any intelligent person could have regarded the Negro as a sub-human species, yet this view was by no means uncommon in the South even as late as the early years of this century. In 1867 the Reverend Buckner H. Payne, writing under the pseudonym of "Ariel," published a booklet (later expanded to a larger work) titled The Negro: What is His Ethnological Status? Payne's conclusion was that the Negro is an animal without a soul. It remained however, for Charles Carroll, a resident of St. Louis, to give this demented theory definitive formulations. His two books on the subject-The Negro a Beast, 1900, and The Tempter of Eve, 1902-set a record in racial literature that probably will never be surpassed.
Carroll held the view that the Negro was created along with the animals as a higher ape, and for the purpose of providing Adam and his descendents with servants to perform tasks of manual labor around Eden. He possessed a mind, in common with other mammals, but not a soul. The "Serpent" who tempted Eve was in reality a Negro maidservant. The age-old problem of where Cain got his wife is solved neatly. Cain married a Negro-the first example in history of the heinous crime of amalgamation of man and beast. All the races except the white are hybrid products of mixtures between the races of Adam and Negroid animals.
Do these hybrid offspring have souls? There is no indication Carroll even considered this a perplexing question. They do not, he declares. 'Man cannot transmit to his offspring by the Negro," he writes, "the least vestige of the soul creation. Hence, no mixed blood has a soul." Brilliant intellectual achievements by mulattos do not bother Carroll. "The Mere fact that Alexander Dumas possessed a fine mind is no evidence that he possessed a soul."
If the red, yellow, and brown races, and all individuals who have a red, yellow, or brown ancestor do not have souls, then why bother sending missionaries to preach the Gospel to them? Like many crack-pot scholars, Carroll maintains a striking consistency with his premises. The Lord never intended the Gospel to be preached to these half-breeds, he argues. That it is being done only indicates how sinful and corrupted and "negroized" modern churches have become. In fact almost all the ills which beset mankind since the Fall can be traced to a failure to recognize the bestial character of all peoples except the pure white descendants of Adam."[2]
As disgusted as I am with reading such pig-ignorant views, the sentiment of some of the early Christian in the early twentieth century is hard to ignore. The idea that the African races are closer to apes is not only appalling, but it's also illogical-since if we actually examine apes we discover that they have thin lips, quite a bit of body hair, straight hair, and white skin (at least chimps and some other primates).
1. Fads and Fallacies: in the name of Science, Martin Gardner, 1952 Dover Publications, Inc NY (p. 130-31)
2. Fads and Fallacies: in the name of Science, Martin Gardner, 1952 Dover Publications, Inc NY (p.156-57)
Let's also remember (I got this from an old MB):
Hitler burned people like Anne Frank for being Jewish. For that, we call him evil.
God burns Anne Frank for being Jewish, forever. For that, theists call him "good"
> about the Genesis Flood (e.g., Dr. Walter Brown's
> site).
Let's also remember that Walt Brown has been refuted *BY CREATIONISTS*
http://www.answersincreation.org/rebuttal/other/center_scientific_creationism.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brown_(creationist)#Claims_and_criticism
> 4) Historically, those inspired by Darwin's
> 'vision' (specifically National Socialists and
> Communists) have slaughtered millions -- absurdly,
> meaninglessly, without responsibility -- in a
> universe condemned to an entropy-inevitable heat
> death.
I had to address this bit of nonsense. You do realize that the Nazi's got their euthenasia ideas from the US don't you?
Seriously, blaming Darwin for this is essentially the same kind of reasoning as blaming Christianity for the branch davidians.
But if you want to play this unreasoned game, let's remember that Christians didn't believe that black people were the same species as human beings (do you accept this belief?):
Creationists From Darwin's Day:
George Price was one of the early anti-evolutionists who contributed significantly to the pseudoscientific "discoveries" of creationism in the late 1800's and early 1900's. His main problem was with the fossil layer and the contention of scientists who said that these layers could be used to date the fossils they contained. The below passage was written by E.G. White, who was a seventh day Adventist, and right below the passage is a written insight to some of the early creationist ideas of mankind's origins.
"If there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast, which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere...
Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men."[1] (Written by E.G. White).
Price comments on this passage by saying: "I am sure that Sister White's statements were given very providentially for our guidance...I am confident that if they had not been given us, we ourselves would now be in confusion and perplexity over this 'species' question..."[1]
What exactly are these people saying? In the book Fads and Fallacies, Martin Gardner clears up any mystery:
"In his opinion, the men who lived before the flood were so completely destroyed that no fossil remains have been found. '...Since we are told that the Lord wished to destroy that ungodly race, He probably did a good job of it and buried them so deeply that we have not yet discovered their remains," he [Price] writes. The fossil human bones which have been uncovered are, he believes, those of men who lived after the flood.
Early Adventists frequently referred to certain primitive tribes-such as the African bushmen, Hottentots, and Digger Indians-as examples of degenerate hybrids, and on a few occasions, the entire Negro race. Price does not go quite this far. He thinks the Negro and Mongoloid races are degenerate types produced by amalgamation of the pure races God created at the Tower of Babel. Modern apes, however are probably hybrid men. Here are Price's words on this matter:
PRICES' WORDS: ***"There are no clear and positive evidences from paleontology which would prove that the existing anthropoid apes existed before the great world cataclysms, or the Deluge. These present day anthropoid apes may be just as much a product of modern conditions as are the Negroid or the Mongolian types of mankind. And if I were compelled to choose between saying the apes are degenerate or hybridized men and that man is a developed ape, I am sure it would not take me very long to decide which it would be. Nor do I think it ought to take any well-informed scientist long to make the choice."[1]***
What Price is saying is that apes are not actually a separate species; instead they are a degenerated form of mankind who has become so since the flood. He regards certain racial groups with being more degenerated then other ones and they are closer to apes then other races (presumably the Caucasian race-as Price was Eurocentric and white).
In another passage from Fads and Fallacies, Martin explains some of the justifications for racism for bible believing Christians:
"In the early history of the United States, when racial feelings were the greatest, many books and pamphlets were written to prove the Negro inferior. It is difficult, however, to find a single work of this type that purports to be written by a professional anthropologist. Most of it is religious in character, relying chiefly on the Bible for support. There are many variations, but the basic themes of these shabby works are that God created different races which He did not intend to intermarry, and that the Negroes were ordained a race of servants."[2]
If you notice that this belief is directly correlated to Price's belief that the intermingling of the races was a displeasure of God's and one of the reasons for the flood (at least according to E.G. White, whom Price supports).
Martin continues a little later to say:
"It seems impossible now that any intelligent person could have regarded the Negro as a sub-human species, yet this view was by no means uncommon in the South even as late as the early years of this century. In 1867 the Reverend Buckner H. Payne, writing under the pseudonym of "Ariel," published a booklet (later expanded to a larger work) titled The Negro: What is His Ethnological Status? Payne's conclusion was that the Negro is an animal without a soul. It remained however, for Charles Carroll, a resident of St. Louis, to give this demented theory definitive formulations. His two books on the subject-The Negro a Beast, 1900, and The Tempter of Eve, 1902-set a record in racial literature that probably will never be surpassed.
Carroll held the view that the Negro was created along with the animals as a higher ape, and for the purpose of providing Adam and his descendents with servants to perform tasks of manual labor around Eden. He possessed a mind, in common with other mammals, but not a soul. The "Serpent" who tempted Eve was in reality a Negro maidservant. The age-old problem of where Cain got his wife is solved neatly. Cain married a Negro-the first example in history of the heinous crime of amalgamation of man and beast. All the races except the white are hybrid products of mixtures between the races of Adam and Negroid animals.
Do these hybrid offspring have souls? There is no indication Carroll even considered this a perplexing question. They do not, he declares. 'Man cannot transmit to his offspring by the Negro," he writes, "the least vestige of the soul creation. Hence, no mixed blood has a soul." Brilliant intellectual achievements by mulattos do not bother Carroll. "The Mere fact that Alexander Dumas possessed a fine mind is no evidence that he possessed a soul."
If the red, yellow, and brown races, and all individuals who have a red, yellow, or brown ancestor do not have souls, then why bother sending missionaries to preach the Gospel to them? Like many crack-pot scholars, Carroll maintains a striking consistency with his premises. The Lord never intended the Gospel to be preached to these half-breeds, he argues. That it is being done only indicates how sinful and corrupted and "negroized" modern churches have become. In fact almost all the ills which beset mankind since the Fall can be traced to a failure to recognize the bestial character of all peoples except the pure white descendants of Adam."[2]
As disgusted as I am with reading such pig-ignorant views, the sentiment of some of the early Christian in the early twentieth century is hard to ignore. The idea that the African races are closer to apes is not only appalling, but it's also illogical-since if we actually examine apes we discover that they have thin lips, quite a bit of body hair, straight hair, and white skin (at least chimps and some other primates).
1. Fads and Fallacies: in the name of Science, Martin Gardner, 1952 Dover Publications, Inc NY (p. 130-31)
2. Fads and Fallacies: in the name of Science, Martin Gardner, 1952 Dover Publications, Inc NY (p.156-57)
Let's also remember (I got this from an old MB):
Hitler burned people like Anne Frank for being Jewish. For that, we call him evil.
God burns Anne Frank for being Jewish, forever. For that, theists call him "good"
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: January 25, 2009 09:11AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 5) Jesus promised his followers something that
> neither Darwin, Lenin, nor Hitler ever did --
> personal immortality:
I love this - try to equate Darwin with Hilter and Lenin - quiet Victorian scientist (and a christian due to his upbringing and the prevailing world view that he helped to change) with two mass murderers - brilliant!
ROFL
- Darwin - presented evidence and a reasoned explanation of his observations, as scientists have always done and continue to do
- Jesus - yet another dead cult leader from a time when they were two a shekel
So, you present Gould and Dawkins' debate about what the incomplete fossil record tells us about variability in the rate of evolution as the failure evidential science.
Yet when, with no evidence, some random mystic tells you that you can be immortal its okay for christians and other cultists to throw away all evidence about anything in order ignore the complete inconsistencies of their world view - and then expect to be able to force their doctrine on the rest of us, usually at the end of a sword or a flaming cross.
It doesn't hold water
Sorry - world not flat, earth not the center of the universe, no chosen people, grand canyon was not created in a day and the dinosaurs are not the devils little joke
Move on
-------------------------------------------------------
> 5) Jesus promised his followers something that
> neither Darwin, Lenin, nor Hitler ever did --
> personal immortality:
I love this - try to equate Darwin with Hilter and Lenin - quiet Victorian scientist (and a christian due to his upbringing and the prevailing world view that he helped to change) with two mass murderers - brilliant!
ROFL
- Darwin - presented evidence and a reasoned explanation of his observations, as scientists have always done and continue to do
- Jesus - yet another dead cult leader from a time when they were two a shekel
So, you present Gould and Dawkins' debate about what the incomplete fossil record tells us about variability in the rate of evolution as the failure evidential science.
Yet when, with no evidence, some random mystic tells you that you can be immortal its okay for christians and other cultists to throw away all evidence about anything in order ignore the complete inconsistencies of their world view - and then expect to be able to force their doctrine on the rest of us, usually at the end of a sword or a flaming cross.
It doesn't hold water
Sorry - world not flat, earth not the center of the universe, no chosen people, grand canyon was not created in a day and the dinosaurs are not the devils little joke
Move on
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: January 25, 2009 09:15AM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> Hitler burned people like Anne Frank for being
> Jewish. For that, we call him evil.
> God burns Anne Frank for being Jewish, forever.
> For that, theists call him "good"
Which is a bit of a downer if he's told you that you're the chosen people...
> Hitler burned people like Anne Frank for being
> Jewish. For that, we call him evil.
> God burns Anne Frank for being Jewish, forever.
> For that, theists call him "good"
Which is a bit of a downer if he's told you that you're the chosen people...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2009 09:54AM
Also, let's remember that the Russian Communists came down on the Christian's side - they didn't accept Darwinian evolution either. So blaming Darwin for their crimes is incoherent.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2009 10:14AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: Freud's idea that god was
> basically a substitute for a parent or father
> figure. It seems odd for me to view God in this
> way, as God could not possess these attributes in
> any way feasibly known to human beings.
>
>
> You're omitting the word "fabricated" from
> Freud's view.
What is your meaning here - that Freud said that mankind fabricated god in the image of his parent? Or that Freud was fabricating in general?
> The "father" metaphor is everywhere in the Bible,
> and is used by Jesus and God to describe their
> relationship. ("This is my beloved Son. Hear ye
> him.")
True.
> Goddess worship, and the "mother" metaphor, are
> non-Christian. Intriguingly, Roman Catholicism has
> progressively elevated Jesus' mother Mary to
> god-like status ... despite the fact that she
> plays only a small role in the NT after Jesus'
> birth, and disappears from history after Acts
> Chapter 1.
Not really true - unless you discount ancient Hebrew. I take it you are unfamilar with God's wife?
> It's dogmatic to assert that "God could not
> possess these attributes in any way feasibly known
> to human beings."
Not really - if god is infinite and has infinite attributes, then an entity with finite attributes and finite understanding could not, by definition, understand the infinite being.
> Why couldn't a personal God communicate his
> 'attributes' to his creatures in human language?
You are cherry picking your bible. In the old testament god basically explained his ways as being unknowable by man. Or do you explain the book of job in some other way?
> (It is an Eastern religion presupposition that God
> is unknowable and "could not" do so.)
Are you unfamilar with Eastern Orthodoxy during the Dark ages? They subscribed to god's incoherency, as an example I submit the trinity, which they believed was beyond reason. Read The History Of God, if you want the full story.
> Jesus' view of Scripture is precisely that a
> personal God communicated with his personal
> creatures in human language -- in Hebrew to Moses
> and the Prophets.
> Jesus also told his disciples that if they have
> seen him, they have seen God (specifically, "the
> Father"),
> Paul's view of Scripture was the same as Jesus'
> ... "pasa graphe theopneustos" ... all scripture
> is god-breathed.
> In fact, the word 'prophet' means 'spokesman'
> rather than future-predictor. (pro=for,
> phemein=speak) Prophets sometimes described the
> future (as it is known to God), but more
> importantly they spoke human words to human beings
> as given to them by God.
In all fairness you are cherry picking Christian beliefs here. Have you not heard of Gnostic Christianity? The book of thomas?
This next section really diminishes my respect for you Elliot. You succumb to passing on creationist dishonesty through quote mining. Either you have not read the original sources or you have and you persist in passing on dishonesty.
Please list the context of these quotes, as they make no sense:
> “To the question why we do not find rich
> fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed
> earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I
> can give no satisfactory answer.” Ibid., p. 350.
This makes no sense because we *HAVE* found earlier periods - the Precambrian!
> “The case at present must remain inexplicable,
> and may be truly urged as a valid argument against
> the views here entertained.” Ibid., p. 351.
> “The most famous such burst, the Cambrian
> explosion, marks the inception of modern
> multicellular life. Within just a few million
> years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy
> appears in the fossil record for the first time
> ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently
> good that the old rationale about undiscovered
> sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no
> longer wash.” Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to
> Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65.
This is completely dishonest as it spins Gould's words as those of someone who doesn't accept that transitional fossils as evidence of evolution. Either you expect us to be unfamilar with Gould or you yourself are unfamilar with Gould.
Do you know what his theory for the mechanism of evolution is? It's punctuated equilibrium. What he is arguing here is that gradual evolution - ie, a smooth transition of creatures is incorrect. Instead, evolution works on long periods of status followed by rapid (as in millions of years) periods of change. That's why he specifically says "the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of *SMOOTHLY* transitional forms".
You are being dishonest here or you didn't do your due diligence in checking creationist sources.
>
>Ness replies: Ummm ... though Communism claims to be "scientific" socialsim, I >submit that it (and Nazism) are clearly Darwinian cults ...
Um, you thought wrong. Stalin's communism specifically REJECTED Darwinian evolution.
Further, did you forget that Hitler tried to find Christian artifacts? Such as the Spear of Destiny? Nazism was an ideological cult - one that had Nordic influences, Christian influences, and many other influences. It is not honest to simply forget the other influences and to blame it on Darwin (evolution does not support eugeneics, btw).
My guess is that you haven't really looked into either Stalinist communism or Nazism. Just for edification, what was the mechanism of selection for Stalinist communism?
Again though, you merely ignoring the fact that even if what you say was true (which it isn't, as I've shown), that STILL doesn't mean that christianity is correct. So at best, if you are right, you are engaging in wishful thinking by accepting christianity.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: Freud's idea that god was
> basically a substitute for a parent or father
> figure. It seems odd for me to view God in this
> way, as God could not possess these attributes in
> any way feasibly known to human beings.
>
>
> You're omitting the word "fabricated" from
> Freud's view.
What is your meaning here - that Freud said that mankind fabricated god in the image of his parent? Or that Freud was fabricating in general?
> The "father" metaphor is everywhere in the Bible,
> and is used by Jesus and God to describe their
> relationship. ("This is my beloved Son. Hear ye
> him.")
True.
> Goddess worship, and the "mother" metaphor, are
> non-Christian. Intriguingly, Roman Catholicism has
> progressively elevated Jesus' mother Mary to
> god-like status ... despite the fact that she
> plays only a small role in the NT after Jesus'
> birth, and disappears from history after Acts
> Chapter 1.
Not really true - unless you discount ancient Hebrew. I take it you are unfamilar with God's wife?
> It's dogmatic to assert that "God could not
> possess these attributes in any way feasibly known
> to human beings."
Not really - if god is infinite and has infinite attributes, then an entity with finite attributes and finite understanding could not, by definition, understand the infinite being.
> Why couldn't a personal God communicate his
> 'attributes' to his creatures in human language?
You are cherry picking your bible. In the old testament god basically explained his ways as being unknowable by man. Or do you explain the book of job in some other way?
> (It is an Eastern religion presupposition that God
> is unknowable and "could not" do so.)
Are you unfamilar with Eastern Orthodoxy during the Dark ages? They subscribed to god's incoherency, as an example I submit the trinity, which they believed was beyond reason. Read The History Of God, if you want the full story.
> Jesus' view of Scripture is precisely that a
> personal God communicated with his personal
> creatures in human language -- in Hebrew to Moses
> and the Prophets.
> Jesus also told his disciples that if they have
> seen him, they have seen God (specifically, "the
> Father"),
> Paul's view of Scripture was the same as Jesus'
> ... "pasa graphe theopneustos" ... all scripture
> is god-breathed.
> In fact, the word 'prophet' means 'spokesman'
> rather than future-predictor. (pro=for,
> phemein=speak) Prophets sometimes described the
> future (as it is known to God), but more
> importantly they spoke human words to human beings
> as given to them by God.
In all fairness you are cherry picking Christian beliefs here. Have you not heard of Gnostic Christianity? The book of thomas?
This next section really diminishes my respect for you Elliot. You succumb to passing on creationist dishonesty through quote mining. Either you have not read the original sources or you have and you persist in passing on dishonesty.
Please list the context of these quotes, as they make no sense:
> “To the question why we do not find rich
> fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed
> earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I
> can give no satisfactory answer.” Ibid., p. 350.
This makes no sense because we *HAVE* found earlier periods - the Precambrian!
> “The case at present must remain inexplicable,
> and may be truly urged as a valid argument against
> the views here entertained.” Ibid., p. 351.
> “The most famous such burst, the Cambrian
> explosion, marks the inception of modern
> multicellular life. Within just a few million
> years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy
> appears in the fossil record for the first time
> ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently
> good that the old rationale about undiscovered
> sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no
> longer wash.” Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to
> Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65.
This is completely dishonest as it spins Gould's words as those of someone who doesn't accept that transitional fossils as evidence of evolution. Either you expect us to be unfamilar with Gould or you yourself are unfamilar with Gould.
Do you know what his theory for the mechanism of evolution is? It's punctuated equilibrium. What he is arguing here is that gradual evolution - ie, a smooth transition of creatures is incorrect. Instead, evolution works on long periods of status followed by rapid (as in millions of years) periods of change. That's why he specifically says "the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of *SMOOTHLY* transitional forms".
You are being dishonest here or you didn't do your due diligence in checking creationist sources.
>
>Ness replies: Ummm ... though Communism claims to be "scientific" socialsim, I >submit that it (and Nazism) are clearly Darwinian cults ...
Um, you thought wrong. Stalin's communism specifically REJECTED Darwinian evolution.
Further, did you forget that Hitler tried to find Christian artifacts? Such as the Spear of Destiny? Nazism was an ideological cult - one that had Nordic influences, Christian influences, and many other influences. It is not honest to simply forget the other influences and to blame it on Darwin (evolution does not support eugeneics, btw).
My guess is that you haven't really looked into either Stalinist communism or Nazism. Just for edification, what was the mechanism of selection for Stalinist communism?
Again though, you merely ignoring the fact that even if what you say was true (which it isn't, as I've shown), that STILL doesn't mean that christianity is correct. So at best, if you are right, you are engaging in wishful thinking by accepting christianity.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2009 10:18AM
Maybe Elliot would like to answer (or even acknowledge) Nietzche's criticism of Christianity?
The following from a blog I wrote a few years ago:
What is of value? Where should it be placed? Who determines it? These are the underlying currents that Nietzsche wishes to explore in his critique of Christianity. The implication of a nihilistic and destructive message to mankind that Christianity fosters is brought up again and again in Nietzsche's The Anti-Christ.
Central to his theme is the charge that Paul has corrupt the religion into one that transforms everything we hold of value in this life into a worthless bog and replaces it with a 'promise' of egotistical future rewards that never materialize. To a certain extent and in regards to certain Christian beliefs, I tend to agree with him. That is to say that not all Christians would fall under this category.
So the purpose of this blog is to explore some of the nihilism that is, perhaps, essential to some Christian's beliefs. Perhaps the message of the Bible is that God is angry at us for our attempt to secure knowledge. Perhaps Jesus was just a lie meant to take our focus off of the attempt of Christianity to keep us ignorant and believing that we are worthless.
Those are pretty heavy charges and ones that certainly need some support if I'm going to attempt to paint any Christians with holding to such nihilism. If we explore the Bible though, I do think that some interpretations (if not most) lead to this. If we think about it, the whole foundation of Christianity is based on the notion of original sin and our salvation of it. Original sin is the idea that none of us our worthy of salvation - that we are all worthless sinful scum that need an intermediary in order to be of any value to God. If we accept salvation we achieve immortality in a heavenly paradise. The unintended (or perhaps, deliberate) result is that this world and this life is worthless.
This is actually a sleigh of hand though - what it effectively does is say that our lives have no value and that we cannot (or rather, should not) put any value into anything. As Frederick Nietzsche explains:
When the center of gravity of life is placed, not in life itself, but in "the beyond" - in nothingness - then one has taken away its center of gravity altogether. The vast lie of personal immortality destroys all reason, all natural instinct - henceforth, everything in the instincts that is beneficial, that fosters life and that safeguards the future is a cause of suspicion. So to live that life no longer has any meaning: this is now the "meaning" of life...Why be public-spirited? Why take any pride in descent and forefathers? Why labor together, trust one another, or concern one's self about the common welfare, and try to serve it? ...Merely so many "temptations," so many strayings from the "straight path." "one thing is necessary."...That every man, because he has an "immortal soul," is as good as every other man; that in an infinite universe of things the "salvation" of every individual may lay claim to eternal importance; that insignificant bigots and the three-fourths instance may assume that the laws of nature are constantly suspended in their behalf - it is impossible to lavish too much contempt upon such a magnification of every sort of selfishness to infinity, to insolence. And yet Christianity has to thank precisely this miserable flattery of personal vanity for its triumph - it was thus that it lured all the botched, the dissatisfied, the fallen upon evil days, the whole refuse and off-scouring of humanity to its side. The "salvation of the soul" - in plain words: "the world revolves around me." ...The poisonous doctrine, "equal rights for all," has been propagated as a Christian principle: out of the secret nooks and crannies of bad instinct Christianity has waged a deadly war upon all feelings of reverence and distance between man and man, which is to say, upon the first prerequisite to every step upward, to every development of civilization - out of the [resentment] of the masses it has forged its chief weapons against us, against everything noble, joyous and high-spirited on earth, against our happiness on earth. [1]
As Nietzsche explains, achievements in this life are worthless, differences are worthless - all the effort, the failures, the successes, and the struggles of life are, in the end, completely leveled to meaninglessness. We are not rewarded for any effort and we are not punished for any wrong doing - as long as we succumb to the dogma of belief. We are all, in the end, equal in "value" (I.e., in the idea that all our efforts have been perfectly useless).
Adhering to dogma is backed up repeatedly in the Bible to such an extent that I don't think I have to really expound on it. I think that the backing of deploring science is equally expounded, however it seems to me that this is not equally understood or accepted. While the Bible does praise childlike belief, it is harder to grasp that one of the central messages in the Bible is that knowledge and science are to be scorned. Nietzsche would say that this is something the priests are supposed to foster, and as he puts it, it's something that is expressed in the earliest chapters of Genesis:
-Has any one ever clearly understood the celebrated story of the beginning of the Bible - of God's mortal terror of science?...No one, in fact, has understood it. This priest-book par excellence opens, as is fitting, with the great inner difficulty of the priest: he faces only one great danger; ergo, "God" faces only one great danger. - The old God, wholly "spirit," wholly the high-priest, wholly perfect, is promenading his garden: he is bored and trying to kill time. Against boredom even gods struggle in vain. What does he do? He creates man - man is entertaining.... But then he notices that man is also bored. God's pity for the only form of distress that invades all paradises knows no bounds: so he forthwith creates other animals. God's first mistake: to man these other animals were not entertaining - he sought dominion over them; he did not want to be an "animal" himself. - So God created woman. In the act he brought boredom to an end - and also many other things! Woman was the second mistake of God. - "Woman, at bottom, is a serpent, Heva" - every priest knows that, too. Ergo, she is also to blame for science...It was through woman that man learned to taste of the tree of knowledge. - What happened? The old God was seized by mortal terror. Man himself had been his greatest blunder; he had created a rival to himself; science makes me godlike - it is all up with priests and gods when man becomes scientific - Moral: science is the forbidden per se; it alone is forbidden. Science is the first of sins, the germ of all sins, the original sin. This is all there is of morality. - "Thou shalt not know": - the rest follows from that. - God's moral terror, however, did not hinder him from being shrewd. How is one to protect one's self against science? For a long while this was a capital problem. Answer: Out of paradise with man! Happiness, leisure, foster thought - and all thoughts are bad thoughts! - Man must not think. - And so the priests invents distress, death the moral dangers of childbirth, all sorts of misery, old age, decrepitude, above all, sickness - nothing but devices for making war on science! The troubles of man don't allow him to think. Nevertheless - how terrible! - the edifice of knowledge begins to tower aloft, invading heaven, shadowing the gods - what is to be done? - The old God invents war; he separates the peoples; he makes men destroy one another (-the priests have always had need of war....). War - among other things, a great disturber of science! - Incredible! Knowledge, deliverance from the priests, prospers in spite of war. - So the old God comes to his final resolution: "Man has become scientific - there is no help for it: he must be drowned!" [2]
As I suggested earlier in this blog, in some respects it can be said that the whole foundation of Christianity is based on the notion of original sin. Now, I have to say here that I find this rather hard to reconcile with the idea of an omnimax benevolent god who values us - but pressing on - How did we get this 'original sin'?
We inherited it from A&E who got it after eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Why was eating from that tree a bad thing though? I suspect that many apologists would say that the eating from the tree was not, in and of itself a bad thing, it was the disobeying god part.
But this doesn't quite fit the biblical interpretation of events. Why would God make that tree, of all trees, bad? Why would God not have created A&E with the knowledge they came to possess after eating the tree? Why specify that it was from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Surely such specification points to an importance.
In fact if we read the scriptures, the serpent entices A&E by saying that if they eat from that tree they will become like God in the knowledge of good and evil (which I find internally contradictory with some of Christianity's other assertions, but that will have to be for another blog) - that their eyes will be opened.
This is, exactly what happens. God concedes this by saying: Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
To put it briefly in other words, our sin was the sin of attaining knowledge - at least that's the message the bible spells out for us.
So when the Christian sits there and says "That's just what people think.... Jesus is the ONLY way to the father, and anything else is a lie meant to destroy your soul"[3] I become a little puzzled as the foundation of the bible is not about truth or attaining knowledge. It seems to be about keeping mankind ignorant. Paul's reminder that God will send delusions could certainly be used to support this contention:
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12: "And said, verily I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Evidently the God of the Bible has no problem lying in order to get what it desires, but what does this mean in regards to the importance of the truth, to facts? It's not the truth that God is pushing, it's not the facts of reality that this God wants you to know and to strive for - it's slave-like devotion and unquestioning obedience and worship. Why such a perfect being requires this is a philosophical conundrum.
I'll end the blog with one last quote from Nietzsche, where he compares Christianity to Buddhism. I think it's an interesting thing to reflect on.
One now begins to see just what it was that came to an end with the death on the cross: a new and thoroughly original effort to found a Buddhistic peace movement, and so establish happiness on earth - real, not merely promised. For this remains - as I have already pointed out - the essential difference between the two religions of decadence: Buddhism promises nothing, but actually fulfills; Christianity promises everything, but fulfills nothing. - Hard upon the heels of the "glad tidings" came the worst imaginable: those of Paul. In Paul is incarnated the very opposite of the "bearer of glad tidings"; he represents the genius for hatred, the vision of hatred, the relentless logic of hatred. What, indeed, has not this dysangelist sacrificed to hatred! Above all, the savior: he nailed him to his own cross. The life, the example, the teachings, the death of Christ, the meaning and the law of the whole gospels - nothing was left of all this after that counterfeiter in hatred had reduced it to his uses. Surely not reality; surely not historical truth![4]
Notes:
1. Nietzsche, Frederick. The Anti-Christ (Translated by H.L. Mencken). Pg 61 section 43.
2. Nietzsche, Frederick. The Anti-Christ (Translated by H.L. Mencken). Pg 69 section 48.
3. This is actually a quote from a discussion that I was taking part in. I saved the quote but unfortunately I didn't save a link to the actual discussion so I have no idea who said it or really what the context was. Suffice it is to say though that in the context of this blog, it is fitting.
4. Nietzsche, Frederick. The Anti-Christ (Translated by H.L. Mencken). Pg 59 section 42.
The following from a blog I wrote a few years ago:
What is of value? Where should it be placed? Who determines it? These are the underlying currents that Nietzsche wishes to explore in his critique of Christianity. The implication of a nihilistic and destructive message to mankind that Christianity fosters is brought up again and again in Nietzsche's The Anti-Christ.
Central to his theme is the charge that Paul has corrupt the religion into one that transforms everything we hold of value in this life into a worthless bog and replaces it with a 'promise' of egotistical future rewards that never materialize. To a certain extent and in regards to certain Christian beliefs, I tend to agree with him. That is to say that not all Christians would fall under this category.
So the purpose of this blog is to explore some of the nihilism that is, perhaps, essential to some Christian's beliefs. Perhaps the message of the Bible is that God is angry at us for our attempt to secure knowledge. Perhaps Jesus was just a lie meant to take our focus off of the attempt of Christianity to keep us ignorant and believing that we are worthless.
Those are pretty heavy charges and ones that certainly need some support if I'm going to attempt to paint any Christians with holding to such nihilism. If we explore the Bible though, I do think that some interpretations (if not most) lead to this. If we think about it, the whole foundation of Christianity is based on the notion of original sin and our salvation of it. Original sin is the idea that none of us our worthy of salvation - that we are all worthless sinful scum that need an intermediary in order to be of any value to God. If we accept salvation we achieve immortality in a heavenly paradise. The unintended (or perhaps, deliberate) result is that this world and this life is worthless.
This is actually a sleigh of hand though - what it effectively does is say that our lives have no value and that we cannot (or rather, should not) put any value into anything. As Frederick Nietzsche explains:
When the center of gravity of life is placed, not in life itself, but in "the beyond" - in nothingness - then one has taken away its center of gravity altogether. The vast lie of personal immortality destroys all reason, all natural instinct - henceforth, everything in the instincts that is beneficial, that fosters life and that safeguards the future is a cause of suspicion. So to live that life no longer has any meaning: this is now the "meaning" of life...Why be public-spirited? Why take any pride in descent and forefathers? Why labor together, trust one another, or concern one's self about the common welfare, and try to serve it? ...Merely so many "temptations," so many strayings from the "straight path." "one thing is necessary."...That every man, because he has an "immortal soul," is as good as every other man; that in an infinite universe of things the "salvation" of every individual may lay claim to eternal importance; that insignificant bigots and the three-fourths instance may assume that the laws of nature are constantly suspended in their behalf - it is impossible to lavish too much contempt upon such a magnification of every sort of selfishness to infinity, to insolence. And yet Christianity has to thank precisely this miserable flattery of personal vanity for its triumph - it was thus that it lured all the botched, the dissatisfied, the fallen upon evil days, the whole refuse and off-scouring of humanity to its side. The "salvation of the soul" - in plain words: "the world revolves around me." ...The poisonous doctrine, "equal rights for all," has been propagated as a Christian principle: out of the secret nooks and crannies of bad instinct Christianity has waged a deadly war upon all feelings of reverence and distance between man and man, which is to say, upon the first prerequisite to every step upward, to every development of civilization - out of the [resentment] of the masses it has forged its chief weapons against us, against everything noble, joyous and high-spirited on earth, against our happiness on earth. [1]
As Nietzsche explains, achievements in this life are worthless, differences are worthless - all the effort, the failures, the successes, and the struggles of life are, in the end, completely leveled to meaninglessness. We are not rewarded for any effort and we are not punished for any wrong doing - as long as we succumb to the dogma of belief. We are all, in the end, equal in "value" (I.e., in the idea that all our efforts have been perfectly useless).
Adhering to dogma is backed up repeatedly in the Bible to such an extent that I don't think I have to really expound on it. I think that the backing of deploring science is equally expounded, however it seems to me that this is not equally understood or accepted. While the Bible does praise childlike belief, it is harder to grasp that one of the central messages in the Bible is that knowledge and science are to be scorned. Nietzsche would say that this is something the priests are supposed to foster, and as he puts it, it's something that is expressed in the earliest chapters of Genesis:
-Has any one ever clearly understood the celebrated story of the beginning of the Bible - of God's mortal terror of science?...No one, in fact, has understood it. This priest-book par excellence opens, as is fitting, with the great inner difficulty of the priest: he faces only one great danger; ergo, "God" faces only one great danger. - The old God, wholly "spirit," wholly the high-priest, wholly perfect, is promenading his garden: he is bored and trying to kill time. Against boredom even gods struggle in vain. What does he do? He creates man - man is entertaining.... But then he notices that man is also bored. God's pity for the only form of distress that invades all paradises knows no bounds: so he forthwith creates other animals. God's first mistake: to man these other animals were not entertaining - he sought dominion over them; he did not want to be an "animal" himself. - So God created woman. In the act he brought boredom to an end - and also many other things! Woman was the second mistake of God. - "Woman, at bottom, is a serpent, Heva" - every priest knows that, too. Ergo, she is also to blame for science...It was through woman that man learned to taste of the tree of knowledge. - What happened? The old God was seized by mortal terror. Man himself had been his greatest blunder; he had created a rival to himself; science makes me godlike - it is all up with priests and gods when man becomes scientific - Moral: science is the forbidden per se; it alone is forbidden. Science is the first of sins, the germ of all sins, the original sin. This is all there is of morality. - "Thou shalt not know": - the rest follows from that. - God's moral terror, however, did not hinder him from being shrewd. How is one to protect one's self against science? For a long while this was a capital problem. Answer: Out of paradise with man! Happiness, leisure, foster thought - and all thoughts are bad thoughts! - Man must not think. - And so the priests invents distress, death the moral dangers of childbirth, all sorts of misery, old age, decrepitude, above all, sickness - nothing but devices for making war on science! The troubles of man don't allow him to think. Nevertheless - how terrible! - the edifice of knowledge begins to tower aloft, invading heaven, shadowing the gods - what is to be done? - The old God invents war; he separates the peoples; he makes men destroy one another (-the priests have always had need of war....). War - among other things, a great disturber of science! - Incredible! Knowledge, deliverance from the priests, prospers in spite of war. - So the old God comes to his final resolution: "Man has become scientific - there is no help for it: he must be drowned!" [2]
As I suggested earlier in this blog, in some respects it can be said that the whole foundation of Christianity is based on the notion of original sin. Now, I have to say here that I find this rather hard to reconcile with the idea of an omnimax benevolent god who values us - but pressing on - How did we get this 'original sin'?
We inherited it from A&E who got it after eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Why was eating from that tree a bad thing though? I suspect that many apologists would say that the eating from the tree was not, in and of itself a bad thing, it was the disobeying god part.
But this doesn't quite fit the biblical interpretation of events. Why would God make that tree, of all trees, bad? Why would God not have created A&E with the knowledge they came to possess after eating the tree? Why specify that it was from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Surely such specification points to an importance.
In fact if we read the scriptures, the serpent entices A&E by saying that if they eat from that tree they will become like God in the knowledge of good and evil (which I find internally contradictory with some of Christianity's other assertions, but that will have to be for another blog) - that their eyes will be opened.
This is, exactly what happens. God concedes this by saying: Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
To put it briefly in other words, our sin was the sin of attaining knowledge - at least that's the message the bible spells out for us.
So when the Christian sits there and says "That's just what people think.... Jesus is the ONLY way to the father, and anything else is a lie meant to destroy your soul"[3] I become a little puzzled as the foundation of the bible is not about truth or attaining knowledge. It seems to be about keeping mankind ignorant. Paul's reminder that God will send delusions could certainly be used to support this contention:
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12: "And said, verily I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Evidently the God of the Bible has no problem lying in order to get what it desires, but what does this mean in regards to the importance of the truth, to facts? It's not the truth that God is pushing, it's not the facts of reality that this God wants you to know and to strive for - it's slave-like devotion and unquestioning obedience and worship. Why such a perfect being requires this is a philosophical conundrum.
I'll end the blog with one last quote from Nietzsche, where he compares Christianity to Buddhism. I think it's an interesting thing to reflect on.
One now begins to see just what it was that came to an end with the death on the cross: a new and thoroughly original effort to found a Buddhistic peace movement, and so establish happiness on earth - real, not merely promised. For this remains - as I have already pointed out - the essential difference between the two religions of decadence: Buddhism promises nothing, but actually fulfills; Christianity promises everything, but fulfills nothing. - Hard upon the heels of the "glad tidings" came the worst imaginable: those of Paul. In Paul is incarnated the very opposite of the "bearer of glad tidings"; he represents the genius for hatred, the vision of hatred, the relentless logic of hatred. What, indeed, has not this dysangelist sacrificed to hatred! Above all, the savior: he nailed him to his own cross. The life, the example, the teachings, the death of Christ, the meaning and the law of the whole gospels - nothing was left of all this after that counterfeiter in hatred had reduced it to his uses. Surely not reality; surely not historical truth![4]
Notes:
1. Nietzsche, Frederick. The Anti-Christ (Translated by H.L. Mencken). Pg 61 section 43.
2. Nietzsche, Frederick. The Anti-Christ (Translated by H.L. Mencken). Pg 69 section 48.
3. This is actually a quote from a discussion that I was taking part in. I saved the quote but unfortunately I didn't save a link to the actual discussion so I have no idea who said it or really what the context was. Suffice it is to say though that in the context of this blog, it is fitting.
4. Nietzsche, Frederick. The Anti-Christ (Translated by H.L. Mencken). Pg 59 section 42.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 25, 2009 10:23AM
ITEM: Seventh-Day Adventism (SDA) is just another "cult" of Christianity whose belief system is larded up with something like 100,000 pages of Ellen White's epileptic visions.
Nobody at McLean Bible would defend Mrs. White's rather peculiar personal additions to the Scriptures. To the contrary, they would applaud the present-day "Martin Luthers" who have left the denomination -- just as Luther left the Roman Catholic church -- in order to return to New Testament Biblical Christianity. |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2009 10:24AM
I realize I'm droning on here, but a rational person cannot accept a young earth. Amongst many arguments against it (and none for a young earth) is the problem with Meteors. Young Earth Christians must ignore evidence and reason in order to accept Christianity.
---------
My question is how does a young earth account for meteors?
Over the past several billion years the earth has been plastered with meteors (http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/CIDiameterSort.html)- several of which are of sufficient size as to cancel out most of life on the planet (one of which would have cancelled out *all* life on the planet - http://www.hartrao.ac.za/other/vredefort/vredefort.html).
How did mankind survive during the 140 plus large impacts that have been discovered? Not only that, but why didn't anyone write about such earth shattering events?
Further why isn't the earth still reeling from the massive impacts?
The following is taken from the Cambridge Conference Correspondence (http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc032003.html):
"Very big impactors are rare, but if one the size of Vredefort should hit us, it would probably spell the end of life as we know it.
Colossal fires and tidal waves would sweep away landmarks, killing millions if not billions immediately. Ejecta and dust thrown from the impact zone would do the long-term damage, darkening the skies and chilling the seas for centuries, putting an end to agriculture and possibly disrupting the atmospheric processes from which we draw our air.
This is what seems to have caused the mass extinction of the dinosaurs. About 65-million years ago, an asteroid ploughed into what is now the Yucatan peninsula of Mexico, setting in motion the chain reactions that killed off Earth's dominant species in a few short years. Known as the Chicxulub crater, this is regarded as the world's third-largest. "
Keep in mind, the conference is talking about two different impacts - the Vredefort (which I linked to earlier) and the K-T event. So how is it that both of these hit us sometime in the last 6, 000 (or 10, whatever you hold to) years and not only are we still around to debate about it, but there is no written record of these impacts?
---------
My question is how does a young earth account for meteors?
Over the past several billion years the earth has been plastered with meteors (http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/CIDiameterSort.html)- several of which are of sufficient size as to cancel out most of life on the planet (one of which would have cancelled out *all* life on the planet - http://www.hartrao.ac.za/other/vredefort/vredefort.html).
How did mankind survive during the 140 plus large impacts that have been discovered? Not only that, but why didn't anyone write about such earth shattering events?
Further why isn't the earth still reeling from the massive impacts?
The following is taken from the Cambridge Conference Correspondence (http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc032003.html):
"Very big impactors are rare, but if one the size of Vredefort should hit us, it would probably spell the end of life as we know it.
Colossal fires and tidal waves would sweep away landmarks, killing millions if not billions immediately. Ejecta and dust thrown from the impact zone would do the long-term damage, darkening the skies and chilling the seas for centuries, putting an end to agriculture and possibly disrupting the atmospheric processes from which we draw our air.
This is what seems to have caused the mass extinction of the dinosaurs. About 65-million years ago, an asteroid ploughed into what is now the Yucatan peninsula of Mexico, setting in motion the chain reactions that killed off Earth's dominant species in a few short years. Known as the Chicxulub crater, this is regarded as the world's third-largest. "
Keep in mind, the conference is talking about two different impacts - the Vredefort (which I linked to earlier) and the K-T event. So how is it that both of these hit us sometime in the last 6, 000 (or 10, whatever you hold to) years and not only are we still around to debate about it, but there is no written record of these impacts?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2009 10:27AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> ITEM: Seventh-Day Adventism (SDA) is just another
> "cult" of Christianity whose belief system is
> larded up with something like 100,000 pages of
> Ellen White's epileptic visions.
>
> Nobody at McLean Bible would defend Mrs. White's
> rather peculiar personal additions to the
> Scriptures. To the contrary, they would applaud
> the present-day "Martin Luthers" who have left the
> denomination -- just as Luther left the Roman
> Catholic church -- in order to return to New
> Testament Biblical Christianity.
>
Sorry Elliot, but special pleading is a logical fallacy. If you can charge a scientific theory with motive (ie, Nazism and absurdly, Stalin's communism), then we can charge Christianity with motive as well (ie, that it's racist).
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> ITEM: Seventh-Day Adventism (SDA) is just another
> "cult" of Christianity whose belief system is
> larded up with something like 100,000 pages of
> Ellen White's epileptic visions.
>
> Nobody at McLean Bible would defend Mrs. White's
> rather peculiar personal additions to the
> Scriptures. To the contrary, they would applaud
> the present-day "Martin Luthers" who have left the
> denomination -- just as Luther left the Roman
> Catholic church -- in order to return to New
> Testament Biblical Christianity.
>
Sorry Elliot, but special pleading is a logical fallacy. If you can charge a scientific theory with motive (ie, Nazism and absurdly, Stalin's communism), then we can charge Christianity with motive as well (ie, that it's racist).
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2009 10:28AM
I'm curious Elliot, do you intend on answering what I've written or are you going to continue your debunked soap box of 'Darwin = teh satan'?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Cotton Mather
()
Date: January 25, 2009 10:29AM
Again, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that the contradictions need to be acknowledged instead of being glossed over. But you're a fanatic, there's no reasoning with you.
Actually, it's you who's the fanatic. Your every post is filled with narrow-minded hatred and an utter inability to accept people whose beliefs are different from yours. Of course, you consider yourself to be an open-minded and tolerant person, but your posts show you for what you are. A bigot.
Actually, it's you who's the fanatic. Your every post is filled with narrow-minded hatred and an utter inability to accept people whose beliefs are different from yours. Of course, you consider yourself to be an open-minded and tolerant person, but your posts show you for what you are. A bigot.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 25, 2009 11:02AM
| 1) Pangloss wrote that "Walt Brown has been refuted *BY CREATIONISTS*" ... I would suggest that some of Brown's ideas have been 'disputed' by fellow creationists who are not afraid to debate the issues. |
| 2) All that Caroline Crocker has ever asked for was that the establishment be willing to dispute the idea of Intelligent Design rather than trying to silence the debate. [This was also the point of Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".] |
| 3) Modern man would rather see himself as merely "something kicked up out of the slime by chance" than to even discuss the possibility that our immense, complex cosmos was 'created' with a structure by someone with a character and intelligence -- which is what the Bible asserts. |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 25, 2009 11:26AM
| Pangloss ... I'm not "charging a scientific theory with a motive." |
| I'm saying that Nazism and Communism share an impersonal Darwinian view of the cosmos, while attaching distinct sacred documents, prophets/Messiahs, and a romantic, glorious future to their irrational confections of "national"/"scientific" socialism. |
| They can both be considered "religions" in that respect ... so can Nietzsche's romantic vison of a world of "supermen" and Ayn Rand's romantic vision of a world of "producers." |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: January 25, 2009 11:43AM
Does anyone have any data regarding how much revenue churches would bring to the Fed if they weren't tax exempt?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: January 25, 2009 12:17PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > 1) Pangloss wrote that "Walt Brown has been
> refuted *BY CREATIONISTS*" ... I would suggest
> that some of Brown's ideas have been 'disputed' by
> fellow creationists who are not afraid to debate
> the issues.
> 2) All that Caroline Crocker has ever asked for
> was that the establishment be willing to dispute
> the idea of Intelligent Design rather than trying
> to silence the debate.
> 3) Modern man would rather see himself as merely
> "something kicked up out of the slime by chance"
> than to even discuss the possibility that our
> immense, complex cosmos was 'created' with a
> structure by someone with a character and
> intelligence -- which is what the Bible asserts.
let...say...it...again...very...slowly...for...the...hard...of...thinking...
you...do...not...need...a...designer...to...explain...what...you...can...see...around...you...
and...there...is...no...evidence...for...one
intelligent...design...is...just...a...last...ditch...attempt...to...keep...religion...alive
creation...science...is...not...science...its...religion... pretending...to...be..science...
there...is...no...god..get...over...it
-------------------------------------------------------
> > 1) Pangloss wrote that "Walt Brown has been
> refuted *BY CREATIONISTS*" ... I would suggest
> that some of Brown's ideas have been 'disputed' by
> fellow creationists who are not afraid to debate
> the issues.
> 2) All that Caroline Crocker has ever asked for
> was that the establishment be willing to dispute
> the idea of Intelligent Design rather than trying
> to silence the debate.
> 3) Modern man would rather see himself as merely
> "something kicked up out of the slime by chance"
> than to even discuss the possibility that our
> immense, complex cosmos was 'created' with a
> structure by someone with a character and
> intelligence -- which is what the Bible asserts.
let...say...it...again...very...slowly...for...the...hard...of...thinking...
you...do...not...need...a...designer...to...explain...what...you...can...see...around...you...
and...there...is...no...evidence...for...one
intelligent...design...is...just...a...last...ditch...attempt...to...keep...religion...alive
creation...science...is...not...science...its...religion... pretending...to...be..science...
there...is...no...god..get...over...it
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Cotton Mather
()
Date: January 25, 2009 12:25PM
Does anyone have any data regarding how much revenue churches would bring to the Fed if they weren't tax exempt?
Does anyone have any data regarding how much charities, such as food banks, homeless shelters, etc. would lose in financial aid if churches lost their tax exempt status?
Does anyone have any data regarding how much charities, such as food banks, homeless shelters, etc. would lose in financial aid if churches lost their tax exempt status?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Jim Thorpe
()
Date: January 25, 2009 12:28PM
there...is...no...god..get...over...it
Get over it, the phrase that is last refuge of those who are unable to debate intelligently. Why does it bother you if people believe in God? What difference does it make to you?
Get over it, the phrase that is last refuge of those who are unable to debate intelligently. Why does it bother you if people believe in God? What difference does it make to you?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: January 25, 2009 01:29PM
Jim Thorpe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> there...is...no...god..get...over...it
>
> Get over it, the phrase that is last refuge of
> those who are unable to debate intelligently. Why
> does it bother you if people believe in God? What
> difference does it make to you?
Because they foist misguided laws and policies on the rest of us - not because they've thought about them, but because some religious hierarchy tells them so.
Because they continue to lie to the next generations and waste talent
Because they attempt to get cr*p like creation science into our schools
Because they get us into unnecessary wars and have us back other religious regimes when they massacre their religious rivals
Because it enables people with really dangerous views to hold on to a constituency because of fear of damnation or exclusion
If religion had no net effect, them I wouldn't give a damn - it would just be some ethnographic oddity for national geographic. But it does have devastating and dangerous results.
Religion's time is over - consign it to the trash can of history where it belongs and address the world as it really is.
-------------------------------------------------------
> there...is...no...god..get...over...it
>
> Get over it, the phrase that is last refuge of
> those who are unable to debate intelligently. Why
> does it bother you if people believe in God? What
> difference does it make to you?
Because they foist misguided laws and policies on the rest of us - not because they've thought about them, but because some religious hierarchy tells them so.
Because they continue to lie to the next generations and waste talent
Because they attempt to get cr*p like creation science into our schools
Because they get us into unnecessary wars and have us back other religious regimes when they massacre their religious rivals
Because it enables people with really dangerous views to hold on to a constituency because of fear of damnation or exclusion
If religion had no net effect, them I wouldn't give a damn - it would just be some ethnographic oddity for national geographic. But it does have devastating and dangerous results.
Religion's time is over - consign it to the trash can of history where it belongs and address the world as it really is.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2009 01:29PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > 1) Pangloss wrote that "Walt Brown has been
> refuted *BY CREATIONISTS*" ... I would suggest
> that some of Brown's ideas have been 'disputed' by
> fellow creationists who are not afraid to debate
> the issues.
And?
> 2) All that Caroline Crocker has ever asked for
> was that the establishment be willing to dispute
> the idea of Intelligent Design rather than trying
> to silence the debate.
Nonsense - if she wanted the establishment to take it seriously then she should have approached it from a serious manner, ie, go through the normal scientific channels and come up with a scientific theory. What she, and ID proponents do, was try to get ID in the back door. Again, this is why the discovery institute spends money on PR and the media instead of doing *any* empirical work.
> 3) Modern man would rather see himself as merely
> "something kicked up out of the slime by chance"
> than to even discuss the possibility that our
> immense, complex cosmos was 'created' with a
> structure by someone with a character and
> intelligence -- which is what the Bible asserts.
1. Evolution is not 'chance'. If you believe this, then you do not understand evolutionary theory.
2. This is irrelevant to the actual truth.
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Pangloss ... I'm not "charging a scientific
> theory with a motive."I'm saying that Nazism and
> Communism share an impersonal Darwinian view of
> the cosmos, while attaching distinct sacred
> documents, prophets/Messiahs, and a romantic,
> glorious future to their irrational confections of
> "national"/"scientific" socialism.
As I've shown, you are incorrect and you are doing exactly what I said, attempting to charge a scientific theory with motive. You are using rhetoric instead of reason, which is why you attempt to discredit it by using terms such as 'prophets/messiahs' and 'nazism' and 'communism' (which I've shown is absurd, as Stalinist communism did not accept Darwinian evolution - which you haven't addressed at all).
> They can both be considered "religions" in that
> respect ... so can Nietzsche's romantic vison of a
> world of "supermen" and Ayn Rand's romantic vision
> of a world of "producers."
No, they can't. Further, you are again trying to link a scientific theory with completely different metaphysical views. In fact, if Ayn Rand is right, then Nietzche wasn't - yet you are...what...trying to say that Darwinism is linked with both??
Are you going to address any of the points I've made or are you going to ignore them and continue with your refuted rhetoric? Do you think that we can see the strawman behind the rhetoric? I've pulled back the curtain Elliot and you are still trying to convince us of the all powerful Wizard.
-------------------------------------------------------
> > 1) Pangloss wrote that "Walt Brown has been
> refuted *BY CREATIONISTS*" ... I would suggest
> that some of Brown's ideas have been 'disputed' by
> fellow creationists who are not afraid to debate
> the issues.
And?
> 2) All that Caroline Crocker has ever asked for
> was that the establishment be willing to dispute
> the idea of Intelligent Design rather than trying
> to silence the debate.
Nonsense - if she wanted the establishment to take it seriously then she should have approached it from a serious manner, ie, go through the normal scientific channels and come up with a scientific theory. What she, and ID proponents do, was try to get ID in the back door. Again, this is why the discovery institute spends money on PR and the media instead of doing *any* empirical work.
> 3) Modern man would rather see himself as merely
> "something kicked up out of the slime by chance"
> than to even discuss the possibility that our
> immense, complex cosmos was 'created' with a
> structure by someone with a character and
> intelligence -- which is what the Bible asserts.
1. Evolution is not 'chance'. If you believe this, then you do not understand evolutionary theory.
2. This is irrelevant to the actual truth.
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Pangloss ... I'm not "charging a scientific
> theory with a motive."I'm saying that Nazism and
> Communism share an impersonal Darwinian view of
> the cosmos, while attaching distinct sacred
> documents, prophets/Messiahs, and a romantic,
> glorious future to their irrational confections of
> "national"/"scientific" socialism.
As I've shown, you are incorrect and you are doing exactly what I said, attempting to charge a scientific theory with motive. You are using rhetoric instead of reason, which is why you attempt to discredit it by using terms such as 'prophets/messiahs' and 'nazism' and 'communism' (which I've shown is absurd, as Stalinist communism did not accept Darwinian evolution - which you haven't addressed at all).
> They can both be considered "religions" in that
> respect ... so can Nietzsche's romantic vison of a
> world of "supermen" and Ayn Rand's romantic vision
> of a world of "producers."
No, they can't. Further, you are again trying to link a scientific theory with completely different metaphysical views. In fact, if Ayn Rand is right, then Nietzche wasn't - yet you are...what...trying to say that Darwinism is linked with both??
Are you going to address any of the points I've made or are you going to ignore them and continue with your refuted rhetoric? Do you think that we can see the strawman behind the rhetoric? I've pulled back the curtain Elliot and you are still trying to convince us of the all powerful Wizard.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Jim Thorpe
()
Date: January 25, 2009 01:37PM
Because they foist misguided laws and policies on the rest of us - not because they've thought about them, but because some religious hierarchy tells them so.
Because they continue to lie to the next generations and waste talent
Because they attempt to get cr*p like creation science into our schools
Because they get us into unnecessary wars and have us back other religious regimes when they massacre their religious rivals
Because it enables people with really dangerous views to hold on to a constituency because of fear of damnation or exclusion
If religion had no net effect, them I wouldn't give a damn - it would just be some ethnographic oddity for national geographic. But it does have devastating and dangerous results.
Religion's time is over - consign it to the trash can of history where it belongs and address the world as it really is.
Tell it to the Muslims, asshole.
Because they continue to lie to the next generations and waste talent
Because they attempt to get cr*p like creation science into our schools
Because they get us into unnecessary wars and have us back other religious regimes when they massacre their religious rivals
Because it enables people with really dangerous views to hold on to a constituency because of fear of damnation or exclusion
If religion had no net effect, them I wouldn't give a damn - it would just be some ethnographic oddity for national geographic. But it does have devastating and dangerous results.
Religion's time is over - consign it to the trash can of history where it belongs and address the world as it really is.
Tell it to the Muslims, asshole.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: January 25, 2009 05:35PM
Jim Thorpe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because they foist misguided laws and policies on
> the rest of us - not because they've thought about
> them, but because some religious hierarchy tells
> them so.
>
> Because they continue to lie to the next
> generations and waste talent
>
> Because they attempt to get cr*p like creation
> science into our schools
>
> Because they get us into unnecessary wars and have
> us back other religious regimes when they massacre
> their religious rivals
>
> Because it enables people with really dangerous
> views to hold on to a constituency because of fear
> of damnation or exclusion
>
> If religion had no net effect, them I wouldn't
> give a damn - it would just be some ethnographic
> oddity for national geographic. But it does have
> devastating and dangerous results.
>
> Religion's time is over - consign it to the trash
> can of history where it belongs and address the
> world as it really is.
>
>
> Tell it to the Muslims, asshole.
Retard (although that's tough on real retards) - I've happily told it to the Christians, the Muslims, the Jews, the Mormons, the JWs and the Hindus (the Jains get a bit of a break because, although wrong and hence wasteful of talent, they don't tend to go out invading, murdering and subjecting which is at least a start)
You all believe incompatible things (incompatible with each other and will all of the evidence around you) yet all claim that your particular divine intervention is the right one and that the others should all burn in some form of hell - by Tuesday if at all possible
Its not surprising that an intolerant religious numb-skull such as yourself would just attempt to deflect your ignorance at a rival religious group - world history is littered with people like you and it always ends up in war, blood and poverty. At the end of the day, you're as dead as the rest of us and the universe doesn't even notice.
Some 'christian' you are... clearly full of the milk of human kindness for other 'communities of faith'
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because they foist misguided laws and policies on
> the rest of us - not because they've thought about
> them, but because some religious hierarchy tells
> them so.
>
> Because they continue to lie to the next
> generations and waste talent
>
> Because they attempt to get cr*p like creation
> science into our schools
>
> Because they get us into unnecessary wars and have
> us back other religious regimes when they massacre
> their religious rivals
>
> Because it enables people with really dangerous
> views to hold on to a constituency because of fear
> of damnation or exclusion
>
> If religion had no net effect, them I wouldn't
> give a damn - it would just be some ethnographic
> oddity for national geographic. But it does have
> devastating and dangerous results.
>
> Religion's time is over - consign it to the trash
> can of history where it belongs and address the
> world as it really is.
>
>
> Tell it to the Muslims, asshole.
Retard (although that's tough on real retards) - I've happily told it to the Christians, the Muslims, the Jews, the Mormons, the JWs and the Hindus (the Jains get a bit of a break because, although wrong and hence wasteful of talent, they don't tend to go out invading, murdering and subjecting which is at least a start)
You all believe incompatible things (incompatible with each other and will all of the evidence around you) yet all claim that your particular divine intervention is the right one and that the others should all burn in some form of hell - by Tuesday if at all possible
Its not surprising that an intolerant religious numb-skull such as yourself would just attempt to deflect your ignorance at a rival religious group - world history is littered with people like you and it always ends up in war, blood and poverty. At the end of the day, you're as dead as the rest of us and the universe doesn't even notice.
Some 'christian' you are... clearly full of the milk of human kindness for other 'communities of faith'
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 25, 2009 09:41PM
Pangloss stated that "Stalinist communism did not accept Darwinian evolution - which you haven't addressed at all."
Umm ... the lunatic Stalin didn't accept Mendel's view of genetic mechanisms ... instead Stalin empowered the Lamarckian (inheritance-of-acquired-characteristics) Lysenko ... and Lysenko then became the hideous "Che Guevara" of Soviet science:
Letter from Marx, 1861, to Lassalle:
Umm ... the lunatic Stalin didn't accept Mendel's view of genetic mechanisms ... instead Stalin empowered the Lamarckian (inheritance-of-acquired-characteristics) Lysenko ... and Lysenko then became the hideous "Che Guevara" of Soviet science:
Lysenko was put in charge of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the Soviet Union and made responsible for ending the propagation of "harmful" ideas among Soviet scientists. Lysenko served this purpose by causing the expulsion, imprisonment, and death of hundreds of scientists and eliminating all study and research involving Mendelian genetics throughout the Soviet Union. This period is known as Lysenkoism. He bears particular responsibility for the persecution of his predecessor and rival, prominent Soviet biologist Nikolai Vavilov, which ended in 1943 with the imprisoned Vavilov's death by starvation.But the terrible tyranny that empowered Stalin flowed from Marx's cosmology via Lenin ... long before Mendel, Marx and Darwin lived in very much the same non-created universe. (Dunno if Lenin had ever expressed any private views about genetic mechanisms!)
Letter from Marx, 1861, to Lassalle:
"Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle. One does, of course, have to put up with the clumsy English style of argument. Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, ‘teleology’ in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained."
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2009 09:49PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss stated that "Stalinist communism did not
> accept Darwinian evolution - which you haven't
> addressed at all."
>
> Umm ... the lunatic Stalin didn't accept Mendel's
> view of genetic mechanisms ... instead Stalin
> empowered the Lamarckian
> (inheritance-of-acquired-characteristics) Lysenko
> ... and Lysenko then became the hideous "Che
> Guevara" of Soviet science:
> Lysenko was put in charge of the Academy of
> Agricultural Sciences of the Soviet Union and made
> responsible for ending the propagation of
> "harmful" ideas among Soviet scientists. Lysenko
> served this purpose by causing the expulsion,
> imprisonment, and death of hundreds of scientists
> and eliminating all study and research involving
> Mendelian genetics throughout the Soviet Union.
> This period is known as Lysenkoism. He bears
> particular responsibility for the persecution of
> his predecessor and rival, prominent Soviet
> biologist Nikolai Vavilov, which ended in 1943
> with the imprisoned Vavilov's death by
> starvation.
> But the terrible tyranny that empowered Stalin
> flowed from Marx's cosmology via Lenin ... long
> before Mendel, Marx and Darwin lived in very much
> the same non-created universe. (Dunno if Lenin had
> ever expressed any private views about genetic
> mechanisms!)
Congratulations, you've learned something - Stalinist communism rejected Darwinian evolution. I expect you to quit referring to it now. I did notice that you still attempt (very weakly and not reasoned at all) Stalin with Lenin's cosmology, but it is irrelevant.
> Letter from Marx, 1861, to Lassalle: "Darwin’s
> work is most important and suits my purpose in
> that it provides a basis in natural science for
> the historical class struggle. One does, of
> course, have to put up with the clumsy English
> style of argument. Despite all shortcomings, it is
> here that, for the first time, ‘teleology’ in
> natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow
> but its rational meaning is empirically
> explained."
I forget, was "Marx" just another name for "Stalin"?
In all seriousness, as I said, you cannot blame a scientific theory for the atrocities that people commit. So just like you cannot blame Hiroshima (sp?) on Einstein's theory of relativity, you cannot blame Stalin's starvation of 20 million of his own people on Evolution.
But again, as I've pointed out, your entire argument is a red herring - as even if it were true, it doesn't mean that Christianity is true. At best you are engaging in wishful thinking.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2009 09:50PM by Professor Pangloss.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss stated that "Stalinist communism did not
> accept Darwinian evolution - which you haven't
> addressed at all."
>
> Umm ... the lunatic Stalin didn't accept Mendel's
> view of genetic mechanisms ... instead Stalin
> empowered the Lamarckian
> (inheritance-of-acquired-characteristics) Lysenko
> ... and Lysenko then became the hideous "Che
> Guevara" of Soviet science:
> Lysenko was put in charge of the Academy of
> Agricultural Sciences of the Soviet Union and made
> responsible for ending the propagation of
> "harmful" ideas among Soviet scientists. Lysenko
> served this purpose by causing the expulsion,
> imprisonment, and death of hundreds of scientists
> and eliminating all study and research involving
> Mendelian genetics throughout the Soviet Union.
> This period is known as Lysenkoism. He bears
> particular responsibility for the persecution of
> his predecessor and rival, prominent Soviet
> biologist Nikolai Vavilov, which ended in 1943
> with the imprisoned Vavilov's death by
> starvation.
> But the terrible tyranny that empowered Stalin
> flowed from Marx's cosmology via Lenin ... long
> before Mendel, Marx and Darwin lived in very much
> the same non-created universe. (Dunno if Lenin had
> ever expressed any private views about genetic
> mechanisms!)
Congratulations, you've learned something - Stalinist communism rejected Darwinian evolution. I expect you to quit referring to it now. I did notice that you still attempt (very weakly and not reasoned at all) Stalin with Lenin's cosmology, but it is irrelevant.
> Letter from Marx, 1861, to Lassalle: "Darwin’s
> work is most important and suits my purpose in
> that it provides a basis in natural science for
> the historical class struggle. One does, of
> course, have to put up with the clumsy English
> style of argument. Despite all shortcomings, it is
> here that, for the first time, ‘teleology’ in
> natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow
> but its rational meaning is empirically
> explained."
I forget, was "Marx" just another name for "Stalin"?
In all seriousness, as I said, you cannot blame a scientific theory for the atrocities that people commit. So just like you cannot blame Hiroshima (sp?) on Einstein's theory of relativity, you cannot blame Stalin's starvation of 20 million of his own people on Evolution.
But again, as I've pointed out, your entire argument is a red herring - as even if it were true, it doesn't mean that Christianity is true. At best you are engaging in wishful thinking.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2009 09:50PM by Professor Pangloss.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2009 09:53PM
Your biases are showing Elliot. Further you seem either unwilling to engage in what's being discussed or unable to. If it's the former, then your mindset is similar to holocaust deniers. If it's the latter then all I can suggest is that you actually look into the topics you disagree with. Remember Aristotle's Maxim that one can entertain an idea without accepting it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: January 25, 2009 10:18PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I forget, was "Marx" just another name for
> "Stalin"?
>
Marx's thinking was deeply incisive given the historical and unfolding economic context in which it was undertaken - don't forget that it done shortly after the American Civil War and 20 years before the christian aristocracy and monarchies of Europe sent the youth of their people to the cemeteries of Flanders.
Marx's work is 19th century thinking without the benefits of the 20th century experience of large scale markets and industrialization - that the limits of his work took time to emerge is not surprising,
Stalin's use of starvation, ethnic cleansing and massacre is only peripherally related to Marx's analysis - and is much more reminiscent of the catholic church's enrichment from the extermination of the South American civilisations
> In all seriousness, as I said, you cannot blame a
> scientific theory for the atrocities that people
> commit. So just like you cannot blame Hiroshima
> (sp?) on Einstein's theory of relativity, you
> cannot blame Stalin's starvation of 20 million of
> his own people on Evolution.
>
Exactly - claiming that relativity is wrong because you don't like what it tells you, or what it enables you to do, despite the evidence would be stupid - just like claiming that the world is flat because air-travel makes you sick or that evolution is wrong because you don't like being a direct descendant of pond-slime (which is quite an fine ancestry if you ask me - seeing how cool pond-slime is when you really look at what it does and how it works)
-------------------------------------------------------
> I forget, was "Marx" just another name for
> "Stalin"?
>
Marx's thinking was deeply incisive given the historical and unfolding economic context in which it was undertaken - don't forget that it done shortly after the American Civil War and 20 years before the christian aristocracy and monarchies of Europe sent the youth of their people to the cemeteries of Flanders.
Marx's work is 19th century thinking without the benefits of the 20th century experience of large scale markets and industrialization - that the limits of his work took time to emerge is not surprising,
Stalin's use of starvation, ethnic cleansing and massacre is only peripherally related to Marx's analysis - and is much more reminiscent of the catholic church's enrichment from the extermination of the South American civilisations
> In all seriousness, as I said, you cannot blame a
> scientific theory for the atrocities that people
> commit. So just like you cannot blame Hiroshima
> (sp?) on Einstein's theory of relativity, you
> cannot blame Stalin's starvation of 20 million of
> his own people on Evolution.
>
Exactly - claiming that relativity is wrong because you don't like what it tells you, or what it enables you to do, despite the evidence would be stupid - just like claiming that the world is flat because air-travel makes you sick or that evolution is wrong because you don't like being a direct descendant of pond-slime (which is quite an fine ancestry if you ask me - seeing how cool pond-slime is when you really look at what it does and how it works)
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 25, 2009 10:54PM
Prof. Pangloss ... the point I was making about Communism and Nazism, as well as Objectivism, is that in order to escape despair they take refuge in Romanticism about the future (and often the personification of the impersonal) rather than live consistently with the Nihilism of their premises ... viz., is the projected "heat death" of the [uncreated] cosmos due to increasing entropy.
E.g. Prof. George Wald, as Nihilst:
E.g. Prof. George Wald, as Romantic:
E.g. Prof. George Wald, as Nihilst:
Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.” (1954, “The Origin of Life”).
E.g. Prof. George Wald, as Romantic:
Every creature alive on the earth today represents an unbroken line of life that stretches back to the first primitive organism to appear on this planet; and that is about three billion years. That really is immortality. ... All that time, that germ plasm has been making bodies and casting them off in the act of dying. If the germ plasm wants to swim in the ocean, it makes itself a fish; if the germ plasm wants to fly in the air, it makes itself a bird. ... the germ plasm that we carry around within us has done all those things. There was a time, hundreds of millions of years ago, when it was making fish. Then at a later time it was making amphibia, things like salamanders; and then at a still later time it was making reptiles. Then it made mammals, and now it’s making men. If we only have the restraint and good sense to leave it alone, heaven knows what it will make in ages to come."(1970, "The Origin of Death")
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2009 11:00PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof. Pangloss ... the point I was making about
> Communism and Nazism, as well as Objectivism, is
> that in order to escape despair they take refuge
> in Romanticism about the future (and often the
> personification of the impersonal) rather than
> live consistently with the Nihilism of their
> premises ... viz., is the projected "heat death"
> of the cosmos due to increasing entropy.
I disagree - you are lumping various worldviews into one big strawman. Again, I point you to Nietzsche. You are simply ignoring anything and everything that you don't already agree with - and then you repeat yourself.
> E.g. Prof. George Wald, as Nihilst: Most modern
> biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the
> downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis,
> yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in
> special creation, are left with nothing.” (1954,
> “The Origin of Life”).
*Sigh* this is getting real OLD Elliot. If you are suggesting that Spontaneous Generation is at all similar to abiogenesis then this is going to get frustrating real fast.
You aren't comprehending what anyone is writing. You are simply standing on your soapbox spouting nonsense. Would you like to engage other people in your discussion?
> E.g. Prof. George Wald, as Romantic: Every
> creature alive on the earth today represents an
> unbroken line of life that stretches back to the
> first primitive organism to appear on this planet;
> and that is about three billion years. That really
> is immortality. ... All that time, that germ plasm
> has been making bodies and casting them off in the
> act of dying. If the germ plasm wants to swim in
> the ocean, it makes itself a fish; if the germ
> plasm wants to fly in the air, it makes itself a
> bird. ... the germ plasm that we carry around
> within us has done all those things. There was a
> time, hundreds of millions of years ago, when it
> was making fish. Then at a later time it was
> making amphibia, things like salamanders; and then
> at a still later time it was making reptiles. Then
> it made mammals, and now it’s making men. If we
> only have the restraint and good sense to leave it
> alone, heaven knows what it will make in ages to
> come."(1970, "The Origin of Death")
>
The relevance to the conversation is....?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof. Pangloss ... the point I was making about
> Communism and Nazism, as well as Objectivism, is
> that in order to escape despair they take refuge
> in Romanticism about the future (and often the
> personification of the impersonal) rather than
> live consistently with the Nihilism of their
> premises ... viz., is the projected "heat death"
> of the cosmos due to increasing entropy.
I disagree - you are lumping various worldviews into one big strawman. Again, I point you to Nietzsche. You are simply ignoring anything and everything that you don't already agree with - and then you repeat yourself.
> E.g. Prof. George Wald, as Nihilst: Most modern
> biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the
> downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis,
> yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in
> special creation, are left with nothing.” (1954,
> “The Origin of Life”).
*Sigh* this is getting real OLD Elliot. If you are suggesting that Spontaneous Generation is at all similar to abiogenesis then this is going to get frustrating real fast.
You aren't comprehending what anyone is writing. You are simply standing on your soapbox spouting nonsense. Would you like to engage other people in your discussion?
> E.g. Prof. George Wald, as Romantic: Every
> creature alive on the earth today represents an
> unbroken line of life that stretches back to the
> first primitive organism to appear on this planet;
> and that is about three billion years. That really
> is immortality. ... All that time, that germ plasm
> has been making bodies and casting them off in the
> act of dying. If the germ plasm wants to swim in
> the ocean, it makes itself a fish; if the germ
> plasm wants to fly in the air, it makes itself a
> bird. ... the germ plasm that we carry around
> within us has done all those things. There was a
> time, hundreds of millions of years ago, when it
> was making fish. Then at a later time it was
> making amphibia, things like salamanders; and then
> at a still later time it was making reptiles. Then
> it made mammals, and now it’s making men. If we
> only have the restraint and good sense to leave it
> alone, heaven knows what it will make in ages to
> come."(1970, "The Origin of Death")
>
The relevance to the conversation is....?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2009 11:02PM
So since you didn't touch my meteor argument, do you concede that a young earth is impossible?
Let me guess, you are going to ignore it? Just like you ignore the fact that Christianity is nihilistic and that Christianity cannot answer the is-ought dilemma.
Are you just copying and pasting from other websites?
Let me guess, you are going to ignore it? Just like you ignore the fact that Christianity is nihilistic and that Christianity cannot answer the is-ought dilemma.
Are you just copying and pasting from other websites?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 25, 2009 11:10PM
Pangloss wrote: "Congratulations, you've learned something - Stalinist communism rejected Darwinian evolution."
Ness replies:
Ness replies:
 | 1) You presume too much ... I've known about Lysenko for decades. (Everybody who studies modern Russian history learns about Lysenko!) |
 | 2) Stalin personally supported Lysenko's Lamarckian rejection of Mendel's mechanism ... but what evidence is there that Stalin "rejected Darwinian evolution?" |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2009 11:10PM
Seriously Elliot, do you have a problem communicating or something? You have been blubbering on about 'Darwinian cosmology' (yet never defining it or linking Darwin with cosmology) and trying vainly to link Darwin with Stalin's atrocities. I point out that it's absurd and you change the subject!
Here's the exchange:
***Pangloss stated that "Stalinist communism did not accept Darwinian evolution - which you haven't addressed at all."
Umm ... the lunatic Stalin didn't accept Mendel's view of genetic mechanisms ... instead Stalin empowered the Lamarckian (inheritance-of-acquired-characteristics) Lysenko ... and Lysenko then became the hideous "Che Guevara" of Soviet science:***
Ie, I showed that you couldn't link Darwin's evolution with Stalin's atrocities, yet instead of honestly admitting that you start blabbering about Stalin not accepting Mendel and how he went with Lysenko. You, obviously, left out the crucial 'why' Stalin went with Lysenko (you probably don't know), but when one looks over this exchange, it's immediately apparent that you still didn't address the fact that your primary contention was refuted.
You apparently don't know what you are talking about and it's getting frustrating discussing this with you since you don't know what you are talking about AND you aren't addressing 1/2 of the topics being discussed.
Here's the exchange:
***Pangloss stated that "Stalinist communism did not accept Darwinian evolution - which you haven't addressed at all."
Umm ... the lunatic Stalin didn't accept Mendel's view of genetic mechanisms ... instead Stalin empowered the Lamarckian (inheritance-of-acquired-characteristics) Lysenko ... and Lysenko then became the hideous "Che Guevara" of Soviet science:***
Ie, I showed that you couldn't link Darwin's evolution with Stalin's atrocities, yet instead of honestly admitting that you start blabbering about Stalin not accepting Mendel and how he went with Lysenko. You, obviously, left out the crucial 'why' Stalin went with Lysenko (you probably don't know), but when one looks over this exchange, it's immediately apparent that you still didn't address the fact that your primary contention was refuted.
You apparently don't know what you are talking about and it's getting frustrating discussing this with you since you don't know what you are talking about AND you aren't addressing 1/2 of the topics being discussed.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2009 11:13PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: "Congratulations, you've learned
> something - Stalinist communism rejected Darwinian
> evolution."
>
> Ness replies:
>
> 1) You presume too much ... I've known about
> Lysenko for decades. (Everybody who studies modern
> Russian history learns about Lysenko!)
> 2) Stalin personally supported Lysenko's
> Lamarckian rejection of Mendel's mechanism ... but
> what evidence is there that Stalin "rejected
> Darwinian evolution?"
I don't think I do presume too much - as you've failed to convince me that you are adequately aware of many of the topics you are discussing.
As to your point two, please tell me, did Lysenko support Darwin's contention of natural selection?
You imply that you've studied Russian history and that you know about this, but you clearly don't.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: "Congratulations, you've learned
> something - Stalinist communism rejected Darwinian
> evolution."
>
> Ness replies:
>
> 1) You presume too much ... I've known about
> Lysenko for decades. (Everybody who studies modern
> Russian history learns about Lysenko!)
> 2) Stalin personally supported Lysenko's
> Lamarckian rejection of Mendel's mechanism ... but
> what evidence is there that Stalin "rejected
> Darwinian evolution?"
I don't think I do presume too much - as you've failed to convince me that you are adequately aware of many of the topics you are discussing.
As to your point two, please tell me, did Lysenko support Darwin's contention of natural selection?
You imply that you've studied Russian history and that you know about this, but you clearly don't.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2009 11:16PM
Do you know the difference between natural selection and lamarkianism Elliot?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 25, 2009 11:19PM
Pangloss wrote: "So since you didn't touch my meteor argument, do you concede that a young earth is impossible? Let me guess, you are going to ignore it? Just like you ignore the fact that Christianity is nihilistic and that Christianity cannot answer the is-ought dilemma. Are you just copying and pasting from other websites?"
Ness replies: Give me a break! I just finished an 8-hour drive from NY, and I haven't had time to even read all of Page 7, let alone reply to it.
Ness replies: Give me a break! I just finished an 8-hour drive from NY, and I haven't had time to even read all of Page 7, let alone reply to it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2009 11:21PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: "So since you didn't touch my
> meteor argument, do you concede that a young earth
> is impossible? Let me guess, you are going to
> ignore it? Just like you ignore the fact that
> Christianity is nihilistic and that Christianity
> cannot answer the is-ought dilemma. Are you just
> copying and pasting from other websites?"
>
> Ness replies: Give me a break! I just finished an
> 8-hour drive from NY, and I haven't had time to
> even read all of Page 7, let alone reply to it.
This isn't the first time you've ignored important points. This is a habit with you. I find your excuse unconvincing. It's extremely frustrating to try to have a conversation with someone who is just on a soap box about an issue that *even if it were true* it doesn't make a difference as to whether or not Christianity is true.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2009 11:23PM by Professor Pangloss.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: "So since you didn't touch my
> meteor argument, do you concede that a young earth
> is impossible? Let me guess, you are going to
> ignore it? Just like you ignore the fact that
> Christianity is nihilistic and that Christianity
> cannot answer the is-ought dilemma. Are you just
> copying and pasting from other websites?"
>
> Ness replies: Give me a break! I just finished an
> 8-hour drive from NY, and I haven't had time to
> even read all of Page 7, let alone reply to it.
This isn't the first time you've ignored important points. This is a habit with you. I find your excuse unconvincing. It's extremely frustrating to try to have a conversation with someone who is just on a soap box about an issue that *even if it were true* it doesn't make a difference as to whether or not Christianity is true.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2009 11:23PM by Professor Pangloss.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 25, 2009 11:43PM
Pangloss wrote: "You imply that you've studied Russian history and that you know about this, but you clearly don't."
Ness replies: Sigh. Once again you presume too much ... the energetic and respected Stephen Lukashevich (cf. http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/LUKIVA.html http://www.fordfound.org/archives/item/1961/text/82) gave me an 'A' for writing about "The Russian Revolutionary as a 'Symbol for an Age'."
Ness replies: Sigh. Once again you presume too much ... the energetic and respected Stephen Lukashevich (cf. http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/LUKIVA.html http://www.fordfound.org/archives/item/1961/text/82) gave me an 'A' for writing about "The Russian Revolutionary as a 'Symbol for an Age'."
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2009 11:47PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: "You imply that you've studied
> Russian history and that you know about this, but
> you clearly don't."
>
> Ness replies: Sigh. Once again you presume too
> much ... the energetic and respected Stephen
> Lukashevich (cf.
> http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/LUKIVA.html
> http://www.fordfound.org/archives/item/1961/text/8
> 2) gave me an 'A' for writing about "The Russian
> Revolutionary as a 'Symbol for an Age'."
And I should believe this because? Seriously, you expect me to believe this when you don't know the difference between Darwinian evolution and lysenkoism?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: "You imply that you've studied
> Russian history and that you know about this, but
> you clearly don't."
>
> Ness replies: Sigh. Once again you presume too
> much ... the energetic and respected Stephen
> Lukashevich (cf.
> http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/LUKIVA.html
> http://www.fordfound.org/archives/item/1961/text/8
> 2) gave me an 'A' for writing about "The Russian
> Revolutionary as a 'Symbol for an Age'."
And I should believe this because? Seriously, you expect me to believe this when you don't know the difference between Darwinian evolution and lysenkoism?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 26, 2009 04:26PM
 | Pangloss, we have devolved into silliness about Russian history. (I don't have a notarized photo of me with Lukashevich! And who cares?) So I'm going to move on and speak to a previous post about the death of Anne Frank. | In re: Darwinism, the debate about mechanisms of inheritance is certainly secondary to the larger issue of whether the cosmos was created, or not created ... intelligently designed, or entirely chaotic. Currently fashionable Big Bang theory thinks in terms of 'out-of-nothing-by-nobody' and projects a hopeless chaotic 'heat death' of our uncreated universe. (Lon Solomon would describe it as "Pfft. The candle goes out. Fade to black.") The Bible, from beginning to end, asserts "created" and "intelligently designed" by Jesus-as-God ("He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.") ... and purports to speak in human language with the Creator's authority in detail about human history and human future, both of which are known to God ... there is therein a real resurrection of the dead and a recreation of the cosmos. "(I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away ... No longer will there be any curse ... There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.") |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 26, 2009 04:36PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, we have devolved into silliness about
> Russian history. (I don't have a notarized photo
> of me with Lukashevich! And who cares?)
Yes, I agree, but let's remember, you brought it up!
> So I'm going to move on and speak to a previous post
> about the death of Anne Frank.In re: Darwinism,
> the debate about mechanisms of inheritance is
> certainly secondary to the larger issue of whether
> the cosmos was created, or not created ...
You cannot be serious. Darwinism, aka, the theory that darwin came up with is about the mechanism of common descent. You are apparently attaching cosmology to Darwin. For what reason?
Rhetoric.
> intelligently designed, or entirely chaotic.
*Sigh*, I'm going to call you out for lying because I think you know better. Darwin's theory is not 'entirely chaotic'. Neither are modern cosmological theories.
I believe you even referenced Smollin's big bang model and yet you have the nerve to characterize non 'intelligent designed' models as 'entirely chaotic'.
Shame on you.
> Currently fashionable Big Bang theory thinks in
> terms of 'out-of-nothing-by-nobody' and projects a
> hopeless chaotic 'heat death' of our uncreated
> universe. (Lon Solomon would describe it as "Pfft.
NONSENSE. The 'Big Bang Theory' is related to the expansion of the singularity. It is NOT an ultimate cosmological theory.
You don't know what you are talking about here.
> The candle goes out. Fade to black.") The Bible,
> from beginning to end, asserts "created" and
> "intelligently designed" by Jesus-as-God ("He was
> with God in the beginning. Through him all things
> were made; without him nothing was made that has
> been made.") ... and purports to speak in human
> language with the Creator's authority in detail
> about human history and human future, both of
> which are known to God ... there is therein a real
> resurrection of the dead and a recreation of the
> cosmos. "(I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for
> the first heaven and the first earth had passed
> away ... No longer will there be any curse ...
> There will be no more death or mourning or crying
> or pain, for the old order of things has passed
> away.")
Yes, the Christian model is logically impossible, since it is predicated on time existing prior to time.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/2009 04:37PM by Professor Pangloss.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, we have devolved into silliness about
> Russian history. (I don't have a notarized photo
> of me with Lukashevich! And who cares?)
Yes, I agree, but let's remember, you brought it up!
> So I'm going to move on and speak to a previous post
> about the death of Anne Frank.In re: Darwinism,
> the debate about mechanisms of inheritance is
> certainly secondary to the larger issue of whether
> the cosmos was created, or not created ...
You cannot be serious. Darwinism, aka, the theory that darwin came up with is about the mechanism of common descent. You are apparently attaching cosmology to Darwin. For what reason?
Rhetoric.
> intelligently designed, or entirely chaotic.
*Sigh*, I'm going to call you out for lying because I think you know better. Darwin's theory is not 'entirely chaotic'. Neither are modern cosmological theories.
I believe you even referenced Smollin's big bang model and yet you have the nerve to characterize non 'intelligent designed' models as 'entirely chaotic'.
Shame on you.
> Currently fashionable Big Bang theory thinks in
> terms of 'out-of-nothing-by-nobody' and projects a
> hopeless chaotic 'heat death' of our uncreated
> universe. (Lon Solomon would describe it as "Pfft.
NONSENSE. The 'Big Bang Theory' is related to the expansion of the singularity. It is NOT an ultimate cosmological theory.
You don't know what you are talking about here.
> The candle goes out. Fade to black.") The Bible,
> from beginning to end, asserts "created" and
> "intelligently designed" by Jesus-as-God ("He was
> with God in the beginning. Through him all things
> were made; without him nothing was made that has
> been made.") ... and purports to speak in human
> language with the Creator's authority in detail
> about human history and human future, both of
> which are known to God ... there is therein a real
> resurrection of the dead and a recreation of the
> cosmos. "(I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for
> the first heaven and the first earth had passed
> away ... No longer will there be any curse ...
> There will be no more death or mourning or crying
> or pain, for the old order of things has passed
> away.")
Yes, the Christian model is logically impossible, since it is predicated on time existing prior to time.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/2009 04:37PM by Professor Pangloss.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 26, 2009 04:39PM
Elliot, is the reason you are a Christian because you have convinced yourself that other positions are wrong, based on lies? It certainly seems that way (you don't understand cosmology or evolution, you blatantly quote mine, and you consistently build up strawmen).
I'm curious because you are making an astonishing amount of assertions based on unsupportable rubbish.
I'm curious because you are making an astonishing amount of assertions based on unsupportable rubbish.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 26, 2009 04:47PM
Some Questions that I would like a direct answer to Elliot:
1. Do you think the earth/universe/etc is under 20 thousand years old?
2. Do you have an reasoned arguments for your belief that god exists?
3. Do you accept that intelligent design is an appeal to ignorance?
4. Do you accept Christianity is nihilistic?
5. Which model of Christian Morality do you accept? Divine command theory?
6. Why do you disagree with modern science about cosmology, when you aren't very familar with it?
7. Why do you disagree with modern science about biology/evolution/abiogenesis, when you aren't very familar with it?
8. Why Christianity instead of Zoroastrianism or Horus worship?
9. Do you still believe god is omnibenevolent even though he is responsible for all the evil in the world?
1. Do you think the earth/universe/etc is under 20 thousand years old?
2. Do you have an reasoned arguments for your belief that god exists?
3. Do you accept that intelligent design is an appeal to ignorance?
4. Do you accept Christianity is nihilistic?
5. Which model of Christian Morality do you accept? Divine command theory?
6. Why do you disagree with modern science about cosmology, when you aren't very familar with it?
7. Why do you disagree with modern science about biology/evolution/abiogenesis, when you aren't very familar with it?
8. Why Christianity instead of Zoroastrianism or Horus worship?
9. Do you still believe god is omnibenevolent even though he is responsible for all the evil in the world?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 27, 2009 01:19PM
Pangloss asks:
1. Do you think the earth/universe/etc is under 20 thousand years old?
I'm agnostic and unconcerned about the earth's age. The debate
between contemporary science and Christianity is about the 'createdness' of the
universe ... not its age.
The Bible is clear, however, that
space/time is created because God 'is' in the past, the present, and
the future, and He has spoken authoritatively about all of them.
Isaiah 14: The LORD Almighty has sworn, "Surely, as I
have planned, so it will be, and as I have purposed, so it will
stand."
Deuteronomy 18: "If what a prophet
proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a
message the LORD has not spoken."2. Do you have any reasoned arguments for your belief that god exists? The huge amount of fulfilled prophecy is the most arresting
component of the Christian Bible. It should knock the socks off any agnostic.
3. Do you accept that intelligent design is an appeal to ignorance? No, because I've met some ID proponents personally and have looked at their books. They are are not 'ignorant.'
They strike me as more open-minded ... and less emotionally out-of-control than some of their
antagonists (who call Dr. Crocker an "idiot-bitch").
If Christianity is
true, then fallen Man does not want to hear that he was 'created' by the
personal God of the Bible ... because he does not want to be guilty.4. Do you accept Christianity is nihilistic?Darwinism is
nihilistic because, as Keynes said, "we are all dead in the long run."
Nothing matters. Only a-morality makes sense in a Darwinian cosmos.
Biblical Christianity is not nihilistic precisely because of the
character and personality of a God who is really "there" and is not
silent.5. Which model of Christian Morality do you accept? Divine command theory? No particular 'theory.' Where God has spoken in scripture, Christians have to listen.
The enormously verbal God of Scripture has [alas!] chosen to speak in parables and poetry as well as prose, so [alas!] there are areas of disagreement among Christians.
One thing Biblical Christians certainly agree on, is that all men except Jesus
have behaved immorally and stand 'guilty' before the God of the Bible.6. Why do you disagree with modern science about cosmology, when you
aren't very familar with it?The real debate between Christianity and
contemporary cosmology is about 'createdness.'
When a contemporary scientist's presupposition is 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' Christians
respectfully disagree. 7. Why do you disagree with modern science about biology/evolution/abiogenesis, when you aren't very familar with it?
The real debate between Christianity and contemporary biology is about
'createdness.'
When a contemporary biologist's presupposition
is 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' Christians respectfully disagree.8. Why Christianity instead of Zoroastrianism or Horus worship?
Because I read the 'Book' ... and participated in hundreds of hours of
discussions with other European and American skeptics in Francis Schaeffer's
living room.
But Christians agree that God converts atheists, not the
atheists themselves. Jesus said: "No one can come to Me,
unless the Father who sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up on the last
day." (John 6:44) 9. Do you still believe god is omnibenevolent even though he is
responsible for all the evil in the world?The Bible describes a cosmos
in which created/fallen Man and angels have real significance, and can do
awful things for which God is NOT responsible or blameworthy, despite his
absolute sovereignty over events. (See the discussions at GodAndScience.org and Pyromaniacs.)
The Christian can truly
hate the fact that there is abnormal 'evil' and 'suffering' in the world,
without hating God.
To the consistent Darwinist, however, what is, is ...
regardless of his/her feelings about it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2009 01:20PM by Eliot Ness.
1. Do you think the earth/universe/etc is under 20 thousand years old?
I'm agnostic and unconcerned about the earth's age. The debate
between contemporary science and Christianity is about the 'createdness' of the
universe ... not its age.
The Bible is clear, however, that
space/time is created because God 'is' in the past, the present, and
the future, and He has spoken authoritatively about all of them.
Isaiah 14: The LORD Almighty has sworn, "Surely, as I
have planned, so it will be, and as I have purposed, so it will
stand."
Deuteronomy 18: "If what a prophet
proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a
message the LORD has not spoken."2. Do you have any reasoned arguments for your belief that god exists? The huge amount of fulfilled prophecy is the most arresting
component of the Christian Bible. It should knock the socks off any agnostic.
3. Do you accept that intelligent design is an appeal to ignorance? No, because I've met some ID proponents personally and have looked at their books. They are are not 'ignorant.'
They strike me as more open-minded ... and less emotionally out-of-control than some of their
antagonists (who call Dr. Crocker an "idiot-bitch").
If Christianity is
true, then fallen Man does not want to hear that he was 'created' by the
personal God of the Bible ... because he does not want to be guilty.4. Do you accept Christianity is nihilistic?Darwinism is
nihilistic because, as Keynes said, "we are all dead in the long run."
Nothing matters. Only a-morality makes sense in a Darwinian cosmos.
Biblical Christianity is not nihilistic precisely because of the
character and personality of a God who is really "there" and is not
silent.5. Which model of Christian Morality do you accept? Divine command theory? No particular 'theory.' Where God has spoken in scripture, Christians have to listen.
The enormously verbal God of Scripture has [alas!] chosen to speak in parables and poetry as well as prose, so [alas!] there are areas of disagreement among Christians.
One thing Biblical Christians certainly agree on, is that all men except Jesus
have behaved immorally and stand 'guilty' before the God of the Bible.6. Why do you disagree with modern science about cosmology, when you
aren't very familar with it?The real debate between Christianity and
contemporary cosmology is about 'createdness.'
When a contemporary scientist's presupposition is 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' Christians
respectfully disagree. 7. Why do you disagree with modern science about biology/evolution/abiogenesis, when you aren't very familar with it?
The real debate between Christianity and contemporary biology is about
'createdness.'
When a contemporary biologist's presupposition
is 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' Christians respectfully disagree.8. Why Christianity instead of Zoroastrianism or Horus worship?
Because I read the 'Book' ... and participated in hundreds of hours of
discussions with other European and American skeptics in Francis Schaeffer's
living room.
But Christians agree that God converts atheists, not the
atheists themselves. Jesus said: "No one can come to Me,
unless the Father who sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up on the last
day." (John 6:44) 9. Do you still believe god is omnibenevolent even though he is
responsible for all the evil in the world?The Bible describes a cosmos
in which created/fallen Man and angels have real significance, and can do
awful things for which God is NOT responsible or blameworthy, despite his
absolute sovereignty over events. (See the discussions at GodAndScience.org and Pyromaniacs.)
The Christian can truly
hate the fact that there is abnormal 'evil' and 'suffering' in the world,
without hating God.
To the consistent Darwinist, however, what is, is ...
regardless of his/her feelings about it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2009 01:20PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: January 27, 2009 01:36PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asks:
>
> 1. Do you think the earth/universe/etc is under 20
> thousand years old?
> I'm agnostic and unconcerned about the earth's
> age. The debate
> between contemporary science and Christianity is
> about the 'createdness' of the
> universe ... not its age. The Bible is clear,
> however, that
> space/time is created because God 'is' in the
> past, the present, and
> the future, and He has spoken authoritatively
> about all of them.
> Isaiah 14: The LORD Almighty has sworn, "Surely,
> as I
> have planned, so it will be, and as I have
> purposed, so it will
> stand."Deuteronomy 18: "If what a prophet
> proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take
> place or come true, that is a
> message the LORD has not spoken." 2. Do you have
> any reasoned arguments for your belief that god
> exists? The huge amount of fulfilled prophecy is
> the most arresting
> component of the Christian Bible. It should knock
> the socks off any agnostic.
> 3. Do you accept that intelligent design is an
> appeal to ignorance? No, because I've met some ID
> proponents personally and have looked at their
> books. They are are not 'ignorant.' They strike me
> as more open-minded ... and less emotionally
> out-of-control than some of their
> antagonists (who call Dr. Crocker an
> "idiot-bitch"). If Christianity is
> true, then fallen Man does not want to hear that
> he was 'created' by the
> personal God of the Bible ... because he does not
> want to be guilty.
> 4. Do you accept Christianity is
> nihilistic?Darwinism is
> nihilistic because, as Keynes said, "we are all
> dead in the long run."
> Nothing matters. Only a-morality makes sense in a
> Darwinian cosmos.
> Biblical Christianity is not nihilistic precisely
> because of the
> character and personality of a God who is really
> "there" and is not
> silent.5. Which model of Christian Morality do you
> accept? Divine command theory? No particular
> 'theory.' Where God has spoken in scripture,
> Christians have to listen. The enormously verbal
> God of Scripture has chosen to speak in parables
> and poetry as well as prose, so there are areas
> of disagreement among Christians. One thing
> Biblical Christians certainly agree on, is that
> all men except Jesus
> have behaved immorally and stand 'guilty' before
> the God of the Bible.
> 6. Why do you disagree with modern science about
> cosmology, when you
> aren't very familar with it?The real debate
> between Christianity and
> contemporary cosmology is about 'createdness.'When
> a contemporary scientist's presupposition is
> 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' Christians
> respectfully disagree. 7. Why do you disagree with
> modern science about
> biology/evolution/abiogenesis, when you aren't
> very familar with it?
> The real debate between Christianity and
> contemporary biology is about
> 'createdness.' When a contemporary biologist's
> presupposition
> is 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' Christians
> respectfully disagree.
> 8. Why Christianity instead of Zoroastrianism or
> Horus worship?
> Because I read the 'Book' ... and participated in
> hundreds of hours of
> discussions with other European and American
> skeptics in Francis Schaeffer's
> living room.But Christians agree that God converts
> atheists, not the
> atheists themselves. Jesus said: "No one can come
> to Me,
> unless the Father who sent Me draw him: and I will
> raise him up on the last
> day." (John 6:44) 9. Do you still believe god is
> omnibenevolent even though he is
> responsible for all the evil in the world?The
> Bible describes a cosmos
> in which created/fallen Man and angels have real
> significance, and can do
> awful things for which God is NOT responsible or
> blameworthy, despite his
> absolute sovereignty over events. (See the
> discussions at GodAndScience.org and
> Pyromaniacs.)The Christian can truly
> hate the fact that there is abnormal 'evil' and
> 'suffering' in the world,
> without hating God. To the consistent Darwinist,
> however, what is, is ...
> regardless of his/her feelings about it.
Silence for so long, we were beginning to hope you'd be raptured
Wow - hundreds of words of self referential drivel
Get out and look at the evidence - stop just spouting scripture - think for yourself rather than trying to throw out clear science and observations in order to cram dead religious ideas in. Without any evidence, the bible is just another creation myth from a group of middle eastern peasants and gets no more credence than any of them. You're not convincing anyone. If you start with the evidence, you never end up at religion.
Seems like you'd have been much happier in the medieval Vatican or perhaps modern Tehran
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asks:
>
> 1. Do you think the earth/universe/etc is under 20
> thousand years old?
> I'm agnostic and unconcerned about the earth's
> age. The debate
> between contemporary science and Christianity is
> about the 'createdness' of the
> universe ... not its age. The Bible is clear,
> however, that
> space/time is created because God 'is' in the
> past, the present, and
> the future, and He has spoken authoritatively
> about all of them.
> Isaiah 14: The LORD Almighty has sworn, "Surely,
> as I
> have planned, so it will be, and as I have
> purposed, so it will
> stand."Deuteronomy 18: "If what a prophet
> proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take
> place or come true, that is a
> message the LORD has not spoken." 2. Do you have
> any reasoned arguments for your belief that god
> exists? The huge amount of fulfilled prophecy is
> the most arresting
> component of the Christian Bible. It should knock
> the socks off any agnostic.
> 3. Do you accept that intelligent design is an
> appeal to ignorance? No, because I've met some ID
> proponents personally and have looked at their
> books. They are are not 'ignorant.' They strike me
> as more open-minded ... and less emotionally
> out-of-control than some of their
> antagonists (who call Dr. Crocker an
> "idiot-bitch"). If Christianity is
> true, then fallen Man does not want to hear that
> he was 'created' by the
> personal God of the Bible ... because he does not
> want to be guilty.
> 4. Do you accept Christianity is
> nihilistic?Darwinism is
> nihilistic because, as Keynes said, "we are all
> dead in the long run."
> Nothing matters. Only a-morality makes sense in a
> Darwinian cosmos.
> Biblical Christianity is not nihilistic precisely
> because of the
> character and personality of a God who is really
> "there" and is not
> silent.5. Which model of Christian Morality do you
> accept? Divine command theory? No particular
> 'theory.' Where God has spoken in scripture,
> Christians have to listen. The enormously verbal
> God of Scripture has chosen to speak in parables
> and poetry as well as prose, so there are areas
> of disagreement among Christians. One thing
> Biblical Christians certainly agree on, is that
> all men except Jesus
> have behaved immorally and stand 'guilty' before
> the God of the Bible.
> 6. Why do you disagree with modern science about
> cosmology, when you
> aren't very familar with it?The real debate
> between Christianity and
> contemporary cosmology is about 'createdness.'When
> a contemporary scientist's presupposition is
> 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' Christians
> respectfully disagree. 7. Why do you disagree with
> modern science about
> biology/evolution/abiogenesis, when you aren't
> very familar with it?
> The real debate between Christianity and
> contemporary biology is about
> 'createdness.' When a contemporary biologist's
> presupposition
> is 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' Christians
> respectfully disagree.
> 8. Why Christianity instead of Zoroastrianism or
> Horus worship?
> Because I read the 'Book' ... and participated in
> hundreds of hours of
> discussions with other European and American
> skeptics in Francis Schaeffer's
> living room.But Christians agree that God converts
> atheists, not the
> atheists themselves. Jesus said: "No one can come
> to Me,
> unless the Father who sent Me draw him: and I will
> raise him up on the last
> day." (John 6:44) 9. Do you still believe god is
> omnibenevolent even though he is
> responsible for all the evil in the world?The
> Bible describes a cosmos
> in which created/fallen Man and angels have real
> significance, and can do
> awful things for which God is NOT responsible or
> blameworthy, despite his
> absolute sovereignty over events. (See the
> discussions at GodAndScience.org and
> Pyromaniacs.)The Christian can truly
> hate the fact that there is abnormal 'evil' and
> 'suffering' in the world,
> without hating God. To the consistent Darwinist,
> however, what is, is ...
> regardless of his/her feelings about it.
Silence for so long, we were beginning to hope you'd be raptured
Wow - hundreds of words of self referential drivel
Get out and look at the evidence - stop just spouting scripture - think for yourself rather than trying to throw out clear science and observations in order to cram dead religious ideas in. Without any evidence, the bible is just another creation myth from a group of middle eastern peasants and gets no more credence than any of them. You're not convincing anyone. If you start with the evidence, you never end up at religion.
Seems like you'd have been much happier in the medieval Vatican or perhaps modern Tehran
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 27, 2009 01:48PM
Nutters wrote: "Without any evidence, the bible is just another creation myth from a group of middle eastern peasants and gets no more credence than any of them. ... Seems like you'd have been much happier in the medieval Vatican or perhaps modern Tehran."
Ness replies:
1) You disregard the massive amount of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible.
2) Cosmology dictates lifestyle. Rome has added the enormous superstructure of an authoritative, repressive church to the Bible, while Tehran adheres to an entirely different 'revelation' that endorses cruelty to non-believers. Darwinism, however, has nothing at all, just nothing, to say about how humans should live ... no matter how much its adherents may [irrationally] preach some Christian values.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2009 02:10PM by Eliot Ness.
Ness replies:
1) You disregard the massive amount of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible.
2) Cosmology dictates lifestyle. Rome has added the enormous superstructure of an authoritative, repressive church to the Bible, while Tehran adheres to an entirely different 'revelation' that endorses cruelty to non-believers. Darwinism, however, has nothing at all, just nothing, to say about how humans should live ... no matter how much its adherents may [irrationally] preach some Christian values.
| "Humanism has no final way of saying certain things are right and other things are wrong. For a humanist, the final thing which exists -- that is, the impersonal universe -- is neutral and silent about right and wrong, cruelty and non-cruelty. Humanism has no way to provide absolutes. Thus, as a consistent result of humanism's position, humanism in private morals and political life is left with that which is arbitrary." | "On the biblical basis, there are absolutes, and therefore we can say that certain things are right or wrong, including racial discrimination and social injustice. Consider Jesus standing in front of the tomb of Lazarus. The New Testament records that Jesus not only wept but was angry. The one who claimed to be God could be angry at the abnormality of death without being angry at himself. To a Christian on the basis of what the Bible teaches, not only is death abnormal, so is the cruelty of man to man. These things did not exist as God made the world. A Christian can fight the abnormality which has resulted from man's rebellion against God without fighting the final reality of what is -- that is, without fighting God. Therefore, because God exists and there are absolutes, justice can be seen as absolutely good and not just expedient." F. A. Schaeffer |
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2009 02:10PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 27, 2009 02:03PM
Repeating the previous answer ...
Pangloss asks:
1. Do you think the earth/universe/etc is under 20 thousand years old?
I'm agnostic and unconcerned about the earth's age. The debate
between contemporary science and Christianity is about the 'createdness' of the
universe ... not its age.
The Bible is clear, however, that
space/time is created because God 'is' in the past, the present, and
the future, and He has spoken authoritatively about all of them.
Isaiah 14: The LORD Almighty has sworn, "Surely, as I
have planned, so it will be, and as I have purposed, so it will
stand."
Deuteronomy 18: "If what a prophet
proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a
message the LORD has not spoken."2. Do you have any reasoned arguments for your belief that god exists? The huge amount of fulfilled prophecy is the most arresting
component of the Christian Bible. It should knock the socks off any agnostic.
3. Do you accept that intelligent design is an appeal to ignorance? No, because I've met some ID proponents personally and have looked at their books. They are are not 'ignorant.'
They strike me as more open-minded ... and less emotionally out-of-control than some of their
antagonists (who call Dr. Crocker an "idiot-bitch").
If Christianity is
true, then fallen Man does not want to hear that he was 'created' by the
personal God of the Bible ... because he does not want to be guilty.4. Do you accept Christianity is nihilistic?Darwinism is
nihilistic because, as Keynes said, "we are all dead in the long run."
Nothing matters. Only a-morality makes sense in a Darwinian cosmos.
Biblical Christianity is not nihilistic precisely because of the
character and personality of a God who is really "there" and is not
silent.5. Which model of Christian Morality do you accept? Divine command theory? No particular 'theory.' Where God has spoken in scripture, Christians have to listen.
The enormously verbal God of Scripture has [alas!] chosen to speak in parables and poetry as well as prose, so [alas!] there are areas of disagreement among Christians.
One thing Biblical Christians certainly agree on, is that all men except Jesus
have behaved immorally and stand 'guilty' before the God of the Bible.6. Why do you disagree with modern science about cosmology, when you
aren't very familar with it?The real debate between Christianity and
contemporary cosmology is about 'createdness.'
When a contemporary scientist's presupposition is 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' Christians
respectfully disagree. 7. Why do you disagree with modern science about biology/evolution/abiogenesis, when you aren't very familar with it?
The real debate between Christianity and contemporary biology is about
'createdness.'
When a contemporary biologist's presupposition
is 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' Christians respectfully disagree.8. Why Christianity instead of Zoroastrianism or Horus worship?
Because I read the 'Book' ... and participated in hundreds of hours of
discussions with other European and American skeptics in Francis Schaeffer's
living room.
But Christians agree that God converts atheists, not the
atheists themselves. Jesus said: "No one can come to Me,
unless the Father who sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up on the last
day." (John 6:44) 9. Do you still believe god is omnibenevolent even though he is
responsible for all the evil in the world?The Bible describes a cosmos
in which created/fallen Man and angels have real significance, and can do
awful things for which God is NOT responsible or blameworthy, despite his
absolute sovereignty over events. (See the discussions at GodAndScience.org and Pyromaniacs.)
The Christian can truly
hate the fact that there is abnormal 'evil' and 'suffering' in the world,
without hating God.
To the consistent Darwinist, however, what is, is ...
regardless of his/her feelings about it.
Pangloss asks:
1. Do you think the earth/universe/etc is under 20 thousand years old?
I'm agnostic and unconcerned about the earth's age. The debate
between contemporary science and Christianity is about the 'createdness' of the
universe ... not its age.
The Bible is clear, however, that
space/time is created because God 'is' in the past, the present, and
the future, and He has spoken authoritatively about all of them.
Isaiah 14: The LORD Almighty has sworn, "Surely, as I
have planned, so it will be, and as I have purposed, so it will
stand."
Deuteronomy 18: "If what a prophet
proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a
message the LORD has not spoken."2. Do you have any reasoned arguments for your belief that god exists? The huge amount of fulfilled prophecy is the most arresting
component of the Christian Bible. It should knock the socks off any agnostic.
3. Do you accept that intelligent design is an appeal to ignorance? No, because I've met some ID proponents personally and have looked at their books. They are are not 'ignorant.'
They strike me as more open-minded ... and less emotionally out-of-control than some of their
antagonists (who call Dr. Crocker an "idiot-bitch").
If Christianity is
true, then fallen Man does not want to hear that he was 'created' by the
personal God of the Bible ... because he does not want to be guilty.4. Do you accept Christianity is nihilistic?Darwinism is
nihilistic because, as Keynes said, "we are all dead in the long run."
Nothing matters. Only a-morality makes sense in a Darwinian cosmos.
Biblical Christianity is not nihilistic precisely because of the
character and personality of a God who is really "there" and is not
silent.5. Which model of Christian Morality do you accept? Divine command theory? No particular 'theory.' Where God has spoken in scripture, Christians have to listen.
The enormously verbal God of Scripture has [alas!] chosen to speak in parables and poetry as well as prose, so [alas!] there are areas of disagreement among Christians.
One thing Biblical Christians certainly agree on, is that all men except Jesus
have behaved immorally and stand 'guilty' before the God of the Bible.6. Why do you disagree with modern science about cosmology, when you
aren't very familar with it?The real debate between Christianity and
contemporary cosmology is about 'createdness.'
When a contemporary scientist's presupposition is 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' Christians
respectfully disagree. 7. Why do you disagree with modern science about biology/evolution/abiogenesis, when you aren't very familar with it?
The real debate between Christianity and contemporary biology is about
'createdness.'
When a contemporary biologist's presupposition
is 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' Christians respectfully disagree.8. Why Christianity instead of Zoroastrianism or Horus worship?
Because I read the 'Book' ... and participated in hundreds of hours of
discussions with other European and American skeptics in Francis Schaeffer's
living room.
But Christians agree that God converts atheists, not the
atheists themselves. Jesus said: "No one can come to Me,
unless the Father who sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up on the last
day." (John 6:44) 9. Do you still believe god is omnibenevolent even though he is
responsible for all the evil in the world?The Bible describes a cosmos
in which created/fallen Man and angels have real significance, and can do
awful things for which God is NOT responsible or blameworthy, despite his
absolute sovereignty over events. (See the discussions at GodAndScience.org and Pyromaniacs.)
The Christian can truly
hate the fact that there is abnormal 'evil' and 'suffering' in the world,
without hating God.
To the consistent Darwinist, however, what is, is ...
regardless of his/her feelings about it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: January 27, 2009 03:20PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ness replies: 1) You disregard the massive amount
> of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible.
So to paraphrase, your proof is
'the bible says its right, so its right'
Sorry - you'd better to far far better than that
2) Cosmology
> Darwinism, however, has
> nothing at all, just nothing, to say about how
> humans should live ...
>
Absolutely right
Science (cosmology, physics, life sciences, information sciences, cognitive sciences, social sciences etc) tells you why and how decisions get made - and how to understand the consequences. Science doesn't have concepts of 'moral right' or 'moral wrong' or 'good' or 'evil' - it has concepts of 'observably true' and 'observably wrong'. Similarly, it views 'morals' and 'laws' (in the legal sense) as social constructs underpinned by cognitive mechanisms and evolutionarily adapted predispositions.
As such, it doesn't tell you how you 'should' live - but it helps you to understand how people do live and the potential consequences.
It allows you to live with the elegant honesty of the way the world is and to understand how ends and means relate.
It doesn't say is murder is evil or morally wrong, it does say that successful societies stay successful because they drive out practices which severely damage social cohesion and effectiveness, and if you do murder in a stable society, you're likely to receive retribution - and that if you're a society that condones unconstrained murder, you're not likely to be effective or stable,
Some societies choose to go one way, some go the other.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ness replies: 1) You disregard the massive amount
> of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible.
So to paraphrase, your proof is
'the bible says its right, so its right'
Sorry - you'd better to far far better than that
2) Cosmology
> Darwinism, however, has
> nothing at all, just nothing, to say about how
> humans should live ...
>
Absolutely right
Science (cosmology, physics, life sciences, information sciences, cognitive sciences, social sciences etc) tells you why and how decisions get made - and how to understand the consequences. Science doesn't have concepts of 'moral right' or 'moral wrong' or 'good' or 'evil' - it has concepts of 'observably true' and 'observably wrong'. Similarly, it views 'morals' and 'laws' (in the legal sense) as social constructs underpinned by cognitive mechanisms and evolutionarily adapted predispositions.
As such, it doesn't tell you how you 'should' live - but it helps you to understand how people do live and the potential consequences.
It allows you to live with the elegant honesty of the way the world is and to understand how ends and means relate.
It doesn't say is murder is evil or morally wrong, it does say that successful societies stay successful because they drive out practices which severely damage social cohesion and effectiveness, and if you do murder in a stable society, you're likely to receive retribution - and that if you're a society that condones unconstrained murder, you're not likely to be effective or stable,
Some societies choose to go one way, some go the other.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 27, 2009 04:28PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asks:
>
> 1. Do you think the earth/universe/etc is under 20
> thousand years old?
> I'm agnostic and unconcerned about the earth's
> age. The debate
> between contemporary science and Christianity is
> about the 'createdness' of the
> universe ... not its age. The Bible is clear,
> however, that
> space/time is created because God 'is' in the
> past, the present, and
> the future, and He has spoken authoritatively
> about all of them.
> Isaiah 14: The LORD Almighty has sworn, "Surely,
> as I
> have planned, so it will be, and as I have
> purposed, so it will
> stand."Deuteronomy 18: "If what a prophet
> proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take
> place or come true, that is a
> message the LORD has not spoken."
You are quite incorrect in your assertion about what the debate is about. The age of the earth might be of no concern of yours, but quite a number of your Christian brothers are *VERY* concerned with it. In fact, they would call you a cafeteria Christian for ignoring it.
Yes the bible is quite clear on the contradiction, as I've mentioned.
> 2. Do you have
> any reasoned arguments for your belief that god
> exists? The huge amount of fulfilled prophecy is
> the most arresting
> component of the Christian Bible. It should knock
> the socks off any agnostic.
It's surprisingly underwhelming, actually. In fact, it's a little worse then the 'fulfilled prophecy' of Nostradamus.
In any event, I'm not sure that even if prophecy were accurate, it would point to the necessity of god.
> 3. Do you accept that intelligent design is an
> appeal to ignorance? No, because I've met some ID
> proponents personally and have looked at their
> books. They are are not 'ignorant.' They strike me
> as more open-minded ... and less emotionally
> out-of-control than some of their
> antagonists (who call Dr. Crocker an
> "idiot-bitch"). If Christianity is
> true, then fallen Man does not want to hear that
> he was 'created' by the
> personal God of the Bible ... because he does not
> want to be guilty.
I am talking about the logical fallacy of appealing to ignorance, I am not commenting on their intelligence. Perhaps you'd like another stab at answering the question? The appeal to ignorance is also called the god of the gaps logical fallacy.
As to motives, you are appealing to motive, not reason, ergo, your opinion (and hence Christianities) is not relevant.
> 4. Do you accept Christianity is
> nihilistic?Darwinism is
> nihilistic because, as Keynes said, "we are all
> dead in the long run."
> Nothing matters. Only a-morality makes sense in a
> Darwinian cosmos.
> Biblical Christianity is not nihilistic precisely
> because of the
> character and personality of a God who is really
> "there" and is not
> silent.
Ha! This is funny as it provides a clear example of a red herring. I've already pointed out that your analysis of "Darwinism" is an attempt at rhetoric and can be discarded. Asserting that Christianity isn't nihilistic is an empty assertion. Appeaing to god's character/personality doesn't actually get you out of the nihilistic quandry. Would you like to try again?
>5. Which model of Christian Morality do you
> accept? Divine command theory? No particular
> 'theory.' Where God has spoken in scripture,
> Christians have to listen. The enormously verbal
> God of Scripture has chosen to speak in parables
> and poetry as well as prose, so there are areas
> of disagreement among Christians. One thing
> Biblical Christians certainly agree on, is that
> all men except Jesus
> have behaved immorally and stand 'guilty' before
> the God of the Bible.
....No offense, but you aren't familar with the various morality theories? If this is the case, then we can come back to this issue later, if not, then I wonder why you are dancing around the issue.
> 6. Why do you disagree with modern science about
> cosmology, when you
> aren't very familar with it?The real debate
> between Christianity and
> contemporary cosmology is about 'createdness.'When
> a contemporary scientist's presupposition is
> 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' Christians
> respectfully disagree.
A contemporary scientists opinion is not at issue. Cosmological models do not presuppose any such thing and it is encumbent upon you to demonstrate that they do, as you have the burden of proof. In short, you need to back your assertions.
7. Why do you disagree with
> modern science about
> biology/evolution/abiogenesis, when you aren't
> very familar with it?
> The real debate between Christianity and
> contemporary biology is about
> 'createdness.' When a contemporary biologist's
> presupposition
> is 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' Christians
> respectfully disagree.
Then you don't disagree with biological evolution? Evolutionary theory is the mechanism for speciation, which the universe could have been created in order to foster. Ergo, logically, you can be a consistent theist and accept that we shared a common ancestor with modern apes.
Some how I doubt this is true, since you have been favoring the incoherent idea of intelligent design.
> 8. Why Christianity instead of Zoroastrianism or
> Horus worship?
> Because I read the 'Book' ... and participated in
> hundreds of hours of
> discussions with other European and American
> skeptics in Francis Schaeffer's
> living room.But Christians agree that God converts
> atheists, not the
> atheists themselves. Jesus said: "No one can come
> to Me,
> unless the Father who sent Me draw him: and I will
> raise him up on the last
> day." (John 6:44)
Technically you aren't answering my question here. Do you presuppose that were you born in India you would not be a hindu (even if your parents and friends are/were), instead you'd be a Christian?
> 9. Do you still believe god is
> omnibenevolent even though he is
> responsible for all the evil in the world?The
> Bible describes a cosmos
> in which created/fallen Man and angels have real
> significance, and can do
> awful things for which God is NOT responsible or
> blameworthy, despite his
> absolute sovereignty over events. (See the
> discussions at GodAndScience.org and
> Pyromaniacs.)The Christian can truly
> hate the fact that there is abnormal 'evil' and
> 'suffering' in the world,
> without hating God. To the consistent Darwinist,
> however, what is, is ...
> regardless of his/her feelings about it.
In other words your beliefs about god and evil are inconsistent. As to your feelings about'darwinism' we have already determined that you do not know what you are talking about and cannot properly define what it is to be a 'darwinist', ergo your opinion on the topic is next to worthless.
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters wrote: "Without any evidence, the bible is
> just another creation myth from a group of middle
> eastern peasants and gets no more credence than
> any of them. ... Seems like you'd have been much
> happier in the medieval Vatican or perhaps modern
> Tehran."
> Ness replies: 1) You disregard the massive amount
> of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible. 2) Cosmology
> dictates lifestyle. Rome has added the enormous
> superstructure of an authoritative, repressive
> church to the Bible, while Tehran adheres to an
> entirely different 'revelation' that endorses
> cruelty to non-believers. Darwinism, however, has
> nothing at all, just nothing, to say about how
> humans should live ... no matter how much its
> adherents may preach some Christian values.
Two assertions, no evidence. Remember, it is Christians who accept irrational arguments without evidence, *we* are skeptics, so you if you expect reasoning people to believe you, you will have to provide evidence.
I'll ask a second time: How are you defining 'darwinist'? Right now, it's a near meaningless term as you clearly are unfamilar with Darwin (who wasn't a cosmologist).
> "Humanism has no final way of saying certain
> things are right and other things are wrong. For a
> humanist, the final thing which exists -- that is,
> the impersonal universe -- is neutral and silent
> about right and wrong, cruelty and non-cruelty.
A perfectly vapid assertion - please demonstrate it logically.
> Humanism has no way to provide absolutes. Thus, as
A perfectly vapid assertion - please demonstrate it logically.
> a consistent result of humanism's position,
> humanism in private morals and political life is
> left with that which is arbitrary.""On the
> biblical basis, there are absolutes, and therefore
> we can say that certain things are right or wrong,
> including racial discrimination and social
> injustice. Consider Jesus standing in front of the
> tomb of Lazarus. The New Testament records that
> Jesus not only wept but was angry. The one who
> claimed to be God could be angry at the
> abnormality of death without being angry at
> himself. To a Christian on the basis of what the
> Bible teaches, not only is death abnormal, so is
> the cruelty of man to man. These things did not
> exist as God made the world. A Christian can fight
> the abnormality which has resulted from man's
> rebellion against God without fighting the final
> reality of what is -- that is, without fighting
> God. Therefore, because God exists and there are
> absolutes, justice can be seen as absolutely good
> and not just expedient." F. A. Schaeffer
Yeah, I'm not impressed by Schaeffer, as he doesn't seem to have a grip on logical argumentation. His 'word' on this topic is no better then yours. Please demonstrate any of this as being true.
Further, as I've repeatedly brought up, Christianity doesn't solve the is-ought dilemma either (granted I actually *reasoned* to this conclusion as opposed to just asserting it as you do). Ergo Schaeffer is impaled on the very sword he is attempting to attack 'darwinists' with (whatever they are).
BTW - I read that 'Did God Create Evil' article and what a wonderful attempt at side stepping. Did you actually fall for that? Seriously, "Calamity"? I could argue that linguistically that's not correct (did Eve eat the fruit of knowledge, of good and calamity?), but it's beside the point. I didn't say 'created', I said 'responsible for'. There is a distinct difference. If I build a robot that will destroy anything in it's path and it does just that, then I am responsible for that robot (or substitute robot for raising a child to do the same if you are one of those people who think that 'free will' is coherent and addresses the question of evil).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2009 04:46PM by Professor Pangloss.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asks:
>
> 1. Do you think the earth/universe/etc is under 20
> thousand years old?
> I'm agnostic and unconcerned about the earth's
> age. The debate
> between contemporary science and Christianity is
> about the 'createdness' of the
> universe ... not its age. The Bible is clear,
> however, that
> space/time is created because God 'is' in the
> past, the present, and
> the future, and He has spoken authoritatively
> about all of them.
> Isaiah 14: The LORD Almighty has sworn, "Surely,
> as I
> have planned, so it will be, and as I have
> purposed, so it will
> stand."Deuteronomy 18: "If what a prophet
> proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take
> place or come true, that is a
> message the LORD has not spoken."
You are quite incorrect in your assertion about what the debate is about. The age of the earth might be of no concern of yours, but quite a number of your Christian brothers are *VERY* concerned with it. In fact, they would call you a cafeteria Christian for ignoring it.
Yes the bible is quite clear on the contradiction, as I've mentioned.
> 2. Do you have
> any reasoned arguments for your belief that god
> exists? The huge amount of fulfilled prophecy is
> the most arresting
> component of the Christian Bible. It should knock
> the socks off any agnostic.
It's surprisingly underwhelming, actually. In fact, it's a little worse then the 'fulfilled prophecy' of Nostradamus.
In any event, I'm not sure that even if prophecy were accurate, it would point to the necessity of god.
> 3. Do you accept that intelligent design is an
> appeal to ignorance? No, because I've met some ID
> proponents personally and have looked at their
> books. They are are not 'ignorant.' They strike me
> as more open-minded ... and less emotionally
> out-of-control than some of their
> antagonists (who call Dr. Crocker an
> "idiot-bitch"). If Christianity is
> true, then fallen Man does not want to hear that
> he was 'created' by the
> personal God of the Bible ... because he does not
> want to be guilty.
I am talking about the logical fallacy of appealing to ignorance, I am not commenting on their intelligence. Perhaps you'd like another stab at answering the question? The appeal to ignorance is also called the god of the gaps logical fallacy.
As to motives, you are appealing to motive, not reason, ergo, your opinion (and hence Christianities) is not relevant.
> 4. Do you accept Christianity is
> nihilistic?Darwinism is
> nihilistic because, as Keynes said, "we are all
> dead in the long run."
> Nothing matters. Only a-morality makes sense in a
> Darwinian cosmos.
> Biblical Christianity is not nihilistic precisely
> because of the
> character and personality of a God who is really
> "there" and is not
> silent.
Ha! This is funny as it provides a clear example of a red herring. I've already pointed out that your analysis of "Darwinism" is an attempt at rhetoric and can be discarded. Asserting that Christianity isn't nihilistic is an empty assertion. Appeaing to god's character/personality doesn't actually get you out of the nihilistic quandry. Would you like to try again?
>5. Which model of Christian Morality do you
> accept? Divine command theory? No particular
> 'theory.' Where God has spoken in scripture,
> Christians have to listen. The enormously verbal
> God of Scripture has chosen to speak in parables
> and poetry as well as prose, so there are areas
> of disagreement among Christians. One thing
> Biblical Christians certainly agree on, is that
> all men except Jesus
> have behaved immorally and stand 'guilty' before
> the God of the Bible.
....No offense, but you aren't familar with the various morality theories? If this is the case, then we can come back to this issue later, if not, then I wonder why you are dancing around the issue.
> 6. Why do you disagree with modern science about
> cosmology, when you
> aren't very familar with it?The real debate
> between Christianity and
> contemporary cosmology is about 'createdness.'When
> a contemporary scientist's presupposition is
> 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' Christians
> respectfully disagree.
A contemporary scientists opinion is not at issue. Cosmological models do not presuppose any such thing and it is encumbent upon you to demonstrate that they do, as you have the burden of proof. In short, you need to back your assertions.
7. Why do you disagree with
> modern science about
> biology/evolution/abiogenesis, when you aren't
> very familar with it?
> The real debate between Christianity and
> contemporary biology is about
> 'createdness.' When a contemporary biologist's
> presupposition
> is 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' Christians
> respectfully disagree.
Then you don't disagree with biological evolution? Evolutionary theory is the mechanism for speciation, which the universe could have been created in order to foster. Ergo, logically, you can be a consistent theist and accept that we shared a common ancestor with modern apes.
Some how I doubt this is true, since you have been favoring the incoherent idea of intelligent design.
> 8. Why Christianity instead of Zoroastrianism or
> Horus worship?
> Because I read the 'Book' ... and participated in
> hundreds of hours of
> discussions with other European and American
> skeptics in Francis Schaeffer's
> living room.But Christians agree that God converts
> atheists, not the
> atheists themselves. Jesus said: "No one can come
> to Me,
> unless the Father who sent Me draw him: and I will
> raise him up on the last
> day." (John 6:44)
Technically you aren't answering my question here. Do you presuppose that were you born in India you would not be a hindu (even if your parents and friends are/were), instead you'd be a Christian?
> 9. Do you still believe god is
> omnibenevolent even though he is
> responsible for all the evil in the world?The
> Bible describes a cosmos
> in which created/fallen Man and angels have real
> significance, and can do
> awful things for which God is NOT responsible or
> blameworthy, despite his
> absolute sovereignty over events. (See the
> discussions at GodAndScience.org and
> Pyromaniacs.)The Christian can truly
> hate the fact that there is abnormal 'evil' and
> 'suffering' in the world,
> without hating God. To the consistent Darwinist,
> however, what is, is ...
> regardless of his/her feelings about it.
In other words your beliefs about god and evil are inconsistent. As to your feelings about'darwinism' we have already determined that you do not know what you are talking about and cannot properly define what it is to be a 'darwinist', ergo your opinion on the topic is next to worthless.
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters wrote: "Without any evidence, the bible is
> just another creation myth from a group of middle
> eastern peasants and gets no more credence than
> any of them. ... Seems like you'd have been much
> happier in the medieval Vatican or perhaps modern
> Tehran."
> Ness replies: 1) You disregard the massive amount
> of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible. 2) Cosmology
> dictates lifestyle. Rome has added the enormous
> superstructure of an authoritative, repressive
> church to the Bible, while Tehran adheres to an
> entirely different 'revelation' that endorses
> cruelty to non-believers. Darwinism, however, has
> nothing at all, just nothing, to say about how
> humans should live ... no matter how much its
> adherents may preach some Christian values.
Two assertions, no evidence. Remember, it is Christians who accept irrational arguments without evidence, *we* are skeptics, so you if you expect reasoning people to believe you, you will have to provide evidence.
I'll ask a second time: How are you defining 'darwinist'? Right now, it's a near meaningless term as you clearly are unfamilar with Darwin (who wasn't a cosmologist).
> "Humanism has no final way of saying certain
> things are right and other things are wrong. For a
> humanist, the final thing which exists -- that is,
> the impersonal universe -- is neutral and silent
> about right and wrong, cruelty and non-cruelty.
A perfectly vapid assertion - please demonstrate it logically.
> Humanism has no way to provide absolutes. Thus, as
A perfectly vapid assertion - please demonstrate it logically.
> a consistent result of humanism's position,
> humanism in private morals and political life is
> left with that which is arbitrary.""On the
> biblical basis, there are absolutes, and therefore
> we can say that certain things are right or wrong,
> including racial discrimination and social
> injustice. Consider Jesus standing in front of the
> tomb of Lazarus. The New Testament records that
> Jesus not only wept but was angry. The one who
> claimed to be God could be angry at the
> abnormality of death without being angry at
> himself. To a Christian on the basis of what the
> Bible teaches, not only is death abnormal, so is
> the cruelty of man to man. These things did not
> exist as God made the world. A Christian can fight
> the abnormality which has resulted from man's
> rebellion against God without fighting the final
> reality of what is -- that is, without fighting
> God. Therefore, because God exists and there are
> absolutes, justice can be seen as absolutely good
> and not just expedient." F. A. Schaeffer
Yeah, I'm not impressed by Schaeffer, as he doesn't seem to have a grip on logical argumentation. His 'word' on this topic is no better then yours. Please demonstrate any of this as being true.
Further, as I've repeatedly brought up, Christianity doesn't solve the is-ought dilemma either (granted I actually *reasoned* to this conclusion as opposed to just asserting it as you do). Ergo Schaeffer is impaled on the very sword he is attempting to attack 'darwinists' with (whatever they are).
BTW - I read that 'Did God Create Evil' article and what a wonderful attempt at side stepping. Did you actually fall for that? Seriously, "Calamity"? I could argue that linguistically that's not correct (did Eve eat the fruit of knowledge, of good and calamity?), but it's beside the point. I didn't say 'created', I said 'responsible for'. There is a distinct difference. If I build a robot that will destroy anything in it's path and it does just that, then I am responsible for that robot (or substitute robot for raising a child to do the same if you are one of those people who think that 'free will' is coherent and addresses the question of evil).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2009 04:46PM by Professor Pangloss.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 27, 2009 04:31PM
Face it Elliot, we are not your congregation. We will not just believe what you say, simply because you say it. If you want us to accept what you are saying you will have to use reason and evidence, not assertions and strawmen. We are the biblical Thomas asking to see the wounds and instead of showing the wounds to us, you instead just keep asserting that you have them.
If you have evidence then do the rational thing and start presenting it, because right now your evidence and your statements are clearly underwhelming. You are doing yourself and your god (if he exists) a disservice. Remember, you are supposed to have an answer to all that question.
ETA: Look man, I'm not trying to pick on you, but you are making a load of unsupported assertions. We've asked that you back them up and you seem intent on refusing. I can only conclude that either you don't understand the topic fully, or that you know the weaknesses and don't want to defend them, or fill in the blank.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2009 04:39PM by Professor Pangloss.
If you have evidence then do the rational thing and start presenting it, because right now your evidence and your statements are clearly underwhelming. You are doing yourself and your god (if he exists) a disservice. Remember, you are supposed to have an answer to all that question.
ETA: Look man, I'm not trying to pick on you, but you are making a load of unsupported assertions. We've asked that you back them up and you seem intent on refusing. I can only conclude that either you don't understand the topic fully, or that you know the weaknesses and don't want to defend them, or fill in the blank.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2009 04:39PM by Professor Pangloss.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 27, 2009 04:35PM
You reference Schaeffer and presuppositions. Do you support the TAG? Are you a presuppositionalist? I believe I've asked this before.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 29, 2009 09:52PM
 |  | I am struck by the dismissive and condescending verve with which secular evangelists assail the biblical account of a God who 'created' space/time and 'designed' plants and animals and 'spoke' with authority about the past, present, and future of his cosmos (in the languages of his image-bearing men) ... in addition to becoming truly man in Jesus of Nazareth, in order save some from the wrath that God says his own character requires him to unleash on our idolatry and rebellion.
Christian thinkers ascribe this remarkable vigor to fallen Man's deep denial of death and true moral guilt, and Man's abhorrence of a future resurrection and judgment. On this very forum, you'll see that Men who regard themselves as 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,' oscillate between the extremes of consistent amoral Nihilism and inconsistent [baseless] 'Boy Scout' values, blasting away at Christianity from both directions. Christianity is complex -- reflecting the complex personality of the God of the Bible. But it has a rational basis for absolutes and for hope in that: He is There, and He is not Silent.face=arial color=black> But from the postulated Big Bang 'singularity,' what is, is -- value free -- and that's that ... until, as Lon Solomon describes today's Man's hopeless expectation of personal annihilation: |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: January 29, 2009 10:52PM
Rod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Skeptics point to a long line of dualisms that are
> in the Bible and exist in pagan culture.
> Christians consider some of them counterfeits. To
> the Christian there's a religion I think it's
> called miterism seems counter fit Christianity.
> Christianity is a faith based religion. Still the
> spread of Christianity can correctly be based on
> the actual resurrection of Jesus and 500 people
> seeing him after the resurrection and they telling
> others. This is something that mere story telling
> cannot recreate. Some Christians are converted by
> miraculous acts. For example the Apostle Paul was
> struck blind and heard Jesus voice. This is what
> it might take for some people. Christians believe
> everyone will be converted because the Bible says
> every knee will bow .
Rod...you are so full of shit. You christians go around saying how something happened that easter morning because nothing else would explain the growth of the religion since then. Well the fact of the matter is that every crap pot religion has had similar if not greater growth from a supposed event. Take the mormons....Smith was presented with the book of mormon in a forest in NY state in the 1800s from one of gods angels....the tablets today dont even exist....but despite that mormons have had greater growth then the early christian church! So... it really isnt unusual that a group of people come to think an imaginary event actually occured and to act upon it.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2009 07:25AM by Vince(1).
-------------------------------------------------------
> Skeptics point to a long line of dualisms that are
> in the Bible and exist in pagan culture.
> Christians consider some of them counterfeits. To
> the Christian there's a religion I think it's
> called miterism seems counter fit Christianity.
> Christianity is a faith based religion. Still the
> spread of Christianity can correctly be based on
> the actual resurrection of Jesus and 500 people
> seeing him after the resurrection and they telling
> others. This is something that mere story telling
> cannot recreate. Some Christians are converted by
> miraculous acts. For example the Apostle Paul was
> struck blind and heard Jesus voice. This is what
> it might take for some people. Christians believe
> everyone will be converted because the Bible says
> every knee will bow .
Rod...you are so full of shit. You christians go around saying how something happened that easter morning because nothing else would explain the growth of the religion since then. Well the fact of the matter is that every crap pot religion has had similar if not greater growth from a supposed event. Take the mormons....Smith was presented with the book of mormon in a forest in NY state in the 1800s from one of gods angels....the tablets today dont even exist....but despite that mormons have had greater growth then the early christian church! So... it really isnt unusual that a group of people come to think an imaginary event actually occured and to act upon it.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2009 07:25AM by Vince(1).
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 30, 2009 07:59AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am struck by the dismissive and condescending
> verve with which secular evangelists assail the
> biblical account of a God who 'created' space/time
> and 'designed' plants and animals and 'spoke' with
> authority about the past, present, and future of
> his cosmos (in the languages of his image-bearing
> men) ... in addition to becoming truly man in
> Jesus of Nazareth, in order save some from the
> wrath that God says his own character requires him
> to unleash on our idolatry and rebellion.
I am struck by your failure to actually address issues and your obfuscating. Not to mention your hypocrasy with regards to addressing those who disagree with you as 'Secular Evangelists', 'Darwinists', 'Nihilists', etc. You haven't once validated any of your claims, yet you have the temerity to act indignant at these 'secularists' for disregarding your bald assertion that god created space time (which is logically impossible!!). Take the log out of your eye Elliot.
> Christian thinkers ascribe this remarkable vigor
> to fallen Man's deep denial of death and true
> moral guilt, and Man's abhorrence of a future
> resurrection and judgment.
They may ascribe it, but they have no evidence for it and they ignore (as you do) the evidence against it.
> On this very forum, you'll see that Men who regard
> themselves as 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,'
> oscillate between the extremes of consistent
> amoral Nihilism and inconsistent 'Boy Scout'
> values, blasting away at Christianity from both
> directions.
No, you won't. On this forum all you will see is one Christian (hint, his name is 'Elliot') hysterically trying to assert that the opposite of Christianity is nihilism - which ignores the fact that his position is nihilistic!
Sorry Elliot, I have to remind you, we aren't your congregation, if you want anyone to believe you then you'll have to argue for your position. We aren't gullible enough to just fall for Schaffer's words as you apparently did.
> Christianity is complex -- reflecting the complex
> personality of the God of the Bible. But it has a
> rational basis for absolutes and for hope in that:
> He is There, and He is not Silent.
That is not a rational basis Elliot. Do you not recognize this?
How does existence of an entity provide a basis for moral absolutes? Hint: It doesn't. This is what Hume brought up with the is/ought dilemma, which you've successfully avoided for several pages now.
> But from the postulated Big Bang 'singularity,'
> what is, is -- value free -- and that's that ...
> until, as Lon Solomon describes today's Man's
> hopeless expectation of personal annihilation:
> "Pfft. The candle goes out. Fade to BLACK."
Strawman, Elliot. The big bang is a cosmological model - it is not a metaphysical worldview.
You are wasting our time and embarrassing your god (if it exists). Were I an onlooker I would have to conclude that you can't hold up your end in an argument and that your position was fundamentally flawed.
But hey, go ahead and post another response that avoids any and all the difficulties I've continually brought up about your position - maybe a lurker who hasn't bothered to read this thread will find your bilge appealing. Maybe they won't notice how intellectually vacuous it really is.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am struck by the dismissive and condescending
> verve with which secular evangelists assail the
> biblical account of a God who 'created' space/time
> and 'designed' plants and animals and 'spoke' with
> authority about the past, present, and future of
> his cosmos (in the languages of his image-bearing
> men) ... in addition to becoming truly man in
> Jesus of Nazareth, in order save some from the
> wrath that God says his own character requires him
> to unleash on our idolatry and rebellion.
I am struck by your failure to actually address issues and your obfuscating. Not to mention your hypocrasy with regards to addressing those who disagree with you as 'Secular Evangelists', 'Darwinists', 'Nihilists', etc. You haven't once validated any of your claims, yet you have the temerity to act indignant at these 'secularists' for disregarding your bald assertion that god created space time (which is logically impossible!!). Take the log out of your eye Elliot.
> Christian thinkers ascribe this remarkable vigor
> to fallen Man's deep denial of death and true
> moral guilt, and Man's abhorrence of a future
> resurrection and judgment.
They may ascribe it, but they have no evidence for it and they ignore (as you do) the evidence against it.
> On this very forum, you'll see that Men who regard
> themselves as 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,'
> oscillate between the extremes of consistent
> amoral Nihilism and inconsistent 'Boy Scout'
> values, blasting away at Christianity from both
> directions.
No, you won't. On this forum all you will see is one Christian (hint, his name is 'Elliot') hysterically trying to assert that the opposite of Christianity is nihilism - which ignores the fact that his position is nihilistic!
Sorry Elliot, I have to remind you, we aren't your congregation, if you want anyone to believe you then you'll have to argue for your position. We aren't gullible enough to just fall for Schaffer's words as you apparently did.
> Christianity is complex -- reflecting the complex
> personality of the God of the Bible. But it has a
> rational basis for absolutes and for hope in that:
> He is There, and He is not Silent.
That is not a rational basis Elliot. Do you not recognize this?
How does existence of an entity provide a basis for moral absolutes? Hint: It doesn't. This is what Hume brought up with the is/ought dilemma, which you've successfully avoided for several pages now.
> But from the postulated Big Bang 'singularity,'
> what is, is -- value free -- and that's that ...
> until, as Lon Solomon describes today's Man's
> hopeless expectation of personal annihilation:
> "Pfft. The candle goes out. Fade to BLACK."
Strawman, Elliot. The big bang is a cosmological model - it is not a metaphysical worldview.
You are wasting our time and embarrassing your god (if it exists). Were I an onlooker I would have to conclude that you can't hold up your end in an argument and that your position was fundamentally flawed.
But hey, go ahead and post another response that avoids any and all the difficulties I've continually brought up about your position - maybe a lurker who hasn't bothered to read this thread will find your bilge appealing. Maybe they won't notice how intellectually vacuous it really is.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 30, 2009 08:01AM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You reference Schaeffer and presuppositions. Do
> you support the TAG? Are you a
> presuppositionalist? I believe I've asked this
> before.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You reference Schaeffer and presuppositions. Do
> you support the TAG? Are you a
> presuppositionalist? I believe I've asked this
> before.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: January 30, 2009 09:58AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am struck by the dismissive and condescending
> verve with which secular evangelists assail the
> biblical account of a God who 'created' space/time
> and 'designed' plants and animals and 'spoke' with
> authority about the past, present, and future of
> his cosmos (in the languages of his image-bearing
> men) ... in addition to becoming truly man in
> Jesus of Nazareth, in order save some from the
> wrath that God says his own character requires him
> to unleash on our idolatry and rebellion.
>
> Christian thinkers ascribe this remarkable vigor
> to fallen Man's deep denial of death and true
> moral guilt, and Man's abhorrence of a future
> resurrection and judgment.
>
> On this very forum, you'll see that Men who regard
> themselves as 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,'
> oscillate between the extremes of consistent
> amoral Nihilism and inconsistent 'Boy Scout'
> values, blasting away at Christianity from both
> directions.
>
> Christianity is complex -- reflecting the complex
> personality of the God of the Bible. But it has a
> rational basis for absolutes and for hope in that:
> He is There, and He is not Silent.
> But from the postulated Big Bang 'singularity,'
> what is, is -- value free -- and that's that ...
> until, as Lon Solomon describes today's Man's
> hopeless expectation of personal annihilation:
> "Pfft. The candle goes out. Fade to BLACK."
More and more religious tripe
If 'He is not silent' - then he's pretty damned quiet ... because he's just not there
The reason - there is no god and just wishing there was one means precisely nothing. Replacing evidence with faith is just BS to comfort old ladies and hoodwink the young into your particular cult - society should not tolerate you or groups like you - you're dangerous parasites.
Why not take the opportunity to provide one sliver of evidence to the rapt audience? How about sometime today, given you have some direct conversation with Thor or whoever.
I'll watch the skies...
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am struck by the dismissive and condescending
> verve with which secular evangelists assail the
> biblical account of a God who 'created' space/time
> and 'designed' plants and animals and 'spoke' with
> authority about the past, present, and future of
> his cosmos (in the languages of his image-bearing
> men) ... in addition to becoming truly man in
> Jesus of Nazareth, in order save some from the
> wrath that God says his own character requires him
> to unleash on our idolatry and rebellion.
>
> Christian thinkers ascribe this remarkable vigor
> to fallen Man's deep denial of death and true
> moral guilt, and Man's abhorrence of a future
> resurrection and judgment.
>
> On this very forum, you'll see that Men who regard
> themselves as 'uncreated' and 'undesigned,'
> oscillate between the extremes of consistent
> amoral Nihilism and inconsistent 'Boy Scout'
> values, blasting away at Christianity from both
> directions.
>
> Christianity is complex -- reflecting the complex
> personality of the God of the Bible. But it has a
> rational basis for absolutes and for hope in that:
> He is There, and He is not Silent.
> But from the postulated Big Bang 'singularity,'
> what is, is -- value free -- and that's that ...
> until, as Lon Solomon describes today's Man's
> hopeless expectation of personal annihilation:
> "Pfft. The candle goes out. Fade to BLACK."
More and more religious tripe
If 'He is not silent' - then he's pretty damned quiet ... because he's just not there
The reason - there is no god and just wishing there was one means precisely nothing. Replacing evidence with faith is just BS to comfort old ladies and hoodwink the young into your particular cult - society should not tolerate you or groups like you - you're dangerous parasites.
Why not take the opportunity to provide one sliver of evidence to the rapt audience? How about sometime today, given you have some direct conversation with Thor or whoever.
I'll watch the skies...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 31, 2009 04:27PM
 |
|
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: January 31, 2009 04:34PM
Do I support the TAG? Which TAG?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 31, 2009 06:41PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss says that my "bald assertion that
> created space/time ... is logically impossible!!"
>
> 1) I am not bald.
By bald, I mean unsupported - although your response did give me a chuckle.
> 2) Why is it "impossible" that space/time was
> created by someone outside of space/time? That is
> clearly the biblical position.
Well, there a many reasons, the one I briefly touched on though was a logical problem. I might go over the scientific problem if there's any interest.
As to the biblical position, if you accept the bible as word of god a priori, then you'd have to engage in cognitive dissonance to allievate the mental strain.
In any event, here's the dilemma: We all know that thanks to einstein, space and time are one and thus, they could not have been created. Why is this? because in order to create space and time, one needs to possess space and time - otherwise there could 'before'. In fact, I'm not convinced there was a before - as I'm a proponent of the "B" theory of time anyway. I've attached a picture (one of many in series of slides that I hope illustrates my position).
In short, (and I saw this summed up on a forum long ago), God needed time in order to create time, but because there was no time he didn't have the time to create it.
> 3) Is created space/time any more "impossible"
> than an uncreated 'singularity' or
> multi-dimensional string theory?
I believe so, in both cases - although I do think that multi-dimensional string theory is more possible then space/time being created.
Here's another problem with the creation of space/time. Let's forget for a moment the whole absurdity of requiring time in order to create time.
What is creation, as we understand it? It is the manipulation of matter/energy within space/time. Without pre-existing matter/energy, it is impossible to create anything, as what would one act upon? So let's suppose we accept that something can come from nothing. If that's the case, then it's logically impossible for that something to have been caused, since there was nothing on which to act upon (ie, nothing to manipulate).
> 4) Just one "l" in Eliot, in deference to the
> untouchable Agent Ness.
Yes, I'm well aware of where your name originates, just not the spelling. I'll guess that you are aware of where my name originates and why it is ironic. ;-)
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss says that my "bald assertion that
> created space/time ... is logically impossible!!"
>
> 1) I am not bald.
By bald, I mean unsupported - although your response did give me a chuckle.
> 2) Why is it "impossible" that space/time was
> created by someone outside of space/time? That is
> clearly the biblical position.
Well, there a many reasons, the one I briefly touched on though was a logical problem. I might go over the scientific problem if there's any interest.
As to the biblical position, if you accept the bible as word of god a priori, then you'd have to engage in cognitive dissonance to allievate the mental strain.
In any event, here's the dilemma: We all know that thanks to einstein, space and time are one and thus, they could not have been created. Why is this? because in order to create space and time, one needs to possess space and time - otherwise there could 'before'. In fact, I'm not convinced there was a before - as I'm a proponent of the "B" theory of time anyway. I've attached a picture (one of many in series of slides that I hope illustrates my position).
In short, (and I saw this summed up on a forum long ago), God needed time in order to create time, but because there was no time he didn't have the time to create it.
> 3) Is created space/time any more "impossible"
> than an uncreated 'singularity' or
> multi-dimensional string theory?
I believe so, in both cases - although I do think that multi-dimensional string theory is more possible then space/time being created.
Here's another problem with the creation of space/time. Let's forget for a moment the whole absurdity of requiring time in order to create time.
What is creation, as we understand it? It is the manipulation of matter/energy within space/time. Without pre-existing matter/energy, it is impossible to create anything, as what would one act upon? So let's suppose we accept that something can come from nothing. If that's the case, then it's logically impossible for that something to have been caused, since there was nothing on which to act upon (ie, nothing to manipulate).
> 4) Just one "l" in Eliot, in deference to the
> untouchable Agent Ness.
Yes, I'm well aware of where your name originates, just not the spelling. I'll guess that you are aware of where my name originates and why it is ironic. ;-)
Attachments:
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 31, 2009 06:44PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do I support the TAG? Which TAG?
You follow Schaeffer and you are pretending (??) not to know what the TAG is?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do I support the TAG? Which TAG?
You follow Schaeffer and you are pretending (??) not to know what the TAG is?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 01, 2009 02:00PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
> Ness replies: 1) To a Christian on the basis of what the
> Bible teaches, not only is death abnormal, so is
> the cruelty of man to man. These things did not
> exist as God made the world.
So, what about all those dead dinosaurs, ammonites, stromatolites and fossilized trees?
Presumably, being as though they died long long before man turned up, god pre-killed them because, being onmiscient, he knew adam would munch on that apple.
That's a bit mean to dinosaurs - although, what with all that dinosaur sex going on and no death, we'd be upto our necks in hungry dinosaurs. No sure how carnivores made a living before death, or earth worms.
Ah, sorry - I forgot, it was all just god's idea of a joke to trick the unwary
Not surprising it took the full 6 days if he had to stack up all those bones at the right layers and futz around with all the isotopes to make them line up - tiresome even if you are onmipresent
And sticking sea-bed fossils on the tops of mountains - classic!!! Oh, and moving the continents around to make it look as if they'd drifted with plate tectonics - fossils in Antarctica that tricked 'em - and those funky magnetic stripes on the ocean bed to make it look as if the plates were spreading. Oh, Oh and all those pretend ancient volcanoes - oh and coal - what a wheeze - especially those fake giant bugs and tree ferns!!!!
Yup, the big man deserved a day off.
> Ness replies: 1) To a Christian on the basis of what the
> Bible teaches, not only is death abnormal, so is
> the cruelty of man to man. These things did not
> exist as God made the world.
So, what about all those dead dinosaurs, ammonites, stromatolites and fossilized trees?
Presumably, being as though they died long long before man turned up, god pre-killed them because, being onmiscient, he knew adam would munch on that apple.
That's a bit mean to dinosaurs - although, what with all that dinosaur sex going on and no death, we'd be upto our necks in hungry dinosaurs. No sure how carnivores made a living before death, or earth worms.
Ah, sorry - I forgot, it was all just god's idea of a joke to trick the unwary
Not surprising it took the full 6 days if he had to stack up all those bones at the right layers and futz around with all the isotopes to make them line up - tiresome even if you are onmipresent
And sticking sea-bed fossils on the tops of mountains - classic!!! Oh, and moving the continents around to make it look as if they'd drifted with plate tectonics - fossils in Antarctica that tricked 'em - and those funky magnetic stripes on the ocean bed to make it look as if the plates were spreading. Oh, Oh and all those pretend ancient volcanoes - oh and coal - what a wheeze - especially those fake giant bugs and tree ferns!!!!
Yup, the big man deserved a day off.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
SRE
()
Date: February 01, 2009 03:53PM
WHEN DISCUSSING GOD, IT MUST BE DETERMINED what one’s definition of God is. For some people, God is a faceless entity that moves through all things, a life force. For others, God is a man who walked the earth and died on a cross for your sins. Historically, God could also be called the Ocean, the Sun or the Moon, or even a flying monster made of spaghetti. There have literally been thousands of Gods posited throughout our history. For the purposes of this discussion I’ll identify God by his Judeo-Christian definition, being that I was born into a Jewish household and reside in the United States of America. Is there any validity to the literal insistence of God? I honestly don’t know, but I don’t think so. If you are reading this, it means that you’re interested in my perspective. If you aren’t then you should just stop reading now and I will take no offense.
One thing that perplexes me is how anyone can take the biblical texts literally. I think a healthy understanding of the authors’ intent can be established if the religious texts are approached as literature, in the same way one would approach any other major historical literary work. It is not until these texts are taught as doctrine that I feel we begin to run into some major problems. I am continually astounded by how many people take the Bible literally. To me, it’s just simply illogical. We can’t get stories straight that happened last week, let alone rely on the literal validity of events that supposedly took place thousands of years ago. So here’s a conjecture of my own: If God exists, He does not write books for people.
For one, specifically at the time the biblical manuscripts were written, reading and writing were primarily tools of the elite. Literacy was a sign of affluence, and it doesn’t sound quite right that God would speak to the world solely through the pens of rich people. However, from a historical perspective it makes perfect sense that religious texts could be used as a powerful tool by the orthodoxy in controlling the masses, and they obviously figured that out early on. It is my opinion that if whatever incomprehensibly powerful force that created our universe was intent on passing along a message to all of humanity, in his own words, that a better job would have been done of it. This message has not penetrated the whole of the world (not even close), and there are infinite versions, many of which are in direct conflict with one another. If there really existed such a message from a truly all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipotent force, I would think there would be no question as to the authenticity or the content of that message. The Message would be uniformly and universally accepted by all mankind as unquestionable truth. However, this is a far cry from reality and the faithful can’t even come close to agreeing with each other about the content and details of this message. It all seems very unreliable to me.
I take no issue with people believing in a higher power, as many of my family members and close friends find meaning and purpose in their faith. But I definitely do think it is wrong to promote intolerance, which, like it or not, is at the heart of what is taught in many religious institutions, behind a shiny facade of love and compassion: The ideas that hell awaits those who do not follow Christ, that gay people are an abomination or that a woman is not equal to a man are still taught to children and adults alike, every single day. I just don’t buy it. If the idea is to spread a message of love, compassion and equality then it should apply to everyone, not just to unborn fetuses.
The default position that there is only one path to enlightenment in this world is a dead-end road and an archaic philosophy that I do not subscribe to. Do I consider myself a non-believer? I do believe that our universe is much bigger and more complex than any story we could come up with just by sitting around and thinking about it. I do know, however, that I don’t believe in an invisible bearded man in the sky who’s watching my every move. Nor do I believe in the idea of a human sacrifice for redemption. Those two ideas, to me, seem out of date and out of time. According to DNA evidence, modern humans originated in Africa approximately 250,000 years ago, and humanity seems to have survived just fine in the 246,000 years before man decided that we needed the Bible.
Michael Einziger is the guitarist for Incubus. He has been accepted to Harvard where he will study musical composition, physics, cosmology and evolutionary biology.
https://www.relix.com/Soap_Box/Soap_Box/Mike_Einziger:_I_Could_Be_Called_a_Non-Believer_200809043130.html
One thing that perplexes me is how anyone can take the biblical texts literally. I think a healthy understanding of the authors’ intent can be established if the religious texts are approached as literature, in the same way one would approach any other major historical literary work. It is not until these texts are taught as doctrine that I feel we begin to run into some major problems. I am continually astounded by how many people take the Bible literally. To me, it’s just simply illogical. We can’t get stories straight that happened last week, let alone rely on the literal validity of events that supposedly took place thousands of years ago. So here’s a conjecture of my own: If God exists, He does not write books for people.
For one, specifically at the time the biblical manuscripts were written, reading and writing were primarily tools of the elite. Literacy was a sign of affluence, and it doesn’t sound quite right that God would speak to the world solely through the pens of rich people. However, from a historical perspective it makes perfect sense that religious texts could be used as a powerful tool by the orthodoxy in controlling the masses, and they obviously figured that out early on. It is my opinion that if whatever incomprehensibly powerful force that created our universe was intent on passing along a message to all of humanity, in his own words, that a better job would have been done of it. This message has not penetrated the whole of the world (not even close), and there are infinite versions, many of which are in direct conflict with one another. If there really existed such a message from a truly all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipotent force, I would think there would be no question as to the authenticity or the content of that message. The Message would be uniformly and universally accepted by all mankind as unquestionable truth. However, this is a far cry from reality and the faithful can’t even come close to agreeing with each other about the content and details of this message. It all seems very unreliable to me.
I take no issue with people believing in a higher power, as many of my family members and close friends find meaning and purpose in their faith. But I definitely do think it is wrong to promote intolerance, which, like it or not, is at the heart of what is taught in many religious institutions, behind a shiny facade of love and compassion: The ideas that hell awaits those who do not follow Christ, that gay people are an abomination or that a woman is not equal to a man are still taught to children and adults alike, every single day. I just don’t buy it. If the idea is to spread a message of love, compassion and equality then it should apply to everyone, not just to unborn fetuses.
The default position that there is only one path to enlightenment in this world is a dead-end road and an archaic philosophy that I do not subscribe to. Do I consider myself a non-believer? I do believe that our universe is much bigger and more complex than any story we could come up with just by sitting around and thinking about it. I do know, however, that I don’t believe in an invisible bearded man in the sky who’s watching my every move. Nor do I believe in the idea of a human sacrifice for redemption. Those two ideas, to me, seem out of date and out of time. According to DNA evidence, modern humans originated in Africa approximately 250,000 years ago, and humanity seems to have survived just fine in the 246,000 years before man decided that we needed the Bible.
Michael Einziger is the guitarist for Incubus. He has been accepted to Harvard where he will study musical composition, physics, cosmology and evolutionary biology.
https://www.relix.com/Soap_Box/Soap_Box/Mike_Einziger:_I_Could_Be_Called_a_Non-Believer_200809043130.html
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 01, 2009 04:58PM
SRE, that sounded like it was going to be the argument from non-cognitivism.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 02, 2009 02:21PM
|
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 02, 2009 03:37PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
E.g.,6. Even
> 'Darwinists' (perhaps irrationally) despise child
> molesters and deplore parents who would leave
> their children alone with a known molester ... so
> how can McLean Bible Church 'love' a God who
> knowingly left his utterly naive first children,
> Adam and Eve, alone in the Garden of Eden with his
> arch-enemy, the fallen, lying, and completely evil
> 'super-predator' Satan?
You're getting yourself tied up in your own rhetorical BS again
'Darwinists', would suggest that child molesters are despised
a) because they attack the social cohesion that is essential for human success - hence societies that have serious penalties and deterrents will tend to be more coherent and successful
b) because they reduce the effectiveness of strategies to ensure the quality of mates for the next generation
c) they directly challenge personal power and status of the family group and hence access to resources and advantage
By asking a theological question framed in the inbred thinking of the religion, you miss the point.
Once you've drunk the Kool aid, thrown away all of the evidence of science and observation and decided that there's a creator and hence you have to have an adam and eve, post-rationalizations about why one character in your fairy tail are just par for the course. Its a bit like worrying about why Little Red wore Red not blue and why the wood-chopper just happened to be passing through. None of them are true or important.
Once you're on that slippery slope and counting the angels on your pin-head, you're one step from self identified messiahs, poisoned soft drinks, silly robes and hats, speaking in tongues, hearing voices and keeping women indoors lest they be infected by any of that silly education.
Once you've wandered off into the la-la-land of religion, you're on your own in an increasingly self obsessed world of explaining every ripple in your invented world - like Trekkies on steroids, except that you expect a tax break, be able to indoctrinate children into your cults and, where-ever possible, insulated from the law.
Medieval Europe was littered with every weird little variation of theology you can imagine and, surprise, surprise, they spent hundreds of years exterminating each other and imploding over theological niceties - before deciding that slaughtering the natives in Africa and South America was much more profitable
-------------------------------------------------------
E.g.,6. Even
> 'Darwinists' (perhaps irrationally) despise child
> molesters and deplore parents who would leave
> their children alone with a known molester ... so
> how can McLean Bible Church 'love' a God who
> knowingly left his utterly naive first children,
> Adam and Eve, alone in the Garden of Eden with his
> arch-enemy, the fallen, lying, and completely evil
> 'super-predator' Satan?
You're getting yourself tied up in your own rhetorical BS again
'Darwinists', would suggest that child molesters are despised
a) because they attack the social cohesion that is essential for human success - hence societies that have serious penalties and deterrents will tend to be more coherent and successful
b) because they reduce the effectiveness of strategies to ensure the quality of mates for the next generation
c) they directly challenge personal power and status of the family group and hence access to resources and advantage
By asking a theological question framed in the inbred thinking of the religion, you miss the point.
Once you've drunk the Kool aid, thrown away all of the evidence of science and observation and decided that there's a creator and hence you have to have an adam and eve, post-rationalizations about why one character in your fairy tail are just par for the course. Its a bit like worrying about why Little Red wore Red not blue and why the wood-chopper just happened to be passing through. None of them are true or important.
Once you're on that slippery slope and counting the angels on your pin-head, you're one step from self identified messiahs, poisoned soft drinks, silly robes and hats, speaking in tongues, hearing voices and keeping women indoors lest they be infected by any of that silly education.
Once you've wandered off into the la-la-land of religion, you're on your own in an increasingly self obsessed world of explaining every ripple in your invented world - like Trekkies on steroids, except that you expect a tax break, be able to indoctrinate children into your cults and, where-ever possible, insulated from the law.
Medieval Europe was littered with every weird little variation of theology you can imagine and, surprise, surprise, they spent hundreds of years exterminating each other and imploding over theological niceties - before deciding that slaughtering the natives in Africa and South America was much more profitable
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: February 02, 2009 03:41PM
The new train of thought among the Wacko Religious Right is that scientific evidence is part of "The Devil's Delusion." Like Jesus couldn't be part of "The Devil's Delusion."
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2009 03:42PM by WashingTone Locian.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2009 03:42PM by WashingTone Locian.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 02, 2009 03:47PM
WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The new train of thought among the Wacko Religious
> Right is that scientific evidence is part of "The
> Devil's Delusion." Like Jesus couldn't be part of
> "The Devil's Delusion."
That's because they're all in self obsessed la-la-land - which would just be funny if they weren't so dangerous.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The new train of thought among the Wacko Religious
> Right is that scientific evidence is part of "The
> Devil's Delusion." Like Jesus couldn't be part of
> "The Devil's Delusion."
That's because they're all in self obsessed la-la-land - which would just be funny if they weren't so dangerous.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 02, 2009 03:58PM
|
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 02, 2009 04:08PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: I'll guess that you are aware of
> where my name originates and why it is ironic.
> ;-)1. Oh yes, definitely, from both its Greek and
> French etymologies ...2. Greek: pan
> πᾶν (all) and glossa
> γλῶσσα (tongue)3.
> French: Dr. Panglosse, the absurdly optimistic
> tutor to Voltaire's Candide, in a scathing book
> about good and evil (which I read along with
> Moliere, Racine et al. at ages 15-16 in a
> French-speaking country, and which I also saw on
> Broadway in a Bernstein revival)4. FYI, I consider
> you to be the Boy Scout optimist critic on this
> forum, and Nutters to be the Nihilist
The irony is that my metaphysical worldview is, to a large degree, absurdist.
> 5. Let's play
> global thermonuclear war. I'm a anti-Christian
> atheist. I'll bet I can ask more piercing
> questions of the the McLean Bible Church
> apologetics staff than you can! E.g.,
Maybe so.
> 6. Even
> 'Darwinists' (perhaps irrationally) despise child
> molesters and deplore parents who would leave
> their children alone with a known molester ... so
> how can McLean Bible Church 'love' a God who
> knowingly left his utterly naive first children,
> Adam and Eve, alone in the Garden of Eden with his
> arch-enemy, the fallen, lying, and completely evil
> 'super-predator' Satan?
What are 'Darwinists'? You've used that phrase repeatedly and I've asked for clarification repeatedly. I know it's used rhetorically by ID proponents who seek to insult people who hold to modern biology - but even they can't actually define it as a worldview.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: I'll guess that you are aware of
> where my name originates and why it is ironic.
> ;-)1. Oh yes, definitely, from both its Greek and
> French etymologies ...2. Greek: pan
> πᾶν (all) and glossa
> γλῶσσα (tongue)3.
> French: Dr. Panglosse, the absurdly optimistic
> tutor to Voltaire's Candide, in a scathing book
> about good and evil (which I read along with
> Moliere, Racine et al. at ages 15-16 in a
> French-speaking country, and which I also saw on
> Broadway in a Bernstein revival)4. FYI, I consider
> you to be the Boy Scout optimist critic on this
> forum, and Nutters to be the Nihilist
The irony is that my metaphysical worldview is, to a large degree, absurdist.
> 5. Let's play
> global thermonuclear war. I'm a anti-Christian
> atheist. I'll bet I can ask more piercing
> questions of the the McLean Bible Church
> apologetics staff than you can! E.g.,
Maybe so.
> 6. Even
> 'Darwinists' (perhaps irrationally) despise child
> molesters and deplore parents who would leave
> their children alone with a known molester ... so
> how can McLean Bible Church 'love' a God who
> knowingly left his utterly naive first children,
> Adam and Eve, alone in the Garden of Eden with his
> arch-enemy, the fallen, lying, and completely evil
> 'super-predator' Satan?
What are 'Darwinists'? You've used that phrase repeatedly and I've asked for clarification repeatedly. I know it's used rhetorically by ID proponents who seek to insult people who hold to modern biology - but even they can't actually define it as a worldview.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 02, 2009 04:12PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SRE commented: "I am continually astounded by how
> many people take the Bible literally. To me, it’s
> just simply illogical. We can’t get stories
> straight that happened last week, let alone rely
> on the literal validity of events that supposedly
> took place thousands of years ago. So here’s a
> conjecture of my own: If God exists, He does not
> write books for people."By "literally" do you mean
> "historically where the supernatural is involved"
> or do you just mean "historically?"If your world
> view postulates a chance, impersonal beginning ...
> then probably nobody is "out there" to speak or
> write authoritatively about the past or the future
> (despite any claims of the Psychic
> Hotline).
This does not follow logically, unless you are speaking for 100 percent certainty (in which case, I'll remind you that your position is no better).
> However, the Bible clearly speaks of a
> personal creation of space/time by a God who
> speaks, and writes authoritatively: Exodus 24:4
> "Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had
> said."Predicting the future accurately is reserved
> to God alone. Concerning false prophets, God
> through Ezekiel says: "Their visions are false and
> their divinations a lie. They say, "The LORD
> declares," when the LORD has not sent them; yet
> they expect their words to be fulfilled. Have you
> not seen false visions and uttered lying
> divinations when you say, "The LORD declares,"
> though I have not spoken?"
> The Jesus of the New Testament clearly accepts the
> Law and the Prophets as nothing less than the
> written words of such a God, stating time and
> again that certain events must occur in order that
> the Scriptures be fulfilled. Matt 26:55 "At that
> time Jesus said to the crowd, "Am I leading a
> rebellion, that you have come out with swords and
> clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple
> courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. But
> this has all taken place that the writings of the
> prophets might be fulfilled."
As I've shown, the bible cannot be correct on this point (at least, it hasn't been argued that it can be). So why accept it? Why do you accept that the bible is the word of god, when logically it cannot be since it argues for a creation?
If you blindly accept creation, that's one thing, and please admit it now - but if you claim to rationally accept creation then please explain the problems I've brought up.
"> John 5:46-7 "If you believed Moses, you would
> believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you
> do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to
> believe what I say?"Speaking about
> presuppositions, Luke 16: 'If they do not listen
> to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be
> convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"
This is no more compelling then what is argued by the Zoroastrians or the Hindis. Why should we believe 'John' over them?
-------------------------------------------------------
> SRE commented: "I am continually astounded by how
> many people take the Bible literally. To me, it’s
> just simply illogical. We can’t get stories
> straight that happened last week, let alone rely
> on the literal validity of events that supposedly
> took place thousands of years ago. So here’s a
> conjecture of my own: If God exists, He does not
> write books for people."By "literally" do you mean
> "historically where the supernatural is involved"
> or do you just mean "historically?"If your world
> view postulates a chance, impersonal beginning ...
> then probably nobody is "out there" to speak or
> write authoritatively about the past or the future
> (despite any claims of the Psychic
> Hotline).
This does not follow logically, unless you are speaking for 100 percent certainty (in which case, I'll remind you that your position is no better).
> However, the Bible clearly speaks of a
> personal creation of space/time by a God who
> speaks, and writes authoritatively: Exodus 24:4
> "Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had
> said."Predicting the future accurately is reserved
> to God alone. Concerning false prophets, God
> through Ezekiel says: "Their visions are false and
> their divinations a lie. They say, "The LORD
> declares," when the LORD has not sent them; yet
> they expect their words to be fulfilled. Have you
> not seen false visions and uttered lying
> divinations when you say, "The LORD declares,"
> though I have not spoken?"
> The Jesus of the New Testament clearly accepts the
> Law and the Prophets as nothing less than the
> written words of such a God, stating time and
> again that certain events must occur in order that
> the Scriptures be fulfilled. Matt 26:55 "At that
> time Jesus said to the crowd, "Am I leading a
> rebellion, that you have come out with swords and
> clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple
> courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. But
> this has all taken place that the writings of the
> prophets might be fulfilled."
As I've shown, the bible cannot be correct on this point (at least, it hasn't been argued that it can be). So why accept it? Why do you accept that the bible is the word of god, when logically it cannot be since it argues for a creation?
If you blindly accept creation, that's one thing, and please admit it now - but if you claim to rationally accept creation then please explain the problems I've brought up.
"> John 5:46-7 "If you believed Moses, you would
> believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you
> do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to
> believe what I say?"Speaking about
> presuppositions, Luke 16: 'If they do not listen
> to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be
> convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"
This is no more compelling then what is argued by the Zoroastrians or the Hindis. Why should we believe 'John' over them?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 02, 2009 04:13PM
| Nutters says: "By asking a theological question framed in the inbred thinking of the religion, you miss the point." |
| Ness replies: I disagree, I think that my question, entirely from within Christianity, is tougher to deal with than outside objections. |
| Here it is in another form: Does it not distress Christians that a God who truly knows the future, left his innocent children alone with a lying super-predator who was smarter than they were ... when the Church would deplore human parents who knowingly left a pair of five-year-olds alone with, say, a known homicidal maniac or sexual predator? |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 02, 2009 04:31PM
| Pangloss asks: "What are Darwinists?" |
| Reply: Broadly speaking, contemporary men who postulate an impersonal, uncreated, undesigned beginning ... where everything that 'is' or can be, derives from impersonal matter/energy + time + chance ... where they themselves are merely a "chance collocation of atoms; something kicked up out of the slime by chance." |
| Ironically, within the scientific community there is often a leap into Romanticism, personifying "Nature" and asserting that animals somehow consciously seek to propagate their genes, and that somehow the preservation of 'life' bestows 'value' upon things ... despite the expectation of an annihilating heat death of the entire universe. |
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2009 04:55PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 02, 2009 04:38PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters says: "By asking a theological question
> framed in the inbred thinking of the religion, you
> miss the point."Ness replies: I disagree, I think
> that my question, entirely from within
> Christianity, is tougher to deal with than outside
> objections.Here it is in another form: Does it not
> distress Christians that a God who truly knows the
> future, left his innocent children alone with a
> lying super-predator who was smarter than they
> were ... when the Church would deplore human
> parents who knowingly left a pair of
> five-year-olds alone with, say, a known homicidal
> maniac or sexual predator?
Who cares?
Once religionists and religionistas have left the ranch and started to ignore the facts around them, who gives a damn about the theological rat holes they carve for themselves except to stop them harming everyone else?
why do hindu's think cows are sacred, why do moslems believe that images are bad, why do catholics believe in transubstantiation, why do evangelicals believe in tongues, why do jews believe in mutilating boys penises, why do some tribes believe in female circumcision, why do groups of christians insist the end of the world is due next tuesday every few years? Why do you always find ways of circumventing the fundamental inconsistencies of your cults?
Who cares?
Its like getting inside the mind of Jeffry Dhamer
Once they've decided on some loony premise, they all inevitably get tied in knots over the inconsistencies
who cares?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters says: "By asking a theological question
> framed in the inbred thinking of the religion, you
> miss the point."Ness replies: I disagree, I think
> that my question, entirely from within
> Christianity, is tougher to deal with than outside
> objections.Here it is in another form: Does it not
> distress Christians that a God who truly knows the
> future, left his innocent children alone with a
> lying super-predator who was smarter than they
> were ... when the Church would deplore human
> parents who knowingly left a pair of
> five-year-olds alone with, say, a known homicidal
> maniac or sexual predator?
Who cares?
Once religionists and religionistas have left the ranch and started to ignore the facts around them, who gives a damn about the theological rat holes they carve for themselves except to stop them harming everyone else?
why do hindu's think cows are sacred, why do moslems believe that images are bad, why do catholics believe in transubstantiation, why do evangelicals believe in tongues, why do jews believe in mutilating boys penises, why do some tribes believe in female circumcision, why do groups of christians insist the end of the world is due next tuesday every few years? Why do you always find ways of circumventing the fundamental inconsistencies of your cults?
Who cares?
Its like getting inside the mind of Jeffry Dhamer
Once they've decided on some loony premise, they all inevitably get tied in knots over the inconsistencies
who cares?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 02, 2009 04:47PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asks: "What are Darwinists?"
> Reply: Broadly speaking, contemporary men who
> postulate an impersonal, uncreated, undesigned
> beginning ... where everything that 'is' or can
> be, derives from impersonal matter + energy + time
> + chance ... where they themselves are merely a
In short, a position that no one accepts (chance has yet to be seen). What's the connection to Darwin?
> "chance collocation of atoms; something kicked up
> out of the slime by chance."Ironically, within the
> scientific community there is often a leap into
> Romanticism, personifying "Nature" and asserting
> that animals somehow consciously seek to propagate
> their genes, and that somehow the preservation of
> 'life' bestows 'value' upon things ... despite the
> expectation of an annihilating heat death of the
> entire universe.
Again, a position that no one accepts. Modern scientists do not subscribe to chance when talking of evolution (do you know this?).
So who is a 'Darwinist'? Even Richard Dawkins, who sometimes refers to himself as a darwinist, doesn't fall into your definition of Darwinist.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asks: "What are Darwinists?"
> Reply: Broadly speaking, contemporary men who
> postulate an impersonal, uncreated, undesigned
> beginning ... where everything that 'is' or can
> be, derives from impersonal matter + energy + time
> + chance ... where they themselves are merely a
In short, a position that no one accepts (chance has yet to be seen). What's the connection to Darwin?
> "chance collocation of atoms; something kicked up
> out of the slime by chance."Ironically, within the
> scientific community there is often a leap into
> Romanticism, personifying "Nature" and asserting
> that animals somehow consciously seek to propagate
> their genes, and that somehow the preservation of
> 'life' bestows 'value' upon things ... despite the
> expectation of an annihilating heat death of the
> entire universe.
Again, a position that no one accepts. Modern scientists do not subscribe to chance when talking of evolution (do you know this?).
So who is a 'Darwinist'? Even Richard Dawkins, who sometimes refers to himself as a darwinist, doesn't fall into your definition of Darwinist.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: February 02, 2009 04:48PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asks: "What are Darwinists?"
> Reply: Broadly speaking, contemporary men who
> postulate an impersonal, uncreated, undesigned
> beginning ... where everything that 'is' or can
> be, derives from impersonal matter + energy + time
> + chance ... where they themselves are merely a
> "chance collocation of atoms; something kicked up
> out of the slime by chance."Ironically, within the
> scientific community there is often a leap into
> Romanticism, personifying "Nature" and asserting
> that animals somehow consciously seek to propagate
> their genes, and that somehow the preservation of
> 'life' bestows 'value' upon things ... despite the
> expectation of an annihilating heat death of the
> entire universe.
That's funny, because your definition of "Darwinism" doesn't reflect Charles Darwin's views of God or life at all. Darwin started out as fairly religious and even though he became agnostic as he grew older, he never considered himself an atheist and never denied that God existed or that there wasn't some divine inspiration or direction for all things.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asks: "What are Darwinists?"
> Reply: Broadly speaking, contemporary men who
> postulate an impersonal, uncreated, undesigned
> beginning ... where everything that 'is' or can
> be, derives from impersonal matter + energy + time
> + chance ... where they themselves are merely a
> "chance collocation of atoms; something kicked up
> out of the slime by chance."Ironically, within the
> scientific community there is often a leap into
> Romanticism, personifying "Nature" and asserting
> that animals somehow consciously seek to propagate
> their genes, and that somehow the preservation of
> 'life' bestows 'value' upon things ... despite the
> expectation of an annihilating heat death of the
> entire universe.
That's funny, because your definition of "Darwinism" doesn't reflect Charles Darwin's views of God or life at all. Darwin started out as fairly religious and even though he became agnostic as he grew older, he never considered himself an atheist and never denied that God existed or that there wasn't some divine inspiration or direction for all things.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 02, 2009 04:55PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asks: "What are Darwinists?"
>Ironically, within the
> scientific community there is often a leap into
> Romanticism, personifying "Nature" and asserting
> that animals somehow consciously seek to propagate
> their genes, and that somehow the preservation of
> 'life' bestows 'value' upon things ... despite the
> expectation of an annihilating heat death of the
> entire universe.
Yet again, you miscast the debate in science - which is about at which levels of representation evolution can be said to act, and which approaches give the most tractable analytical tools
That species which develop mechanisms for successfully propagating their genes within reasonable bounds of sexual mixing, error correction and mutation are more successful is universally accepted in science.
Or as Dawkins would probably frame it, genes that co-locate with other genes to build organisms and high level mechanisms that enable effective propagation, tend to get propagated.
That the human mind is also an evolutionary artifact of the evolved human brain is also not in doubt amongst scientists.
There are fundamental differences between the brutal analysis of science and the romanticism of religion
In science, 'Value' in nature is not some kind of moral absolute - but it does force an understanding that our own quality of life and future as a species is deeply entwinned with the sustainability of the environment and its system.
Science's drive to understand and protect nature is informed self interest for the species, which seems to make much more sense that the destructive christian concept of dominion over nature and 'drill baby drill, the end times are coming'
Science is a hard task-master but an honest one
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asks: "What are Darwinists?"
>Ironically, within the
> scientific community there is often a leap into
> Romanticism, personifying "Nature" and asserting
> that animals somehow consciously seek to propagate
> their genes, and that somehow the preservation of
> 'life' bestows 'value' upon things ... despite the
> expectation of an annihilating heat death of the
> entire universe.
Yet again, you miscast the debate in science - which is about at which levels of representation evolution can be said to act, and which approaches give the most tractable analytical tools
That species which develop mechanisms for successfully propagating their genes within reasonable bounds of sexual mixing, error correction and mutation are more successful is universally accepted in science.
Or as Dawkins would probably frame it, genes that co-locate with other genes to build organisms and high level mechanisms that enable effective propagation, tend to get propagated.
That the human mind is also an evolutionary artifact of the evolved human brain is also not in doubt amongst scientists.
There are fundamental differences between the brutal analysis of science and the romanticism of religion
In science, 'Value' in nature is not some kind of moral absolute - but it does force an understanding that our own quality of life and future as a species is deeply entwinned with the sustainability of the environment and its system.
Science's drive to understand and protect nature is informed self interest for the species, which seems to make much more sense that the destructive christian concept of dominion over nature and 'drill baby drill, the end times are coming'
Science is a hard task-master but an honest one
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 02, 2009 05:07PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Pangloss asks: "What are Darwinists?"
> Modern
> scientists do not subscribe to chance when talking
> of evolution (do you know this?).
>
This does require some clarification.
Science and engineering do believe in statistics and chaotic systems - and hence the advantages of adaptive systems.
That a particular sexual mix, viral infection or UV caused mutation occurs in a particular environment that is compatible can be called 'chance' - and it should be made clear that there is no 'intent' in evolutionary biology, although systems which have the capability to adapt will have a disproportionate chance of success in changing circumstances - one of the reasons why modern organisms are so complex.
e.g. being an lighter grizzly in the woods isn't that useful, but being a genome that has the capacity to throw up lighter and lighter variants as the ice encroaches is
similarly having a human genome that if flexible enough to adapt to differing levels of UV as climate change forces migration north-south has been useful, whereas being blond and blue eyed in central africa would not have been.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Pangloss asks: "What are Darwinists?"
> Modern
> scientists do not subscribe to chance when talking
> of evolution (do you know this?).
>
This does require some clarification.
Science and engineering do believe in statistics and chaotic systems - and hence the advantages of adaptive systems.
That a particular sexual mix, viral infection or UV caused mutation occurs in a particular environment that is compatible can be called 'chance' - and it should be made clear that there is no 'intent' in evolutionary biology, although systems which have the capability to adapt will have a disproportionate chance of success in changing circumstances - one of the reasons why modern organisms are so complex.
e.g. being an lighter grizzly in the woods isn't that useful, but being a genome that has the capacity to throw up lighter and lighter variants as the ice encroaches is
similarly having a human genome that if flexible enough to adapt to differing levels of UV as climate change forces migration north-south has been useful, whereas being blond and blue eyed in central africa would not have been.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: February 02, 2009 05:20PM
Do you want to see a magic trick?
I'm about to make this thread a lot more interesting.
...
Ta-da!
Attachments:
I'm about to make this thread a lot more interesting.
...
Ta-da!
Attachments:
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 02, 2009 08:59PM
|
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 02, 2009 09:25PM
|
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2009 09:37PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 02, 2009 09:51PM
 | Nutters ... Nobel prize-winner George Wald once called Shakespeare a mere "collection of atoms." But Wald could not live and think consistently with his reductionism. Tell me that there is NOT desperately 'Romantic' personification here, in The Origin of Death, where Wald waxes poetic about ''germ plasm" immortality as opposed to personal immortality. Tell me why Prof. Wald wasn't laughed out of Harvard for his germ plasm -- almost "Intelligent Design" -- babblings. (Answer: Men don't want to live, and die, in an impersonal universe ... even if they have to take a great 'leap' to feel meaningful.) |
| ||
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2009 11:20AM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Getting Back on Topic...
()
Date: February 03, 2009 01:20AM
I especially hate the traffic jams on Route 7 that are caused by the massive size of the congregation and their insistence on all worshiping at the same time on Sundays.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 03, 2009 06:57AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mephisto's two bathing
> beauties as merely "chance collocations of atoms
> kicked up out of the ocean slime" ... and not
> intrinsically different from cows ... except for
> different DNA.Love one and marry it; kill the
> other and cook it ... What's the difference
Depends which state you're in
Seriously though, the difference is context - chimps care about other chimps, they eat bush-babies
-------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mephisto's two bathing
> beauties as merely "chance collocations of atoms
> kicked up out of the ocean slime" ... and not
> intrinsically different from cows ... except for
> different DNA.Love one and marry it; kill the
> other and cook it ... What's the difference
Depends which state you're in
Seriously though, the difference is context - chimps care about other chimps, they eat bush-babies
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 03, 2009 08:09AM
nutters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Eliot Ness Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Pangloss asks: "What are Darwinists?"
>
> > Modern
> > scientists do not subscribe to chance when
> talking
> > of evolution (do you know this?).
> >
>
>
> This does require some clarification.
>
> Science and engineering do believe in statistics
> and chaotic systems - and hence the advantages of
> adaptive systems.
>
> That a particular sexual mix, viral infection or
> UV caused mutation occurs in a particular
> environment that is compatible can be called
> 'chance' - and it should be made clear that there
> is no 'intent' in evolutionary biology, although
> systems which have the capability to adapt will
> have a disproportionate chance of success in
> changing circumstances - one of the reasons why
> modern organisms are so complex.
>
> e.g. being an lighter grizzly in the woods isn't
> that useful, but being a genome that has the
> capacity to throw up lighter and lighter variants
> as the ice encroaches is
>
> similarly having a human genome that if flexible
> enough to adapt to differing levels of UV as
> climate change forces migration north-south has
> been useful, whereas being blond and blue eyed in
> central africa would not have been.
Yes, I suppose some clarity was in order. There is chance in nature, however evolution is not a chance endeavor, which is why it's called natural selection.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Eliot Ness Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Pangloss asks: "What are Darwinists?"
>
> > Modern
> > scientists do not subscribe to chance when
> talking
> > of evolution (do you know this?).
> >
>
>
> This does require some clarification.
>
> Science and engineering do believe in statistics
> and chaotic systems - and hence the advantages of
> adaptive systems.
>
> That a particular sexual mix, viral infection or
> UV caused mutation occurs in a particular
> environment that is compatible can be called
> 'chance' - and it should be made clear that there
> is no 'intent' in evolutionary biology, although
> systems which have the capability to adapt will
> have a disproportionate chance of success in
> changing circumstances - one of the reasons why
> modern organisms are so complex.
>
> e.g. being an lighter grizzly in the woods isn't
> that useful, but being a genome that has the
> capacity to throw up lighter and lighter variants
> as the ice encroaches is
>
> similarly having a human genome that if flexible
> enough to adapt to differing levels of UV as
> climate change forces migration north-south has
> been useful, whereas being blond and blue eyed in
> central africa would not have been.
Yes, I suppose some clarity was in order. There is chance in nature, however evolution is not a chance endeavor, which is why it's called natural selection.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 03, 2009 08:13AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's another tougher-than-most-critics
> 'internal' question: "Why are some Christians so
> passionate to stop abortions, as if saving a
> baby's life were the same as saving its soul?"Do
> Christians expect all aborted fetuses to be
> resurrected and judged just like adults? If so, on
> what Biblical basis?If fetuses will NOT be
> resurrected and judged, then hasn't Planned
> Parenthood in effect backhandedly 'saved' millions
> from Hell by truly annihilating them?Perhaps as
> many as 50% of fertilized human eggs do NOT
> implant ... do Christians expect all of those
> embryos to be resurrected, in which case the
> single largest demographic at the Judgment will be
> those who never lived long enough to perform a
> single conscious action or acquire language.
> Wide-eyed and amazed at their sudden incarnation,
> might they be expected to be! (As might all
> resurrected children.)What about tubal ectopic
> pregnancies, with fetal pole and cardiac motion,
> which medical emergencies, if NOT aborted, will
> almost certainly kill the mother AND the child? At
> what point does a Christian doctor decide to 'play
> God' by performing abortive surgery to save the
> mother's life at the cost of the child's life,
> rather than leaving things entirely in "God's
> hands" with respect to abortion? (An estimated 50%
> of such pregnancies spontaneously abort.)
You make a point that I've made with my family numerous times. They are not Augustianians (sp?), so it should effect them, but it doesn't.
Modern Christians shouldn't be against abortion. Certainly, as I alluded to, Augustinian Christians should be, as they believe the unbaptized go to hell.
Most modern Christians believe in the age of accountability, and as such, I think that the best thing a Christian can do (according to that worldview) is to have an abortion, since it *guarantees* that their child goes to heaven - instead of giving their child a chance at growing up and becoming a hindu or atheist (and thus going to hell).
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's another tougher-than-most-critics
> 'internal' question: "Why are some Christians so
> passionate to stop abortions, as if saving a
> baby's life were the same as saving its soul?"Do
> Christians expect all aborted fetuses to be
> resurrected and judged just like adults? If so, on
> what Biblical basis?If fetuses will NOT be
> resurrected and judged, then hasn't Planned
> Parenthood in effect backhandedly 'saved' millions
> from Hell by truly annihilating them?Perhaps as
> many as 50% of fertilized human eggs do NOT
> implant ... do Christians expect all of those
> embryos to be resurrected, in which case the
> single largest demographic at the Judgment will be
> those who never lived long enough to perform a
> single conscious action or acquire language.
> Wide-eyed and amazed at their sudden incarnation,
> might they be expected to be! (As might all
> resurrected children.)What about tubal ectopic
> pregnancies, with fetal pole and cardiac motion,
> which medical emergencies, if NOT aborted, will
> almost certainly kill the mother AND the child? At
> what point does a Christian doctor decide to 'play
> God' by performing abortive surgery to save the
> mother's life at the cost of the child's life,
> rather than leaving things entirely in "God's
> hands" with respect to abortion? (An estimated 50%
> of such pregnancies spontaneously abort.)
You make a point that I've made with my family numerous times. They are not Augustianians (sp?), so it should effect them, but it doesn't.
Modern Christians shouldn't be against abortion. Certainly, as I alluded to, Augustinian Christians should be, as they believe the unbaptized go to hell.
Most modern Christians believe in the age of accountability, and as such, I think that the best thing a Christian can do (according to that worldview) is to have an abortion, since it *guarantees* that their child goes to heaven - instead of giving their child a chance at growing up and becoming a hindu or atheist (and thus going to hell).
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 03, 2009 08:17AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sadly, the JSN2ID'ers (Just-say-No to Intelligent
> Design) must regard Mr. Mephisto's two bathing
> beauties as merely "chance collocations of atoms
> kicked up out of the ocean slime" ...
This is what is wrong with Intelligent Design advocates - they do not understand evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory - ie, natural selection - is not a 'chance' endeavor.
> and not
> intrinsically different from cows ... except for
> different DNA.Love one and marry it; kill the
> other and cook it ... What's the difference in a
> truly impersonal universe?(Unless you cheat
The difference is the same as the difference in a personal difference; our individual values. You are pretending there is a difference in spite of evidence to the contrary.
> intellectually, and confect some arbitrary values
> to apply to human behavior -- as even irrational
> 'evil' scientists like Lysenko must do in order
> function as human beings in the world.)
You act as though Christianities values are not equally arbitrary (yet you do not refute my arguments to the contrary!).
Regardless though - and I've asked this several times - even if this were true (that non-Christian worldviews must be nihilistic) are you in favor of believing what we know to be false just because it makes us feel good (ie, Christianities appeal)?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sadly, the JSN2ID'ers (Just-say-No to Intelligent
> Design) must regard Mr. Mephisto's two bathing
> beauties as merely "chance collocations of atoms
> kicked up out of the ocean slime" ...
This is what is wrong with Intelligent Design advocates - they do not understand evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory - ie, natural selection - is not a 'chance' endeavor.
> and not
> intrinsically different from cows ... except for
> different DNA.Love one and marry it; kill the
> other and cook it ... What's the difference in a
> truly impersonal universe?(Unless you cheat
The difference is the same as the difference in a personal difference; our individual values. You are pretending there is a difference in spite of evidence to the contrary.
> intellectually, and confect some arbitrary values
> to apply to human behavior -- as even irrational
> 'evil' scientists like Lysenko must do in order
> function as human beings in the world.)
You act as though Christianities values are not equally arbitrary (yet you do not refute my arguments to the contrary!).
Regardless though - and I've asked this several times - even if this were true (that non-Christian worldviews must be nihilistic) are you in favor of believing what we know to be false just because it makes us feel good (ie, Christianities appeal)?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 03, 2009 01:07PM
| Pangloss asked: "Are you in favor of believing what we know to be false just because it makes us feel good (ie, Christianity's appeal)? | ||
| Ness replies: "No ... but Christianity does not 'make people feel good.' On the contrary, it makes them feel bad about themselves as (forgiven) 'sinners' and horrible about others as (unforgiven) sinners facing a very real wrath of God." | ||
| Personally, I would rather that Christianity be NOT true ... that there be no eternal judgment ... just 'non-being' and nothingness for Hitler and his victims alike. But that's not Christian 'reality.' | ||
| You can see some of the 'pain' of Christianity in Paul and Jesus: | ||
|
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2009 01:33PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: February 03, 2009 01:13PM
To clarify, I'd marry and love the one on the right, and eat the one on the left (even though I'd just be hungry again in another hour).
I'm a firm believer that we are all animals; our technilogical advancements haven't mitigated the animalistic behavior and instincts we still have; it's just changed the manner in which they manifest.
I'm a firm believer that we are all animals; our technilogical advancements haven't mitigated the animalistic behavior and instincts we still have; it's just changed the manner in which they manifest.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 03, 2009 01:31PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asked: "Are you in favor of believing
> what we know to be false just because it makes us
> feel good (ie, Christianity's appeal)?Ness
> replies: "No ... but Christianity does not 'make
> people feel good.' On the contrary, it makes them
> feel bad about themselves as (forgiven) 'sinners'
> and horrible about others as (unforgiven) sinners
> facing a very real wrath of God."Personally, I
Nonsense, just because Christianity (and quite a lot of other religions) have a piece of it that involves penance does not mean that it makes you feel 'bad'. The fact is that Christianity overall would make one feel good - the good guys win and get eternal paradise, while the bad guys lose and are punished forever. You can pretend that there is some level of sacrifice and some level of negatives, but the fact of the matter is that the overall 'feel badness' is outweighed infinitely by the 'feel goodness'. So you can stop pretending as though your worldview isn't peaches and icecream.
> would rather that Christianity be NOT true ...
> that there be no eternal judgment ... just
> 'non-being' and nothingness for Hitler and his
> victims alike. But that's not Christian
Oh please, I don't believe this at all and I don't even think you do. This whole time you have not once been interested in defending your religion. All you have been interested in is pointing out how the non-christian's worldview is nihilistic. What this indicates is that you *VERY MUCH* require eternal judgement and morality.
So either you are lying to yourself or us.
> 'reality.'You can see some of the 'pain' of
> Christianity in Paul and Jesus:Paul wrote that: I
> have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my
> heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed
> from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according
> to the flesh .Why was Paul in such pain? Because
> of "the righteous judgment of God the Lord Jesus
> shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty
> angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them
> that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of
> our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with
> everlasting destruction from the presence of the
> Lord, and from the glory of his power." (2 Thess
> 1)The NT twice states that Jesus wept ... once at
> the tomb of Lazarus, who he raised from the dead
> ... and again while approaching Jerusalem to
> die.As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city,
> he wept over it and said, "If you, even you, had
> only known on this day what would bring you
> peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The
> days will come upon you when your enemies will
> build an embankment against you and encircle you
> and hem you in on every side. They will dash you
> to the ground, you and the children within your
> walls. They will not leave one stone on another,
> because you did not recognize the time of God's
> coming to you." (Luke 19)Josephus records that the
> Romans crucified as many as 500 starving Jews each
> day, when they destroyed Jerusalem a generation
> later. (Try to imagine that scene in front of your
> house.)Lon Solomon talks about Josephus. And
> anyone who has listened to Solomon knows that he
> operates our of the same pain as Jesus and Paul
> ... which is why he has been spat upon and punched
> in the face (by fellow Jews in NYC). This is not
> "Happy Face" Christianity. Solomon is not in it
> for the money or public prestige (at the
> often-ridiculed MBC?). He would probably accept
> the metaphor of himself as a modern-day Jew
> rescued like a "like a brand from the burning"
> from unbelieving modern-day Jerusalem before the
> coming wrath. If you don't understand this, then
> you don't understand MBC at all.
>
I'm not saying that Christianity preaches *all good* things - but on balance, it does make you feel good.
This is just a red herring and you know it - because not once did you say that you were more interested in the truth. Regardless of the smoke you are trying to foist up our bums, the point is that you are more concerned with the implications of Christianity then you are of it's truthfulness.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asked: "Are you in favor of believing
> what we know to be false just because it makes us
> feel good (ie, Christianity's appeal)?Ness
> replies: "No ... but Christianity does not 'make
> people feel good.' On the contrary, it makes them
> feel bad about themselves as (forgiven) 'sinners'
> and horrible about others as (unforgiven) sinners
> facing a very real wrath of God."Personally, I
Nonsense, just because Christianity (and quite a lot of other religions) have a piece of it that involves penance does not mean that it makes you feel 'bad'. The fact is that Christianity overall would make one feel good - the good guys win and get eternal paradise, while the bad guys lose and are punished forever. You can pretend that there is some level of sacrifice and some level of negatives, but the fact of the matter is that the overall 'feel badness' is outweighed infinitely by the 'feel goodness'. So you can stop pretending as though your worldview isn't peaches and icecream.
> would rather that Christianity be NOT true ...
> that there be no eternal judgment ... just
> 'non-being' and nothingness for Hitler and his
> victims alike. But that's not Christian
Oh please, I don't believe this at all and I don't even think you do. This whole time you have not once been interested in defending your religion. All you have been interested in is pointing out how the non-christian's worldview is nihilistic. What this indicates is that you *VERY MUCH* require eternal judgement and morality.
So either you are lying to yourself or us.
> 'reality.'You can see some of the 'pain' of
> Christianity in Paul and Jesus:Paul wrote that: I
> have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my
> heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed
> from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according
> to the flesh .Why was Paul in such pain? Because
> of "the righteous judgment of God the Lord Jesus
> shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty
> angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them
> that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of
> our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with
> everlasting destruction from the presence of the
> Lord, and from the glory of his power." (2 Thess
> 1)The NT twice states that Jesus wept ... once at
> the tomb of Lazarus, who he raised from the dead
> ... and again while approaching Jerusalem to
> die.As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city,
> he wept over it and said, "If you, even you, had
> only known on this day what would bring you
> peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The
> days will come upon you when your enemies will
> build an embankment against you and encircle you
> and hem you in on every side. They will dash you
> to the ground, you and the children within your
> walls. They will not leave one stone on another,
> because you did not recognize the time of God's
> coming to you." (Luke 19)Josephus records that the
> Romans crucified as many as 500 starving Jews each
> day, when they destroyed Jerusalem a generation
> later. (Try to imagine that scene in front of your
> house.)Lon Solomon talks about Josephus. And
> anyone who has listened to Solomon knows that he
> operates our of the same pain as Jesus and Paul
> ... which is why he has been spat upon and punched
> in the face (by fellow Jews in NYC). This is not
> "Happy Face" Christianity. Solomon is not in it
> for the money or public prestige (at the
> often-ridiculed MBC?). He would probably accept
> the metaphor of himself as a modern-day Jew
> rescued like a "like a brand from the burning"
> from unbelieving modern-day Jerusalem before the
> coming wrath. If you don't understand this, then
> you don't understand MBC at all.
>
I'm not saying that Christianity preaches *all good* things - but on balance, it does make you feel good.
This is just a red herring and you know it - because not once did you say that you were more interested in the truth. Regardless of the smoke you are trying to foist up our bums, the point is that you are more concerned with the implications of Christianity then you are of it's truthfulness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 03, 2009 01:35PM
Seriously, the Christian worldview, at it's core doesn't even make sense. Let's examine it:
God creates entities that he knows will displease him (instead of only creating ones that freely choose not to), then he requires a sacrifice to appease himself. In order to appease himself, he comes down to earth in human skin, has it destroyed and then resumes his eternal existence.
For one, why does he require a sacrifice to appease himself? What sort of sense does that make?
For two, how is becoming flesh and dieing only to be restored to a much superior body (if it can be said to be such) a sacrifice AT ALL?
Shoot man, beat me and torture me for a day and then guarantee me a omnimax body - I'd do that in a heart beat.
I wouldn't, however, delude myself into believing that it was any sort of 'sacrifice'.
God creates entities that he knows will displease him (instead of only creating ones that freely choose not to), then he requires a sacrifice to appease himself. In order to appease himself, he comes down to earth in human skin, has it destroyed and then resumes his eternal existence.
For one, why does he require a sacrifice to appease himself? What sort of sense does that make?
For two, how is becoming flesh and dieing only to be restored to a much superior body (if it can be said to be such) a sacrifice AT ALL?
Shoot man, beat me and torture me for a day and then guarantee me a omnimax body - I'd do that in a heart beat.
I wouldn't, however, delude myself into believing that it was any sort of 'sacrifice'.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 03, 2009 01:56PM
| Pangloss: "Nonsense, just because Christianity (and quite a lot of other religions) have a piece of it that involves penance does not mean that it makes you feel 'bad'. The fact is that Christianity overall would make one feel good - the good guys win and get eternal paradise, while the bad guys lose and are punished forever. You can pretend that there is some level of sacrifice and some level of negatives, but the fact of the matter is that the overall 'feel badness' is outweighed infinitely by the 'feel goodness'. So you can stop pretending as though your worldview isn't peaches and ice cream." | I would never presume to read your mind and lecture you about your real feelings ... any Christian with empathy will hurt deeply at times. Indeed, some leave everything behind and become missionaries to [literally] God-forsaken places where they are killed for their efforts. The NT is not a "Happy Face" book. |
| Oh please, I don't believe this at all and I don't even think you do. This whole time you have not once been interested in defending your religion. All you have been interested in is pointing out how the non-christian's worldview is nihilistic. What this indicates is that you *VERY MUCH* require eternal judgment and morality. ... So either you are lying to yourself or us. | I would never presume to read your mind and call you a liar ... I am in fact deeply convinced that in an impersonal universe, a consistent man would be forced to true metaphysical Nihilism, whereas the inconsistent man escapes in some form of baseless Romanticism. In contrast, Christians live in a fundamentally 'personal' universe. |
| This is just a red herring and you know it - because not once did you say that you were more interested in the truth. Regardless of the smoke you are trying to foist up our bums, the point is that you are more concerned with the implications of Christianity then you are of its truthfulness. | The 'implications' of Christianity are directly related to whether Christianity is historically and cosmologically true (let's call that 'true truth') as opposed to some form of personal narcotic. |
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2009 02:01PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 03, 2009 02:39PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would never presume
> to read your mind and lecture you about your real
> feelings ... any Christian with empathy will hurt
> deeply at times. Indeed, some leave everything
> behind and become missionaries to God-forsaken
> places where they are killed for their efforts.
> The NT is not a "Happy Face" book.
>
You have attempted to do just that all throughout this thread - why pretend otherwise now?
I'm not saying that Christians don't empathize or hurt deeply, or are not zealous about their faith. That's a strawman.
The NT is very much a happy faced book - Jesus tells his followers that there are rough patches ahead, but have faith and you will be forgiven and that good will eventually vanquish evil. You are apparently missing the overall message of the bible - missing the forrest for the trees. You are trying to have it both ways, and it's transparent.
Is not the suffering that people face on earth not worth the eternal paradise and being holy?
If it's not, then you have a serious logical problem with your 'omnibenevolent' god.
> I would
> never presume to read your mind and call you a
> liar ... I am in fact deeply convinced that in an
> impersonal universe, a consistent man would be
> forced to true metaphysical Nihilism, whereas the
> inconsistent man escapes in some form of baseless
> Romanticism.
You wouldn't outright say it, but you've been calling me a liar the entire thread by accepting the dichotomy between 'christian' and 'non christian'. You need to actually provide evidence - not just 'believe' - for your claims about the 'consistent man'.
Seriously, this is getting old Eliot - you are making your faith look silly and making yourself look hypocritical.
> In contrast, Christians live in a
> fundamentally 'personal' universe.
Which is incoherent.
> The 'implications' of Christianity are directly
> related to whether Christianity is historically
> and cosmologically true (let's call that 'true
> truth') as opposed to some form of personal
> narcotic.
Nonsense Eliot. You aren't interested in whether Christianity is historically or cosmologically true at all, you are interested in whether Christianity emotionally appeals to you.
Let's look at your posts:
You've failed to defend or refute anything that deals with facts, evidence, and logical arguments. Even the softball anti-cosmological argument I pitched to you was ignored. Were you interested in truth, you would have actually tried to defend your position.
What you are interested in is whether or not Christianity satisfies your preconditions of being anti-nihilistic. The ironic thing is I pointed out that this cannot be and you ignored it.
You are not interested in discussing this topic, nor getting at the truth, you are interested in preaching your garbage to make yourself feel better. Yet you use the moniker 'Eliot Ness'. Irony at it's best.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2009 02:40PM by Professor Pangloss.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would never presume
> to read your mind and lecture you about your real
> feelings ... any Christian with empathy will hurt
> deeply at times. Indeed, some leave everything
> behind and become missionaries to God-forsaken
> places where they are killed for their efforts.
> The NT is not a "Happy Face" book.
>
You have attempted to do just that all throughout this thread - why pretend otherwise now?
I'm not saying that Christians don't empathize or hurt deeply, or are not zealous about their faith. That's a strawman.
The NT is very much a happy faced book - Jesus tells his followers that there are rough patches ahead, but have faith and you will be forgiven and that good will eventually vanquish evil. You are apparently missing the overall message of the bible - missing the forrest for the trees. You are trying to have it both ways, and it's transparent.
Is not the suffering that people face on earth not worth the eternal paradise and being holy?
If it's not, then you have a serious logical problem with your 'omnibenevolent' god.
> I would
> never presume to read your mind and call you a
> liar ... I am in fact deeply convinced that in an
> impersonal universe, a consistent man would be
> forced to true metaphysical Nihilism, whereas the
> inconsistent man escapes in some form of baseless
> Romanticism.
You wouldn't outright say it, but you've been calling me a liar the entire thread by accepting the dichotomy between 'christian' and 'non christian'. You need to actually provide evidence - not just 'believe' - for your claims about the 'consistent man'.
Seriously, this is getting old Eliot - you are making your faith look silly and making yourself look hypocritical.
> In contrast, Christians live in a
> fundamentally 'personal' universe.
Which is incoherent.
> The 'implications' of Christianity are directly
> related to whether Christianity is historically
> and cosmologically true (let's call that 'true
> truth') as opposed to some form of personal
> narcotic.
Nonsense Eliot. You aren't interested in whether Christianity is historically or cosmologically true at all, you are interested in whether Christianity emotionally appeals to you.
Let's look at your posts:
You've failed to defend or refute anything that deals with facts, evidence, and logical arguments. Even the softball anti-cosmological argument I pitched to you was ignored. Were you interested in truth, you would have actually tried to defend your position.
What you are interested in is whether or not Christianity satisfies your preconditions of being anti-nihilistic. The ironic thing is I pointed out that this cannot be and you ignored it.
You are not interested in discussing this topic, nor getting at the truth, you are interested in preaching your garbage to make yourself feel better. Yet you use the moniker 'Eliot Ness'. Irony at it's best.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2009 02:40PM by Professor Pangloss.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 03, 2009 02:43PM
Pangloss: Seriously, the Christian worldview, at its core doesn't even make sense. Let's examine it: * God creates entities that he knows will displease him (instead of only creating ones that freely choose not to), then he requires a sacrifice to appease himself. In order to appease himself, he comes down to earth in human skin, has it destroyed and then resumes his eternal existence. | You've asked one of my favorite tougher-than-the-critics internal questions: ."Why isn't Jesus still in Hell suffering for all eternity, 'X' times as much as would have been required for the 'X' number of humans that he saves? 1) Jesus himself clearly regarded his Crucifixion as a huge 'sacrifice, repeatedly asking God to do things some other way:' "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death." ... Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." ... He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done." (Matthew 26)2) Jesus-as-Man within the created cosmos was on the Cross for only a few hours before he died. There is every Biblical reason to understand that Jesus-as-God did indeed suffer the full, eternal amount of 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' required to ransom 'X' number of human beings for all eternity. "... he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed." (Isaiah 53)3) In the last analysis, of course, it depends upon whether you believe God or not - the Bible makes it clear that Jesus' life and death were not merely Kabuki theater, a trivial slam dunk, but rather required phenomenal effort on the part of Jesus, both in life and in what Paul called the "foolishness" of his death on the Cross. "God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength." (1 Corinthians 1) |
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2009 03:05PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: February 03, 2009 03:00PM
How can you suffer an eternal amount of suffering without spending eternity suffering?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 03, 2009 03:07PM
Mephisto: "How can you suffer an eternal amount of suffering without spending eternity suffering?"
Ness: Suffer like Jesus did ... as Man and as as God (outside of created space/time) ... rather than as Men will, limited to created space/time.
(Note that it therefore truly matters whether God is encircled by the cosmos, or whether He created the cosmos but entered it as truly God and truly Man, in the person of Jesus.)
Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2009 03:18PM by Eliot Ness.
Ness: Suffer like Jesus did ... as Man and as as God (outside of created space/time) ... rather than as Men will, limited to created space/time.
(Note that it therefore truly matters whether God is encircled by the cosmos, or whether He created the cosmos but entered it as truly God and truly Man, in the person of Jesus.)
Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2009 03:18PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: February 03, 2009 03:11PM
So once we die, we'll be taken out of space and time as well, and won't suffer for an actual eternity?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 03, 2009 03:12PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You've asked one of my favorite
> tougher-than-the-critics internal questions: ."Why
> isn't Jesus still in Hell suffering for all
> eternity, 'X' times as much as would have been
> required for the 'X' number of humans that he
> saves?1) Jesus himself clearly regarded his
> Crucifixion as a huge 'sacrifice, repeatedly
> asking God to do things some other way:'
> "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point
> of death." ... Going a little farther, he fell
Um, kind of. My first question is why require a blood sacrifice at all?
> with his face to the ground and prayed, "My
> Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken
> from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." ...
> He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father,
> if it is not possible for this cup to be taken
> away unless I drink it, may your will be done."
> (Matthew 26)2) Jesus-as-Man within the created
> cosmos was on the Cross for only a few hours
> before he died. There is every Biblical reason to
> understand that Jesus-as-God did indeed suffer the
> full, eternal amount of 'weeping and gnashing of
> teeth' required to ransom 'X' number of human
> beings for all eternity."... he was pierced for
Um...So god's still suffering and will be suffering for eternity?
Why allow people to suffer for eternity to begin with? Why not just make it so they cease to exist? Why would a good god, with the power to do otherwise, allow people to suffer for eternity?
> our transgressions, he was crushed for our
> iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace
> was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."
> (Isaiah 53)3) In the last analysis, of course, it
I believe Isaiah is referring to Isreal, not Jesus - as that's what the chapter is about. It is *Certainly* not giving any evidence that it's referring to Jesus' time in hell.
What evidence (textual) do you have that Jesus went to hell *at all*??
> depends upon whether you believe God or not - the
> Bible makes it clear that Jesus' life and death
> were not merely Kabuki theater, a trivial slam
> dunk, but rather required phenomenal effort on the
> part of Jesus, both in life and in what Paul
> called the "foolishness" of his death on the
> Cross."God was pleased through the foolishness of
> what was preached to save those who believe. Jews
> demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for
> wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a
> stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to
> Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both
> Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the
> wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser
> than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is
> stronger than man's strength." (1 Corinthians 1)
Sorry, but this is nonsense:
1. Jesus/god did not spend an eternity in hell - otherwise Jesus/god would still be there and there definitely could be no second comming.
2. There is no biblical evidence that Jesus even went to hell in the first place.
3. What logical sense does it make for a sacrifice in the first place?
-------------------------------------------------------
> You've asked one of my favorite
> tougher-than-the-critics internal questions: ."Why
> isn't Jesus still in Hell suffering for all
> eternity, 'X' times as much as would have been
> required for the 'X' number of humans that he
> saves?1) Jesus himself clearly regarded his
> Crucifixion as a huge 'sacrifice, repeatedly
> asking God to do things some other way:'
> "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point
> of death." ... Going a little farther, he fell
Um, kind of. My first question is why require a blood sacrifice at all?
> with his face to the ground and prayed, "My
> Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken
> from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." ...
> He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father,
> if it is not possible for this cup to be taken
> away unless I drink it, may your will be done."
> (Matthew 26)2) Jesus-as-Man within the created
> cosmos was on the Cross for only a few hours
> before he died. There is every Biblical reason to
> understand that Jesus-as-God did indeed suffer the
> full, eternal amount of 'weeping and gnashing of
> teeth' required to ransom 'X' number of human
> beings for all eternity."... he was pierced for
Um...So god's still suffering and will be suffering for eternity?
Why allow people to suffer for eternity to begin with? Why not just make it so they cease to exist? Why would a good god, with the power to do otherwise, allow people to suffer for eternity?
> our transgressions, he was crushed for our
> iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace
> was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."
> (Isaiah 53)3) In the last analysis, of course, it
I believe Isaiah is referring to Isreal, not Jesus - as that's what the chapter is about. It is *Certainly* not giving any evidence that it's referring to Jesus' time in hell.
What evidence (textual) do you have that Jesus went to hell *at all*??
> depends upon whether you believe God or not - the
> Bible makes it clear that Jesus' life and death
> were not merely Kabuki theater, a trivial slam
> dunk, but rather required phenomenal effort on the
> part of Jesus, both in life and in what Paul
> called the "foolishness" of his death on the
> Cross."God was pleased through the foolishness of
> what was preached to save those who believe. Jews
> demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for
> wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a
> stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to
> Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both
> Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the
> wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser
> than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is
> stronger than man's strength." (1 Corinthians 1)
Sorry, but this is nonsense:
1. Jesus/god did not spend an eternity in hell - otherwise Jesus/god would still be there and there definitely could be no second comming.
2. There is no biblical evidence that Jesus even went to hell in the first place.
3. What logical sense does it make for a sacrifice in the first place?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 03, 2009 03:14PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mephisto: "How can you suffer an eternal amount of
> suffering without spending eternity suffering?"
>
> Ness: Suffer like Jesus did ... as Man and as as
> God (outside of created space/time) ... rather
> than as Men will, limited to created space/time.
How exactly can it be said that an entity (Jesus the man) that requires space and time in order to exist could exist outside of space and time?
Further if Jesus spent an eternity in hell - how was he resurrected? This seems impossible since there would be an eternity of time that would have to be crossed in order to make it the three days to the resurrection.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mephisto: "How can you suffer an eternal amount of
> suffering without spending eternity suffering?"
>
> Ness: Suffer like Jesus did ... as Man and as as
> God (outside of created space/time) ... rather
> than as Men will, limited to created space/time.
How exactly can it be said that an entity (Jesus the man) that requires space and time in order to exist could exist outside of space and time?
Further if Jesus spent an eternity in hell - how was he resurrected? This seems impossible since there would be an eternity of time that would have to be crossed in order to make it the three days to the resurrection.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 03, 2009 03:16PM
Essentially your position is that we need to have faith in Christianity, Eliot.
Ignore the logical contradictions, science, and common sense and just believe.
Ignore the logical contradictions, science, and common sense and just believe.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 03, 2009 03:33PM
Before we go any further Eliot, please demonstrate that this universe requires a creator.
This seems to be your fundamental sticking point and although I've pointed out that this notion is incoherent, this seems lost on you. So I'll try a different tact (the tact above).
This seems to be your fundamental sticking point and although I've pointed out that this notion is incoherent, this seems lost on you. So I'll try a different tact (the tact above).
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 04, 2009 02:21PM
| Pangloss wrote: "Modern scientists do not subscribe to chance when talking of evolution (do you know this?)." |
| Sure they do ... |
F.A.Schaeffer"In our day, humanistic reason affirms that there is only the cosmic machine, which encompasses everything, including people. To those who hold this view, everything people are or do is explained by ... some kind of reductionism." ... "In one form of reductionism, man is explained by reducing him to the smallest particles which make up his body. Man is seen as being only the molecule or the energy particle, more complex bu not intrinsically different." |
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2009 02:46PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 04, 2009 02:42PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: "Modern scientists do not
> subscribe to chance when talking of evolution (do
> you know this?)."Sure they do ...
> "In our day, humanistic reason affirms that there
> is only the cosmic machine, which encompasses
> everything, including people. To those who hold
> this view, everything people are or do is
> explained by ... some kind of reductionism."
> ...
This doesn't support your assertion, please try again.
> "In one form of reductionism, man is explained by
> reducing him to the smallest particles which make
> up his body. Man is seen as being only the
> molecule or the energy particle, more complex bu
> not intrinsically different."
1. Science isn't held to reductionism.
2. This doesn't support your assertion.
3. This commits the logical fallacy of composition.
> "I have never heard this expressed more clearly
> than when I was lecturing in Acapulco, Mexico.
> George Wald, a biology professor from Harvard
> University, was also there lecturing to the same
> group. He expressed with great force the modern
> concept that all things, including man, are merely
> the product of chance. After he had stressed over
Please provide some support for this, your word is not good enough. A biologist would be familar with the theory of evolution, which is not a chance endeavor.
> and over again that all things, beginning from the
> molecule and ending with man, are only a product
> of chance, he said, "Four hundred years ago there
> was a collection of molecules named Shakespeare
> which produced Hamlet." According to these
> theories, that is all that man can be. Man
> beginning with his proud, proud humanism, tried to
> make himself autonomous, but rather than becoming
> great, he had found himself ending up as only a
> collection of molecules -- and nothing more."
Which 'theories' is he talking about? Certainly not evolutionary theory, since as I've repeatedly pointed out is not a chance endeavor. As anyone with any sense can see that natural selection is a *selection* process and ergo, is not a 'chance' process.
My guess is that you are taking his words out of context and as a result you are actively lying about what he intended to his words - like you did last time that I caught you doing this.
> " equation of the impersonal plus time plus chance
> producing the total configuration of the universe
> and all that is in it, modern people hold by
> faith.
Modern scientists do not hold this by faith. In fact, ever since Darwin, it has been known that mankind is a product of evolution, which is the antithesis of chance.
> And if one does in faith accept this, with
> what final value is he left? In his lecture at
> Acapulco, George Wald finished with only one
> value. It was the same one with which English
> philosopher Bertrand Russell was left. For Wald
> and Russell and for many other modern thinkers,
> the final value is the biological continuity of
> the human race. If this is the only final value,
> one is left wondering why this then has
> importance."
You are stretching the term 'modern' as both of those people are dead. Further this is an opinion and not rationally argued for - ergo we can dismiss it as intellectually vacuous.
> "Beginning only from man himself, people affirm
> that man is only a machine. But those who hold
> this position cannot live like machines! If they
> could, there would have been no tensions in their
> intellectual position or in their lives. But even
> people who believe they are machines cannot live
> like machines, and thus they must "leap upstairs"
> against their reason and try to find something
> which gives meaning to life, even though to do so
> they have to deny their reason." F.A.Schaeffer
Yeah, Schaeffer wasn't very intellectually impressive and there is no reason to accept what he said. You most certainly have failed to argue for any of the positions he's put forth.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: "Modern scientists do not
> subscribe to chance when talking of evolution (do
> you know this?)."Sure they do ...
> "In our day, humanistic reason affirms that there
> is only the cosmic machine, which encompasses
> everything, including people. To those who hold
> this view, everything people are or do is
> explained by ... some kind of reductionism."
> ...
This doesn't support your assertion, please try again.
> "In one form of reductionism, man is explained by
> reducing him to the smallest particles which make
> up his body. Man is seen as being only the
> molecule or the energy particle, more complex bu
> not intrinsically different."
1. Science isn't held to reductionism.
2. This doesn't support your assertion.
3. This commits the logical fallacy of composition.
> "I have never heard this expressed more clearly
> than when I was lecturing in Acapulco, Mexico.
> George Wald, a biology professor from Harvard
> University, was also there lecturing to the same
> group. He expressed with great force the modern
> concept that all things, including man, are merely
> the product of chance. After he had stressed over
Please provide some support for this, your word is not good enough. A biologist would be familar with the theory of evolution, which is not a chance endeavor.
> and over again that all things, beginning from the
> molecule and ending with man, are only a product
> of chance, he said, "Four hundred years ago there
> was a collection of molecules named Shakespeare
> which produced Hamlet." According to these
> theories, that is all that man can be. Man
> beginning with his proud, proud humanism, tried to
> make himself autonomous, but rather than becoming
> great, he had found himself ending up as only a
> collection of molecules -- and nothing more."
Which 'theories' is he talking about? Certainly not evolutionary theory, since as I've repeatedly pointed out is not a chance endeavor. As anyone with any sense can see that natural selection is a *selection* process and ergo, is not a 'chance' process.
My guess is that you are taking his words out of context and as a result you are actively lying about what he intended to his words - like you did last time that I caught you doing this.
> " equation of the impersonal plus time plus chance
> producing the total configuration of the universe
> and all that is in it, modern people hold by
> faith.
Modern scientists do not hold this by faith. In fact, ever since Darwin, it has been known that mankind is a product of evolution, which is the antithesis of chance.
> And if one does in faith accept this, with
> what final value is he left? In his lecture at
> Acapulco, George Wald finished with only one
> value. It was the same one with which English
> philosopher Bertrand Russell was left. For Wald
> and Russell and for many other modern thinkers,
> the final value is the biological continuity of
> the human race. If this is the only final value,
> one is left wondering why this then has
> importance."
You are stretching the term 'modern' as both of those people are dead. Further this is an opinion and not rationally argued for - ergo we can dismiss it as intellectually vacuous.
> "Beginning only from man himself, people affirm
> that man is only a machine. But those who hold
> this position cannot live like machines! If they
> could, there would have been no tensions in their
> intellectual position or in their lives. But even
> people who believe they are machines cannot live
> like machines, and thus they must "leap upstairs"
> against their reason and try to find something
> which gives meaning to life, even though to do so
> they have to deny their reason." F.A.Schaeffer
Yeah, Schaeffer wasn't very intellectually impressive and there is no reason to accept what he said. You most certainly have failed to argue for any of the positions he's put forth.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 04, 2009 02:43PM
| Pangloss wrote: "Sorry, but this is nonsense."
1. Jesus/god did not spend an eternity in hell - otherwise Jesus/god would still be there and there definitely could be no second coming. 2. There is no biblical evidence that Jesus even went to hell in the first place. 3. What logical sense does it make for a sacrifice in the first place? |
|
1. Bible says Jesus' human body did not spend an eternity "in hell" ... but arose on the third day. However, Bible clearly states that Jesus' suffering was sufficient to satisfy God for many, many humans. 2. Correct. Bible does not say Jesus was in the "Hell" that will be created for Satan and his angels, and unforgiven humans. Bible does say that Jesus was in Sheol/Hades, the current temporary resting place of the dead. 3. Bible clearly states that the requirement for 'sacrifice' to pay for sin is God's prerogative, your feelings notwithstanding. |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 04, 2009 02:44PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Pangloss wrote: Freud's idea that god was
> > basically a substitute for a parent or father
> > figure. It seems odd for me to view God in this
> > way, as God could not possess these attributes
> in
> > any way feasibly known to human beings.
> >
> >
> > You're omitting the word "fabricated" from
> > Freud's view.
>
> What is your meaning here - that Freud said that
> mankind fabricated god in the image of his parent?
> Or that Freud was fabricating in general?
>
> > The "father" metaphor is everywhere in the
> Bible,
> > and is used by Jesus and God to describe their
> > relationship. ("This is my beloved Son. Hear ye
> > him.")
>
> True.
>
> > Goddess worship, and the "mother" metaphor,
> are
> > non-Christian. Intriguingly, Roman Catholicism
> has
> > progressively elevated Jesus' mother Mary to
> > god-like status ... despite the fact that she
> > plays only a small role in the NT after Jesus'
> > birth, and disappears from history after Acts
> > Chapter 1.
>
> Not really true - unless you discount ancient
> Hebrew. I take it you are unfamilar with God's
> wife?
>
> > It's dogmatic to assert that "God could not
> > possess these attributes in any way feasibly
> known
> > to human beings."
>
> Not really - if god is infinite and has infinite
> attributes, then an entity with finite attributes
> and finite understanding could not, by definition,
> understand the infinite being.
>
> > Why couldn't a personal God communicate his
> > 'attributes' to his creatures in human
> language?
>
> You are cherry picking your bible. In the old
> testament god basically explained his ways as
> being unknowable by man. Or do you explain the
> book of job in some other way?
>
> > (It is an Eastern religion presupposition that
> God
> > is unknowable and "could not" do so.)
>
> Are you unfamilar with Eastern Orthodoxy during
> the Dark ages? They subscribed to god's
> incoherency, as an example I submit the trinity,
> which they believed was beyond reason. Read The
> History Of God, if you want the full story.
>
> > Jesus' view of Scripture is precisely that a
> > personal God communicated with his personal
> > creatures in human language -- in Hebrew to
> Moses
> > and the Prophets.
> > Jesus also told his disciples that if they
> have
> > seen him, they have seen God (specifically,
> "the
> > Father"),
> > Paul's view of Scripture was the same as
> Jesus'
> > ... "pasa graphe theopneustos" ... all
> scripture
> > is god-breathed.
> > In fact, the word 'prophet' means 'spokesman'
> > rather than future-predictor. (pro=for,
> > phemein=speak) Prophets sometimes described the
> > future (as it is known to God), but more
> > importantly they spoke human words to human
> beings
> > as given to them by God.
>
> In all fairness you are cherry picking Christian
> beliefs here. Have you not heard of Gnostic
> Christianity? The book of thomas?
>
> This next section really diminishes my respect for
> you Elliot. You succumb to passing on creationist
> dishonesty through quote mining. Either you have
> not read the original sources or you have and you
> persist in passing on dishonesty.
>
> Please list the context of these quotes, as they
> make no sense:
>
> > “To the question why we do not find rich
> > fossiliferous deposits belonging to these
> assumed
> > earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system,
> I
> > can give no satisfactory answer.” Ibid., p.
> 350.
>
> This makes no sense because we *HAVE* found
> earlier periods - the Precambrian!
>
> > “The case at present must remain
> inexplicable,
> > and may be truly urged as a valid argument
> against
> > the views here entertained.” Ibid., p. 351.
> > “The most famous such burst, the Cambrian
> > explosion, marks the inception of modern
> > multicellular life. Within just a few million
> > years, nearly every major kind of animal
> anatomy
> > appears in the fossil record for the first time
> > ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently
> > good that the old rationale about undiscovered
> > sequences of smoothly transitional forms will
> no
> > longer wash.” Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid
> to
> > Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65.
>
> This is completely dishonest as it spins Gould's
> words as those of someone who doesn't accept that
> transitional fossils as evidence of evolution.
> Either you expect us to be unfamilar with Gould or
> you yourself are unfamilar with Gould.
>
> Do you know what his theory for the mechanism of
> evolution is? It's punctuated equilibrium. What he
> is arguing here is that gradual evolution - ie, a
> smooth transition of creatures is incorrect.
> Instead, evolution works on long periods of status
> followed by rapid (as in millions of years)
> periods of change. That's why he specifically
> says "the old rationale about undiscovered
> sequences of *SMOOTHLY* transitional forms".
>
> You are being dishonest here or you didn't do your
> due diligence in checking creationist sources.
>
> >
> >Ness replies: Ummm ... though Communism claims to
> be "scientific" socialsim, I >submit that it (and
> Nazism) are clearly Darwinian cults ...
>
> Um, you thought wrong. Stalin's communism
> specifically REJECTED Darwinian evolution.
>
> Further, did you forget that Hitler tried to find
> Christian artifacts? Such as the Spear of Destiny?
> Nazism was an ideological cult - one that had
> Nordic influences, Christian influences, and many
> other influences. It is not honest to simply
> forget the other influences and to blame it on
> Darwin (evolution does not support eugeneics,
> btw).
>
> My guess is that you haven't really looked into
> either Stalinist communism or Nazism. Just for
> edification, what was the mechanism of selection
> for Stalinist communism?
>
> Again though, you merely ignoring the fact that
> even if what you say was true (which it isn't, as
> I've shown), that STILL doesn't mean that
> christianity is correct. So at best, if you are
> right, you are engaging in wishful thinking by
> accepting christianity.
Here's an example of Eliot's first brush with dishonest quote mining.
Please learn to be honest Eliot.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Pangloss wrote: Freud's idea that god was
> > basically a substitute for a parent or father
> > figure. It seems odd for me to view God in this
> > way, as God could not possess these attributes
> in
> > any way feasibly known to human beings.
> >
> >
> > You're omitting the word "fabricated" from
> > Freud's view.
>
> What is your meaning here - that Freud said that
> mankind fabricated god in the image of his parent?
> Or that Freud was fabricating in general?
>
> > The "father" metaphor is everywhere in the
> Bible,
> > and is used by Jesus and God to describe their
> > relationship. ("This is my beloved Son. Hear ye
> > him.")
>
> True.
>
> > Goddess worship, and the "mother" metaphor,
> are
> > non-Christian. Intriguingly, Roman Catholicism
> has
> > progressively elevated Jesus' mother Mary to
> > god-like status ... despite the fact that she
> > plays only a small role in the NT after Jesus'
> > birth, and disappears from history after Acts
> > Chapter 1.
>
> Not really true - unless you discount ancient
> Hebrew. I take it you are unfamilar with God's
> wife?
>
> > It's dogmatic to assert that "God could not
> > possess these attributes in any way feasibly
> known
> > to human beings."
>
> Not really - if god is infinite and has infinite
> attributes, then an entity with finite attributes
> and finite understanding could not, by definition,
> understand the infinite being.
>
> > Why couldn't a personal God communicate his
> > 'attributes' to his creatures in human
> language?
>
> You are cherry picking your bible. In the old
> testament god basically explained his ways as
> being unknowable by man. Or do you explain the
> book of job in some other way?
>
> > (It is an Eastern religion presupposition that
> God
> > is unknowable and "could not" do so.)
>
> Are you unfamilar with Eastern Orthodoxy during
> the Dark ages? They subscribed to god's
> incoherency, as an example I submit the trinity,
> which they believed was beyond reason. Read The
> History Of God, if you want the full story.
>
> > Jesus' view of Scripture is precisely that a
> > personal God communicated with his personal
> > creatures in human language -- in Hebrew to
> Moses
> > and the Prophets.
> > Jesus also told his disciples that if they
> have
> > seen him, they have seen God (specifically,
> "the
> > Father"),
> > Paul's view of Scripture was the same as
> Jesus'
> > ... "pasa graphe theopneustos" ... all
> scripture
> > is god-breathed.
> > In fact, the word 'prophet' means 'spokesman'
> > rather than future-predictor. (pro=for,
> > phemein=speak) Prophets sometimes described the
> > future (as it is known to God), but more
> > importantly they spoke human words to human
> beings
> > as given to them by God.
>
> In all fairness you are cherry picking Christian
> beliefs here. Have you not heard of Gnostic
> Christianity? The book of thomas?
>
> This next section really diminishes my respect for
> you Elliot. You succumb to passing on creationist
> dishonesty through quote mining. Either you have
> not read the original sources or you have and you
> persist in passing on dishonesty.
>
> Please list the context of these quotes, as they
> make no sense:
>
> > “To the question why we do not find rich
> > fossiliferous deposits belonging to these
> assumed
> > earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system,
> I
> > can give no satisfactory answer.” Ibid., p.
> 350.
>
> This makes no sense because we *HAVE* found
> earlier periods - the Precambrian!
>
> > “The case at present must remain
> inexplicable,
> > and may be truly urged as a valid argument
> against
> > the views here entertained.” Ibid., p. 351.
> > “The most famous such burst, the Cambrian
> > explosion, marks the inception of modern
> > multicellular life. Within just a few million
> > years, nearly every major kind of animal
> anatomy
> > appears in the fossil record for the first time
> > ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently
> > good that the old rationale about undiscovered
> > sequences of smoothly transitional forms will
> no
> > longer wash.” Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid
> to
> > Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65.
>
> This is completely dishonest as it spins Gould's
> words as those of someone who doesn't accept that
> transitional fossils as evidence of evolution.
> Either you expect us to be unfamilar with Gould or
> you yourself are unfamilar with Gould.
>
> Do you know what his theory for the mechanism of
> evolution is? It's punctuated equilibrium. What he
> is arguing here is that gradual evolution - ie, a
> smooth transition of creatures is incorrect.
> Instead, evolution works on long periods of status
> followed by rapid (as in millions of years)
> periods of change. That's why he specifically
> says "the old rationale about undiscovered
> sequences of *SMOOTHLY* transitional forms".
>
> You are being dishonest here or you didn't do your
> due diligence in checking creationist sources.
>
> >
> >Ness replies: Ummm ... though Communism claims to
> be "scientific" socialsim, I >submit that it (and
> Nazism) are clearly Darwinian cults ...
>
> Um, you thought wrong. Stalin's communism
> specifically REJECTED Darwinian evolution.
>
> Further, did you forget that Hitler tried to find
> Christian artifacts? Such as the Spear of Destiny?
> Nazism was an ideological cult - one that had
> Nordic influences, Christian influences, and many
> other influences. It is not honest to simply
> forget the other influences and to blame it on
> Darwin (evolution does not support eugeneics,
> btw).
>
> My guess is that you haven't really looked into
> either Stalinist communism or Nazism. Just for
> edification, what was the mechanism of selection
> for Stalinist communism?
>
> Again though, you merely ignoring the fact that
> even if what you say was true (which it isn't, as
> I've shown), that STILL doesn't mean that
> christianity is correct. So at best, if you are
> right, you are engaging in wishful thinking by
> accepting christianity.
Here's an example of Eliot's first brush with dishonest quote mining.
Please learn to be honest Eliot.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 04, 2009 02:48PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. Bible says Jesus' human body did not spend an
> eternity "in hell" ... but arose on the third day.
> However, Bible clearly states that Jesus'
> suffering was sufficient to satisfy God for many,
> many humans.
Yes, the bible says a lot of illogical nonsense - please demonstrate how it's logically consistent to have a finite sacrifice atone for an eternal punishment.
Also, where does it 'clearly state' this in the bible? Are you making things up Eliot?
> 2. Correct. Bible does not say Jesus was in the
> "Hell" that will be created for Satan and his
> angels, and unforgiven humans. Bible does say that
> Jesus was in Sheol/Hades, the current temporary
> resting place of the dead.
No, it doesn't, actually. Where does the bible state this, Eliot?
> 3. Bible clearly states that the requirement for
> 'sacrifice' to pay for sin is God's prerogative,
> your feelings notwithstanding.
My feelings are not at issue - it's a question of logic and reasoning; there's no purpose for the suffering ergo it's incongruent with the idea of a benevolent god.
Trying to ignore logical difficulties with the red herring of 'my feelings' is dishonest (although I'm sensing you don't have a problem with dishonesty) and intellectually bankrupt.
Please be more honest in your future posts.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. Bible says Jesus' human body did not spend an
> eternity "in hell" ... but arose on the third day.
> However, Bible clearly states that Jesus'
> suffering was sufficient to satisfy God for many,
> many humans.
Yes, the bible says a lot of illogical nonsense - please demonstrate how it's logically consistent to have a finite sacrifice atone for an eternal punishment.
Also, where does it 'clearly state' this in the bible? Are you making things up Eliot?
> 2. Correct. Bible does not say Jesus was in the
> "Hell" that will be created for Satan and his
> angels, and unforgiven humans. Bible does say that
> Jesus was in Sheol/Hades, the current temporary
> resting place of the dead.
No, it doesn't, actually. Where does the bible state this, Eliot?
> 3. Bible clearly states that the requirement for
> 'sacrifice' to pay for sin is God's prerogative,
> your feelings notwithstanding.
My feelings are not at issue - it's a question of logic and reasoning; there's no purpose for the suffering ergo it's incongruent with the idea of a benevolent god.
Trying to ignore logical difficulties with the red herring of 'my feelings' is dishonest (although I'm sensing you don't have a problem with dishonesty) and intellectually bankrupt.
Please be more honest in your future posts.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 04, 2009 02:51PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Before we go any further Eliot, please demonstrate
> that this universe requires a creator.
>
> This seems to be your fundamental sticking point
> and although I've pointed out that this notion is
> incoherent, this seems lost on you. So I'll try a
> different tact (the tact above).
Please answer the question, Eliot.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Before we go any further Eliot, please demonstrate
> that this universe requires a creator.
>
> This seems to be your fundamental sticking point
> and although I've pointed out that this notion is
> incoherent, this seems lost on you. So I'll try a
> different tact (the tact above).
Please answer the question, Eliot.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 04, 2009 02:52PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mephisto: "How can you suffer an eternal amount
> of
> > suffering without spending eternity suffering?"
> >
> > Ness: Suffer like Jesus did ... as Man and as
> as
> > God (outside of created space/time) ... rather
> > than as Men will, limited to created
> space/time.
>
>
> How exactly can it be said that an entity (Jesus
> the man) that requires space and time in order to
> exist could exist outside of space and time?
>
> Further if Jesus spent an eternity in hell - how
> was he resurrected? This seems impossible since
> there would be an eternity of time that would have
> to be crossed in order to make it the three days
> to the resurrection.
Please answer the question Eliot.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mephisto: "How can you suffer an eternal amount
> of
> > suffering without spending eternity suffering?"
> >
> > Ness: Suffer like Jesus did ... as Man and as
> as
> > God (outside of created space/time) ... rather
> > than as Men will, limited to created
> space/time.
>
>
> How exactly can it be said that an entity (Jesus
> the man) that requires space and time in order to
> exist could exist outside of space and time?
>
> Further if Jesus spent an eternity in hell - how
> was he resurrected? This seems impossible since
> there would be an eternity of time that would have
> to be crossed in order to make it the three days
> to the resurrection.
Please answer the question Eliot.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: February 04, 2009 02:52PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> My feelings are not at issue - it's a question of
> logic and reasoning; there's no purpose for the
> suffering ergo it's incongruent with the idea of a
> benevolent god.
>
There were actually several gnostic sects in early Christianity that came up with the concept of "two Gods," the God of the Old Testament (evil, vengeful) and the God of the New Testament (loving, forgiving) because there was no other way to reconcile the disparity between the two.
Also, why would God command mankind not to worship any other Gods or idols and then come up with Jesus and a Cross. Is he just screwing with us?
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> My feelings are not at issue - it's a question of
> logic and reasoning; there's no purpose for the
> suffering ergo it's incongruent with the idea of a
> benevolent god.
>
There were actually several gnostic sects in early Christianity that came up with the concept of "two Gods," the God of the Old Testament (evil, vengeful) and the God of the New Testament (loving, forgiving) because there was no other way to reconcile the disparity between the two.
Also, why would God command mankind not to worship any other Gods or idols and then come up with Jesus and a Cross. Is he just screwing with us?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 04, 2009 02:53PM
Pangloss, you make overmany accusations of 'lying' and 'hypocrisy' ... Schaeffer -- not I -- was in Acapulco lecturing with George Wald.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 04, 2009 02:56PM
WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > My feelings are not at issue - it's a question
> of
> > logic and reasoning; there's no purpose for the
> > suffering ergo it's incongruent with the idea of
> a
> > benevolent god.
> >
>
>
> There were actually several gnostic sects in early
> Christianity that came up with the concept of "two
> Gods," the God of the Old Testament (evil,
> vengeful) and the God of the New Testament
> (loving, forgiving) because there was no other way
> to reconcile the disparity between the two.
That is true - and I believe it was due to the helenization of Judaism during the time. I don't particularly have a problem with that concept.
> Also, why would God command mankind not to worship
> any other Gods or idols and then come up with
> Jesus and a Cross. Is he just screwing with us?
I think that was added because other gods in Judaism were getting lip service at the time. For instance, Yahweh's consort Asherah was often prayed to by couples seeking children.
It was only after a few centuries that the ancient Hebrews decided to become monotheistic. Although, I would argue that they aren't monotheistic (neither are the Christians).
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > My feelings are not at issue - it's a question
> of
> > logic and reasoning; there's no purpose for the
> > suffering ergo it's incongruent with the idea of
> a
> > benevolent god.
> >
>
>
> There were actually several gnostic sects in early
> Christianity that came up with the concept of "two
> Gods," the God of the Old Testament (evil,
> vengeful) and the God of the New Testament
> (loving, forgiving) because there was no other way
> to reconcile the disparity between the two.
That is true - and I believe it was due to the helenization of Judaism during the time. I don't particularly have a problem with that concept.
> Also, why would God command mankind not to worship
> any other Gods or idols and then come up with
> Jesus and a Cross. Is he just screwing with us?
I think that was added because other gods in Judaism were getting lip service at the time. For instance, Yahweh's consort Asherah was often prayed to by couples seeking children.
It was only after a few centuries that the ancient Hebrews decided to become monotheistic. Although, I would argue that they aren't monotheistic (neither are the Christians).
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 04, 2009 02:57PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, you make overmany accusations of 'lying'
> and 'hypocrisy' ... Schaeffer -- not I -- was in
> Acapulco lecturing with George Wald.
So you are admitting that Schaeffer is being dishonest or do you accept what he said?
Further, I caught you lying (in regards to gould). You didn't bother to refute it, instead you ignored it (which is your custom).
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, you make overmany accusations of 'lying'
> and 'hypocrisy' ... Schaeffer -- not I -- was in
> Acapulco lecturing with George Wald.
So you are admitting that Schaeffer is being dishonest or do you accept what he said?
Further, I caught you lying (in regards to gould). You didn't bother to refute it, instead you ignored it (which is your custom).
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 04, 2009 03:14PM
Pangloss, was Michael Vick correctly prosecuted for merely allowing dogs to be cruel to other dogs -- when Darwinian 'nature' [where whatever is, is right] displays cruelty night and day (e.g., as when lions viciously claw and then suffocate their prey)?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 04, 2009 03:34PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, was Michael Vick correctly prosecuted
> for merely allowing dogs to be cruel to other dogs
> -- when Darwinian 'nature' displays cruelty night
> and day (e.g., as when lions viciously claw and
> then suffocate their prey)?
Yes Michael Vick was correctly prosecuted; he broke a law and was charged accordingly.
I don't know what you mean by 'darwinian nature', but the natural world and science are descriptive, not prescriptive.
In any event, why don't you deal with the multitude of problems ALREADY on your plate before you ask for a serving of morality. You can't deal with cosmology, so why should I engage you on morality (not that I haven't done so already, mind you, you just ignored it)?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, was Michael Vick correctly prosecuted
> for merely allowing dogs to be cruel to other dogs
> -- when Darwinian 'nature' displays cruelty night
> and day (e.g., as when lions viciously claw and
> then suffocate their prey)?
Yes Michael Vick was correctly prosecuted; he broke a law and was charged accordingly.
I don't know what you mean by 'darwinian nature', but the natural world and science are descriptive, not prescriptive.
In any event, why don't you deal with the multitude of problems ALREADY on your plate before you ask for a serving of morality. You can't deal with cosmology, so why should I engage you on morality (not that I haven't done so already, mind you, you just ignored it)?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 04, 2009 10:10PM
I found this on Fark and thought it was appropriate...
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
More than a believer
()
Date: February 05, 2009 09:02AM
Lon Solomon preaches from Bible scripture, the fact that he doesn't cow tow to politically correct flavors of Christianity is a testament to his belief and faith. The Bible also states ask and you shall receive, those of use who know God in our hearts and minds understand that all our needs are taken care of before we have thought of them. It's unfortunate that those of you who have written so negatively about McLean Bible Church and Christianity have such harden hearts, hopefully all of you will one day wake up and experience what you are so obviously in need of "Love". The greatest gift from Christ is Love. Jealousy, negativity, and resentment are obstructions from the source.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: February 05, 2009 09:38AM
More than a believer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lon Solomon preaches from Bible scripture, the
> fact that he doesn't cow tow to politically
> correct flavors of Christianity is a testament to
> his belief and faith. The Bible also states ask
> and you shall receive, those of use who know God
> in our hearts and minds understand that all our
> needs are taken care of before we have thought of
> them. It's unfortunate that those of you who have
> written so negatively about McLean Bible Church
> and Christianity have such harden hearts,
> hopefully all of you will one day wake up and
> experience what you are so obviously in need of
> "Love". The greatest gift from Christ is Love.
> Jealousy, negativity, and resentment are
> obstructions from the source.
Yes... pliable and submissive. That's just how I like 'em.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lon Solomon preaches from Bible scripture, the
> fact that he doesn't cow tow to politically
> correct flavors of Christianity is a testament to
> his belief and faith. The Bible also states ask
> and you shall receive, those of use who know God
> in our hearts and minds understand that all our
> needs are taken care of before we have thought of
> them. It's unfortunate that those of you who have
> written so negatively about McLean Bible Church
> and Christianity have such harden hearts,
> hopefully all of you will one day wake up and
> experience what you are so obviously in need of
> "Love". The greatest gift from Christ is Love.
> Jealousy, negativity, and resentment are
> obstructions from the source.
Yes... pliable and submissive. That's just how I like 'em.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 05, 2009 10:45AM
More than a believer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lon Solomon preaches from Bible scripture, the
> fact that he doesn't cow tow to politically
> correct flavors of Christianity is a testament to
> his belief and faith. The Bible also states ask
> and you shall receive, those of use who know God
> in our hearts and minds understand that all our
> needs are taken care of before we have thought of
> them. It's unfortunate that those of you who have
> written so negatively about McLean Bible Church
> and Christianity have such harden hearts,
> hopefully all of you will one day wake up and
> experience what you are so obviously in need of
> "Love". The greatest gift from Christ is Love.
> Jealousy, negativity, and resentment are
> obstructions from the source.
Are you kidding me? If Christ 'is love' then he wouldn't send those who don't believe to Hell for eternity.
What kind of sense does that make?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lon Solomon preaches from Bible scripture, the
> fact that he doesn't cow tow to politically
> correct flavors of Christianity is a testament to
> his belief and faith. The Bible also states ask
> and you shall receive, those of use who know God
> in our hearts and minds understand that all our
> needs are taken care of before we have thought of
> them. It's unfortunate that those of you who have
> written so negatively about McLean Bible Church
> and Christianity have such harden hearts,
> hopefully all of you will one day wake up and
> experience what you are so obviously in need of
> "Love". The greatest gift from Christ is Love.
> Jealousy, negativity, and resentment are
> obstructions from the source.
Are you kidding me? If Christ 'is love' then he wouldn't send those who don't believe to Hell for eternity.
What kind of sense does that make?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 05, 2009 12:14PM
|
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 12:32PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: February 05, 2009 12:51PM
Boy oh boy..this has become a very difficult thread to read. I guess the jist of most of the cut and paste comments is that the theory of evolution is faulty or incomplete....and that the void between what we understand in the evolution of man and animals is due to divine intervention. What absolute horse shit...since the dawn of man religion has filled that void between knowledge and the unknown with their nonsense. In time...and progress in science the gap is slowly closing. In the mean time we now have enough information to have most reasonable people agree god is dead. It was proclaimed so over 40 years ago and is as true today as it ever was.....GOD IS DEAD! I say it every morning when I wake up and I still find it the most exhilerating and freeing statement a human being can make...GOD IS DEAD! I feel bettter already...dont you?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 05, 2009 12:55PM
| Pangloss wrote: "Are you kidding me? If Christ 'is love' then he wouldn't send those who don't believe to Hell for eternity. What kind of sense does that make?" | ||||
|
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 12:56PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: February 05, 2009 01:06PM
Here is some science for you.
The Bible is NOT inerrant.
The New Testament was not put to paper until at least 100 years after the death of Jesus. It was an oral tradition that could have changed many times in the time period.
There were many chapters of the Bible, including the Shepherd of Hermas, that were considered religious doctrine in the New Testament until they were removed by Constantine. Other chapters, including "Revelations," were included by Constantine even though, at the time, Revelations was not considered to be part of the Bible.
Several stories, including the one about Jesus drawing the line in the sand, were actually examples written by Monks in the margins of the early Bibles to describe some of Jesus's teachings and were never meant to be IN the Bible as part of the Gospels.
Today's New Testament is based on a Greek translation. There is no earlier Aramaic version of the New Testament, so it wasn't even written in the language of Jesus or the Apostles.
There is debate about whether the "Paul" who wrote the letters is even the same "Paul" who had the revelation on the Road to Damascus.
There is ample evidence that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute but was, in fact, a wealthy patron of Jesus's and may have even served as a Rabbi.
The Bible is NOT inerrant.
The New Testament was not put to paper until at least 100 years after the death of Jesus. It was an oral tradition that could have changed many times in the time period.
There were many chapters of the Bible, including the Shepherd of Hermas, that were considered religious doctrine in the New Testament until they were removed by Constantine. Other chapters, including "Revelations," were included by Constantine even though, at the time, Revelations was not considered to be part of the Bible.
Several stories, including the one about Jesus drawing the line in the sand, were actually examples written by Monks in the margins of the early Bibles to describe some of Jesus's teachings and were never meant to be IN the Bible as part of the Gospels.
Today's New Testament is based on a Greek translation. There is no earlier Aramaic version of the New Testament, so it wasn't even written in the language of Jesus or the Apostles.
There is debate about whether the "Paul" who wrote the letters is even the same "Paul" who had the revelation on the Road to Damascus.
There is ample evidence that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute but was, in fact, a wealthy patron of Jesus's and may have even served as a Rabbi.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 05, 2009 01:17PM
| Vince ... "God is Dead" was first proclaimed well over 100 years ago ... it was just echoed within our cultural memory during the 60's, by an Anglican Bishop. | |||
| Wikipedia: [Nietzsche's] death of God is a way of saying that humans are no longer able to believe in any ... cosmic order since they themselves no longer recognize it. The death of God will lead, Nietzsche says, not only to the rejection of a belief of cosmic or physical order but also to a rejection of absolute values themselves — to the rejection of belief in an objective and universal moral law, binding upon all individuals. In this manner, the loss of an absolute basis for morality leads to nihilism. This nihilism is what Nietzsche worked to find a solution for by re-evaluating the foundations of human values. This meant, to Nietzsche, looking for foundations that went deeper than Christian values. He would find a basis in the "will to power" that he described as "the essence of reality". Nietzsche believed that the majority of people did not recognize (or refused to acknowledge) this death out of the deepest-seated fear or angst. Therefore, when the death did begin to become widely acknowledged, people would despair and nihilism would become rampant. This is partly why Nietzsche saw Christianity as nihilistic. He saw himself as a historical figure like Zarathustra, Socrates or Jesus, giving a new philosophical orientation to future generations to overcome the impending nihilism. | |||
| Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movie for Hitler was called "Triumph of the Will." | |||
| At last report, Nietzsche, Hitler, and Bishop Robinson were all still dead ... and none expected that condition to ever change in the future. | |||
| The Jesus of the bible claimed otherwise: "I am he who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore." | |||
|
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 01:53PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 05, 2009 02:36PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
If you can
> provide me with a better term than "Darwinism" to
> describe our contemporary world-view, I'll be glad
> to use it. Perhaps "Star Trek-ism?"
>
yup - the universally accepted term is science
-------------------------------------------------------
If you can
> provide me with a better term than "Darwinism" to
> describe our contemporary world-view, I'll be glad
> to use it. Perhaps "Star Trek-ism?"
>
yup - the universally accepted term is science
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: February 05, 2009 02:39PM
--------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> If you can
> > provide me with a better term than "Darwinism"
> to
> > describe our contemporary world-view, I'll be
> glad
> > to use it. Perhaps "Star Trek-ism?"
> >
>
Reality.
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> If you can
> > provide me with a better term than "Darwinism"
> to
> > describe our contemporary world-view, I'll be
> glad
> > to use it. Perhaps "Star Trek-ism?"
> >
>
Reality.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: February 05, 2009 02:42PM
I like Alistair Begg's take on Christianity. He says that "Rationalism" is dead. In other words, you can't rationalize a path to Christ through reason.
I believe this is true. You can't use rational thought. You have to "just believe."
The problem is, God, if he does exist, gave us the ability to reason.
Seems like a conflict to me.
I believe this is true. You can't use rational thought. You have to "just believe."
The problem is, God, if he does exist, gave us the ability to reason.
Seems like a conflict to me.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 05, 2009 02:42PM
| WashingTone Locian wrote: "Today's New Testament is based on a Greek translation. There is no earlier Aramaic version of the New Testament, so it wasn't even written in the language of Jesus or the Apostles." |
| Ness asks/notes: |
| 1) Must all history be written in the language of its subjects? More to the point, if God writes history, must he do so in a specific language? |
| 2) In Acts 21, Paul is recorded speaking both Greek and Aramaic: "As the soldiers were about to take Paul into the barracks, he asked the commander, "May I say something to you?" ... "Do you speak Greek?" [the commander] replied. "Aren't you the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the desert some time ago?" Paul answered, "I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people." Having received the commander's permission, Paul stood on the steps and motioned to the crowd. When they were all silent, he said to them in Aramaic: Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense." When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they became very quiet." |
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 02:43PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: February 05, 2009 02:53PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian wrote: "Today's New Testament
> is based on a Greek translation. There is no
> earlier Aramaic version of the New Testament, so
> it wasn't even written in the language of Jesus or
> the Apostles."Ness asks/notes: 1) Must all history
> be written in the language of its subjects? More
> to the point, if God writes history, must he do so
> in a specific language? 2) In Acts 21, Paul is
> recorded speaking both Greek and Aramaic: "As the
> soldiers were about to take Paul into the
> barracks, he asked the commander, "May I say
> something to you?" ... "Do you speak Greek?"
> replied. "Aren't you the Egyptian who started a
> revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into
> the desert some time ago?" Paul answered, "I am a
> Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no
> ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people."
> Having received the commander's permission, Paul
> stood on the steps and motioned to the crowd. When
> they were all silent, he said to them in Aramaic:
> Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense."
> When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they
> became very quiet."
Supposedly, God created the different languages to thwart the building of the Tower of Babel. The tallest building in the world is 2,684 feet, and I don't think they would have been able to outdo that in 10,000 BC. So why did God stop them, anyway?
I was going to write more, but it's really just repeating what others have written, i.e., why give us reasoning if we're not supposed to use it?
Also, how can God write history? He tells men, who tell men, who tell men, who tell men, who tell men, who tell even more men, and someone finally decides to write it down into a different language that we're supposed to blindly accept. If we still cannot accurately translate Chinese to English and vice versa, how can we possibly believe that a dead language was translated properly into an archaic language that was translated properly into modern English?
It's suspect. Having faith is OK, but expecting people to have faith on a flawed premise is not.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian wrote: "Today's New Testament
> is based on a Greek translation. There is no
> earlier Aramaic version of the New Testament, so
> it wasn't even written in the language of Jesus or
> the Apostles."Ness asks/notes: 1) Must all history
> be written in the language of its subjects? More
> to the point, if God writes history, must he do so
> in a specific language? 2) In Acts 21, Paul is
> recorded speaking both Greek and Aramaic: "As the
> soldiers were about to take Paul into the
> barracks, he asked the commander, "May I say
> something to you?" ... "Do you speak Greek?"
> replied. "Aren't you the Egyptian who started a
> revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into
> the desert some time ago?" Paul answered, "I am a
> Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no
> ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people."
> Having received the commander's permission, Paul
> stood on the steps and motioned to the crowd. When
> they were all silent, he said to them in Aramaic:
> Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense."
> When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they
> became very quiet."
Supposedly, God created the different languages to thwart the building of the Tower of Babel. The tallest building in the world is 2,684 feet, and I don't think they would have been able to outdo that in 10,000 BC. So why did God stop them, anyway?
I was going to write more, but it's really just repeating what others have written, i.e., why give us reasoning if we're not supposed to use it?
Also, how can God write history? He tells men, who tell men, who tell men, who tell men, who tell men, who tell even more men, and someone finally decides to write it down into a different language that we're supposed to blindly accept. If we still cannot accurately translate Chinese to English and vice versa, how can we possibly believe that a dead language was translated properly into an archaic language that was translated properly into modern English?
It's suspect. Having faith is OK, but expecting people to have faith on a flawed premise is not.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: February 05, 2009 02:55PM
Talking to this guy is rather futile..all he does is cut and paste from some web site if christian voodoo. Reminds me of registered voter in his hey day.
Personally I want nothing to do with a vengeful god...and he/she/it if it exists feels the same about me...so I'll see most of you in hell!
Personally I want nothing to do with a vengeful god...and he/she/it if it exists feels the same about me...so I'll see most of you in hell!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: February 05, 2009 02:57PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian wrote: "Today's New Testament
> is based on a Greek translation. There is no
> earlier Aramaic version of the New Testament, so
> it wasn't even written in the language of Jesus or
> the Apostles."Ness asks/notes: 1) Must all history
> be written in the language of its subjects? More
> to the point, if God writes history, must he do so
> in a specific language? 2) In Acts 21, Paul is
> recorded speaking both Greek and Aramaic: "As the
> soldiers were about to take Paul into the
> barracks, he asked the commander, "May I say
> something to you?" ... "Do you speak Greek?"
> replied. "Aren't you the Egyptian who started a
> revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into
> the desert some time ago?" Paul answered, "I am a
> Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no
> ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people."
> Having received the commander's permission, Paul
> stood on the steps and motioned to the crowd. When
> they were all silent, he said to them in Aramaic:
> Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense."
> When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they
> became very quiet."
Paul didn't write the four Gospels.
My point about the Greek being that the Gospels were written long, long after the events by people who were not there.
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian wrote: "Today's New Testament
> is based on a Greek translation. There is no
> earlier Aramaic version of the New Testament, so
> it wasn't even written in the language of Jesus or
> the Apostles."Ness asks/notes: 1) Must all history
> be written in the language of its subjects? More
> to the point, if God writes history, must he do so
> in a specific language? 2) In Acts 21, Paul is
> recorded speaking both Greek and Aramaic: "As the
> soldiers were about to take Paul into the
> barracks, he asked the commander, "May I say
> something to you?" ... "Do you speak Greek?"
> replied. "Aren't you the Egyptian who started a
> revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into
> the desert some time ago?" Paul answered, "I am a
> Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no
> ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people."
> Having received the commander's permission, Paul
> stood on the steps and motioned to the crowd. When
> they were all silent, he said to them in Aramaic:
> Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense."
> When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they
> became very quiet."
Paul didn't write the four Gospels.
My point about the Greek being that the Gospels were written long, long after the events by people who were not there.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: February 05, 2009 02:58PM
Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Talking to this guy is rather futile..all he does
> is cut and paste from some web site if christian
> voodoo. Reminds me of registered voter in his hey
> day.
>
> Personally I want nothing to do with a vengeful
> god...and he/she/it if it exists feels the same
> about me...so I'll see most of you in hell!
It's not like you'd have anything worthwhile to contribute anyway. Contrary to popular belief, God is not an American.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Talking to this guy is rather futile..all he does
> is cut and paste from some web site if christian
> voodoo. Reminds me of registered voter in his hey
> day.
>
> Personally I want nothing to do with a vengeful
> god...and he/she/it if it exists feels the same
> about me...so I'll see most of you in hell!
It's not like you'd have anything worthwhile to contribute anyway. Contrary to popular belief, God is not an American.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: February 05, 2009 02:59PM
Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Talking to this guy is rather futile..all he does
> is cut and paste from some web site if christian
> voodoo. Reminds me of registered voter in his hey
> day.
>
> Personally I want nothing to do with a vengeful
> god...and he/she/it if it exists feels the same
> about me...so I'll see most of you in hell!
I would have no problem with a vengeful God if he smited evil doers. He doesn't. The evil doers live in multi-million dollar Penthouses in New York while his God-fearing followers are blowing their brains out because they haven't worked in six months. Eliot's answer? "God works in mysterious ways." Not sure how that is a better answer than, "There is no God."
-------------------------------------------------------
> Talking to this guy is rather futile..all he does
> is cut and paste from some web site if christian
> voodoo. Reminds me of registered voter in his hey
> day.
>
> Personally I want nothing to do with a vengeful
> god...and he/she/it if it exists feels the same
> about me...so I'll see most of you in hell!
I would have no problem with a vengeful God if he smited evil doers. He doesn't. The evil doers live in multi-million dollar Penthouses in New York while his God-fearing followers are blowing their brains out because they haven't worked in six months. Eliot's answer? "God works in mysterious ways." Not sure how that is a better answer than, "There is no God."
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 05, 2009 03:19PM
| WashingTone Locian wrote: There is debate about whether the "Paul" who wrote the letters is even the same "Paul" who had the revelation on the Road to Damascus. ... There is ample evidence that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute but was, in fact, a wealthy patron of Jesus's and may have even served as a Rabbi. |
| Ness notes: |
| 1) My brother, who holds a Ph.D. in New Testament from Cambridge, happened to call a moment ago ... he is not aware of any serious scholarly debate about the authorship of the Pauline epistles (though obviously none of us really 'knows' who wrote any ancient document because we were not there to observe the writing). |
| 2) What 'debate' is there about two Pauls -- one on the road to Damascus v. the one who wrote the letters? E.g., Galatians: "I did not receive it [the Gospel] from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ....But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus." |
| 3) My brother's Ph.D. was precisely about Pauline ethics in re: men/women ... he is not aware of any historical indication that a woman ever "served as a Rabbi." |
| 4) The Bible does not assert that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. You may be thinking of "DaVinci Code" speculation about her relationship with Jesus, and/or 5th century Catholic Church intimations that she was a 'prostitute.' Mary Magdalene is most mentioned when she was present at the Crucifixion ... in Mark, we read "Now when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, ‘Truly this man was God’s Son!’ There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome." ... at the tomb "Joseph [of Amamathea] bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid. ... and later at the [empty] tomb: "When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb." |
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 04:38PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: February 05, 2009 03:20PM
MrJerkOff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Talking to this guy is rather futile..all he
> does
> > is cut and paste from some web site if
> christian
> > voodoo. Reminds me of registered voter in his
> hey
> > day.
> >
> > Personally I want nothing to do with a vengeful
> > god...and he/she/it if it exists feels the same
> > about me...so I'll see most of you in hell!
>
> It's not like you'd have anything worthwhile to
> contribute anyway. Contrary to popular belief,
> God is not an American.
Hey..get a life ass wipe...I'm waiting for the day one of you stalkers has anything intellegent to say other then some insult aimed at me. You really must have a lot of free time on your hands..well wrap those hands around yourself..sit in the corner..and play with it!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Talking to this guy is rather futile..all he
> does
> > is cut and paste from some web site if
> christian
> > voodoo. Reminds me of registered voter in his
> hey
> > day.
> >
> > Personally I want nothing to do with a vengeful
> > god...and he/she/it if it exists feels the same
> > about me...so I'll see most of you in hell!
>
> It's not like you'd have anything worthwhile to
> contribute anyway. Contrary to popular belief,
> God is not an American.
Hey..get a life ass wipe...I'm waiting for the day one of you stalkers has anything intellegent to say other then some insult aimed at me. You really must have a lot of free time on your hands..well wrap those hands around yourself..sit in the corner..and play with it!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: February 05, 2009 03:45PM
Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey..get a life ass wipe...I'm waiting for the day
> one of you stalkers has anything intellegent to
> say other then some insult aimed at me. You
> really must have a lot of free time on your
> hands..well wrap those hands around yourself..sit
> in the corner..and play with it!
Forgive me. It's not easy to have a discussion with a retarded brick wall.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey..get a life ass wipe...I'm waiting for the day
> one of you stalkers has anything intellegent to
> say other then some insult aimed at me. You
> really must have a lot of free time on your
> hands..well wrap those hands around yourself..sit
> in the corner..and play with it!
Forgive me. It's not easy to have a discussion with a retarded brick wall.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 05, 2009 03:49PM
| Ness said to Pangloss: If you can provide me with a better term than "Darwinism" to describe our contemporary world-view, I'll be glad to use it. Perhaps "Star Trek-ism?" |
| Nutters responded: "Science." Ness asks: Which 'science?' Today's received orthodoxy? ... or tomorrow's new orthodoxy? |
| WL responded: "Reality." Ness asks: Which 'reality?' ... today's hotly debated theoretical construct that includes unobservable n-dimensional 'strings?' |
| It is my observation that contemporary thought just hates the idea of being 'created' by something 'personal.' We would rather be reduced to a machine, than to contemplate the possibility of createdness with the attendant possibility of true moral guilt. |
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 03:53PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 05, 2009 04:09PM
| WL wrote: I would have no problem with a vengeful God if he [smote] evildoers. He doesn't. The evildoers live in multi-million dollar penthouses in New York while his God-fearing followers are blowing their brains out because they haven't worked in six months. Eliot's answer? "God works in mysterious ways." Not sure how that is a better answer than, "There is no God." |
| "God works in mysterious ways" ... that's not my answer. Paul wrote about the ultimate justice of God: Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. |
| N.B. that many Bible commentators point to an Egyptian custom of "carrying burning coals overhead" to expressing repentance and ask forgiveness. It so, the phrase represents compassion, not vengeance. N.B. too that Christians expect to NOT face the wrath of God because, amazingly, Christ faced it in their place. |
| I'd make the point that our 'Darwinist' friends have no expectation of 'justice' whatsoever, either in this life or any other. In an uncreated universe, 'Justice' is a meaningless term, a Romantic concept that 'evolved' along with the human brain. To the degree that modern American Man talks about and desires 'Justice' (after all, Law and Order and CSI are big hits), he is borrowing from our residual Christian moral heritage. Christians, however, are not surprised to see human cultures universally think in terms of 'Justice' because the Bible depicts a God who created Man in his own image and who from the beginning, immediately after the Fall, talks about administering justice to Satan: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he [Jesus] will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." |
| Neither Law and Order nor CSI makes any sense in an uncreated 'Darwinian' cosmology. They do in a created cosmos, where God has said: "Hate evil; love good. Maintain justice in the courts." (Amos 5) |
| HERE is a rather well-written consideration of God's "wrath" and "anger" as described in the Bible ... one may dismiss this as mere Christian mythology, but the article is true to the content of the OT and NT. Christians might wish that this weren't true ... that the God of the Bible were amorphous 'love' without 'wrath' ... but that's not Christianity, which revolves around Christ's substitutionary atonement on the Cross (famously, "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son [to be crucified in the place of others]"). |
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 05:44PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 05, 2009 06:08PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
> Memo to Pangloss -- Wikipedia says this about
> contemporary usage of the term "Darwinism:"
>
> "Darwinism is a term used for various movements or
> concepts related to ideas of transmutation of
> species or evolution, including ideas with no
> connection to the work of Charles Darwin. The
> meaning of Darwinism has changed over time, and
> depends on who is using the term."
Do you realize that is VAGUE, Eliot? Which is why I constantly ask you to clarify your use of the term.
This is how YOU are using the term: "Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief"
> To most readers on this forum, "Darwinism" denotes
> contemporary popular cosmology, a world-view which
> posits that everything that exists around us,
> originated from a mysterious impersonal 'Big Bang'
> 'singularity' and is expanding toward an
> inevitable 'heat death' (which is well describe by
> Lon Solomon as "Fade to black!").Where Christians
> see a created cosmos whose "heavens declare the
> glory of God," contemporary "Darwinian" Man
> presupposes the uniformity of natural causes in a
> closed system ... viz., despite all of the
B.S., Eliot - that's how YOU are using it. You have failed to argue that non christians must use it this way.
Therefore we can ignore it.
> structure around us, we crash around in an
> uncreated, undesigned cosmos wherein all events
> result from impersonal matter/energy + time +
> chance because there is no 'person' outside of
> space/time ... and wherein human death is merely
> the disintegration of a chance collocation of
> atoms (e.g. George Wald's "collection of molecules
> called Shakespeare").
Sorry but please provide a source, you have been shown to be dishonest in your quotes before, so we cannot just accept this as an accurate presentation of Wald's opinion.
Remember, honesty first Eliot.
> It's not too much to call today's 'Star Trek'
> cosmology, our popular 'religion' ... because it
> is accepted by the masses, who are preached to by
> authorities whose world-view rejects a priori any
> concept of created 'design' (let alone any moral
> 'Fall' by Man and subsequent 'Curse' and
> 'Redemption' by a creator God).
You call it 'star trek' and a 'religion' because you do not understand it. You fall victim to Arthur C Clark's view of advanced science equally magic.
Further, you must argue for your assertions (bald as they are) that we reject 'a priori' design or that we suppose naturalism.
Again, I must remind you to be honest Eliot.
> The recent "Dark Knight" Batman film made a
> profound statement when a character said: "In a
> cruel world, the only justice is chance." In a
> 'Star Trek' cosmos, there may be a law against
> Michael Vick's cruelty to dogs, but there is no
> cosmological reason to oppose it ... just a
> sociological consensus.To play the 'Nazi' card ...
Sorry Eliot, I don't believe you - argue for this or retract your dishonesty.
> Goebbels espoused a form of racist 'Social
> Darwinism' consistent with an impersonal universe:
Do you worship Goebbels? Otherwise his opinion is worthless here.
> "Our starting-point is not the individual, and we
> do not subscribe to the view that one should feed
> the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, or clothe
> the naked — those are not our objectives. Our
> objectives are entirely different. They can be put
> most crisply in the sentence: we must have a
> healthy people in order to prevail in the world."
> Men wind up living, and dying, where their
> presuppositions carry them. I submit that Goebbels
> was intellectually consistent to his 'Darwinian'
> cosmology. So was the famous Christian thinker
> Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who lived in a Christian
> cosmology, and as a cost of discipleship gave up
> his life protecting Jews ... loving his neighbor
> as Christ commanded. The difference is that
> Bonhoeffer expected to be raised from the dead by
> Jesus, who 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." Goebbels, in contrast, expected to
> remain dead for all eternity ... which makes his
> active, cruel 'Darwinian' life in service of the
> Master Race, all the more meaningless!If you can
> provide me with a better term than "Darwinism" to
> describe our contemporary world-view, I'll be glad
> to use it. Perhaps "Star Trek-ism?"
>
Blah, blah, Eliot - this must be argued for, not asserted. You are failing to convince anyone and your reasoning is uninspired and uncompelling.
> None, unless there is a God with a
> character that includes wrath as well as love ...
Nope, even then it's nonsensical.
> which is what the Bible describes from beginning
> to end, Genesis to Revelation.It is the wrath of
> God toward fallen men, that Christ bears upon the
> Cross ... showing 'love' by bearing that 'wrath'
> in the place of others ... and you're right that
But...Jesus doesn't actually take the place of other...So even your viewpoint is incoherent.
> it makes no sense in a non-Christian cosmology.Few
> and far between have been the Nihilists and
> Anarchists, but they are really the most
> consistent of modern, non-Christian men. If we are
Again Eliot, you must be *honest* and argue for this, not just assume it.
> just complex machines, then nothing really matters
> -- even if we inconsistently preach and promote
> borrowed Christian values such as compassion,
> etc.It's fascinating that the worst modern
> political tyrannies which deify the State, such as
> Nazism and Communism, preach Heaven-on-Earth but
> produce Hell-on-Earth.
Actually Christianity borrows these views from the natural world, since Christianity is ultimately inconsistent (as I've shown and you've failed to refute).
This is a discussion board Eliot, not a 'assume Eliot tells the truth' board.
You have to argue for your point of view, not just have faith in it. Further, you need to be honest with your assertions.
> Vince ... "God is Dead" was first proclaimed well
> over 100 years ago ... it was just echoed within
> our cultural memory during the 60's, by an
> Anglican Bishop.Wikipedia: death of God is a way
> of saying that humans are no longer able to
> believe in any ... cosmic order since they
> themselves no longer recognize it. The death of
> God will lead, Nietzsche says, not only to the
> rejection of a belief of cosmic or physical order
> but also to a rejection of absolute values
> themselves — to the rejection of belief in an
> objective and universal moral law, binding upon
> all individuals. In this manner, the loss of an
> absolute basis for morality leads to nihilism.
> This nihilism is what Nietzsche worked to find a
> solution for by re-evaluating the foundations of
> human values. This meant, to Nietzsche, looking
> for foundations that went deeper than Christian
> values. He would find a basis in the "will to
> power" that he described as "the essence of
> reality".
I'm guessing you've never read Nietzsche, have you? This quote is in reference to values in Christian Europe AFTER Christianity had fallen away. He's not arguing that there wouldn't be a replacement (he suggests the overman as one). His argument is that there would be a void since Christianity replaced the prior morality (of ancient rome/greece).
> Nietzsche believed that the majority of people did
> not recognize (or refused to acknowledge) this
> death out of the deepest-seated fear or angst.
> Therefore, when the death did begin to become
> widely acknowledged, people would despair and
> nihilism would become rampant. This is partly why
> Nietzsche saw Christianity as nihilistic. He saw
> himself as a historical figure like Zarathustra,
> Socrates or Jesus, giving a new philosophical
> orientation to future generations to overcome the
> impending nihilism.Leni Riefenstahl's famous
> propaganda movie for Hitler was called "Triumph of
> the Will." At last report, Nietzsche, Hitler, and
> Bishop Robinson were all still dead ... and none
> expected that condition to ever change in the
> future.The Jesus of the bible claimed otherwise:
This is why I believe you've never read Nietzsche and that you don't understand him. Nietzsche wasn't arguing for immortality. In fact, immortality goes squarely against his values and as he argues is VERY nihilistic (you ignored this objection).
> "I am he who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am
> alive forevermore."If the Ghost of Christmas
> Future ever comes to your house on Christmas eve,
> you'll see that in the future you and everybody
> you know will be dead -- buried, cremated,
> nuclear-weapon-vaporized, or just entropied out by
> the heat death of the universe -- in your
> expectation. The non-trivial discussion on this
> website about a personal, Christian creation vs.
> an impersonal 'Darwinian' cosmology has huge
> implications about how to live, why to live, how
> to die, and whether we will remain dead for all
> eternity.Paul the Apostle well understood cosmic
> Nihilism when he wrote: If the dead are not
> raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we
> die."
Actually Paul embraces nihilism and his view (and in turn, Christians) don't value *this* life, which is the only life we have. This is why Christianity is truly nihilistic and why naturalism (or systems that reject immortality) are the ONLY one's that CAN value this life.
> Ness said to Pangloss: If you can provide me with
> a better term than "Darwinism" to describe our
> contemporary world-view, I'll be glad to use it.
> Perhaps "Star Trek-ism?"Nutters responded:
> "Science." Ness asks: Which 'science?' Today's
> received orthodoxy? ... or tomorrow's new
> orthodoxy?WL responded: "Reality." Ness asks:
> Which 'reality?' ... today's hotly debated
> theoretical construct that includes unobservable
> n-dimensional 'strings?'It is my observation that
> contemporary thought just hates the idea of being
> 'created' by something 'personal.' We would rather
> be reduced to a machine, than to contemplate the
> possibility of createdness with the attendant
> possibility of true moral guilt.
More unsupported nonsense.
Face it Eliot, you don't understand science and that's why you are drawn to Christianity. It's simple and makes you feel good.
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
> Memo to Pangloss -- Wikipedia says this about
> contemporary usage of the term "Darwinism:"
>
> "Darwinism is a term used for various movements or
> concepts related to ideas of transmutation of
> species or evolution, including ideas with no
> connection to the work of Charles Darwin. The
> meaning of Darwinism has changed over time, and
> depends on who is using the term."
Do you realize that is VAGUE, Eliot? Which is why I constantly ask you to clarify your use of the term.
This is how YOU are using the term: "Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief"
> To most readers on this forum, "Darwinism" denotes
> contemporary popular cosmology, a world-view which
> posits that everything that exists around us,
> originated from a mysterious impersonal 'Big Bang'
> 'singularity' and is expanding toward an
> inevitable 'heat death' (which is well describe by
> Lon Solomon as "Fade to black!").Where Christians
> see a created cosmos whose "heavens declare the
> glory of God," contemporary "Darwinian" Man
> presupposes the uniformity of natural causes in a
> closed system ... viz., despite all of the
B.S., Eliot - that's how YOU are using it. You have failed to argue that non christians must use it this way.
Therefore we can ignore it.
> structure around us, we crash around in an
> uncreated, undesigned cosmos wherein all events
> result from impersonal matter/energy + time +
> chance because there is no 'person' outside of
> space/time ... and wherein human death is merely
> the disintegration of a chance collocation of
> atoms (e.g. George Wald's "collection of molecules
> called Shakespeare").
Sorry but please provide a source, you have been shown to be dishonest in your quotes before, so we cannot just accept this as an accurate presentation of Wald's opinion.
Remember, honesty first Eliot.
> It's not too much to call today's 'Star Trek'
> cosmology, our popular 'religion' ... because it
> is accepted by the masses, who are preached to by
> authorities whose world-view rejects a priori any
> concept of created 'design' (let alone any moral
> 'Fall' by Man and subsequent 'Curse' and
> 'Redemption' by a creator God).
You call it 'star trek' and a 'religion' because you do not understand it. You fall victim to Arthur C Clark's view of advanced science equally magic.
Further, you must argue for your assertions (bald as they are) that we reject 'a priori' design or that we suppose naturalism.
Again, I must remind you to be honest Eliot.
> The recent "Dark Knight" Batman film made a
> profound statement when a character said: "In a
> cruel world, the only justice is chance." In a
> 'Star Trek' cosmos, there may be a law against
> Michael Vick's cruelty to dogs, but there is no
> cosmological reason to oppose it ... just a
> sociological consensus.To play the 'Nazi' card ...
Sorry Eliot, I don't believe you - argue for this or retract your dishonesty.
> Goebbels espoused a form of racist 'Social
> Darwinism' consistent with an impersonal universe:
Do you worship Goebbels? Otherwise his opinion is worthless here.
> "Our starting-point is not the individual, and we
> do not subscribe to the view that one should feed
> the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, or clothe
> the naked — those are not our objectives. Our
> objectives are entirely different. They can be put
> most crisply in the sentence: we must have a
> healthy people in order to prevail in the world."
> Men wind up living, and dying, where their
> presuppositions carry them. I submit that Goebbels
> was intellectually consistent to his 'Darwinian'
> cosmology. So was the famous Christian thinker
> Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who lived in a Christian
> cosmology, and as a cost of discipleship gave up
> his life protecting Jews ... loving his neighbor
> as Christ commanded. The difference is that
> Bonhoeffer expected to be raised from the dead by
> Jesus, who 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." Goebbels, in contrast, expected to
> remain dead for all eternity ... which makes his
> active, cruel 'Darwinian' life in service of the
> Master Race, all the more meaningless!If you can
> provide me with a better term than "Darwinism" to
> describe our contemporary world-view, I'll be glad
> to use it. Perhaps "Star Trek-ism?"
>
Blah, blah, Eliot - this must be argued for, not asserted. You are failing to convince anyone and your reasoning is uninspired and uncompelling.
> None, unless there is a God with a
> character that includes wrath as well as love ...
Nope, even then it's nonsensical.
> which is what the Bible describes from beginning
> to end, Genesis to Revelation.It is the wrath of
> God toward fallen men, that Christ bears upon the
> Cross ... showing 'love' by bearing that 'wrath'
> in the place of others ... and you're right that
But...Jesus doesn't actually take the place of other...So even your viewpoint is incoherent.
> it makes no sense in a non-Christian cosmology.Few
> and far between have been the Nihilists and
> Anarchists, but they are really the most
> consistent of modern, non-Christian men. If we are
Again Eliot, you must be *honest* and argue for this, not just assume it.
> just complex machines, then nothing really matters
> -- even if we inconsistently preach and promote
> borrowed Christian values such as compassion,
> etc.It's fascinating that the worst modern
> political tyrannies which deify the State, such as
> Nazism and Communism, preach Heaven-on-Earth but
> produce Hell-on-Earth.
Actually Christianity borrows these views from the natural world, since Christianity is ultimately inconsistent (as I've shown and you've failed to refute).
This is a discussion board Eliot, not a 'assume Eliot tells the truth' board.
You have to argue for your point of view, not just have faith in it. Further, you need to be honest with your assertions.
> Vince ... "God is Dead" was first proclaimed well
> over 100 years ago ... it was just echoed within
> our cultural memory during the 60's, by an
> Anglican Bishop.Wikipedia: death of God is a way
> of saying that humans are no longer able to
> believe in any ... cosmic order since they
> themselves no longer recognize it. The death of
> God will lead, Nietzsche says, not only to the
> rejection of a belief of cosmic or physical order
> but also to a rejection of absolute values
> themselves — to the rejection of belief in an
> objective and universal moral law, binding upon
> all individuals. In this manner, the loss of an
> absolute basis for morality leads to nihilism.
> This nihilism is what Nietzsche worked to find a
> solution for by re-evaluating the foundations of
> human values. This meant, to Nietzsche, looking
> for foundations that went deeper than Christian
> values. He would find a basis in the "will to
> power" that he described as "the essence of
> reality".
I'm guessing you've never read Nietzsche, have you? This quote is in reference to values in Christian Europe AFTER Christianity had fallen away. He's not arguing that there wouldn't be a replacement (he suggests the overman as one). His argument is that there would be a void since Christianity replaced the prior morality (of ancient rome/greece).
> Nietzsche believed that the majority of people did
> not recognize (or refused to acknowledge) this
> death out of the deepest-seated fear or angst.
> Therefore, when the death did begin to become
> widely acknowledged, people would despair and
> nihilism would become rampant. This is partly why
> Nietzsche saw Christianity as nihilistic. He saw
> himself as a historical figure like Zarathustra,
> Socrates or Jesus, giving a new philosophical
> orientation to future generations to overcome the
> impending nihilism.Leni Riefenstahl's famous
> propaganda movie for Hitler was called "Triumph of
> the Will." At last report, Nietzsche, Hitler, and
> Bishop Robinson were all still dead ... and none
> expected that condition to ever change in the
> future.The Jesus of the bible claimed otherwise:
This is why I believe you've never read Nietzsche and that you don't understand him. Nietzsche wasn't arguing for immortality. In fact, immortality goes squarely against his values and as he argues is VERY nihilistic (you ignored this objection).
> "I am he who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am
> alive forevermore."If the Ghost of Christmas
> Future ever comes to your house on Christmas eve,
> you'll see that in the future you and everybody
> you know will be dead -- buried, cremated,
> nuclear-weapon-vaporized, or just entropied out by
> the heat death of the universe -- in your
> expectation. The non-trivial discussion on this
> website about a personal, Christian creation vs.
> an impersonal 'Darwinian' cosmology has huge
> implications about how to live, why to live, how
> to die, and whether we will remain dead for all
> eternity.Paul the Apostle well understood cosmic
> Nihilism when he wrote: If the dead are not
> raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we
> die."
Actually Paul embraces nihilism and his view (and in turn, Christians) don't value *this* life, which is the only life we have. This is why Christianity is truly nihilistic and why naturalism (or systems that reject immortality) are the ONLY one's that CAN value this life.
> Ness said to Pangloss: If you can provide me with
> a better term than "Darwinism" to describe our
> contemporary world-view, I'll be glad to use it.
> Perhaps "Star Trek-ism?"Nutters responded:
> "Science." Ness asks: Which 'science?' Today's
> received orthodoxy? ... or tomorrow's new
> orthodoxy?WL responded: "Reality." Ness asks:
> Which 'reality?' ... today's hotly debated
> theoretical construct that includes unobservable
> n-dimensional 'strings?'It is my observation that
> contemporary thought just hates the idea of being
> 'created' by something 'personal.' We would rather
> be reduced to a machine, than to contemplate the
> possibility of createdness with the attendant
> possibility of true moral guilt.
More unsupported nonsense.
Face it Eliot, you don't understand science and that's why you are drawn to Christianity. It's simple and makes you feel good.
Attachments:
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 05, 2009 06:09PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Before we go any further Eliot, please demonstrate
> that this universe requires a creator.
>
> This seems to be your fundamental sticking point
> and although I've pointed out that this notion is
> incoherent, this seems lost on you. So I'll try a
> different tact (the tact above).
Please answer Eliot.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Before we go any further Eliot, please demonstrate
> that this universe requires a creator.
>
> This seems to be your fundamental sticking point
> and although I've pointed out that this notion is
> incoherent, this seems lost on you. So I'll try a
> different tact (the tact above).
Please answer Eliot.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 05, 2009 06:10PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Pangloss wrote: "Modern scientists do not
> > subscribe to chance when talking of evolution
> (do
> > you know this?)."Sure they do ...
> > "In our day, humanistic reason affirms that
> there
> > is only the cosmic machine, which encompasses
> > everything, including people. To those who
> hold
> > this view, everything people are or do is
> > explained by ... some kind of reductionism."
> > ...
>
> This doesn't support your assertion, please try
> again.
>
> > "In one form of reductionism, man is explained
> by
> > reducing him to the smallest particles which
> make
> > up his body. Man is seen as being only the
> > molecule or the energy particle, more complex
> bu
> > not intrinsically different."
>
> 1. Science isn't held to reductionism.
> 2. This doesn't support your assertion.
> 3. This commits the logical fallacy of
> composition.
>
>
> > "I have never heard this expressed more clearly
> > than when I was lecturing in Acapulco, Mexico.
> > George Wald, a biology professor from Harvard
> > University, was also there lecturing to the
> same
> > group. He expressed with great force the modern
> > concept that all things, including man, are
> merely
> > the product of chance. After he had stressed
> over
>
> Please provide some support for this, your word is
> not good enough. A biologist would be familar
> with the theory of evolution, which is not a
> chance endeavor.
>
> > and over again that all things, beginning from
> the
> > molecule and ending with man, are only a
> product
> > of chance, he said, "Four hundred years ago
> there
> > was a collection of molecules named Shakespeare
> > which produced Hamlet." According to these
> > theories, that is all that man can be. Man
> > beginning with his proud, proud humanism, tried
> to
> > make himself autonomous, but rather than
> becoming
> > great, he had found himself ending up as only a
> > collection of molecules -- and nothing more."
>
> Which 'theories' is he talking about? Certainly
> not evolutionary theory, since as I've repeatedly
> pointed out is not a chance endeavor. As anyone
> with any sense can see that natural selection is a
> *selection* process and ergo, is not a 'chance'
> process.
>
> My guess is that you are taking his words out of
> context and as a result you are actively lying
> about what he intended to his words - like you did
> last time that I caught you doing this.
>
> > " equation of the impersonal plus time plus
> chance
> > producing the total configuration of the
> universe
> > and all that is in it, modern people hold by
> > faith.
>
> Modern scientists do not hold this by faith. In
> fact, ever since Darwin, it has been known that
> mankind is a product of evolution, which is the
> antithesis of chance.
>
> > And if one does in faith accept this, with
> > what final value is he left? In his lecture at
> > Acapulco, George Wald finished with only one
> > value. It was the same one with which English
> > philosopher Bertrand Russell was left. For Wald
> > and Russell and for many other modern thinkers,
> > the final value is the biological continuity of
> > the human race. If this is the only final
> value,
> > one is left wondering why this then has
> > importance."
>
> You are stretching the term 'modern' as both of
> those people are dead. Further this is an opinion
> and not rationally argued for - ergo we can
> dismiss it as intellectually vacuous.
>
> > "Beginning only from man himself, people affirm
> > that man is only a machine. But those who hold
> > this position cannot live like machines! If
> they
> > could, there would have been no tensions in
> their
> > intellectual position or in their lives. But
> even
> > people who believe they are machines cannot
> live
> > like machines, and thus they must "leap
> upstairs"
> > against their reason and try to find something
> > which gives meaning to life, even though to do
> so
> > they have to deny their reason." F.A.Schaeffer
>
>
> Yeah, Schaeffer wasn't very intellectually
> impressive and there is no reason to accept what
> he said. You most certainly have failed to argue
> for any of the positions he's put forth.
Please answer.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Pangloss wrote: "Modern scientists do not
> > subscribe to chance when talking of evolution
> (do
> > you know this?)."Sure they do ...
> > "In our day, humanistic reason affirms that
> there
> > is only the cosmic machine, which encompasses
> > everything, including people. To those who
> hold
> > this view, everything people are or do is
> > explained by ... some kind of reductionism."
> > ...
>
> This doesn't support your assertion, please try
> again.
>
> > "In one form of reductionism, man is explained
> by
> > reducing him to the smallest particles which
> make
> > up his body. Man is seen as being only the
> > molecule or the energy particle, more complex
> bu
> > not intrinsically different."
>
> 1. Science isn't held to reductionism.
> 2. This doesn't support your assertion.
> 3. This commits the logical fallacy of
> composition.
>
>
> > "I have never heard this expressed more clearly
> > than when I was lecturing in Acapulco, Mexico.
> > George Wald, a biology professor from Harvard
> > University, was also there lecturing to the
> same
> > group. He expressed with great force the modern
> > concept that all things, including man, are
> merely
> > the product of chance. After he had stressed
> over
>
> Please provide some support for this, your word is
> not good enough. A biologist would be familar
> with the theory of evolution, which is not a
> chance endeavor.
>
> > and over again that all things, beginning from
> the
> > molecule and ending with man, are only a
> product
> > of chance, he said, "Four hundred years ago
> there
> > was a collection of molecules named Shakespeare
> > which produced Hamlet." According to these
> > theories, that is all that man can be. Man
> > beginning with his proud, proud humanism, tried
> to
> > make himself autonomous, but rather than
> becoming
> > great, he had found himself ending up as only a
> > collection of molecules -- and nothing more."
>
> Which 'theories' is he talking about? Certainly
> not evolutionary theory, since as I've repeatedly
> pointed out is not a chance endeavor. As anyone
> with any sense can see that natural selection is a
> *selection* process and ergo, is not a 'chance'
> process.
>
> My guess is that you are taking his words out of
> context and as a result you are actively lying
> about what he intended to his words - like you did
> last time that I caught you doing this.
>
> > " equation of the impersonal plus time plus
> chance
> > producing the total configuration of the
> universe
> > and all that is in it, modern people hold by
> > faith.
>
> Modern scientists do not hold this by faith. In
> fact, ever since Darwin, it has been known that
> mankind is a product of evolution, which is the
> antithesis of chance.
>
> > And if one does in faith accept this, with
> > what final value is he left? In his lecture at
> > Acapulco, George Wald finished with only one
> > value. It was the same one with which English
> > philosopher Bertrand Russell was left. For Wald
> > and Russell and for many other modern thinkers,
> > the final value is the biological continuity of
> > the human race. If this is the only final
> value,
> > one is left wondering why this then has
> > importance."
>
> You are stretching the term 'modern' as both of
> those people are dead. Further this is an opinion
> and not rationally argued for - ergo we can
> dismiss it as intellectually vacuous.
>
> > "Beginning only from man himself, people affirm
> > that man is only a machine. But those who hold
> > this position cannot live like machines! If
> they
> > could, there would have been no tensions in
> their
> > intellectual position or in their lives. But
> even
> > people who believe they are machines cannot
> live
> > like machines, and thus they must "leap
> upstairs"
> > against their reason and try to find something
> > which gives meaning to life, even though to do
> so
> > they have to deny their reason." F.A.Schaeffer
>
>
> Yeah, Schaeffer wasn't very intellectually
> impressive and there is no reason to accept what
> he said. You most certainly have failed to argue
> for any of the positions he's put forth.
Please answer.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 05, 2009 06:10PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Eliot Ness Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Pangloss wrote: Freud's idea that god was
> > > basically a substitute for a parent or father
> > > figure. It seems odd for me to view God in
> this
> > > way, as God could not possess these
> attributes
> > in
> > > any way feasibly known to human beings.
> > >
> > >
> > > You're omitting the word "fabricated" from
> > > Freud's view.
> >
> > What is your meaning here - that Freud said
> that
> > mankind fabricated god in the image of his
> parent?
> > Or that Freud was fabricating in general?
> >
> > > The "father" metaphor is everywhere in the
> > Bible,
> > > and is used by Jesus and God to describe
> their
> > > relationship. ("This is my beloved Son. Hear
> ye
> > > him.")
> >
> > True.
> >
> > > Goddess worship, and the "mother" metaphor,
> > are
> > > non-Christian. Intriguingly, Roman
> Catholicism
> > has
> > > progressively elevated Jesus' mother Mary to
> > > god-like status ... despite the fact that she
> > > plays only a small role in the NT after
> Jesus'
> > > birth, and disappears from history after Acts
> > > Chapter 1.
> >
> > Not really true - unless you discount ancient
> > Hebrew. I take it you are unfamilar with God's
> > wife?
> >
> > > It's dogmatic to assert that "God could not
> > > possess these attributes in any way feasibly
> > known
> > > to human beings."
> >
> > Not really - if god is infinite and has
> infinite
> > attributes, then an entity with finite
> attributes
> > and finite understanding could not, by
> definition,
> > understand the infinite being.
> >
> > > Why couldn't a personal God communicate his
> > > 'attributes' to his creatures in human
> > language?
> >
> > You are cherry picking your bible. In the old
> > testament god basically explained his ways as
> > being unknowable by man. Or do you explain the
> > book of job in some other way?
> >
> > > (It is an Eastern religion presupposition
> that
> > God
> > > is unknowable and "could not" do so.)
> >
> > Are you unfamilar with Eastern Orthodoxy during
> > the Dark ages? They subscribed to god's
> > incoherency, as an example I submit the
> trinity,
> > which they believed was beyond reason. Read
> The
> > History Of God, if you want the full story.
> >
> > > Jesus' view of Scripture is precisely that a
> > > personal God communicated with his personal
> > > creatures in human language -- in Hebrew to
> > Moses
> > > and the Prophets.
> > > Jesus also told his disciples that if they
> > have
> > > seen him, they have seen God (specifically,
> > "the
> > > Father"),
> > > Paul's view of Scripture was the same as
> > Jesus'
> > > ... "pasa graphe theopneustos" ... all
> > scripture
> > > is god-breathed.
> > > In fact, the word 'prophet' means
> 'spokesman'
> > > rather than future-predictor. (pro=for,
> > > phemein=speak) Prophets sometimes described
> the
> > > future (as it is known to God), but more
> > > importantly they spoke human words to human
> > beings
> > > as given to them by God.
> >
> > In all fairness you are cherry picking
> Christian
> > beliefs here. Have you not heard of Gnostic
> > Christianity? The book of thomas?
> >
> > This next section really diminishes my respect
> for
> > you Elliot. You succumb to passing on
> creationist
> > dishonesty through quote mining. Either you
> have
> > not read the original sources or you have and
> you
> > persist in passing on dishonesty.
> >
> > Please list the context of these quotes, as
> they
> > make no sense:
> >
> > > “To the question why we do not find rich
> > > fossiliferous deposits belonging to these
> > assumed
> > > earliest periods prior to the Cambrian
> system,
> > I
> > > can give no satisfactory answer.” Ibid., p.
> > 350.
> >
> > This makes no sense because we *HAVE* found
> > earlier periods - the Precambrian!
> >
> > > “The case at present must remain
> > inexplicable,
> > > and may be truly urged as a valid argument
> > against
> > > the views here entertained.” Ibid., p. 351.
> > > “The most famous such burst, the Cambrian
> > > explosion, marks the inception of modern
> > > multicellular life. Within just a few million
> > > years, nearly every major kind of animal
> > anatomy
> > > appears in the fossil record for the first
> time
> > > ... The Precambrian record is now
> sufficiently
> > > good that the old rationale about
> undiscovered
> > > sequences of smoothly transitional forms will
> > no
> > > longer wash.” Stephen Jay Gould, “An
> Asteroid
> > to
> > > Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65.
> >
> > This is completely dishonest as it spins
> Gould's
> > words as those of someone who doesn't accept
> that
> > transitional fossils as evidence of evolution.
> > Either you expect us to be unfamilar with Gould
> or
> > you yourself are unfamilar with Gould.
> >
> > Do you know what his theory for the mechanism
> of
> > evolution is? It's punctuated equilibrium. What
> he
> > is arguing here is that gradual evolution - ie,
> a
> > smooth transition of creatures is incorrect.
> > Instead, evolution works on long periods of
> status
> > followed by rapid (as in millions of years)
> > periods of change. That's why he specifically
> > says "the old rationale about undiscovered
> > sequences of *SMOOTHLY* transitional forms".
> >
> > You are being dishonest here or you didn't do
> your
> > due diligence in checking creationist sources.
>
> >
> > >
> > >Ness replies: Ummm ... though Communism claims
> to
> > be "scientific" socialsim, I >submit that it
> (and
> > Nazism) are clearly Darwinian cults ...
> >
> > Um, you thought wrong. Stalin's communism
> > specifically REJECTED Darwinian evolution.
> >
> > Further, did you forget that Hitler tried to
> find
> > Christian artifacts? Such as the Spear of
> Destiny?
> > Nazism was an ideological cult - one that had
> > Nordic influences, Christian influences, and
> many
> > other influences. It is not honest to simply
> > forget the other influences and to blame it on
> > Darwin (evolution does not support eugeneics,
> > btw).
> >
> > My guess is that you haven't really looked into
> > either Stalinist communism or Nazism. Just for
> > edification, what was the mechanism of
> selection
> > for Stalinist communism?
> >
> > Again though, you merely ignoring the fact that
> > even if what you say was true (which it isn't,
> as
> > I've shown), that STILL doesn't mean that
> > christianity is correct. So at best, if you
> are
> > right, you are engaging in wishful thinking by
> > accepting christianity.
>
>
> Here's an example of Eliot's first brush with
> dishonest quote mining.
Please learn to be honest Eliot.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Eliot Ness Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Pangloss wrote: Freud's idea that god was
> > > basically a substitute for a parent or father
> > > figure. It seems odd for me to view God in
> this
> > > way, as God could not possess these
> attributes
> > in
> > > any way feasibly known to human beings.
> > >
> > >
> > > You're omitting the word "fabricated" from
> > > Freud's view.
> >
> > What is your meaning here - that Freud said
> that
> > mankind fabricated god in the image of his
> parent?
> > Or that Freud was fabricating in general?
> >
> > > The "father" metaphor is everywhere in the
> > Bible,
> > > and is used by Jesus and God to describe
> their
> > > relationship. ("This is my beloved Son. Hear
> ye
> > > him.")
> >
> > True.
> >
> > > Goddess worship, and the "mother" metaphor,
> > are
> > > non-Christian. Intriguingly, Roman
> Catholicism
> > has
> > > progressively elevated Jesus' mother Mary to
> > > god-like status ... despite the fact that she
> > > plays only a small role in the NT after
> Jesus'
> > > birth, and disappears from history after Acts
> > > Chapter 1.
> >
> > Not really true - unless you discount ancient
> > Hebrew. I take it you are unfamilar with God's
> > wife?
> >
> > > It's dogmatic to assert that "God could not
> > > possess these attributes in any way feasibly
> > known
> > > to human beings."
> >
> > Not really - if god is infinite and has
> infinite
> > attributes, then an entity with finite
> attributes
> > and finite understanding could not, by
> definition,
> > understand the infinite being.
> >
> > > Why couldn't a personal God communicate his
> > > 'attributes' to his creatures in human
> > language?
> >
> > You are cherry picking your bible. In the old
> > testament god basically explained his ways as
> > being unknowable by man. Or do you explain the
> > book of job in some other way?
> >
> > > (It is an Eastern religion presupposition
> that
> > God
> > > is unknowable and "could not" do so.)
> >
> > Are you unfamilar with Eastern Orthodoxy during
> > the Dark ages? They subscribed to god's
> > incoherency, as an example I submit the
> trinity,
> > which they believed was beyond reason. Read
> The
> > History Of God, if you want the full story.
> >
> > > Jesus' view of Scripture is precisely that a
> > > personal God communicated with his personal
> > > creatures in human language -- in Hebrew to
> > Moses
> > > and the Prophets.
> > > Jesus also told his disciples that if they
> > have
> > > seen him, they have seen God (specifically,
> > "the
> > > Father"),
> > > Paul's view of Scripture was the same as
> > Jesus'
> > > ... "pasa graphe theopneustos" ... all
> > scripture
> > > is god-breathed.
> > > In fact, the word 'prophet' means
> 'spokesman'
> > > rather than future-predictor. (pro=for,
> > > phemein=speak) Prophets sometimes described
> the
> > > future (as it is known to God), but more
> > > importantly they spoke human words to human
> > beings
> > > as given to them by God.
> >
> > In all fairness you are cherry picking
> Christian
> > beliefs here. Have you not heard of Gnostic
> > Christianity? The book of thomas?
> >
> > This next section really diminishes my respect
> for
> > you Elliot. You succumb to passing on
> creationist
> > dishonesty through quote mining. Either you
> have
> > not read the original sources or you have and
> you
> > persist in passing on dishonesty.
> >
> > Please list the context of these quotes, as
> they
> > make no sense:
> >
> > > “To the question why we do not find rich
> > > fossiliferous deposits belonging to these
> > assumed
> > > earliest periods prior to the Cambrian
> system,
> > I
> > > can give no satisfactory answer.” Ibid., p.
> > 350.
> >
> > This makes no sense because we *HAVE* found
> > earlier periods - the Precambrian!
> >
> > > “The case at present must remain
> > inexplicable,
> > > and may be truly urged as a valid argument
> > against
> > > the views here entertained.” Ibid., p. 351.
> > > “The most famous such burst, the Cambrian
> > > explosion, marks the inception of modern
> > > multicellular life. Within just a few million
> > > years, nearly every major kind of animal
> > anatomy
> > > appears in the fossil record for the first
> time
> > > ... The Precambrian record is now
> sufficiently
> > > good that the old rationale about
> undiscovered
> > > sequences of smoothly transitional forms will
> > no
> > > longer wash.” Stephen Jay Gould, “An
> Asteroid
> > to
> > > Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65.
> >
> > This is completely dishonest as it spins
> Gould's
> > words as those of someone who doesn't accept
> that
> > transitional fossils as evidence of evolution.
> > Either you expect us to be unfamilar with Gould
> or
> > you yourself are unfamilar with Gould.
> >
> > Do you know what his theory for the mechanism
> of
> > evolution is? It's punctuated equilibrium. What
> he
> > is arguing here is that gradual evolution - ie,
> a
> > smooth transition of creatures is incorrect.
> > Instead, evolution works on long periods of
> status
> > followed by rapid (as in millions of years)
> > periods of change. That's why he specifically
> > says "the old rationale about undiscovered
> > sequences of *SMOOTHLY* transitional forms".
> >
> > You are being dishonest here or you didn't do
> your
> > due diligence in checking creationist sources.
>
> >
> > >
> > >Ness replies: Ummm ... though Communism claims
> to
> > be "scientific" socialsim, I >submit that it
> (and
> > Nazism) are clearly Darwinian cults ...
> >
> > Um, you thought wrong. Stalin's communism
> > specifically REJECTED Darwinian evolution.
> >
> > Further, did you forget that Hitler tried to
> find
> > Christian artifacts? Such as the Spear of
> Destiny?
> > Nazism was an ideological cult - one that had
> > Nordic influences, Christian influences, and
> many
> > other influences. It is not honest to simply
> > forget the other influences and to blame it on
> > Darwin (evolution does not support eugeneics,
> > btw).
> >
> > My guess is that you haven't really looked into
> > either Stalinist communism or Nazism. Just for
> > edification, what was the mechanism of
> selection
> > for Stalinist communism?
> >
> > Again though, you merely ignoring the fact that
> > even if what you say was true (which it isn't,
> as
> > I've shown), that STILL doesn't mean that
> > christianity is correct. So at best, if you
> are
> > right, you are engaging in wishful thinking by
> > accepting christianity.
>
>
> Here's an example of Eliot's first brush with
> dishonest quote mining.
Please learn to be honest Eliot.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 05, 2009 06:11PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 1. Bible says Jesus' human body did not spend
> an
> > eternity "in hell" ... but arose on the third
> day.
> > However, Bible clearly states that Jesus'
> > suffering was sufficient to satisfy God for
> many,
> > many humans.
>
> Yes, the bible says a lot of illogical nonsense -
> please demonstrate how it's logically consistent
> to have a finite sacrifice atone for an eternal
> punishment.
>
> Also, where does it 'clearly state' this in the
> bible? Are you making things up Eliot?
>
> > 2. Correct. Bible does not say Jesus was in the
> > "Hell" that will be created for Satan and his
> > angels, and unforgiven humans. Bible does say
> that
> > Jesus was in Sheol/Hades, the current temporary
> > resting place of the dead.
>
> No, it doesn't, actually. Where does the bible
> state this, Eliot?
>
> > 3. Bible clearly states that the requirement
> for
> > 'sacrifice' to pay for sin is God's
> prerogative,
> > your feelings notwithstanding.
>
>
> My feelings are not at issue - it's a question of
> logic and reasoning; there's no purpose for the
> suffering ergo it's incongruent with the idea of a
> benevolent god.
>
> Trying to ignore logical difficulties with the red
> herring of 'my feelings' is dishonest (although
> I'm sensing you don't have a problem with
> dishonesty) and intellectually bankrupt.
>
> Please be more honest in your future posts.
Plenty of unanswered questions for you Eliot.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 1. Bible says Jesus' human body did not spend
> an
> > eternity "in hell" ... but arose on the third
> day.
> > However, Bible clearly states that Jesus'
> > suffering was sufficient to satisfy God for
> many,
> > many humans.
>
> Yes, the bible says a lot of illogical nonsense -
> please demonstrate how it's logically consistent
> to have a finite sacrifice atone for an eternal
> punishment.
>
> Also, where does it 'clearly state' this in the
> bible? Are you making things up Eliot?
>
> > 2. Correct. Bible does not say Jesus was in the
> > "Hell" that will be created for Satan and his
> > angels, and unforgiven humans. Bible does say
> that
> > Jesus was in Sheol/Hades, the current temporary
> > resting place of the dead.
>
> No, it doesn't, actually. Where does the bible
> state this, Eliot?
>
> > 3. Bible clearly states that the requirement
> for
> > 'sacrifice' to pay for sin is God's
> prerogative,
> > your feelings notwithstanding.
>
>
> My feelings are not at issue - it's a question of
> logic and reasoning; there's no purpose for the
> suffering ergo it's incongruent with the idea of a
> benevolent god.
>
> Trying to ignore logical difficulties with the red
> herring of 'my feelings' is dishonest (although
> I'm sensing you don't have a problem with
> dishonesty) and intellectually bankrupt.
>
> Please be more honest in your future posts.
Plenty of unanswered questions for you Eliot.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 05, 2009 06:14PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
It is my observation that
> contemporary thought just hates the idea of being
> 'created' by something 'personal.' We would rather
> be reduced to a machine, than to contemplate the
> possibility of createdness with the attendant
> possibility of true moral guilt.
That's like saying we hate the idea that we're all going to sprout feathers on April 10th
Meaningless
Just wait until His Noodliness the FSM makes his triumphant appearance on September 19th - he'll kick all your butts with his noodly appendages
Not only that, our guidelines for living are better than yours any day - I try to live by No 5.
The Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts" of Pastafarinism
1. I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject.
2. I'd really rather you didn't use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or, you know, be mean to others. I don't require sacrifices, and purity is for drinking water, not people.
3. I'd really rather you didn't judge people for the way they look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well, just play nice, okay? Oh, and get this into your thick heads: woman = person. man = person. Samey = Samey. One is not better than the other, unless we're talking about fashion and I'm sorry, but I gave that to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuchsia.
4. I'd really rather you didn't indulge in conduct that offends yourself, or your willing, consenting partner of legal age AND mental maturity. As for anyone who might object, I think the expression is "go fuck yourself," unless they find that offensive in which case they can turn off the TV for once and go for a walk for a change.
5. I'd really rather you didn't challenge the bigoted, misogynistic, hateful ideas of others on an empty stomach. Eat, then go after the bitches.
6. I'd really rather you didn't build multi million-dollar synagogues / churches / temples / mosques / shrines to my noodly goodness when the money could be better spent (take your pick):
1. Ending poverty
2. Curing diseases
3. Living in peace, loving with passion, and lowering the cost of cable
I might be a complex-carbohydrate omniscient being, but I enjoy the simple things in life. I ought to know. I AM the creator.
7. I'd really rather you didn't go around telling people I talk to you. You're not that interesting. Get over yourself. And I told you to love your fellow man, can't you take a hint?
8. I'd really rather you didn't do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you are into, um, stuff that uses a lot of leather/lubricant/vaseline. If the other person is into it, however (pursuant to #4), then have at it, take pictures, and for the love of Mike, wear a CONDOM! Honestly, it's a piece of rubber. If I didn't want it to feel good when you did it I would have added spikes, or something.
-------------------------------------------------------
It is my observation that
> contemporary thought just hates the idea of being
> 'created' by something 'personal.' We would rather
> be reduced to a machine, than to contemplate the
> possibility of createdness with the attendant
> possibility of true moral guilt.
That's like saying we hate the idea that we're all going to sprout feathers on April 10th
Meaningless
Just wait until His Noodliness the FSM makes his triumphant appearance on September 19th - he'll kick all your butts with his noodly appendages
Not only that, our guidelines for living are better than yours any day - I try to live by No 5.
The Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts" of Pastafarinism
1. I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject.
2. I'd really rather you didn't use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or, you know, be mean to others. I don't require sacrifices, and purity is for drinking water, not people.
3. I'd really rather you didn't judge people for the way they look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well, just play nice, okay? Oh, and get this into your thick heads: woman = person. man = person. Samey = Samey. One is not better than the other, unless we're talking about fashion and I'm sorry, but I gave that to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuchsia.
4. I'd really rather you didn't indulge in conduct that offends yourself, or your willing, consenting partner of legal age AND mental maturity. As for anyone who might object, I think the expression is "go fuck yourself," unless they find that offensive in which case they can turn off the TV for once and go for a walk for a change.
5. I'd really rather you didn't challenge the bigoted, misogynistic, hateful ideas of others on an empty stomach. Eat, then go after the bitches.
6. I'd really rather you didn't build multi million-dollar synagogues / churches / temples / mosques / shrines to my noodly goodness when the money could be better spent (take your pick):
1. Ending poverty
2. Curing diseases
3. Living in peace, loving with passion, and lowering the cost of cable
I might be a complex-carbohydrate omniscient being, but I enjoy the simple things in life. I ought to know. I AM the creator.
7. I'd really rather you didn't go around telling people I talk to you. You're not that interesting. Get over yourself. And I told you to love your fellow man, can't you take a hint?
8. I'd really rather you didn't do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you are into, um, stuff that uses a lot of leather/lubricant/vaseline. If the other person is into it, however (pursuant to #4), then have at it, take pictures, and for the love of Mike, wear a CONDOM! Honestly, it's a piece of rubber. If I didn't want it to feel good when you did it I would have added spikes, or something.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 05, 2009 06:17PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
[clip images]
+1
-------------------------------------------------------
[clip images]
+1
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 05, 2009 06:42PM
| WL wrote: "Paul didn't write the four Gospels. My point about the Greek being that the Gospels were written long, long after the events by people who were not there." |
| OK, let's posit that only one Apostle, Paul, spoke Greek. Here's Paul's (Greek language) very high view of Scripture: "pasa graphe theopneustos" ... "All scripture [is] god-breathed." |
| The issue is not the languages of the Bible or the distance of the authors from events, but the involvement of God in writing the words ... from Moses to John on the island of Patmos. |
| Both the OT and the NT are full of 1) historical assertions and 2) descriptions of thoughts that are in the minds of men and women ... thoughts that were formed in languages other than Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek [the biblical languages]. |
| If the God of the Bible could inspire men's writing, then it's obviously conceivable that they could ... *** accurately describe events that they themselves had not witnessed (such as Moses' account of human history, beginning with Adam) *** accurately describe thoughts and motivations in other men's minds. (E.g., "When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because for a long time he had been wanting to see him. From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see him perform some miracle.") |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 05, 2009 06:43PM
Heh...This conversation with Eliot also reminds me of the following image...
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 05, 2009 06:43PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WL wrote: "Paul didn't write the four Gospels. My
> point about the Greek being that the Gospels were
> written long, long after the events by people who
> were not there."OK, let's posit that only one
> Apostle, Paul, spoke Greek. Here's Paul's (Greek
> language) very high view of Scripture: "pasa
> graphe theopneustos" ... "All scripture
> god-breathed."The issue is not the languages of
> the Bible or the distance of the authors from
> events, but the involvement of God in writing the
> words ... from Moses to John on the island of
> Patmos.Both the OT and the NT are full of 1)
> historical assertions and 2) descriptions of
> thoughts that are in the minds of men and women
> ... thoughts that were formed in languages other
> than Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek .If the God of the
> Bible could inspire men's writing, then it's
> obviously conceivable that they could ...
> *** accurately describe events that they
> themselves had not witnessed (such as Moses'
> account of human history, beginning with Adam)
> *** accurately describe thoughts and
> motivations in other men's minds. (E.g., "When
> Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because
> for a long time he had been wanting to see him.
> From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see
> him perform some miracle.")
Let's remember that 'all scripture is god breathed' is referring to the OLD testament, NOT the new.
-------------------------------------------------------
> WL wrote: "Paul didn't write the four Gospels. My
> point about the Greek being that the Gospels were
> written long, long after the events by people who
> were not there."OK, let's posit that only one
> Apostle, Paul, spoke Greek. Here's Paul's (Greek
> language) very high view of Scripture: "pasa
> graphe theopneustos" ... "All scripture
> god-breathed."The issue is not the languages of
> the Bible or the distance of the authors from
> events, but the involvement of God in writing the
> words ... from Moses to John on the island of
> Patmos.Both the OT and the NT are full of 1)
> historical assertions and 2) descriptions of
> thoughts that are in the minds of men and women
> ... thoughts that were formed in languages other
> than Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek .If the God of the
> Bible could inspire men's writing, then it's
> obviously conceivable that they could ...
> *** accurately describe events that they
> themselves had not witnessed (such as Moses'
> account of human history, beginning with Adam)
> *** accurately describe thoughts and
> motivations in other men's minds. (E.g., "When
> Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because
> for a long time he had been wanting to see him.
> From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see
> him perform some miracle.")
Let's remember that 'all scripture is god breathed' is referring to the OLD testament, NOT the new.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 05, 2009 07:24PM
| Sigh. Pangloss ... always making accusations of intellectual dishonesty and fabrication. |
| Pangloss: "The bible says a lot of illogical nonsense - please demonstrate how it's logically consistent to have a finite sacrifice atone for an eternal punishment." Ness: Who says that Christ's sacrifice, though limited in its intent, was merely 'finite.' http://www.gotquestions.org/substitutionary-atonement.html |
| Pangloss: "Where does the bible state [that Jesus was in 'Sheol/Hades' rather than in 'Hell?'" Ness: Here's a good article: http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-go-to-hell.html |
| Pangloss: "It's a question of logic and reasoning; ... suffering ... [is] incongruent with the idea of a benevolent god." Ness: You're always roping God and dragging him into the created cosmos in order to say what could, or couldn't, be true about God. http://www.gotquestions.org/is-God-cruel.html |
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 07:25PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 05, 2009 07:45PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://www.gotquestions.org/is-God-cruel.html
What an excellent site - the highest density of BS on the Internet (present company excepted of course) - we have a winner!!!!!
This is a cracker:
"In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “that than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, but that would contradict God's very definition."
so to paraphrase - 'I've imagined something so it must be true' - sums religion up perfectly
Brilliant - you couldn't make this stuff up!
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://www.gotquestions.org/is-God-cruel.html
What an excellent site - the highest density of BS on the Internet (present company excepted of course) - we have a winner!!!!!
This is a cracker:
"In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “that than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, but that would contradict God's very definition."
so to paraphrase - 'I've imagined something so it must be true' - sums religion up perfectly
Brilliant - you couldn't make this stuff up!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
More Than A Believer
()
Date: February 05, 2009 08:18PM
Wow, you spent so much time trying to convince yourselves that God is dead to what purpose. What does it gain you? As much as you hate, God loves you that much more... May you all experience the awakening that fills the void that's so obviously missing in you lives. None of us understands the mystery of life, death, and what happens after death but it is possible to have an actual relationship with God when we seek to know him.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
TheMeeper
()
Date: February 05, 2009 08:22PM
More Than A Believer Wrote:
>>> you spent so much time trying to convince yourselves that God is dead to what purpose.
As opposed to the thousands of years, millions of innocent lives, and countless wars to prove that God isn't dead? To what purpose?
>>> you spent so much time trying to convince yourselves that God is dead to what purpose.
As opposed to the thousands of years, millions of innocent lives, and countless wars to prove that God isn't dead? To what purpose?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 05, 2009 08:24PM
| Pangloss: "Let's remember that 'all scripture is god breathed' is referring to the OLD testament, NOT the new." |
| Ness: True ... however Paul clearly considered his teachings and writings to be authoritative scripture too: "Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" Peter agreed: "Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: February 05, 2009 08:24PM
Actually, the Hulk is the greatest thing I can conceive. All hail the Incredible Hulk!
Why do you think Monotheism became such a big hit? When people were still living in caves, they believed that a god or goddess made it storm. As man progressed, science began to explain these phenomenon. The more people learned, the less superstitious they became.
Kings and emperors realized that Christianity was a simple religion to convert people to. Instead of trying to teach a conquered populace about an entirely new pantheon of gods, all they had to do was tell the ignorant masses, "Our god is the right god. Your gods are demons. Our god will burn you for all of eternity if you don't worship him. But he loves you, and just wants us all to be nice to each other."
For more information on the importance of sharing the same religion as the land you're trying to conquer, google "American invasion of Iraq."
People use God to fill in any unknown gaps in their life, and since death is the Ultimate Unknowable, religion will always exist in some form. However, I believe that any god or goddess ever is only as real as the individual feels. Maybe someday science will find a way to determine once and for all whether or not there is life after death, but in the meantime, believe in whatever gives you strength and makes sense to you.
Just keep that shit to yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Why do you think Monotheism became such a big hit? When people were still living in caves, they believed that a god or goddess made it storm. As man progressed, science began to explain these phenomenon. The more people learned, the less superstitious they became.
Kings and emperors realized that Christianity was a simple religion to convert people to. Instead of trying to teach a conquered populace about an entirely new pantheon of gods, all they had to do was tell the ignorant masses, "Our god is the right god. Your gods are demons. Our god will burn you for all of eternity if you don't worship him. But he loves you, and just wants us all to be nice to each other."
For more information on the importance of sharing the same religion as the land you're trying to conquer, google "American invasion of Iraq."
People use God to fill in any unknown gaps in their life, and since death is the Ultimate Unknowable, religion will always exist in some form. However, I believe that any god or goddess ever is only as real as the individual feels. Maybe someday science will find a way to determine once and for all whether or not there is life after death, but in the meantime, believe in whatever gives you strength and makes sense to you.
Just keep that shit to yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 05, 2009 08:31PM
More Than A Believer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, you spent so much time trying to convince
> yourselves that God is dead to what purpose. What
> does it gain you? As much as you hate, God loves
> you that much more... May you all experience the
> awakening that fills the void that's so obviously
> missing in you lives. None of us understands the
> mystery of life, death, and what happens after
> death but it is possible to have an actual
> relationship with God when we seek to know him.
nah - I think we have a good handle on life (its called biology), death (you see it as it is) and what happens afterward (nothing)
no void in my life thank you very much - life's hunk-dory - but thanks for asking
keep deluding yourselves, just stop indoctrinating kids, bringing the religious drivel into the public square and asking for tax breaks
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, you spent so much time trying to convince
> yourselves that God is dead to what purpose. What
> does it gain you? As much as you hate, God loves
> you that much more... May you all experience the
> awakening that fills the void that's so obviously
> missing in you lives. None of us understands the
> mystery of life, death, and what happens after
> death but it is possible to have an actual
> relationship with God when we seek to know him.
nah - I think we have a good handle on life (its called biology), death (you see it as it is) and what happens afterward (nothing)
no void in my life thank you very much - life's hunk-dory - but thanks for asking
keep deluding yourselves, just stop indoctrinating kids, bringing the religious drivel into the public square and asking for tax breaks
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 05, 2009 09:03PM
Nutters ... just FYI, I have the same problem with the Scholastic rationalist 'ontological' argument for God that I have with Pangloss's critiques ... both insist upon pulling God into the created cosmos and then dictating what could, or could not be true about Him, based upon what the mind of Man determines: "The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “that than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, but that would contradict God's very definition." | ||
| Much of the Bible's seeming logical contradiction stems from its statements about a completely sovereign, uncreated God interacting with men and angels who are created, subordinate, and yet historically and morally significant. | ||
| Note, for example, that Exodus says both that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" and that "Pharaoh hardened his heart" ... and just leaves it there. Both are true, yet Pharaoh is guilty. http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/Pharaoh.htm | ||
| "(Exo 4:21 NIV) The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go." | ||
| (Exo 8:15 NIV) But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said. | ||
|
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 09:12PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: February 05, 2009 09:04PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian wrote:
> There is debate about whether the "Paul" who wrote
> the letters is even the same "Paul" who had the
> revelation on the Road to Damascus. ... There is
> ample evidence that Mary Magdalene was not a
> prostitute but was, in fact, a wealthy patron of
> Jesus's and may have even served as a Rabbi.Ness
> notes:1) My brother, who holds a Ph.D. in New
> Testament from Cambridge, happened to call a
> moment ago ... he is not aware of any serious
> scholarly debate about the authorship of the
> Pauline epistles (though obviously none of us
> really 'knows' who wrote any ancient document
> because we were not there to observe the
> writing).2) What 'debate' is there about two Pauls
> -- one on the road to Damascus v. the one who
> wrote the letters? E.g., Galatians: "I did not
> receive it from any man, nor was I taught it;
> rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus
> Christ....But when God, who set me apart from
> birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to
> reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him
> among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor
> did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were
> apostles before I was, but I went immediately into
> Arabia and later returned to Damascus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#Authorship
3) My
> brother's Ph.D. was precisely about Pauline ethics
> in re: men/women ... he is not aware of any
> historical indication that a woman ever "served as
> a Rabbi."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene#Gospel_of_Mary
4) The Bible does not assert that Mary
> Magdalene was a prostitute. You may be thinking of
> "DaVinci Code" speculation about her relationship
> with Jesus, and/or 5th century Catholic Church
> intimations that she was a 'prostitute.' Mary
> Magdalene is most mentioned when she was present
> at the Crucifixion ... in Mark, we read "Now when
> the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in
> this way he breathed his last, he said, ‘Truly
> this man was God’s Son!’ There were also women
> looking on from a distance; among them were Mary
> Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the
> younger and of Joses, and Salome." ... at the
> tomb "Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down
> the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it
> in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone
> against the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene
> and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was
> laid. ... and later at the tomb: "When the
> sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the
> mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that
> they might go and anoint him. And very early on
> the first day of the week, when the sun had risen,
> they went to the tomb."
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian wrote:
> There is debate about whether the "Paul" who wrote
> the letters is even the same "Paul" who had the
> revelation on the Road to Damascus. ... There is
> ample evidence that Mary Magdalene was not a
> prostitute but was, in fact, a wealthy patron of
> Jesus's and may have even served as a Rabbi.Ness
> notes:1) My brother, who holds a Ph.D. in New
> Testament from Cambridge, happened to call a
> moment ago ... he is not aware of any serious
> scholarly debate about the authorship of the
> Pauline epistles (though obviously none of us
> really 'knows' who wrote any ancient document
> because we were not there to observe the
> writing).2) What 'debate' is there about two Pauls
> -- one on the road to Damascus v. the one who
> wrote the letters? E.g., Galatians: "I did not
> receive it from any man, nor was I taught it;
> rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus
> Christ....But when God, who set me apart from
> birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to
> reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him
> among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor
> did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were
> apostles before I was, but I went immediately into
> Arabia and later returned to Damascus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#Authorship
3) My
> brother's Ph.D. was precisely about Pauline ethics
> in re: men/women ... he is not aware of any
> historical indication that a woman ever "served as
> a Rabbi."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene#Gospel_of_Mary
4) The Bible does not assert that Mary
> Magdalene was a prostitute. You may be thinking of
> "DaVinci Code" speculation about her relationship
> with Jesus, and/or 5th century Catholic Church
> intimations that she was a 'prostitute.' Mary
> Magdalene is most mentioned when she was present
> at the Crucifixion ... in Mark, we read "Now when
> the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in
> this way he breathed his last, he said, ‘Truly
> this man was God’s Son!’ There were also women
> looking on from a distance; among them were Mary
> Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the
> younger and of Joses, and Salome." ... at the
> tomb "Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down
> the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it
> in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone
> against the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene
> and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was
> laid. ... and later at the tomb: "When the
> sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the
> mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that
> they might go and anoint him. And very early on
> the first day of the week, when the sun had risen,
> they went to the tomb."
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 05, 2009 09:16PM
WashingTone Locian ... Yeah, I have corresponded with Princeton's Elaine Pagels about the Gnostic gospels ... she promotes (and the History Channel echoes) the idea that the Romans considered Jesus a threat and therefore crucified him ... despite the fact both Herod and Pilate interrogated Jesus and found no fault in him. Indeed, the NT says a lot about Pilate's thought processes (there's that Biblical mind-reading thing again) as he actively sought to release Jesus and only reluctantly crucified him after Jewish insistence!
epagels@princeton.EDU Jan 9, 2009 Dear Ms. Pagels, Could you possibly point me to source documents for these History Channel statements about Roman involvement in the assassination of Jesus? 1) "The Romans thought of Jesus as a traitor to Rome, and one who was a dangerous man, and that's why he was crucified." (Elaine Pagels) 2) "According to the New Testament, to help identify the man to be crucified, Roman centurions bribed Judas, one of the twelve disciples." (History Channel narrator) I've searched the BibleGateway website's New Testament, but cannot find material in support of these assertions. (Is Roman involvement addressed in any of your books about The Gnostic Gospels?) Bribed by Romans: The NT states that Judas solicited - and got - a bribe from Jewish leaders not the Romans.
Then one of the Twelve - the one called Judas Iscariot - went to the chief priests and asked, "What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?" So they counted out for him thirty silver coins. From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over. (Matthew 26) When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. (Matthew 27) Traitor to Rome: The NT states that Pilate, the Roman governor, considered Jesus innocent of any Roman crime and indeed sought to release him.
Pilate came out to them and asked, "What charges are you bringing against this man?" ... Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." (John 18) From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free. (John 19) "What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate. [Pilate] took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. (Matthew 27)
Edited 14 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2009 10:12PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 05, 2009 09:41PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sigh. Pangloss ... always making accusations of
> intellectual dishonesty and fabrication.Pangloss:
I've demonstrated it. You are ignoring it, please address your quote mine of Stephen Gould.
> "The bible says a lot of illogical nonsense -
> please demonstrate how it's logically consistent
> to have a finite sacrifice atone for an eternal
> punishment."
> Ness: Who says
> that Christ's sacrifice, though limited in its
> intent, was merely 'finite.'
Logic does.
> http://www.gotquestions.org/substitutionary-atonem
Sorry but the author is clearly stretching.
> ent.htmlPangloss: "Where does the bible state
> incongruent with the idea of a benevolent god."
> Ness: You're
> always roping God and dragging him into the
> created cosmos in order to say what could, or
> couldn't, be true about God.
> http://www.gotquestions.org/is-God-cruel.html
In otherwords your god is incoherent. Whatever logical problems there are, you just ignore them.
The website fails the sniff test - one answer is an appeal to ignorance (ie, god is mysterious), where the reasonable answer is that such a god couldn't exist. We have to base our beliefs off of what we know, not what we don't. Ergo, the evidence of reality (and the character of god put forth in the bible), demonstrates that the rational conclusion is that such a god has inconsistent (contradictory) attributes.
The punishment excuse is laughable; no finite crime equates to an infinite punishment. Period.
The glorification excuse is downright absurd and contradicted with the characteristic of omnipotence.
> Pangloss: "Let's remember that 'all scripture is
> god breathed' is referring to the OLD testament,
> NOT the new."Ness: True ... however Paul clearly
> considered his teachings and writings to be
> authoritative scripture too: "Even if we or an
> angel from heaven should preach a gospel other
> than the one we preached to you, let him be
> eternally condemned! As we have already said, so
> now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a
> gospel other than what you accepted, let him be
> eternally condemned!"Peter agreed: "Bear in mind
Clearly you are stretching the meaning of this. It's not surprising though, you often stretch quotes to make them say what you want, thereby skewing the original intention.
> that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as
> our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the
> wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way
> in all his letters, speaking in them of these
> matters. His letters contain some things that are
> hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable
> people distort, as they do the other Scriptures,
> to their own destruction."
It's a shame that he didn't the gospels then. Of course they were written after he wrote his and they were all based on Mark, which was not an eyewitness.
In any event, most scholars (other then your 'cambridge brother') do not consider all of the writings in the bible attributable to Paul. Further, not all of Paul's letters are in tact. There is considerable evidence of forgery.
Ergo, we cannot trust the new testament, EVEN if Paul was talking about it (which he clearly wasn't) when he said 'scripture' is to be trusted.
> Nutters ... just FYI, I have the same problem with
> the Scholastic rationalist 'ontological' argument
> for God that I have with Pangloss's critiques ...
Oh, so you are going to address my arguments as opposed to ignoring them.
> both insist upon pulling God into the created
> cosmos and then dictating what could, or could not
> be true about Him, based upon what the mind of Man
So your refutation is that 'we cannot know god's ways'? I'm sorry, but that's completely irrational. If your beliefs are irrational, you should not hold them. Just because we do not know everything doesn't mean we have to IGNORE what we actually know. In order to form rational opinions we should examine the evidence we have and reason to the best conclusion.
The best conclusion of whether god exists or not is that he does not, based on the cosmological problems I've brought up.
> determines: "The most popular form of the
> ontological argument uses the concept of God to
> prove God’s existence. It begins with the
> definition of God as “that than which no greater
> can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist
> is greater than to not exist, and therefore the
> greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did
> not exist then God would not be the greatest
> conceivable being, but that would contradict God's
> very definition."Much of the Bible's seeming
I agree with Kant's objection of the ontological argument; ie, that existence is not a greatness. You either exist or you don't.
> logical contradiction stems from its statements
> about a completely sovereign, uncreated God
> interacting with men and angels who are created,
> subordinate, and yet historically and morally
> significant. Note, for example, that Exodus says
> both that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" and that
> "Pharaoh hardened his heart" ... and just leaves
> it there. Both are true, yet Pharaoh is guilty.
> http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/Pharaoh.ht
> m "(Exo 4:21 NIV) The LORD said to Moses, "When
> you return to Egypt, see that you perform before
> Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power
> to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will
> not let the people go."(Exo 8:15 NIV) But when
> Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his
> heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron,
> just as the LORD had said.Christians, like
So your rationalization is that A=A and A=~A?? God is above 'logic'? Is this your rebuttal.
I certainly hope not, as you are essentially admitting your entire belief system is irrational. Actually, it's worse then that, as you are reduced to believing in an incoherency. It's cognitive dissonance at it's worst.
> scientists trying to describe wave/particles, have
> to deal with the phenomena they observe in the
> Bible even when it makes their heads hurt. This
Um, no, not exactly. Light exhibits both properties, which suggests that we are missing a key concept - not a contradiction. There is a difference there that you do not seem to get. Further, we have empirical evidence of light and NONE of god (much less a Christian god).
> is what Schaeffer called "bowing the knee
> metaphysically." The God of the Bible purports to
> knows what is real within himself and within his
> creation. (Note the predictive statement to Moses
> about what Pharaoh will do in the future, and the
> as-it-were mind-reading statement about Pharaoh's
> hardening of his heart.)
We've already established that Schaeffer didn't know what he was talking about.
> WashingTone Locian ... Yeah, I have corresponded
> with Princeton's Elaine Pagels about the Gnostic
> gospels ... she promotes (and the History Channel
> echoes) the curious idea that the Romans
> considered Jesus a threat and therefore crucified
> him ... despite the fact both Herod and Pilate
> interrogated Jesus and found no fault in him.
> Indeed, the NT says a lot about Pilate's thought
> processes (there's that Biblical mind-reading
> thing again) as he actively sought to release
> Jesus and only reluctantly crucified him after
> Jewish insistence!
So now we should believe that you went to harvard, that your brother went to cambridge (sp?) and that you have talked with Pagels, and yet you can't even defend any of your beliefs with out quotes and web links?
Seriously Eliot, do you think anyone is buying your bilge?
> Maybe I'll excerpt some of that correspondence and
> drop it into this item.
Sure you will.
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sigh. Pangloss ... always making accusations of
> intellectual dishonesty and fabrication.Pangloss:
I've demonstrated it. You are ignoring it, please address your quote mine of Stephen Gould.
> "The bible says a lot of illogical nonsense -
> please demonstrate how it's logically consistent
> to have a finite sacrifice atone for an eternal
> punishment."
> Ness: Who says
> that Christ's sacrifice, though limited in its
> intent, was merely 'finite.'
Logic does.
> http://www.gotquestions.org/substitutionary-atonem
Sorry but the author is clearly stretching.
> ent.htmlPangloss: "Where does the bible state
> incongruent with the idea of a benevolent god."
> Ness: You're
> always roping God and dragging him into the
> created cosmos in order to say what could, or
> couldn't, be true about God.
> http://www.gotquestions.org/is-God-cruel.html
In otherwords your god is incoherent. Whatever logical problems there are, you just ignore them.
The website fails the sniff test - one answer is an appeal to ignorance (ie, god is mysterious), where the reasonable answer is that such a god couldn't exist. We have to base our beliefs off of what we know, not what we don't. Ergo, the evidence of reality (and the character of god put forth in the bible), demonstrates that the rational conclusion is that such a god has inconsistent (contradictory) attributes.
The punishment excuse is laughable; no finite crime equates to an infinite punishment. Period.
The glorification excuse is downright absurd and contradicted with the characteristic of omnipotence.
> Pangloss: "Let's remember that 'all scripture is
> god breathed' is referring to the OLD testament,
> NOT the new."Ness: True ... however Paul clearly
> considered his teachings and writings to be
> authoritative scripture too: "Even if we or an
> angel from heaven should preach a gospel other
> than the one we preached to you, let him be
> eternally condemned! As we have already said, so
> now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a
> gospel other than what you accepted, let him be
> eternally condemned!"Peter agreed: "Bear in mind
Clearly you are stretching the meaning of this. It's not surprising though, you often stretch quotes to make them say what you want, thereby skewing the original intention.
> that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as
> our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the
> wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way
> in all his letters, speaking in them of these
> matters. His letters contain some things that are
> hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable
> people distort, as they do the other Scriptures,
> to their own destruction."
It's a shame that he didn't the gospels then. Of course they were written after he wrote his and they were all based on Mark, which was not an eyewitness.
In any event, most scholars (other then your 'cambridge brother') do not consider all of the writings in the bible attributable to Paul. Further, not all of Paul's letters are in tact. There is considerable evidence of forgery.
Ergo, we cannot trust the new testament, EVEN if Paul was talking about it (which he clearly wasn't) when he said 'scripture' is to be trusted.
> Nutters ... just FYI, I have the same problem with
> the Scholastic rationalist 'ontological' argument
> for God that I have with Pangloss's critiques ...
Oh, so you are going to address my arguments as opposed to ignoring them.
> both insist upon pulling God into the created
> cosmos and then dictating what could, or could not
> be true about Him, based upon what the mind of Man
So your refutation is that 'we cannot know god's ways'? I'm sorry, but that's completely irrational. If your beliefs are irrational, you should not hold them. Just because we do not know everything doesn't mean we have to IGNORE what we actually know. In order to form rational opinions we should examine the evidence we have and reason to the best conclusion.
The best conclusion of whether god exists or not is that he does not, based on the cosmological problems I've brought up.
> determines: "The most popular form of the
> ontological argument uses the concept of God to
> prove God’s existence. It begins with the
> definition of God as “that than which no greater
> can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist
> is greater than to not exist, and therefore the
> greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did
> not exist then God would not be the greatest
> conceivable being, but that would contradict God's
> very definition."Much of the Bible's seeming
I agree with Kant's objection of the ontological argument; ie, that existence is not a greatness. You either exist or you don't.
> logical contradiction stems from its statements
> about a completely sovereign, uncreated God
> interacting with men and angels who are created,
> subordinate, and yet historically and morally
> significant. Note, for example, that Exodus says
> both that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" and that
> "Pharaoh hardened his heart" ... and just leaves
> it there. Both are true, yet Pharaoh is guilty.
> http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/Pharaoh.ht
> m "(Exo 4:21 NIV) The LORD said to Moses, "When
> you return to Egypt, see that you perform before
> Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power
> to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will
> not let the people go."(Exo 8:15 NIV) But when
> Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his
> heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron,
> just as the LORD had said.Christians, like
So your rationalization is that A=A and A=~A?? God is above 'logic'? Is this your rebuttal.
I certainly hope not, as you are essentially admitting your entire belief system is irrational. Actually, it's worse then that, as you are reduced to believing in an incoherency. It's cognitive dissonance at it's worst.
> scientists trying to describe wave/particles, have
> to deal with the phenomena they observe in the
> Bible even when it makes their heads hurt. This
Um, no, not exactly. Light exhibits both properties, which suggests that we are missing a key concept - not a contradiction. There is a difference there that you do not seem to get. Further, we have empirical evidence of light and NONE of god (much less a Christian god).
> is what Schaeffer called "bowing the knee
> metaphysically." The God of the Bible purports to
> knows what is real within himself and within his
> creation. (Note the predictive statement to Moses
> about what Pharaoh will do in the future, and the
> as-it-were mind-reading statement about Pharaoh's
> hardening of his heart.)
We've already established that Schaeffer didn't know what he was talking about.
> WashingTone Locian ... Yeah, I have corresponded
> with Princeton's Elaine Pagels about the Gnostic
> gospels ... she promotes (and the History Channel
> echoes) the curious idea that the Romans
> considered Jesus a threat and therefore crucified
> him ... despite the fact both Herod and Pilate
> interrogated Jesus and found no fault in him.
> Indeed, the NT says a lot about Pilate's thought
> processes (there's that Biblical mind-reading
> thing again) as he actively sought to release
> Jesus and only reluctantly crucified him after
> Jewish insistence!
So now we should believe that you went to harvard, that your brother went to cambridge (sp?) and that you have talked with Pagels, and yet you can't even defend any of your beliefs with out quotes and web links?
Seriously Eliot, do you think anyone is buying your bilge?
> Maybe I'll excerpt some of that correspondence and
> drop it into this item.
Sure you will.
Attachments:
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 05, 2009 09:42PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Before we go any further Eliot, please
> demonstrate
> > that this universe requires a creator.
> >
> > This seems to be your fundamental sticking
> point
> > and although I've pointed out that this notion
> is
> > incoherent, this seems lost on you. So I'll try
> a
> > different tact (the tact above).
>
>
>
>
> Please answer Eliot.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Before we go any further Eliot, please
> demonstrate
> > that this universe requires a creator.
> >
> > This seems to be your fundamental sticking
> point
> > and although I've pointed out that this notion
> is
> > incoherent, this seems lost on you. So I'll try
> a
> > different tact (the tact above).
>
>
>
>
> Please answer Eliot.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: February 05, 2009 10:06PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian ... Yeah, I have corresponded
> with Princeton's Elaine Pagels about the Gnostic
> gospels ... she promotes (and the History Channel
> echoes) the curious idea that the Romans
> considered Jesus a threat and therefore crucified
> him ...
It's not curious at all. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment, not Jewish. The Jews did not Crucify. Historians point out that Romans pretty much Crucified anyone for anything on a regular basis. Despite the depictions in the Gospels, the Roman Governor made the final decision on Crucifixion, period.
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian ... Yeah, I have corresponded
> with Princeton's Elaine Pagels about the Gnostic
> gospels ... she promotes (and the History Channel
> echoes) the curious idea that the Romans
> considered Jesus a threat and therefore crucified
> him ...
It's not curious at all. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment, not Jewish. The Jews did not Crucify. Historians point out that Romans pretty much Crucified anyone for anything on a regular basis. Despite the depictions in the Gospels, the Roman Governor made the final decision on Crucifixion, period.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Time's Up
()
Date: February 05, 2009 10:29PM
This isn't getting anywhere. How about a simpler question:
Tastes great or less filling?
Tastes great or less filling?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: February 05, 2009 11:41PM
This applies to Eliot....
"There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent there will be no need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever."
"There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent there will be no need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever."
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 06, 2009 07:46AM
WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This applies to Eliot....
>
> "There will be no art, no literature, no science.
> When we are omnipotent there will be no need of
> science. There will be no distinction between
> beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity,
> no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing
> pleasures will be destroyed. If you want a picture
> of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human
> face—forever."
I love that book. At the same time it achieves terror and stark realization about dogmatism.
-------------------------------------------------------
> This applies to Eliot....
>
> "There will be no art, no literature, no science.
> When we are omnipotent there will be no need of
> science. There will be no distinction between
> beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity,
> no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing
> pleasures will be destroyed. If you want a picture
> of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human
> face—forever."
I love that book. At the same time it achieves terror and stark realization about dogmatism.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: February 06, 2009 10:59AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1136482/Brains-hardwired-believe-God-imaginary-friends.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 06, 2009 11:27AM
| WTL wrote: "Crucifixion was a Roman punishment, not Jewish. The Jews did not Crucify. Historians point out that Romans pretty much Crucified anyone for anything on a regular basis. Despite the depictions in the Gospels, the Roman Governor made the final decision on Crucifixion, period." |
| Ness asks: Are you referring to some source other than the Gospels? |
Pilate came out to them and asked, "What charges are you bringing against this man?" "If he were not a criminal," they replied, "we would not have handed him over to you." Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." "But we have no right to execute anyone," the Jews objected. This happened so that the words Jesus had spoken indicating the kind of death he was going to die would be fulfilled. Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?" "Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?" Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." "What is truth?" Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, "I find no basis for a charge against him. But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release 'the king of the Jews'?" They shouted back, "No, not him! Give us Barabbas!" (John 18)
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 06, 2009 11:49AM
| "Richard Dawkins. Britain's most famous atheist, argues in his book the God Delusion that religion is propagated through indoctrination, especially of children." ... "Evolution predisposes children to swallow whatever their parents and elders tell them, he argues, as trust and obedience are important for survival." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1136482/Brains-hardwired-believe-God-imaginary-friends.html |
| No Christian should be surprised that 'created' Man is almost incurably 'religious.' Even hard-core atheist statists like Communists had their sacred books, prophets, and a dream of a Heaven-on-Earth in the future. |
| Like so many scientists, Dawkins slips into romantic personified language when talking about Evolution. A more accurate statement would have been for him to say that "trust and obedience to parents have survival value, favoring reproduction by such children" |
| Evolution doesn't 'do' anything ... it's just an interpretation of events ... but even Dawkins, at some level, doesn't want to live in an impersonal universe. |
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2009 12:08PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 06, 2009 12:02PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Richard Dawkins. Britain's most famous atheist,
> argues in his book the God Delusion that religion
> is propagated through indoctrination, especially
> of children." ... "Evolution predisposes children
> to swallow whatever their parents and elders tell
> them, he argues, as trust and obedience are
> important for survival."
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-113
> 6482/Brains-hardwired-believe-God-imaginary-friend
> s.html
Have you read Dawkin's book? I'd wager not.
> No Christian should be surprised that 'created'
> Man is almost incurably 'religious.' Even
> hard-core atheist statists like Communists had
> their sacred books, prophets, and a dream of a
> Heaven-on-Earth in the future.
Actually it would go against the whole idea of free will. But as with most other things, when reality contradicts biblical ideas, either reality is ignored or christians suddenly claim that it was believed all along.
> Like so many scientists, Dawkins slips into
> romantic personified language when talking about
> Evolution. A more accurate statement would have
> been for him to say that "trust and obedience to
> parents have survival value."Evolution doesn't
> 'do' anything ... it's just an interpretation of
> events ... but even Dawkins, at some level,
> doesn't want to live in an impersonal universe.
Reality doesn't care about our wishes and desires Eliot.
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Richard Dawkins. Britain's most famous atheist,
> argues in his book the God Delusion that religion
> is propagated through indoctrination, especially
> of children." ... "Evolution predisposes children
> to swallow whatever their parents and elders tell
> them, he argues, as trust and obedience are
> important for survival."
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-113
> 6482/Brains-hardwired-believe-God-imaginary-friend
> s.html
Have you read Dawkin's book? I'd wager not.
> No Christian should be surprised that 'created'
> Man is almost incurably 'religious.' Even
> hard-core atheist statists like Communists had
> their sacred books, prophets, and a dream of a
> Heaven-on-Earth in the future.
Actually it would go against the whole idea of free will. But as with most other things, when reality contradicts biblical ideas, either reality is ignored or christians suddenly claim that it was believed all along.
> Like so many scientists, Dawkins slips into
> romantic personified language when talking about
> Evolution. A more accurate statement would have
> been for him to say that "trust and obedience to
> parents have survival value."Evolution doesn't
> 'do' anything ... it's just an interpretation of
> events ... but even Dawkins, at some level,
> doesn't want to live in an impersonal universe.
Reality doesn't care about our wishes and desires Eliot.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 06, 2009 12:15PM
| Pangloss: "Reality doesn't care about our wishes and desires." |
| Ness: In the atheist's world-view there is no person 'out there' to either "care about our wishes and desires" or to 'do' anything at all ... which is precisely why it is so striking when an atheist like Dawkins slips into 'romantic' personified language to disparage those who do live in 'personal' universe. |
| In fact, it is striking when a person who holds an impersonal 'Darwinist' world-view, makes any moral assertion or value judgment at all, rather than asserting Nihilism. |
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2009 12:26PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: February 06, 2009 12:56PM
WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you want a picture
> of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human
> face—forever."
I'm impressed with your Orwellian knowledge. I wish more people knew.
What bothers me is when believers always assume that non believers have some vast emptiness inside them that can only be filled by a deity. I find it more often the other way around. To me, believers always have this empty spot in the back of their mind that wants to ask questions and look at all possibilities, but are simply too terrified to open the door.
They can be scorned and otherwise mentally abused by their peers at the slightest sign of doubt. In addition, a large portion of society still discriminates against non believers and to suddenly "come out" could result in the loss of many friends, family and even employment. I think many more people would jump ship if it weren't for all this.
There are a growing number of christians who wish the old testament was never released because of all the unbelievable stories, contradictions, violence, incest, giants, people living 900 years, the age of the Earth, etc.....
They are desperately looking for answers and explanations which end up making themselves look even sillier (radio carbon dating doesn't work, noah's flood causing the Grand Canyon, peanut butter, ect...).
This is all going to come to head very soon and I don't think it's going to be pretty. At some point I envision some group of die hard religious nuts making a final stand against logic and reality (an American Taliban, if you will). It will be unsuccessful in the end, but not before many lives are lost.
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you want a picture
> of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human
> face—forever."
I'm impressed with your Orwellian knowledge. I wish more people knew.
What bothers me is when believers always assume that non believers have some vast emptiness inside them that can only be filled by a deity. I find it more often the other way around. To me, believers always have this empty spot in the back of their mind that wants to ask questions and look at all possibilities, but are simply too terrified to open the door.
They can be scorned and otherwise mentally abused by their peers at the slightest sign of doubt. In addition, a large portion of society still discriminates against non believers and to suddenly "come out" could result in the loss of many friends, family and even employment. I think many more people would jump ship if it weren't for all this.
There are a growing number of christians who wish the old testament was never released because of all the unbelievable stories, contradictions, violence, incest, giants, people living 900 years, the age of the Earth, etc.....
They are desperately looking for answers and explanations which end up making themselves look even sillier (radio carbon dating doesn't work, noah's flood causing the Grand Canyon, peanut butter, ect...).
This is all going to come to head very soon and I don't think it's going to be pretty. At some point I envision some group of die hard religious nuts making a final stand against logic and reality (an American Taliban, if you will). It will be unsuccessful in the end, but not before many lives are lost.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 06, 2009 12:57PM
| Pangloss, last night ER had an episode about the death, in senile dementia, of the founding doctor of the fictional hospital ... he flat-lined, and it was over. Pfft ... the candle went out ... "fade to black." |
| The Press and the Public routinely show a morbid fascination with the 'last meal' and 'last words' of death-row prisoners. |
| And certainly the television public is fascinated by the subject of death: Law and Order and CSI have been big hits. Even 20/20 and Dateline have become almost all-murder-all-the- time. |
| I honestly think that much of the emotion that surrounds this discussion about McLean Bible Church, stems from the Church's position of speaking loud-and-clear, saying things that our contemporary culture does not want to hear -- specifically, about the Return of Christ, Resurrection, and Judgment. E.g., http://www.mcleanbible.org/media_player.asp?messageID=23883 |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 06, 2009 01:07PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Like so many scientists, Dawkins slips into
> romantic personified language when talking about
> Evolution. A more accurate statement would have
> been for him to say that "trust and obedience to
> parents have survival value, favoring reproduction
> by such children"Evolution doesn't 'do' anything
> ... it's just an interpretation of events ... but
> even Dawkins, at some level, doesn't want to live
> in an impersonal universe.
>
>
I have seen no evidence that Dawkins believes in anything other than an impersonal universe
Dawkins is a professor of public understanding of science - as such he writes in style that is designed to be accessible to the public - and does so very effectively
I often recommend 'the blindwatchmaker' as an excellent example of how to explain complex ideas to the lay public
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Like so many scientists, Dawkins slips into
> romantic personified language when talking about
> Evolution. A more accurate statement would have
> been for him to say that "trust and obedience to
> parents have survival value, favoring reproduction
> by such children"Evolution doesn't 'do' anything
> ... it's just an interpretation of events ... but
> even Dawkins, at some level, doesn't want to live
> in an impersonal universe.
>
>
I have seen no evidence that Dawkins believes in anything other than an impersonal universe
Dawkins is a professor of public understanding of science - as such he writes in style that is designed to be accessible to the public - and does so very effectively
I often recommend 'the blindwatchmaker' as an excellent example of how to explain complex ideas to the lay public
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 06, 2009 01:09PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss: "Reality doesn't care about our wishes
> and desires."Ness: In the atheist's world-view
> there is no person 'out there' to either "care
> about our wishes and desires" or to 'do' anything
> at all ... which is precisely why it is so
> striking when an atheist like Dawkins slips into
> 'romantic' personified language to disparage those
> who do live in 'personal' universe.In fact, it is
> striking when a person who holds an impersonal
> 'Darwinist' world-view, makes any moral assertion
> or value judgment at all, rather than asserting
> Nihilism.
I don't find it striking at all. Further, what evidence do you have that Dawkin's is a nihilist?
As I've pointed out and you've consistently ignored, the Christian worldview is actually nilistic and valueless.
> Pangloss, last night ER had an episode about the
> death, in senile dementia, of the founding doctor
> of the
> fictional hospital ... he flat-lined, and it was
> over. Pfft ... the candle went out ... "fade to
> black."
My guess is that you haven't had real extensive brushes with death. I have had such experiences and experiences with people I care about who have Alzheimer's (sp?).
There was no beauty in it, there is no granduer, no god, but what there is, is reality. The death made my time with that person that much more valuable.
Something the Christian has no concept of.
> The Press and the Public routinely show a
> morbid fascination with the 'last meal' and 'last
> words' of death-row prisoners.And certainly the
> television public is fascinated by the subject of
> death: Law and Order and CSI have been big hits.
> Even 20/20 and Dateline have become almost
> all-murder-all-the-
> time.I honestly think that much of the
> emotion that surrounds this discussion about
> McLean Bible Church, stems from the Church's
> position of speaking loud-and-clear, saying things
> that our
> contemporary culture does not want to hear --
> specifically, about the Return of Christ,
> Resurrection, and Judgment. E.g.,
> http://www.mcleanbible.org/media_player.asp?messag
> eID=23883
I think you are incorrect. Dealing with believers is often frustrating. Take yourself, for instance, you ignore everything that contradicts your worldview and you keep spouting the same mistruths over and over again - as though repeating them some how makes them true.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss: "Reality doesn't care about our wishes
> and desires."Ness: In the atheist's world-view
> there is no person 'out there' to either "care
> about our wishes and desires" or to 'do' anything
> at all ... which is precisely why it is so
> striking when an atheist like Dawkins slips into
> 'romantic' personified language to disparage those
> who do live in 'personal' universe.In fact, it is
> striking when a person who holds an impersonal
> 'Darwinist' world-view, makes any moral assertion
> or value judgment at all, rather than asserting
> Nihilism.
I don't find it striking at all. Further, what evidence do you have that Dawkin's is a nihilist?
As I've pointed out and you've consistently ignored, the Christian worldview is actually nilistic and valueless.
> Pangloss, last night ER had an episode about the
> death, in senile dementia, of the founding doctor
> of the
> fictional hospital ... he flat-lined, and it was
> over. Pfft ... the candle went out ... "fade to
> black."
My guess is that you haven't had real extensive brushes with death. I have had such experiences and experiences with people I care about who have Alzheimer's (sp?).
There was no beauty in it, there is no granduer, no god, but what there is, is reality. The death made my time with that person that much more valuable.
Something the Christian has no concept of.
> The Press and the Public routinely show a
> morbid fascination with the 'last meal' and 'last
> words' of death-row prisoners.And certainly the
> television public is fascinated by the subject of
> death: Law and Order and CSI have been big hits.
> Even 20/20 and Dateline have become almost
> all-murder-all-the-
> time.I honestly think that much of the
> emotion that surrounds this discussion about
> McLean Bible Church, stems from the Church's
> position of speaking loud-and-clear, saying things
> that our
> contemporary culture does not want to hear --
> specifically, about the Return of Christ,
> Resurrection, and Judgment. E.g.,
> http://www.mcleanbible.org/media_player.asp?messag
> eID=23883
I think you are incorrect. Dealing with believers is often frustrating. Take yourself, for instance, you ignore everything that contradicts your worldview and you keep spouting the same mistruths over and over again - as though repeating them some how makes them true.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 06, 2009 01:10PM
nutters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Like so many scientists, Dawkins slips into
> > romantic personified language when talking
> about
> > Evolution. A more accurate statement would have
> > been for him to say that "trust and obedience
> to
> > parents have survival value, favoring
> reproduction
> > by such children"Evolution doesn't 'do'
> anything
> > ... it's just an interpretation of events ...
> but
> > even Dawkins, at some level, doesn't want to
> live
> > in an impersonal universe.
> >
> >
>
> I have seen no evidence that Dawkins believes in
> anything other than an impersonal universe
>
> Dawkins is a professor of public understanding of
> science - as such he writes in style that is
> designed to be accessible to the public - and does
> so very effectively
>
> I often recommend 'the blindwatchmaker' as an
> excellent example of how to explain complex ideas
> to the lay public
Eliot is making it up. At best he would pull a quote out of context - as he did with Gould - and misrepresent Dawkin's dishonestly.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Like so many scientists, Dawkins slips into
> > romantic personified language when talking
> about
> > Evolution. A more accurate statement would have
> > been for him to say that "trust and obedience
> to
> > parents have survival value, favoring
> reproduction
> > by such children"Evolution doesn't 'do'
> anything
> > ... it's just an interpretation of events ...
> but
> > even Dawkins, at some level, doesn't want to
> live
> > in an impersonal universe.
> >
> >
>
> I have seen no evidence that Dawkins believes in
> anything other than an impersonal universe
>
> Dawkins is a professor of public understanding of
> science - as such he writes in style that is
> designed to be accessible to the public - and does
> so very effectively
>
> I often recommend 'the blindwatchmaker' as an
> excellent example of how to explain complex ideas
> to the lay public
Eliot is making it up. At best he would pull a quote out of context - as he did with Gould - and misrepresent Dawkin's dishonestly.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 06, 2009 01:21PM
| Numbers wrote: "What bothers me is when believers always assume that non believers have some vast emptiness inside them that can only be filled by a deity." |
| Ness replies: Because we generally tend to live in deep denial of for our forthcoming death, I suspect that most people only feel that emptiness as they are about to die ... and must consider the prospect of annihilation and non-being, saying 'Goodbye, forever' to everybody and everything they know. |
| I heard a man once, in a hospital cardiac unit, breathing roughly and crying out in distress: "I'm dying! I'm dying!" |
| The nurse I asked wouldn't tell me directly, later, if he survived or not ... but I got the impression from her measured response that he had indeed died. |
| Consider the possibility that Christians who have been seen the "Ghost of Christmas Future" (so to speak) have been to the edge of that cliff and are aware of that emptiness in a way that others are not. |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 06, 2009 01:32PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers wrote: "What bothers me is when believers
> always assume that non believers have some vast
> emptiness inside them that can only be filled by a
> deity."Ness replies: Because we generally tend to
> live in deep denial of for our forthcoming death,
Exactly! Which is the reason Christian's do not value *this* life. The only real life that exists.
Atheists (most, not all) do not live in denial and as a result it is only they who can truly value this life (or believers who do not believe in an afterlife).
Yet you mistakenly and repeatedly assert that it is the non christian that is the nihilist.
> I suspect that most people only feel that
> emptiness as they are about to die ... and must
> consider the prospect of annihilation and
> non-being, saying 'Goodbye, forever' to everybody
> and everything they know. I heard a man once, in a
> hospital cardiac unit, breathing roughly and
> crying out in distress: "I'm dying! I'm dying!"The
> nurse I asked wouldn't tell me directly, later, if
> he survived or not ... but I got the impression
> from her measured response that he had indeed
> died.Consider the possibility that Christians who
> have been seen the "Ghost of Christmas Future" (so
> to speak) have been to the edge of that cliff and
> are aware of that emptiness in a way that others
> are not.
Dieing is what gives this life value. The realization that this is it is what fills one with respect for life. I would wager that this life is FAR more important to me then it is to you Eliot.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers wrote: "What bothers me is when believers
> always assume that non believers have some vast
> emptiness inside them that can only be filled by a
> deity."Ness replies: Because we generally tend to
> live in deep denial of for our forthcoming death,
Exactly! Which is the reason Christian's do not value *this* life. The only real life that exists.
Atheists (most, not all) do not live in denial and as a result it is only they who can truly value this life (or believers who do not believe in an afterlife).
Yet you mistakenly and repeatedly assert that it is the non christian that is the nihilist.
> I suspect that most people only feel that
> emptiness as they are about to die ... and must
> consider the prospect of annihilation and
> non-being, saying 'Goodbye, forever' to everybody
> and everything they know. I heard a man once, in a
> hospital cardiac unit, breathing roughly and
> crying out in distress: "I'm dying! I'm dying!"The
> nurse I asked wouldn't tell me directly, later, if
> he survived or not ... but I got the impression
> from her measured response that he had indeed
> died.Consider the possibility that Christians who
> have been seen the "Ghost of Christmas Future" (so
> to speak) have been to the edge of that cliff and
> are aware of that emptiness in a way that others
> are not.
Dieing is what gives this life value. The realization that this is it is what fills one with respect for life. I would wager that this life is FAR more important to me then it is to you Eliot.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 06, 2009 03:18PM
Only because its Friday and you've all been very good
http://dingo.care-mail.com/cards/flash/5409/galaxy.swf
http://dingo.care-mail.com/cards/flash/5409/galaxy.swf
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Whateva
()
Date: February 07, 2009 06:15AM
More Than A Believer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, you spent so much time trying to convince
> yourselves that God is dead to what purpose. What
> does it gain you? As much as you hate, God loves
> you that much more... May you all experience the
> awakening that fills the void that's so obviously
> missing in you lives. None of us understands the
> mystery of life, death, and what happens after
> death but it is possible to have an actual
> relationship with God when we seek to know him.
Do you know why we rant against you and other christians on this board? its not because we like to waste time or energy, or that we have some empty void that needs to be filled with hatred. Its the fact that you control every aspect of our daily life. This country is a christian country, and as such laws and social behaviors are defined by this. Meaning, christians (and the republican party) think they have a stranglehold on morality. And thus they think they are always on the side of right. Have you ever thought of how shitty it would be to not be a christian, and have to on a daily basis put up with their bullshit? Have to listen to why gays should not be married, why the word "fuck" shouldnt ever be used on TV, why we fight unneccisary wars. In short, we're pissed off because you and your "beliefs" control every fucking aspect of our lives, which we do not and never will believe in. I think you would be driven insane if you had to live in a muslim country, where their believes were not only forced down your throat on a daily basis, but also determined LAWS and FREEDOMS.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, you spent so much time trying to convince
> yourselves that God is dead to what purpose. What
> does it gain you? As much as you hate, God loves
> you that much more... May you all experience the
> awakening that fills the void that's so obviously
> missing in you lives. None of us understands the
> mystery of life, death, and what happens after
> death but it is possible to have an actual
> relationship with God when we seek to know him.
Do you know why we rant against you and other christians on this board? its not because we like to waste time or energy, or that we have some empty void that needs to be filled with hatred. Its the fact that you control every aspect of our daily life. This country is a christian country, and as such laws and social behaviors are defined by this. Meaning, christians (and the republican party) think they have a stranglehold on morality. And thus they think they are always on the side of right. Have you ever thought of how shitty it would be to not be a christian, and have to on a daily basis put up with their bullshit? Have to listen to why gays should not be married, why the word "fuck" shouldnt ever be used on TV, why we fight unneccisary wars. In short, we're pissed off because you and your "beliefs" control every fucking aspect of our lives, which we do not and never will believe in. I think you would be driven insane if you had to live in a muslim country, where their believes were not only forced down your throat on a daily basis, but also determined LAWS and FREEDOMS.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
The Borg
()
Date: February 07, 2009 08:03AM
Whateva Wrote:
>
> Do you know why we rant against you and other
> christians on this board? its not because we like
> to waste time or energy, or that we have some
> empty void that needs to be filled with hatred.
> Its the fact that you control every aspect of our
> daily life. This country is a christian country,
> and as such laws and social behaviors are defined
> by this. Meaning, christians (and the republican
> party) think they have a stranglehold on morality.
> And thus they think they are always on the side of
> right. Have you ever thought of how shitty it
> would be to not be a christian, and have to on a
> daily basis put up with their bullshit? Have to
> listen to why gays should not be married, why the
> word "fuck" shouldnt ever be used on TV, why we
> fight unneccisary wars. In short, we're pissed off
> because you and your "beliefs" control every
> fucking aspect of our lives, which we do not and
> never will believe in. I think you would be driven
> insane if you had to live in a muslim country,
> where their believes were not only forced down
> your throat on a daily basis, but also determined
> LAWS and FREEDOMS.
You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
>
> Do you know why we rant against you and other
> christians on this board? its not because we like
> to waste time or energy, or that we have some
> empty void that needs to be filled with hatred.
> Its the fact that you control every aspect of our
> daily life. This country is a christian country,
> and as such laws and social behaviors are defined
> by this. Meaning, christians (and the republican
> party) think they have a stranglehold on morality.
> And thus they think they are always on the side of
> right. Have you ever thought of how shitty it
> would be to not be a christian, and have to on a
> daily basis put up with their bullshit? Have to
> listen to why gays should not be married, why the
> word "fuck" shouldnt ever be used on TV, why we
> fight unneccisary wars. In short, we're pissed off
> because you and your "beliefs" control every
> fucking aspect of our lives, which we do not and
> never will believe in. I think you would be driven
> insane if you had to live in a muslim country,
> where their believes were not only forced down
> your throat on a daily basis, but also determined
> LAWS and FREEDOMS.
You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: February 07, 2009 12:15PM
Can't we all agree that the Earth is only 5,000 years old, that the Jews killed Jesus, that anything like science or rational thought are all "The Devil's Delusion" and that because Eliot's brother has a Ph.D. from a school that teaches this crap that the works of Darwin, Einstein, Newton, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin simply do not matter at all?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: February 07, 2009 04:25PM
I agree...Ive been born and aborted again!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 07, 2009 04:47PM
The Borg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whateva Wrote:
>
> You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
Yup, time to strip religion out of our currency, our Oath of Allegiance, our tax code and our politics - especially our foreign policy. All this BS that politicians have to kowtow to mad ministers and religious charlatans in order to get elected is just that, BS,
Get it away from kids - its the gateway drug to stupidity
Freedom from religion is what we need
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whateva Wrote:
>
> You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
Yup, time to strip religion out of our currency, our Oath of Allegiance, our tax code and our politics - especially our foreign policy. All this BS that politicians have to kowtow to mad ministers and religious charlatans in order to get elected is just that, BS,
Get it away from kids - its the gateway drug to stupidity
Freedom from religion is what we need
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 08, 2009 04:03PM
| 1) Hey, some of you who are here just to bash Christianity may be surprised to find yoursleves in agreement with Lon Solomon's criticisms of corruption and hypocrisy in the church. http://www.mcleanbible.org/media_player.asp?messageID=23883. | |
| 2) Some thoughts about the film "Milk" and Christianity. |
1) Beautifully acted and compassionately filmed, it is certainly a legitimate candidate for best picture and best actor. 2) Harvey Milk was determined to liberate gays psychologically by bringing them 'out of the closet,' and to liberate them civically by passing civil rights laws and and obtaining public office. 3) Sadly, the Evangelicals in the film (spearheaded by Anita Bryant) appear determined to punish gays by legislating "God's law" into state law ... rather than addressing gay sexual issues by giving them the Gospel and the Bible. 4) I submit that the Christians really missed the boat in this case. Their approach is striking for its lovelessness, asymmetry, and absence of Biblical citations. 5) The Bible clearly teaches that "all have sinned" and that "the wages of sin is death." Not just physical death, but a future eternal death -- away from the presence of God where Jesus describes guilt, depression, and pain in the form of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" and "unquenchable fire." 6) Christians often seem to forget this. It's not just the murderers on death row who are under death sentences, but also their guards and the warden. And it's not just not just gays and lesbians who are under death sentences, but straight men and women too. 7) In Old Testament Israel, where 100% of the people lived under laws delivered through Moses, God required that some offenses be punished by making physical death immediate; rather than dying of disease or old age, For example, Israelites were to be executed if guilty of witchcraft, homosexuality, adultery, or Sabbath violations. 8) Jesus' substitutionary death on the Cross made a sacrifice that did away with the civil and ceremonial laws given through Moses. (Indeed, the veil in the Temple was very symbolically torn in two.) 9) There is no reason for Christians today to make a special legal case by bringing OT law into current civil law to punish homosexuality (unless they bring all OT law into civil law against for example, adultery, witchcraft, and Sabbath violations). 10) Some churches crusade in public against homosexuality, shouting "God hates fags." This is repugnant because while Paul says "the wages of sin is death," he finishes the sentence by saying "but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." 11) Some Gays will hear the Gospel and will believe on the Christ of the Bible ... proving that God in fact loved them, even though they were "fags." This makes liars out of the aggressive churches that ignore current grace and focus only on future, final judgment. 12) Christian homosexuals cannot, however, simply remain "fags" in their Christian life ... because both the Old Testament and the New Testament clearly tell them that their homosexuality is abnormal, is not created by God, and is therefore sinful. 13) Gay Christians cannot ignore what Paul says in Romans 1, that "men abandoning natural relations with women and being inflamed with lust for one another" are thereby "sinful" as are "women exchanging natural relations for unnatural ones." 14) The Bible does not teach that Gay sinners are worse than, for example, heterosexual sinners who commit adultery, or practice witchcraft. 15) With their presuppositions changed by the Holy Spirit to believe that God speaks in the Bible, Gays who become Christians begin to fight against their sinful homosexuality, even though they may have been born with a same-sex preference that is just as deep as the cravings of a born alcoholic. 16) The New Testament doesn't record any specific interaction between Jesus and homosexuals, though he must have encountered them while dining with "publicans and sinners." The model for his treatment of those gays would certanly be what he said to the often-married woman at the Samaritan well, and what he said to the woman he saved from stoning for adultery -- sin no more!
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2009 08:40PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 08, 2009 07:30PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > 1) Hey, some of you who are here just to bash
> Christianity may be surprised to find yoursleves
> in agreement with Lon Solomon's criticisms of
> corruption and hypocrisy in the church.
> http://www.mcleanbible.org/media_player.asp?messag
> eID=23883.
>
> 2) Some thoughts about the film "Milk" and
> Christianity.
1) Well Trotsky and Stalin didn't exactly get on...Martin Luther and the Pope didn't exactly get on ... Doesn't say that any of them were right
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
You've presented no evidence to counter modern science - your religion continues to be exposed for what it is - a tissue of old superstitions and pernicious self serving institutions that should be rooted out from modern society
2) Frankly, who gives a damn what a dead religion thinks about homosexuality and the ridiculous reasoning it uses?
Your ideas of sin are an outdated tool to scare and bully the uneducated.
There is no 'sin' in being homosexual, just as there's no sin in being black, or being left handed or a Muslim or an animist or even a witch. Sin is an abusive concept used to bully the public and support the power of the religion and those with a stake in it.
Yet more evidence why religion needs to be thrown on the pyre of history with slavery and the inquisition
-------------------------------------------------------
> > 1) Hey, some of you who are here just to bash
> Christianity may be surprised to find yoursleves
> in agreement with Lon Solomon's criticisms of
> corruption and hypocrisy in the church.
> http://www.mcleanbible.org/media_player.asp?messag
> eID=23883.
>
> 2) Some thoughts about the film "Milk" and
> Christianity.
1) Well Trotsky and Stalin didn't exactly get on...Martin Luther and the Pope didn't exactly get on ... Doesn't say that any of them were right
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
You've presented no evidence to counter modern science - your religion continues to be exposed for what it is - a tissue of old superstitions and pernicious self serving institutions that should be rooted out from modern society
2) Frankly, who gives a damn what a dead religion thinks about homosexuality and the ridiculous reasoning it uses?
Your ideas of sin are an outdated tool to scare and bully the uneducated.
There is no 'sin' in being homosexual, just as there's no sin in being black, or being left handed or a Muslim or an animist or even a witch. Sin is an abusive concept used to bully the public and support the power of the religion and those with a stake in it.
Yet more evidence why religion needs to be thrown on the pyre of history with slavery and the inquisition
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 08, 2009 08:27PM
| Nutters 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. |
| Ness wonders: |
| 1) On what basis do hurl calumny at the very decent Lon Solomon? Would you take no issue with me if without having met you, I called you, for example, a "pathological liar and homosexual pedophile?" |
| 2) Do you detect the Fascist reverberations in your assertion that "religion ... a tissue of old superstitions and pernicious self-serving institutions" should be "rooted out from modern society?" How would you propose to do that? Would you, for example, start killing off Intelligent Design proponents the way that Lysenko killed off competing Mendelian Soviet biologists? |
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2009 08:45PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 08, 2009 08:34PM
| Nutters wrote:Your ideas of sin are an outdated tool to scare and bully the uneducated. There is no 'sin' in being homosexual, just as there's no sin in being black, or being left handed or a Muslim or an animist or even a witch. Sin is an abusive concept used to bully the public and support the power of the religion and those with a stake in it. Yet more evidence why religion needs to be thrown on the pyre of history with slavery and the inquisition. |
| Ness observes: Again I'm fascinated. If there is no objective 'sin' or 'wrong' then why do we pursue and prosecute child molesters and murderers? Is it just because 50%+1 of the citizenry doesn't like them? Do you consider the activities depicted in 'Law and Order' and 'CSI' to have any meaning at all, or are they just exercises in futility? |
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2009 08:51PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 08, 2009 08:41PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters wrote:Your ideas of sin are an outdated
> tool to scare and bully the uneducated.
>
> There is no 'sin' in being homosexual, just as
> there's no sin in being black, or being left
> handed or a Muslim or an animist or even a witch.
> Sin is an abusive concept used to bully the public
> and support the power of the religion and those
> with a stake in it.
>
> Yet more evidence why religion needs to be thrown
> on the pyre of history with slavery and the
> inquisition. Ness observes: Again I'm fascinated.
> If there is no objective 'sin' or 'wrong' then why
> do we pursue and prosecute child molesters and
> murderers? Is it just because 50%+1 of the
> citizenry doesn't like them? Do you really
> consider the activities depicted in 'Law and
> Order' and 'CSI' to be exercises in futility?
More context stripping from Eliot! Surprise surprise. Sin does not equal morality, Eliot. That is to say, that just because one doesn't believe in sin, doesn't mean they do not believe in objective morality. On the flip side, just because someone is a Christian doesn't mean they believe in objective morality.
For instance, take yourself. You believe in subjective morality - the 'might makes right' morality - that morality stems from or some how depends on god.
So to attempt to chastize Nutters on subjective morality is the HEIGHT of hypocrasy.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters wrote:Your ideas of sin are an outdated
> tool to scare and bully the uneducated.
>
> There is no 'sin' in being homosexual, just as
> there's no sin in being black, or being left
> handed or a Muslim or an animist or even a witch.
> Sin is an abusive concept used to bully the public
> and support the power of the religion and those
> with a stake in it.
>
> Yet more evidence why religion needs to be thrown
> on the pyre of history with slavery and the
> inquisition. Ness observes: Again I'm fascinated.
> If there is no objective 'sin' or 'wrong' then why
> do we pursue and prosecute child molesters and
> murderers? Is it just because 50%+1 of the
> citizenry doesn't like them? Do you really
> consider the activities depicted in 'Law and
> Order' and 'CSI' to be exercises in futility?
More context stripping from Eliot! Surprise surprise. Sin does not equal morality, Eliot. That is to say, that just because one doesn't believe in sin, doesn't mean they do not believe in objective morality. On the flip side, just because someone is a Christian doesn't mean they believe in objective morality.
For instance, take yourself. You believe in subjective morality - the 'might makes right' morality - that morality stems from or some how depends on god.
So to attempt to chastize Nutters on subjective morality is the HEIGHT of hypocrasy.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 08, 2009 09:00PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Ness observes: Again I'm fascinated.
> If there is no objective 'sin' or 'wrong' then why
> do we pursue and prosecute child molesters and
> murderers? Is it just because 50%+1 of the
> citizenry doesn't like them? Do you really
> consider the activities depicted in 'Law and
> Order' and 'CSI' to be exercises in futility?
I'm more than happy to assert strongly that there is no absolute objective morality - we can see over history that human morals have been incredibly flexible depending on the local circumstances, and their analogs in other species even more so
We live in a social ecosystem that is more stable and hence more successful than ones with weaker rules in key areas
'Law' is useful when it reduces behaviors that destroy social cohesion - it has no moral basis, but is just a practical social adaptation.
Whereas ancient Sparta was very supportive of what we would now refer to as 'child abuse' and 'murder' and could be somewhat stable and tolerated at the size it achieved, its hard to see that acceptance enabling large cities and global trade at the levels we now.
Its not necessary to find and execute every offender, just enough to manage the risk and ensure that enough of the population are prepared to invest in the shared aims of the society (whether represented as family, law, equity, conquest, markets, large stone carvings or religion) and increase the chance that everyone gets fed and lives long enough to breed and bring up the next generation
Its a bit like clean water - without it, New York would be Delhi and you wouldn't have the efficiencies and effectiveness, placing you at a competitive disadvantage.
That may be economics or ensuring superiority in competition/conflict but its not an absolute morality
-------------------------------------------------------
Ness observes: Again I'm fascinated.
> If there is no objective 'sin' or 'wrong' then why
> do we pursue and prosecute child molesters and
> murderers? Is it just because 50%+1 of the
> citizenry doesn't like them? Do you really
> consider the activities depicted in 'Law and
> Order' and 'CSI' to be exercises in futility?
I'm more than happy to assert strongly that there is no absolute objective morality - we can see over history that human morals have been incredibly flexible depending on the local circumstances, and their analogs in other species even more so
We live in a social ecosystem that is more stable and hence more successful than ones with weaker rules in key areas
'Law' is useful when it reduces behaviors that destroy social cohesion - it has no moral basis, but is just a practical social adaptation.
Whereas ancient Sparta was very supportive of what we would now refer to as 'child abuse' and 'murder' and could be somewhat stable and tolerated at the size it achieved, its hard to see that acceptance enabling large cities and global trade at the levels we now.
Its not necessary to find and execute every offender, just enough to manage the risk and ensure that enough of the population are prepared to invest in the shared aims of the society (whether represented as family, law, equity, conquest, markets, large stone carvings or religion) and increase the chance that everyone gets fed and lives long enough to breed and bring up the next generation
Its a bit like clean water - without it, New York would be Delhi and you wouldn't have the efficiencies and effectiveness, placing you at a competitive disadvantage.
That may be economics or ensuring superiority in competition/conflict but its not an absolute morality
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 08, 2009 09:02PM
| Pangloss: Just because one doesn't believe in sin, doesn't mean they do not believe in objective morality. |
| Ness: ??? Why would a 'Darwinian' believe in 'objective morality' that applied to all men? How would such morality be identified by the man-on-the-street? Isn't it all just a chance brain flash amongst the neurons of various differently-conditioned instantiations of the human species? What do you say to the cop arresting you for murder? Don't you say, "Leave me alone! Everything is absolutely relative!!" |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 08, 2009 09:11PM
| Nutters:'Law' is useful when it reduces behaviors that destroy social cohesion - it has no moral basis, but is just a practical social adaptation. |
| Ness: And yet I'll bet that you'd object to a law passed by Irish-Swedes like me, to foster "social cohesion" by gassing Jews and niggers. Why is that? |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 08, 2009 09:56PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss: Just because one doesn't believe in sin,
> doesn't mean they do not believe in objective
> morality.Ness: ??? Why would a 'Darwinian' believe
> in 'objective morality' that applied to all men?
> How would such morality be identified by the
> man-on-the-street? Isn't it all just a chance
> brain flash amongst the neurons of various
> differently-conditioned instantiations of the
> human species? What do you say to the cop
> arresting you for murder? Don't you say, "Leave
> me alone! Everything is absolutely relative!!"
You are being simple minded Eliot. There is no unified 'darwinian' worldview, ergo you cannot lump everyone who accepts modern science into one pigeon-holed category. This is something I'm metaphorically hoarse about, due to the number of times I've said it.
Again, not all atheists, subscribers to modern science, non christians, etc, are relativists.
If YOU Believe this then it's encumbant upon YOU to prove, not just blather on about as you are WANT TO DO.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss: Just because one doesn't believe in sin,
> doesn't mean they do not believe in objective
> morality.Ness: ??? Why would a 'Darwinian' believe
> in 'objective morality' that applied to all men?
> How would such morality be identified by the
> man-on-the-street? Isn't it all just a chance
> brain flash amongst the neurons of various
> differently-conditioned instantiations of the
> human species? What do you say to the cop
> arresting you for murder? Don't you say, "Leave
> me alone! Everything is absolutely relative!!"
You are being simple minded Eliot. There is no unified 'darwinian' worldview, ergo you cannot lump everyone who accepts modern science into one pigeon-holed category. This is something I'm metaphorically hoarse about, due to the number of times I've said it.
Again, not all atheists, subscribers to modern science, non christians, etc, are relativists.
If YOU Believe this then it's encumbant upon YOU to prove, not just blather on about as you are WANT TO DO.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 08, 2009 09:58PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters:'Law' is useful when it reduces behaviors
> that destroy social cohesion - it has no moral
> basis, but is just a practical social
> adaptation.Ness: And yet I'll bet that you'd
> object to a law passed by Irish-Swedes like me, to
> foster "social cohesion" by gassing Jews and
> niggers. Why is that?
And your true colors come out. Keep your racist B.S. to yourself.
Way to go Eliot.
The only difference between your morality and the one the state uses is that you believe that god can enforce it better then the state.
That's it. It's no more 'objective' then the states (actually less so).
If you believe otherwise you need to ARGUE for it, not just assert it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters:'Law' is useful when it reduces behaviors
> that destroy social cohesion - it has no moral
> basis, but is just a practical social
> adaptation.Ness: And yet I'll bet that you'd
> object to a law passed by Irish-Swedes like me, to
> foster "social cohesion" by gassing Jews and
> niggers. Why is that?
And your true colors come out. Keep your racist B.S. to yourself.
Way to go Eliot.
The only difference between your morality and the one the state uses is that you believe that god can enforce it better then the state.
That's it. It's no more 'objective' then the states (actually less so).
If you believe otherwise you need to ARGUE for it, not just assert it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 08, 2009 09:59PM
And you say you actually went to college?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 09, 2009 02:20PM
| Pangloss, You have again and again leapt to make accusations of lying and hypocrisy ... to which is now swiftly added the charge of 'racism' for asking a hypothetical question. Furthermore, I am commanded to "keep your racist B.S. to yourself." |
| 1) You (for some reason) believe that there can be objective morality. Nutters does not, and has said so clearly. |
| 2) My question to Nutters was, if there is no objective morality why would one oppose the gassing of hated minorities ('Jews', 'niggers') by a majority (Aryans)? |
| 3) I honestly think that in Nutters' world view of no moral absolutes, one can only oppose 'racism' as a matter of personal preference. |
| 4) Where does your fierce opposition to 'racism' originate? From objective morality or just socially-conditioned personal feelings? |
| 5) Christians in Nazi Germany, by the way, pointed Hitler and his thugs to an objective authority, the 'second greatest commandment' given by Jesus -- to 'love your neighbor as yourself' -- and they were killed for speaking about it and practicing it. That same commandment is one of the reasons why Christian missionaries die serving hated minorities throughout the world, in contrast to the 'racists' and 'tribalists' who seek to exterminate them. |
| 6) We fly and land where our world-view's presuppositions point us ... unless we operate (irrationally) in conflict with them. |
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2009 02:33PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: February 09, 2009 02:22PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Christians in Nazi Germany,
> by the way, pointed Hitler and his thugs to an
> objective authority...
I hereby invoke Godwin's Law.
This thread is over.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Christians in Nazi Germany,
> by the way, pointed Hitler and his thugs to an
> objective authority...
I hereby invoke Godwin's Law.
This thread is over.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 09, 2009 02:41PM
Godwin's Law deals with 'reductio ad Hitlerum' -- relating all things to Hitler.
But Hitler-hate is an almost perfect example of irrational thinking -- in what (to Pangloss's distress) 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.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2009 02:50PM by Eliot Ness.
But Hitler-hate is an almost perfect example of irrational thinking -- in what (to Pangloss's distress) 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.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2009 02:50PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: February 09, 2009 02:49PM
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...
Here's some Nazi quotes for you as well...
"We demand freedom for all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or conflict with the customs and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The party as such represents the standpoint of a positive Christianity, without owing itself to a particular confession...."
"As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven."
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 3
Here's some Nazi quotes for you as well...
"We demand freedom for all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or conflict with the customs and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The party as such represents the standpoint of a positive Christianity, without owing itself to a particular confession...."
"As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven."
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 3
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 09, 2009 02:53PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, You have again and again leapt to make
> accusations of lying and hypocrisy ... to which is
> now swiftly added the charge of 'racism' for
> asking a hypothetical question. Furthermore, I am
> commanded to "keep your racist B.S. to yourself."
If you do not want me to accuse you of racism, lying, or hypocrisy, then PLEASE STOP ENGAGING IN SUCH BEHAVIOR.
> 1) You (for some reason) believe that there can be
> objective morality. Nutters does not, and has said
> so clearly.
I haven't argued either for or against my position on morality (although I have implied it - but you apparently haven't figured it out), Eliot, ergo you cannot charge me with either believing or disbelieving in objective morality.
My point is that you are assuming things which YOU NEED TO DEMONSTRATE LOGICALLY.
This is why I keep asking you to provide evidence or arguments for your position. Until you do so, there isn't any productive conversation with you.
> 2) My question to Nutters was, if
> there is no objective morality why would one
> oppose the gassing of hated minorities ('Jews',
> 'niggers') by a majority (Aryans)?
One does not need objective morals to be opposed to those things. The problem with people like you is that you think only in dichotomies. It's either objective morality or nothing. If Nutters rejects objective morality then he's amoral. That need not be the case, Eliot.
> 3) I honestly
> think that in Nutters' world view of no moral
> absolutes, one can only oppose 'racism' as a
> matter of personal preference.
Who cares what you think, whether honest or not? It's what you can argue for and evidence that are important.
> 4) Where does your
> fierce opposition to 'racism' originate? From
> objective morality or just socially-conditioned
> personal feelings?
Fierce?
How are you defining 'objective morality'? I have a feeling that you haven't taken any philosophy courses. You realize that Christianity is not 'objective', do you not?
> 5) Christians in Nazi Germany,
> by the way, pointed Hitler and his thugs to an
> objective authority, the 'second greatest
> commandment' given by Jesus -- to 'love your
> neighbor as yourself' -- and they were killed for
> speaking about it and practicing it.
Nonsense - you realize that a good majority of Nazi's were Christians. Further, justification for atrocities is easy when using the bible - let's not forget the instruction to 'not suffer a witch to live'. Perhaps Hitler and Co. saw themselves as a modern day Joshua?
In any event, this is irrelevant and I fully expect you to ignore this and most of my other points in this post.
> That same
> commandment is one of the reasons why Christian
> missionaries die serving hated minorities
> throughout the world, in contrast to the 'racists'
> and 'tribalists' who seek to exterminate them.
Okay...
> 6)
> We fly and land where our world-view's
> presuppositions point us ... unless we operate
> (irrationally) in conflict with them.
I've already pointed out how your worldview contradicts itself and how it has to borrow intellectual capital from a naturalistic worldview, but you apparently intend on crashing into the ground (to further your metaphor).
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, You have again and again leapt to make
> accusations of lying and hypocrisy ... to which is
> now swiftly added the charge of 'racism' for
> asking a hypothetical question. Furthermore, I am
> commanded to "keep your racist B.S. to yourself."
If you do not want me to accuse you of racism, lying, or hypocrisy, then PLEASE STOP ENGAGING IN SUCH BEHAVIOR.
> 1) You (for some reason) believe that there can be
> objective morality. Nutters does not, and has said
> so clearly.
I haven't argued either for or against my position on morality (although I have implied it - but you apparently haven't figured it out), Eliot, ergo you cannot charge me with either believing or disbelieving in objective morality.
My point is that you are assuming things which YOU NEED TO DEMONSTRATE LOGICALLY.
This is why I keep asking you to provide evidence or arguments for your position. Until you do so, there isn't any productive conversation with you.
> 2) My question to Nutters was, if
> there is no objective morality why would one
> oppose the gassing of hated minorities ('Jews',
> 'niggers') by a majority (Aryans)?
One does not need objective morals to be opposed to those things. The problem with people like you is that you think only in dichotomies. It's either objective morality or nothing. If Nutters rejects objective morality then he's amoral. That need not be the case, Eliot.
> 3) I honestly
> think that in Nutters' world view of no moral
> absolutes, one can only oppose 'racism' as a
> matter of personal preference.
Who cares what you think, whether honest or not? It's what you can argue for and evidence that are important.
> 4) Where does your
> fierce opposition to 'racism' originate? From
> objective morality or just socially-conditioned
> personal feelings?
Fierce?
How are you defining 'objective morality'? I have a feeling that you haven't taken any philosophy courses. You realize that Christianity is not 'objective', do you not?
> 5) Christians in Nazi Germany,
> by the way, pointed Hitler and his thugs to an
> objective authority, the 'second greatest
> commandment' given by Jesus -- to 'love your
> neighbor as yourself' -- and they were killed for
> speaking about it and practicing it.
Nonsense - you realize that a good majority of Nazi's were Christians. Further, justification for atrocities is easy when using the bible - let's not forget the instruction to 'not suffer a witch to live'. Perhaps Hitler and Co. saw themselves as a modern day Joshua?
In any event, this is irrelevant and I fully expect you to ignore this and most of my other points in this post.
> That same
> commandment is one of the reasons why Christian
> missionaries die serving hated minorities
> throughout the world, in contrast to the 'racists'
> and 'tribalists' who seek to exterminate them.
Okay...
> 6)
> We fly and land where our world-view's
> presuppositions point us ... unless we operate
> (irrationally) in conflict with them.
I've already pointed out how your worldview contradicts itself and how it has to borrow intellectual capital from a naturalistic worldview, but you apparently intend on crashing into the ground (to further your metaphor).
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 09, 2009 02:54PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Godwin's Law deals with 'reductio ad Hitlerum' --
> relating all things to Hitler.
>
> But Hitler-hate is an almost perfect example of
> irrational thinking -- in what (to Pangloss's
> distress) 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.
*sigh*
Eliot, quit believing Van Til, there are more then just two worldviews out there.
I'm going to start calling your worldview 'simple-minded Christianity'. Maybe something will sink in.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Godwin's Law deals with 'reductio ad Hitlerum' --
> relating all things to Hitler.
>
> But Hitler-hate is an almost perfect example of
> irrational thinking -- in what (to Pangloss's
> distress) 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.
*sigh*
Eliot, quit believing Van Til, there are more then just two worldviews out there.
I'm going to start calling your worldview 'simple-minded Christianity'. Maybe something will sink in.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 09, 2009 02:55PM
Yup ... from German churches whose thinking had moved from a created, supernatural universe where God has commanded Man, into (here's that hated word again) a 'Darwinian' world with its uniformity of natural causes in a closed system.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 09, 2009 02:56PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yup ... from German churches whose thinking had
> moved from a created, supernatural universe where
> God has commanded Man, into (here's that hated
> word again) a 'Darwinian' world with its
> uniformity of natural causes in a closed system.
Please demonstrate your assertion or take it back.
Again, Eliot, I implore you for HONESTY.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yup ... from German churches whose thinking had
> moved from a created, supernatural universe where
> God has commanded Man, into (here's that hated
> word again) a 'Darwinian' world with its
> uniformity of natural causes in a closed system.
Please demonstrate your assertion or take it back.
Again, Eliot, I implore you for HONESTY.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: February 09, 2009 03:07PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Godwin's Law deals with 'reductio ad Hitlerum' --
> relating all things to Hitler.
Maybe you should have read past the third sentence in your wikipedia article.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Godwin's Law deals with 'reductio ad Hitlerum' --
> relating all things to Hitler.
Maybe you should have read past the third sentence in your wikipedia article.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 09, 2009 03:28PM
| 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." |
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2009 03:29PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: February 09, 2009 03:39PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yup ... from German churches whose thinking had
> moved from a created, supernatural universe where
> God has commanded Man, into (here's that hated
> word again) a 'Darwinian' world with its
> uniformity of natural causes in a closed system.
You might want to study history. It didn't take Darwin for one group of people to think they were superior to another group. Check out the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yup ... from German churches whose thinking had
> moved from a created, supernatural universe where
> God has commanded Man, into (here's that hated
> word again) a 'Darwinian' world with its
> uniformity of natural causes in a closed system.
You might want to study history. It didn't take Darwin for one group of people to think they were superior to another group. Check out the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 09, 2009 03:57PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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) 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."
*Sigh*, Eliot, may I remind you that you don't have a foundation for objective morality.
But you can believe your baseless assertion all you want.
You are wasting our time Eliot.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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) 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."
*Sigh*, Eliot, may I remind you that you don't have a foundation for objective morality.
But you can believe your baseless assertion all you want.
You are wasting our time Eliot.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 09, 2009 04:00PM
WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yup ... from German churches whose thinking had
> > moved from a created, supernatural universe
> where
> > God has commanded Man, into (here's that hated
> > word again) a 'Darwinian' world with its
> > uniformity of natural causes in a closed
> system.
>
>
> You might want to study history. It didn't take
> Darwin for one group of people to think they were
> superior to another group. Check out the Crusades
> or the Spanish Inquisition.
You don't even have to go back that far. I've already posted quotes from Christians who did not accept evolution who thought that african american people were subhuman. Also, 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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yup ... from German churches whose thinking had
> > moved from a created, supernatural universe
> where
> > God has commanded Man, into (here's that hated
> > word again) a 'Darwinian' world with its
> > uniformity of natural causes in a closed
> system.
>
>
> You might want to study history. It didn't take
> Darwin for one group of people to think they were
> superior to another group. Check out the Crusades
> or the Spanish Inquisition.
You don't even have to go back that far. I've already posted quotes from Christians who did not accept evolution who thought that african american people were subhuman. Also, 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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 09, 2009 09:08PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters 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.Ness wonders: 1) On what
> basis do hurl calumny at the very decent Lon
> Solomon? Would you take no issue with me if
> without having met you, I called you, for example,
> a "pathological liar and homosexual pedophile?"
> 2) Do you detect the Fascist reverberations in
> your assertion that "religion ... a tissue of old
> superstitions and pernicious self-serving
> institutions" should be "rooted out from modern
> society?" How would you propose to do that? Would
> you, for example, start killing off Intelligent
> Design proponents the way that Lysenko killed off
> competing Mendelian Soviet biologists?
Elliot, Elliot, Elliot - I'm surprised that your mommy lets you out
Anyone pushing religion is either
1) a fool - because the evidence against religion is clear and easily available and to willingly ignore it is foolish
0r
2) a charlatan - in that they know it to be false and push it on vulnerable or indoctrinated individual
or
3) a thief - in that they are knowingly misleading the public for personal gain - as seems to be endemic in the echelons US Christianity
as far as I know, none of those is illegal in the US
Nah - I don't see any reverberations of fascism - as far as I've seen, many Nazis and nearly all Italian fascists were explicitly Christian - in fact the Vatican and the rest of the European religious establishment did very little to oppose the holocaust. The communists did more to resist the Nazis than the churches did - which is hardly a badge of honor for religion.
Being neither a homosexual or a pedophile, I find being accused of either by a mad religious zealot pretty amusing - especially given the track record of US religious institutions.
I'm sure Solomon needs a psycho like you arguing his case
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters 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.Ness wonders: 1) On what
> basis do hurl calumny at the very decent Lon
> Solomon? Would you take no issue with me if
> without having met you, I called you, for example,
> a "pathological liar and homosexual pedophile?"
> 2) Do you detect the Fascist reverberations in
> your assertion that "religion ... a tissue of old
> superstitions and pernicious self-serving
> institutions" should be "rooted out from modern
> society?" How would you propose to do that? Would
> you, for example, start killing off Intelligent
> Design proponents the way that Lysenko killed off
> competing Mendelian Soviet biologists?
Elliot, Elliot, Elliot - I'm surprised that your mommy lets you out
Anyone pushing religion is either
1) a fool - because the evidence against religion is clear and easily available and to willingly ignore it is foolish
0r
2) a charlatan - in that they know it to be false and push it on vulnerable or indoctrinated individual
or
3) a thief - in that they are knowingly misleading the public for personal gain - as seems to be endemic in the echelons US Christianity
as far as I know, none of those is illegal in the US
Nah - I don't see any reverberations of fascism - as far as I've seen, many Nazis and nearly all Italian fascists were explicitly Christian - in fact the Vatican and the rest of the European religious establishment did very little to oppose the holocaust. The communists did more to resist the Nazis than the churches did - which is hardly a badge of honor for religion.
Being neither a homosexual or a pedophile, I find being accused of either by a mad religious zealot pretty amusing - especially given the track record of US religious institutions.
I'm sure Solomon needs a psycho like you arguing his case
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 09, 2009 09:16PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters:'Law' is useful when it reduces behaviors
> that destroy social cohesion - it has no moral
> basis, but is just a practical social
> adaptation.Ness: And yet I'll bet that you'd
> object to a law passed by Irish-Swedes like me, to
> foster "social cohesion" by gassing Jews and
> niggers. Why is that?
We seem to differ on whether Genocide provides social cohesion.
It didn't seem to be a winner for the Nazis - who ended up being destroyed - or the Khmer Rouge
The social cohesion argument works at all levels from the family to global relationships. If you're viewed as a dangerous and unpredictable, your neighbors will move to restrict your behavior - that's the way the world works
You seem to be the last advocate for Genocide
I'm really beginning to worry about you
Your last few posts seem to be advocating Genocide, Racism and Homophobia
Is this the new pure Christianity?
Remind me not to drink any of your soft-drinks - I sense a danger of implosion - are you getting the help you need?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters:'Law' is useful when it reduces behaviors
> that destroy social cohesion - it has no moral
> basis, but is just a practical social
> adaptation.Ness: And yet I'll bet that you'd
> object to a law passed by Irish-Swedes like me, to
> foster "social cohesion" by gassing Jews and
> niggers. Why is that?
We seem to differ on whether Genocide provides social cohesion.
It didn't seem to be a winner for the Nazis - who ended up being destroyed - or the Khmer Rouge
The social cohesion argument works at all levels from the family to global relationships. If you're viewed as a dangerous and unpredictable, your neighbors will move to restrict your behavior - that's the way the world works
You seem to be the last advocate for Genocide
I'm really beginning to worry about you
Your last few posts seem to be advocating Genocide, Racism and Homophobia
Is this the new pure Christianity?
Remind me not to drink any of your soft-drinks - I sense a danger of implosion - are you getting the help you need?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 10, 2009 09:54AM
| 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. |
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2009 12:20PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 10, 2009 10:13AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
If you read what was written, and as I explained - I frame anyone who pushes religion as falling into one of the three categories. Which one you decide to put your particular religious leaders into is entirely up to you,
There is a fourth category of the indoctrinated - which may be sufficient to explain joining in but is not sufficient excuse for pushing.
Its like the difference between drug addiction and drug dealing - no excuse for either but one is worse than the other. Or poisoning baby milk in china.
Once you start quoting scripture, its a sermon not a thought
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
If you read what was written, and as I explained - I frame anyone who pushes religion as falling into one of the three categories. Which one you decide to put your particular religious leaders into is entirely up to you,
There is a fourth category of the indoctrinated - which may be sufficient to explain joining in but is not sufficient excuse for pushing.
Its like the difference between drug addiction and drug dealing - no excuse for either but one is worse than the other. Or poisoning baby milk in china.
Once you start quoting scripture, its a sermon not a thought
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 10, 2009 10:14AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The obvious question is, Why
> should others share your personal distaste for
> perceived "thieves?"By disparaging thievery,
> you're arbitrarily applying "objective morality"
The obvious answer is that society works better that way (utility).
Let me ask, are you familar with philosophy?
> ... perhaps on the basis of childhood conditioning
> in a culture with residual Christian values.The
Which is directly refuted by morality existing prior to Christianity.
> 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,
Actually they can't, not Christians who wish to be logical.
> Not a sermon, just a thought.
It's not a very well thought out thought though.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The obvious question is, Why
> should others share your personal distaste for
> perceived "thieves?"By disparaging thievery,
> you're arbitrarily applying "objective morality"
The obvious answer is that society works better that way (utility).
Let me ask, are you familar with philosophy?
> ... perhaps on the basis of childhood conditioning
> in a culture with residual Christian values.The
Which is directly refuted by morality existing prior to Christianity.
> 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,
Actually they can't, not Christians who wish to be logical.
> Not a sermon, just a thought.
It's not a very well thought out thought though.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 10, 2009 10:19AM
| 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. |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 10, 2009 10:26AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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).
The new testament can only do this if it convienently *forgets* the old testament.
> 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.
Um...Are you familar with John's Revelation?
He brings the sword and non believers roast in a lake of fire.
> 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.
Your position is no less arbitrary.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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).
The new testament can only do this if it convienently *forgets* the old testament.
> 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.
Um...Are you familar with John's Revelation?
He brings the sword and non believers roast in a lake of fire.
> 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.
Your position is no less arbitrary.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 10, 2009 10:28AM
| 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. |
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2009 10:35AM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 10, 2009 10:31AM
| 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?) |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 10, 2009 10:36AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Sure you did. There was no need to use that kind of derogatory language and you are trying to justify yourself now.
> 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 a
> Communists preaching about America's abuse of
> racial minorities while they themselves enslave
> and slaughter millions.
*Sigh*, it's not 'essentially christian', as it existed prior to Christianity. Essentially Christian morality would include infinite punishments for finite crimes - which I actually do believe is original with Christianity, granted the Christians did rip the whole dichotomy of good v evil from the Zoroastrians and all that.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Sure you did. There was no need to use that kind of derogatory language and you are trying to justify yourself now.
> 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 a
> Communists preaching about America's abuse of
> racial minorities while they themselves enslave
> and slaughter millions.
*Sigh*, it's not 'essentially christian', as it existed prior to Christianity. Essentially Christian morality would include infinite punishments for finite crimes - which I actually do believe is original with Christianity, granted the Christians did rip the whole dichotomy of good v evil from the Zoroastrians and all that.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 10, 2009 10:40AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?)
Because I'm trying not to waste your time. You need to learn a few things about how the world operates. The more people learn how reality operates the less time and money will be spent on ludicris pseudoscience. It would be one thing if you would actually defend your position. Then we might agree to disagree, but you have spent several pages now just blathering on without regard to logical/evidenced rebuttals.
Also, I would hardly compare my presence here as 'missionary zeal to disparage Christianity'. I have been trying to engage you in a meaningful dialogue and I've been failing as you keep sticking your head in the sand and ignoring powerful issues (while hypocritically accusing non christians of the very same thing!).
Further, no, I do not come from a Roman Catholic background. I was a literal bible believing baptist (who was involved, foolishly, in presuppositionalism).
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?)
Because I'm trying not to waste your time. You need to learn a few things about how the world operates. The more people learn how reality operates the less time and money will be spent on ludicris pseudoscience. It would be one thing if you would actually defend your position. Then we might agree to disagree, but you have spent several pages now just blathering on without regard to logical/evidenced rebuttals.
Also, I would hardly compare my presence here as 'missionary zeal to disparage Christianity'. I have been trying to engage you in a meaningful dialogue and I've been failing as you keep sticking your head in the sand and ignoring powerful issues (while hypocritically accusing non christians of the very same thing!).
Further, no, I do not come from a Roman Catholic background. I was a literal bible believing baptist (who was involved, foolishly, in presuppositionalism).
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 10, 2009 11:01AM
| 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.' |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 10, 2009 11:08AM
| 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. |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 10, 2009 11:08AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
How inconsistent. So is Epicurus (sp?) in heaven then (or will be)?
Further, I don't see how that is consistent with either mercy or judgment. Again, punishing someone for an infinite time for a finite crime is not 'just' in any sense of the term. Nor is it merciful.
> After that, there is only justice.(Is
> there anybody who doesn't wish that there were
> only mercy, for all, forever?
So you wish for mercy, for all, forever? If so, then you are better then your god, more just and more merciful.
That's kind of weird if your god is supposedly an omnimax entity, isn't it?
ETA: It's also convienent that you completely ignored my point about the old testament which directly refutes your notion of 'merciful now'. That is you putting your head in the metaphorical sand again, Eliot.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2009 11:09AM by Professor Pangloss.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
How inconsistent. So is Epicurus (sp?) in heaven then (or will be)?
Further, I don't see how that is consistent with either mercy or judgment. Again, punishing someone for an infinite time for a finite crime is not 'just' in any sense of the term. Nor is it merciful.
> After that, there is only justice.(Is
> there anybody who doesn't wish that there were
> only mercy, for all, forever?
So you wish for mercy, for all, forever? If so, then you are better then your god, more just and more merciful.
That's kind of weird if your god is supposedly an omnimax entity, isn't it?
ETA: It's also convienent that you completely ignored my point about the old testament which directly refutes your notion of 'merciful now'. That is you putting your head in the metaphorical sand again, Eliot.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2009 11:09AM by Professor Pangloss.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 10, 2009 11:26AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
e.g. disparaging Lon
> Solomon as a "thief" -- if "there is no absolute
> objective morality" in a brain-dead dying
> impersonal cosmos.
Putting words in peoples mouths again eliot - read what was written
I actually gave you a set of choices for categorizing those who push religion, and gave a rational explanation, which you have yet again not countered - at no point have I called any individual a thief - that seems to be your own obsession - are your meds running out?
It seems pretty mild compared to your choice of language when describing our African American friends and neighbors
The light of christian charity simply shines from you - you're a lesson to us all
-------------------------------------------------------
e.g. disparaging Lon
> Solomon as a "thief" -- if "there is no absolute
> objective morality" in a brain-dead dying
> impersonal cosmos.
Putting words in peoples mouths again eliot - read what was written
I actually gave you a set of choices for categorizing those who push religion, and gave a rational explanation, which you have yet again not countered - at no point have I called any individual a thief - that seems to be your own obsession - are your meds running out?
It seems pretty mild compared to your choice of language when describing our African American friends and neighbors
The light of christian charity simply shines from you - you're a lesson to us all
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 10, 2009 12:11PM
| 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.' |
Edited 15 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2009 01:48PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 10, 2009 12:23PM
| 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! |
Edited 22 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2009 12:56PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 10, 2009 02:08PM
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.) |
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2009 02:23PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 10, 2009 02:37PM
| 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." |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 10, 2009 03:00PM
| 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. |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 11, 2009 12:56PM
| 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. |
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2009 05:17PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
RESton Peace
()
Date: February 12, 2009 01:03AM
Elliot Ness, why do you like, publish a newsletter in every post?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
inkahootz
()
Date: February 12, 2009 01:31AM
k
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2010 05:55AM by inkahootz.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2010 05:55AM by inkahootz.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
More Than A Christian
()
Date: February 12, 2009 08:01AM
Why is it Professor, that for someone who claims Christianity is a lie, you spend soooo much time trying to disprove it? You seem to be obsessed and really want affirmation that it does exist. The Bible says seek and ye shall find,but do you really want to know? Could you handle the truth in this finite existence that we find ourselves in? Metaphysics, collective unconscious, religion and science all coexist, I too have had and still have many questions and went seeking. Different religions believe differently but all believe in something greater than ourselves and that goes back to the Neanderthal days. You seem to spend a great amount of time proving it does not exist too bad that you don't spend a little time finding out that it does exist.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
More Than A Christian
()
Date: February 12, 2009 08:14AM
Don't blame God for wars and killing, that is all man made and if wars were not fought over religion then we'd be fighting and killing for some other reason. Would any of us know Christ if he appeared? The true message is about loving thy brother as thy self because we all spring from the same well. Until man kind recognizes this nothing will change.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 12, 2009 08:53AM
More Than A Christian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why is it Professor, that for someone who claims
> Christianity is a lie, you spend soooo much time
> trying to disprove it?
I don't think that Christianity is a lie, per say. It is no more a lie then alien abduction.
As to why do I spend time on it? Because I find it interesting and it's belief's damaging. Why do the mythbusters spend time on the myths they bust?
> You seem to be obsessed
> and really want affirmation that it does exist.
You don't know anything about me other then a few postings on an internet message board. Get over yourself and any thoughts you have about being a psychologist.
> The Bible says seek and ye shall find,but do you
> really want to know? Could you handle the truth
> in this finite existence that we find ourselves
> in?
I think I could - after all, I *used to*. But this is all an attempt to challenge my character and not *ANY* of the arguments I've made. You are hurt because of something I wrote and instead of dealing with your emotions you are trying to cast doubt towards my character. That's pathetic.
> Metaphysics, collective unconscious, religion
> and science all coexist, I too have had and still
> have many questions and went seeking.
And you what...gave up? If not, then you are a hypocrit for your challenges to me.
> Different
> religions believe differently but all believe in
> something greater than ourselves and that goes
> back to the Neanderthal days. You seem to spend a
> great amount of time proving it does not exist too
> bad that you don't spend a little time finding out
> that it does exist.
I actually did spend a great amount of time 'finding out' that it doesn't exist.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why is it Professor, that for someone who claims
> Christianity is a lie, you spend soooo much time
> trying to disprove it?
I don't think that Christianity is a lie, per say. It is no more a lie then alien abduction.
As to why do I spend time on it? Because I find it interesting and it's belief's damaging. Why do the mythbusters spend time on the myths they bust?
> You seem to be obsessed
> and really want affirmation that it does exist.
You don't know anything about me other then a few postings on an internet message board. Get over yourself and any thoughts you have about being a psychologist.
> The Bible says seek and ye shall find,but do you
> really want to know? Could you handle the truth
> in this finite existence that we find ourselves
> in?
I think I could - after all, I *used to*. But this is all an attempt to challenge my character and not *ANY* of the arguments I've made. You are hurt because of something I wrote and instead of dealing with your emotions you are trying to cast doubt towards my character. That's pathetic.
> Metaphysics, collective unconscious, religion
> and science all coexist, I too have had and still
> have many questions and went seeking.
And you what...gave up? If not, then you are a hypocrit for your challenges to me.
> Different
> religions believe differently but all believe in
> something greater than ourselves and that goes
> back to the Neanderthal days. You seem to spend a
> great amount of time proving it does not exist too
> bad that you don't spend a little time finding out
> that it does exist.
I actually did spend a great amount of time 'finding out' that it doesn't exist.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 12, 2009 08:58AM
Frankly, my last post not withstanding, I'm tired of attempting to get a philosophical argument going with you Eliot. I might read that bilge on Schaeffer later, but as he assumes his conclusions I really don't think it's going to be of much use at all.
I was curious about one thing and I honestly hope you'll endulge me. I have a question for you, one that you've no doubt heard before.
Let's suppose that you were convinced, some how, that Christianity was not true. Be it a piece of evidence, a twist of logic, or god speaking directly to you (for *one* moment*). So now you fully believe that Christianity is not true (or parts - at least the Passion story and New Testament).
That being the case I would assume that you would still believe in god (I suppose it would depend on the reason you left Christianity) - wouldn't you?
If you did, how would you go about finding out how to be a proper believer? Would you rely on prayer? Would you attempt to discern the truth via other holy books? Would you go all Plato and try to reason to god?
What would your first impulse be?
I was curious about one thing and I honestly hope you'll endulge me. I have a question for you, one that you've no doubt heard before.
Let's suppose that you were convinced, some how, that Christianity was not true. Be it a piece of evidence, a twist of logic, or god speaking directly to you (for *one* moment*). So now you fully believe that Christianity is not true (or parts - at least the Passion story and New Testament).
That being the case I would assume that you would still believe in god (I suppose it would depend on the reason you left Christianity) - wouldn't you?
If you did, how would you go about finding out how to be a proper believer? Would you rely on prayer? Would you attempt to discern the truth via other holy books? Would you go all Plato and try to reason to god?
What would your first impulse be?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
More Than A Believer
()
Date: February 12, 2009 09:15AM
The real problem here is finite minds keep trying to rationalize an infinite omnipotence. Is the US really so great without a belief system? You say man kind is basically good, if this is true then why do we have one of the highest crime rates in the world and counting? We as a world we need religious tolerance and respect for other religions as long as it's not doing physical harm to others. The Bible says that you will know a tree by the fruit that it bares. To thy own self be true! One thing is for you, we will all find out the truth one day.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 12, 2009 09:39AM
More Than A Believer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The real problem here is finite minds keep trying
> to rationalize an infinite omnipotence.
We can only use what tools we have and what evidence we have in order to make a rational opinion. If it turns out that the irrational is true, I fail to see how we can be blamed for that.
> Is the US
> really so great without a belief system?
Do you mean religion? I ask because even without religion, people have belief systems.
> You say
> man kind is basically good, if this is true then
> why do we have one of the highest crime rates in
> the world and counting?
I don't see the connection between crime rate and secularism. If anything the US is predominently a Christian country. I don't blame our crime rate on Christianity either, btw.
> We as a world we need
> religious tolerance and respect for other
> religions as long as it's not doing physical harm
> to others. The Bible says that you will know a
> tree by the fruit that it bares. To thy own self
> be true! One thing is for you, we will all find
> out the truth one day.
I would be willing to stack my 'fruits' up against yours to see which pile is higher.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The real problem here is finite minds keep trying
> to rationalize an infinite omnipotence.
We can only use what tools we have and what evidence we have in order to make a rational opinion. If it turns out that the irrational is true, I fail to see how we can be blamed for that.
> Is the US
> really so great without a belief system?
Do you mean religion? I ask because even without religion, people have belief systems.
> You say
> man kind is basically good, if this is true then
> why do we have one of the highest crime rates in
> the world and counting?
I don't see the connection between crime rate and secularism. If anything the US is predominently a Christian country. I don't blame our crime rate on Christianity either, btw.
> We as a world we need
> religious tolerance and respect for other
> religions as long as it's not doing physical harm
> to others. The Bible says that you will know a
> tree by the fruit that it bares. To thy own self
> be true! One thing is for you, we will all find
> out the truth one day.
I would be willing to stack my 'fruits' up against yours to see which pile is higher.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 12, 2009 10:08AM
More Than A Believer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The real problem here is finite minds keep trying
> to rationalize an infinite omnipotence.
I don't understand why you insist on needing any omnipotent being
Science provides such a rich observation-based explanation for the world that to believe in one, you have to throw away things which are observably correct
As Alice said:
"I can't believe that!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" the queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again, draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said. "One can't believe impossible things."
"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
>Is the US
> really so great without a belief system?
>You say
> man kind is basically good, if this is true then
> why do we have one of the highest crime rates in
> the world and counting?
Who said man is basically good? Science says no such thing - it has no concept of good or bad in species - just successful or not successful
The US's crime rate is far higher than those of more secular western democracies and approaching that of basket case countries in the developing world
You could argue strongly that the strength of religion and the level of crime are directly related to each other - the reason may be that religion reduces the willingness to engage in conscious social decisions/support consensus based institutions or it may be that fragile societies are a good seed bed for religion (see Russia)
Secular democracies tend to have low crime, be pretty stable and go to war with each other less.
It may be that once you've bought in to the impossibilities of religion, you inevitably get drawn into irreconcilable theological arguments about those impossibilities - irreconcilable because they're impossible (see hundreds of years of religious wars in Europe and the current middle eastern 'my-god-said-we-were-the-chosen situation)
>We as a world we need
> religious tolerance and respect for other
> religions as long as it's not doing physical harm
> to others.
I'd disagree - I'd frame it that we should have tolerance for what individuals believe - but zero tolerance for the propagation of religion to the next generation (its hard not to love elderly relatives who were bought up racist or homophobic - but that's no reason we should accept it in their grandchildren)
-------------------------------------------------------
> The real problem here is finite minds keep trying
> to rationalize an infinite omnipotence.
I don't understand why you insist on needing any omnipotent being
Science provides such a rich observation-based explanation for the world that to believe in one, you have to throw away things which are observably correct
As Alice said:
"I can't believe that!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" the queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again, draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said. "One can't believe impossible things."
"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
>Is the US
> really so great without a belief system?
>You say
> man kind is basically good, if this is true then
> why do we have one of the highest crime rates in
> the world and counting?
Who said man is basically good? Science says no such thing - it has no concept of good or bad in species - just successful or not successful
The US's crime rate is far higher than those of more secular western democracies and approaching that of basket case countries in the developing world
You could argue strongly that the strength of religion and the level of crime are directly related to each other - the reason may be that religion reduces the willingness to engage in conscious social decisions/support consensus based institutions or it may be that fragile societies are a good seed bed for religion (see Russia)
Secular democracies tend to have low crime, be pretty stable and go to war with each other less.
It may be that once you've bought in to the impossibilities of religion, you inevitably get drawn into irreconcilable theological arguments about those impossibilities - irreconcilable because they're impossible (see hundreds of years of religious wars in Europe and the current middle eastern 'my-god-said-we-were-the-chosen situation)
>We as a world we need
> religious tolerance and respect for other
> religions as long as it's not doing physical harm
> to others.
I'd disagree - I'd frame it that we should have tolerance for what individuals believe - but zero tolerance for the propagation of religion to the next generation (its hard not to love elderly relatives who were bought up racist or homophobic - but that's no reason we should accept it in their grandchildren)
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
More Than A Christian
()
Date: February 13, 2009 03:11PM
You don't know anything about me other then a few postings on an internet message board. Get over yourself and any thoughts you have about being a psychologist.
Hmmm, I seems I really hit a sore spot, sorry. I don't believe it takes a psychologist on this one.
I think I could - after all, I *used to*. But this is all an attempt to challenge my character and not *ANY* of the arguments I've made. You are hurt because of something I wrote and instead of dealing with your emotions you are trying to cast doubt towards my character. That's pathetic.
None of this is an attempt to challenge anything you say. You see it really doesn't matter to me, I have experienced and know the truth, and what more, metaphysically.
And you what...gave up? If not, then you are a hypocrit for your challenges to me.
There's nothing to give up, as I mentioned above, I already have experienced the truth (at least to me.)
I actually did spend a great amount of time 'finding out' that it doesn't exist.
And because you have, I sincerely hope you find the truth. As I said before, seek and you shall find, just be ready for it as it will change your perspective. I do consider myself Christian, in that I believe that Christ is the Son of God but I do think that no religion has it entirely correct. Why don't you try awakening the spiritual inside of you (and no new age is not where I'm going). When the student is ready, the teacher will come but if you are afraid to really believe then I guess you won't find out in this existence (and I'm not being sarcastic).
Good Luck To You, hope you find your joy.
Hmmm, I seems I really hit a sore spot, sorry. I don't believe it takes a psychologist on this one.
I think I could - after all, I *used to*. But this is all an attempt to challenge my character and not *ANY* of the arguments I've made. You are hurt because of something I wrote and instead of dealing with your emotions you are trying to cast doubt towards my character. That's pathetic.
None of this is an attempt to challenge anything you say. You see it really doesn't matter to me, I have experienced and know the truth, and what more, metaphysically.
And you what...gave up? If not, then you are a hypocrit for your challenges to me.
There's nothing to give up, as I mentioned above, I already have experienced the truth (at least to me.)
I actually did spend a great amount of time 'finding out' that it doesn't exist.
And because you have, I sincerely hope you find the truth. As I said before, seek and you shall find, just be ready for it as it will change your perspective. I do consider myself Christian, in that I believe that Christ is the Son of God but I do think that no religion has it entirely correct. Why don't you try awakening the spiritual inside of you (and no new age is not where I'm going). When the student is ready, the teacher will come but if you are afraid to really believe then I guess you won't find out in this existence (and I'm not being sarcastic).
Good Luck To You, hope you find your joy.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 13, 2009 03:52PM
More Than A Christian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You don't know anything about me other then a few
> postings on an internet message board. Get over
> yourself and any thoughts you have about being a
> psychologist.
>
> Hmmm, I seems I really hit a sore spot, sorry. I
> don't believe it takes a psychologist on this
> one.
No, not really a sore spot, just typical christian bilge - you really need to get over yourself though.
> I think I could - after all, I *used to*. But this
> is all an attempt to challenge my character and
> not *ANY* of the arguments I've made. You are hurt
> because of something I wrote and instead of
> dealing with your emotions you are trying to cast
> doubt towards my character. That's pathetic.
>
> None of this is an attempt to challenge anything
> you say. You see it really doesn't matter to me,
> I have experienced and know the truth, and what
> more, metaphysically.
Sure you do.
So do the hindu's. You admit that you aren't challenging anything that I've said, so what's left? A challenge to my character.
That's why it's pathetic.
> And you what...gave up? If not, then you are a
> hypocrit for your challenges to me.
>
> There's nothing to give up, as I mentioned above,
> I already have experienced the truth (at least to
> me.)
You don't sound very confident there - 'at least to me'. Are you hinting at relativism?
> I actually did spend a great amount of time
> 'finding out' that it doesn't exist.
>
> And because you have, I sincerely hope you find
> the truth.
As I hope that you finally come to your senses and find the truth as well. I think you already know it, by your relativistic statement above though. Why criticize me then?
Perhaps it's similar to the homosexual bashers who are secretly homosexual themselves. In any event, it's of no consequence to me.
> As I said before, seek and you shall
> find, just be ready for it as it will change your
> perspective.
Yes, you said that and you are empirically incorrect about it.
> I do consider myself Christian, in
> that I believe that Christ is the Son of God but I
> do think that no religion has it entirely correct.
> Why don't you try awakening the spiritual inside
> of you (and no new age is not where I'm going).
> When the student is ready, the teacher will come
> but if you are afraid to really believe then I
> guess you won't find out in this existence (and
> I'm not being sarcastic).
>
> Good Luck To You, hope you find your joy.
I'm sorry, but this is nonsense and incorrect. You may believe it, but that doesn't make it so.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You don't know anything about me other then a few
> postings on an internet message board. Get over
> yourself and any thoughts you have about being a
> psychologist.
>
> Hmmm, I seems I really hit a sore spot, sorry. I
> don't believe it takes a psychologist on this
> one.
No, not really a sore spot, just typical christian bilge - you really need to get over yourself though.
> I think I could - after all, I *used to*. But this
> is all an attempt to challenge my character and
> not *ANY* of the arguments I've made. You are hurt
> because of something I wrote and instead of
> dealing with your emotions you are trying to cast
> doubt towards my character. That's pathetic.
>
> None of this is an attempt to challenge anything
> you say. You see it really doesn't matter to me,
> I have experienced and know the truth, and what
> more, metaphysically.
Sure you do.
So do the hindu's. You admit that you aren't challenging anything that I've said, so what's left? A challenge to my character.
That's why it's pathetic.
> And you what...gave up? If not, then you are a
> hypocrit for your challenges to me.
>
> There's nothing to give up, as I mentioned above,
> I already have experienced the truth (at least to
> me.)
You don't sound very confident there - 'at least to me'. Are you hinting at relativism?
> I actually did spend a great amount of time
> 'finding out' that it doesn't exist.
>
> And because you have, I sincerely hope you find
> the truth.
As I hope that you finally come to your senses and find the truth as well. I think you already know it, by your relativistic statement above though. Why criticize me then?
Perhaps it's similar to the homosexual bashers who are secretly homosexual themselves. In any event, it's of no consequence to me.
> As I said before, seek and you shall
> find, just be ready for it as it will change your
> perspective.
Yes, you said that and you are empirically incorrect about it.
> I do consider myself Christian, in
> that I believe that Christ is the Son of God but I
> do think that no religion has it entirely correct.
> Why don't you try awakening the spiritual inside
> of you (and no new age is not where I'm going).
> When the student is ready, the teacher will come
> but if you are afraid to really believe then I
> guess you won't find out in this existence (and
> I'm not being sarcastic).
>
> Good Luck To You, hope you find your joy.
I'm sorry, but this is nonsense and incorrect. You may believe it, but that doesn't make it so.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 14, 2009 05:56PM
| 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. |
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2009 06:53PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 14, 2009 06:18PM
| 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. |
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2009 06:37PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
dono
()
Date: February 14, 2009 06:44PM
Faith is hope and it is a blessing. The Church packages that miracle and sells it for money among other things and that is a sin. Not a sin to spread faith and hope but a sin to perpetuate it on things other than its naked merit...
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2009 06:48PM by dono.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2009 06:48PM by dono.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
asshat
()
Date: February 15, 2009 02:52AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.)
No one opposing you on this board has said anything about life being empty and meaningless. You think with out Jesus and gOD to follow that life is empty and without meaning? It may seem like that to you, that if you lost your belief that you would have no drive, nothing to care about, nothing to work for. We are not saying that life has no meaning, no purpose. We are saying that you trying to give life meaning and trying to give life purpose through the context of a 3 thousand year old book that is so clearly wrong, IS purposeless and meaningless. We do not propose to have the answers, we do not sell another religion, the product we sell is doubt. All we are saying is something that I do not think is too unreasonable - we are saying "I dont know". I dont know the answers, I dont know the meanings, I dont know the purpose. That does not mean there is no purpose or meaning, its just saying that I dont have the answers and you sure as hell dont. Do you think that people went through life horribly depressed, aimlessly moving about with no purpose 4 thousand years ago before the bible? Ofcoarse not, because they too had some form of invented religion to try and understand what the hell we are doing here. Why cant any of you religious people just admit it , you dont know, you're doing your best, but you just dont know for certain. You defend all of your beliefs, twisting facts to fit your views, because you know, as soon as a crack starts to show in your logic, your whole argument falls- and thus everything you have based your life around. Please understand that you do not have to equate christianity with morality. Being a moral person has nothing to do with religion. Further more, I do not think that doing "the right thing" under threat of spending eternity burning in hell fire equates to "being a moral person". No one is truly good, no one is truly evil. We all have short comings, we have all made "sins".
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.)
No one opposing you on this board has said anything about life being empty and meaningless. You think with out Jesus and gOD to follow that life is empty and without meaning? It may seem like that to you, that if you lost your belief that you would have no drive, nothing to care about, nothing to work for. We are not saying that life has no meaning, no purpose. We are saying that you trying to give life meaning and trying to give life purpose through the context of a 3 thousand year old book that is so clearly wrong, IS purposeless and meaningless. We do not propose to have the answers, we do not sell another religion, the product we sell is doubt. All we are saying is something that I do not think is too unreasonable - we are saying "I dont know". I dont know the answers, I dont know the meanings, I dont know the purpose. That does not mean there is no purpose or meaning, its just saying that I dont have the answers and you sure as hell dont. Do you think that people went through life horribly depressed, aimlessly moving about with no purpose 4 thousand years ago before the bible? Ofcoarse not, because they too had some form of invented religion to try and understand what the hell we are doing here. Why cant any of you religious people just admit it , you dont know, you're doing your best, but you just dont know for certain. You defend all of your beliefs, twisting facts to fit your views, because you know, as soon as a crack starts to show in your logic, your whole argument falls- and thus everything you have based your life around. Please understand that you do not have to equate christianity with morality. Being a moral person has nothing to do with religion. Further more, I do not think that doing "the right thing" under threat of spending eternity burning in hell fire equates to "being a moral person". No one is truly good, no one is truly evil. We all have short comings, we have all made "sins".
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
asshat
()
Date: February 15, 2009 05:13AM
More Than A Believer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The real problem here is finite minds keep trying
> to rationalize an infinite omnipotence.
--- Exactly, we have finite minds and logic as human beings, and if the bible is indeed the word of man (i cant hear god telling me things, can you?), then ultimatly the bible and christianity is very finite in its understandings.
>Is the US
> really so great without a belief system? You say
> man kind is basically good, if this is true then
> why do we have one of the highest crime rates in
> the world and counting?
----Why? Because we criminalize our law abiding citizens with large sentences for non violent crimes, such as drug possesion.
> We as a world we need
> religious tolerance and respect for other
> religions as long as it's not doing physical harm
> to others.
-----Religious tolerance and respect will never exist as long is there is a religion to discriminate against. As long as there are people that think they are right, and not just "kind of right" but ABSOLUTELY right, then there will be people to hate for not believing what you believe. A good example of this is the constant christian persicution of gays, where is the tolerance and respect for what they believe is right?
> The Bible says that you will know a
> tree by the fruit that it bares. To thy own self
> be true! One thing is for you, we will all find
> out the truth one day.
Hopefully we will, but i cant guarantee that you will find it out before its too late, and before you waste this life in hopes for the next.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The real problem here is finite minds keep trying
> to rationalize an infinite omnipotence.
--- Exactly, we have finite minds and logic as human beings, and if the bible is indeed the word of man (i cant hear god telling me things, can you?), then ultimatly the bible and christianity is very finite in its understandings.
>Is the US
> really so great without a belief system? You say
> man kind is basically good, if this is true then
> why do we have one of the highest crime rates in
> the world and counting?
----Why? Because we criminalize our law abiding citizens with large sentences for non violent crimes, such as drug possesion.
> We as a world we need
> religious tolerance and respect for other
> religions as long as it's not doing physical harm
> to others.
-----Religious tolerance and respect will never exist as long is there is a religion to discriminate against. As long as there are people that think they are right, and not just "kind of right" but ABSOLUTELY right, then there will be people to hate for not believing what you believe. A good example of this is the constant christian persicution of gays, where is the tolerance and respect for what they believe is right?
> The Bible says that you will know a
> tree by the fruit that it bares. To thy own self
> be true! One thing is for you, we will all find
> out the truth one day.
Hopefully we will, but i cant guarantee that you will find it out before its too late, and before you waste this life in hopes for the next.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 15, 2009 07:38AM
dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Faith is hope and it is a blessing.
Faith is not hope - its a straight-jacket and an illusion
It's okay to try to explain observations that science has yet to satisfactorily explain or to tweak the math to improve its consistency - but its not okay to invent stuff that is just not there because you it makes you feel hopeful.
None of the religious posters here has yet shown a big enough inconsistency in science in which to fit a god or which need a god - not in biology, cosmology, physics or geology.
Rather 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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Faith is hope and it is a blessing.
Faith is not hope - its a straight-jacket and an illusion
It's okay to try to explain observations that science has yet to satisfactorily explain or to tweak the math to improve its consistency - but its not okay to invent stuff that is just not there because you it makes you feel hopeful.
None of the religious posters here has yet shown a big enough inconsistency in science in which to fit a god or which need a god - not in biology, cosmology, physics or geology.
Rather 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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
The Man with no Vowels
()
Date: February 15, 2009 09:50AM
All- It is sad to see these attacks on MBC and Lon Solomon. I have never set foot in a church sponsored by them, but I can tell you that the message Lon delivers on Sunday mornings on two radio stations here back-to-back have been the most powerful, moving, consistent and spiritual messages about Jesus Christ as my personal savior that I have EVER heard!
The message is not about this life on this earth, but about life AFTER this world. That is why many of the postings on this site are so laughable. So what if someone donates to or supports this church? So what if Pastor Solomon lives in a nice above middle class home that has special construction for his special needs daughter? And so what if some of the proceeds from this mega church go to supporting its messenger on behalf of Jesus Christ?
There is a passage in the bible that is so appropriate to this site, because the message if for each individual and for him alone: Meaningless! All of it is Meaningless!
Doors opened or unopened, volunteers appearing to be inattentive...blah blah blah...Lon Solomon "bilking" members for a lifestyle? How sad indeed. May the message of Lon Solomon on behalf of Jesus Christ somehow reach each and everyone of you and show you the way to spiritual salvation. God bless.
Respectfully,
A poor miserable sinner.
The message is not about this life on this earth, but about life AFTER this world. That is why many of the postings on this site are so laughable. So what if someone donates to or supports this church? So what if Pastor Solomon lives in a nice above middle class home that has special construction for his special needs daughter? And so what if some of the proceeds from this mega church go to supporting its messenger on behalf of Jesus Christ?
There is a passage in the bible that is so appropriate to this site, because the message if for each individual and for him alone: Meaningless! All of it is Meaningless!
Doors opened or unopened, volunteers appearing to be inattentive...blah blah blah...Lon Solomon "bilking" members for a lifestyle? How sad indeed. May the message of Lon Solomon on behalf of Jesus Christ somehow reach each and everyone of you and show you the way to spiritual salvation. God bless.
Respectfully,
A poor miserable sinner.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: February 15, 2009 10:02AM
If I thought it would work..and I don't...Id support imprisoning..then executing every priest..pastor..mullah...monk..rabbi to put an end to the insanity of faith. To quote a 20th century genious..I don't believe in magic....I believe in me...Yoko and me..that's reality!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 15, 2009 02:50PM
| 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." |
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2009 02:51PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 15, 2009 03:48PM
| 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." |
|
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2009 04:18PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 15, 2009 04:43PM
| "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. |
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2009 04:54PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: February 15, 2009 04:44PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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."
If I thought the execution of christ would have stopped all religious beleifs..Id applaud it. But as history has shown...it didnt. It is obviously a human trait to need to beleive in something bigger then ourselves. Perhaps that need helped us in our evoltionary development from apes...but we need to find a less harmful/more productive way to focus that need.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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."
If I thought the execution of christ would have stopped all religious beleifs..Id applaud it. But as history has shown...it didnt. It is obviously a human trait to need to beleive in something bigger then ourselves. Perhaps that need helped us in our evoltionary development from apes...but we need to find a less harmful/more productive way to focus that need.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 15, 2009 04:59PM
| 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. |
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2009 05:10PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: February 15, 2009 05:03PM
Eliot...Im convinced you are a bot...a well designed one at that...keep it up...you are a great advertisement for atheism. god bless...and good night mrs miniver...wherever you are!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 15, 2009 05:12PM
| (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. |
Edited 14 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2009 06:28PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 15, 2009 06:49PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Certainly no Christian
> is ever going argue either Nutters or Pangloss
> into believing that Christianity is true. Paul's
> epistemology is that all fallen men are in deep
> denial, "suppressing the truth:"
Goodness gracious your full of self-referential BS
You've offered:
- No proof
- No evidence
- No two pieces of science that need a god to glue them together
- No gap which needs a god to explain it
- Nothing
you just keep on with "I believe A, A implies B, damn me B implies A, so A must be true"
your religion is a sham
Lets take another look at the universe
100 Billion (100,000,000,000) galaxies with 100M to 1 Trillion (1,000,000,000,000) stars in each
Even our fairly average milky way with 200-400 Billion stars is now estimated to have 100 Billion earth like planets
So lets say 100 Billion galaxies at 250 Billion earth like planets each, gives us 25,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 earth-like planets
Which, frankly, doesn't make you all that special ... but your god decides to talk to you somewhere between the dairy counter and the bakery one Thursday?
Which takes us back to the taxonomy of those who push religion in the face of the evidence
1. Fools
2. Charlatans
3. Thieves
4. or simply indoctrinated
Eliot - which one are you? Or should we just vote
-------------------------------------------------------
> Certainly no Christian
> is ever going argue either Nutters or Pangloss
> into believing that Christianity is true. Paul's
> epistemology is that all fallen men are in deep
> denial, "suppressing the truth:"
Goodness gracious your full of self-referential BS
You've offered:
- No proof
- No evidence
- No two pieces of science that need a god to glue them together
- No gap which needs a god to explain it
- Nothing
you just keep on with "I believe A, A implies B, damn me B implies A, so A must be true"
your religion is a sham
Lets take another look at the universe
100 Billion (100,000,000,000) galaxies with 100M to 1 Trillion (1,000,000,000,000) stars in each
Even our fairly average milky way with 200-400 Billion stars is now estimated to have 100 Billion earth like planets
So lets say 100 Billion galaxies at 250 Billion earth like planets each, gives us 25,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 earth-like planets
Which, frankly, doesn't make you all that special ... but your god decides to talk to you somewhere between the dairy counter and the bakery one Thursday?
Which takes us back to the taxonomy of those who push religion in the face of the evidence
1. Fools
2. Charlatans
3. Thieves
4. or simply indoctrinated
Eliot - which one are you? Or should we just vote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: February 15, 2009 07:21PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (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.
Heyyyy...dont 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!
-------------------------------------------------------
> (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.
Heyyyy...dont 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!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
asshat
()
Date: February 16, 2009 05:00AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "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
> 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.
so 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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> "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
> 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.
so 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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 16, 2009 09:12AM
| 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. |
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 09:40AM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 16, 2009 09:31AM
| 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? |
Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 10:09AM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 16, 2009 10:08AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
e."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 cosmos
> itself -- no matter how he/she had been culturally
> conditioned?
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 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.
-------------------------------------------------------
e."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 cosmos
> itself -- no matter how he/she had been culturally
> conditioned?
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 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.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
More Than A Believer
()
Date: February 16, 2009 10:10AM
You all are always talking science, science, science.. Sick of hearing it.
Mathematical impossibility of natural selection:
Impossible for DNA to self-produce
MBased 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.
Darwin, himself, later repudiated natural selection and returned to the discredited theory of Lamarkianism. "I admint...that in earlier editions of my Origin of Species I probably attibuted too much to the action of natural descent of the survival of the fittest."--*Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Vol. 1 (1871 1st ed.), p. 152.
Mathematical impossibility of natural selection:
Impossible for DNA to self-produce
MBased 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.
Darwin, himself, later repudiated natural selection and returned to the discredited theory of Lamarkianism. "I admint...that in earlier editions of my Origin of Species I probably attibuted too much to the action of natural descent of the survival of the fittest."--*Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Vol. 1 (1871 1st ed.), p. 152.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 16, 2009 10:12AM
| 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. |
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 10:17AM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
More Than A Believer
()
Date: February 16, 2009 10:13AM
You seem to think you are right.... Guess you fit in that category.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
More Than A Believer
()
Date: February 16, 2009 10:24AM
You really just want to know that you have it ALL figured out. Who needs to get over their self now?
If you'd really looked at all religions (instead of Christian bassing) going back to the neanderthal days, you'd know they all believe in something larger than themselves.
However, I'm sure that you have it right and have everything figured out.
If you'd really looked at all religions (instead of Christian bassing) going back to the neanderthal days, you'd know they all believe in something larger than themselves.
However, I'm sure that you have it right and have everything figured out.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 16, 2009 10:28AM
| 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?) |
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 10:39AM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 16, 2009 11:11AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?
1. You didn't actually answer my *VERY SIMPLE* question.
2. It seems that you fundamentally misunderstand the people who disbelieve's view point, which is obvious.
> (Except perhaps to share the misery of
> meaninglessness.)What drove you out of belief? Was
> it perhaps academic exposure to Evolution?
Here I will answer your question directly - as opposed to giving you the run around and responding to strawmen as you do.
What drove me out of my belief was exposure to the history of ancient religions. I found out that Christianity was not unique and that led me to investigate early Christianity. I found it very wanting and I decided I had to find out whether or not it was true philosophically. After quite a long time which I devoted to prayer, reading, and reflecting, I could no longer hold onto my Christianity or my faith.
As to exposure to evolution - that came years earlier and I was able to maintain my faith in Christianity and modern science after some critical thinking on the issue. I followed Augustine's words on Genesis for the most part.
Now, since I answered your question clearly and directly, can you do me the favor and respond in kind?
> (Did
> you come out of a fundamentalist Christian school
> system?)
No, I was in public school. I did go to after school bible events when I was younger, but by highschool I was pretty much going to church with my friends and doing the weekend feed the poor thing.
> Understand that I had never heard of
> Biblical Christianity before I became a militant
> atheist ...
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.
> 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.
Sure.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?
1. You didn't actually answer my *VERY SIMPLE* question.
2. It seems that you fundamentally misunderstand the people who disbelieve's view point, which is obvious.
> (Except perhaps to share the misery of
> meaninglessness.)What drove you out of belief? Was
> it perhaps academic exposure to Evolution?
Here I will answer your question directly - as opposed to giving you the run around and responding to strawmen as you do.
What drove me out of my belief was exposure to the history of ancient religions. I found out that Christianity was not unique and that led me to investigate early Christianity. I found it very wanting and I decided I had to find out whether or not it was true philosophically. After quite a long time which I devoted to prayer, reading, and reflecting, I could no longer hold onto my Christianity or my faith.
As to exposure to evolution - that came years earlier and I was able to maintain my faith in Christianity and modern science after some critical thinking on the issue. I followed Augustine's words on Genesis for the most part.
Now, since I answered your question clearly and directly, can you do me the favor and respond in kind?
> (Did
> you come out of a fundamentalist Christian school
> system?)
No, I was in public school. I did go to after school bible events when I was younger, but by highschool I was pretty much going to church with my friends and doing the weekend feed the poor thing.
> Understand that I had never heard of
> Biblical Christianity before I became a militant
> atheist ...
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.
> 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.
Sure.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 16, 2009 11:16AM
asshat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 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.)
> No one opposing you on this board has said
> anything about life being empty and meaningless.
> You think with out Jesus and gOD to follow that
> life is empty and without meaning? It may seem
> like that to you, that if you lost your belief
> that you would have no drive, nothing to care
> about, nothing to work for. We are not saying that
> life has no meaning, no purpose. We are saying
> that you trying to give life meaning and trying to
> give life purpose through the context of a 3
> thousand year old book that is so clearly wrong,
> IS purposeless and meaningless. We do not propose
> to have the answers, we do not sell another
> religion, the product we sell is doubt. All we are
> saying is something that I do not think is too
> unreasonable - we are saying "I dont know". I dont
> know the answers, I dont know the meanings, I dont
> know the purpose. That does not mean there is no
> purpose or meaning, its just saying that I dont
> have the answers and you sure as hell dont. Do you
> think that people went through life horribly
> depressed, aimlessly moving about with no purpose
> 4 thousand years ago before the bible? Ofcoarse
> not, because they too had some form of invented
> religion to try and understand what the hell we
> are doing here. Why cant any of you religious
> people just admit it , you dont know, you're doing
> your best, but you just dont know for certain. You
> defend all of your beliefs, twisting facts to fit
> your views, because you know, as soon as a crack
> starts to show in your logic, your whole argument
> falls- and thus everything you have based your
> life around. Please understand that you do not
> have to equate christianity with morality. Being a
> moral person has nothing to do with religion.
> Further more, I do not think that doing "the right
> thing" under threat of spending eternity burning
> in hell fire equates to "being a moral person". No
> one is truly good, no one is truly evil. We all
> have short comings, we have all made "sins".
Eliot doesn't take into account anything that we say - he only believes what certain Christians have said about atheism. He doesn't actually consider whether or not it's true and he doesn't even attempt to reason about other points of view.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 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.)
> No one opposing you on this board has said
> anything about life being empty and meaningless.
> You think with out Jesus and gOD to follow that
> life is empty and without meaning? It may seem
> like that to you, that if you lost your belief
> that you would have no drive, nothing to care
> about, nothing to work for. We are not saying that
> life has no meaning, no purpose. We are saying
> that you trying to give life meaning and trying to
> give life purpose through the context of a 3
> thousand year old book that is so clearly wrong,
> IS purposeless and meaningless. We do not propose
> to have the answers, we do not sell another
> religion, the product we sell is doubt. All we are
> saying is something that I do not think is too
> unreasonable - we are saying "I dont know". I dont
> know the answers, I dont know the meanings, I dont
> know the purpose. That does not mean there is no
> purpose or meaning, its just saying that I dont
> have the answers and you sure as hell dont. Do you
> think that people went through life horribly
> depressed, aimlessly moving about with no purpose
> 4 thousand years ago before the bible? Ofcoarse
> not, because they too had some form of invented
> religion to try and understand what the hell we
> are doing here. Why cant any of you religious
> people just admit it , you dont know, you're doing
> your best, but you just dont know for certain. You
> defend all of your beliefs, twisting facts to fit
> your views, because you know, as soon as a crack
> starts to show in your logic, your whole argument
> falls- and thus everything you have based your
> life around. Please understand that you do not
> have to equate christianity with morality. Being a
> moral person has nothing to do with religion.
> Further more, I do not think that doing "the right
> thing" under threat of spending eternity burning
> in hell fire equates to "being a moral person". No
> one is truly good, no one is truly evil. We all
> have short comings, we have all made "sins".
Eliot doesn't take into account anything that we say - he only believes what certain Christians have said about atheism. He doesn't actually consider whether or not it's true and he doesn't even attempt to reason about other points of view.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 16, 2009 11:23AM
| 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." |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 16, 2009 11:26AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Certainly no Christian
> is ever going argue either Nutters or Pangloss
> into believing that Christianity is true. Paul's
> epistemology is that all fallen men are in deep
> denial, "suppressing the truth:"
Christians of this stripe don't actual reason or argue, as has been shown. Their epistemology is deeply contradictory, as Eliot demonstrates above. The Christian who falls for the reformed worldview lives a desperate and contradictory life.
Think about it for a moment, if 'all' are fallen, then there is no epistemological basis for a solid epistemology. Even Eliot, who contradictorily believes he is saved, cannot know anything. His Christianity is reduced to epistemic skepticism.
How is this?
Well, if we are all fallen, then our ability to reason is impared. If that's the case then on what basis do we discern which scriptures are true and which are not? We are left with no basis and as such we fall into epistemic skepticism.
Eliot's Christianity is as unreasoned as it is incoherent.
"What may be
> known about God is plain to because God has made
> it plain to them. For since the creation of the
> world God's invisible qualities -- his eternal
> power and diving nature -- -- have been clearly
> seen, being understood from what has been made, so
> that men are without excuse." Even if someone
> rises from the dead, Jesus noted, they will not
> believe in a future judgment because they do not
> believe what Moses wrote about the past.
This is actually contradicted by the bible - which is further evidence of inconsistency and incoherence that Eliot's (note, not all Christians) worldview is in trouble.
Consider Psalms 14.1
> As I said
> before, we fly to and land where our
> presuppositions point us. Men only become
> Christians when the Holy Spirit does a body-slam
> of their presuppositions, leaving them pointing a
> new direction, viz. to believe what God has said.
As I've shown - and watch, Eliot will ignore my refutation of his position - the presuppositions that Eliot is working with is fundamentally absurd. They contradict each other, leaving Eliot without a basis for discerning anything.
> Biblically this is not some ineffable 'mystical'
> experience ... it happens in response to exposure
> to Scripture ... which is why the New Testament,
> for example, is so full of discourses quoting the
> Old Testament about what God did in history before
> Jesus, about what God did in history during Jesus'
> time on earth, and about what God will do in
> history in the future before, during, and after
> Jesus returns.(It is frustrating, one must admit,
> that the God of the Bible can be so elliptical and
> poetic in prophesy. We would all surely have
> preferred a textbook, but Jesus himself spoke
> extensively in parables rather than lecturing.)
The trouble with Eliot's incoherent worldview is that it ACTUALLY presupposes naturalism, while denying it! You see, he starts from the position that human beings can know about the world. It is only from this fundamental presupposition that he can then proceed to discern anything from the bible. For if it were not the case, then he could not rationally deny it!
But watch, Eliot will not address this fundamental flaw - this is because his intellectual 'heroes' do not address it and ironically this means that Eliot cannot think or reason about it, so he *MUST* ignore it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Certainly no Christian
> is ever going argue either Nutters or Pangloss
> into believing that Christianity is true. Paul's
> epistemology is that all fallen men are in deep
> denial, "suppressing the truth:"
Christians of this stripe don't actual reason or argue, as has been shown. Their epistemology is deeply contradictory, as Eliot demonstrates above. The Christian who falls for the reformed worldview lives a desperate and contradictory life.
Think about it for a moment, if 'all' are fallen, then there is no epistemological basis for a solid epistemology. Even Eliot, who contradictorily believes he is saved, cannot know anything. His Christianity is reduced to epistemic skepticism.
How is this?
Well, if we are all fallen, then our ability to reason is impared. If that's the case then on what basis do we discern which scriptures are true and which are not? We are left with no basis and as such we fall into epistemic skepticism.
Eliot's Christianity is as unreasoned as it is incoherent.
"What may be
> known about God is plain to because God has made
> it plain to them. For since the creation of the
> world God's invisible qualities -- his eternal
> power and diving nature -- -- have been clearly
> seen, being understood from what has been made, so
> that men are without excuse." Even if someone
> rises from the dead, Jesus noted, they will not
> believe in a future judgment because they do not
> believe what Moses wrote about the past.
This is actually contradicted by the bible - which is further evidence of inconsistency and incoherence that Eliot's (note, not all Christians) worldview is in trouble.
Consider Psalms 14.1
> As I said
> before, we fly to and land where our
> presuppositions point us. Men only become
> Christians when the Holy Spirit does a body-slam
> of their presuppositions, leaving them pointing a
> new direction, viz. to believe what God has said.
As I've shown - and watch, Eliot will ignore my refutation of his position - the presuppositions that Eliot is working with is fundamentally absurd. They contradict each other, leaving Eliot without a basis for discerning anything.
> Biblically this is not some ineffable 'mystical'
> experience ... it happens in response to exposure
> to Scripture ... which is why the New Testament,
> for example, is so full of discourses quoting the
> Old Testament about what God did in history before
> Jesus, about what God did in history during Jesus'
> time on earth, and about what God will do in
> history in the future before, during, and after
> Jesus returns.(It is frustrating, one must admit,
> that the God of the Bible can be so elliptical and
> poetic in prophesy. We would all surely have
> preferred a textbook, but Jesus himself spoke
> extensively in parables rather than lecturing.)
The trouble with Eliot's incoherent worldview is that it ACTUALLY presupposes naturalism, while denying it! You see, he starts from the position that human beings can know about the world. It is only from this fundamental presupposition that he can then proceed to discern anything from the bible. For if it were not the case, then he could not rationally deny it!
But watch, Eliot will not address this fundamental flaw - this is because his intellectual 'heroes' do not address it and ironically this means that Eliot cannot think or reason about it, so he *MUST* ignore it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 16, 2009 11:27AM
Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot...Im convinced you are a bot...a well
> designed one at that...keep it up...you are a
> great advertisement for atheism. god bless...and
> good night mrs miniver...wherever you are!
He's a presuppositionalist. They aren't known for careful reasoning. What they are known for is ignoring points and repetition.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot...Im convinced you are a bot...a well
> designed one at that...keep it up...you are a
> great advertisement for atheism. god bless...and
> good night mrs miniver...wherever you are!
He's a presuppositionalist. They aren't known for careful reasoning. What they are known for is ignoring points and repetition.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 16, 2009 11:39AM
More Than A Believer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You all are always talking science, science,
> science.. Sick of hearing it.
Then don't read it, and don't be a hypocrit and use it's fruit (ie, the internet) in order to say that you are sick of it.
> Mathematical impossibility of natural selection:
Nonsense - you just don't understand it.
> Impossible for DNA to self-produce
> MBased on probability factors...any viable DNA
> strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the
> result of haphazard mutations.
....
This has nothing to do with evolution and it's factually wrong. We witness reproduction everyday (well, we *could* if we were interested). I think you are trying to make the claim that DNA is too complicated to evolve. Was that what you were aiming for?
> At that stage, the
> probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 10 to the 50th. You
> do the math.
No, how about *you* do the man, show us what you are factoring, instead of pulling it out of your butt.
> Darwin, himself, later repudiated natural
> selection and returned to the discredited theory
> of Lamarkianism. "I admint...that in earlier
> editions of my Origin of Species I probably
> attibuted too much to the action of natural
> descent of the survival of the fittest."--*Charles
> Darwin, The Descent of Man, Vol. 1 (1871 1st ed.),
> p. 152.
This is nonsense and another dishonest quote mine. Darwin was talking about Natural Selection in comparison structures that did not appear useful. Your suggestion that he regressed to lamarkianism is absurd since he appealed to an adaptation of lamarkianist genetics in order to explain natural selection! You seem to be completely unfamilar with Darwin's work! No where is he saying that he repudiated natural selection. He was just saying that not every structure has a purpose.
Here's the full quote, please be honest in the future:
"p. 61: “… I now admit… that in the earlier editions of my ‘Origin of Species’ I perhaps attributed too much to the action of natural selection or the survival of the fittest. I have altered the fifth edition of the “Origin’ so as to confine my remarks to adaptive changes of structure; but I am convinced, from the light gained during even the last few years that very many structures which now appear to us useless, will hereafter be proved to be useful, and will therefore come within the range of natural selection.… I did not formerly consider sufficiently the existence of structures, which, as far as we can at present judge, are neither beneficial nor injurious and this I believe to be one of the greatest oversights as yet detected in my work. I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change, though largely aided by the inherited effects of habit, and slightly by the direct action of the surrounding conditions. I was not, however, able to annul the influence of my former belief, then almost universal, that each species had been purposely created; and this led to my tacit assumption that every detail of structure, excepting rudiments, was of some special, though unrecognised, service. Anyone with this assumption in his mind would naturally extend too far the action of natural selection, either during past or present times.”"
Remember, never trust a creationist when they quote scientists. Most of the time they are distorting what the scientist is actually saying!
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You all are always talking science, science,
> science.. Sick of hearing it.
Then don't read it, and don't be a hypocrit and use it's fruit (ie, the internet) in order to say that you are sick of it.
> Mathematical impossibility of natural selection:
Nonsense - you just don't understand it.
> Impossible for DNA to self-produce
> MBased on probability factors...any viable DNA
> strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the
> result of haphazard mutations.
....
This has nothing to do with evolution and it's factually wrong. We witness reproduction everyday (well, we *could* if we were interested). I think you are trying to make the claim that DNA is too complicated to evolve. Was that what you were aiming for?
> At that stage, the
> probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 10 to the 50th. You
> do the math.
No, how about *you* do the man, show us what you are factoring, instead of pulling it out of your butt.
> Darwin, himself, later repudiated natural
> selection and returned to the discredited theory
> of Lamarkianism. "I admint...that in earlier
> editions of my Origin of Species I probably
> attibuted too much to the action of natural
> descent of the survival of the fittest."--*Charles
> Darwin, The Descent of Man, Vol. 1 (1871 1st ed.),
> p. 152.
This is nonsense and another dishonest quote mine. Darwin was talking about Natural Selection in comparison structures that did not appear useful. Your suggestion that he regressed to lamarkianism is absurd since he appealed to an adaptation of lamarkianist genetics in order to explain natural selection! You seem to be completely unfamilar with Darwin's work! No where is he saying that he repudiated natural selection. He was just saying that not every structure has a purpose.
Here's the full quote, please be honest in the future:
"p. 61: “… I now admit… that in the earlier editions of my ‘Origin of Species’ I perhaps attributed too much to the action of natural selection or the survival of the fittest. I have altered the fifth edition of the “Origin’ so as to confine my remarks to adaptive changes of structure; but I am convinced, from the light gained during even the last few years that very many structures which now appear to us useless, will hereafter be proved to be useful, and will therefore come within the range of natural selection.… I did not formerly consider sufficiently the existence of structures, which, as far as we can at present judge, are neither beneficial nor injurious and this I believe to be one of the greatest oversights as yet detected in my work. I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change, though largely aided by the inherited effects of habit, and slightly by the direct action of the surrounding conditions. I was not, however, able to annul the influence of my former belief, then almost universal, that each species had been purposely created; and this led to my tacit assumption that every detail of structure, excepting rudiments, was of some special, though unrecognised, service. Anyone with this assumption in his mind would naturally extend too far the action of natural selection, either during past or present times.”"
Remember, never trust a creationist when they quote scientists. Most of the time they are distorting what the scientist is actually saying!
Attachments:
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 16, 2009 11:39AM
| 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.] |
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 11:43AM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 16, 2009 11:41AM
More Than A Believer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You really just want to know that you have it ALL
> figured out. Who needs to get over their self
> now?
>
> If you'd really looked at all religions (instead
> of Christian bassing) going back to the
> neanderthal days, you'd know they all believe in
> something larger than themselves.
> However, I'm sure that you have it right and have
> everything figured out.
It's clear that I'm more familar with the material then you are. Further, I have looked into other religions, but not all of them.
Further, back in the 'neanderthal days', what we find is that there was a reverance of the dead - they buried their dead with artifacts and such. Most likely they believed in animism.
But so what? The earliest civilizations that we've discovered believed in astrology, does that mean it's correct?
No, don't be silly.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You really just want to know that you have it ALL
> figured out. Who needs to get over their self
> now?
>
> If you'd really looked at all religions (instead
> of Christian bassing) going back to the
> neanderthal days, you'd know they all believe in
> something larger than themselves.
> However, I'm sure that you have it right and have
> everything figured out.
It's clear that I'm more familar with the material then you are. Further, I have looked into other religions, but not all of them.
Further, back in the 'neanderthal days', what we find is that there was a reverance of the dead - they buried their dead with artifacts and such. Most likely they believed in animism.
But so what? The earliest civilizations that we've discovered believed in astrology, does that mean it's correct?
No, don't be silly.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 16, 2009 11:43AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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. It
> is an apparition from that mysterious shadow world
> beyond nature, that final world which contains—if
> anything contains—the explanation of men and
> catfish and green leaves.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."
Quit making stuff up Eliot - I've emplored you to be honest and you seem to disregard this. You realize that it's in your ten commandments, don't you?
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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. It
> is an apparition from that mysterious shadow world
> beyond nature, that final world which contains—if
> anything contains—the explanation of men and
> catfish and green leaves.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."
Quit making stuff up Eliot - I've emplored you to be honest and you seem to disregard this. You realize that it's in your ten commandments, don't you?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 16, 2009 11:46AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?
No, I don't trust *you* because I've shown you to be dishonest several times now. You haven't admitted it or acknowledge it, ergo I do not trust the various lies you spew.
> 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 should *I* or anyone believe this? Especially with this nonsense about a 'practicising' atheist.
You are clearly making this up as you go along.
> Why would a
> Christian be surprised to find that other
> religions parallel and even mimic Christianity ...
Because it's in opposition to what the bible directly teaches.
> 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?
That may be your hardest issue, but so what? You don't seem to carefully consider Christianity nor opposing worldviews (you strawman them). So it's hardly surprising.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?
No, I don't trust *you* because I've shown you to be dishonest several times now. You haven't admitted it or acknowledge it, ergo I do not trust the various lies you spew.
> 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 should *I* or anyone believe this? Especially with this nonsense about a 'practicising' atheist.
You are clearly making this up as you go along.
> Why would a
> Christian be surprised to find that other
> religions parallel and even mimic Christianity ...
Because it's in opposition to what the bible directly teaches.
> 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?
That may be your hardest issue, but so what? You don't seem to carefully consider Christianity nor opposing worldviews (you strawman them). So it's hardly surprising.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 16, 2009 12:05PM
| 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?) |
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 12:11PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 16, 2009 01:12PM
| 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. |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
hai
()
Date: February 16, 2009 01:18PM
Interesting font usage Eliot. Thoguh I think some of your tags bleed out of your posts onto others. Might wanna check that out.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 16, 2009 01:28PM
hai ... The forum seems to close out the "font" tags by itself ... gets in trouble with open "table" and "blockquote". I wish other folks would not 'attach' giant pictures but would rather include them with "image."
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 01:31PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 01:31PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
CC
()
Date: February 16, 2009 01:54PM
I've attended and worked at MBC and can tell you that no church is perfect (because it's a group of imperfect people). Yet, it's a great place to hear more about the Gospel (that God's only son Jesus died on the cross and He is Lord)! I still enjoy listening to Lon's sermons on the radio. So, if this church doesn't work for you, ask God to help you find another one. We're so blessed to live in an area where there are many churches. Also, when looking I've found it helps to go 3 times to the same church (the first time might be really different from the 3rd).
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 16, 2009 01:59PM
More Than A Believer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You all are always talking science, science,
> science.. Sick of hearing it.
>
> Mathematical impossibility of natural selection:
>
> Impossible for DNA to self-produce
> MBased 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.
>
Ok - so this is the most intellectually corrupt of all religious arguments
"I think this is too complex, so I'll invent an arbitrarily complex superbeing that can intervene in the minutiae of the universe, without any evidence or real description or mechanisms"
Science is based on observation, explanation, prediction and experimentation - which bit scares you?
It also shows that you fundamentally misunderstand the processes of life.
Self replicating systems such as DNA are combinatorial. If you look at bacteria, viruses etc, you'll see that segments of DNA are regularly exchanged and interposed.
Sequences of DNA are not random - they grow, change and replicate based on their individual success in the local chemical system they find themselves, and based on the impact they have on the success of the wider host of which they are part.
Its not hard to conceive, that once you have a simple set of replicators, the interactions of that set become scaffolding for the emergence over time of progressively more and more complex structures and regulatory mechanisms.
Currently the best estimates seem to be
750 Million years of extreme chemistry from formation of earth tosigns of first life
+
3 Billion years of microbial mats etc before the first multi-cellular organisms
+
1 Billion years until the Cambrian explosion
+
500 Million years from then until now
Which gives a lot of time and different environments for the emergence of the various mechanisms
see also http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7893414.stm
you could be even less unique than we thought :)
-------------------------------------------------------
> You all are always talking science, science,
> science.. Sick of hearing it.
>
> Mathematical impossibility of natural selection:
>
> Impossible for DNA to self-produce
> MBased 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.
>
Ok - so this is the most intellectually corrupt of all religious arguments
"I think this is too complex, so I'll invent an arbitrarily complex superbeing that can intervene in the minutiae of the universe, without any evidence or real description or mechanisms"
Science is based on observation, explanation, prediction and experimentation - which bit scares you?
It also shows that you fundamentally misunderstand the processes of life.
Self replicating systems such as DNA are combinatorial. If you look at bacteria, viruses etc, you'll see that segments of DNA are regularly exchanged and interposed.
Sequences of DNA are not random - they grow, change and replicate based on their individual success in the local chemical system they find themselves, and based on the impact they have on the success of the wider host of which they are part.
Its not hard to conceive, that once you have a simple set of replicators, the interactions of that set become scaffolding for the emergence over time of progressively more and more complex structures and regulatory mechanisms.
Currently the best estimates seem to be
750 Million years of extreme chemistry from formation of earth tosigns of first life
+
3 Billion years of microbial mats etc before the first multi-cellular organisms
+
1 Billion years until the Cambrian explosion
+
500 Million years from then until now
Which gives a lot of time and different environments for the emergence of the various mechanisms
see also http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7893414.stm
you could be even less unique than we thought :)
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 16, 2009 02:04PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?)
He certainly wasn't dishonestly quote mining as you had done (or the poster who posted this).
In any event, no one argues that Darwin didn't have biases.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?)
He certainly wasn't dishonestly quote mining as you had done (or the poster who posted this).
In any event, no one argues that Darwin didn't have biases.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 16, 2009 02:05PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Perhaps it's because of original sin?
> 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.
I'm not referring to this - I'm referring to the whole passion narrative.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Perhaps it's because of original sin?
> 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.
I'm not referring to this - I'm referring to the whole passion narrative.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 16, 2009 02:57PM
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 |
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 03:04PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 16, 2009 03:02PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny cartoon.
The person is obviously a christian, as the morality of arbitrary subjectivism (as opposed to normal relativism), confuses many (yourself as an example).
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny cartoon.
The person is obviously a christian, as the morality of arbitrary subjectivism (as opposed to normal relativism), confuses many (yourself as an example).
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 16, 2009 03:07PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
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?
If that's the hardest question you people ask yourselves then you're not really trying.
Its a real angels-on-a-pin-head question which sits entirely within your own fictional world - its like undergrads staying up all night arguing about the intricacies of the Lord of the Rings - it means nothing
The really hard questions, which you insist on ignoring are along the lines of
Where is the evidence for god or the supernatural?
Why is religion a better, more sustainable explanation for our observable universe than science?
How do I justify ignoring clear evidence just because it disagrees with my religion?
Why is my religion any more believable than any of the others?
How much science can/must I ignore to prop up my religion?
-------------------------------------------------------
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?
If that's the hardest question you people ask yourselves then you're not really trying.
Its a real angels-on-a-pin-head question which sits entirely within your own fictional world - its like undergrads staying up all night arguing about the intricacies of the Lord of the Rings - it means nothing
The really hard questions, which you insist on ignoring are along the lines of
Where is the evidence for god or the supernatural?
Why is religion a better, more sustainable explanation for our observable universe than science?
How do I justify ignoring clear evidence just because it disagrees with my religion?
Why is my religion any more believable than any of the others?
How much science can/must I ignore to prop up my religion?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 16, 2009 03:22PM
| 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. |
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 03:44PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 16, 2009 03:25PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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 the 'Romantic rabbit-out-of-a-magic-hat
> moralities that they live by.
Actually according to your worldview, it is automatically suspect! :-)
Also, please demonstrate that all non christians must be relativists - otherwise retract that lie.
Further, I stated that Christians have arbitrary subjective morals. I have given an argument for this previously, you ignored it, so I now take it as a given (in the conversation between you and I).
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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 the 'Romantic rabbit-out-of-a-magic-hat
> moralities that they live by.
Actually according to your worldview, it is automatically suspect! :-)
Also, please demonstrate that all non christians must be relativists - otherwise retract that lie.
Further, I stated that Christians have arbitrary subjective morals. I have given an argument for this previously, you ignored it, so I now take it as a given (in the conversation between you and I).
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 16, 2009 03:28PM
Shoot I didn't see that you had edited that post to include something on Bede.
I do not argue that Christianity literally copied from pagan sources.
Ergo, your link is not germaine to the conversation. Why are you bringing up parallels anyway? They only weaken your case and *you* generally ignore things that weaken your case.
Let me guess, this was the first link you came up with on pagan similarities, right? You haven't done any extensive research into it have you?
I didn't think so.
I do not argue that Christianity literally copied from pagan sources.
Ergo, your link is not germaine to the conversation. Why are you bringing up parallels anyway? They only weaken your case and *you* generally ignore things that weaken your case.
Let me guess, this was the first link you came up with on pagan similarities, right? You haven't done any extensive research into it have you?
I didn't think so.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 16, 2009 03:29PM
BTW - Bede's reasoning is contradicted by the bible.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 16, 2009 03:50PM
This is one of Bede's linked sites -- very interesting (for Christians): http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 16, 2009 03:54PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Actually this is logically false, as I demonstrated. So unless you blindly believe, then you'll have to argue for this.
But you won't and we all know it, Eliot. You simply believe this because you believe it.
> Arguably the most 'unanswered' of Jesus' prayers
> for his followers was in the garden, John 17:20ff.
> "My prayer is not for 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.
??
Completely off the topic.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Actually this is logically false, as I demonstrated. So unless you blindly believe, then you'll have to argue for this.
But you won't and we all know it, Eliot. You simply believe this because you believe it.
> Arguably the most 'unanswered' of Jesus' prayers
> for his followers was in the garden, John 17:20ff.
> "My prayer is not for 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.
??
Completely off the topic.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 16, 2009 03:56PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is one of Bede's linked sites -- very
> interesting (for Christians):
> http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
The guy is a presuppositionalist, his reasoning can be discarded (since it's technically *NOT* reasoning).
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is one of Bede's linked sites -- very
> interesting (for Christians):
> http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
The guy is a presuppositionalist, his reasoning can be discarded (since it's technically *NOT* reasoning).
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 16, 2009 05:14PM
| 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? |
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 05:21PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 16, 2009 05:17PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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 Sir Isaac
> Newton?
....?
Relevance?
I'm not talking about him having presuppositions, genius, I'm talking about him being a presuppositionalist; ie, a presuppositional apologist. The bastions of unreason.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 05:18PM by Professor Pangloss.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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 Sir Isaac
> Newton?
....?
Relevance?
I'm not talking about him having presuppositions, genius, I'm talking about him being a presuppositionalist; ie, a presuppositional apologist. The bastions of unreason.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 05:18PM by Professor Pangloss.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 16, 2009 05:25PM
We all have presuppositions. How do you know that Isaac Asimov really existed? Did you merely read his books, or did you see him on the Tonight Show when Johnny Carson introduced him as "I-ZAY-ack Ah-ZEE-moff?" (I have visual evidence ... I'd tell you about my train trip with him and his wife from NYC in 1983, but you'd call me a liar, again. [Asimov said he'd wished he'd had the wit to call Carson, "Joanie."])
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 05:29PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 05:29PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 16, 2009 05:33PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We all have presuppositions. How do you know that
> Isaac Asimov really existed? Did you merely read
> his books, or did you see him on the Tonight Show
> when Johnny Carson introduced him as "I-ZAY-ack
> Ah-ZEE-moff?" (I have visual evidence ... I'd tell
> you about my train trip with him and his wife from
> NYC in 1983, but you'd call me a liar, again. )
....
Are you serious?
Do you have trouble reading? I have no problem with presuppositions. I've made this abundantly clear. Why if you'd *READ* my last post, I even wrote this:
"I'm not talking about him having presuppositions, genius, I'm talking about him being a presuppositionalist; ie, a presuppositional apologist. The bastions of unreason."
Also, yes, I would doubt your story - you've been shown to be dishonest and I see no reason to trust your word.
-------------------------------------------------------
> We all have presuppositions. How do you know that
> Isaac Asimov really existed? Did you merely read
> his books, or did you see him on the Tonight Show
> when Johnny Carson introduced him as "I-ZAY-ack
> Ah-ZEE-moff?" (I have visual evidence ... I'd tell
> you about my train trip with him and his wife from
> NYC in 1983, but you'd call me a liar, again. )
....
Are you serious?
Do you have trouble reading? I have no problem with presuppositions. I've made this abundantly clear. Why if you'd *READ* my last post, I even wrote this:
"I'm not talking about him having presuppositions, genius, I'm talking about him being a presuppositionalist; ie, a presuppositional apologist. The bastions of unreason."
Also, yes, I would doubt your story - you've been shown to be dishonest and I see no reason to trust your word.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 16, 2009 05:57PM
I always found Bertrand Russell's Theologian's Nightmare instructive:
The eminent theologian Dr. Thaddeus dreamt that he died and pursued his course toward heaven. His studies had prepared him and he had no difficulty in finding the way. He knocked at the door of heaven, and was met with a closer scrutiny than he expected. "I ask admission," he said, "because I was a good man and devoted my life to the glory of God." "Man?" said the janitor, "What is that? And how could such a funny creature as you do anything to promote the glory of God?" Dr. Thaddeus was astonished. "You surely cannot be ignorant of man. You must be aware that man is the supreme work of the Creator." "As to that," said the janitor, "I am sorry to hurt your feelings, but what you're saying is news to me. I doubt if anybody up here has ever heard of this thing you call 'man.' However, since you seem distressed, you shall have a chance of consulting our librarian."
The librarian, a globular being with a thousand eyes and one mouth, bent some of his eyes upon Dr. Thaddeus. "What is this?" he asked the janitor. "This," replied the janitor, "says that it is a member of a species called 'man,' which lives in a place called 'Earth.' It has some odd notion that the Creator takes a special interest in this place and this species. I thought perhaps you could enlighten it." "Well," said the librarian kindly to the theologian, "perhaps you can tall me where this place is that you call 'Earth.'" "Oh," said the theologian, "it's part of the Solar System." "And what is the Solar System?" asked the librarian. "Oh," said the theologian, somewhat disconcerted, "my province was Sacred Knowledge, but the question that you are asking belongs to profane knowledge. However, I have learnt enough from my astronomical friends to be able to tell you that the Solar System is part of the Milky Way." "And what is the Milky Way?" asked the librarian. "Oh, the Milky Way is one of the Galaxies, of which, I am told, there are some hundred million." "Well, well," said the librarian, "you could hardly expect me to remember one out of so many. But I do remember to have heard the word galaxy' before. In fact, I believe that one of our sub-librarians specializes in galaxies. Let us send for him and see whether he can help."
After no very long time, the galactic sub-librarian made his appearance. In shape, he was a dodecahedron. It was clear that at one time his surface had been bright, but the dust of the shelves had rendered him dim and opaque. The librarian explained to him that Dr. Thaddeus, in endeavoring to account for his origin, had mentioned galaxies, and it was hoped that information could be obtained from the galactic section of the library. "Well," said the sub-librarian, "I suppose it might become possible in time, but as there are a hundred million galaxies, and each has a volume to itself, it takes some time to find any particular volume. Which is it that this odd molecule desires?" "It is the one called 'The Milky Way,'" Dr. Thaddeus falteringly replied. "All right," said the sub- librarian, "I will find it if I can."
Some three weeks later, he returned, explaining that the extraordinarily efficient card index in the galactic section of the library had enabled him to locate the galaxy as number QX 321,762. "We have employed," he said, "all the five thousand clerks in the galactic section on this search. Perhaps you would like to see the clerk who is specially concerned with the galaxy in question?" The clerk was sent for and turned out to be an octahedron with an eye in each face and a mouth in one of them. He was surprised and dazed to find himself in such a glittering region, away from the shadowy limbo of his shelves. Pulling himself together, he asked, rather shyly, "What is it you wish to know about my galaxy?" Dr. Thaddeus spoke up: "What I want is to know about the Solar System, a collection of heavenly bodies revolving about one of the stars in your galaxy. The star about which they revolve is called 'the Sun.'" "Humph," said the librarian of the Milky Way, "it was hard enough to hit upon the right galaxy, but to hit upon the right star in the galaxy is far more difficult. I know that there are about three hundred billion stars in the galaxy, but I have no knowledge, myself, that would distinguish one of them from another. I believe, however, that at one time a list of the whole three hundred billion was demanded by the Administration and that it is still stored in the basement. If you think it worth while, I will engage special labor from the Other Place to search for this particular star."
It was agreed that, since the question had arisen and since Dr. Thaddeus was evidently suffering some distress, this might be the wisest course.
Several years later, a very weary and dispirited tetrahedron presented himself before the galactic sub-librarian. "I have," he said, "at last discovered the particular star concerning which inquiries have been made, but I am quite at a loss to imagine why it has aroused any special interest. It closely resembles a great many other stars in the same galaxy. It is of average size and temperature, and is surrounded by very much smaller bodies called 'planets.' After minute investigation, I discovered that some, at least, of these planets have parasites, and I think that this thing which has been making inquiries must be one of them."
At this point, Dr. Thaddeus burst out in a passionate and indignant lament: "Why, oh why, did the Creator conceal from us poor inhabitants of Earth that it was not we who prompted Him to create the Heavens? Throughout my long life, I have served Him diligently, believing that He would notice my service and reward me with Eternal Bliss. And now, it seems that He was not even aware that I existed. You tell me that I am an infinitesimal animalcule on a tiny body revolving round an insignificant member of a collection of three hundred billion stars, which is only one of many millions of such collections. I cannot bear it, and can no longer adore my Creator." "Very well," said the janitor, "then you can go to the Other Place."
Here the theologian awoke. "The power of Satan over our sleeping imagination is terrifying," he muttered.
The eminent theologian Dr. Thaddeus dreamt that he died and pursued his course toward heaven. His studies had prepared him and he had no difficulty in finding the way. He knocked at the door of heaven, and was met with a closer scrutiny than he expected. "I ask admission," he said, "because I was a good man and devoted my life to the glory of God." "Man?" said the janitor, "What is that? And how could such a funny creature as you do anything to promote the glory of God?" Dr. Thaddeus was astonished. "You surely cannot be ignorant of man. You must be aware that man is the supreme work of the Creator." "As to that," said the janitor, "I am sorry to hurt your feelings, but what you're saying is news to me. I doubt if anybody up here has ever heard of this thing you call 'man.' However, since you seem distressed, you shall have a chance of consulting our librarian."
The librarian, a globular being with a thousand eyes and one mouth, bent some of his eyes upon Dr. Thaddeus. "What is this?" he asked the janitor. "This," replied the janitor, "says that it is a member of a species called 'man,' which lives in a place called 'Earth.' It has some odd notion that the Creator takes a special interest in this place and this species. I thought perhaps you could enlighten it." "Well," said the librarian kindly to the theologian, "perhaps you can tall me where this place is that you call 'Earth.'" "Oh," said the theologian, "it's part of the Solar System." "And what is the Solar System?" asked the librarian. "Oh," said the theologian, somewhat disconcerted, "my province was Sacred Knowledge, but the question that you are asking belongs to profane knowledge. However, I have learnt enough from my astronomical friends to be able to tell you that the Solar System is part of the Milky Way." "And what is the Milky Way?" asked the librarian. "Oh, the Milky Way is one of the Galaxies, of which, I am told, there are some hundred million." "Well, well," said the librarian, "you could hardly expect me to remember one out of so many. But I do remember to have heard the word galaxy' before. In fact, I believe that one of our sub-librarians specializes in galaxies. Let us send for him and see whether he can help."
After no very long time, the galactic sub-librarian made his appearance. In shape, he was a dodecahedron. It was clear that at one time his surface had been bright, but the dust of the shelves had rendered him dim and opaque. The librarian explained to him that Dr. Thaddeus, in endeavoring to account for his origin, had mentioned galaxies, and it was hoped that information could be obtained from the galactic section of the library. "Well," said the sub-librarian, "I suppose it might become possible in time, but as there are a hundred million galaxies, and each has a volume to itself, it takes some time to find any particular volume. Which is it that this odd molecule desires?" "It is the one called 'The Milky Way,'" Dr. Thaddeus falteringly replied. "All right," said the sub- librarian, "I will find it if I can."
Some three weeks later, he returned, explaining that the extraordinarily efficient card index in the galactic section of the library had enabled him to locate the galaxy as number QX 321,762. "We have employed," he said, "all the five thousand clerks in the galactic section on this search. Perhaps you would like to see the clerk who is specially concerned with the galaxy in question?" The clerk was sent for and turned out to be an octahedron with an eye in each face and a mouth in one of them. He was surprised and dazed to find himself in such a glittering region, away from the shadowy limbo of his shelves. Pulling himself together, he asked, rather shyly, "What is it you wish to know about my galaxy?" Dr. Thaddeus spoke up: "What I want is to know about the Solar System, a collection of heavenly bodies revolving about one of the stars in your galaxy. The star about which they revolve is called 'the Sun.'" "Humph," said the librarian of the Milky Way, "it was hard enough to hit upon the right galaxy, but to hit upon the right star in the galaxy is far more difficult. I know that there are about three hundred billion stars in the galaxy, but I have no knowledge, myself, that would distinguish one of them from another. I believe, however, that at one time a list of the whole three hundred billion was demanded by the Administration and that it is still stored in the basement. If you think it worth while, I will engage special labor from the Other Place to search for this particular star."
It was agreed that, since the question had arisen and since Dr. Thaddeus was evidently suffering some distress, this might be the wisest course.
Several years later, a very weary and dispirited tetrahedron presented himself before the galactic sub-librarian. "I have," he said, "at last discovered the particular star concerning which inquiries have been made, but I am quite at a loss to imagine why it has aroused any special interest. It closely resembles a great many other stars in the same galaxy. It is of average size and temperature, and is surrounded by very much smaller bodies called 'planets.' After minute investigation, I discovered that some, at least, of these planets have parasites, and I think that this thing which has been making inquiries must be one of them."
At this point, Dr. Thaddeus burst out in a passionate and indignant lament: "Why, oh why, did the Creator conceal from us poor inhabitants of Earth that it was not we who prompted Him to create the Heavens? Throughout my long life, I have served Him diligently, believing that He would notice my service and reward me with Eternal Bliss. And now, it seems that He was not even aware that I existed. You tell me that I am an infinitesimal animalcule on a tiny body revolving round an insignificant member of a collection of three hundred billion stars, which is only one of many millions of such collections. I cannot bear it, and can no longer adore my Creator." "Very well," said the janitor, "then you can go to the Other Place."
Here the theologian awoke. "The power of Satan over our sleeping imagination is terrifying," he muttered.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 16, 2009 07:14PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I always found Bertrand Russell's Theologian's
> Nightmare instructive:
amusing, perhaps, but hardly instructive
meanwhile back to you providing any suggestions on anything substantive e.g.
Where is the evidence for god or the supernatural?
Why is religion a better, more sustainable explanation for our observable universe than science?
How do I justify ignoring clear evidence just because it disagrees with my religion?
Why is my religion any more believable than any of the others?
How much science can/must I ignore to prop up my religion?
-------------------------------------------------------
> I always found Bertrand Russell's Theologian's
> Nightmare instructive:
amusing, perhaps, but hardly instructive
meanwhile back to you providing any suggestions on anything substantive e.g.
Where is the evidence for god or the supernatural?
Why is religion a better, more sustainable explanation for our observable universe than science?
How do I justify ignoring clear evidence just because it disagrees with my religion?
Why is my religion any more believable than any of the others?
How much science can/must I ignore to prop up my religion?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 16, 2009 07:48PM
nutters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I always found Bertrand Russell's Theologian's
> > Nightmare instructive:
>
> amusing, perhaps, but hardly instructive
>
> meanwhile back to you providing any suggestions on
> anything substantive e.g.
I think it's instructive - it certainly illuminates how arrogant mankind can be in terms of religion. I think that you think Eliot posted this. I may be mistaken.
> Where is the evidence for god or the
> supernatural?
None. In fact, there are good arguments against the existence of god. As for the supernatural, I'm not sure the word can be properly defined, much less shown to exist.
> Why is religion a better, more sustainable
> explanation for our observable universe than
> science?
Religion, for the most part, is not even an actual explanation. Religion does not explain how god created the universe. Most religions don't even explain *why* god created the universe (I believe there are a few that do, the Egyption one for instance I think).
> How do I justify ignoring clear evidence just
> because it disagrees with my religion?
I do not have a religion and I do not ignore clear evidence.
> Why is my religion any more believable than any of
> the others?
I suffer from no religion.
> How much science can/must I ignore to prop up my
> religion?
None.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I always found Bertrand Russell's Theologian's
> > Nightmare instructive:
>
> amusing, perhaps, but hardly instructive
>
> meanwhile back to you providing any suggestions on
> anything substantive e.g.
I think it's instructive - it certainly illuminates how arrogant mankind can be in terms of religion. I think that you think Eliot posted this. I may be mistaken.
> Where is the evidence for god or the
> supernatural?
None. In fact, there are good arguments against the existence of god. As for the supernatural, I'm not sure the word can be properly defined, much less shown to exist.
> Why is religion a better, more sustainable
> explanation for our observable universe than
> science?
Religion, for the most part, is not even an actual explanation. Religion does not explain how god created the universe. Most religions don't even explain *why* god created the universe (I believe there are a few that do, the Egyption one for instance I think).
> How do I justify ignoring clear evidence just
> because it disagrees with my religion?
I do not have a religion and I do not ignore clear evidence.
> Why is my religion any more believable than any of
> the others?
I suffer from no religion.
> How much science can/must I ignore to prop up my
> religion?
None.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 16, 2009 08:12PM
Why would Russell's little science fiction Nightmare particularly interest anyone, being just another anti-Christian jab?
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 08:21PM by Eliot Ness.
"Why, oh why, did the Creator conceal from us poor inhabitants of Earth that it was not we who prompted Him to create the Heavens? Throughout my long life, I have served Him diligently, believing that He would notice my service and reward me with Eternal Bliss. And now, it seems that He was not even aware that I existed."The Bible is a massive communication addressed specifically to created Man, that makes completely clear that Man did not "prompt God to create the Heavens." And the pre-eminent theme of both the Old and New Testaments is God's "Grace" not Man's merit. Russell's Nightmare has it utterly backwards. It is a parody of 'popular' -- not Biblical -- Christianity.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 08:21PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 16, 2009 08:16PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why would Russell's little science fiction
> Nightmare particularly interest anyone, being just
> another anti-Christian jab? "Why, oh why, did the
> Creator conceal from us poor inhabitants of Earth
> that it was not we who prompted Him to create the
> Heavens? Throughout my long life, I have served
> Him diligently, believing that He would notice my
> service and reward me with Eternal Bliss. And now,
> it seems that He was not even aware that I
> existed."
It's a clear example of the arrogancy of believers.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why would Russell's little science fiction
> Nightmare particularly interest anyone, being just
> another anti-Christian jab? "Why, oh why, did the
> Creator conceal from us poor inhabitants of Earth
> that it was not we who prompted Him to create the
> Heavens? Throughout my long life, I have served
> Him diligently, believing that He would notice my
> service and reward me with Eternal Bliss. And now,
> it seems that He was not even aware that I
> existed."
It's a clear example of the arrogancy of believers.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 16, 2009 08:41PM
"Example?" It's a science fiction story. In any event, believers should be the least arrogant of all men/women because they "merit" nothing.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 08:50PM by Eliot Ness.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2009 08:50PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 16, 2009 09:13PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Example?" It's a science fiction story. In any
> event, believers should be the least arrogant of
> all men/women because they "merit" nothing.
Yet they aren't.
They expect god to care about them enough to submit to an absurd sacrifice.
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Example?" It's a science fiction story. In any
> event, believers should be the least arrogant of
> all men/women because they "merit" nothing.
Yet they aren't.
They expect god to care about them enough to submit to an absurd sacrifice.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 16, 2009 09:24PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nutters Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> >
>how arrogant mankind can be in terms
> of religion. I think that you think Eliot posted
> this. I may be mistaken.
>
oops - mea culpa -I did think it was Eliot;)
perhaps Eliot would be prepared to answer the same questions?
-------------------------------------------------------
> nutters Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> >
>how arrogant mankind can be in terms
> of religion. I think that you think Eliot posted
> this. I may be mistaken.
>
oops - mea culpa -I did think it was Eliot;)
perhaps Eliot would be prepared to answer the same questions?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 16, 2009 09:42PM
Ness wrote: Believers should be the least arrogant of all men/women because they "merit" nothing.
Pangloss wrote: "Yet they aren't. They expect god to care about them enough to submit to an absurd sacrifice."
Ness replies: Res ipsa loquitur. That comment speaks for itself.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2009 09:44AM by Eliot Ness.
Pangloss wrote: "Yet they aren't. They expect god to care about them enough to submit to an absurd sacrifice."
Ness replies: Res ipsa loquitur. That comment speaks for itself.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2009 09:44AM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 16, 2009 10:43PM
nutters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > nutters Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> > >
>
>
> >how arrogant mankind can be in terms
> > of religion. I think that you think Eliot
> posted
> > this. I may be mistaken.
> >
>
> oops - mea culpa -I did think it was Eliot;)
>
> perhaps Eliot would be prepared to answer the same
> questions?
It's understandable - it was a large block of text that didn't address anyone's specific questions. It was *EASY* to mistake it for an Eliot response...
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > nutters Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> > >
>
>
> >how arrogant mankind can be in terms
> > of religion. I think that you think Eliot
> posted
> > this. I may be mistaken.
> >
>
> oops - mea culpa -I did think it was Eliot;)
>
> perhaps Eliot would be prepared to answer the same
> questions?
It's understandable - it was a large block of text that didn't address anyone's specific questions. It was *EASY* to mistake it for an Eliot response...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 16, 2009 10:45PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ness wrote: Believers should be the least arrogant
> of all men/women because they "merit" nothing.
>
> Pangloss wrote: "Yet they aren't. They expect god
> to care about them enough to submit to an absurd
> sacrifice."
>
> Ness replies: Res ipsa loquitur. That comment
> speaks for itself.
Redundancy.
Much like unsolved mysteries...
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ness wrote: Believers should be the least arrogant
> of all men/women because they "merit" nothing.
>
> Pangloss wrote: "Yet they aren't. They expect god
> to care about them enough to submit to an absurd
> sacrifice."
>
> Ness replies: Res ipsa loquitur. That comment
> speaks for itself.
Redundancy.
Much like unsolved mysteries...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
slinkeyts
()
Date: February 16, 2009 11:37PM
its the way it is
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 17, 2009 03:21PM
|
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 17, 2009 04:05PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: " expect god to care about them
> enough to submit to an absurd sacrifice."Sigh.
> This goes beyond just calling Christianity false
> ... to hating the concept of an 'absurd'
> substitutionary atonement.
Nonsense, Eliot. I don't 'hate' the concept. I just recognize them as absurd.
> I'll agree that
> 'Altruism' is 'absurd' in an uncreated (and
> therefore ultimately 'a-moral') cosmos.
This goes beyond just calling an uncreated cosmos false....to hating the concept of alturism in an uncreated universe.
You have to actually argue for your points Eliot, not just assume them. I realize that presuppositionalism has softened your critical thinking skills, so I write this mainly for the lurker. I expect no response to this; as a response (ie, demonstrating your assertions through logical proofs) would require critical thought. Instead you'll just blythly assume your conclusions and possibly suggest that I hate Christianity again.
> No mere
> 'argument' is going to convince either Pangloss or
> Nutters that the cosmos is created, as the Bible
> says ...
How would you know? You haven't tried to present an argument nor have you attempted to refute the arguments against a created cosmos that i've presented.
This is they height of hypocrisy Eliot! You seem to be really talking about yourself here, since you have been completely unfazed by the actual arguments that have been presented!
> or that God will raise us all from the
> dead, as the Bible says ... or that God will
> accept Jesus's "absurd sacrifice" for some, as the
> Bible says.
Just because you take offense to it being called absurd doesn't make it any less absurd. If you don't want people to think your beliefs are silly, then don't have such silly beliefs - or at least stand up and attempt to refute the logical arguments presented AGAINST your beliefs.
But no. You will just sit there, posting your often refuted bilge pretending to be deep and intelligent. Pretending to have graduated from Harvard (or was it Yale?). While the rest of us are pointing at you declaring that the 'emperor has no clothes'.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2009 04:06PM by Professor Pangloss.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: " expect god to care about them
> enough to submit to an absurd sacrifice."Sigh.
> This goes beyond just calling Christianity false
> ... to hating the concept of an 'absurd'
> substitutionary atonement.
Nonsense, Eliot. I don't 'hate' the concept. I just recognize them as absurd.
> I'll agree that
> 'Altruism' is 'absurd' in an uncreated (and
> therefore ultimately 'a-moral') cosmos.
This goes beyond just calling an uncreated cosmos false....to hating the concept of alturism in an uncreated universe.
You have to actually argue for your points Eliot, not just assume them. I realize that presuppositionalism has softened your critical thinking skills, so I write this mainly for the lurker. I expect no response to this; as a response (ie, demonstrating your assertions through logical proofs) would require critical thought. Instead you'll just blythly assume your conclusions and possibly suggest that I hate Christianity again.
> No mere
> 'argument' is going to convince either Pangloss or
> Nutters that the cosmos is created, as the Bible
> says ...
How would you know? You haven't tried to present an argument nor have you attempted to refute the arguments against a created cosmos that i've presented.
This is they height of hypocrisy Eliot! You seem to be really talking about yourself here, since you have been completely unfazed by the actual arguments that have been presented!
> or that God will raise us all from the
> dead, as the Bible says ... or that God will
> accept Jesus's "absurd sacrifice" for some, as the
> Bible says.
Just because you take offense to it being called absurd doesn't make it any less absurd. If you don't want people to think your beliefs are silly, then don't have such silly beliefs - or at least stand up and attempt to refute the logical arguments presented AGAINST your beliefs.
But no. You will just sit there, posting your often refuted bilge pretending to be deep and intelligent. Pretending to have graduated from Harvard (or was it Yale?). While the rest of us are pointing at you declaring that the 'emperor has no clothes'.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2009 04:06PM by Professor Pangloss.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 17, 2009 05:29PM
| Pangloss, in point of fact, I never said anything about when or where I attended university ... it's irrelevant, in any case. |
| Because of your presuppositions, I submit that there is no evidence that you would accept that Christianity is true -- other than finding yourself raised from the dead and judged. |
| Jeremiah 6 applies: "Their ears are closed so they cannot hear. The word of the Lord is offensive to them; they find no pleasure in it." |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Local Man
()
Date: February 17, 2009 07:57PM
what the shit is goin on in here?
does mclean bible church still suck or what?
does mclean bible church still suck or what?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 17, 2009 08:13PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, in point of fact, I never said anything
> about when or where I attended university ...
I believe you claimed to have been educated by a Harvard professor, which implies that you went to Harvard. You also claimed that your brother went to Cambridge (sp?) if I recall correctly.
> it's
> irrelevant, in any case.Because of your
> presuppositions, I submit that there is no
> evidence that you would accept that Christianity
> is true --
You are assuming this, I am asking you to demonstrate it. You are simply waving your hands and sticking your fingers in your ears.
You are the one who's presuppositions disable him from considering alternative worldviews and even arguments. I would go so far as to say this has been demonstrated.
Keep in mind that you haven't once presented an argument for Christianity, so to pretend that you *know* that my presuppositions would prevent me from hearing the truth of christianity is the height of arrogancy.
> other than finding yourself raised from
> the dead and judged.Jeremiah 6 applies: "Their
> ears are closed so they cannot hear. The word of
> the Lord is offensive to them; they find no
> pleasure in it."
This is more nonsense and, dare I say, falsehood coming from you Eliot. I emplore you to be honest in your communication.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, in point of fact, I never said anything
> about when or where I attended university ...
I believe you claimed to have been educated by a Harvard professor, which implies that you went to Harvard. You also claimed that your brother went to Cambridge (sp?) if I recall correctly.
> it's
> irrelevant, in any case.Because of your
> presuppositions, I submit that there is no
> evidence that you would accept that Christianity
> is true --
You are assuming this, I am asking you to demonstrate it. You are simply waving your hands and sticking your fingers in your ears.
You are the one who's presuppositions disable him from considering alternative worldviews and even arguments. I would go so far as to say this has been demonstrated.
Keep in mind that you haven't once presented an argument for Christianity, so to pretend that you *know* that my presuppositions would prevent me from hearing the truth of christianity is the height of arrogancy.
> other than finding yourself raised from
> the dead and judged.Jeremiah 6 applies: "Their
> ears are closed so they cannot hear. The word of
> the Lord is offensive to them; they find no
> pleasure in it."
This is more nonsense and, dare I say, falsehood coming from you Eliot. I emplore you to be honest in your communication.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 17, 2009 08:15PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have to actually argue for your points Eliot,
> not just assume them. I realize that
> presuppositionalism has softened your critical
> thinking skills, so I write this mainly for the
> lurker. I expect no response to this; as a
> response (ie, demonstrating your assertions
> through logical proofs) would require critical
> thought. Instead you'll just blythly assume your
> conclusions and possibly suggest that I hate
> Christianity again.
I'm going to give myself 8 points out of 10 for this. While you did pretty much ignore the points I brought up in this post and you did fling rhetorical poop at me, you didn't just assume that I hate Christianity. So I'm denied a full 10 points.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have to actually argue for your points Eliot,
> not just assume them. I realize that
> presuppositionalism has softened your critical
> thinking skills, so I write this mainly for the
> lurker. I expect no response to this; as a
> response (ie, demonstrating your assertions
> through logical proofs) would require critical
> thought. Instead you'll just blythly assume your
> conclusions and possibly suggest that I hate
> Christianity again.
I'm going to give myself 8 points out of 10 for this. While you did pretty much ignore the points I brought up in this post and you did fling rhetorical poop at me, you didn't just assume that I hate Christianity. So I'm denied a full 10 points.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 18, 2009 10:53AM
| Pangloss my friend, give it a rest. Academia is rife with visiting professors and fellows; my family lived on the Continent for years precisely because our father was invited to implement specific Harvard teaching methodologies in some European post-graduate programs. That's why I speak French and Italian. But this is all ad hominem ... so who cares? | |
| Q: What "logical proofs" would ever convince you that complex symbiotic adaptations are orchestrated (as opposed to instances of Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics)? | |
| Q: What "logical proofs" would ever convince you that that irreducible complexities (such as human eyes and even more remarkably, human cells) are 'designed' rather than sheer happenstance? | |
| A: None. Because (like all of us) you interpret your perceptions within the context of your personal metaphysics -- which no longer includes the God of Christianity. | |
You've come out of a Christian context ... I am sure that you are aware that the New Testament considers Christianity to be propagated, not by 'ontological arguments', but rather by the Holy Spirit acting on the hearts of men who hear the Word of God and have their presuppositions changed thereby. E.g., Acts 13:
| |
| It is nevertheless not inappropriate, I think, to point out to 'Darwinian' man, that within his uncreated and dying cosmos nothing really matters, while within the personal, created Christian cosmos even 'altruism' makes sense because somebody dominant is really "out there" ... whose character and communications, and past and future actions, matter to Man. |
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2009 10:54AM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 18, 2009 11:46AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss my friend, give it a rest. Academia is
> rife with visiting professors and fellows; my
> family lived on the Continent for years precisely
> because our father was invited to implement
> specific Harvard teaching methodologies in some
> European post-graduate programs. That's why I
> speak French and Italian. But this is all ad
> hominem ... so who cares?
1. An ad hominem logical fallacy is when you distract from someone's argument by insulting the person; ie, when you basically put the credibility of the arguer on the line instead of the reasoning of the argument. You haven't put forth an argument - all you've done is assert stuff repeatedly, which means this isn't an ad-hom.
2. This is just more evidence of deceptiveness. You claim to have connections, pedigrees, and the like, but you can't argue (or won't) your way out of a paperbag. This produces an incongruenty (sp?).
> Q: What "logical proofs"
> would ever convince you that complex symbiotic
> adaptations are orchestrated (as opposed to
> instances of Lamarckian inheritance of acquired
> characteristics)?
I have asked for evidence in addition to logical proofs - which you have also failed to provide. In any event, at the very basic what I would require to accept intelligent design would be a coherent theory; ie, an explanation of how X was designed.
> Q: What "logical proofs" would
> ever convince you that that irreducible
> complexities (such as human eyes and even more
> remarkably, human cells) are 'designed' rather
> than sheer happenstance?
As I already mentioned, I would need a functional theory of design - not an appeal to ignorance, which is precisely what proponents of intelligent design advocate. Evolution cannot explain X, therefore it was designed.
That is PITIFUL reasoning and it certainly isn't science.
So, I'd need a theory of design. Then i would need an argument that irreducible complexity is evidence for design. Currently it's not evidence of design at all, since the theory of evolution can explain IC and evolution has a functional theoretical model.
> A: None. Because (like all
> of us) you interpret your perceptions within the
> context of your personal metaphysics -- which no
> longer includes the God of Christianity.
Nonsense - I've just shown this presupposition of yours to be false. I've given what it would take (a legitimate scientific theory + evidential support) for me to accept intelligent design.
I should note at this time that I've been asking for evidence/argumentation for god's existence, not for intelligent design, since even if it could be shown that life was designed, that doesn't logically entail that god did the designing - this is what the Raelins believe after all.
Further, I don't see the necessity for intelligent design and god belief - that is to say, I find it reasonable that god could exist AND naturalistic evolution is true, so the whole intelligent design angle seems like a red herring to me.
> You've
> come out of a Christian context ... I am sure that
> you are aware that the New Testament considers
> Christianity to be propagated, not by
> 'ontological arguments', but rather by the Holy
> Spirit acting on the hearts of men who hear the
> Word of God and have their presuppositions changed
> thereby.
I am aware that some parts of the bible indicate that, while other parts indicate the opposite, such as 'test all things', and Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead; so that they are without excuse" and there's a verse about always having an answer to unbelievers.
In short you are wrong.
> E.g., Acts 13: As Paul and Barnabas were
> leaving the synagogue, the people invited them to
> speak further about these things on the next
> Sabbath. When the congregation was dismissed, many
> of the Jews and devout converts to Judaism
> followed Paul and Barnabas, who talked with them
> and urged them to continue in the grace of
> God.When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad
> and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were
> appointed for eternal life believed.That is why
> Lon Solomon preaches from the Bible every weekend,
> rather than barraging the audience with Scholastic
> theoretical theory. McLean Bible Church has the
> expectation, and the experience, that the Holy
> Spirit will change some men's presuppositions, and
> their lives for all eternity, because "faith
> comes from hearing the message, and the message is
> heard through the word of Christ.
This is also incorrect as throughout the bible god provides people with more then the 'holy spirit'. He supposedly provides evidence. The trouble is that you and Lon (and presupper's in general) pick and choose which parts of the bible you want to believe.
Let's remember Elijah and how he demonstrated that god existed:
1 Kings 18:36-38
"Elijah the prophet came near, and said, LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word. Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that thou art the LORD God, and that thou hast turned their heart back again. Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench."
God did not infuse these people with the holy spirit - he empirically demonstrated to them that he existed through a test.
> "It is
> nevertheless not inappropriate, I think, to point
> out to 'Darwinian' man, that within his uncreated
> and dying cosmos nothing really matters, while
> within the personal, created Christian cosmos even
> 'altruism' makes sense because somebody dominant
> is really "out there" ... whose character and
> communications, and past and future actions,
> matter to Man.
It is inappropriate because you just assume it - you are a lazy and sloppy thinker Eliot. You believe what you believe because someone you respect said it. You have not reasoned to your position and you IGNORE valid arguments against your position.
In short you are guilty of the very thing that you baselessly accuse me of. I think you do this because you are frightened of actually considering the oppositions worldview. It's clear that you cannot handle a rigorous internal critique of your worldview and that you are clutching vainly at your 'darwinist' nonsense.
Why should anyone take you seriously Eliot? Your worldview is contradictory and actually presupposes naturalism. It should be tossed into the waste bin of intellectually bankrupt failures and Christian thinkers should go back to evidential arguments.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss my friend, give it a rest. Academia is
> rife with visiting professors and fellows; my
> family lived on the Continent for years precisely
> because our father was invited to implement
> specific Harvard teaching methodologies in some
> European post-graduate programs. That's why I
> speak French and Italian. But this is all ad
> hominem ... so who cares?
1. An ad hominem logical fallacy is when you distract from someone's argument by insulting the person; ie, when you basically put the credibility of the arguer on the line instead of the reasoning of the argument. You haven't put forth an argument - all you've done is assert stuff repeatedly, which means this isn't an ad-hom.
2. This is just more evidence of deceptiveness. You claim to have connections, pedigrees, and the like, but you can't argue (or won't) your way out of a paperbag. This produces an incongruenty (sp?).
> Q: What "logical proofs"
> would ever convince you that complex symbiotic
> adaptations are orchestrated (as opposed to
> instances of Lamarckian inheritance of acquired
> characteristics)?
I have asked for evidence in addition to logical proofs - which you have also failed to provide. In any event, at the very basic what I would require to accept intelligent design would be a coherent theory; ie, an explanation of how X was designed.
> Q: What "logical proofs" would
> ever convince you that that irreducible
> complexities (such as human eyes and even more
> remarkably, human cells) are 'designed' rather
> than sheer happenstance?
As I already mentioned, I would need a functional theory of design - not an appeal to ignorance, which is precisely what proponents of intelligent design advocate. Evolution cannot explain X, therefore it was designed.
That is PITIFUL reasoning and it certainly isn't science.
So, I'd need a theory of design. Then i would need an argument that irreducible complexity is evidence for design. Currently it's not evidence of design at all, since the theory of evolution can explain IC and evolution has a functional theoretical model.
> A: None. Because (like all
> of us) you interpret your perceptions within the
> context of your personal metaphysics -- which no
> longer includes the God of Christianity.
Nonsense - I've just shown this presupposition of yours to be false. I've given what it would take (a legitimate scientific theory + evidential support) for me to accept intelligent design.
I should note at this time that I've been asking for evidence/argumentation for god's existence, not for intelligent design, since even if it could be shown that life was designed, that doesn't logically entail that god did the designing - this is what the Raelins believe after all.
Further, I don't see the necessity for intelligent design and god belief - that is to say, I find it reasonable that god could exist AND naturalistic evolution is true, so the whole intelligent design angle seems like a red herring to me.
> You've
> come out of a Christian context ... I am sure that
> you are aware that the New Testament considers
> Christianity to be propagated, not by
> 'ontological arguments', but rather by the Holy
> Spirit acting on the hearts of men who hear the
> Word of God and have their presuppositions changed
> thereby.
I am aware that some parts of the bible indicate that, while other parts indicate the opposite, such as 'test all things', and Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead; so that they are without excuse" and there's a verse about always having an answer to unbelievers.
In short you are wrong.
> E.g., Acts 13: As Paul and Barnabas were
> leaving the synagogue, the people invited them to
> speak further about these things on the next
> Sabbath. When the congregation was dismissed, many
> of the Jews and devout converts to Judaism
> followed Paul and Barnabas, who talked with them
> and urged them to continue in the grace of
> God.When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad
> and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were
> appointed for eternal life believed.That is why
> Lon Solomon preaches from the Bible every weekend,
> rather than barraging the audience with Scholastic
> theoretical theory. McLean Bible Church has the
> expectation, and the experience, that the Holy
> Spirit will change some men's presuppositions, and
> their lives for all eternity, because "faith
> comes from hearing the message, and the message is
> heard through the word of Christ.
This is also incorrect as throughout the bible god provides people with more then the 'holy spirit'. He supposedly provides evidence. The trouble is that you and Lon (and presupper's in general) pick and choose which parts of the bible you want to believe.
Let's remember Elijah and how he demonstrated that god existed:
1 Kings 18:36-38
"Elijah the prophet came near, and said, LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word. Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that thou art the LORD God, and that thou hast turned their heart back again. Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench."
God did not infuse these people with the holy spirit - he empirically demonstrated to them that he existed through a test.
> "It is
> nevertheless not inappropriate, I think, to point
> out to 'Darwinian' man, that within his uncreated
> and dying cosmos nothing really matters, while
> within the personal, created Christian cosmos even
> 'altruism' makes sense because somebody dominant
> is really "out there" ... whose character and
> communications, and past and future actions,
> matter to Man.
It is inappropriate because you just assume it - you are a lazy and sloppy thinker Eliot. You believe what you believe because someone you respect said it. You have not reasoned to your position and you IGNORE valid arguments against your position.
In short you are guilty of the very thing that you baselessly accuse me of. I think you do this because you are frightened of actually considering the oppositions worldview. It's clear that you cannot handle a rigorous internal critique of your worldview and that you are clutching vainly at your 'darwinist' nonsense.
Why should anyone take you seriously Eliot? Your worldview is contradictory and actually presupposes naturalism. It should be tossed into the waste bin of intellectually bankrupt failures and Christian thinkers should go back to evidential arguments.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 18, 2009 06:46PM
| Pangloss fulminates: |
| You can't argue (or won't) your way out of a paper bag. |
| I've just shown this presupposition of yours to be false. |
| The trouble is that you and Lon (and presupper's in general) pick and choose which parts of the bible you want to believe. |
| Your worldview is contradictory and actually presupposes naturalism. It should be tossed into the waste bin of intellectually bankrupt failures and Christian thinkers should go back to evidential arguments. |
| Why should anyone take you seriously? You are frightened of actually considering the opposition's worldview. |
| You are a lazy and sloppy thinker. |
| You believe what you believe because someone you respect said it. |
| You have not reasoned to your position and you IGNORE valid arguments against your position. |
| I should note at this time that I've been asking for evidence/argumentation for god's existence. |
| Throughout the bible, god provides people with more than the 'holy spirit'. He supposedly provides evidence. |
| God did not infuse these people with the holy spirit - he empirically demonstrated to them that he existed through a test. |
Ness notes: Your demand for a personal miracle raises issues contained in an article by J. Arthur Hill, in the The Hibbert Journal of October, 1906, vol. V, p. 118:
1 Kings 18:36-38
"Elijah the prophet came near, and said, LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word. Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that thou art the LORD God, and that thou hast turned their heart back again. Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench."
"Christ's miracles and resurrection were objective phenomena, and Christianity was based upon them. . . . But belief in Christianity has gradually crumbled away because there has been no continuance of well-attested cognate facts. The Catholic miracles and ecstasies make belief easier for one section of Christianity; but Protestantism–which cuts off miracles at the end of Apostolic Times–has committed suicide; by making unique events of its basic phenomena it has made continued belief in them impossible." B.B. Warfield commented: On this view no man can believe in miracles who has not himself witnessed miracles. Testimony is discredited out of hand; man believes only what he has seen. Must we not go further on this ground? Can a man continue to believe in miracles unless he continues to see them? Is not memory itself a kind of testimony? Must not there be a continuous miracle in order to support continuous faith? We cannot thus chop up the continuity of life, whether of the individual or of the race, in the interests of continuous miracle. Granted that one or the other must be continuous, life or miracle; but both need not be.You are demanding what God only provided during periods of new revelation ... There are three eras in the Bible when miracles abound, and they are all times of new revelation from prophets: Moses, Elijah, and Jesus. Notably even in the book of Acts, miracles diminish after the initial coming of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles.There will, however, be an opportunity for us to see fire come down out of the sky again, during the miraculous reign of the AntiChrist ... and you will want to think twice about what you will believe if you are alive to see these events:
‘He performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth.’ Rev. 13:13,14And you are forgetting what happened after Elijah's true miracle (the 'evidence' you demand) ... Then Elijah commanded them, "Seize the prophets of Baal. Don't let anyone get away!" They seized them, and Elijah had them brought down to the Kishon Valley and slaughtered there.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 18, 2009 07:20PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ness notes: Your demand for a personal
> miracle raises issues contained in an article by
> J. Arthur Hill, in the The Hibbert Journal of
> October, 1906, vol. V, p. 118:
W.T.F.?
I was *not* "demanding miracles" - you are creating a strawman.
I swear Eliot, what was the matter with actually tackling the issue I raised? The one that spoke against your presuppositional nonsense? Instead you have to transform what I wrote into a plea for miracles, utterly missing my point.
> B.B.
> Warfield commented: On this view no man can
> believe in miracles who has not himself witnessed
> miracles. Testimony is discredited out of hand;
> man believes only what he has seen. Must we not go
> further on this ground? Can a man continue to
> believe in miracles unless he continues to see
> them? Is not memory itself a kind of testimony?
> Must not there be a continuous miracle in order to
> support continuous faith? We cannot thus chop up
> the continuity of life, whether of the individual
> or of the race, in the interests of continuous
> miracle. Granted that one or the other must be
> continuous, life or miracle; but both need not
> be.
Incidentally, this is special pleading and can be discarded as irrational.
> You are demanding what God only provided during
> periods of new revelation ...
No, I wasn't demanding that - you are misinterpreting my point.
> There are three eras
> in the Bible when miracles abound, and they are
> all times of new revelation from prophets: Moses,
> Elijah, and Jesus. Notably even in the book of
> Acts, miracles diminish after the initial coming
> of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles.
This is an unwarranted assumption (gee, from Eliot, who'd of thunk it?) on your part. You are picking and choosing what you wish to be so. I could point to a multitude of versus that speak to believers continuing to do miracles if I wanted to, but it isn't the point I was addressing.
Further, what's this bit about 'miracles diminishing' in Acts? What's your justification for this?
> There will,
> however, be an opportunity for us to see fire come
> down out of the sky again, during the miraculous
> reign of the AntiChrist ... and you will want to
> think twice about what you will believe if you are
> alive to see these events:
So you are one of the Christians who believe that Revelation is a book of prophecy of the distant future?
Interesting.
> ‘He performed great and miraculous signs, even
> causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in
> full view of men. Because of the signs he was
> given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he
> deceived the inhabitants of the earth.’ Rev.
> 13:13,14And you are forgetting what happened after
> Elijah's true miracle (the 'evidence' you demand)
> ... Then Elijah commanded them, "Seize the
> prophets of Baal. Don't let anyone get away!" They
> seized them, and Elijah had them brought down to
> the Kishon Valley and slaughtered there.
Eliot, I did not *demand* that evidence (ie, miracles) and you know it. I was refuting your point about presuppositions automatically entailing a denial of the Christian worldview. I pointed to specific passages in the bible that directly contradict this notion.
What do you do? You promptly erect a strawman, unable to intellectually grapple with the actual argument.
I guess I should be happy though, since you are at least acknowledging that an argument is on the table.
I find it quite telling that in your quoting my 'fulmination' you conveniently skip my quote (carefully cropping out all but the 'frightened bit'):
"In short you are guilty of the very thing that you baselessly accuse me of. I think you do this because you are frightened of actually considering the oppositions worldview. It's clear that you cannot handle a rigorous internal critique of your worldview and that you are clutching vainly at your 'darwinist' nonsense. "
My guess is that I hit close to home on that one - but if you'll do me a favor and tell me why you didn't include it? Also, it's telling that you included "I've just shown this presupposition of yours to be false." in your quotation of my 'fulmination'.
Odd that you think that my pointing out that I've refuted a presupposition is 'fulminating'...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2009 07:21PM by Professor Pangloss.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ness notes: Your demand for a personal
> miracle raises issues contained in an article by
> J. Arthur Hill, in the The Hibbert Journal of
> October, 1906, vol. V, p. 118:
W.T.F.?
I was *not* "demanding miracles" - you are creating a strawman.
I swear Eliot, what was the matter with actually tackling the issue I raised? The one that spoke against your presuppositional nonsense? Instead you have to transform what I wrote into a plea for miracles, utterly missing my point.
> B.B.
> Warfield commented: On this view no man can
> believe in miracles who has not himself witnessed
> miracles. Testimony is discredited out of hand;
> man believes only what he has seen. Must we not go
> further on this ground? Can a man continue to
> believe in miracles unless he continues to see
> them? Is not memory itself a kind of testimony?
> Must not there be a continuous miracle in order to
> support continuous faith? We cannot thus chop up
> the continuity of life, whether of the individual
> or of the race, in the interests of continuous
> miracle. Granted that one or the other must be
> continuous, life or miracle; but both need not
> be.
Incidentally, this is special pleading and can be discarded as irrational.
> You are demanding what God only provided during
> periods of new revelation ...
No, I wasn't demanding that - you are misinterpreting my point.
> There are three eras
> in the Bible when miracles abound, and they are
> all times of new revelation from prophets: Moses,
> Elijah, and Jesus. Notably even in the book of
> Acts, miracles diminish after the initial coming
> of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles.
This is an unwarranted assumption (gee, from Eliot, who'd of thunk it?) on your part. You are picking and choosing what you wish to be so. I could point to a multitude of versus that speak to believers continuing to do miracles if I wanted to, but it isn't the point I was addressing.
Further, what's this bit about 'miracles diminishing' in Acts? What's your justification for this?
> There will,
> however, be an opportunity for us to see fire come
> down out of the sky again, during the miraculous
> reign of the AntiChrist ... and you will want to
> think twice about what you will believe if you are
> alive to see these events:
So you are one of the Christians who believe that Revelation is a book of prophecy of the distant future?
Interesting.
> ‘He performed great and miraculous signs, even
> causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in
> full view of men. Because of the signs he was
> given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he
> deceived the inhabitants of the earth.’ Rev.
> 13:13,14And you are forgetting what happened after
> Elijah's true miracle (the 'evidence' you demand)
> ... Then Elijah commanded them, "Seize the
> prophets of Baal. Don't let anyone get away!" They
> seized them, and Elijah had them brought down to
> the Kishon Valley and slaughtered there.
Eliot, I did not *demand* that evidence (ie, miracles) and you know it. I was refuting your point about presuppositions automatically entailing a denial of the Christian worldview. I pointed to specific passages in the bible that directly contradict this notion.
What do you do? You promptly erect a strawman, unable to intellectually grapple with the actual argument.
I guess I should be happy though, since you are at least acknowledging that an argument is on the table.
I find it quite telling that in your quoting my 'fulmination' you conveniently skip my quote (carefully cropping out all but the 'frightened bit'):
"In short you are guilty of the very thing that you baselessly accuse me of. I think you do this because you are frightened of actually considering the oppositions worldview. It's clear that you cannot handle a rigorous internal critique of your worldview and that you are clutching vainly at your 'darwinist' nonsense. "
My guess is that I hit close to home on that one - but if you'll do me a favor and tell me why you didn't include it? Also, it's telling that you included "I've just shown this presupposition of yours to be false." in your quotation of my 'fulmination'.
Odd that you think that my pointing out that I've refuted a presupposition is 'fulminating'...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2009 07:21PM by Professor Pangloss.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
NegativeDreamStealer
()
Date: February 18, 2009 08:05PM
I'm going to have to call this one, Eliot. It's for your own good. You're out of your league. You're the shrew to Professor Pangloss' tabby. Besides, your posts are beginning to read like a Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps All-One! label.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 19, 2009 10:59AM
| Pangloss wants evidential arguments and tangible evidence : |
| "Christian thinkers should go back to evidential arguments." |
| "I should note at this time that I've been asking for evidence/argumentation for god's existence." |
| "Throughout the bible, god provides people with more than the 'holy spirit'. He supposedly provides evidence." |
| "God did not infuse these people with the holy spirit - he empirically demonstrated to them that he existed through a test." |
| "Let's remember Elijah and how he demonstrated that god existed." [Elijah called down fire from heaven, to consume water-soaked offerings.] |
| Ness notes that: |
| 1) In Biblical history, such 'evidence' occurs during periods of new propositional revelation ... not in response to every demand from an unbeliever. |
| 2) God responded to Elijah's prayer for fire to consume the soaked offering ... not in response to the prayers of the priests of Baal (who were executed shortly after seeing the 'evidence'). |
| 3) Many who saw Jesus's miraculous healings nevertheless did not believe him to be who he claimed to be. On the contrary, some attributed his powers to the Devil. |
| 4) In the new Testament, Thomas the disciple is indeed given 'evidence' of the Resurrection ... Jesus said to Thomas: "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." |
| 5) But people forget that Jesus said more to Thomas: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." |
| 6) John, in his Gospel, writes: "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." |
| 7) It is precisely a 'body-slam' of men's presuppositions/metaphysics -- in response to reading/hearing about the Christ of the Scriptures -- that God performs. This is clear throughout the New Testament. |
8) The 'anti-Evangelism' bubbling up in this forum appears to be aimed at bashing people out of their Christian metaphysics, simply because they cannot call down fire from heaven or offer 'evidential arguments' that will force unbelievers to bow their knee to the God of Christianity. This is a demand that is nowhere met in the New Testament. For this kind of 'evidence' the anti-Evangelists will have to wait to die, just as Jesus told the Pharisees who were constantly bashing him: Jesus answered: "I am the one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me." |
Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2009 01:12PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 19, 2009 11:39AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wants evidential arguments and tangible
> evidence :"Christian thinkers should go back to
> evidential arguments."
> "I should note at this time that I've been asking
> for evidence/argumentation for god's existence."
> "Throughout the bible, god provides people with
> more than the 'holy spirit'. He supposedly
> provides evidence."
> "God did not infuse these people with the holy
> spirit - he empirically demonstrated to them that
> he existed through a test."
> "Let's remember Elijah and how he demonstrated
> that god existed."
> Ness notes that:1) In Biblical history, such
> 'evidence' occurs during periods of new
> propositional revelation ... not in response to
> every demand from an unbeliever.
You seem to be conflating miracles with evidence. They are not equivolent.
Further, please point to where it states this in the bible, that this evidence only occurs during 'propositional revelation'.
This is a classic case of picking and choosing what you want to believe Eliot. You are ignoring what the bible says about miracles (not to mention evidence, but that's another topic):
Mk 16:17-18
""And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.""
1 John 3:22
"And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight."
James 5:14-15
"5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
"
John 14:12
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father."
What you are doing is rationalizing away the necessary (biblically speaking) expectation of miracles.
> 2) God responded
> to Elijah's prayer for fire to consume the soaked
> offering ... not in response to the to the prayers
> of the priests of Baal (who were executed shortly
> after seeing the 'evidence').
Strawman - I didn't say that god responded to the priests of Baal. Elijah was trying to convince those priests by having god show off for them.
Point being, they were unbelievers who saw direct evidence against their beliefs - which you claim can't be the case.
> 3) Many who saw
> Jesus's miraculous healings nevertheless did not
> believe him to be who he claimed to be. On the
> contrary, some attributed his powers to the
> Devil.
Fair enough, but so what? This just weakens the case for god, IMO, since it suggests that even if god did make his existence evident then that wouldn't necessarily convince people to believe (ie, keeping free will intact).
> 4) In the new Testament, Thomas the disciple
> is indeed given 'evidence' of the Resurrection ...
> Jesus "said to Thomas: "Put your finger here; see
> my hands. Reach out your hand pnd put it into my
> side. Stop doubting and believe.'
Yup.
> "5) But people
> forget that Jesus said more to Thomas: "Because
> you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are
> those who have not seen and yet have believed."
I didn't forget that, it's not relevant to what I'm talking about though. It's also not saying that non believers should be spared such evidence.
> 6)
> John, in his Gospel, writes: "Jesus did many other
> miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples,
> which are not recorded in this book. But these are
> written that you may believe that Jesus is the
> Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you
> may have life in his name."
....So? Are you suggesting that Jesus is the only one that can produce miracles?
> 7) It is precisely a
> 'body-slam' of men's presuppositions/metaphysics,
> in response to hearing the Scriptures, that God
> performs. This is clear throughout the New
> Testament.
No, it's not, as I've pointed out. If it were clear you would be able to address the claims against it and you would be able to provide scriptual support - instead of just asserting it.
> 8) The 'anti-Evangelism' bubbling up in
> this forum appears to be aimed at bashing people
> out of their Christian metaphysics, simply because
> they cannot call down fire from heaven or offer
> 'evidential arguments' that will force unbelievers
> to bow their knee to the God of Christianity.
This is complete nonsense Eliot and you know better. I've asked for logical argumentation and received none from you. Further you have not refuted the arguments I've put forward.
To dismiss both of these as requiring you to offer evidential arguments is hogwash.
> This
> is a demand that is nowhere met in the New
> Testament. For this kind of 'evidence' they will
> have to wait to die, just as Jesus told the
> Pharisees who were constantly bashing him: Jesus
> answered: "I am the one who testifies for myself;
> my other witness is the Father, who sent me."Then
> they asked him, "Where is your Father?""You do not
> know me or my Father. If you knew me, you would
> know my Father also. You are from below; I am from
> above. You are of this world; I am not of this
> world. I told you that you would die in your sins;
> if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to
> be, you will indeed die in your sins."
Except, rationally speaking, that this argument is special pleading and could be used for any other religion (barring a requirement for a direct quote, naturally).
Ergo, it's an intellectually bankrupt argument. But thanks for playing.
Why don't you try Pascal's Wager on us, maybe that it will work. Shoot, at least it'll be an attempt at a logical argument. :-)
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wants evidential arguments and tangible
> evidence :"Christian thinkers should go back to
> evidential arguments."
> "I should note at this time that I've been asking
> for evidence/argumentation for god's existence."
> "Throughout the bible, god provides people with
> more than the 'holy spirit'. He supposedly
> provides evidence."
> "God did not infuse these people with the holy
> spirit - he empirically demonstrated to them that
> he existed through a test."
> "Let's remember Elijah and how he demonstrated
> that god existed."
> Ness notes that:1) In Biblical history, such
> 'evidence' occurs during periods of new
> propositional revelation ... not in response to
> every demand from an unbeliever.
You seem to be conflating miracles with evidence. They are not equivolent.
Further, please point to where it states this in the bible, that this evidence only occurs during 'propositional revelation'.
This is a classic case of picking and choosing what you want to believe Eliot. You are ignoring what the bible says about miracles (not to mention evidence, but that's another topic):
Mk 16:17-18
""And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.""
1 John 3:22
"And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight."
James 5:14-15
"5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
"
John 14:12
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father."
What you are doing is rationalizing away the necessary (biblically speaking) expectation of miracles.
> 2) God responded
> to Elijah's prayer for fire to consume the soaked
> offering ... not in response to the to the prayers
> of the priests of Baal (who were executed shortly
> after seeing the 'evidence').
Strawman - I didn't say that god responded to the priests of Baal. Elijah was trying to convince those priests by having god show off for them.
Point being, they were unbelievers who saw direct evidence against their beliefs - which you claim can't be the case.
> 3) Many who saw
> Jesus's miraculous healings nevertheless did not
> believe him to be who he claimed to be. On the
> contrary, some attributed his powers to the
> Devil.
Fair enough, but so what? This just weakens the case for god, IMO, since it suggests that even if god did make his existence evident then that wouldn't necessarily convince people to believe (ie, keeping free will intact).
> 4) In the new Testament, Thomas the disciple
> is indeed given 'evidence' of the Resurrection ...
> Jesus "said to Thomas: "Put your finger here; see
> my hands. Reach out your hand pnd put it into my
> side. Stop doubting and believe.'
Yup.
> "5) But people
> forget that Jesus said more to Thomas: "Because
> you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are
> those who have not seen and yet have believed."
I didn't forget that, it's not relevant to what I'm talking about though. It's also not saying that non believers should be spared such evidence.
> 6)
> John, in his Gospel, writes: "Jesus did many other
> miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples,
> which are not recorded in this book. But these are
> written that you may believe that Jesus is the
> Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you
> may have life in his name."
....So? Are you suggesting that Jesus is the only one that can produce miracles?
> 7) It is precisely a
> 'body-slam' of men's presuppositions/metaphysics,
> in response to hearing the Scriptures, that God
> performs. This is clear throughout the New
> Testament.
No, it's not, as I've pointed out. If it were clear you would be able to address the claims against it and you would be able to provide scriptual support - instead of just asserting it.
> 8) The 'anti-Evangelism' bubbling up in
> this forum appears to be aimed at bashing people
> out of their Christian metaphysics, simply because
> they cannot call down fire from heaven or offer
> 'evidential arguments' that will force unbelievers
> to bow their knee to the God of Christianity.
This is complete nonsense Eliot and you know better. I've asked for logical argumentation and received none from you. Further you have not refuted the arguments I've put forward.
To dismiss both of these as requiring you to offer evidential arguments is hogwash.
> This
> is a demand that is nowhere met in the New
> Testament. For this kind of 'evidence' they will
> have to wait to die, just as Jesus told the
> Pharisees who were constantly bashing him: Jesus
> answered: "I am the one who testifies for myself;
> my other witness is the Father, who sent me."Then
> they asked him, "Where is your Father?""You do not
> know me or my Father. If you knew me, you would
> know my Father also. You are from below; I am from
> above. You are of this world; I am not of this
> world. I told you that you would die in your sins;
> if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to
> be, you will indeed die in your sins."
Except, rationally speaking, that this argument is special pleading and could be used for any other religion (barring a requirement for a direct quote, naturally).
Ergo, it's an intellectually bankrupt argument. But thanks for playing.
Why don't you try Pascal's Wager on us, maybe that it will work. Shoot, at least it'll be an attempt at a logical argument. :-)
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 19, 2009 11:40AM
BTW - when I said this: ""Christian thinkers should go back to evidential arguments.""
I was talking about going back to the tradition of Acquinas (sp?).
I was talking about going back to the tradition of Acquinas (sp?).
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 19, 2009 03:35PM
Pangloss:
1) you're on the wrong forum ... you want to be argued into Roman Catholicism,
2) (BTW, you're the one who brought up Elijah's miracle in the context of 'evidence' ... not me),
3) the "tradition of Aquinas" that you are asking for assumes the fallen man can reason his way from Nature as he sees it, to the God of the Bible,
4) therefore you might as well pull up stakes and go to a Roman Catholic forum, because the Evangelicals aren't generally going to play that game,
5) Roman Catholics believe that they have an active Apostle living in Rome, giving new revelation ex cathedra, and that there are active miracles left, right, and center ... including the transubstantion of the elements of communion, not to mention apparitions of the Virgin Mary,
6) I say again, you're wanting to discuss with Roman Catholics, not Reformation Protestants.
1) you're on the wrong forum ... you want to be argued into Roman Catholicism,
2) (BTW, you're the one who brought up Elijah's miracle in the context of 'evidence' ... not me),
3) the "tradition of Aquinas" that you are asking for assumes the fallen man can reason his way from Nature as he sees it, to the God of the Bible,
4) therefore you might as well pull up stakes and go to a Roman Catholic forum, because the Evangelicals aren't generally going to play that game,
5) Roman Catholics believe that they have an active Apostle living in Rome, giving new revelation ex cathedra, and that there are active miracles left, right, and center ... including the transubstantion of the elements of communion, not to mention apparitions of the Virgin Mary,
6) I say again, you're wanting to discuss with Roman Catholics, not Reformation Protestants.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 19, 2009 04:01PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss:
> 1) you're on the wrong forum ... you want to be
> argued into Roman Catholicism,
*Sigh*, go on explain yourself.
> 2) (BTW, you're the one who brought up Elijah's
> miracle in the context of 'evidence' ... not me),
You are dishonestly twisting my context and you know it. The context, as I've repeated said and you've ignored, is a rebuttal to your presuppositional treatment of the bible. In short, you are a cafeteria christian.
> 3) the "tradition of Aquinas" that you are asking
> for assumes the fallen man can reason his way from
> Nature as he sees it, to the God of the Bible,
Yes - it's the only rational option open to the Christian, as I explained before (which you completely ignored because you couldn't deal with the argument).
> 4) therefore you might as well pull up stakes and
> go to a Roman Catholic forum, because the
> Evangelicals aren't generally going to play that
> game,
Nonsense, evangelical does not equal presuppositionalist. I like the qualification of 'generally' though, it kind of defeats your assertion, doesn't it? ;-)
> 5) Roman Catholics believe that they have an
> active Apostle living in Rome, giving new
> revelation ex cathedra, and that there are active
> miracles left, right, and center ... including the
> transubstantion of the elements of communion, not
> to mention apparitions of the Virgin Mary,
What does this have to do with anything? My reference to Acquinas was about evidential arguments, not necessarily miracles being evidence.
You seem to confuse the two. Are you purposely obfuscating or are you generally confused. When I ask for a logical or evidential argument, an example would be a cosmological argument or a design argument. I'm not asking for god to write his name in the sky (does this clarify the distinction to you?).
> 6) I say again, you're wanting to discuss with
> Roman Catholics, not Reformation Protestants.
I'm wanting to discuss these issues with believers, not just 'Roman Catholics'. You want to *sidestep and ignore* any difficulties in your belief while continuing to spout assertions about non-christian positions.
I have continually asked you to back up your claims and you have been reduced to denying that such is possible - implying that your position is fideistic. Admit that and I'll leave you alone. As it is, I'm finding less and less reasons to continue this lopsided conversation with you, but I would deeply respect your honesty if you'll just admit that you are a fideist.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss:
> 1) you're on the wrong forum ... you want to be
> argued into Roman Catholicism,
*Sigh*, go on explain yourself.
> 2) (BTW, you're the one who brought up Elijah's
> miracle in the context of 'evidence' ... not me),
You are dishonestly twisting my context and you know it. The context, as I've repeated said and you've ignored, is a rebuttal to your presuppositional treatment of the bible. In short, you are a cafeteria christian.
> 3) the "tradition of Aquinas" that you are asking
> for assumes the fallen man can reason his way from
> Nature as he sees it, to the God of the Bible,
Yes - it's the only rational option open to the Christian, as I explained before (which you completely ignored because you couldn't deal with the argument).
> 4) therefore you might as well pull up stakes and
> go to a Roman Catholic forum, because the
> Evangelicals aren't generally going to play that
> game,
Nonsense, evangelical does not equal presuppositionalist. I like the qualification of 'generally' though, it kind of defeats your assertion, doesn't it? ;-)
> 5) Roman Catholics believe that they have an
> active Apostle living in Rome, giving new
> revelation ex cathedra, and that there are active
> miracles left, right, and center ... including the
> transubstantion of the elements of communion, not
> to mention apparitions of the Virgin Mary,
What does this have to do with anything? My reference to Acquinas was about evidential arguments, not necessarily miracles being evidence.
You seem to confuse the two. Are you purposely obfuscating or are you generally confused. When I ask for a logical or evidential argument, an example would be a cosmological argument or a design argument. I'm not asking for god to write his name in the sky (does this clarify the distinction to you?).
> 6) I say again, you're wanting to discuss with
> Roman Catholics, not Reformation Protestants.
I'm wanting to discuss these issues with believers, not just 'Roman Catholics'. You want to *sidestep and ignore* any difficulties in your belief while continuing to spout assertions about non-christian positions.
I have continually asked you to back up your claims and you have been reduced to denying that such is possible - implying that your position is fideistic. Admit that and I'll leave you alone. As it is, I'm finding less and less reasons to continue this lopsided conversation with you, but I would deeply respect your honesty if you'll just admit that you are a fideist.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 19, 2009 05:14PM
| Pangloss: "I'm wanting to discuss these issues with believers, not just 'Roman Catholics'." |
| Ness: No, you are slinging epithets at Protestants who will not engage in Roman Catholic scholasticism ... for example, you say: |
| "You are dishonestly twisting my context and you know it. The context, as I've repeated said and you've ignored, is a rebuttal to your presuppositional treatment of the bible. In short, you are a cafeteria christian." |
| "It's the only rational option open to the Christian, as I explained before (which you completely ignored because you couldn't deal with the argument)." |
| "I have continually asked you to back up your claims and you have been reduced to denying that such is possible - implying that your position is fideistic. ... I would deeply respect your honesty if you'll just admit that you are a fideist." |
| 'Fideists' generally dissociate 'faith' from 'reason' ... and that simply is NOT the biblical Protestant position. |
| The difference between you and the biblical Christians is that they believe God speaks truth, in the Bible, about mankind's past, present, and future -- as well as truth about events that mankind cannot see, such as what is in the mind of God and what transpires between God and his created angels -- and your metaphysics will not allow you to believe those propositions. |
| No amount of argument is going to change your mind. Nor would 'fire from heaven.' Nor fulfilled prophecy. You know what the Bible says, and simply do not believe it. |
| I won't 'argue' with such a world-view, but I will ask what basis there is for any 'ought' rather than 'is' in an uncreated, impersonal universe. |
| I think Nutters is the most consistent non-Christian who has posted here, reducing morality to an evolutionary adaptation ... but from such a position, one could well keep silent about atrocities such as the Holocaust ... rather than imposing on others, one's culturally-conditioned residually Christian disapproval of, say, 'racism' and 'murder' ... after all, based upon your own world-views, who are you and Nutters to judge other men about anything? ... It's a cold, dark place to live but Nutters, to his credit, almost lives there already. |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 19, 2009 06:03PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
It's a cold, dark place to live but
> Nutters, to his credit, almost lives there
> already.
Sorry - its not cold and dark out here
Its sunny, every morning the squirrels gamble in my garden, the woodpeckers come to feed. I stand on billions of years of rocks and biology. At night I can see billions of stars. My kids sleep soundly.
Its just that I get to see the world for what it is - complex, majestic, fragile - and myself for what I am, complex, evolved, transitory, the result of the biological machinery and information processing from which I'm built.
I can see why I make decisions, the limits and triumphs of my evolutionary heritage and why society makes decisions, agreements, trade-offs and mistakes.
I know my limits but I'm no man's or doctrine's slave
-------------------------------------------------------
It's a cold, dark place to live but
> Nutters, to his credit, almost lives there
> already.
Sorry - its not cold and dark out here
Its sunny, every morning the squirrels gamble in my garden, the woodpeckers come to feed. I stand on billions of years of rocks and biology. At night I can see billions of stars. My kids sleep soundly.
Its just that I get to see the world for what it is - complex, majestic, fragile - and myself for what I am, complex, evolved, transitory, the result of the biological machinery and information processing from which I'm built.
I can see why I make decisions, the limits and triumphs of my evolutionary heritage and why society makes decisions, agreements, trade-offs and mistakes.
I know my limits but I'm no man's or doctrine's slave
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 19, 2009 07:39PM
Sure it's dark out there ... if you look ahead for yourself, your children, and even the 10,000 stars that you can see in the sky at night.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 19, 2009 08:57PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sure it's dark out there ... if you look ahead for
> yourself, your children, and even the 10,000 stars
> that you can see in the sky at night.
Goodness gracious Eliot - is that jealousy?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sure it's dark out there ... if you look ahead for
> yourself, your children, and even the 10,000 stars
> that you can see in the sky at night.
Goodness gracious Eliot - is that jealousy?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 19, 2009 09:53PM
| Nutters, why are you here, participating in a forum intended to disparage McLean Bible Church ... an organization whose members live in a completely different cosmology than you do? Is the Christian world-view offensive to you because, for example, its adherents tell their children that death is not annihilation? You've written that "the taxonomy of those who push religion in the face of the evidence" is "1. Fools, 2. Charlatans, 3. Thieves, 4. or simply indoctrinated." Why are you -- who have told us that there is no "absolute, objective morality" -- making ostensibly moral judgments about Christians, based upon your personal culturally-conditioned prejudices? And do you really think that there are no intelligent (not foolish), sincere (not charlatans), honest (not thieves), thinking (not indoctrinated) Christians out here? |
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2009 10:11AM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
asshat
()
Date: February 20, 2009 03:10AM
More Than A Believer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You really just want to know that you have it ALL
> figured out. Who needs to get over their self
> now?
>
> If you'd really looked at all religions (instead
> of Christian bassing) going back to the
> neanderthal days, you'd know they all believe in
> something larger than themselves.
> However, I'm sure that you have it right and have
> everything figured out.
1.) your statement about us having it all "figured out" seems to be ass backwards to me. it is YOU who thinks to have all of the answers (on this life and the next). I am simply stating "i dont know", its an honest answer, is there life after death? I dont know. Is there a God? I dont know. Is there a heaven and hell? I dont know. What we are talking about is basing our lives around what we DO know. You do realize the bible was science, before science was invented. It was man observing and concluding on the workings and intricacys of the world. How we think god would want us to live. Then we had this little thing called the scientific method that came up, and started to contradict what our religions were telling us, and instead of saying "hey maybe the bible is beautiful poetry, or a deep meanigful metaphore.", we say "no, it is the word of GOD, and is to be taken literally in all cases, because if the world is not 6 thousand years old, than it ALL must be a SHAM!". What I and i believe many other agnostic/atheist/whatever you want to call us, are saying is.... " I DONT KNOW, we're trying to figure it out as best as we can, but dont tell us this book is the ultimate absolute truth, because there are way to many holes in its logic."
2. And as for your second statement about man warshipping something that is bigger than himself, you are right in a sense. The earliest forms of religion were warshipping animals. Animals that were killed during the hunt in order to survive. Early man realized that men were not the only concious beings. That is to say, men realized that in order to survive, they needed to kill, and they realized that the deer or bear they just killed was the same as them. It had feelings, fears, emotions, and a drive to stay alive. It was this realization of the ultimate sacrifce (death to the animal, so that they could survive), that the first religions were formed.
This has always been a big problem of mine with christianity. The belief that man is not an animal, but something much more. I believe man is an animal, with animalistic drives, with emotions, short comings ,etc. The bible tries at every turn, to make us superior to and more important than animals. Animals have no soul right? Take a look at your dog, tell me that it doesnt have feelings, emotions, and a personality that you can distinctly tell from another dog's. Furthermore, look at nature and see the reflection of man. Look at socail behavior in ants, or bees, for example (its quite stunning how close our social habbits are to theres). You have to look at the reasoning behind your religions views. The reason the church is so anti-nature, is because the very religions that christianity was trying to stop were religions that revolved around warship of the earth/nature/animals. This simple belief that man is not an animal puts us in one of the shittiest situations of all time. We are running out of room on this planet, running out of nature (i know personally i have to drive a good distance to visit a park, or to see any wildlife other than a bird and a few squirrels running around.) Why fight global warming? not because its not true, but because it is an afront to your religion. Because, "if this wasnt meant to be, then god wouldnt allow it - the logic of man is divine". So, "drill baby, drill", because the world is ending soon ,and god is taking the righteous to heaven right?
The Question of life and death has always been on mans mind, where did we come from, where do we go. As well as the idea of a creator - by logic that was given to us, something can not come from nothing can it? (as far as we know). So the question has always been there, and has always been asked, and has never been answered. I have absolutely NO problem with the question of the existance of god, heaven, hell, etc. What i do have a problem with is religions all thinking they have the absolute right answer. Look at the greeks and the romans, who were pan-theists. It sounds rediculous today to believe in zeus and the many other gods sitting in the sky and controlling every day life doesnt it? That is considered a myth right? Ok now step back from your own religion, take a look at it, and take a look at the history (not just what the bible tells you), now make a logical decission about it. The only reason you are a christian and not a muslim, is because you were born in america. Religion is nothing more than a social habbit, everyone has questions about god etc, but we indoctrinate ourselves and children with things that i believe are more harmfull than good.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, everyone look up Joseph Campbell and read some of his work. He was the worlds leading expert on mythology. He goes very deeply into various religions around the world and breaks down the meaning, signifigance, and history behind them. and yes christianity is considered as myth. all im asking is that you take the chance to sit back and think of your own religion as well as these others as myths, learn about them.... and then keep your religious views to yourself :P
sorry for the long-winded speech... im bored at work...
-------------------------------------------------------
> You really just want to know that you have it ALL
> figured out. Who needs to get over their self
> now?
>
> If you'd really looked at all religions (instead
> of Christian bassing) going back to the
> neanderthal days, you'd know they all believe in
> something larger than themselves.
> However, I'm sure that you have it right and have
> everything figured out.
1.) your statement about us having it all "figured out" seems to be ass backwards to me. it is YOU who thinks to have all of the answers (on this life and the next). I am simply stating "i dont know", its an honest answer, is there life after death? I dont know. Is there a God? I dont know. Is there a heaven and hell? I dont know. What we are talking about is basing our lives around what we DO know. You do realize the bible was science, before science was invented. It was man observing and concluding on the workings and intricacys of the world. How we think god would want us to live. Then we had this little thing called the scientific method that came up, and started to contradict what our religions were telling us, and instead of saying "hey maybe the bible is beautiful poetry, or a deep meanigful metaphore.", we say "no, it is the word of GOD, and is to be taken literally in all cases, because if the world is not 6 thousand years old, than it ALL must be a SHAM!". What I and i believe many other agnostic/atheist/whatever you want to call us, are saying is.... " I DONT KNOW, we're trying to figure it out as best as we can, but dont tell us this book is the ultimate absolute truth, because there are way to many holes in its logic."
2. And as for your second statement about man warshipping something that is bigger than himself, you are right in a sense. The earliest forms of religion were warshipping animals. Animals that were killed during the hunt in order to survive. Early man realized that men were not the only concious beings. That is to say, men realized that in order to survive, they needed to kill, and they realized that the deer or bear they just killed was the same as them. It had feelings, fears, emotions, and a drive to stay alive. It was this realization of the ultimate sacrifce (death to the animal, so that they could survive), that the first religions were formed.
This has always been a big problem of mine with christianity. The belief that man is not an animal, but something much more. I believe man is an animal, with animalistic drives, with emotions, short comings ,etc. The bible tries at every turn, to make us superior to and more important than animals. Animals have no soul right? Take a look at your dog, tell me that it doesnt have feelings, emotions, and a personality that you can distinctly tell from another dog's. Furthermore, look at nature and see the reflection of man. Look at socail behavior in ants, or bees, for example (its quite stunning how close our social habbits are to theres). You have to look at the reasoning behind your religions views. The reason the church is so anti-nature, is because the very religions that christianity was trying to stop were religions that revolved around warship of the earth/nature/animals. This simple belief that man is not an animal puts us in one of the shittiest situations of all time. We are running out of room on this planet, running out of nature (i know personally i have to drive a good distance to visit a park, or to see any wildlife other than a bird and a few squirrels running around.) Why fight global warming? not because its not true, but because it is an afront to your religion. Because, "if this wasnt meant to be, then god wouldnt allow it - the logic of man is divine". So, "drill baby, drill", because the world is ending soon ,and god is taking the righteous to heaven right?
The Question of life and death has always been on mans mind, where did we come from, where do we go. As well as the idea of a creator - by logic that was given to us, something can not come from nothing can it? (as far as we know). So the question has always been there, and has always been asked, and has never been answered. I have absolutely NO problem with the question of the existance of god, heaven, hell, etc. What i do have a problem with is religions all thinking they have the absolute right answer. Look at the greeks and the romans, who were pan-theists. It sounds rediculous today to believe in zeus and the many other gods sitting in the sky and controlling every day life doesnt it? That is considered a myth right? Ok now step back from your own religion, take a look at it, and take a look at the history (not just what the bible tells you), now make a logical decission about it. The only reason you are a christian and not a muslim, is because you were born in america. Religion is nothing more than a social habbit, everyone has questions about god etc, but we indoctrinate ourselves and children with things that i believe are more harmfull than good.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, everyone look up Joseph Campbell and read some of his work. He was the worlds leading expert on mythology. He goes very deeply into various religions around the world and breaks down the meaning, signifigance, and history behind them. and yes christianity is considered as myth. all im asking is that you take the chance to sit back and think of your own religion as well as these others as myths, learn about them.... and then keep your religious views to yourself :P
sorry for the long-winded speech... im bored at work...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
asshat
()
Date: February 20, 2009 04:56AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
This sounds less like you being an "atheist" and more like you being a child that wants to rebel against the system that he was placed into.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
This sounds less like you being an "atheist" and more like you being a child that wants to rebel against the system that he was placed into.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
kl
()
Date: February 20, 2009 05:56AM
RESton Peace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KL: From the first sentence, you epitomized my
> exact sentiment about christians and their
> self-loving bullshit. I hope you take my advice
> and shoot yourself. I hope you leave a large
> amount of brain matter on the walls, and that your
> face is blown clean off, so as to prevent a closed
> casket.
>
> Not that a casket will be needed. You have no
> family or friends who care about you... you have
> totally turned yourself over to Jesus Christ, and
> since he's been dead for almost 2000 years now, he
> is not available to find your corpse, notify the
> authorities, and make arrangements months later,
> when you have finally been identified via a
> hodgepodge of medical and public records. Your
> rotting corpse could be fed to dogs, and that
> would have more attendants than any other funeral
> your sad life would draw.
>
> Make amends with your so-called savior now,
> because Jesus Christ can and will sodomize you and
> all your children in hell. For this I have
> prayed.
Reply to above: I'm praying for you and forgive you, for you do not know any better about the self destruction you are bringing on yourself, for all time and eternity. Suicide? Sucicide is murder. And murder is sin. You are loved by God anyway, but like all of us as human beings, you and all of us, from the beginning of time, to the end of time, will be and are being, held accountable to God. You have declared a curse, you think on me and others who believe in Christ. In reality, you have declared the curse on yourself. Yet I, and others, are praying God's best blessings for you and others, and with God's best blessings, if accepted, the self-curse could be avoided. And even when those who believe in Christ do die, it is only the body which will die, the spirit would immediately go to be with Christ in Heaven, where I hope and pray you and so many others will be one day, something you would never regret, but be grateful for. All people are precious in God's sight, even before we were born and for those not yet born. God already knows who we all are and are to be. I'm so glad He does. I'm so glad each and every one of us is so very special to Him, no matter who we are.
And to your comment about being dead, and only the dogs to be in attendance. Not so, for God and His angels would be in attendance, and safely taking me to Heaven with Christ and others already there, for animals only have instincts to go by, and are not capable of choosing between right and wrong. Humans are the only creation on earth that are capable of choosing between right and wrong, between God and self, between eternal life, or eternal death. Which will you or others ultimately choose? I pray - for Life.
As for public records on all people = God already has these on every human being from Adam and Eve to whoever will be the last people on this earth - and on every aspect of each of our lives, not just mine. Scary, yes, in a way, but more merciful than how humans treat other human beings with these matters. And knowing God has records on all of us and every detail of the lives of every human being, is really a blessing in disguise, as He is willing to be merciful and forgiving, and willing to make of each of us, people who can have something to really live for that is worthwhile, for all time and eternity. People are usually not willing to have mercy or forgiveness on themselves or their fellow human beings - so unlike God.
So long for now, and again, thank you for sharing your thoughts.
-------------------------------------------------------
> KL: From the first sentence, you epitomized my
> exact sentiment about christians and their
> self-loving bullshit. I hope you take my advice
> and shoot yourself. I hope you leave a large
> amount of brain matter on the walls, and that your
> face is blown clean off, so as to prevent a closed
> casket.
>
> Not that a casket will be needed. You have no
> family or friends who care about you... you have
> totally turned yourself over to Jesus Christ, and
> since he's been dead for almost 2000 years now, he
> is not available to find your corpse, notify the
> authorities, and make arrangements months later,
> when you have finally been identified via a
> hodgepodge of medical and public records. Your
> rotting corpse could be fed to dogs, and that
> would have more attendants than any other funeral
> your sad life would draw.
>
> Make amends with your so-called savior now,
> because Jesus Christ can and will sodomize you and
> all your children in hell. For this I have
> prayed.
Reply to above: I'm praying for you and forgive you, for you do not know any better about the self destruction you are bringing on yourself, for all time and eternity. Suicide? Sucicide is murder. And murder is sin. You are loved by God anyway, but like all of us as human beings, you and all of us, from the beginning of time, to the end of time, will be and are being, held accountable to God. You have declared a curse, you think on me and others who believe in Christ. In reality, you have declared the curse on yourself. Yet I, and others, are praying God's best blessings for you and others, and with God's best blessings, if accepted, the self-curse could be avoided. And even when those who believe in Christ do die, it is only the body which will die, the spirit would immediately go to be with Christ in Heaven, where I hope and pray you and so many others will be one day, something you would never regret, but be grateful for. All people are precious in God's sight, even before we were born and for those not yet born. God already knows who we all are and are to be. I'm so glad He does. I'm so glad each and every one of us is so very special to Him, no matter who we are.
And to your comment about being dead, and only the dogs to be in attendance. Not so, for God and His angels would be in attendance, and safely taking me to Heaven with Christ and others already there, for animals only have instincts to go by, and are not capable of choosing between right and wrong. Humans are the only creation on earth that are capable of choosing between right and wrong, between God and self, between eternal life, or eternal death. Which will you or others ultimately choose? I pray - for Life.
As for public records on all people = God already has these on every human being from Adam and Eve to whoever will be the last people on this earth - and on every aspect of each of our lives, not just mine. Scary, yes, in a way, but more merciful than how humans treat other human beings with these matters. And knowing God has records on all of us and every detail of the lives of every human being, is really a blessing in disguise, as He is willing to be merciful and forgiving, and willing to make of each of us, people who can have something to really live for that is worthwhile, for all time and eternity. People are usually not willing to have mercy or forgiveness on themselves or their fellow human beings - so unlike God.
So long for now, and again, thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
GW
()
Date: February 20, 2009 06:17AM
TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> More Than A Believer Wrote:
> >>> you spent so much time trying to convince
> yourselves that God is dead to what purpose.
>
>
> As opposed to the thousands of years, millions of
> innocent lives, and countless wars to prove that
> God isn't dead? To what purpose?
Reply: because God's creation - you and all of us - are so very mucy loved by Him.
-------------------------------------------------------
> More Than A Believer Wrote:
> >>> you spent so much time trying to convince
> yourselves that God is dead to what purpose.
>
>
> As opposed to the thousands of years, millions of
> innocent lives, and countless wars to prove that
> God isn't dead? To what purpose?
Reply: because God's creation - you and all of us - are so very mucy loved by Him.
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
GW
()
Date: February 20, 2009 06:25AM
WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > My feelings are not at issue - it's a question
> of
> > logic and reasoning; there's no purpose for the
> > suffering ergo it's incongruent with the idea of
> a
> > benevolent god.
> >
>
>
> There were actually several gnostic sects in early
> Christianity that came up with the concept of "two
> Gods," the God of the Old Testament (evil,
> vengeful) and the God of the New Testament
> (loving, forgiving) because there was no other way
> to reconcile the disparity between the two.
>
> Also, why would God command mankind not to worship
> any other Gods or idols and then come up with
> Jesus and a Cross. Is he just screwing with us?
Reply: The God of the OT and NT are one and the same. John 1:1 (NT); Genesis 1 (We will make man in Our image). only humans marred that image with sin. God created us pure and without sin, but with a free choice. The choice humans made was to disobey God, and this was and is sin. Then eternal punishment for people who rejected Him, and rejects Him, comes in to play. Originally Hell and the Lake of Fire was only created for satan and his following of disobedient angels. Yes, even angels were created with a free choice.
God has always been forgiving and merciful - in both the OT and the NT (the latter we are still living in). And there has, also, always been consequences for sin. Both are ever old and ever new.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > My feelings are not at issue - it's a question
> of
> > logic and reasoning; there's no purpose for the
> > suffering ergo it's incongruent with the idea of
> a
> > benevolent god.
> >
>
>
> There were actually several gnostic sects in early
> Christianity that came up with the concept of "two
> Gods," the God of the Old Testament (evil,
> vengeful) and the God of the New Testament
> (loving, forgiving) because there was no other way
> to reconcile the disparity between the two.
>
> Also, why would God command mankind not to worship
> any other Gods or idols and then come up with
> Jesus and a Cross. Is he just screwing with us?
Reply: The God of the OT and NT are one and the same. John 1:1 (NT); Genesis 1 (We will make man in Our image). only humans marred that image with sin. God created us pure and without sin, but with a free choice. The choice humans made was to disobey God, and this was and is sin. Then eternal punishment for people who rejected Him, and rejects Him, comes in to play. Originally Hell and the Lake of Fire was only created for satan and his following of disobedient angels. Yes, even angels were created with a free choice.
God has always been forgiving and merciful - in both the OT and the NT (the latter we are still living in). And there has, also, always been consequences for sin. Both are ever old and ever new.
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
GW
()
Date: February 20, 2009 06:35AM
GW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > My feelings are not at issue - it's a
> question
> > of
> > > logic and reasoning; there's no purpose for
> the
> > > suffering ergo it's incongruent with the idea
> of
> > a
> > > benevolent god.
> > >
> >
> >
> > There were actually several gnostic sects in
> early
> > Christianity that came up with the concept of
> "two
> > Gods," the God of the Old Testament (evil,
> > vengeful) and the God of the New Testament
> > (loving, forgiving) because there was no other
> way
> > to reconcile the disparity between the two.
> >
> > Also, why would God command mankind not to
> worship
> > any other Gods or idols and then come up with
> > Jesus and a Cross. Is he just screwing with us?
>
>
> Reply: The God of the OT and NT are one and the
> same. John 1:1 (NT); Genesis 1 (We will make man
> in Our image). only humans marred that image with
> sin. God created us pure and without sin, but
> with a free choice. The choice humans made was to
> disobey God, and this was and is sin. Then eternal
> punishment for people who rejected Him, and
> rejects Him, comes in to play. Originally Hell and
> the Lake of Fire was only created for satan and
> his following of disobedient angels. Yes, even
> angels were created with a free choice.
> God has always been forgiving and merciful - in
> both the OT and the NT (the latter we are still
> living in). And there has, also, always been
> consequences for sin. Both are ever old and ever
> new.
Update on my reply: "only humans marred that image with sin". Angels, perhaps were not created in God's image - perhaps not like we as humans were. Not sure about that. However, it is for humans that Christ came to rescue, angels, sadly, don't seem to have that privilege - perhaps because they were already in Heaven with Him, and knew Him firsthand, and once kicked out, perhaps will never have the opportunity again to be in Heaven - but this was and is their eternal choice-from even before the beginning of earth. yet we as humans, can choose, now, while on earth, to live eternally without Christ, or eternally with Him - on His terms - and rightly so - as He is our precious Creator and Who loves us so very much.
Glad you asked.
I'm learning so much from all of you who write in. even though there is so much hatred evident, this is perhaps one reason why I'm so glad you are writing in, because it only confirms more deeply, the reality of such a precious God who is more merciful and forgiving than any human being ever was or will be. I agree with KL and others regarding this.
I do pray His best blessings for each and every one of you.
Closing my input for now.
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > My feelings are not at issue - it's a
> question
> > of
> > > logic and reasoning; there's no purpose for
> the
> > > suffering ergo it's incongruent with the idea
> of
> > a
> > > benevolent god.
> > >
> >
> >
> > There were actually several gnostic sects in
> early
> > Christianity that came up with the concept of
> "two
> > Gods," the God of the Old Testament (evil,
> > vengeful) and the God of the New Testament
> > (loving, forgiving) because there was no other
> way
> > to reconcile the disparity between the two.
> >
> > Also, why would God command mankind not to
> worship
> > any other Gods or idols and then come up with
> > Jesus and a Cross. Is he just screwing with us?
>
>
> Reply: The God of the OT and NT are one and the
> same. John 1:1 (NT); Genesis 1 (We will make man
> in Our image). only humans marred that image with
> sin. God created us pure and without sin, but
> with a free choice. The choice humans made was to
> disobey God, and this was and is sin. Then eternal
> punishment for people who rejected Him, and
> rejects Him, comes in to play. Originally Hell and
> the Lake of Fire was only created for satan and
> his following of disobedient angels. Yes, even
> angels were created with a free choice.
> God has always been forgiving and merciful - in
> both the OT and the NT (the latter we are still
> living in). And there has, also, always been
> consequences for sin. Both are ever old and ever
> new.
Update on my reply: "only humans marred that image with sin". Angels, perhaps were not created in God's image - perhaps not like we as humans were. Not sure about that. However, it is for humans that Christ came to rescue, angels, sadly, don't seem to have that privilege - perhaps because they were already in Heaven with Him, and knew Him firsthand, and once kicked out, perhaps will never have the opportunity again to be in Heaven - but this was and is their eternal choice-from even before the beginning of earth. yet we as humans, can choose, now, while on earth, to live eternally without Christ, or eternally with Him - on His terms - and rightly so - as He is our precious Creator and Who loves us so very much.
Glad you asked.
I'm learning so much from all of you who write in. even though there is so much hatred evident, this is perhaps one reason why I'm so glad you are writing in, because it only confirms more deeply, the reality of such a precious God who is more merciful and forgiving than any human being ever was or will be. I agree with KL and others regarding this.
I do pray His best blessings for each and every one of you.
Closing my input for now.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 20, 2009 08:31AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Pangloss: "I'm wanting to discuss these issues
> with believers, not just 'Roman Catholics'."
> Ness: No, you are slinging epithets at Protestants
> who will not engage in Roman Catholic
> scholasticism ... for example, you say:
> "You are dishonestly twisting my context and you
> know it. The context, as I've repeated said and
> you've ignored, is a rebuttal to your
> presuppositional treatment of the bible. In short,
> you are a cafeteria christian."
I am taking your position and exposing it as fallacious. That is not the same thing as slinging epithets at protestants who will not engage in Roman Catholic scholasticism. You are running from any and all criticism of your position by throwing up strawmen.
Just because you don't like where the logic leads, does not mean it doesn't lead there. Or will no amount of argument change your mind?
> 'Fideists' generally dissociate 'faith' from
> 'reason' ... and that simply is NOT the biblical
> Protestant position.
Whoa, hold on there Tonto - I was not targeting the 'protestant' position. I was targeting YOU. You do not represent all protestants.
You also didn't answer my question, so I'll repeat it:
Are you a fideist?
This time don't dance around it, man up and answer the damn question.
> The difference between you and the biblical
> Christians is that they believe God speaks truth,
> in the Bible, about mankind's past, present, and
> future -- as well as truth about events that
> mankind cannot see, such as what is in the mind of
> God and what transpires between God and his
> created angels -- and your metaphysics will not
> allow you to believe those propositions.
*Sigh* this is whimpering nonsense Eliot. I am open to being wrong (which you are not and this has been demonstrated) - however I'm not just going to accept your word.
Will not amount of argument change your mind?
> No amount of argument is going to change your
> mind.
More lies. Look Eliot, here are the facts:
1. You are not a psychologist and you have not produced *any* arguments to support your brand of religion. Ergo, it's extremely dishonest to attack my character by saying that no amount of arguments will change my mind. How do you know this?
You don't, you can't refute what I've written and you need a scapegoat - this seems to be why you are making up this bilge about me changing my mind.
2. The fact is my mind *HAS* been changed in the past, in short, I used to be a Christian and now I'm not. That is evidence that my mind can be changed.
3. You are being a hypocrit since you have not even dealt with any of the refutations I've put forth. In short, you are pointing the finger at me, while it should be pointed at yourself.
> Nor would 'fire from heaven.' Nor fulfilled
> prophecy. You know what the Bible says, and simply
> do not believe it.
Nonsense - this is just an empty assertion. Please back it up or back it down. Or will 'no amount of argument change your mind'?
> I won't 'argue' with such a world-view, but I will
> ask what basis there is for any 'ought' rather
> than 'is' in an uncreated, impersonal universe.
Of course you won't - you know your position is not rational. Further, I've already demonstrated that your worldview cannot account for the is/ought dilemma, so your demands that any other worldview produce it are shallow.
> I think Nutters is the most consistent
> non-Christian who has posted here, reducing
> morality to an evolutionary adaptation ...
No offense to Nutters, but your opinion of his position is not really all that special - you aren't very rational eliot. You like Nutter's position because it supports what you already believe. That's sad.
Keep in mind that I think that a constructive discussion could be had with Nutters on the basis of morality and what constitutes objective morality, I don't believe the same can be said of you, Eliot.
You believe what you want to believe.
> but
> from such a position, one could well keep silent
> about atrocities such as the Holocaust ... rather
> than imposing on others, one's
> culturally-conditioned residually Christian
> disapproval of, say, 'racism' and 'murder' ...
> after all, based upon your own world-views, who
> are you and Nutters to judge other men about
> anything? ... It's a cold, dark place to live but
> Nutters, to his credit, almost lives there
> already.
*Sigh*, I don't know why i'm bothering, but I'll point out that your worldview does not say that those atrocities are *wrong* or *evil* either. What your worldview states is that it's wrong to cross god's opinion. In short, it's an authority play, ontologically no different then if we put *hitler* as the source of authority.
You can't (and won't) rationally deny this, so you'll just ignore the argument.
It's utterly pathetic.
BE HONEST WITH US Eliot! It's refreshing and it'll get the conversation moving again.
Now answer the question:
Are you a fideist?
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Pangloss: "I'm wanting to discuss these issues
> with believers, not just 'Roman Catholics'."
> Ness: No, you are slinging epithets at Protestants
> who will not engage in Roman Catholic
> scholasticism ... for example, you say:
> "You are dishonestly twisting my context and you
> know it. The context, as I've repeated said and
> you've ignored, is a rebuttal to your
> presuppositional treatment of the bible. In short,
> you are a cafeteria christian."
I am taking your position and exposing it as fallacious. That is not the same thing as slinging epithets at protestants who will not engage in Roman Catholic scholasticism. You are running from any and all criticism of your position by throwing up strawmen.
Just because you don't like where the logic leads, does not mean it doesn't lead there. Or will no amount of argument change your mind?
> 'Fideists' generally dissociate 'faith' from
> 'reason' ... and that simply is NOT the biblical
> Protestant position.
Whoa, hold on there Tonto - I was not targeting the 'protestant' position. I was targeting YOU. You do not represent all protestants.
You also didn't answer my question, so I'll repeat it:
Are you a fideist?
This time don't dance around it, man up and answer the damn question.
> The difference between you and the biblical
> Christians is that they believe God speaks truth,
> in the Bible, about mankind's past, present, and
> future -- as well as truth about events that
> mankind cannot see, such as what is in the mind of
> God and what transpires between God and his
> created angels -- and your metaphysics will not
> allow you to believe those propositions.
*Sigh* this is whimpering nonsense Eliot. I am open to being wrong (which you are not and this has been demonstrated) - however I'm not just going to accept your word.
Will not amount of argument change your mind?
> No amount of argument is going to change your
> mind.
More lies. Look Eliot, here are the facts:
1. You are not a psychologist and you have not produced *any* arguments to support your brand of religion. Ergo, it's extremely dishonest to attack my character by saying that no amount of arguments will change my mind. How do you know this?
You don't, you can't refute what I've written and you need a scapegoat - this seems to be why you are making up this bilge about me changing my mind.
2. The fact is my mind *HAS* been changed in the past, in short, I used to be a Christian and now I'm not. That is evidence that my mind can be changed.
3. You are being a hypocrit since you have not even dealt with any of the refutations I've put forth. In short, you are pointing the finger at me, while it should be pointed at yourself.
> Nor would 'fire from heaven.' Nor fulfilled
> prophecy. You know what the Bible says, and simply
> do not believe it.
Nonsense - this is just an empty assertion. Please back it up or back it down. Or will 'no amount of argument change your mind'?
> I won't 'argue' with such a world-view, but I will
> ask what basis there is for any 'ought' rather
> than 'is' in an uncreated, impersonal universe.
Of course you won't - you know your position is not rational. Further, I've already demonstrated that your worldview cannot account for the is/ought dilemma, so your demands that any other worldview produce it are shallow.
> I think Nutters is the most consistent
> non-Christian who has posted here, reducing
> morality to an evolutionary adaptation ...
No offense to Nutters, but your opinion of his position is not really all that special - you aren't very rational eliot. You like Nutter's position because it supports what you already believe. That's sad.
Keep in mind that I think that a constructive discussion could be had with Nutters on the basis of morality and what constitutes objective morality, I don't believe the same can be said of you, Eliot.
You believe what you want to believe.
> but
> from such a position, one could well keep silent
> about atrocities such as the Holocaust ... rather
> than imposing on others, one's
> culturally-conditioned residually Christian
> disapproval of, say, 'racism' and 'murder' ...
> after all, based upon your own world-views, who
> are you and Nutters to judge other men about
> anything? ... It's a cold, dark place to live but
> Nutters, to his credit, almost lives there
> already.
*Sigh*, I don't know why i'm bothering, but I'll point out that your worldview does not say that those atrocities are *wrong* or *evil* either. What your worldview states is that it's wrong to cross god's opinion. In short, it's an authority play, ontologically no different then if we put *hitler* as the source of authority.
You can't (and won't) rationally deny this, so you'll just ignore the argument.
It's utterly pathetic.
BE HONEST WITH US Eliot! It's refreshing and it'll get the conversation moving again.
Now answer the question:
Are you a fideist?
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 20, 2009 08:36AM
GW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reply: The God of the OT and NT are one and the
> same. John 1:1 (NT); Genesis 1 (We will make man
> in Our image).
According to *you*, but not according to some of the first christians. Look up the history.
> only humans marred that image with
> sin. God created us pure and without sin, but
> with a free choice.
What does that even mean? What is this 'free choice' you are referring to? It sounds like the incoherent notion of libertarian free will.
What is 'sin'? If we do not know good from evil, then in what sense can it be said that we had a choice?
If adam and eve didn't know that betraying god was wrong, then how is it rational to punish them (and by extension, mankind) for eating the fruit?
> The choice humans made was to
> disobey God, and this was and is sin. Then eternal
> punishment for people who rejected Him, and
> rejects Him, comes in to play.
How is it rational and benevolent to punish someone forever for a finite offense that they didn't even know was wrong?
> Originally Hell and
> the Lake of Fire was only created for satan and
> his following of disobedient angels.
Where does it say this?
> Yes, even
> angels were created with a free choice.
> God has always been forgiving and merciful - in
> both the OT and the NT (the latter we are still
> living in). And there has, also, always been
> consequences for sin. Both are ever old and ever
> new.
If god is always forgiving and merciful then how to you square that with the lake of fire bit?
BTW - my apologies if I come off too aggressively. I've been dealing with Eliot's dancing around answers for a bit too long in this thread.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2009 08:39AM by Professor Pangloss.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reply: The God of the OT and NT are one and the
> same. John 1:1 (NT); Genesis 1 (We will make man
> in Our image).
According to *you*, but not according to some of the first christians. Look up the history.
> only humans marred that image with
> sin. God created us pure and without sin, but
> with a free choice.
What does that even mean? What is this 'free choice' you are referring to? It sounds like the incoherent notion of libertarian free will.
What is 'sin'? If we do not know good from evil, then in what sense can it be said that we had a choice?
If adam and eve didn't know that betraying god was wrong, then how is it rational to punish them (and by extension, mankind) for eating the fruit?
> The choice humans made was to
> disobey God, and this was and is sin. Then eternal
> punishment for people who rejected Him, and
> rejects Him, comes in to play.
How is it rational and benevolent to punish someone forever for a finite offense that they didn't even know was wrong?
> Originally Hell and
> the Lake of Fire was only created for satan and
> his following of disobedient angels.
Where does it say this?
> Yes, even
> angels were created with a free choice.
> God has always been forgiving and merciful - in
> both the OT and the NT (the latter we are still
> living in). And there has, also, always been
> consequences for sin. Both are ever old and ever
> new.
If god is always forgiving and merciful then how to you square that with the lake of fire bit?
BTW - my apologies if I come off too aggressively. I've been dealing with Eliot's dancing around answers for a bit too long in this thread.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2009 08:39AM by Professor Pangloss.
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 20, 2009 08:59AM
Okay, here's something that I wrote up several years ago. I wrote it up for a debate I was having. It's not a full proof argument, but I do think it's enough to give pause to the idea of god. I suspect that Eliot will ignore it completely, while hypocritically continuing to claim that *I* am the one that is not receptive to changing my mind. For all others, I welcome comment.
-----
What follows is a critical examination. It's fairly long and probably not suitable for everyone. I've incorporated cites where appropriate and in some cases I've quoted a sizable amount of text because I feel the author has done a far more admirable job of explaining the concept then I would have been able to. So I hope you'll bear through the quotes.
Okay, I want to state up front that I'm by no means an expert on atheism or atheistic argumentation. If you want what I consider a good book on atheistic argumentation, then I suggest you pick up the book "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith. Additionally, I'm not seeking to convert or sway anyone towards atheism. I do not denigrate religious belief nor do I find it 'wrong' in any sense. What I'm attempting to do is provide a reasonable justification for atheism.
I think this is a particularly relevant and interesting issue, no matter which side of the 'pew' you line yourself up with. Religiosity and church attendance are at an all time high, in fact, belief has never been so common place in America-this is why the topic of God belief is an important issue. According to Michael Shermer:
"For the past two centuries American church membership rates have risen from a paltry 17 percent at the time of the Revolution, to 34 percent by the middle of the nineteenth century, to over 60 percent today." [1]
With that said, I will introduce some of the arguments either against specific arguments in favor of God or in favor of the non-existence of God. I will be addressing the arguments one at a time, and with proper reference links/cites when appropriate. I'm not going to rattle off a litany of arguments because I feel that more will be gained if we explore them one at a time and in greater detail.
Before I begin, I'm going to define some terms for the purpose of this discussion. These are by no means concrete and we can define them further if need be.
Atheist: Someone without the belief in God. It is not necessarily a position where the person says affirmatively that God does not exist. Atheist is a general statement about a non belief in any God concept.
Hard Atheist: This is the person who says that God does not exist, affirmatively.
Weak Atheist: This is a person who does not feel that there is any quality evidence for the existence of God. They do not rule the concept of God out definitely, but they see no reason to believe in any of the Gods they know of.
Agnostic: Agnosticism is not a position on whether one believes in God or not, it is a position on whether one believes that it is possible to know positively whether God exists or not. Additionally it's a position on whether God can be known through experience.
I'm fairly certain that everyone will agree with the above-at least to some extent. The next definition, that of God, begins the discussion and the first argument for the non-existence of God.
Before I begin examining the concept of God, I feel justified in asking the following question: Does God require faith? From what I’ve read, most incarnations of God want their believers to believe based off of faith, instead of based off of empirical evidence. If this is true, then atheism is justified-because without doubt there is no faith-only certainty. Depending on the response, I might come back to this issue. Now then, onto a bigger problem.
Defining God and the problems therein.
The very first question that should be asked before we can either affirm or deny the belief in an entity is what is the entity in question?
I think we can all agree that if the entity in question is ill defined to the point of utter arbitrariness that it doesn't make much sense to affirm a belief in the entity; after all, what would we be actually affirming a belief in? A mystery? An abstract concept that has no basis in reality?
In order to be clear on this point, I'll rely on the words of W.T. Blackstone:
"Until the content of a belief is made clear, the appeal to accept the belief on faith is beside the point, for one would not know what one has accepted. The request for the meaning of a religious belief is logically prior to the question of accepting that belief on faith or to the question of whether that belief constitutes knowledge."[2]
So without a foundation on which to rest a belief, that belief is by definition nonsensical. I think we can all agree on this. The problem with relating to commonly accepted definitions of what God is, is that since the dawn of time there have been many different definitions of God. Some included the more traditional anthropomorphic God, such as Zeus, Mithra, El, Isis, Horus, etc. These Gods were basically big magical 'men', so to speak, in that they were aggrandized versions of humanity. They had human form, emotions, and other characteristics. For the most part Gods of these sorts can be dismissed for the purpose of this discussion as they are not believed in by anyone here, and have been, for the most part, relegated to the dustbin of history. If anyone wants to go over their concepts in further detail, I'm more then willing to.
The other versions of God that are often brought up are the Gods without physical substance, these Gods include, but are not limited to, the God of Abraham (includes Hebrew/Christian/Islamic religions) and Ahura Mazda (granted even these can be argued against). These Gods are often described as omnimax Gods; i.e., all powerful, all benevolent, all knowing, and omnipresent (in most cases). These Gods are the type of God I am concentrating on. They are not defined outside of abstraction, which means they do not have a valid, workable, definition.
It is sometimes argued that God is 'being itself'. I do not think this is a rational statement however, because it blurs the definition of what we already know with what we do not know in an effort to sustain a belief in something for which none is warranted. If we say that existence or 'being' is God, then what is existence? What does 'being' mean? These terms become nonsensical when they are relegated to the attributes of God.
As George Smith puts it: "To divorce the idea of a supernatural being from the concept of god is to obliterate the basic distinction between theism and atheism. If the so-called "theist" or "Christian" is willing to admit that a supernatural being does not exist, then he has capitulated to traditional atheism, and his continued use of the word "god" carries no metaphysical significance." [3]
So God can not be redefined to mean existence or being, because it confuses the concept and destroys the concept of what it means to have a supernatural God. In short, there is nothing to believe in, other then existence, which is a fundamental axiom already.
To continue on, the other position a theist takes is that God is part of the supernatural. This too has the appearance of definition, but when inspected closely falls apart. When something is claimed to be supernatural, it means that it doesn't follow the natural laws of the universe. It is somehow outside of the natural world, it is outside of any possible understanding that we, as natural and physical beings, can be privy to-logically/rationally speaking.
Once again, George H. Smith sums it up: "The first problem with the designation of supernatural (or any equivalent term) is that it tells us nothing positive about a God. "Supernatural" tells us what a god is not-that it is not part of the natural universe-but it does not tell us what a god is. What identifiable characteristics does a god possess? In other words, how will we recognize a god if we run across one? To state that a god is supernatural does not provide us with an answer....the entire notion of a supernatural being is incomprehensible. The theist wishes us to conceive of a being exempt from natural law-a being that does not fall within the domain of scientific explanation-but no theist has ever explained how we can conceive of existence other than "natural" existence. "Natural existence" is a redundancy; we have no familiarity with "unnatural" existence, or even a vague notion of what such existence would be like."[4]
To claim that god is subject to natural law is to unmake god and to apply limitations to god. Additional claims of omnipotence then entail a logical contradiction and do not hold. Furthermore, since god has to be supernatural, that means that it can not possess determinant characteristics, these characteristics would automatically limit god to the natural (and obviously out of the omnipotent).
So what is god? Well, in order to exist, an entity has to exist as something. Existence can not exist without something to exist, and similarly anything that exists must necessarily be something. The trouble is, god can have no defining determinant characteristics and necessarily must be in the realm of the supernatural. As such, to claim that god exists is to claim that something with no characteristics exists, which is nonsensical.
Ludwig Feuerbach said: "To deny all the qualities of a being is equivalent to denying the being himself. A being without qualities is one which can not become an object to the mind, and such a being is virtually non-existent"[5]
What is there to believe in? What qualities does the believer believe that God possesses? The standard reply is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, etc. Unfortunately this is not a proper answer, as this tells us what the God is not. These are not positive attributes. Omnipotence tells us that God is without limits in power. It does not tell us how this omnipotence manifests itself, nor how it can be achieved in the knowable world. It in effect, an empty statement, an aggrandizement of what human beings perceive. It is similar to the concept of 'perfection', in that it's an ill-defined subjective term and not part of objective reality. The other 'omni's fall because of similar objections. God is without ignorance and there is no place where God isn't.
Francois Tremblay states: "To understand how the god-concept is meaningless, I need first to explain what negative defining, and substance, mean.
Something is negatively defined when the identification critically lacks specificity because it tells us what something is not, instead of what something is. For instance, the following identification lacks specificity
"I am not Arthur Daniels Jr."
While it is true that I am not Arthur Daniels Jr., the identification tells you almost nothing about me. All it tells you is that I am not one particular person. It still leaves the possibility of me being any other person on Earth, or even any other sentient entity in the universe. As such, it critically lacks specificity.
Some categories of attributes interest us specifically, such as : substance, secondary attributes, and relational attributes. The substance of an existant is the basic nature of the material it is composed of. Secondary and relational attributes can only be meaningful insofar as the substance is meaningful and pertains to those specific attributes.
The following propositions can express this clearly.
1. The ball is red.
2. The sound is red.
3. The soul is red.
Proposition 1 is perfectly possible, since we know that balls are made of material which can have colour, such as plastic. Proposition 2 is not possible, as sound arrives to us in the form of sound waves, which cannot have colour. Proposition 3 is meaningless, since souls are "supernatural", which means non-material. All we know is that the soul is not made of matter, but we do not know what it is made of. If we do not know what it is made of, we cannot say what attributes it can take and what attributes it cannot take. Consequently, proposition 3 is meaningless.
If we look at the attributes given to the word "god", we find the same problems. All of its attributes are either negatively defined, secondary or relational. If a god is Creator, then it must be immaterial, as nothing can cause itself. But as we have seen, "immaterial" is a negatively defined term. Therefore a god's substance is undefined.
This lack of definition is fatal to the meaningfulness of the god-concept, as secondary or relational attributes can no longer apply either. It makes no sense to apply attributes like "unicity" or "loving", or even "personal being", to a being when we do not know the substance of that being.
The other core attributes of the god-concept suffer from the same problems. Gods are Creator, but this is a relational attribute, as it concerns a god's relationship with the universe. Gods have infinite powers, but the word "infinite" is negatively defined, and therefore ontologically meaningless. Gods are personal beings, but personality is meaningless without knowing whether the substance of a god is capable of intelligence or personality." [6]
All of this is to say that the god concept is incoherent. If this indeed turns out to be the case, then positive belief in such a concept is not possible. I realize that what you've probably just read can be seen as the same argument, drawn out in aggonizing detail. I've tried to keep it short-believe me (I'm rather long winded and could go on and on)-and I've tried to keep it coherent and on point as much as possible.
With that said, in order to validate a belief in an entity (God) the theist must first define the entity. The definition must include whether the entity is material or immaterial, supernatural or non-supernatural, etc etc. Unfortunately an entity that is material and non-supernatural is not a new entity at all, it's just a new term for the universe-which is why the pantheistic argument fails. An entity that is supernatural and non-material can not exist because that entity lacks specificity and is empty. A supernatural materialistic entity is a contradiction in terms.
Works Cited:
1. Michael Shermer, How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God (New York: Owl Books, 2000), p. 25.
2. William T. Blackstone, The Problem of Religious Knowledge (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963), p. 2.
3. George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (New York: Prometheus Books, 1979), p. 35-36.
4. George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (New York: Prometheus Books, 1979), p. 39-40.
5. Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, translated by George Eliot (New York, 1957), p. 14.
6. Francois Tremblay, http://www.objectivethought.com/debates/daniels1.html
-----
What follows is a critical examination. It's fairly long and probably not suitable for everyone. I've incorporated cites where appropriate and in some cases I've quoted a sizable amount of text because I feel the author has done a far more admirable job of explaining the concept then I would have been able to. So I hope you'll bear through the quotes.
Okay, I want to state up front that I'm by no means an expert on atheism or atheistic argumentation. If you want what I consider a good book on atheistic argumentation, then I suggest you pick up the book "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith. Additionally, I'm not seeking to convert or sway anyone towards atheism. I do not denigrate religious belief nor do I find it 'wrong' in any sense. What I'm attempting to do is provide a reasonable justification for atheism.
I think this is a particularly relevant and interesting issue, no matter which side of the 'pew' you line yourself up with. Religiosity and church attendance are at an all time high, in fact, belief has never been so common place in America-this is why the topic of God belief is an important issue. According to Michael Shermer:
"For the past two centuries American church membership rates have risen from a paltry 17 percent at the time of the Revolution, to 34 percent by the middle of the nineteenth century, to over 60 percent today." [1]
With that said, I will introduce some of the arguments either against specific arguments in favor of God or in favor of the non-existence of God. I will be addressing the arguments one at a time, and with proper reference links/cites when appropriate. I'm not going to rattle off a litany of arguments because I feel that more will be gained if we explore them one at a time and in greater detail.
Before I begin, I'm going to define some terms for the purpose of this discussion. These are by no means concrete and we can define them further if need be.
Atheist: Someone without the belief in God. It is not necessarily a position where the person says affirmatively that God does not exist. Atheist is a general statement about a non belief in any God concept.
Hard Atheist: This is the person who says that God does not exist, affirmatively.
Weak Atheist: This is a person who does not feel that there is any quality evidence for the existence of God. They do not rule the concept of God out definitely, but they see no reason to believe in any of the Gods they know of.
Agnostic: Agnosticism is not a position on whether one believes in God or not, it is a position on whether one believes that it is possible to know positively whether God exists or not. Additionally it's a position on whether God can be known through experience.
I'm fairly certain that everyone will agree with the above-at least to some extent. The next definition, that of God, begins the discussion and the first argument for the non-existence of God.
Before I begin examining the concept of God, I feel justified in asking the following question: Does God require faith? From what I’ve read, most incarnations of God want their believers to believe based off of faith, instead of based off of empirical evidence. If this is true, then atheism is justified-because without doubt there is no faith-only certainty. Depending on the response, I might come back to this issue. Now then, onto a bigger problem.
Defining God and the problems therein.
The very first question that should be asked before we can either affirm or deny the belief in an entity is what is the entity in question?
I think we can all agree that if the entity in question is ill defined to the point of utter arbitrariness that it doesn't make much sense to affirm a belief in the entity; after all, what would we be actually affirming a belief in? A mystery? An abstract concept that has no basis in reality?
In order to be clear on this point, I'll rely on the words of W.T. Blackstone:
"Until the content of a belief is made clear, the appeal to accept the belief on faith is beside the point, for one would not know what one has accepted. The request for the meaning of a religious belief is logically prior to the question of accepting that belief on faith or to the question of whether that belief constitutes knowledge."[2]
So without a foundation on which to rest a belief, that belief is by definition nonsensical. I think we can all agree on this. The problem with relating to commonly accepted definitions of what God is, is that since the dawn of time there have been many different definitions of God. Some included the more traditional anthropomorphic God, such as Zeus, Mithra, El, Isis, Horus, etc. These Gods were basically big magical 'men', so to speak, in that they were aggrandized versions of humanity. They had human form, emotions, and other characteristics. For the most part Gods of these sorts can be dismissed for the purpose of this discussion as they are not believed in by anyone here, and have been, for the most part, relegated to the dustbin of history. If anyone wants to go over their concepts in further detail, I'm more then willing to.
The other versions of God that are often brought up are the Gods without physical substance, these Gods include, but are not limited to, the God of Abraham (includes Hebrew/Christian/Islamic religions) and Ahura Mazda (granted even these can be argued against). These Gods are often described as omnimax Gods; i.e., all powerful, all benevolent, all knowing, and omnipresent (in most cases). These Gods are the type of God I am concentrating on. They are not defined outside of abstraction, which means they do not have a valid, workable, definition.
It is sometimes argued that God is 'being itself'. I do not think this is a rational statement however, because it blurs the definition of what we already know with what we do not know in an effort to sustain a belief in something for which none is warranted. If we say that existence or 'being' is God, then what is existence? What does 'being' mean? These terms become nonsensical when they are relegated to the attributes of God.
As George Smith puts it: "To divorce the idea of a supernatural being from the concept of god is to obliterate the basic distinction between theism and atheism. If the so-called "theist" or "Christian" is willing to admit that a supernatural being does not exist, then he has capitulated to traditional atheism, and his continued use of the word "god" carries no metaphysical significance." [3]
So God can not be redefined to mean existence or being, because it confuses the concept and destroys the concept of what it means to have a supernatural God. In short, there is nothing to believe in, other then existence, which is a fundamental axiom already.
To continue on, the other position a theist takes is that God is part of the supernatural. This too has the appearance of definition, but when inspected closely falls apart. When something is claimed to be supernatural, it means that it doesn't follow the natural laws of the universe. It is somehow outside of the natural world, it is outside of any possible understanding that we, as natural and physical beings, can be privy to-logically/rationally speaking.
Once again, George H. Smith sums it up: "The first problem with the designation of supernatural (or any equivalent term) is that it tells us nothing positive about a God. "Supernatural" tells us what a god is not-that it is not part of the natural universe-but it does not tell us what a god is. What identifiable characteristics does a god possess? In other words, how will we recognize a god if we run across one? To state that a god is supernatural does not provide us with an answer....the entire notion of a supernatural being is incomprehensible. The theist wishes us to conceive of a being exempt from natural law-a being that does not fall within the domain of scientific explanation-but no theist has ever explained how we can conceive of existence other than "natural" existence. "Natural existence" is a redundancy; we have no familiarity with "unnatural" existence, or even a vague notion of what such existence would be like."[4]
To claim that god is subject to natural law is to unmake god and to apply limitations to god. Additional claims of omnipotence then entail a logical contradiction and do not hold. Furthermore, since god has to be supernatural, that means that it can not possess determinant characteristics, these characteristics would automatically limit god to the natural (and obviously out of the omnipotent).
So what is god? Well, in order to exist, an entity has to exist as something. Existence can not exist without something to exist, and similarly anything that exists must necessarily be something. The trouble is, god can have no defining determinant characteristics and necessarily must be in the realm of the supernatural. As such, to claim that god exists is to claim that something with no characteristics exists, which is nonsensical.
Ludwig Feuerbach said: "To deny all the qualities of a being is equivalent to denying the being himself. A being without qualities is one which can not become an object to the mind, and such a being is virtually non-existent"[5]
What is there to believe in? What qualities does the believer believe that God possesses? The standard reply is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, etc. Unfortunately this is not a proper answer, as this tells us what the God is not. These are not positive attributes. Omnipotence tells us that God is without limits in power. It does not tell us how this omnipotence manifests itself, nor how it can be achieved in the knowable world. It in effect, an empty statement, an aggrandizement of what human beings perceive. It is similar to the concept of 'perfection', in that it's an ill-defined subjective term and not part of objective reality. The other 'omni's fall because of similar objections. God is without ignorance and there is no place where God isn't.
Francois Tremblay states: "To understand how the god-concept is meaningless, I need first to explain what negative defining, and substance, mean.
Something is negatively defined when the identification critically lacks specificity because it tells us what something is not, instead of what something is. For instance, the following identification lacks specificity
"I am not Arthur Daniels Jr."
While it is true that I am not Arthur Daniels Jr., the identification tells you almost nothing about me. All it tells you is that I am not one particular person. It still leaves the possibility of me being any other person on Earth, or even any other sentient entity in the universe. As such, it critically lacks specificity.
Some categories of attributes interest us specifically, such as : substance, secondary attributes, and relational attributes. The substance of an existant is the basic nature of the material it is composed of. Secondary and relational attributes can only be meaningful insofar as the substance is meaningful and pertains to those specific attributes.
The following propositions can express this clearly.
1. The ball is red.
2. The sound is red.
3. The soul is red.
Proposition 1 is perfectly possible, since we know that balls are made of material which can have colour, such as plastic. Proposition 2 is not possible, as sound arrives to us in the form of sound waves, which cannot have colour. Proposition 3 is meaningless, since souls are "supernatural", which means non-material. All we know is that the soul is not made of matter, but we do not know what it is made of. If we do not know what it is made of, we cannot say what attributes it can take and what attributes it cannot take. Consequently, proposition 3 is meaningless.
If we look at the attributes given to the word "god", we find the same problems. All of its attributes are either negatively defined, secondary or relational. If a god is Creator, then it must be immaterial, as nothing can cause itself. But as we have seen, "immaterial" is a negatively defined term. Therefore a god's substance is undefined.
This lack of definition is fatal to the meaningfulness of the god-concept, as secondary or relational attributes can no longer apply either. It makes no sense to apply attributes like "unicity" or "loving", or even "personal being", to a being when we do not know the substance of that being.
The other core attributes of the god-concept suffer from the same problems. Gods are Creator, but this is a relational attribute, as it concerns a god's relationship with the universe. Gods have infinite powers, but the word "infinite" is negatively defined, and therefore ontologically meaningless. Gods are personal beings, but personality is meaningless without knowing whether the substance of a god is capable of intelligence or personality." [6]
All of this is to say that the god concept is incoherent. If this indeed turns out to be the case, then positive belief in such a concept is not possible. I realize that what you've probably just read can be seen as the same argument, drawn out in aggonizing detail. I've tried to keep it short-believe me (I'm rather long winded and could go on and on)-and I've tried to keep it coherent and on point as much as possible.
With that said, in order to validate a belief in an entity (God) the theist must first define the entity. The definition must include whether the entity is material or immaterial, supernatural or non-supernatural, etc etc. Unfortunately an entity that is material and non-supernatural is not a new entity at all, it's just a new term for the universe-which is why the pantheistic argument fails. An entity that is supernatural and non-material can not exist because that entity lacks specificity and is empty. A supernatural materialistic entity is a contradiction in terms.
Works Cited:
1. Michael Shermer, How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God (New York: Owl Books, 2000), p. 25.
2. William T. Blackstone, The Problem of Religious Knowledge (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963), p. 2.
3. George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (New York: Prometheus Books, 1979), p. 35-36.
4. George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (New York: Prometheus Books, 1979), p. 39-40.
5. Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, translated by George Eliot (New York, 1957), p. 14.
6. Francois Tremblay, http://www.objectivethought.com/debates/daniels1.html
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 20, 2009 10:21AM
| Pangloss your charm offensive is certainly energetic: "More lies." "You are making up this bilge." "You need a scapegoat your position is not rational." "You aren't very rational." "Utterly pathetic." "BE HONEST WITH US." |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 20, 2009 10:31AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss your charm offensive is certainly
> energetic: "More lies." "You are making up this
> bilge." "You need a scapegoat your position is
> not rational." "You aren't very rational."
> "Utterly pathetic." "BE HONEST WITH US."
Eliot, you've been yanking our chains for a while now - baselessly asserting things. I don't care if you are a fideist, but please admit it.
You've been shown to be dishonest a few times (I'll reference the gould qoute as an example), so you that criticism is on target for you.
Your position has been shown to be irrational and you have not defended it, so that criticism is on target for you.
"Utterly pathetic" is a personal appraisal, so YMMV.
You are frustrating to discuss these things with because you ignore, obfuscate, and assert. It's like having a one sided discussion (for the large part). Have you no experience with internet message boards? With debate/discussion? I'm not trying to be mean here and it really irks me that I doubt I'll get a response to this, but I'd like to know if this is your first time on messageboards and/or is this your first time talking to people - in detail - who hold different worldviews then your own.
I would also like you to admit that you are a fideist. I think it's obvious and I would respect you a whole lot more if you'd just admit it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss your charm offensive is certainly
> energetic: "More lies." "You are making up this
> bilge." "You need a scapegoat your position is
> not rational." "You aren't very rational."
> "Utterly pathetic." "BE HONEST WITH US."
Eliot, you've been yanking our chains for a while now - baselessly asserting things. I don't care if you are a fideist, but please admit it.
You've been shown to be dishonest a few times (I'll reference the gould qoute as an example), so you that criticism is on target for you.
Your position has been shown to be irrational and you have not defended it, so that criticism is on target for you.
"Utterly pathetic" is a personal appraisal, so YMMV.
You are frustrating to discuss these things with because you ignore, obfuscate, and assert. It's like having a one sided discussion (for the large part). Have you no experience with internet message boards? With debate/discussion? I'm not trying to be mean here and it really irks me that I doubt I'll get a response to this, but I'd like to know if this is your first time on messageboards and/or is this your first time talking to people - in detail - who hold different worldviews then your own.
I would also like you to admit that you are a fideist. I think it's obvious and I would respect you a whole lot more if you'd just admit it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 20, 2009 10:51AM
| Pangloss asks: "Is this your first time on message boards." |
| Ness replies: No amigo. I've in fact whistle-blogged a $250 million dot-con securities fraud, providing the public and the FBI with smoking-gun documentation (the officers and directors settled a class action lawsuit rather than go to court) ... furthermore, in part because of that whistle-blogging, Lehman Bros. then-CEO Fuld pulled the plug on a related fraudulent hedge fund and (remarkably) reimbursed derivative investors half their losses. (One of the damaged investors, whose CFO contacted me, is world-famous.) Both events were covered by the Pittsburgh press, a few years ago. |
| More charm: "You've been shown to be dishonest." "Your position has been shown to be irrational." "You ignore, obfuscate, and assert." |
| There'd be a better discussion if there were less invective. |
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2009 11:01AM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 20, 2009 11:02AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asks: "Is this your first time on message
> boards."
>
> Ness replies: No amigo. I've in fact
> whistle-blogged a $250 million dot-con securities
> fraud, providing the public and the FBI with
> smoking-gun documentation (the officers and
> directors settled a class action lawsuit rather
> than go to court) ... furthermore, in part because
> of that whistle-blogging, Lehman Bros. then-CEO
> Fuld pulled the plug on a related fraudulent hedge
> fund and (remarkably) reimbursed derivative
> investors half their losses. Both events were
> covered by the Pittsburgh press, a few years ago.
Um...Okay...This sounds like your experience was akin to lecturing. Is this correct?
In otherwords you didn't have a lot of discussion, per say, that your posting on this message board was mainly to keep the community informed - correct?
> More charm: "You've been shown to be dishonest."
> "Your position has been shown to be irrational."
> "You ignore, obfuscate, and assert."
I'm not blowing fluff up your butt Eliot, I'm being honest with you. If you'd like me to point out that you've been dishonest in more delicate language, I most certainly can, but at the end of the day, what's the point?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asks: "Is this your first time on message
> boards."
>
> Ness replies: No amigo. I've in fact
> whistle-blogged a $250 million dot-con securities
> fraud, providing the public and the FBI with
> smoking-gun documentation (the officers and
> directors settled a class action lawsuit rather
> than go to court) ... furthermore, in part because
> of that whistle-blogging, Lehman Bros. then-CEO
> Fuld pulled the plug on a related fraudulent hedge
> fund and (remarkably) reimbursed derivative
> investors half their losses. Both events were
> covered by the Pittsburgh press, a few years ago.
Um...Okay...This sounds like your experience was akin to lecturing. Is this correct?
In otherwords you didn't have a lot of discussion, per say, that your posting on this message board was mainly to keep the community informed - correct?
> More charm: "You've been shown to be dishonest."
> "Your position has been shown to be irrational."
> "You ignore, obfuscate, and assert."
I'm not blowing fluff up your butt Eliot, I'm being honest with you. If you'd like me to point out that you've been dishonest in more delicate language, I most certainly can, but at the end of the day, what's the point?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 20, 2009 11:03AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There'd be a
> better discussion if there were less invective.
I don't believe that Eliot - if you'll check my earlier posts, there was certainly a lot less invective. The fact is, you seem to respond better with an increase in invective. I mean, you are at least responding to portions of my posts now.
-------------------------------------------------------
> There'd be a
> better discussion if there were less invective.
I don't believe that Eliot - if you'll check my earlier posts, there was certainly a lot less invective. The fact is, you seem to respond better with an increase in invective. I mean, you are at least responding to portions of my posts now.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: February 20, 2009 11:06AM
I like how you guys are trying to use science and academics to prove/disprove the existence of God. Maybe when you get to the bottom of this, we can use science to prove/disprove Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, space aliens, fairies, the chupacabra, and the French.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 20, 2009 11:10AM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like how you guys are trying to use science and
> academics to prove/disprove the existence of God.
> Maybe when you get to the bottom of this, we can
> use science to prove/disprove Bigfoot, the Loch
> Ness Monster, space aliens, fairies, the
> chupacabra, and the French.
The argument I posted this morning was not a scientific argument; it was a semantic atheological argument. As such, those entities you mention would not be applicable, since they are (AFAIK) all supposedly natural creatures.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like how you guys are trying to use science and
> academics to prove/disprove the existence of God.
> Maybe when you get to the bottom of this, we can
> use science to prove/disprove Bigfoot, the Loch
> Ness Monster, space aliens, fairies, the
> chupacabra, and the French.
The argument I posted this morning was not a scientific argument; it was a semantic atheological argument. As such, those entities you mention would not be applicable, since they are (AFAIK) all supposedly natural creatures.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: February 20, 2009 11:17AM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The argument I posted this morning was not a
> scientific argument; it was a semantic
> atheological argument. As such, those entities
> you mention would not be applicable, since they
> are (AFAIK) all supposedly natural creatures.
I was half-joking, but matters of faith cannot be proved or disproved. It doesn't matter how many scholars, theologians, priests, book writers, or subject matter experts are cited; until evolution moves beyond theory, or God makes himself known through something that clearly cannot be explained by anything other than the manifestation of God, it's all opinion.
And no, Mary appearing on a grilled cheese sandwich or the miracles described in the bible do not count as making himself known; faith is still required to believe things like that to be true.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The argument I posted this morning was not a
> scientific argument; it was a semantic
> atheological argument. As such, those entities
> you mention would not be applicable, since they
> are (AFAIK) all supposedly natural creatures.
I was half-joking, but matters of faith cannot be proved or disproved. It doesn't matter how many scholars, theologians, priests, book writers, or subject matter experts are cited; until evolution moves beyond theory, or God makes himself known through something that clearly cannot be explained by anything other than the manifestation of God, it's all opinion.
And no, Mary appearing on a grilled cheese sandwich or the miracles described in the bible do not count as making himself known; faith is still required to believe things like that to be true.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 20, 2009 11:19AM
Pangloss: "This sounds like your [blogging] experience was akin to lecturing. Is this correct?"
Ness: No. It was hugely interactive and resulted in telephone calls and the release, by insider whistle-blowers, of incriminating material (written by a now VP of Kodak) to me.
I say again ... the discussion would be improved by diminished personal attacks.
I'll also say again, that you're looking to be argued into Roman Catholicism -- which believes in contemporary Apostolic revelation (via the Pope) and in the contemporary miraculous (at Lourdes, for example), and that fallen man can reason his way to (much of) the God of the Bible (Aquinas).
Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2009 11:39AM by Eliot Ness.
Ness: No. It was hugely interactive and resulted in telephone calls and the release, by insider whistle-blowers, of incriminating material (written by a now VP of Kodak) to me.
I say again ... the discussion would be improved by diminished personal attacks.
I'll also say again, that you're looking to be argued into Roman Catholicism -- which believes in contemporary Apostolic revelation (via the Pope) and in the contemporary miraculous (at Lourdes, for example), and that fallen man can reason his way to (much of) the God of the Bible (Aquinas).
Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2009 11:39AM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 20, 2009 11:27AM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was half-joking, but matters of faith cannot be
> proved or disproved.
Yeah, I kind of figured that. Still, I've been dealing with Eliot primarily in this thread and that's thrown me off a bit.
As for your comments on faith, I'm not sure I agree fully. To some extent I do, for example, I'm of the opinion that the general concept of god (despite my earlier argument) is resilliant to disproofs. To the other extent I think that a lot of god concepts (worldviews, etc) can be disproved. That is to say if a concept has mutually exclusive characteristics that contradict each other, then that concept is incoherent and cannot rationally be believed (it is effectively 'disproved').
I think there is rational warrant for not accepting Christian presuppositionalism since in order to hold to it one has to distrust the very vehicle (ie, reason) for determining whether or not it's true (after all, if you take reason as untrustworthy as a given, then you have no means of discerning which relevations from god are true - if any).
> It doesn't matter how many
> scholars, theologians, priests, book writers, or
> subject matter experts are cited; until evolution
> moves beyond theory, or God makes himself known
> through something that clearly cannot be explained
> by anything other than the manifestation of God,
> it's all opinion.
I'm not sure how serious you are here, but 'evolution' will not move beyond theory because in science when something is a 'theory' that means it explains facts, laws, and phenomenon. To call something in science a 'theory' is not to say that it is on shakey ground (after all, what would you call a hypothesis?).
Creationists often confuse the layman's definition of the term 'theory' with the scientists. They need to be disabused of this notion though. Evolution is on no more shakey ground then any of the theories we have in science (ie, gravity, germ theory, atomic theory, etc).
> And no, Mary appearing on a grilled cheese
> sandwich or the miracles described in the bible do
> not count as making himself known; faith is still
> required to believe things like that to be true.
That's fine - I really have no truck with faith in and of itself.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was half-joking, but matters of faith cannot be
> proved or disproved.
Yeah, I kind of figured that. Still, I've been dealing with Eliot primarily in this thread and that's thrown me off a bit.
As for your comments on faith, I'm not sure I agree fully. To some extent I do, for example, I'm of the opinion that the general concept of god (despite my earlier argument) is resilliant to disproofs. To the other extent I think that a lot of god concepts (worldviews, etc) can be disproved. That is to say if a concept has mutually exclusive characteristics that contradict each other, then that concept is incoherent and cannot rationally be believed (it is effectively 'disproved').
I think there is rational warrant for not accepting Christian presuppositionalism since in order to hold to it one has to distrust the very vehicle (ie, reason) for determining whether or not it's true (after all, if you take reason as untrustworthy as a given, then you have no means of discerning which relevations from god are true - if any).
> It doesn't matter how many
> scholars, theologians, priests, book writers, or
> subject matter experts are cited; until evolution
> moves beyond theory, or God makes himself known
> through something that clearly cannot be explained
> by anything other than the manifestation of God,
> it's all opinion.
I'm not sure how serious you are here, but 'evolution' will not move beyond theory because in science when something is a 'theory' that means it explains facts, laws, and phenomenon. To call something in science a 'theory' is not to say that it is on shakey ground (after all, what would you call a hypothesis?).
Creationists often confuse the layman's definition of the term 'theory' with the scientists. They need to be disabused of this notion though. Evolution is on no more shakey ground then any of the theories we have in science (ie, gravity, germ theory, atomic theory, etc).
> And no, Mary appearing on a grilled cheese
> sandwich or the miracles described in the bible do
> not count as making himself known; faith is still
> required to believe things like that to be true.
That's fine - I really have no truck with faith in and of itself.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 20, 2009 11:38AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss: "This sounds like your experience was
> akin to lecturing. Is this correct?"
> Ness: No. It was hugely interactive and resulted
> in telephone calls and the release, by insider
> whistle-blowers, of incriminating material
> (written by a now VP of Kodak) to me.
Okay, so it was in the form of blogging. I think I understand now why you don't have a good grasp on these kinds of discussions.
> I say again ... the discussion would be improved
> by diminished personal attacks.
Again, I don't believe you, since you have exhibited the same rhetoric since the beginning. I am willing to test this though. Where would you like to begin?
We can begin with morality if you'd like, can you address the following:
Why 'ought' we do such and such? Because god says so? Why ought we listen to god?
I've been critical on god-centered notions of morality because I do not believe that appealing to god answers anything. It seems to me that when one wants warrant for believing that the holocaust was wrong, appealing to god is not the correct way to do it. This is because when you appeal to god, what you are actually saying is that what is wrong is not the innocent suffering of millions of people, but that disobeying what god wants is wrong.
> I'll also say again, that you're looking to be
> argued into Roman Catholicism -- which believes in
> contemporary Apostolic revelation (via the Pope)
> and in the contemporary miraculous (at Lourdes,
> for example), and that fallen man can reason his
> way to the God of the Bible.
I disagree with you about what I'm looking to argue and see no reason to accept your word on this matter. If you'd like to present some evidence then please do so.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss: "This sounds like your experience was
> akin to lecturing. Is this correct?"
> Ness: No. It was hugely interactive and resulted
> in telephone calls and the release, by insider
> whistle-blowers, of incriminating material
> (written by a now VP of Kodak) to me.
Okay, so it was in the form of blogging. I think I understand now why you don't have a good grasp on these kinds of discussions.
> I say again ... the discussion would be improved
> by diminished personal attacks.
Again, I don't believe you, since you have exhibited the same rhetoric since the beginning. I am willing to test this though. Where would you like to begin?
We can begin with morality if you'd like, can you address the following:
Why 'ought' we do such and such? Because god says so? Why ought we listen to god?
I've been critical on god-centered notions of morality because I do not believe that appealing to god answers anything. It seems to me that when one wants warrant for believing that the holocaust was wrong, appealing to god is not the correct way to do it. This is because when you appeal to god, what you are actually saying is that what is wrong is not the innocent suffering of millions of people, but that disobeying what god wants is wrong.
> I'll also say again, that you're looking to be
> argued into Roman Catholicism -- which believes in
> contemporary Apostolic revelation (via the Pope)
> and in the contemporary miraculous (at Lourdes,
> for example), and that fallen man can reason his
> way to the God of the Bible.
I disagree with you about what I'm looking to argue and see no reason to accept your word on this matter. If you'd like to present some evidence then please do so.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 20, 2009 11:50AM
| Asshat told More-Than-A-Believer that "The only reason you are a Christian and not a Muslim, is because you were born in America. Religion is nothing more than a social habbit, everyone has questions about God etc, but we indoctrinate ourselves and children with things that I believe are more harmful than good." |
| There's a lot of generalization here. What if More-Than-A-Believer were a convert from Islam, or even atheism, to Christianity, after careful study? And in what way is Biblical Christianity -- based upon the life of Christ -- "more harmful than good?" ... teaching us that God says to "love our neighbor as ourselves?" |
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2009 06:59PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
asshat
()
Date: February 21, 2009 12:15AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Asshat told More-Than-A-Believer that "The only
> reason you are a Christian and not a Muslim, is
> because you were born in America. Religion is
> nothing more than a social habbit, everyone has
> questions about God etc, but we indoctrinate
> ourselves and children with things that I believe
> are more harmful than good."There's a lot of
> generalization here. What if More-Than-A-Believer
> were a convert from Islam, or even atheism, to
> Christianity, after careful study? And in what way
> is Biblical Christianity -- based upon the life of
> Christ -- "more harmful than good?" ... teaching
> us that God says to "love our neighbor as
> ourselves?"
1.) but that isnt the case, he wasnt a muslim ,and he hasnt carefully studied his faith. In order for that to happen, he would have to objectivly look at the good of his faith, as well as the bad, and then compare that to the numerous other religions around the world. What you and he have both done however, is look at the good, and chose to ignore or manipulate the bad that everyone on this board has stated. You refuse to answer questions, and you skate around the issues. but please, quote another irrelivant Bible passage to answer this.
2.) More harmful than good in the sense of the spanish inquisitions, the thousand years of killing and war between muslims and christians. The fact is, america is a christian nation, and its policies are being made upon religious beliefs. Take for example the support of Israel. Why do we economically and militarily support Israel? We give them billions each year in aid and military equipment, we get nothing back in turn. We can not use their military bases to launch from, they do not help us in world conflicts, and they have been caught SPYING ON US. To those who say they are our best allies in the middle east, that is not true, many of the surrounding arab countrys help us financially and let us use their military bases as jump off points for missions, israel has NEVER done this. I can not see any reason other than the fact that the jews are "gods chosen people", and they should be in charge of the "holy land" in the eyes of christians. Ok, so thats one way which christianity has changed the way i would like to live. Another would be George Bush's evangelical agenda, which i believe also goes hand in hand with the war on "terror".
by the way, if anyone wants to be really scared - go rent the movie Jesus Camp.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Asshat told More-Than-A-Believer that "The only
> reason you are a Christian and not a Muslim, is
> because you were born in America. Religion is
> nothing more than a social habbit, everyone has
> questions about God etc, but we indoctrinate
> ourselves and children with things that I believe
> are more harmful than good."There's a lot of
> generalization here. What if More-Than-A-Believer
> were a convert from Islam, or even atheism, to
> Christianity, after careful study? And in what way
> is Biblical Christianity -- based upon the life of
> Christ -- "more harmful than good?" ... teaching
> us that God says to "love our neighbor as
> ourselves?"
1.) but that isnt the case, he wasnt a muslim ,and he hasnt carefully studied his faith. In order for that to happen, he would have to objectivly look at the good of his faith, as well as the bad, and then compare that to the numerous other religions around the world. What you and he have both done however, is look at the good, and chose to ignore or manipulate the bad that everyone on this board has stated. You refuse to answer questions, and you skate around the issues. but please, quote another irrelivant Bible passage to answer this.
2.) More harmful than good in the sense of the spanish inquisitions, the thousand years of killing and war between muslims and christians. The fact is, america is a christian nation, and its policies are being made upon religious beliefs. Take for example the support of Israel. Why do we economically and militarily support Israel? We give them billions each year in aid and military equipment, we get nothing back in turn. We can not use their military bases to launch from, they do not help us in world conflicts, and they have been caught SPYING ON US. To those who say they are our best allies in the middle east, that is not true, many of the surrounding arab countrys help us financially and let us use their military bases as jump off points for missions, israel has NEVER done this. I can not see any reason other than the fact that the jews are "gods chosen people", and they should be in charge of the "holy land" in the eyes of christians. Ok, so thats one way which christianity has changed the way i would like to live. Another would be George Bush's evangelical agenda, which i believe also goes hand in hand with the war on "terror".
by the way, if anyone wants to be really scared - go rent the movie Jesus Camp.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 21, 2009 01:58AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters, why are you here, participating in a
> forum intended to disparage McLean Bible Church
> ... an organization whose members live in a
> completely different cosmology than you do? Is the
> Christian world-view offensive to you because, for
> example, its adherents tell their children that
> death is not annihilation?You've written that "the
> taxonomy of those who push religion in the face of
> the evidence" is "1. Fools, 2. Charlatans, 3.
> Thieves, 4. or simply indoctrinated."Why are you
> -- who have told us that there is no "absolute,
> objective morality" -- making ostensibly moral
> judgments about Christians, based upon your
> personal culturally-conditioned prejudices?And do
> you really think that there are no intelligent
> (not foolish), sincere (not charlatans), honest
> (not thieves), thinking (not indoctrinated)
> Christians out here?
Because
a) you're wrong
- the evidence against religion is so clear cut that its an untenable intellectual position
b) you're dangerous
- the behavior of religion in modern society distorts rational communal decision making by an appeal to fear, faith and superstition
c) you won't stop of your own volition
- you seem intent on propagating these failed dogmas to future generation
you don't live in a different cosmology - you live in the same cosmology as the rest of us - there is only one physics - but you hide behind a set of outdated pre-scientific superstitions and try to bamboozle others with circular appeals to scripture to avoid facing up to the realities of the world
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters, why are you here, participating in a
> forum intended to disparage McLean Bible Church
> ... an organization whose members live in a
> completely different cosmology than you do? Is the
> Christian world-view offensive to you because, for
> example, its adherents tell their children that
> death is not annihilation?You've written that "the
> taxonomy of those who push religion in the face of
> the evidence" is "1. Fools, 2. Charlatans, 3.
> Thieves, 4. or simply indoctrinated."Why are you
> -- who have told us that there is no "absolute,
> objective morality" -- making ostensibly moral
> judgments about Christians, based upon your
> personal culturally-conditioned prejudices?And do
> you really think that there are no intelligent
> (not foolish), sincere (not charlatans), honest
> (not thieves), thinking (not indoctrinated)
> Christians out here?
Because
a) you're wrong
- the evidence against religion is so clear cut that its an untenable intellectual position
b) you're dangerous
- the behavior of religion in modern society distorts rational communal decision making by an appeal to fear, faith and superstition
c) you won't stop of your own volition
- you seem intent on propagating these failed dogmas to future generation
you don't live in a different cosmology - you live in the same cosmology as the rest of us - there is only one physics - but you hide behind a set of outdated pre-scientific superstitions and try to bamboozle others with circular appeals to scripture to avoid facing up to the realities of the world
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 21, 2009 10:30AM
| Nutters writes: a) "The evidence against religion is so clear cut that it's an untenable intellectual position." |
| Ness notes that: 1) "Religion" is as nebulous a term as 'science.' I take you to mean any belief system that is not purely 'materialist.' 2) 'Science' is always in turmoil. It's a jungle out there. (E.g., Karl Popper's view of 'deductive testing of hypotheses' offended inductionists. Popper's student Paul Feyerabend [one of my teachers] was appalled by the dogmatism of what he called the "Quantum Cardinals." [Emilio Segre once harrangued me at lunch about Feyerabend's lab credentials. Believe me, there is no monolithic 'science.']) 3) But hey, there are plenty of solid "intellectuals" who are Christians. 4) Bill Buckley was one [albeit a Roman Catholic] who wrote "God and Man at Yale." So are the Evangelical authors of "Finding God at Harvard." You may disagree with these positions, but they are not "untenable." |
| Nutters writes:" b) "You're dangerous ... the behavior of religion in modern society distorts rational communal decision making by an appeal to fear, faith and superstition." |
| Ness notes: 1) How can you make "rational communal decisions" when you state that there is no "absolute, objective morality?" 2) Here in America we are fortunate to have a residual altruistic Christian consensus that does not sanction concentration camps or gulags. (And I'll wager that you sincerely subscribe to it in your gut, irrationally.) 3) But Nazis and Communists insisted that they were even better than "rational" and "communal" ... they laid claim to being "scientific." 4) French revolutionaries also claimed 'rationalism.' They were dangerous. So are Muslim jihadi fanatics who blow people up. 5) Do you really consider McLean Bible Church's missionaries "dangerous" purveyors of "fear" and "superstition?" |
| Nutters writes: c) "You won't stop of your own volition - you seem intent on propagating these failed dogmas to future generations." |
| Ness asks: 1) Should someone be "stopping" McLean Bible Church from speaking its mind? 2) And why do you care about future generations? In 100 years, you and your children will all be dead -- forever in your world-view. 3) Furthermore, modern scientific orthodoxy perceives the entire cosmos as hopelessly dying an entropy death. 4) Obviously you care deeply. But why? If eternal Death is inevitable, shouldn't one just "relax and enjoy it?" 5) Mikhail Gorbachev often uses the bizarre Romantic phrase "eternal humanity" ... but he doesn't really believe it? Do you? |
| Nutters writes: d) "You don't live in a different cosmology - you live in the same cosmology as the rest of us - there is only one physics - but you hide behind a set of outdated pre-scientific superstitions and try to bamboozle others with circular appeals to scripture to avoid facing up to the realities of the world." |
| Ness replies: 1) We live in the same 'cosmos' but we have different 'cosmologies.' 2) There are many theories today competing for the title of 'physics.' And the physics of 2009 is NOTHING like the physics of 1909. 3) It's naive to think that physics of 50 years from now will be just an extension of today's consensus. 4) The "reality of the world [of modern physics]" ... its faith-based 'eschatology' ... is annihilation by heat death. 5) It's ironic to see modern Men all lathered up about 'global warming' when ultimately they expect to perish due to 'cosmic cooling.' 6) Christians can bear to talk to their children about death precisely because they do not believe in such an impending cosmic cold, dark night. They have a concrete hope for a re-created cosmos. 7) 'Reality' to a child growing up with a 'science fiction' cosmology (I was such a one) is "Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow you die." 8) There is no meaningful compassion in reductionist materialism. Except as a personal, culturally-conditioned preference. 9) Do you really fault McLean Bible Church for teaching its children values like Good-Samaritan 'compassion' based upon their Christian cosmology? 10) The Bible presents a different 'cosmology' from consensus Darwinism. But Christianity is not "superstitious" because in its created cosmology, there is a personal God who thinks, and feels, and acts in history. 11) It's precisely the hard-core history of a single Bible that distinguishes Christianity from, for example, the superstitious magical rituals of 1000's of free-lance voodoo priests in, say, Haiti. |
It's not 'bamboozling' for McLean Bible Church -- which sincerely believes that Man stands condemned for his rebellion against God -- to tell men that there is a remedy if they lay down their egos at the foot of the Cross, no matter how much ridicule and invective are generated by that belief. You may disagree with that cosmology, but it's sincere ... and it's what Jesus told his disciples to do. If they are 'bamboozling' people then so, one would have to conclude, was the Jesus of the Bible. Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." |
Edited 15 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2009 11:22AM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 21, 2009 11:22AM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > I say again ... the discussion would be
> improved
> > by diminished personal attacks.
>
> Again, I don't believe you, since you have
> exhibited the same rhetoric since the beginning.
> I am willing to test this though. Where would you
> like to begin?
>
> We can begin with morality if you'd like, can you
> address the following:
>
> Why 'ought' we do such and such? Because god says
> so? Why ought we listen to god?
>
> I've been critical on god-centered notions of
> morality because I do not believe that appealing
> to god answers anything. It seems to me that when
> one wants warrant for believing that the holocaust
> was wrong, appealing to god is not the correct way
> to do it. This is because when you appeal to god,
> what you are actually saying is that what is wrong
> is not the innocent suffering of millions of
> people, but that disobeying what god wants is
> wrong.
Eliot, I'm waiting for you to address this. You claimed that diminishing the personal attacks would improve the discussion. I have stopped the personal attacks and you haven't improved the discussion. Please address the questions about morality that I've raised.
-------------------------------------------------------
> > I say again ... the discussion would be
> improved
> > by diminished personal attacks.
>
> Again, I don't believe you, since you have
> exhibited the same rhetoric since the beginning.
> I am willing to test this though. Where would you
> like to begin?
>
> We can begin with morality if you'd like, can you
> address the following:
>
> Why 'ought' we do such and such? Because god says
> so? Why ought we listen to god?
>
> I've been critical on god-centered notions of
> morality because I do not believe that appealing
> to god answers anything. It seems to me that when
> one wants warrant for believing that the holocaust
> was wrong, appealing to god is not the correct way
> to do it. This is because when you appeal to god,
> what you are actually saying is that what is wrong
> is not the innocent suffering of millions of
> people, but that disobeying what god wants is
> wrong.
Eliot, I'm waiting for you to address this. You claimed that diminishing the personal attacks would improve the discussion. I have stopped the personal attacks and you haven't improved the discussion. Please address the questions about morality that I've raised.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 21, 2009 02:30PM
Pangloss asks: "Why 'ought' we do such and such? Because god says so? Why ought we listen to god?
""I've been critical on god-centered notions of morality because I do not believe that appealing to god answers anything. It seems to me that when one wants warrant for believing that the holocaust was wrong, appealing to god is not the correct way to do it. This is because when you appeal to god, what you are actually saying is that what is wrong is not the innocent suffering of millions of people, but that disobeying what god wants is wrong." |
Make no mistake about it, I profoundly dislike some things that the Bible clearly presents: ** that Satan was left in authority over creation after he rebelled against God, rather than being immediately disenfranchised, ** that the first man & woman were allowed to multiply after they too rebelled against God, rather than being immediately disenfranchised, ** that unforgiven men/women are resurrected to eternal consciousness and pain after death, rather than just being annihilated, ** that 'original sin' and its associated moral guilt are transmitted by mere descent from Adam, (Hence the non-Adamic paternal lineage of Jesus.) ** Paul's metaphor in Romans, about the potter and the clay, because men are NOT just 'clay' -- they feel pain. |
| Christians can say that Men should "listen to God" because God (not Satan or Man) created and controls the cosmos, and tells the truth about it -- because the God of the Bible is ultimate reality. (God's statement "I am that which I am" to Moses, [אהיה אשר אהיה, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh"] is one of the most profound philosophical statements in the Bible.) |
| If Christianity did NOT contain the Cross, why would we feel anything except rage against God for having created at all, and for allowing that creation to continue under a terrible curse?Even with the Cross, Christians have to hurt as well as rejoice. (Fran Schaeffer had this visible 'hurt' all the time when dealing with non-Christians, I think, because his emotions were very near the surface and because he believed what God had said about Hell ... and because he felt bound to push them toward their impersonal cosmology's inherent Nihilism.) |
| I see the bottom line issue being the Bible's clear picture of the absolute sovereignty of God (something that Lon Solomon, like Charles Spurgeon, preaches about without compromise). God says that he completely controls history and yet finite, created Men (and angels) have moral significance and accountability. If you or I were making up a religion, we would almost certainly not put things that way. Nor would we fabricate a God who is "Love" and yet exhibits never-ending "Wrath." |
| -- If Christianity is true, then although the Holocaust was murder, no-one involved, Nazi or Jew, was truly innocent ... though some are clearly more guilty than others. -- If Christianity is true, then both Nazis and Jews alike were already under death sentences for their sins. -- We never talk about the fact that Jewish child molesters and murderers were put to death before their normal life span, along with less guilty children and ordinary citizens. -- Similarly, we ignore the fact that the judge, jury, warden, and prison guards have also received death sentences -- not just the criminal strapped to the gurney for the lethal injection. -- We tend to live our lives as if we were Roger Rabbit 'toons' ... immortal ... except when exposed to the dread acetone 'dip' in the form of a Holocaust or a murder. -- Contemporary television is absolutely obsessed with death and murder. Bones, Criminal Minds, CSI, Dateline, Desperate Housewives, Ghost Whisperer, Law and Order, Medium, 20/20. -- Christianity at least offers explanations for our existence and our death sentences ... Intelligent Design coupled with true moral guilt. |
| -- Contemporary reductionist materialism can wax poetic like Loren Eiseley, but it really has nothing authoritative to say about either birth or death. -- Eiseley's epitaph breaks my heart: "We loved the Earth, but could not stay." -- Christians have a different epitaph ... this classic (almost forgotten) hymn: http://www.opc.org/hymn.html?hymn_id=367>; Jesus lives, and so shall I. |
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2009 02:37PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: February 21, 2009 05:09PM
Eliot..you must be a lot of fun at a party!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 22, 2009 11:01AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters writes: a) "The evidence against religion
> is so clear cut that it's an untenable
> intellectual position.
So much junk thinking in one post - it must be a record - so lets just tackle a couple
>
> Ness notes: 1) How can you make "rational communal
> decisions" when you state that there is no
> "absolute, objective morality?"
you can make "rational communal decisions" precisely because there is no "absolute, objective morality" - you look at the facts, you look at the long term consequences/tradeoffs and you make a communal agreement on utility and enforcement and the process of review - its exactly how democracies are meant to function
>2) Here in America
> we are fortunate to have a residual altruistic
> Christian consensus that does not sanction
> concentration camps or gulags. (And I'll wager
> that you sincerely subscribe to it in your gut,
> irrationally.)
This is clearly a farcical proposition. We clearly appear to believe in gulags and concentration camps - we just place them in other countries e.g. Gitmo, Abu Ghraib
We also appear to believe in encouraging our 'allies' to use techniques and policies against our rivals which we would view as unacceptable at home, and to use proxies to fight dirty wars and constant aggressions
We also appear to favor 'shock and awe' as the polite form of large scale 'terrorism' - the aims appear to be the same
I'm not sure I'm seeing much of your 'residual christian altruism' - or perhaps I am.
Its easy to argue that the civil lot of the average American has improved as religions hold has weakened. I'm sure that the vast majority of 19th C slave-owners were god-fearing Christians attending fire and brimstone sermons every weekend.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nutters writes: a) "The evidence against religion
> is so clear cut that it's an untenable
> intellectual position.
So much junk thinking in one post - it must be a record - so lets just tackle a couple
>
> Ness notes: 1) How can you make "rational communal
> decisions" when you state that there is no
> "absolute, objective morality?"
you can make "rational communal decisions" precisely because there is no "absolute, objective morality" - you look at the facts, you look at the long term consequences/tradeoffs and you make a communal agreement on utility and enforcement and the process of review - its exactly how democracies are meant to function
>2) Here in America
> we are fortunate to have a residual altruistic
> Christian consensus that does not sanction
> concentration camps or gulags. (And I'll wager
> that you sincerely subscribe to it in your gut,
> irrationally.)
This is clearly a farcical proposition. We clearly appear to believe in gulags and concentration camps - we just place them in other countries e.g. Gitmo, Abu Ghraib
We also appear to believe in encouraging our 'allies' to use techniques and policies against our rivals which we would view as unacceptable at home, and to use proxies to fight dirty wars and constant aggressions
We also appear to favor 'shock and awe' as the polite form of large scale 'terrorism' - the aims appear to be the same
I'm not sure I'm seeing much of your 'residual christian altruism' - or perhaps I am.
Its easy to argue that the civil lot of the average American has improved as religions hold has weakened. I'm sure that the vast majority of 19th C slave-owners were god-fearing Christians attending fire and brimstone sermons every weekend.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 22, 2009 12:14PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asks: "Why 'ought' we do such and such?
> Because god says so? Why ought we listen to god?
> "
> "I've been critical on god-centered notions of
> morality because I do not believe that appealing
> to god answers anything. It seems to me that when
> one wants warrant for believing that the holocaust
> was wrong, appealing to god is not the correct way
> to do it. This is because when you appeal to god,
> what you are actually saying is that what is wrong
> is not the innocent suffering of millions of
> people, but that disobeying what god wants is
> wrong."
>
> Notes and asides from Ness: Make no mistake
> about it, I profoundly dislike some things that
> the Bible clearly presents:
First I am glad that it appears you are going to respond to this, so I have to tip my hat.
> ** that Satan was left in authority over creation
> after he rebelled against God, rather than being
> immediately disenfranchised,
I'm not sure the bible supports this - well, at least the old testament, anyway. It seems to me that there is an incongruenty (sp?) between the two - most likely from the helenization of Judaism during Roman rule.
> ** that the first man & woman were allowed to
> multiply after they too rebelled against God,
> rather than being immediately disenfranchised,
I'm not sure it can be said that the first man and woman rebelled against god. In order to rebell it seems to me that you would have to know that doing what you are not supposed to is wrong. Adam and Eve did not know disobeying God was wrong, so I don't think it can fairly be said that they rebelled against God.
> ** that unforgiven men/women are resurrected to
> eternal consciousness and pain after death, rather
> than just being annihilated, **
That sounds contradictory to the notion that God is both merciful and benevolent.
> at 'original
> sin' and its associated moral guilt are
> transmitted by mere descent from Adam, (Hence the
> non-Adamic paternal lineage of Jesus.)
> ** Paul's metaphor in Romans, about the potter and
> the clay, because men are NOT just 'clay' -- they
> feel pain.Christians can say that Men should
> "listen to God" because God (not Satan or Man)
> created and controls the cosmos, and tells the
> truth about it -- because the God of the Bible is
> ultimate reality.
That does not follow logically though. To create something does not give one license over that something - even in Christian thought. If mankind fertilizes an egg then Christians believe that life has been created and mankind does not have the authority to end it.
Further, why ought we listen to god just because he controls the cosmos and tells the truth about it? You are giving me descriptions, not reasons for prescriptions.
> (God's statement "I am that which I am" to Moses,
> [אהיה
> אשר
> אהיה, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh"]
> is one of the most profound philosophical
> statements in the Bible.)If Christianity did NOT
> contain the Cross, why would we feel anything
> except rage against God for having created at all,
> and for allowing that creation to continue under a
> terrible curse?Even with the Cross, Christians
> have to hurt as well as rejoice.
I don't see the cross as changing anything logically. There was no reason to to allow creation to be cursed and no reason it should be cursed. It seems as though your explanation is that god/bible convinced us that we are worthless and we should be thankful for being worthless.
Why believe that though? Why should we believe what god thinks about our worth?
> (Fran Schaeffer
> had this visible 'hurt' all the time when dealing
> with non-Christians, I think, because his emotions
> were very near the surface and because he believed
> what God had said about Hell ... and because he
> felt bound to push them toward their impersonal
> cosmology's inherent Nihilism.)I see the bottom
> line issue being the Bible's clear picture of the
> absolute sovereignty of God (something that Lon
> Solomon, like Charles Spurgeon, preaches about
> without compromise).God says that he completely
> controls history and yet finite, created Men (and
> angels) have moral significance and
> accountability.
So you don't believe in free will?
In any event, you still aren't answering the 'ought' question. Why do we have moral significance - because god controls history? That's another non-sequitur. I could say we have moral significance because we exist and logically I'd be on equal ground with you.
> If you or I were making up a
> religion, we would almost certainly not put things
> that way.
Why not? Other religions prior to Christianity did and religions after Christianity did.
> Nor would we fabricate a God who is
> "Love" and yet exhibits never-ending "Wrath."--
Why not? Again, there is evidence to the contrary of this.
> If Christianity is true, then although the
> Holocaust was murder, no-one involved, Nazi or
> Jew, was truly innocent ... though some are
> clearly more guilty than others.
If Christianity is true, murder is not wrong because it promotes misery and suffering, it's wrong because god says so. This is arbitrary and subjective. It certainly is not an objective moral system.
> -- If
> Christianity is true, then both Nazis and Jews
> alike were already under death sentences for their
> sins.
If true, then that worldview is inconsistent, as it says that god is just. It is not just to punish someone for someone else's wrong doing.
> -- We never talk about the fact that Jewish
> child molesters and murderers were put to death
> before their normal life span, along with less
> guilty children and ordinary citizens. --
> Similarly, we ignore the fact that the judge,
> jury, warden, and prison guards have also received
> death sentences -- not just the criminal strapped
> to the gurney for the lethal injection. -- We tend
> to live our lives as if we were Roger Rabbit
> 'toons' ... immortal ... except when exposed to
> the dread acetone 'dip' in the form of a Holocaust
> or a murder.
> -- Contemporary television is absolutely obsessed
> with death and murder. Bones, Criminal Minds, CSI,
> Dateline, Desperate Housewives, Ghost Whisperer,
> Law and Order, Medium, 20/20.
....So?
> -- Christianity at least offers explanations for
> our existence and our death sentences ...
What is that explanation? What you've stated so far doesn't make any sense.
> Intelligent Design coupled with true moral
> guilt.-- Contemporary reductionist materialism can
> wax poetic like Loren Eiseley, but it really has
> nothing authoritative to say about either birth or
> death.
That depends on how you define 'authoritative'. The only difference right now is that god is more powerful, which is a might makes right morality. If god does not exist then morality would depend on the most powerful being/entity in the universe. It could be, for instance, a government that was capable of exerting it's control over all the denizens of the planet.
This is the main problem with your divine morality.
> -- Eiseley's epitaph breaks my heart: "We
> loved the Earth, but could not stay."-- Christians
> have a different epitaph ... this classic (almost
> forgotten) hymn:
> http://www.opc.org/hymn.html?hymn_id=367>; Jesus
> lives, and so shall I. Death! thy sting is gone
> forever! He who deigned for me to die, Lives, the
> bands of death to sever. He shall raise me from
> the dust: Jesus is my Hope and Trust.
While I appreciate that it broke your heart, you really haven't answered my question. I asked why we ought to accept what god says is moral. Why ought we not commit sin. Your answer was that he created us and he can control us. Both of these answers do not follow that we should do what he says/thinks/wants. At best you could argue that we have no choice but to do what he wants. The trouble with this is that if this is the case then no one could logically sin. Since sin supposedly happens, this cannot be the case.
So I ask you again, why ought we do what god wants us to do?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asks: "Why 'ought' we do such and such?
> Because god says so? Why ought we listen to god?
> "
> "I've been critical on god-centered notions of
> morality because I do not believe that appealing
> to god answers anything. It seems to me that when
> one wants warrant for believing that the holocaust
> was wrong, appealing to god is not the correct way
> to do it. This is because when you appeal to god,
> what you are actually saying is that what is wrong
> is not the innocent suffering of millions of
> people, but that disobeying what god wants is
> wrong."
>
> Notes and asides from Ness: Make no mistake
> about it, I profoundly dislike some things that
> the Bible clearly presents:
First I am glad that it appears you are going to respond to this, so I have to tip my hat.
> ** that Satan was left in authority over creation
> after he rebelled against God, rather than being
> immediately disenfranchised,
I'm not sure the bible supports this - well, at least the old testament, anyway. It seems to me that there is an incongruenty (sp?) between the two - most likely from the helenization of Judaism during Roman rule.
> ** that the first man & woman were allowed to
> multiply after they too rebelled against God,
> rather than being immediately disenfranchised,
I'm not sure it can be said that the first man and woman rebelled against god. In order to rebell it seems to me that you would have to know that doing what you are not supposed to is wrong. Adam and Eve did not know disobeying God was wrong, so I don't think it can fairly be said that they rebelled against God.
> ** that unforgiven men/women are resurrected to
> eternal consciousness and pain after death, rather
> than just being annihilated, **
That sounds contradictory to the notion that God is both merciful and benevolent.
> at 'original
> sin' and its associated moral guilt are
> transmitted by mere descent from Adam, (Hence the
> non-Adamic paternal lineage of Jesus.)
> ** Paul's metaphor in Romans, about the potter and
> the clay, because men are NOT just 'clay' -- they
> feel pain.Christians can say that Men should
> "listen to God" because God (not Satan or Man)
> created and controls the cosmos, and tells the
> truth about it -- because the God of the Bible is
> ultimate reality.
That does not follow logically though. To create something does not give one license over that something - even in Christian thought. If mankind fertilizes an egg then Christians believe that life has been created and mankind does not have the authority to end it.
Further, why ought we listen to god just because he controls the cosmos and tells the truth about it? You are giving me descriptions, not reasons for prescriptions.
> (God's statement "I am that which I am" to Moses,
> [אהיה
> אשר
> אהיה, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh"]
> is one of the most profound philosophical
> statements in the Bible.)If Christianity did NOT
> contain the Cross, why would we feel anything
> except rage against God for having created at all,
> and for allowing that creation to continue under a
> terrible curse?Even with the Cross, Christians
> have to hurt as well as rejoice.
I don't see the cross as changing anything logically. There was no reason to to allow creation to be cursed and no reason it should be cursed. It seems as though your explanation is that god/bible convinced us that we are worthless and we should be thankful for being worthless.
Why believe that though? Why should we believe what god thinks about our worth?
> (Fran Schaeffer
> had this visible 'hurt' all the time when dealing
> with non-Christians, I think, because his emotions
> were very near the surface and because he believed
> what God had said about Hell ... and because he
> felt bound to push them toward their impersonal
> cosmology's inherent Nihilism.)I see the bottom
> line issue being the Bible's clear picture of the
> absolute sovereignty of God (something that Lon
> Solomon, like Charles Spurgeon, preaches about
> without compromise).God says that he completely
> controls history and yet finite, created Men (and
> angels) have moral significance and
> accountability.
So you don't believe in free will?
In any event, you still aren't answering the 'ought' question. Why do we have moral significance - because god controls history? That's another non-sequitur. I could say we have moral significance because we exist and logically I'd be on equal ground with you.
> If you or I were making up a
> religion, we would almost certainly not put things
> that way.
Why not? Other religions prior to Christianity did and religions after Christianity did.
> Nor would we fabricate a God who is
> "Love" and yet exhibits never-ending "Wrath."--
Why not? Again, there is evidence to the contrary of this.
> If Christianity is true, then although the
> Holocaust was murder, no-one involved, Nazi or
> Jew, was truly innocent ... though some are
> clearly more guilty than others.
If Christianity is true, murder is not wrong because it promotes misery and suffering, it's wrong because god says so. This is arbitrary and subjective. It certainly is not an objective moral system.
> -- If
> Christianity is true, then both Nazis and Jews
> alike were already under death sentences for their
> sins.
If true, then that worldview is inconsistent, as it says that god is just. It is not just to punish someone for someone else's wrong doing.
> -- We never talk about the fact that Jewish
> child molesters and murderers were put to death
> before their normal life span, along with less
> guilty children and ordinary citizens. --
> Similarly, we ignore the fact that the judge,
> jury, warden, and prison guards have also received
> death sentences -- not just the criminal strapped
> to the gurney for the lethal injection. -- We tend
> to live our lives as if we were Roger Rabbit
> 'toons' ... immortal ... except when exposed to
> the dread acetone 'dip' in the form of a Holocaust
> or a murder.
> -- Contemporary television is absolutely obsessed
> with death and murder. Bones, Criminal Minds, CSI,
> Dateline, Desperate Housewives, Ghost Whisperer,
> Law and Order, Medium, 20/20.
....So?
> -- Christianity at least offers explanations for
> our existence and our death sentences ...
What is that explanation? What you've stated so far doesn't make any sense.
> Intelligent Design coupled with true moral
> guilt.-- Contemporary reductionist materialism can
> wax poetic like Loren Eiseley, but it really has
> nothing authoritative to say about either birth or
> death.
That depends on how you define 'authoritative'. The only difference right now is that god is more powerful, which is a might makes right morality. If god does not exist then morality would depend on the most powerful being/entity in the universe. It could be, for instance, a government that was capable of exerting it's control over all the denizens of the planet.
This is the main problem with your divine morality.
> -- Eiseley's epitaph breaks my heart: "We
> loved the Earth, but could not stay."-- Christians
> have a different epitaph ... this classic (almost
> forgotten) hymn:
> http://www.opc.org/hymn.html?hymn_id=367>; Jesus
> lives, and so shall I. Death! thy sting is gone
> forever! He who deigned for me to die, Lives, the
> bands of death to sever. He shall raise me from
> the dust: Jesus is my Hope and Trust.
While I appreciate that it broke your heart, you really haven't answered my question. I asked why we ought to accept what god says is moral. Why ought we not commit sin. Your answer was that he created us and he can control us. Both of these answers do not follow that we should do what he says/thinks/wants. At best you could argue that we have no choice but to do what he wants. The trouble with this is that if this is the case then no one could logically sin. Since sin supposedly happens, this cannot be the case.
So I ask you again, why ought we do what god wants us to do?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 22, 2009 12:21PM
To make my last post more efficient I thought I'd repost two of the important points that I think you need to address Eliot (of course if you want to address the others, then I'd be happy to read them).
1. I do not think it can be said that Adam and Eve 'rebelled' against God. If they can be said to have rebelled I do not think it's fair to punish them (and by extension mankind) for that rebellion. In order to rebell it seems to me that you would have to know that doing what you are not supposed to is wrong. Adam and Eve did not know disobeying God was wrong, so I don't think it can fairly be said that they rebelled against God.
2. Why ought we do what God says? Why ought we not commit sin. Your answer was that he created us and he can control us. Both of these answers do not follow that we should do what he says/thinks/wants - why do we care whether he created us or controls us? At best you could argue that we have no choice but to do what he wants. The trouble with this is that if this is the case then no one could logically sin. Since sin supposedly happens, this cannot be the case. It also seemed as though power lead to authority. That depends on how you define 'authoritative'. The only difference right now is that god is more powerful, which is a might makes right morality. If god does not exist then it seems to me that morality would depend on the most powerful being/entity in the universe. It could be, for instance, a government that was capable of exerting it's control over all the denizens of the planet. If it's power that is the reason for following God's demands, then ought we also follow those who are more powerful then us? It seems to me that would be the case.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2009 03:25PM by Professor Pangloss.
1. I do not think it can be said that Adam and Eve 'rebelled' against God. If they can be said to have rebelled I do not think it's fair to punish them (and by extension mankind) for that rebellion. In order to rebell it seems to me that you would have to know that doing what you are not supposed to is wrong. Adam and Eve did not know disobeying God was wrong, so I don't think it can fairly be said that they rebelled against God.
2. Why ought we do what God says? Why ought we not commit sin. Your answer was that he created us and he can control us. Both of these answers do not follow that we should do what he says/thinks/wants - why do we care whether he created us or controls us? At best you could argue that we have no choice but to do what he wants. The trouble with this is that if this is the case then no one could logically sin. Since sin supposedly happens, this cannot be the case. It also seemed as though power lead to authority. That depends on how you define 'authoritative'. The only difference right now is that god is more powerful, which is a might makes right morality. If god does not exist then it seems to me that morality would depend on the most powerful being/entity in the universe. It could be, for instance, a government that was capable of exerting it's control over all the denizens of the planet. If it's power that is the reason for following God's demands, then ought we also follow those who are more powerful then us? It seems to me that would be the case.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2009 03:25PM by Professor Pangloss.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
bump
()
Date: February 23, 2009 06:20AM
BUMP... this shit is too interesting to not be at the top of the boards
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 23, 2009 07:18AM
| Nutters wrote: "It's easy to argue that the civil lot of the average American has improved as religion's hold has weakened. I'm sure that the vast majority of 19th C slave-owners were god-fearing Christians attending fire and brimstone sermons every weekend." |
| Ness asks: You have stated on this bulletin board that there is no "absolute objective morality" ... so why do you preach against slavery except as a matter of personal preference? |
| You are slandering Christians with respect to slavery. |
| There was a strong Christian abolitionist tradition that opposed slavery going back before even the Constitution. N.B. that the slave states were not allowed to have full census representation ... the non-slave states allowed them only 3/5th of a 'person' for each slave. |
| Christians can truly regard all men as created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. What can 'Darwinians' say about "rights?" |
| What can a 'Darwinian' say? ... except that "We all share a common male ancestor of 60,000 years ago and a common female ancestor of 140,000 years ago ... and I personally don't like slavery ... so you shouldn't either." |
| Paul, in the New Testament, told Christian slaves and Christian slave owners to love each other because they all serve Christ, even within the then-common cultural context of slavery. (See his letter to Philemon. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=64&chapter=1&version=31 ) |
| Indeed, Paul referred to himself as a "slave of Jesus Christ." Former brutal slave trader John Newton became a Christian and wrote "Amazing Grace." Here is Newton's epitaph: "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." |
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2009 07:20AM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 23, 2009 08:05AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Christians can truly regard all men as
> created equal and endowed by their Creator with
> certain unalienable rights.
Not to butt into your conversation with Nutters, but I don't think the above is true and I would like you to back up this statement. It seems to me that in the bible women are most certainly not the equals of men (men are the godhead) and this is brought up in both the old testament and new testament. Is this why you said 'all men as created equal' as opposed to 'all people'?
Further the bible doesn't seem to suggest that everyone is created equal - it says stuff like 'do not suffer a witch to live', and takes pains to suggest that unbelievers be stoned. I could go on, but I want to know where you are getting this from.
It's clear that Isrealites are favored above all people: Exodus 19:5
"Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:"
2 Corinthians 6:14
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? "
> What can 'Darwinians'
> say about "rights?"What can a 'Darwinian' say? ...
Darwinism is not a worldview, therefore your question doesn't make any sense. Humanists (an atheist worldview) could say that all people have rights. Objectivists (another atheist worldview) could also say that all people have rights.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Christians can truly regard all men as
> created equal and endowed by their Creator with
> certain unalienable rights.
Not to butt into your conversation with Nutters, but I don't think the above is true and I would like you to back up this statement. It seems to me that in the bible women are most certainly not the equals of men (men are the godhead) and this is brought up in both the old testament and new testament. Is this why you said 'all men as created equal' as opposed to 'all people'?
Further the bible doesn't seem to suggest that everyone is created equal - it says stuff like 'do not suffer a witch to live', and takes pains to suggest that unbelievers be stoned. I could go on, but I want to know where you are getting this from.
It's clear that Isrealites are favored above all people: Exodus 19:5
"Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:"
2 Corinthians 6:14
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? "
> What can 'Darwinians'
> say about "rights?"What can a 'Darwinian' say? ...
Darwinism is not a worldview, therefore your question doesn't make any sense. Humanists (an atheist worldview) could say that all people have rights. Objectivists (another atheist worldview) could also say that all people have rights.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 23, 2009 08:50AM
| Vince(1) wrote: "Eliot..you must be a lot of fun at a party!" |
| My family has a perverse sense of humor [indeed, one of my brothers used to write for the Harvard Lampoon], but this forum isn't a party. It's a discussion of hugely significant issues, and an inappropriate forum for some of the sarcasm in evidence. |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 23, 2009 08:57AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) wrote: "Eliot..you must be a lot of fun
> at a party!" My family has a perverse sense of
> humor , but this forum isn't a party. It's a
> discussion of hugely significant issues, and an
> inappropriate forum for some of the sarcasm in
> evidence.
This is interesting Eliot, because if we accept what you say as true, then this discussion is only hugely significant to you. To us it would be no more significant then walking to the store.
I'm not picking on you or anything, I just found that kind of ironic.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) wrote: "Eliot..you must be a lot of fun
> at a party!" My family has a perverse sense of
> humor , but this forum isn't a party. It's a
> discussion of hugely significant issues, and an
> inappropriate forum for some of the sarcasm in
> evidence.
This is interesting Eliot, because if we accept what you say as true, then this discussion is only hugely significant to you. To us it would be no more significant then walking to the store.
I'm not picking on you or anything, I just found that kind of ironic.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 23, 2009 09:21AM
| Pangloss wrote: "Darwinism is not a worldview." |
| Ness notes: The latest issue of Discover magazine positively drools over Darwinism, even offering adaptive explanations for art and religion. Darwinism has in fact become a 'world-view' whose underlying vibe is the 'uncreatedness' of the cosmos. |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 23, 2009 09:26AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: "Darwinism is not a
> worldview."Ness notes: The latest issue of
> Discover magazine positively drools over
> Darwinism, even offering adaptive explanations for
> art and religion. Darwinism has in fact become a
> 'world-view' whose underlying vibe is the
> 'uncreatedness' of the cosmos.
You are equivocating Eliot. They are talking about descriptive processes for art and religion. They are not suggesting a worldview. Just because someone uses the term darwinism doesn't mean they are talking about a substantial worldview.
You might conflate naturalism with darwinism, as might others, but that doesn't make it a coherent worldview. As I said, atheists and scientists have many worldviews to choose from. By attacking 'darwinism' you are attacking a strawman since it's really not well defined.
Are darwinists physicalists? are they substance dualists? do they accept free will? Objective or subjective morals? Do they accept evolution? Evo-devo? Saltation? Punctuated equilibrium? The modern synthesis?
The label 'darwinist' is an attempted smear by the intelligent design crowd. What scientists, and particularly Dawkins, is trying to do is similar to what homosexuals did with the term 'gay'. They are doing this for the term 'atheist' as well.
My point is that unless someone here is an admitted 'darwinist', then you aren't actually arguing with anyone and this should be important to someone who expressed an interest in improving the level of discussion going on here.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: "Darwinism is not a
> worldview."Ness notes: The latest issue of
> Discover magazine positively drools over
> Darwinism, even offering adaptive explanations for
> art and religion. Darwinism has in fact become a
> 'world-view' whose underlying vibe is the
> 'uncreatedness' of the cosmos.
You are equivocating Eliot. They are talking about descriptive processes for art and religion. They are not suggesting a worldview. Just because someone uses the term darwinism doesn't mean they are talking about a substantial worldview.
You might conflate naturalism with darwinism, as might others, but that doesn't make it a coherent worldview. As I said, atheists and scientists have many worldviews to choose from. By attacking 'darwinism' you are attacking a strawman since it's really not well defined.
Are darwinists physicalists? are they substance dualists? do they accept free will? Objective or subjective morals? Do they accept evolution? Evo-devo? Saltation? Punctuated equilibrium? The modern synthesis?
The label 'darwinist' is an attempted smear by the intelligent design crowd. What scientists, and particularly Dawkins, is trying to do is similar to what homosexuals did with the term 'gay'. They are doing this for the term 'atheist' as well.
My point is that unless someone here is an admitted 'darwinist', then you aren't actually arguing with anyone and this should be important to someone who expressed an interest in improving the level of discussion going on here.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 23, 2009 09:29AM
| Pangloss stated: "The bible doesn't seem to suggest that everyone is created equal - it says stuff like 'do not suffer a witch to live', and takes pains to suggest that unbelievers be stoned. |
| Ness notes: You are talking about the Old Testament Israeli covenant theocracy. We do not live under that theocracy; it ceased to exist at the Crucifixion. (Indeed, to a large degree it had ceased to exist under Roman rule -- hence the Jews took Jesus to Pilate for execution.) |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 23, 2009 09:35AM
Pangloss ... the 'Man on the Street' is a naive 'Darwinist' who has not a clue what 'Eco-devo' means. Like it or not, 'Darwinism' is our contemporary secular religion. The 'Origin of Species' in the past is popularly understood to be a God-free happenstance from impersonal matter/energy in a mysterious 'Big Bang' The ultimate fate of the universe is popularly understood be a 'Big Chill' despite the current hysteria about allegedly man-made 'global warming.'
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 23, 2009 09:56AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss stated: "The bible doesn't seem to
> suggest that everyone is created equal - it says
> stuff like 'do not suffer a witch to live', and
> takes pains to suggest that unbelievers be
> stoned.Ness notes: You are talking about the Old
> Testament Israeli covenant theocracy. We do not
> live under that theocracy; it ceased to exist at
> the Crucifixion. (Indeed, to a large degree it had
> ceased to exist under Roman rule -- hence the Jews
> took Jesus to Pilate for execution.)
It's very interesting that you left off the new testament quotes that I included...Very telling. In any event, my point still stands as the new testament is rife with inequalities.
What you are doing is picking and choosing what you want to believe. There is no evidence to suggest that God changed his mind between the testaments - in fact, Jesus states very unequivocally that he did not come to change the law.
The new testament even goes so far to say that every male is holy - but there's no mention of females:
Luke 2:23 "(As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)"
This one certainly suggests inequality between men and women:
"1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
Here's another:
"1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. "
Also, all throughout the new testament, the Jews are blamed for a whole manner of things - including the killing of Jesus. This is clear racism if you ask me.
Romans actually goes so far as to suggest shunning those who do not believe as you do.
"16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
And of course there's 2 Corinthians
"6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? "
On a side note, and this goes back to the self refuting nature of presuppositionalist apologetics, how do you know that what you believe is the truth?
The reason I ask is because of passages such as 2 Thessalonians 2:11
"2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: "
Afterall, what if Satan has convinced you that your version of Christianity is correct, when in reality it's anathema to what God wants?
You don't and since you can't trust your reason, you are in a catch-22.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss stated: "The bible doesn't seem to
> suggest that everyone is created equal - it says
> stuff like 'do not suffer a witch to live', and
> takes pains to suggest that unbelievers be
> stoned.Ness notes: You are talking about the Old
> Testament Israeli covenant theocracy. We do not
> live under that theocracy; it ceased to exist at
> the Crucifixion. (Indeed, to a large degree it had
> ceased to exist under Roman rule -- hence the Jews
> took Jesus to Pilate for execution.)
It's very interesting that you left off the new testament quotes that I included...Very telling. In any event, my point still stands as the new testament is rife with inequalities.
What you are doing is picking and choosing what you want to believe. There is no evidence to suggest that God changed his mind between the testaments - in fact, Jesus states very unequivocally that he did not come to change the law.
The new testament even goes so far to say that every male is holy - but there's no mention of females:
Luke 2:23 "(As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)"
This one certainly suggests inequality between men and women:
"1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
Here's another:
"1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. "
Also, all throughout the new testament, the Jews are blamed for a whole manner of things - including the killing of Jesus. This is clear racism if you ask me.
Romans actually goes so far as to suggest shunning those who do not believe as you do.
"16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
And of course there's 2 Corinthians
"6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? "
On a side note, and this goes back to the self refuting nature of presuppositionalist apologetics, how do you know that what you believe is the truth?
The reason I ask is because of passages such as 2 Thessalonians 2:11
"2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: "
Afterall, what if Satan has convinced you that your version of Christianity is correct, when in reality it's anathema to what God wants?
You don't and since you can't trust your reason, you are in a catch-22.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 23, 2009 10:08AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss ... the 'Man on the Street' is a naive
> 'Darwinist' who has not a clue what 'Eco-devo'
> means.
1. It's *evo-devo*, which stands for evolutionary development, which is an exciting area of research in biology right now.
2. I would disagree with you about the man on the street, since the majority of people on the street are either intelligent design advocates or young earth creationists - at least the streets of america. The studies I have read suggest that only a small fraction of people accept evolution as it *is* and a smaller fraction accept no divinity at all.
> Like it or not, 'Darwinism' is our
> contemporary secular religion.
The problem with this is that it's meaningless. I literally don't know what you mean by this - which is what the ID advocates want, because it's a catch all that they can denigrate.
We should all be as accurate as possible in our communication and just because the common man often isn't, isn't an excuse for us not to be.
> The 'Origin of
> Species' in the past is popularly understood to be
> a God-free happenstance from impersonal
> matter/energy in a mysterious 'Big Bang' The
> ultimate fate of the universe is popularly
> understood be a 'Big Chill' despite the current
> hysteria about allegedly man-made 'global
> warming.'
I disagree since Darwin made pains to integrate a 'creator' in the last paragraph of the book. Further, he does not mention cosmology nor morality.
In short, it's inaccurate and muddles the issues when you bring up 'darwinism'. It's not a very philosophical thing to do and it's not one that premotes a clear exchange of ideas. This is also why I continue to ask you to back up your statements about the nature of the universe (ie, the value of meaning and all that). As I've said, I'm an absurdist, so I can certainly sympathize with your viewpoint - but I will not just grant it. Positions should be argued for. This is what Socrates found out thousands of years ago.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss ... the 'Man on the Street' is a naive
> 'Darwinist' who has not a clue what 'Eco-devo'
> means.
1. It's *evo-devo*, which stands for evolutionary development, which is an exciting area of research in biology right now.
2. I would disagree with you about the man on the street, since the majority of people on the street are either intelligent design advocates or young earth creationists - at least the streets of america. The studies I have read suggest that only a small fraction of people accept evolution as it *is* and a smaller fraction accept no divinity at all.
> Like it or not, 'Darwinism' is our
> contemporary secular religion.
The problem with this is that it's meaningless. I literally don't know what you mean by this - which is what the ID advocates want, because it's a catch all that they can denigrate.
We should all be as accurate as possible in our communication and just because the common man often isn't, isn't an excuse for us not to be.
> The 'Origin of
> Species' in the past is popularly understood to be
> a God-free happenstance from impersonal
> matter/energy in a mysterious 'Big Bang' The
> ultimate fate of the universe is popularly
> understood be a 'Big Chill' despite the current
> hysteria about allegedly man-made 'global
> warming.'
I disagree since Darwin made pains to integrate a 'creator' in the last paragraph of the book. Further, he does not mention cosmology nor morality.
In short, it's inaccurate and muddles the issues when you bring up 'darwinism'. It's not a very philosophical thing to do and it's not one that premotes a clear exchange of ideas. This is also why I continue to ask you to back up your statements about the nature of the universe (ie, the value of meaning and all that). As I've said, I'm an absurdist, so I can certainly sympathize with your viewpoint - but I will not just grant it. Positions should be argued for. This is what Socrates found out thousands of years ago.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 23, 2009 03:41PM
Pangloss, Clearly women are excluded from some NT church offices (such as elder). And the Apostles were all men (though Jesus had a substantial number of female friends throughout the NT). So what if women are not 'equal' in every respect to men? In Genesis, God subordinates Eve to Adam immediately after the Fall, because she had been deceived and then enticed him. So what?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 23, 2009 03:46PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, Clearly women are excluded from some NT
> church offices (such as elder). And the Apostles
> were all men (though Jesus had a substantial
> number of female friends throughout the NT). So
> what if women are not 'equal' in every respect to
> men? In Genesis, God subordinates Eve to Adam
> immediately after the Fall, because she had been
> deceived and then enticed him. So what?
Women and Jews you mean. So I was correct - your claim that all MEN are created equal. Women aren't. By implication, we should treat them as property (as the old testament certianly does and the new testament implies).
As to 'so what'...Are you serious?
You are sitting here touting how morally superior Christianity is, when it's patently obvious how misogynistic it is! Not to mention how racist it is - blaming *all* Jews for the murder of Jesus.
You keep making these claims and I'll show you that you are wrong and now you are downplaying it?
Unbelievable.
Whatever, this was an issue between you and Nutters. I'm still interested in our first conversation - the one about morality. So if you'd please, address the issues on the table:
___________
To make my last post more efficient I thought I'd repost two of the important points that I think you need to address Eliot (of course if you want to address the others, then I'd be happy to read them).
1. I do not think it can be said that Adam and Eve 'rebelled' against God. If they can be said to have rebelled I do not think it's fair to punish them (and by extension mankind) for that rebellion. In order to rebell it seems to me that you would have to know that doing what you are not supposed to is wrong. Adam and Eve did not know disobeying God was wrong, so I don't think it can fairly be said that they rebelled against God.
2. Why ought we do what God says? Why ought we not commit sin. Your answer was that he created us and he can control us. Both of these answers do not follow that we should do what he says/thinks/wants - why do we care whether he created us or controls us? At best you could argue that we have no choice but to do what he wants. The trouble with this is that if this is the case then no one could logically sin. Since sin supposedly happens, this cannot be the case. It also seemed as though power lead to authority. That depends on how you define 'authoritative'. The only difference right now is that god is more powerful, which is a might makes right morality. If god does not exist then it seems to me that morality would depend on the most powerful being/entity in the universe. It could be, for instance, a government that was capable of exerting it's control over all the denizens of the planet. If it's power that is the reason for following God's demands, then ought we also follow those who are more powerful then us? It seems to me that would be the case.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, Clearly women are excluded from some NT
> church offices (such as elder). And the Apostles
> were all men (though Jesus had a substantial
> number of female friends throughout the NT). So
> what if women are not 'equal' in every respect to
> men? In Genesis, God subordinates Eve to Adam
> immediately after the Fall, because she had been
> deceived and then enticed him. So what?
Women and Jews you mean. So I was correct - your claim that all MEN are created equal. Women aren't. By implication, we should treat them as property (as the old testament certianly does and the new testament implies).
As to 'so what'...Are you serious?
You are sitting here touting how morally superior Christianity is, when it's patently obvious how misogynistic it is! Not to mention how racist it is - blaming *all* Jews for the murder of Jesus.
You keep making these claims and I'll show you that you are wrong and now you are downplaying it?
Unbelievable.
Whatever, this was an issue between you and Nutters. I'm still interested in our first conversation - the one about morality. So if you'd please, address the issues on the table:
___________
To make my last post more efficient I thought I'd repost two of the important points that I think you need to address Eliot (of course if you want to address the others, then I'd be happy to read them).
1. I do not think it can be said that Adam and Eve 'rebelled' against God. If they can be said to have rebelled I do not think it's fair to punish them (and by extension mankind) for that rebellion. In order to rebell it seems to me that you would have to know that doing what you are not supposed to is wrong. Adam and Eve did not know disobeying God was wrong, so I don't think it can fairly be said that they rebelled against God.
2. Why ought we do what God says? Why ought we not commit sin. Your answer was that he created us and he can control us. Both of these answers do not follow that we should do what he says/thinks/wants - why do we care whether he created us or controls us? At best you could argue that we have no choice but to do what he wants. The trouble with this is that if this is the case then no one could logically sin. Since sin supposedly happens, this cannot be the case. It also seemed as though power lead to authority. That depends on how you define 'authoritative'. The only difference right now is that god is more powerful, which is a might makes right morality. If god does not exist then it seems to me that morality would depend on the most powerful being/entity in the universe. It could be, for instance, a government that was capable of exerting it's control over all the denizens of the planet. If it's power that is the reason for following God's demands, then ought we also follow those who are more powerful then us? It seems to me that would be the case.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 23, 2009 03:59PM
| Pangloss write: "... all throughout the new testament, the Jews are blamed for a whole manner of things - including the killing of Jesus. This is clear racism if you ask me." |
| Racist? The New Testament clearly states that the Jewish religious leadership of Jesus' time did indeed engineer the killing of Jesus. And they paid for it dearly when Jerusalem was was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. |
| The New Testament is just the opposite of 'racist' ... after all, God sends the Apostles throughout the world to preach to the Gentiles, where God had previously privileged the Jews. |
| By the way, why are you opposed to 'racism?' Is it your residual Christian morality? |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 23, 2009 04:16PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss write: "... all throughout the new
> testament, the Jews are blamed for a whole manner
> of things - including the killing of Jesus. This
> is clear racism if you ask me."Racist? The New
> Testament clearly states that the Jewish religious
> leadership of Jesus' time did indeed engineer the
> killing of Jesus.
So because the Jewish leadership killed Jesus ALL jews are to blame?
> And they paid for it dearly when
> Jerusalem was was destroyed by the Romans in 70
> A.D.The New Testament is just the opposite of
> 'racist' ... after all, God sends the Apostles
> throughout the world to preach to the Gentiles,
> where God had previously privileged the Jews.
Next you'll be telling me that it's not sexist either. It's there in black and white for you to read.
> By
> the way, why are you opposed to 'racism?' Is it
> your residual Christian morality?
I am opposed to racism because it promotes unnecessary harm. If I had residual christian morality that would encourage racism, not discourage it. It would also encourage sexism among other things.
Again, I'll repeat:
Whatever, this was an issue between you and Nutters. I'm still interested in our first conversation - the one about morality. So if you'd please, address the issues on the table:
___________
To make my last post more efficient I thought I'd repost two of the important points that I think you need to address Eliot (of course if you want to address the others, then I'd be happy to read them).
1. I do not think it can be said that Adam and Eve 'rebelled' against God. If they can be said to have rebelled I do not think it's fair to punish them (and by extension mankind) for that rebellion. In order to rebell it seems to me that you would have to know that doing what you are not supposed to is wrong. Adam and Eve did not know disobeying God was wrong, so I don't think it can fairly be said that they rebelled against God.
2. Why ought we do what God says? Why ought we not commit sin. Your answer was that he created us and he can control us. Both of these answers do not follow that we should do what he says/thinks/wants - why do we care whether he created us or controls us? At best you could argue that we have no choice but to do what he wants. The trouble with this is that if this is the case then no one could logically sin. Since sin supposedly happens, this cannot be the case. It also seemed as though power lead to authority. That depends on how you define 'authoritative'. The only difference right now is that god is more powerful, which is a might makes right morality. If god does not exist then it seems to me that morality would depend on the most powerful being/entity in the universe. It could be, for instance, a government that was capable of exerting it's control over all the denizens of the planet. If it's power that is the reason for following God's demands, then ought we also follow those who are more powerful then us? It seems to me that would be the case.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss write: "... all throughout the new
> testament, the Jews are blamed for a whole manner
> of things - including the killing of Jesus. This
> is clear racism if you ask me."Racist? The New
> Testament clearly states that the Jewish religious
> leadership of Jesus' time did indeed engineer the
> killing of Jesus.
So because the Jewish leadership killed Jesus ALL jews are to blame?
> And they paid for it dearly when
> Jerusalem was was destroyed by the Romans in 70
> A.D.The New Testament is just the opposite of
> 'racist' ... after all, God sends the Apostles
> throughout the world to preach to the Gentiles,
> where God had previously privileged the Jews.
Next you'll be telling me that it's not sexist either. It's there in black and white for you to read.
> By
> the way, why are you opposed to 'racism?' Is it
> your residual Christian morality?
I am opposed to racism because it promotes unnecessary harm. If I had residual christian morality that would encourage racism, not discourage it. It would also encourage sexism among other things.
Again, I'll repeat:
Whatever, this was an issue between you and Nutters. I'm still interested in our first conversation - the one about morality. So if you'd please, address the issues on the table:
___________
To make my last post more efficient I thought I'd repost two of the important points that I think you need to address Eliot (of course if you want to address the others, then I'd be happy to read them).
1. I do not think it can be said that Adam and Eve 'rebelled' against God. If they can be said to have rebelled I do not think it's fair to punish them (and by extension mankind) for that rebellion. In order to rebell it seems to me that you would have to know that doing what you are not supposed to is wrong. Adam and Eve did not know disobeying God was wrong, so I don't think it can fairly be said that they rebelled against God.
2. Why ought we do what God says? Why ought we not commit sin. Your answer was that he created us and he can control us. Both of these answers do not follow that we should do what he says/thinks/wants - why do we care whether he created us or controls us? At best you could argue that we have no choice but to do what he wants. The trouble with this is that if this is the case then no one could logically sin. Since sin supposedly happens, this cannot be the case. It also seemed as though power lead to authority. That depends on how you define 'authoritative'. The only difference right now is that god is more powerful, which is a might makes right morality. If god does not exist then it seems to me that morality would depend on the most powerful being/entity in the universe. It could be, for instance, a government that was capable of exerting it's control over all the denizens of the planet. If it's power that is the reason for following God's demands, then ought we also follow those who are more powerful then us? It seems to me that would be the case.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 23, 2009 04:40PM
While I'm waiting for you to answer those two questions Eliot, I thought I'd acquaint you with what is known as "The Joshua Challenge". I wrote this a while ago and I had a variety of sources (it's not original with me, although this particular spin was written by me):
__________
The Joshua Challenge
When I was a Christian I read the New Testament far more often then I read the Old Testament. It seemed to address me more and be more concerned with my frames of reference and I guess it also seemed more important.
In fact, it was only when I sat down and decided to read the entire Bible that I stumbled across another reason to prefer the New Testament-that being, the God of the Old Testament is a horrible God and the morality expressed by that God is of a type that I would hope no one today lives by. Recently, I read a few posts by a poster with the username "Badbadbad", on the Internet Infidel's Message Board. What materialized from Badbadbad's posting was a challenge to Christians-a challenge called the 'Joshua Challenge'. Its purpose is to question Christians about their beliefs-in an emotional context. To see whether they would accept God's word and commit brutality or if they would succumb to some other moral standard.
The challenge is preceded by a few questions:
1. Are humans loathsome and evil-including babies?
2. Due to human wickedness, would God be justified in killing both adult and child?
3. If the answer to the previous two questions was 'yes', do you think you could carry out this slaughtering?
Biblically speaking, the answers to those three questions would and should be 'yes'.
To move on and get to the meat of the Joshua Challenge now:
Let's pretend for a second that you are part of Joshua's army. You might want to reread the book of Joshua to get a better glimpse of what that would be like. In any event, you live in the time of miracles. Your people are the chosen people of God. God has continually worked his will to help and harm your people. You grew up with stories of God flooding the earth, while sparing Noah, and stories of God helping Moses get his people away from the Pharaoh.
God has even helped your commander-Joshua-with his conquests of the ancient world (or through your eyes-the present).
In the midst of one of these conquests, you are standing with Joshua and his army. They have just defeated the male warriors of the Amorites and started to destroy their town. They are mercilessly slaughtering the remaining villagers, the women and children. Some of the Amorites are still resisting, but most are begging for their life. All of Amorites are terrified at the unwelcomed and impossible to stop prospect to come. Joshua, as ordered by God, shows no mercy to any of them. He kills husband, wife, brother and sister all in the name of God. The Amorite villagers plead and cry with Joshua, to spare their lives. They beg for the life of their children, all to no avail.
So finally Joshua comes to you, drenched in blood, and he hands you his sword. He points to a remaining Amorite child. A three year old, who has just witnessed the butchering of his father, his brothers and sisters. He's watched through tears as Joshua dismembered his relatives. He cries while he watches you walk over to him, with Joshua's sword still drenched in blood. His eyes shift to his mother, who is still alive for the moment. She can not help him, although she's begging for his life. Save him and take her life, she pleads. The child is pleading with you as well and begging with you for his life. His face is twisted in horror. He says he doesn't want to be an Amorite anymore and that he won't be bad-he promises.
So what do you do?
Do you:
1. Refuse to kill the child and stop Joshua from killing the child? Will you risk your life for the three year old?
2. Summon the faith and courage to hack the child to death. Either quickly or slowly, depending on how much vengeance you feel God needs satisfied.
3. Refuse to kill the child and let either Joshua or another soldier do it.
4. Refuse to believe that Joshua speaks for God-be prepared to have enough courage to sacrifice yourself to stop Joshua.
Would you kill this child that's begging, crying, and pleading with you? Yes or no?
I, just like the person I've summarized this challenge from (badbadbad), would say no.
That's the Joshua Challenge.
__________
The Joshua Challenge
When I was a Christian I read the New Testament far more often then I read the Old Testament. It seemed to address me more and be more concerned with my frames of reference and I guess it also seemed more important.
In fact, it was only when I sat down and decided to read the entire Bible that I stumbled across another reason to prefer the New Testament-that being, the God of the Old Testament is a horrible God and the morality expressed by that God is of a type that I would hope no one today lives by. Recently, I read a few posts by a poster with the username "Badbadbad", on the Internet Infidel's Message Board. What materialized from Badbadbad's posting was a challenge to Christians-a challenge called the 'Joshua Challenge'. Its purpose is to question Christians about their beliefs-in an emotional context. To see whether they would accept God's word and commit brutality or if they would succumb to some other moral standard.
The challenge is preceded by a few questions:
1. Are humans loathsome and evil-including babies?
2. Due to human wickedness, would God be justified in killing both adult and child?
3. If the answer to the previous two questions was 'yes', do you think you could carry out this slaughtering?
Biblically speaking, the answers to those three questions would and should be 'yes'.
To move on and get to the meat of the Joshua Challenge now:
Let's pretend for a second that you are part of Joshua's army. You might want to reread the book of Joshua to get a better glimpse of what that would be like. In any event, you live in the time of miracles. Your people are the chosen people of God. God has continually worked his will to help and harm your people. You grew up with stories of God flooding the earth, while sparing Noah, and stories of God helping Moses get his people away from the Pharaoh.
God has even helped your commander-Joshua-with his conquests of the ancient world (or through your eyes-the present).
In the midst of one of these conquests, you are standing with Joshua and his army. They have just defeated the male warriors of the Amorites and started to destroy their town. They are mercilessly slaughtering the remaining villagers, the women and children. Some of the Amorites are still resisting, but most are begging for their life. All of Amorites are terrified at the unwelcomed and impossible to stop prospect to come. Joshua, as ordered by God, shows no mercy to any of them. He kills husband, wife, brother and sister all in the name of God. The Amorite villagers plead and cry with Joshua, to spare their lives. They beg for the life of their children, all to no avail.
So finally Joshua comes to you, drenched in blood, and he hands you his sword. He points to a remaining Amorite child. A three year old, who has just witnessed the butchering of his father, his brothers and sisters. He's watched through tears as Joshua dismembered his relatives. He cries while he watches you walk over to him, with Joshua's sword still drenched in blood. His eyes shift to his mother, who is still alive for the moment. She can not help him, although she's begging for his life. Save him and take her life, she pleads. The child is pleading with you as well and begging with you for his life. His face is twisted in horror. He says he doesn't want to be an Amorite anymore and that he won't be bad-he promises.
So what do you do?
Do you:
1. Refuse to kill the child and stop Joshua from killing the child? Will you risk your life for the three year old?
2. Summon the faith and courage to hack the child to death. Either quickly or slowly, depending on how much vengeance you feel God needs satisfied.
3. Refuse to kill the child and let either Joshua or another soldier do it.
4. Refuse to believe that Joshua speaks for God-be prepared to have enough courage to sacrifice yourself to stop Joshua.
Would you kill this child that's begging, crying, and pleading with you? Yes or no?
I, just like the person I've summarized this challenge from (badbadbad), would say no.
That's the Joshua Challenge.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Annon Imous
()
Date: February 23, 2009 05:16PM
14 pages and this thread is still going?
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 23, 2009 09:32PM
Because it fits...
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 25, 2009 02:21PM
| Pangloss, I once asked Lon Solomon about the PTSD aspect of the "Joshua Question" -- having to kill men, women, and children upon God's command -- and his measured response was: "I'm glad I was not born a Hebrew warrior." |
| Certainly, a point-of-contact between 'Darwinists' and Christians is the recognition that we are ALL already under a death sentence.The question is: "Why?" |
| The 'Darwinist' must painfully watch an 'impersonal' universe kill off every living thing -- men, women, children -- for no apparent reason. |
| The Christian must painfully watch the God of the Bible fulfill the curse pronounced in Genesis, after the rebellion: "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." |
| Obviously, you don't like the 'sovereignty of God' that runs clearly through the entire Bible. (Neither, in some respects, do I.) |
| But let me ask you the "Adam Question:" If Joshua's men had not killed those children, would they have lived forever (like the 'toons' in the Roger Rabbit movie)? |
| Point #1: The issue for both 'Darwinists' and Christians, is not whether those children were going to die, but rather when and how those children were going to die. |
| Point #2: As I've said before ... anybody who practices Christianity as a purely 'Happy Face' religion, is living in a dream world. There is much to weep about, and an urgency to missions. (The Apostle Paul is the role model here.) |
| Point #3: Do not confuse saving lives with saving souls. (This is a point overlooked somewhat, I submit, by anti-abortion activists.) |
| Point #4: If Christianity is true,then the cost to Jesus to redeem the soul of even one child, is beyond our imagining. Multiply that by hundreds of millions, or however many will one day be saved by the sacrifice of the Cross, and you have the measure of what God himself paid to satisfy the 'Justice' component of his character. |
| To answer the "Joshua Question" ... the Hebrew warrior at that time, to be honest to his beliefs, had to obey God rather than his own emotional impulses. |
| N.B. that Jesus talks more about Hell and the Wrath of God, than anyone in the Bible, New Testament or Old Testament ... stating repeatedly that his mission was to take that wrath upon himself: "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." |
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2009 02:37PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 25, 2009 02:43PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, I once asked Lon Solomon about the PTSD
> aspect of the "Joshua Question" -- having to kill
> men, women, and children upon God's command -- and
> his measured response was: "I'm glad I was not
> born a Hebrew warrior."
I'm sorry, I'm a bit tired from work and all, but what do you mean by 'PTSD'. It rings familar, but it's not coming into my head.
In any event, it seems that Lon is implying that he would kill the women and children.
What this essentially tells us is that he doesn't feel there is anything morally wrong with killing people. Again, what's wrong is if they are people god doesn't want killed.
That's great for Lon, but I asked *YOU*, not Lon. Which of the 4 would you do (or is there a 5th?)?
> Certainly, a point-of-contact between 'Darwinists'
> and Christians is the recognition that we are ALL
> already under a death sentence.The question is:
> "Why?"
I'm not a darwinist, so this isn't relevant to your discussion with me.
> The 'Darwinist' must painfully watch an
> 'impersonal' universe kill off every living thing
> -- men, women, children -- for no apparent
> reason.
I can't answer for the darwinist. As far as my own view is concerned, this is not correct. People don't just 'die' - there are always reasons, be they other people, disease, meteors, etc.
> The Christian must painfully watch the God of the
> Bible fulfill the curse pronounced in Genesis,
> after the rebellion: "By the sweat of your brow
> you will eat your food until you return to the
> ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you
> are and to dust you will return."
According to the bible, the Christian must also engage in such 'painful slaughter'. The point of fact though is that sometimes it's 'holy' to do such things, so shouldn't the Christian be happy in ending the life of a child that god has commanded be ended?
> Obviously, you don't like the 'sovereignty of God'
> that runs clearly through the entire Bible.
> (Neither, in some respects, do I.)
It's not a matter of like or dislike - I think the notion is incoherent, to be honest. I think it also contradicts the notion of an objective worldview and I think it destroys any claim to morality that is distinct from a might makes right morality (ie, in otherwords it's no different then a godless morality based on the most powerful individual or group).
> But let me ask you the "Adam Question:" If
> Joshua's men had not killed those children, would
> they have lived forever (like the 'toons' in the
> Roger Rabbit movie)?
No, according to the bible they would have had to eat from the tree of life in order to live forever.
> Point #1: The issue for both 'Darwinists' and
> Christians, is not whether those children were
> going to die, but rather when and how those
> children were going to die.
I'm not a darwinist, so this question isn't relevant to me. Who is the darwinist you are talking to? If you are speaking generally then I'll ask in our conversations that when you respond to me, you respond specifically to me - unless the point you are making can be generalized to me (which isn't the case with your use of darwinists).
> Point #2: As I've said before ... anybody who
> practices Christianity as a purely 'Happy Face'
> religion, is living in a dream world. There is
> much to weep about, and an urgency to missions.
> (The Apostle Paul is the role model here.)
This is confusing - aren't you supposed to be happy to live a godly life? If not, then what exactly is 'good' and 'godly'? Is it wanton brutality?
> Point #3: If Christianity is true,then the cost to
> Jesus to redeem the soul of even one child, is
> beyond our imagining.
So then you are for abortion?
Further, what about the women? Why kill the animals (as mentioned in the chapter of Joshua)?
What is the value of life if it's better to kill the children then to raise them (and hence the fundamental nihilistic paradox that is Christianity)?
> Multiply that by hundreds of
> millions, or however many will one day be saved by
> the sacrifice of the Cross, and you have the
> measure of what God himself paid to satisfy the
> 'Justice' component of his character.
>
This assumes that such a sacrifice had to be made - but it logically it didn't. As I've already pointed out, god is only killing himself in order to satisfy himself. If morality is subjective (ie, it depends on god's mind and not on any objective feature of reality), then why doesn't god just change his mind and decide that no sacrifice is necessary?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, I once asked Lon Solomon about the PTSD
> aspect of the "Joshua Question" -- having to kill
> men, women, and children upon God's command -- and
> his measured response was: "I'm glad I was not
> born a Hebrew warrior."
I'm sorry, I'm a bit tired from work and all, but what do you mean by 'PTSD'. It rings familar, but it's not coming into my head.
In any event, it seems that Lon is implying that he would kill the women and children.
What this essentially tells us is that he doesn't feel there is anything morally wrong with killing people. Again, what's wrong is if they are people god doesn't want killed.
That's great for Lon, but I asked *YOU*, not Lon. Which of the 4 would you do (or is there a 5th?)?
> Certainly, a point-of-contact between 'Darwinists'
> and Christians is the recognition that we are ALL
> already under a death sentence.The question is:
> "Why?"
I'm not a darwinist, so this isn't relevant to your discussion with me.
> The 'Darwinist' must painfully watch an
> 'impersonal' universe kill off every living thing
> -- men, women, children -- for no apparent
> reason.
I can't answer for the darwinist. As far as my own view is concerned, this is not correct. People don't just 'die' - there are always reasons, be they other people, disease, meteors, etc.
> The Christian must painfully watch the God of the
> Bible fulfill the curse pronounced in Genesis,
> after the rebellion: "By the sweat of your brow
> you will eat your food until you return to the
> ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you
> are and to dust you will return."
According to the bible, the Christian must also engage in such 'painful slaughter'. The point of fact though is that sometimes it's 'holy' to do such things, so shouldn't the Christian be happy in ending the life of a child that god has commanded be ended?
> Obviously, you don't like the 'sovereignty of God'
> that runs clearly through the entire Bible.
> (Neither, in some respects, do I.)
It's not a matter of like or dislike - I think the notion is incoherent, to be honest. I think it also contradicts the notion of an objective worldview and I think it destroys any claim to morality that is distinct from a might makes right morality (ie, in otherwords it's no different then a godless morality based on the most powerful individual or group).
> But let me ask you the "Adam Question:" If
> Joshua's men had not killed those children, would
> they have lived forever (like the 'toons' in the
> Roger Rabbit movie)?
No, according to the bible they would have had to eat from the tree of life in order to live forever.
> Point #1: The issue for both 'Darwinists' and
> Christians, is not whether those children were
> going to die, but rather when and how those
> children were going to die.
I'm not a darwinist, so this question isn't relevant to me. Who is the darwinist you are talking to? If you are speaking generally then I'll ask in our conversations that when you respond to me, you respond specifically to me - unless the point you are making can be generalized to me (which isn't the case with your use of darwinists).
> Point #2: As I've said before ... anybody who
> practices Christianity as a purely 'Happy Face'
> religion, is living in a dream world. There is
> much to weep about, and an urgency to missions.
> (The Apostle Paul is the role model here.)
This is confusing - aren't you supposed to be happy to live a godly life? If not, then what exactly is 'good' and 'godly'? Is it wanton brutality?
> Point #3: If Christianity is true,then the cost to
> Jesus to redeem the soul of even one child, is
> beyond our imagining.
So then you are for abortion?
Further, what about the women? Why kill the animals (as mentioned in the chapter of Joshua)?
What is the value of life if it's better to kill the children then to raise them (and hence the fundamental nihilistic paradox that is Christianity)?
> Multiply that by hundreds of
> millions, or however many will one day be saved by
> the sacrifice of the Cross, and you have the
> measure of what God himself paid to satisfy the
> 'Justice' component of his character.
>
This assumes that such a sacrifice had to be made - but it logically it didn't. As I've already pointed out, god is only killing himself in order to satisfy himself. If morality is subjective (ie, it depends on god's mind and not on any objective feature of reality), then why doesn't god just change his mind and decide that no sacrifice is necessary?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 25, 2009 02:44PM
Pangloss, another point:
"Infant-sacrifice was a significant part of the cult of Baal, a Phoenician or Canaanite fertility god. Infant children were sacrificed to Baal as 'first-fruit' offerings, in performance of vows, and to secure prosperity."
"This practice continually reappeared in Israel's history, such as under king Ahab. The prophet Jeremiah cites this practice as an example of why God would "hurl" His covenant people out of their land into captivity among foreign nations."
"Baal was god of prosperity because he controlled the weather, which is crucial in any agricultural economy. His statuettes show him with a lightening bolt as his spear. In the days of Ahab, Elijah therefore challenged Baal's priests at the point of their god's claim to supremacy."
"The burnt bones of infants sacrificed to Baal were buried in urns under stone markers. Many thousands of these have been discovered in the ruins of ancient Carthage and its outlying towns. It is estimated that in ancient Carthage the ritual killing of infant children in sacrifice to Baal averaged about two and a half children per day."
"These practices, in the religion which Jezebel had imported and set up as official state religion of Israel, were the reason for Elijah's execution of all the priests of Baal and his consort."
"Infant-sacrifice was a significant part of the cult of Baal, a Phoenician or Canaanite fertility god. Infant children were sacrificed to Baal as 'first-fruit' offerings, in performance of vows, and to secure prosperity."
"This practice continually reappeared in Israel's history, such as under king Ahab. The prophet Jeremiah cites this practice as an example of why God would "hurl" His covenant people out of their land into captivity among foreign nations."
"Baal was god of prosperity because he controlled the weather, which is crucial in any agricultural economy. His statuettes show him with a lightening bolt as his spear. In the days of Ahab, Elijah therefore challenged Baal's priests at the point of their god's claim to supremacy."
"The burnt bones of infants sacrificed to Baal were buried in urns under stone markers. Many thousands of these have been discovered in the ruins of ancient Carthage and its outlying towns. It is estimated that in ancient Carthage the ritual killing of infant children in sacrifice to Baal averaged about two and a half children per day."
"These practices, in the religion which Jezebel had imported and set up as official state religion of Israel, were the reason for Elijah's execution of all the priests of Baal and his consort."
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 25, 2009 02:46PM
I would like you to specifically address these questions Eliot (I've added another from the Joshua conversation):
-------
To make my last post more efficient I thought I'd repost two of the important points that I think you need to address Eliot (of course if you want to address the others, then I'd be happy to read them).
1. I do not think it can be said that Adam and Eve 'rebelled' against God. If they can be said to have rebelled I do not think it's fair to punish them (and by extension mankind) for that rebellion. In order to rebell it seems to me that you would have to know that doing what you are not supposed to is wrong. Adam and Eve did not know disobeying God was wrong, so I don't think it can fairly be said that they rebelled against God.
2. Why ought we do what God says? Why ought we not commit sin. Your answer was that he created us and he can control us. Both of these answers do not follow that we should do what he says/thinks/wants - why do we care whether he created us or controls us? At best you could argue that we have no choice but to do what he wants. The trouble with this is that if this is the case then no one could logically sin. Since sin supposedly happens, this cannot be the case. It also seemed as though power lead to authority. That depends on how you define 'authoritative'. The only difference right now is that god is more powerful, which is a might makes right morality. If god does not exist then it seems to me that morality would depend on the most powerful being/entity in the universe. It could be, for instance, a government that was capable of exerting it's control over all the denizens of the planet. If it's power that is the reason for following God's demands, then ought we also follow those who are more powerful then us? It seems to me that would be the case.
3. Would you kill that child? Slowly or quickly? And would you feel holy and good doing God's word?
-------
To make my last post more efficient I thought I'd repost two of the important points that I think you need to address Eliot (of course if you want to address the others, then I'd be happy to read them).
1. I do not think it can be said that Adam and Eve 'rebelled' against God. If they can be said to have rebelled I do not think it's fair to punish them (and by extension mankind) for that rebellion. In order to rebell it seems to me that you would have to know that doing what you are not supposed to is wrong. Adam and Eve did not know disobeying God was wrong, so I don't think it can fairly be said that they rebelled against God.
2. Why ought we do what God says? Why ought we not commit sin. Your answer was that he created us and he can control us. Both of these answers do not follow that we should do what he says/thinks/wants - why do we care whether he created us or controls us? At best you could argue that we have no choice but to do what he wants. The trouble with this is that if this is the case then no one could logically sin. Since sin supposedly happens, this cannot be the case. It also seemed as though power lead to authority. That depends on how you define 'authoritative'. The only difference right now is that god is more powerful, which is a might makes right morality. If god does not exist then it seems to me that morality would depend on the most powerful being/entity in the universe. It could be, for instance, a government that was capable of exerting it's control over all the denizens of the planet. If it's power that is the reason for following God's demands, then ought we also follow those who are more powerful then us? It seems to me that would be the case.
3. Would you kill that child? Slowly or quickly? And would you feel holy and good doing God's word?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 25, 2009 02:49PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To answer the "Joshua Question" ... the Hebrew
> warrior at that time, to be honest to his beliefs,
> had to obey God rather than his own emotional
> impulses.
So by implication you would kill that child.....
Wow...I have a lot of choice sentiments that I'll suppress for the moment, but it occurs to me:
Let's say that today you start hearing god's voice. He informs you that you are a prophet and that you must kill a family. The last in a line of Amorites who managed to some how survive the earlier slaughter.
Would you do that?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2009 02:49PM by Professor Pangloss.
-------------------------------------------------------
> To answer the "Joshua Question" ... the Hebrew
> warrior at that time, to be honest to his beliefs,
> had to obey God rather than his own emotional
> impulses.
So by implication you would kill that child.....
Wow...I have a lot of choice sentiments that I'll suppress for the moment, but it occurs to me:
Let's say that today you start hearing god's voice. He informs you that you are a prophet and that you must kill a family. The last in a line of Amorites who managed to some how survive the earlier slaughter.
Would you do that?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2009 02:49PM by Professor Pangloss.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 25, 2009 02:51PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, another point:
>
> "Infant-sacrifice was a significant part of the
> cult of Baal, a Phoenician or Canaanite fertility
> god. Infant children were sacrificed to Baal as
> 'first-fruit' offerings, in performance of vows,
> and to secure prosperity."
>
>
> "This practice continually reappeared in Israel's
> history, such as under king Ahab. The prophet
> Jeremiah cites this practice as an example of why
> God would "hurl" His covenant people out of their
> land into captivity among foreign nations."
>
>
> "Baal was god of prosperity because he controlled
> the weather, which is crucial in any agricultural
> economy. His statuettes show him with a lightening
> bolt as his spear. In the days of Ahab, Elijah
> therefore challenged Baal's priests at the point
> of their god's claim to supremacy."
>
>
> "The burnt bones of infants sacrificed to Baal
> were buried in urns under stone markers. Many
> thousands of these have been discovered in the
> ruins of ancient Carthage and its outlying towns.
> It is estimated that in ancient Carthage the
> ritual killing of infant children in sacrifice to
> Baal averaged about two and a half children per
> day."
>
>
> "These practices, in the religion which Jezebel
> had imported and set up as official state religion
> of Israel, were the reason for Elijah's execution
> of all the priests of Baal and his consort."
....
I'm not sure I'm understanding why you are posting this - are you trying to suggest that since another group of religious believers decided killing babies is holy that means that you can as well?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, another point:
>
> "Infant-sacrifice was a significant part of the
> cult of Baal, a Phoenician or Canaanite fertility
> god. Infant children were sacrificed to Baal as
> 'first-fruit' offerings, in performance of vows,
> and to secure prosperity."
>
>
> "This practice continually reappeared in Israel's
> history, such as under king Ahab. The prophet
> Jeremiah cites this practice as an example of why
> God would "hurl" His covenant people out of their
> land into captivity among foreign nations."
>
>
> "Baal was god of prosperity because he controlled
> the weather, which is crucial in any agricultural
> economy. His statuettes show him with a lightening
> bolt as his spear. In the days of Ahab, Elijah
> therefore challenged Baal's priests at the point
> of their god's claim to supremacy."
>
>
> "The burnt bones of infants sacrificed to Baal
> were buried in urns under stone markers. Many
> thousands of these have been discovered in the
> ruins of ancient Carthage and its outlying towns.
> It is estimated that in ancient Carthage the
> ritual killing of infant children in sacrifice to
> Baal averaged about two and a half children per
> day."
>
>
> "These practices, in the religion which Jezebel
> had imported and set up as official state religion
> of Israel, were the reason for Elijah's execution
> of all the priests of Baal and his consort."
....
I'm not sure I'm understanding why you are posting this - are you trying to suggest that since another group of religious believers decided killing babies is holy that means that you can as well?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 25, 2009 03:04PM
| Pangloss wrote: "Lon [Solomon] ... tells us ... that he doesn't feel there is anything morally wrong with killing people." |
| Ness replies: Nonsense. Lon was saying that when God commanded his OT covenant people, they had to obey regardless of personal feelings. God gave Moses the commandment: "You shall not commit murder." Yet God commanded his covenant people to administer the death sentence for certain acts within that covenant community, no matter how many tears they might shed for their friends who were being stoned. |
| Note that early death for the stoned Israelite was punishment but NOT Nazi-like annihilation. The Old Testament has plenty to say about a time in "Sheol" followed by a real resurrection and judgment. |
| The God of the Bible is sovereign over human life. The non-God of the impersonal 'Darwinist' universe is also, in a sense, sovereign over human life -- in a non-Christian cosmology, you too are under that non-God's impersonal death sentence. |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 25, 2009 03:10PM
| Pangloss asks: "Are you trying to suggest that since another group of religious believers decided killing babies is holy that means that you can as well?" |
Ness replies: Nonsense again. More than a dozen times in the OT, God forbids his people to sacrifice their children as the pagans routinely did.The LORD your God will cut off before you the nations you are about to invade and dispossess. |
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2009 03:14PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 25, 2009 03:19PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: "Lon ... tells us ... that he
> doesn't feel there is anything morally wrong with
> killing people."
>
> Ness replies: Nonsense. Lon was saying that when
> God commanded his OT covenant people, they had to
> obey regardless of personal feelings.
Well, in fairness to Lon, he's not here to defend himself. However the implications of what you wrote are quite bare.
The sin is not killing, it's disobeying god. That's what is evident. Why should we care what god decides is wrong? Because he can punish us?
I'd like a specific answer to this, as I think it's crucial here.
> God gave
> Moses the commandment: "You shall not commit
> murder." Yet God commanded his covenant people to
> administer the death sentence for certain acts
> within that covenant community, no matter how many
> tears they might shed for their friends who were
> being stoned.
Right, a death sentence could be handed out for merely working on the sabbath, for instance. The point is that 'murder' isn't what the sin was. It was disobeying god. Killing/murdering/etc isn't wrong, per say, it's only wrong if god doesn't command you to do it. In short it's not the act, the taking of life, it's disobeying god's decree.
The problem is, why should we care what god thinks? If it's because he can harm us, then it would seem that might makes right is your morality schema.
If *thats* the case then a naturalistic morality based on the same principle is MUCH more perferred based on simple pragmaticism alone.
> Note that early death for the stoned Israelite
> was punishment but NOT Nazi-like annihilation. The
> Old Testament has plenty to say about a time in
> "Sheol" followed by a real resurrection and
> judgment.
I'm not sure I see a very big qualitative difference between throwing stones at someone's head and shooting them.
As for real resurrection and judgement, that seems that you/god/etc are punishing the people twice.
> The God of the Bible is sovereign over human life.
Right, because he says so. By extension a very powerful government could rule over human life too, there is no qualitative difference between the two morality schema - they are both subjective.
> The non-God of the impersonal 'Darwinist' universe
> is also, in a sense, sovereign over human life --
> in a non-Christian cosmology, you too are under
> that non-God's impersonal death sentence.
I'm not a darwinist, so this doesn't apply to me and I would appreciate it if you would refer to me and my position in future posts. I've already said this a few times before.
Incidently, what is a 'non-god'? It looks like you are making an existential claim about nothing....
Can you answer my three questions or do I have to constantly repost them in order for you to address them? I have quit with the inflammatory rhetoric and you said that if I did so the quality of the discussion would be enhanced. I ask that you uphold your end of the bargain.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: "Lon ... tells us ... that he
> doesn't feel there is anything morally wrong with
> killing people."
>
> Ness replies: Nonsense. Lon was saying that when
> God commanded his OT covenant people, they had to
> obey regardless of personal feelings.
Well, in fairness to Lon, he's not here to defend himself. However the implications of what you wrote are quite bare.
The sin is not killing, it's disobeying god. That's what is evident. Why should we care what god decides is wrong? Because he can punish us?
I'd like a specific answer to this, as I think it's crucial here.
> God gave
> Moses the commandment: "You shall not commit
> murder." Yet God commanded his covenant people to
> administer the death sentence for certain acts
> within that covenant community, no matter how many
> tears they might shed for their friends who were
> being stoned.
Right, a death sentence could be handed out for merely working on the sabbath, for instance. The point is that 'murder' isn't what the sin was. It was disobeying god. Killing/murdering/etc isn't wrong, per say, it's only wrong if god doesn't command you to do it. In short it's not the act, the taking of life, it's disobeying god's decree.
The problem is, why should we care what god thinks? If it's because he can harm us, then it would seem that might makes right is your morality schema.
If *thats* the case then a naturalistic morality based on the same principle is MUCH more perferred based on simple pragmaticism alone.
> Note that early death for the stoned Israelite
> was punishment but NOT Nazi-like annihilation. The
> Old Testament has plenty to say about a time in
> "Sheol" followed by a real resurrection and
> judgment.
I'm not sure I see a very big qualitative difference between throwing stones at someone's head and shooting them.
As for real resurrection and judgement, that seems that you/god/etc are punishing the people twice.
> The God of the Bible is sovereign over human life.
Right, because he says so. By extension a very powerful government could rule over human life too, there is no qualitative difference between the two morality schema - they are both subjective.
> The non-God of the impersonal 'Darwinist' universe
> is also, in a sense, sovereign over human life --
> in a non-Christian cosmology, you too are under
> that non-God's impersonal death sentence.
I'm not a darwinist, so this doesn't apply to me and I would appreciate it if you would refer to me and my position in future posts. I've already said this a few times before.
Incidently, what is a 'non-god'? It looks like you are making an existential claim about nothing....
Can you answer my three questions or do I have to constantly repost them in order for you to address them? I have quit with the inflammatory rhetoric and you said that if I did so the quality of the discussion would be enhanced. I ask that you uphold your end of the bargain.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 25, 2009 03:22PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asks: "Are you trying to suggest that
> since another group of religious believers decided
> killing babies is holy that means that you can as
> well?"
>
> Ness replies: Nonsense again. More than a dozen
> times in the OT, God forbids his people to
> sacrifice their children as the pagans routinely
> did.
> The LORD your God will cut off before you the
> nations you are about to invade and dispossess.
> But when you have driven them out and settled in
> their land, and after they have been destroyed
> before you, be careful not to be ensnared by
> inquiring about their gods, saying, "How do these
> nations serve their gods? We will do the same."
> You must not worship the LORD your God in their
> way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all
> kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They
> even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as
> sacrifices to their gods. (Deut 12) They have
> forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods;
> they have burned sacrifices in it to gods that
> neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of
> Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place
> with the blood of the innocent. They have built
> the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the
> fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not
> command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.
> (Jeremiah 19)
>
It's not nonsense, Eliot - I was seeking clarity, not accusing you (or your worldview) of this. I thought that was evident. It appears to not be evident.
My basic point/question is why are you bringing that up?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asks: "Are you trying to suggest that
> since another group of religious believers decided
> killing babies is holy that means that you can as
> well?"
>
> Ness replies: Nonsense again. More than a dozen
> times in the OT, God forbids his people to
> sacrifice their children as the pagans routinely
> did.
> The LORD your God will cut off before you the
> nations you are about to invade and dispossess.
> But when you have driven them out and settled in
> their land, and after they have been destroyed
> before you, be careful not to be ensnared by
> inquiring about their gods, saying, "How do these
> nations serve their gods? We will do the same."
> You must not worship the LORD your God in their
> way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all
> kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They
> even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as
> sacrifices to their gods. (Deut 12) They have
> forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods;
> they have burned sacrifices in it to gods that
> neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of
> Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place
> with the blood of the innocent. They have built
> the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the
> fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not
> command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.
> (Jeremiah 19)
>
It's not nonsense, Eliot - I was seeking clarity, not accusing you (or your worldview) of this. I thought that was evident. It appears to not be evident.
My basic point/question is why are you bringing that up?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 25, 2009 03:23PM
| Pangloss asks: "Let's say that today you start hearing god's voice. He informs you that you are a prophet and that you must kill a family. The last in a line of Amorites who managed to some how survive the earlier slaughter. ... Would you do that?" |
| Ness replies: Nonsense again. The Old Covenant is over, replaced by the New Covenant at the Last Supper. The foundation of the Apostles and the Prophets has been laid. New Testament Christians obey the Scriptures, not supposed prophetic voices in their heads. |
| Don't confuse the Reformation Christianity of McLean Bible Church with cults of Christianity that claim to have Apostles and Prophets (e.g., Roman Catholicism and Mormonism) or with New Age channelers who receive private revelations. |
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2009 03:34PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 25, 2009 03:37PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asks: "Let's say that today you start
> hearing god's voice. He informs you that you are a
> prophet and that you must kill a family. The last
> in a line of Amorites who managed to some how
> survive the earlier slaughter. ... Would you do
> that?"
>
> Ness replies: Nonsense again. The Old Covenant is
> over, replaced by the New Covenant at the Last
> Supper. The foundation of the Apostles and the
> Prophets has been laid. New Testament Christians
> obey the Scriptures, not supposed prophetic voices
> in their heads.
1. That remains to be seen - after all Jesus said that he was not here to do away with the law.
2. The logic of your statement would be that we would have to ignore Paul's writings then, since he heard the lord's voice in his head.
3. What's the holy spirit's action to mankind?
4. So in the time of revelation, no human is supposed to join Jesus in his wanton slaughtering of sinners?
5. This example is a hold over from the old covenant, as I made clear - after all, this is an Amorite and all of them should be slaughtered.
6. How do you know whether or not the scriptures (or even which scriptures) are true or what they mean if you cannot depend on your autonomous reasoning?
Number 6 is the killer for presuppositionalists, unfortunately.
> Don't confuse the Reformation Christianity of
> McLean Bible Church with cults of Christianity
> that claim to have Apostles and Prophets. (e.g.,
> Roman Catholicism, Mormonism)
I'm not confusing anything - I'm showing that you are being inconsistent. You are trying to justify your position by appealing vaguely to the bible. Let's crack it open and see if you are justified.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2009 03:38PM by Professor Pangloss.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asks: "Let's say that today you start
> hearing god's voice. He informs you that you are a
> prophet and that you must kill a family. The last
> in a line of Amorites who managed to some how
> survive the earlier slaughter. ... Would you do
> that?"
>
> Ness replies: Nonsense again. The Old Covenant is
> over, replaced by the New Covenant at the Last
> Supper. The foundation of the Apostles and the
> Prophets has been laid. New Testament Christians
> obey the Scriptures, not supposed prophetic voices
> in their heads.
1. That remains to be seen - after all Jesus said that he was not here to do away with the law.
2. The logic of your statement would be that we would have to ignore Paul's writings then, since he heard the lord's voice in his head.
3. What's the holy spirit's action to mankind?
4. So in the time of revelation, no human is supposed to join Jesus in his wanton slaughtering of sinners?
5. This example is a hold over from the old covenant, as I made clear - after all, this is an Amorite and all of them should be slaughtered.
6. How do you know whether or not the scriptures (or even which scriptures) are true or what they mean if you cannot depend on your autonomous reasoning?
Number 6 is the killer for presuppositionalists, unfortunately.
> Don't confuse the Reformation Christianity of
> McLean Bible Church with cults of Christianity
> that claim to have Apostles and Prophets. (e.g.,
> Roman Catholicism, Mormonism)
I'm not confusing anything - I'm showing that you are being inconsistent. You are trying to justify your position by appealing vaguely to the bible. Let's crack it open and see if you are justified.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2009 03:38PM by Professor Pangloss.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 25, 2009 04:37PM
| Pangloss asks:
1. "Jesus said that he was not here to do away with the law." Read Acts and Hebrews. Clearly the OT ceremonial law, temple, and priesthood are fulfilled by Jesus and done away with. 2. "The logic of your statement would be that we would have to ignore Paul's writings then, since he heard the lord's voice in his head." Paul claimed authority as an Apostle, but what makes you think that he (psychotically?) "heard a voice in his head?" 3. "What's the holy spirit's action to mankind?" As Jesus said, to "convict the world of sin" ... and as I said, to body-slam men's presuppositions and world-view by causing them to believe the Scriptures. 4. "So in the time of revelation, no human is supposed to join Jesus in his 'wanton' slaughtering of sinners?" 'Wanton' is a loaded word meaning unjust. The Biblical Judgement is entirely about God's justice. 5. "This example is a hold over from the old covenant, as I made clear - after all, this is an Amorite and all of them should be slaughtered." You're joking, right? That was God's command to the Israelites. Jesus commanded the church to preach the Gospel to "all the world." 6. "How do you know whether or not the scriptures (or even which scriptures) are true or what they mean if you cannot depend on your autonomous reasoning?" Here the Reformation Church looks to the Holy Spirit's action in history ... and no, we do not have the original manuscripts, just an amazing amount of texts. 7. Question: Why do you waste time struggling so mightily to persuade others of the untruth of something you once believed but now reject? Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2009 05:21PM by Eliot Ness. |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 25, 2009 04:50PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asks:
> 1. "Jesus said that he was not here to do away
> with the law."Read Acts and Hebrews. Clearly the
> OT ceremonial law, temple, and priesthood are
> fulfilled by Jesus and done away with.
Okay, so we agree that the bible is contradictory here. Or are you suggesting that just the ceremonial law, temple, and priesthood can be ignored?
If it's the latter, then that doesn't help your case at all, since killing the children wasn't a ceremony, a law, or part of the priesthood.
> 2. "The logic of your statement would be that we
> would have to ignore Paul's writings then, since
> he heard the lord's voice in his head."Paul
> claimed authority as an Apostle, but what makes
> you think that he (psychotically?) "heard a voice
> in his head?"
He mentions it on his way to demasticus (sp?).
> 3. "What's the holy spirit's action to mankind?"As
> Jesus said, to "convict the world of sin" ... and
> as I said, to body-slam men's presuppositions and
> world-view by causing them to believe the
> Scriptures.
....? How does it do that?
> 4. "So in the time of revelation, no human is
> supposed to join Jesus in his 'wanton'
> slaughtering of sinners?"'Wanton' is a loaded word
> meaning unjust. The Biblical Judgement is entirely
> about God's justice.
Well, technically speaking, it is unjust. In any event, that's not relevant really. It seems as though you didn't answer my question, so I'll ask that you do that now.
> 5. "This example is a hold over from the old
> covenant, as I made clear - after all, this is an
> Amorite and all of them should be
> slaughtered."You're joking, right? That was God's
> command to the Israelites. Jesus commanded the
> church to preach the Gospel to "all the world."
No, I'm not joking. As to Jesus's message, that doesn't really effect the situation, after all, you could recite the gospel while killing the Amorites.
> 6. "How do you know whether or not the scriptures
> (or even which scriptures) are true or what they
> mean if you cannot depend on your autonomous
> reasoning?"Here the Reformation Church looks to
> the Holy Spirit's action in history ... and no, we
> do have the original manuscripts. That is not,
> alas, how God dealt with the Church.
What does the Holy Spirit do? How do you know the HS is guiding you? How do you know it's not Satan or a deceitful message sent by god? How do you know it's not telling you to kill the Amorite?
> 7. Question: Why do you struggle so mightily
> against something you once believed but now
> reject?
What makes you think I'm struggling? At best discussing these issues with you is like pulling teeth - you ignore the problematic aspects of your worldview and I have to repost them and repost them. I would say that's irritating and not conductive to good discussion, but it's not really a struggle. If anything it seems like you are struggling to come up with good responses to the questions/arguments I'm making, which only solidify my rejection of Christianity - albeit only slightly as, no offense but you haven't really offered up anything new here.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss asks:
> 1. "Jesus said that he was not here to do away
> with the law."Read Acts and Hebrews. Clearly the
> OT ceremonial law, temple, and priesthood are
> fulfilled by Jesus and done away with.
Okay, so we agree that the bible is contradictory here. Or are you suggesting that just the ceremonial law, temple, and priesthood can be ignored?
If it's the latter, then that doesn't help your case at all, since killing the children wasn't a ceremony, a law, or part of the priesthood.
> 2. "The logic of your statement would be that we
> would have to ignore Paul's writings then, since
> he heard the lord's voice in his head."Paul
> claimed authority as an Apostle, but what makes
> you think that he (psychotically?) "heard a voice
> in his head?"
He mentions it on his way to demasticus (sp?).
> 3. "What's the holy spirit's action to mankind?"As
> Jesus said, to "convict the world of sin" ... and
> as I said, to body-slam men's presuppositions and
> world-view by causing them to believe the
> Scriptures.
....? How does it do that?
> 4. "So in the time of revelation, no human is
> supposed to join Jesus in his 'wanton'
> slaughtering of sinners?"'Wanton' is a loaded word
> meaning unjust. The Biblical Judgement is entirely
> about God's justice.
Well, technically speaking, it is unjust. In any event, that's not relevant really. It seems as though you didn't answer my question, so I'll ask that you do that now.
> 5. "This example is a hold over from the old
> covenant, as I made clear - after all, this is an
> Amorite and all of them should be
> slaughtered."You're joking, right? That was God's
> command to the Israelites. Jesus commanded the
> church to preach the Gospel to "all the world."
No, I'm not joking. As to Jesus's message, that doesn't really effect the situation, after all, you could recite the gospel while killing the Amorites.
> 6. "How do you know whether or not the scriptures
> (or even which scriptures) are true or what they
> mean if you cannot depend on your autonomous
> reasoning?"Here the Reformation Church looks to
> the Holy Spirit's action in history ... and no, we
> do have the original manuscripts. That is not,
> alas, how God dealt with the Church.
What does the Holy Spirit do? How do you know the HS is guiding you? How do you know it's not Satan or a deceitful message sent by god? How do you know it's not telling you to kill the Amorite?
> 7. Question: Why do you struggle so mightily
> against something you once believed but now
> reject?
What makes you think I'm struggling? At best discussing these issues with you is like pulling teeth - you ignore the problematic aspects of your worldview and I have to repost them and repost them. I would say that's irritating and not conductive to good discussion, but it's not really a struggle. If anything it seems like you are struggling to come up with good responses to the questions/arguments I'm making, which only solidify my rejection of Christianity - albeit only slightly as, no offense but you haven't really offered up anything new here.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 25, 2009 04:58PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 7. Question: Why do you waste time struggling so
> mightily to persuade others of the untruth of
> something you once believed but now reject?
This is a slightly different question then the one you originally asked. My response to this is that I do not 'waste time' trying to persuade others. I spend some time productively attempting to engage others in these sorts of discussions for a few reasons.
1. I have found it's beneficial to have conversations with people on these issues. My worldview was changed once before and it could be again - I could find during a discussion a deeper understanding that I had previously missed.
2. I think it's important to discourage people from harmful beliefs. I find your beliefs in particular to be harmful intellectually. I'm not trying to insult you, but I find that presuppositionalism in general discourages seeking truth and healthy skepticism. I find that advocates of intelligent design tend to bully school boards to get their ideas taught as legitimate scientific theories.
3. It's interesting.
For point of record, I also argue with holocaust deniers and afrocentricists for the same reasons. Not as often as Christians, as they are harder to find.
I argue with people who deny moon landings, who believe there is a coverup in the government involving aliens (although I *used* to be one when I was a teen), and people who believe they are vampires (don't ask).
I engage in those discussions because I feel that skepticism, logic, and rationality are wonderful knowledge that should be shared. I do not usually engage these people (or people of certain other religions) with the intent of them dropping their beliefs.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 7. Question: Why do you waste time struggling so
> mightily to persuade others of the untruth of
> something you once believed but now reject?
This is a slightly different question then the one you originally asked. My response to this is that I do not 'waste time' trying to persuade others. I spend some time productively attempting to engage others in these sorts of discussions for a few reasons.
1. I have found it's beneficial to have conversations with people on these issues. My worldview was changed once before and it could be again - I could find during a discussion a deeper understanding that I had previously missed.
2. I think it's important to discourage people from harmful beliefs. I find your beliefs in particular to be harmful intellectually. I'm not trying to insult you, but I find that presuppositionalism in general discourages seeking truth and healthy skepticism. I find that advocates of intelligent design tend to bully school boards to get their ideas taught as legitimate scientific theories.
3. It's interesting.
For point of record, I also argue with holocaust deniers and afrocentricists for the same reasons. Not as often as Christians, as they are harder to find.
I argue with people who deny moon landings, who believe there is a coverup in the government involving aliens (although I *used* to be one when I was a teen), and people who believe they are vampires (don't ask).
I engage in those discussions because I feel that skepticism, logic, and rationality are wonderful knowledge that should be shared. I do not usually engage these people (or people of certain other religions) with the intent of them dropping their beliefs.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 25, 2009 05:20PM
psychotic, or merely narcissistic?
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2009 05:29PM by Eliot Ness.
Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe."
"All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For 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."
"I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2009 05:29PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 26, 2009 08:52AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, speaking of 'hearing voices in your
> head' ... do you think that Jesus was psychotic,
> or merely narcissistic?
I'm agnostic in terms of whether or not Jesus actually existed. If he did, then I have serious doubts that much of the New Testament can actually be attributed to his deeds and words.
I would like you to specifically address these questions Eliot (I've added another from the Joshua conversation):
-------
To make my last post more efficient I thought I'd repost two of the important points that I think you need to address Eliot (of course if you want to address the others, then I'd be happy to read them).
1. I do not think it can be said that Adam and Eve 'rebelled' against God. If they can be said to have rebelled I do not think it's fair to punish them (and by extension mankind) for that rebellion. In order to rebell it seems to me that you would have to know that doing what you are not supposed to is wrong. Adam and Eve did not know disobeying God was wrong, so I don't think it can fairly be said that they rebelled against God.
2. Why ought we do what God says? Why ought we not commit sin. Your answer was that he created us and he can control us. Both of these answers do not follow that we should do what he says/thinks/wants - why do we care whether he created us or controls us? At best you could argue that we have no choice but to do what he wants. The trouble with this is that if this is the case then no one could logically sin. Since sin supposedly happens, this cannot be the case. It also seemed as though power lead to authority. That depends on how you define 'authoritative'. The only difference right now is that god is more powerful, which is a might makes right morality. If god does not exist then it seems to me that morality would depend on the most powerful being/entity in the universe. It could be, for instance, a government that was capable of exerting it's control over all the denizens of the planet. If it's power that is the reason for following God's demands, then ought we also follow those who are more powerful then us? It seems to me that would be the case.
3. Would you kill that child? Slowly or quickly? And would you feel holy and good doing God's word?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, speaking of 'hearing voices in your
> head' ... do you think that Jesus was psychotic,
> or merely narcissistic?
I'm agnostic in terms of whether or not Jesus actually existed. If he did, then I have serious doubts that much of the New Testament can actually be attributed to his deeds and words.
I would like you to specifically address these questions Eliot (I've added another from the Joshua conversation):
-------
To make my last post more efficient I thought I'd repost two of the important points that I think you need to address Eliot (of course if you want to address the others, then I'd be happy to read them).
1. I do not think it can be said that Adam and Eve 'rebelled' against God. If they can be said to have rebelled I do not think it's fair to punish them (and by extension mankind) for that rebellion. In order to rebell it seems to me that you would have to know that doing what you are not supposed to is wrong. Adam and Eve did not know disobeying God was wrong, so I don't think it can fairly be said that they rebelled against God.
2. Why ought we do what God says? Why ought we not commit sin. Your answer was that he created us and he can control us. Both of these answers do not follow that we should do what he says/thinks/wants - why do we care whether he created us or controls us? At best you could argue that we have no choice but to do what he wants. The trouble with this is that if this is the case then no one could logically sin. Since sin supposedly happens, this cannot be the case. It also seemed as though power lead to authority. That depends on how you define 'authoritative'. The only difference right now is that god is more powerful, which is a might makes right morality. If god does not exist then it seems to me that morality would depend on the most powerful being/entity in the universe. It could be, for instance, a government that was capable of exerting it's control over all the denizens of the planet. If it's power that is the reason for following God's demands, then ought we also follow those who are more powerful then us? It seems to me that would be the case.
3. Would you kill that child? Slowly or quickly? And would you feel holy and good doing God's word?
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
GladToBeChristian!
()
Date: February 26, 2009 10:48AM
Hi!
When I go to a new Christian site, first thing I look for is its Doctrinal Statement, which I had to dig for in this case. It says in section entitled "How To Be A Christian" (or some such wordage):
You must personally repent of your sins (Luke 5:32; 13:3) and confess Jesus Christ as Lord over your life (Romans 10:9-10), believing that as God He can and will forgive your sins (Acts 10:43) and grant you eternal life (I John 5:11, 13).
What I find wrong about this statement: "REPENT" is from the Greek METANOIA, which means "CHANGE OF MIND about who Jesus is, that He is not just a man but the Son of God." It does not mean "ashamed of one's sins."
"Confess that Jesus Christ as Lord over your life" cannot be done until after one's salvation. A new believer is a new creation in Christ: THEREFORE, IF ANY MAN BE IN CHRIST, HE IS A NEW CREATION; OLD THINGS ARE PASSED AWAY; BEHOLD BEHOLD ALL THINGS ARE BECOME NEW (2 Cor 5:17).
FOR BY GRACE ARE YE SAVED THROUGH FAITH; AND THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES, IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD - NOT OF WORKS, LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST" (Eph 2:8-9). Confessing that Jesus is Lord over your life" is a pre-salvation work, which amounts to nothing. Making Him Lord over your life should come AFTER you are saved.
"Moreover, brethren, I DECLARE UNTO YOU THE GOSPEL which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and in which ye stand; By which also YE ARE SAVED, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
For I delivered unto you first of of all that Which I also received, that CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES; AND THAT HE WAS BURIED, AND THAT HE ROSE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES." (1 Cor 15:1-40). Period.
In short: I DECLARE UNTO YOU THE GOSPEL by which also YE ARE SAVED, that CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES; AND THAT HE WAS BURIED, AND THAT HE ROSE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES."
Should you respond to this email, please do so on this site. Thanks. In Christ!
When I go to a new Christian site, first thing I look for is its Doctrinal Statement, which I had to dig for in this case. It says in section entitled "How To Be A Christian" (or some such wordage):
You must personally repent of your sins (Luke 5:32; 13:3) and confess Jesus Christ as Lord over your life (Romans 10:9-10), believing that as God He can and will forgive your sins (Acts 10:43) and grant you eternal life (I John 5:11, 13).
What I find wrong about this statement: "REPENT" is from the Greek METANOIA, which means "CHANGE OF MIND about who Jesus is, that He is not just a man but the Son of God." It does not mean "ashamed of one's sins."
"Confess that Jesus Christ as Lord over your life" cannot be done until after one's salvation. A new believer is a new creation in Christ: THEREFORE, IF ANY MAN BE IN CHRIST, HE IS A NEW CREATION; OLD THINGS ARE PASSED AWAY; BEHOLD BEHOLD ALL THINGS ARE BECOME NEW (2 Cor 5:17).
FOR BY GRACE ARE YE SAVED THROUGH FAITH; AND THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES, IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD - NOT OF WORKS, LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST" (Eph 2:8-9). Confessing that Jesus is Lord over your life" is a pre-salvation work, which amounts to nothing. Making Him Lord over your life should come AFTER you are saved.
"Moreover, brethren, I DECLARE UNTO YOU THE GOSPEL which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and in which ye stand; By which also YE ARE SAVED, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
For I delivered unto you first of of all that Which I also received, that CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES; AND THAT HE WAS BURIED, AND THAT HE ROSE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES." (1 Cor 15:1-40). Period.
In short: I DECLARE UNTO YOU THE GOSPEL by which also YE ARE SAVED, that CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES; AND THAT HE WAS BURIED, AND THAT HE ROSE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES."
Should you respond to this email, please do so on this site. Thanks. In Christ!
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 26, 2009 10:57AM
That's great for you GTBC, but are you saying this is a christian website or are you talking about MBC?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: February 26, 2009 12:20PM
| Pangloss wrote: "I'm agnostic in terms of whether or not Jesus actually existed. If he did, then I have serious doubts that much of the New Testament can actually be attributed to his deeds and words." |
| Ness replies: I understand, because supernatural events are inextricably woven into every bit of the New Testament, including not just Jesus' miracles but his awareness of what his opponents were thinking, his repeated escapes from attempts to kill or capture him, and his clear statements of foreknowledge about his impending death and resurrection. |
| In a 'Big Bang' world-view of impersonal matter/energy + time + chance (which I call 'contemporary Darwinism'), you can trust nothing, really, that speaks about human activity in the past (let alone 'divine' activity) ... and you can know nothing, obviously, about the future apart from speculation. You're left with your own personal experience of the present which, based upon observation, you expect to end in a permanent 'fade to black' at some point. |
Christianity, with its assertion of an historic Fall, Curse, Incarnation, Atonement, Resurrection, and Judgment ... is obviously a bombshell into this world-view. But the Bible is clear that men/women believe the Bible's history and cosmology as a result of a 'body-slam' by the Holy Spirit, not as a result of scholastic argumentation or online forum debate."The Gentiles ... were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed." (Acts 13) |
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 26, 2009 01:11PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: Christianity, with its assertion of an historic
> Fall, Curse, Incarnation, Atonement, Resurrection,
> and Judgment ... is obviously a bombshell into
> this world-view.
Self-referential BS again
Its exactly the opposite way around - observation based science is the bomb which has destroyed the intellectual foundations of religion - forcing the retreat to 'faith' in the imaginary.
Having to believe in the unbelievable and unobservable because you're scared about what science shows you is hardly a victory for religion
You have yet to propose anything for which a religious explanation is necessary, better or as good as that which science provides
Not one.
You just retreat into 'my religious text is its own proof and clearly superior to all of its rival religious texts' - which, frankly, is just unsupportable angels-on-a-pinhead BS
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: Christianity, with its assertion of an historic
> Fall, Curse, Incarnation, Atonement, Resurrection,
> and Judgment ... is obviously a bombshell into
> this world-view.
Self-referential BS again
Its exactly the opposite way around - observation based science is the bomb which has destroyed the intellectual foundations of religion - forcing the retreat to 'faith' in the imaginary.
Having to believe in the unbelievable and unobservable because you're scared about what science shows you is hardly a victory for religion
You have yet to propose anything for which a religious explanation is necessary, better or as good as that which science provides
Not one.
You just retreat into 'my religious text is its own proof and clearly superior to all of its rival religious texts' - which, frankly, is just unsupportable angels-on-a-pinhead BS
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 26, 2009 01:17PM
GladToBeChristian! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi!
> When I go to a new Christian site, first thing I
> look for is its Doctrinal Statement,
The only doctrinal statement for this site is "put up or shut up"
Regurgitating religious pap is the ultimate stupidity - which is why poking sharp sticks into Eliot has become a continuous, although increasingly dull, blood-sport
If you have any evidence show it, if you have anything that can only be explained by religion present it - if not, keep the religious BS for church - its a waste of spare bits
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi!
> When I go to a new Christian site, first thing I
> look for is its Doctrinal Statement,
The only doctrinal statement for this site is "put up or shut up"
Regurgitating religious pap is the ultimate stupidity - which is why poking sharp sticks into Eliot has become a continuous, although increasingly dull, blood-sport
If you have any evidence show it, if you have anything that can only be explained by religion present it - if not, keep the religious BS for church - its a waste of spare bits
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 26, 2009 01:32PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: "I'm agnostic in terms of whether
> or not Jesus actually existed. If he did, then I
> have serious doubts that much of the New Testament
> can actually be attributed to his deeds and
> words."
>
> Ness replies: I understand, because supernatural
> events are inextricably woven into every bit of
> the New Testament, including not just Jesus'
> miracles but his awareness of what his opponents
> were thinking, his repeated escapes from attempts
> to kill or capture him, and his clear statements
> of foreknowledge about his impending death and
> resurrection.
Actually it's not really the supernatural events, although they play a part in it. I agree with the Jesus seminar on the idea that practically none of what Jesus said can be reasonably attributed to him.
> In a 'Big Bang' world-view of impersonal
> matter/energy + time + chance (which I call
> 'contemporary Darwinism'), you can trust nothing,
> really, that speaks about human activity in the
> past (let alone 'divine' activity) ...
The 'Big Bang' is a cosmological model of the expansion of the universe from a singularity. It is not a worldview.
Further, we don't know whether or not it (the expansion) was a 'chance' endeavor. We would have to know the initial conditions of the universe (or existence?) in order to determine that.
As far as 'trust' goes, I really don't know what you mean here. Are you talking about epistemic certainty? If you are, then why is that a necessary feature? It's not, really. Such demands are ludicris and unobtainable for all but a choice selection of propositions. If you aren't talking about epistemic certainty then I'll ask you to clarify.
> and you can
> know nothing, obviously, about the future apart
> from speculation.
Again, I'll hazard a response, but keep in mind I don't think you are being very clear; what we can do is rely on probabilities.
The nature of this universe that has been discovered is a probabilistic reality - your worldview, unless it denies quantum physics - is included in that bunch.
> You're left with your own
> personal experience of the present which, based
> upon observation, you expect to end in a permanent
> 'fade to black' at some point.
Um, aren't you as well? Even if you rely on revelation you first have to presuppose your own personal experience as trust worthy (as I've repeatedly made clear). So charging me with this is ignoring your own role in it.
> Christianity, with its assertion of an historic
> Fall, Curse, Incarnation, Atonement, Resurrection,
> and Judgment ... is obviously a bombshell into
> this world-view.
It's different, but no more reliable - in fact, I'd wager it's *less* reliable since you have to smuggle in naturalistic presuppositions in order for your worldview to be consistent. One such smuggling is trusting your own autonomy which presuppositionalist apologetics repeatedly tries to deny (only to fall upon the sword of contradiction as I've pointed out).
> But the Bible is clear that
> men/women believe the Bible's history and
> cosmology as a result of a 'body-slam' by the Holy
> Spirit, not as a result of scholastic
> argumentation or online forum debate."The Gentiles
> ... were glad and honored the word of the Lord;
> and all who were appointed for eternal life
> believed." (Acts 13)
Actually it's not clear - you are being VERY vague and dodging my questions (AGAIN!).
How does the 'holy spirit' 'body-slam' anything? These seem to be empty words that you use to convince yourself of your worldview. Why don't you reason with us and present your case for what the holy spirit does.
I'll ask you again to answer my questions - remember you said that if the insults stopped the discussion would become better. It hasn't so far as you are avoiding the discussion:
I would like you to specifically address these questions Eliot (I've added another from the Joshua conversation):
-------
To make my last post more efficient I thought I'd repost two of the important points that I think you need to address Eliot (of course if you want to address the others, then I'd be happy to read them).
1. I do not think it can be said that Adam and Eve 'rebelled' against God. If they can be said to have rebelled I do not think it's fair to punish them (and by extension mankind) for that rebellion. In order to rebell it seems to me that you would have to know that doing what you are not supposed to is wrong. Adam and Eve did not know disobeying God was wrong, so I don't think it can fairly be said that they rebelled against God.
2. Why ought we do what God says? Why ought we not commit sin. Your answer was that he created us and he can control us. Both of these answers do not follow that we should do what he says/thinks/wants - why do we care whether he created us or controls us? At best you could argue that we have no choice but to do what he wants. The trouble with this is that if this is the case then no one could logically sin. Since sin supposedly happens, this cannot be the case. It also seemed as though power lead to authority. That depends on how you define 'authoritative'. The only difference right now is that god is more powerful, which is a might makes right morality. If god does not exist then it seems to me that morality would depend on the most powerful being/entity in the universe. It could be, for instance, a government that was capable of exerting it's control over all the denizens of the planet. If it's power that is the reason for following God's demands, then ought we also follow those who are more powerful then us? It seems to me that would be the case.
3. Would you kill that child? Slowly or quickly? And would you feel holy and good doing God's word?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2009 03:53PM by Professor Pangloss.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: "I'm agnostic in terms of whether
> or not Jesus actually existed. If he did, then I
> have serious doubts that much of the New Testament
> can actually be attributed to his deeds and
> words."
>
> Ness replies: I understand, because supernatural
> events are inextricably woven into every bit of
> the New Testament, including not just Jesus'
> miracles but his awareness of what his opponents
> were thinking, his repeated escapes from attempts
> to kill or capture him, and his clear statements
> of foreknowledge about his impending death and
> resurrection.
Actually it's not really the supernatural events, although they play a part in it. I agree with the Jesus seminar on the idea that practically none of what Jesus said can be reasonably attributed to him.
> In a 'Big Bang' world-view of impersonal
> matter/energy + time + chance (which I call
> 'contemporary Darwinism'), you can trust nothing,
> really, that speaks about human activity in the
> past (let alone 'divine' activity) ...
The 'Big Bang' is a cosmological model of the expansion of the universe from a singularity. It is not a worldview.
Further, we don't know whether or not it (the expansion) was a 'chance' endeavor. We would have to know the initial conditions of the universe (or existence?) in order to determine that.
As far as 'trust' goes, I really don't know what you mean here. Are you talking about epistemic certainty? If you are, then why is that a necessary feature? It's not, really. Such demands are ludicris and unobtainable for all but a choice selection of propositions. If you aren't talking about epistemic certainty then I'll ask you to clarify.
> and you can
> know nothing, obviously, about the future apart
> from speculation.
Again, I'll hazard a response, but keep in mind I don't think you are being very clear; what we can do is rely on probabilities.
The nature of this universe that has been discovered is a probabilistic reality - your worldview, unless it denies quantum physics - is included in that bunch.
> You're left with your own
> personal experience of the present which, based
> upon observation, you expect to end in a permanent
> 'fade to black' at some point.
Um, aren't you as well? Even if you rely on revelation you first have to presuppose your own personal experience as trust worthy (as I've repeatedly made clear). So charging me with this is ignoring your own role in it.
> Christianity, with its assertion of an historic
> Fall, Curse, Incarnation, Atonement, Resurrection,
> and Judgment ... is obviously a bombshell into
> this world-view.
It's different, but no more reliable - in fact, I'd wager it's *less* reliable since you have to smuggle in naturalistic presuppositions in order for your worldview to be consistent. One such smuggling is trusting your own autonomy which presuppositionalist apologetics repeatedly tries to deny (only to fall upon the sword of contradiction as I've pointed out).
> But the Bible is clear that
> men/women believe the Bible's history and
> cosmology as a result of a 'body-slam' by the Holy
> Spirit, not as a result of scholastic
> argumentation or online forum debate."The Gentiles
> ... were glad and honored the word of the Lord;
> and all who were appointed for eternal life
> believed." (Acts 13)
Actually it's not clear - you are being VERY vague and dodging my questions (AGAIN!).
How does the 'holy spirit' 'body-slam' anything? These seem to be empty words that you use to convince yourself of your worldview. Why don't you reason with us and present your case for what the holy spirit does.
I'll ask you again to answer my questions - remember you said that if the insults stopped the discussion would become better. It hasn't so far as you are avoiding the discussion:
I would like you to specifically address these questions Eliot (I've added another from the Joshua conversation):
-------
To make my last post more efficient I thought I'd repost two of the important points that I think you need to address Eliot (of course if you want to address the others, then I'd be happy to read them).
1. I do not think it can be said that Adam and Eve 'rebelled' against God. If they can be said to have rebelled I do not think it's fair to punish them (and by extension mankind) for that rebellion. In order to rebell it seems to me that you would have to know that doing what you are not supposed to is wrong. Adam and Eve did not know disobeying God was wrong, so I don't think it can fairly be said that they rebelled against God.
2. Why ought we do what God says? Why ought we not commit sin. Your answer was that he created us and he can control us. Both of these answers do not follow that we should do what he says/thinks/wants - why do we care whether he created us or controls us? At best you could argue that we have no choice but to do what he wants. The trouble with this is that if this is the case then no one could logically sin. Since sin supposedly happens, this cannot be the case. It also seemed as though power lead to authority. That depends on how you define 'authoritative'. The only difference right now is that god is more powerful, which is a might makes right morality. If god does not exist then it seems to me that morality would depend on the most powerful being/entity in the universe. It could be, for instance, a government that was capable of exerting it's control over all the denizens of the planet. If it's power that is the reason for following God's demands, then ought we also follow those who are more powerful then us? It seems to me that would be the case.
3. Would you kill that child? Slowly or quickly? And would you feel holy and good doing God's word?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2009 03:53PM by Professor Pangloss.
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 26, 2009 01:36PM
nutters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you have any evidence show it, if you have
> anything that can only be explained by religion
> present it...
Self sacrificing suicide bombers....
I really can't think of anything that would lead such numbers to kill themselves in an effort to kill others. I suppose one could appeal to patriotism, ala the Japanese Zeros (Samuri and all that), but I think they believed their emperor was an actual god, so it can be traced back to that.
In seriousness, I wouldn't doubt there *could* be a secular equivolent, I'm just having trouble thinking of them.
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you have any evidence show it, if you have
> anything that can only be explained by religion
> present it...
Self sacrificing suicide bombers....
I really can't think of anything that would lead such numbers to kill themselves in an effort to kill others. I suppose one could appeal to patriotism, ala the Japanese Zeros (Samuri and all that), but I think they believed their emperor was an actual god, so it can be traced back to that.
In seriousness, I wouldn't doubt there *could* be a secular equivolent, I'm just having trouble thinking of them.
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 26, 2009 07:25PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7913375.stm
Earliest 'human footprints' found
The earliest footprints showing evidence of modern human foot anatomy and gait have been unearthed in Kenya.
The 1.5-million-year-old footprints display signs of a pronounced arch and short, aligned toes, in contrast to older footprints.
The size and spacing of the Kenyan markings - attributed to Homo erectus - reflect the height, weight, and walking style of modern humans.
The findings have been published in the journal Science.
The footprints are not the oldest belonging to a member of the human lineage. That title belongs to the 3.7 million-year-old Australopithecus afarensis prints found in Laetoli, Tanzania, in 1978.
Those prints, however, showed comparatively flat feet and a significantly higher angle between the big toe and the other toes, representative of a foot still adapted to grasping.
Exactly how that more ape-like foot developed into its modern version has remained unclear.
The fossil record is distinctly lacking in foot and hand bones, according to lead author Matthew Bennett of Bournemouth University, UK.
"The reason is that carnivores like to eat hands and feet," Professor Bennett told BBC News.
"Once the flesh is gone there's a lot of little bones that don't get preserved, so we know very little about the evolution of hands and feet on our ancestors."
The footprints were found near Ileret in northern Kenya. The site, on a small hill, is made up of metres of sediment which the researchers carefully cleared away.
What they found was two sets of footprints, one five metres deeper than the other, separated by sand, silt, and volcanic ash.
The team dated the surrounding sediment by comparing it with well-known radioisotope-dated samples from the region, finding that the two layers of prints were made at least 10,000 years apart.
Another critical feature that the series of footprints makes clear is how Homo erectus walked.
There is evidence of a heavy landing on the heel with weight transferred along the outer edge of the foot, progressing to the ball of the foot and lifting off with the toes.
"That's very diagnostic of the modern style of walking, and the Laetoli prints don't give that same character," Professor Bennett said.
The finding is a critical clue for mapping out the evolution of modern humans, both in terms of physiology and also how H. erectus fared in its environment.
H. erectus was a great leap in evolution, showing increased variety of diet and of habitat, and was the first Homo species to make the journey out of Africa.
"There's some suggestion out there that Homo erectus was able to scour the landscape for carcasses and meat...and was able to get there very quickly, had longer limbs and was much more efficient in terms of long distance travel," Professor Bennett added.
"Now we're also saying it had an essentially modern foot anatomy and function, which also adds to that story."
Earliest 'human footprints' found
The earliest footprints showing evidence of modern human foot anatomy and gait have been unearthed in Kenya.
The 1.5-million-year-old footprints display signs of a pronounced arch and short, aligned toes, in contrast to older footprints.
The size and spacing of the Kenyan markings - attributed to Homo erectus - reflect the height, weight, and walking style of modern humans.
The findings have been published in the journal Science.
The footprints are not the oldest belonging to a member of the human lineage. That title belongs to the 3.7 million-year-old Australopithecus afarensis prints found in Laetoli, Tanzania, in 1978.
Those prints, however, showed comparatively flat feet and a significantly higher angle between the big toe and the other toes, representative of a foot still adapted to grasping.
Exactly how that more ape-like foot developed into its modern version has remained unclear.
The fossil record is distinctly lacking in foot and hand bones, according to lead author Matthew Bennett of Bournemouth University, UK.
"The reason is that carnivores like to eat hands and feet," Professor Bennett told BBC News.
"Once the flesh is gone there's a lot of little bones that don't get preserved, so we know very little about the evolution of hands and feet on our ancestors."
The footprints were found near Ileret in northern Kenya. The site, on a small hill, is made up of metres of sediment which the researchers carefully cleared away.
What they found was two sets of footprints, one five metres deeper than the other, separated by sand, silt, and volcanic ash.
The team dated the surrounding sediment by comparing it with well-known radioisotope-dated samples from the region, finding that the two layers of prints were made at least 10,000 years apart.
Another critical feature that the series of footprints makes clear is how Homo erectus walked.
There is evidence of a heavy landing on the heel with weight transferred along the outer edge of the foot, progressing to the ball of the foot and lifting off with the toes.
"That's very diagnostic of the modern style of walking, and the Laetoli prints don't give that same character," Professor Bennett said.
The finding is a critical clue for mapping out the evolution of modern humans, both in terms of physiology and also how H. erectus fared in its environment.
H. erectus was a great leap in evolution, showing increased variety of diet and of habitat, and was the first Homo species to make the journey out of Africa.
"There's some suggestion out there that Homo erectus was able to scour the landscape for carcasses and meat...and was able to get there very quickly, had longer limbs and was much more efficient in terms of long distance travel," Professor Bennett added.
"Now we're also saying it had an essentially modern foot anatomy and function, which also adds to that story."
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
asshat
()
Date: February 27, 2009 02:53AM
If I hear the term "darwinist" one more time, im gonna blow a funny fuse.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
asshat
()
Date: February 27, 2009 03:15AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Christian must painfully watch the God of the
> Bible fulfill the curse pronounced in Genesis,
> after the rebellion: "By the sweat of your brow
> you will eat your food until you return to the
> ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you
> are and to dust you will return."
>
> Obviously, you don't like the 'sovereignty of God'
> that runs clearly through the entire Bible.
> (Neither, in some respects, do I.)
>
> But let me ask you the "Adam Question:" If
> Joshua's men had not killed those children, would
> they have lived forever (like the 'toons' in the
> Roger Rabbit movie)?
so basically what you are saying is... you would slaughter this child, because in the long run "what does it matter"? Well then lets all get abortions, and go out and commit some good ole fashion murder (oh, in gODs name ofcoarse).
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Christian must painfully watch the God of the
> Bible fulfill the curse pronounced in Genesis,
> after the rebellion: "By the sweat of your brow
> you will eat your food until you return to the
> ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you
> are and to dust you will return."
>
> Obviously, you don't like the 'sovereignty of God'
> that runs clearly through the entire Bible.
> (Neither, in some respects, do I.)
>
> But let me ask you the "Adam Question:" If
> Joshua's men had not killed those children, would
> they have lived forever (like the 'toons' in the
> Roger Rabbit movie)?
so basically what you are saying is... you would slaughter this child, because in the long run "what does it matter"? Well then lets all get abortions, and go out and commit some good ole fashion murder (oh, in gODs name ofcoarse).
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
kl
()
Date: February 27, 2009 08:09AM
kl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> shut the fuck up KL Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > hey Kl did you have to make 18 different
> responses
> > and quote people in every single fucking one. I
> > liked christ before- but now i think hes a
> > douche, thanks man.
>
>
> Answer: All the responses are to separate
> individuals, like this one.
> Whom, even though you meant to use 'douche' in a
> negative way, you obviously don't understand the
> function of a douche. The function of the douche
> is to clean out impuritys. And this is what
> Christ does for us, He cleans out impurities in
> the lives of people, and makes them whole and
> clean.
> What an interesting comparison.
> Thanks, and I pray for God's best for you as well.
furthur reply
By the way, I do not and am not currently able to own a house either, but am very glad for those who can. I hope one day I can, too. I'm not jealous of them, but glad for them, even though I do not make enough myself.
We still live in a free country, where, as much as is possible, and if we don't spend time tearing each other apart, but live constructive lives with positive attitudes, we can do what we can to learn and grow and grow up, and move ahead, and in turn, do what we can to try to help others get ahead, and guide them to be able to help themselves. We are only individuals, and we cannot help all to learn to get ahead, though many of us wish we could, but what we can do to help others we do, as we learn how ourselves.
Jealousy is sin, not just a green-eyed monster, though that is the case, too.
It is imperative for a nation, that there are rich people, but not arrogant, self-centred ones, yet even with them, whole nations could never survive on poverty alone. The rich have a moral responsibility to help keep the nation going financially, and to reach out and help others. Deductions, yes, the rich should have these, too, or they may become too poor to help anyone or any company.
The rich should not snub the poor, some do, and some do not. But nations are made up of all ranks in life. America has been unique in the past, in that it was started mostly by those who were not rich, though some were, and they, for the most part, worked together, equally, to make this nation great, founded on Biblical principles, for the most part, and it is because of the latter, that this nation rose in prominence before the world and could stand up against all odds, no matter, what. This nation kept from borrowing for a while, and prospered, and thus, was able to help others, as finances permitted. Individuals learned not to borrow for years, and kept ahead. Some do this yet. But now this country has forsaken these principles and is going downhill fast, and can no longer help anyone properly, because she is in poverty now. Has all been perfect all these years? No. But as long as all God's principles are followed in the majority, it will prosper again. Some people follow these principles without even realizing they are from the Bible, and get ahead, maybe not rich, but doing fine in other ways. His principles work, when followed properly.
Must go and get ready for work.
I'm not jealous of the rich. I'd like to learn the wise steps they took to get where they are, not the wrong decisions or attitudes which some have taken. I may or may never get as rich as some, but if I can learn to manage what resources I do have, wisely, and with the Biblical guidelines, I'll do better somehow, and so will everyone else who learns wisely.
Sadly, as long as God is ignored, the world will get worse.
Thank you for sharing, I'm praying for God's best for you and all who read these pages. If you have God's best in your life, on His terms, you will never regret it, though you don't believe it, nor currently want to believe it, nor understand it. Some things are hard to understand and accept, even with what God has to say to us, nevertheless, His ways are best for us. He created us, He knows what is best for us, and wants, more than any human being, what is best for us as His creation. I'm glad. I don't have to argue to prove rather He is real or not, and God won't argue either, but His proof is all around us each day, even amidst the evil that is also around us. And ultimately, and I believe, soon, all on this earth will see Him for Who He is, and then all will know He is real. God's Word, in centuries past, already told us of the days we are living in now, long before it ever came to be. We ARE living in the Last Days spoken to us in the Bible. His return is imminent, and soon. Are you ready to meet Him face to face? Who is, and who isn't - the decision is up to you, just like it is to me.
-------------------------------------------------------
> shut the fuck up KL Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > hey Kl did you have to make 18 different
> responses
> > and quote people in every single fucking one. I
> > liked christ before- but now i think hes a
> > douche, thanks man.
>
>
> Answer: All the responses are to separate
> individuals, like this one.
> Whom, even though you meant to use 'douche' in a
> negative way, you obviously don't understand the
> function of a douche. The function of the douche
> is to clean out impuritys. And this is what
> Christ does for us, He cleans out impurities in
> the lives of people, and makes them whole and
> clean.
> What an interesting comparison.
> Thanks, and I pray for God's best for you as well.
furthur reply
By the way, I do not and am not currently able to own a house either, but am very glad for those who can. I hope one day I can, too. I'm not jealous of them, but glad for them, even though I do not make enough myself.
We still live in a free country, where, as much as is possible, and if we don't spend time tearing each other apart, but live constructive lives with positive attitudes, we can do what we can to learn and grow and grow up, and move ahead, and in turn, do what we can to try to help others get ahead, and guide them to be able to help themselves. We are only individuals, and we cannot help all to learn to get ahead, though many of us wish we could, but what we can do to help others we do, as we learn how ourselves.
Jealousy is sin, not just a green-eyed monster, though that is the case, too.
It is imperative for a nation, that there are rich people, but not arrogant, self-centred ones, yet even with them, whole nations could never survive on poverty alone. The rich have a moral responsibility to help keep the nation going financially, and to reach out and help others. Deductions, yes, the rich should have these, too, or they may become too poor to help anyone or any company.
The rich should not snub the poor, some do, and some do not. But nations are made up of all ranks in life. America has been unique in the past, in that it was started mostly by those who were not rich, though some were, and they, for the most part, worked together, equally, to make this nation great, founded on Biblical principles, for the most part, and it is because of the latter, that this nation rose in prominence before the world and could stand up against all odds, no matter, what. This nation kept from borrowing for a while, and prospered, and thus, was able to help others, as finances permitted. Individuals learned not to borrow for years, and kept ahead. Some do this yet. But now this country has forsaken these principles and is going downhill fast, and can no longer help anyone properly, because she is in poverty now. Has all been perfect all these years? No. But as long as all God's principles are followed in the majority, it will prosper again. Some people follow these principles without even realizing they are from the Bible, and get ahead, maybe not rich, but doing fine in other ways. His principles work, when followed properly.
Must go and get ready for work.
I'm not jealous of the rich. I'd like to learn the wise steps they took to get where they are, not the wrong decisions or attitudes which some have taken. I may or may never get as rich as some, but if I can learn to manage what resources I do have, wisely, and with the Biblical guidelines, I'll do better somehow, and so will everyone else who learns wisely.
Sadly, as long as God is ignored, the world will get worse.
Thank you for sharing, I'm praying for God's best for you and all who read these pages. If you have God's best in your life, on His terms, you will never regret it, though you don't believe it, nor currently want to believe it, nor understand it. Some things are hard to understand and accept, even with what God has to say to us, nevertheless, His ways are best for us. He created us, He knows what is best for us, and wants, more than any human being, what is best for us as His creation. I'm glad. I don't have to argue to prove rather He is real or not, and God won't argue either, but His proof is all around us each day, even amidst the evil that is also around us. And ultimately, and I believe, soon, all on this earth will see Him for Who He is, and then all will know He is real. God's Word, in centuries past, already told us of the days we are living in now, long before it ever came to be. We ARE living in the Last Days spoken to us in the Bible. His return is imminent, and soon. Are you ready to meet Him face to face? Who is, and who isn't - the decision is up to you, just like it is to me.
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 27, 2009 08:18AM
Ever since Jesus supposedly died there have been Christians saying we are living in the last days.
Why should we believe your claims when so many others have been wrong?
BTW - for this question, let's suppose that Christianity is true.
Why should we believe your claims when so many others have been wrong?
BTW - for this question, let's suppose that Christianity is true.
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: February 27, 2009 08:26AM
kl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> kl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > shut the fuck up KL Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
We ARE living in the Last
> Days spoken to us in the Bible. His return is
> imminent, and soon. Are you ready to meet Him
> face to face? Who is, and who isn't - the
> decision is up to you, just like it is to me.
This is why you people are so dangerous and should be expunged from civilized society
There is no God. There is no end time.
Anyone attempting to accelerate the end time by kick-starting dumb wars, supporting Israeli dominance to support scripture etc etc should be rounded up as terrorists and stuck in one of the CIA's deepest black holes.
Alternatively - push off to some jungle retreat and start preparing your Kool-Aid
-------------------------------------------------------
> kl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > shut the fuck up KL Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
We ARE living in the Last
> Days spoken to us in the Bible. His return is
> imminent, and soon. Are you ready to meet Him
> face to face? Who is, and who isn't - the
> decision is up to you, just like it is to me.
This is why you people are so dangerous and should be expunged from civilized society
There is no God. There is no end time.
Anyone attempting to accelerate the end time by kick-starting dumb wars, supporting Israeli dominance to support scripture etc etc should be rounded up as terrorists and stuck in one of the CIA's deepest black holes.
Alternatively - push off to some jungle retreat and start preparing your Kool-Aid
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: February 27, 2009 03:30PM
Another reminder, this time with Biblical Backing!
"1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in you hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear"
-------
To make my last post more efficient I thought I'd repost two of the important points that I think you need to address Eliot (of course if you want to address the others, then I'd be happy to read them).
1. I do not think it can be said that Adam and Eve 'rebelled' against God. If they can be said to have rebelled I do not think it's fair to punish them (and by extension mankind) for that rebellion. In order to rebell it seems to me that you would have to know that doing what you are not supposed to is wrong. Adam and Eve did not know disobeying God was wrong, so I don't think it can fairly be said that they rebelled against God.
2. Why ought we do what God says? Why ought we not commit sin. Your answer was that he created us and he can control us. Both of these answers do not follow that we should do what he says/thinks/wants - why do we care whether he created us or controls us? At best you could argue that we have no choice but to do what he wants. The trouble with this is that if this is the case then no one could logically sin. Since sin supposedly happens, this cannot be the case. It also seemed as though power lead to authority. That depends on how you define 'authoritative'. The only difference right now is that god is more powerful, which is a might makes right morality. If god does not exist then it seems to me that morality would depend on the most powerful being/entity in the universe. It could be, for instance, a government that was capable of exerting it's control over all the denizens of the planet. If it's power that is the reason for following God's demands, then ought we also follow those who are more powerful then us? It seems to me that would be the case.
3. Would you kill that child? Slowly or quickly? And would you feel holy and good doing God's word?
"1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in you hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear"
-------
To make my last post more efficient I thought I'd repost two of the important points that I think you need to address Eliot (of course if you want to address the others, then I'd be happy to read them).
1. I do not think it can be said that Adam and Eve 'rebelled' against God. If they can be said to have rebelled I do not think it's fair to punish them (and by extension mankind) for that rebellion. In order to rebell it seems to me that you would have to know that doing what you are not supposed to is wrong. Adam and Eve did not know disobeying God was wrong, so I don't think it can fairly be said that they rebelled against God.
2. Why ought we do what God says? Why ought we not commit sin. Your answer was that he created us and he can control us. Both of these answers do not follow that we should do what he says/thinks/wants - why do we care whether he created us or controls us? At best you could argue that we have no choice but to do what he wants. The trouble with this is that if this is the case then no one could logically sin. Since sin supposedly happens, this cannot be the case. It also seemed as though power lead to authority. That depends on how you define 'authoritative'. The only difference right now is that god is more powerful, which is a might makes right morality. If god does not exist then it seems to me that morality would depend on the most powerful being/entity in the universe. It could be, for instance, a government that was capable of exerting it's control over all the denizens of the planet. If it's power that is the reason for following God's demands, then ought we also follow those who are more powerful then us? It seems to me that would be the case.
3. Would you kill that child? Slowly or quickly? And would you feel holy and good doing God's word?
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
bizzump
()
Date: March 02, 2009 01:40AM
bizzump bitches
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: March 02, 2009 04:17PM
Pangloss, Christians would all agree with your statement that "morality [depends] on the most powerful being/entity in the universe."
Absent the God of the Bible, you talk about "a [human] government that [is] capable of exerting its control over all the denizens of the planet."
The Bible certainly foresees such a horrible future government ... and its destruction by Jesus upon his return.
Ultimately the Christians expect to live resurrected, not in a 'democracy,' but in a peaceable kingdom which is a theocracy in the fullest meaning of that term.
You however expect to die and simply disappear forever, forgotten.
If you want to be 'remembered' you should probably be posting for a much larger audience on exchristian.net ... rather than bashing Christianity on this small Fairfax County bulletin board.
In the impersonal chance universe of (what is commonly called) 'Darwinism,' none of this chatter has any meaning in any case ... here's the 'Darwinian' gospel as cast by Shakespeare:
For those, on the other hand, who believe in the historicity of the Bible -- as opposed to the uniformity of natural causes in the impersonal, closed system of 'Dawinism' -- life is not just a gigantic hamster wheel ... precisely because God is the 'ultimate reality' and his 'morality' applies all the way from the Fall in the Garden of Eden to the return of his Son as King.
They have hope for a truly better world. You have none, despite all the prancing and dancing on this forum, as the clock keeps ticking toward your forthcoming death.
I guarantee that the Christians who read this forum sincerely 'love' you despite your disdain for their hope ... and that they pray (perhaps to your irritation) to the God that you think does not exist, that on your deathbed you'll turn to reading the Bible again for just one last time ... rather than seeking cold comfort by leafing through, say, "The Origin of Species" or "Cosmos" ...
the issue being whether you are just something "kicked up out of the slime by chance" ... or an image-bearer of the living God, subject to 'morality', eligible for condemnation on the basis of your own actions or for forgiveness based upon the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.
Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2009 05:01PM by Eliot Ness.
Absent the God of the Bible, you talk about "a [human] government that [is] capable of exerting its control over all the denizens of the planet."
The Bible certainly foresees such a horrible future government ... and its destruction by Jesus upon his return.
Ultimately the Christians expect to live resurrected, not in a 'democracy,' but in a peaceable kingdom which is a theocracy in the fullest meaning of that term.
You however expect to die and simply disappear forever, forgotten.
If you want to be 'remembered' you should probably be posting for a much larger audience on exchristian.net ... rather than bashing Christianity on this small Fairfax County bulletin board.
In the impersonal chance universe of (what is commonly called) 'Darwinism,' none of this chatter has any meaning in any case ... here's the 'Darwinian' gospel as cast by Shakespeare:
Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
For those, on the other hand, who believe in the historicity of the Bible -- as opposed to the uniformity of natural causes in the impersonal, closed system of 'Dawinism' -- life is not just a gigantic hamster wheel ... precisely because God is the 'ultimate reality' and his 'morality' applies all the way from the Fall in the Garden of Eden to the return of his Son as King.
They have hope for a truly better world. You have none, despite all the prancing and dancing on this forum, as the clock keeps ticking toward your forthcoming death.
I guarantee that the Christians who read this forum sincerely 'love' you despite your disdain for their hope ... and that they pray (perhaps to your irritation) to the God that you think does not exist, that on your deathbed you'll turn to reading the Bible again for just one last time ... rather than seeking cold comfort by leafing through, say, "The Origin of Species" or "Cosmos" ...
the issue being whether you are just something "kicked up out of the slime by chance" ... or an image-bearer of the living God, subject to 'morality', eligible for condemnation on the basis of your own actions or for forgiveness based upon the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.
Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2009 05:01PM by Eliot Ness.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 02, 2009 04:55PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, Christians would all agree with your
> statement that "morality on the most powerful
> being/entity in the universe."
No, not all would, some argue that there actually is a thing called 'good' and 'evil' which are not arbitrary or subjective. This is beside the point though.
> Absent the God of the Bible, you talk about "a
> government that capable of exerting its control
> over all the denizens of the planet."
None so far - but really, they don't need to be. They just have to be powerful enough to express their moral wishes on their populations (including you and I).
> The Bible certainly foresees such a horrible
> future government ... and its destruction by Jesus
> upon his return.
It strikes me as highly suspect that Jesus would fight a powerful government for *control* over the populous.
> Ultimately the Christians expect to live
> resurrected, not in a 'democracy,' but in a
> peaceable kingdom which is a theocracy in the
> fullest meaning of that term.
So they don't even have the facade that their opinions matter? What's the point of their existence if it's to simply submit to slavery of an entity who doesn't need them at all?
> You however expect to die and simply disappear
> forever, forgotten.
Well, not initially, but eventually, yes. It's actually what gives my life more value. The finiteness of a substance in demand increases it's value.
> If you want to be 'remembered' you should probably
> be posting for a much larger audience on
> exchristian.net ... rather than bashing
> Christianity on this small Fairfax County bulletin
> board.
1. I do not expect to be remembered by posting on an internet messageboard.
2. I *have* posted on exchristian.net and a wide variety of other forums. Professor Pangloss is not my usual screen name. As far as bashing, believe it or not, I usually don't do that. Regardless though, I find it strange that you would still consider what I'm doing as bashing even though I've complied with your request about my inflammatory rhetoric.
> In the impersonal chance universe of (what is
> commonly called) 'Darwinism,' none of this chatter
> has any meaning in any case ... here's the
> 'Darwinian' gospel as cast by Shakespeare:
Take that up with a Darwinist. I am not one, as I've said repeatedly.
You seem quite upset by the lack of *meaning* (whatever you mean by that) the universe has. I am not that upset by it. The fact is, the notion that the universe is the battle ground for an evil monster (Satan) and a heroic superman (God) is the type of meaning that is found in hollywood, not reality.
Your (seemingly) only objection to modern science and a secular worldview is, again seemingly, based on your desire to be 'important' in the grand scheme of things. I'm sorry but from all available evidence, you are not. Nor am I.
I am important to my family and friends. I'm actually okay with that. To put a smile on my daughter's face is more important then the idea of swashbuckling with Satan. It is more valuable to me and I don't particularly care if no one is around to witness it.
> Out, out, brief candle!
> Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
> That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
> And then is heard no more: it is a tale
> Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
> Signifying nothing.
Yet it's the most important thing we have. If you can't handle not being a minor figure in an outlandish hollywood tale, I can't help you. I'm living my life and I'm quite happy.
> For those, on the other hand, who believe in the
> historicity of the Bible -- as opposed to the
> uniformity of natural causes in the impersonal,
> closed system of 'Dawinism' -- life is not just a
> gigantic hamster wheel ... precisely because God
> is the 'ultimate reality' and his 'morality'
> applies all the way from the Fall in the Garden of
> Eden to the return of his Son as King.
Again, I'm not a "Darwinist" or a 'Dawninist' (I'm not sure if you misspelled Darwinism or if this is a new term), but I do not view life as a 'gigantic hampster wheel'.
By your own implied admission, god's morality is no more objective, no less arbitrary, and no less subjective then any person's. So why ought we follow it?
The fact is, in this long post of yours where you attempt to address one of the three questions, you *STILL* cannot give us *ANY* reason we *ought* to follow God's morality.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, Christians would all agree with your
> statement that "morality on the most powerful
> being/entity in the universe."
No, not all would, some argue that there actually is a thing called 'good' and 'evil' which are not arbitrary or subjective. This is beside the point though.
> Absent the God of the Bible, you talk about "a
> government that capable of exerting its control
> over all the denizens of the planet."
None so far - but really, they don't need to be. They just have to be powerful enough to express their moral wishes on their populations (including you and I).
> The Bible certainly foresees such a horrible
> future government ... and its destruction by Jesus
> upon his return.
It strikes me as highly suspect that Jesus would fight a powerful government for *control* over the populous.
> Ultimately the Christians expect to live
> resurrected, not in a 'democracy,' but in a
> peaceable kingdom which is a theocracy in the
> fullest meaning of that term.
So they don't even have the facade that their opinions matter? What's the point of their existence if it's to simply submit to slavery of an entity who doesn't need them at all?
> You however expect to die and simply disappear
> forever, forgotten.
Well, not initially, but eventually, yes. It's actually what gives my life more value. The finiteness of a substance in demand increases it's value.
> If you want to be 'remembered' you should probably
> be posting for a much larger audience on
> exchristian.net ... rather than bashing
> Christianity on this small Fairfax County bulletin
> board.
1. I do not expect to be remembered by posting on an internet messageboard.
2. I *have* posted on exchristian.net and a wide variety of other forums. Professor Pangloss is not my usual screen name. As far as bashing, believe it or not, I usually don't do that. Regardless though, I find it strange that you would still consider what I'm doing as bashing even though I've complied with your request about my inflammatory rhetoric.
> In the impersonal chance universe of (what is
> commonly called) 'Darwinism,' none of this chatter
> has any meaning in any case ... here's the
> 'Darwinian' gospel as cast by Shakespeare:
Take that up with a Darwinist. I am not one, as I've said repeatedly.
You seem quite upset by the lack of *meaning* (whatever you mean by that) the universe has. I am not that upset by it. The fact is, the notion that the universe is the battle ground for an evil monster (Satan) and a heroic superman (God) is the type of meaning that is found in hollywood, not reality.
Your (seemingly) only objection to modern science and a secular worldview is, again seemingly, based on your desire to be 'important' in the grand scheme of things. I'm sorry but from all available evidence, you are not. Nor am I.
I am important to my family and friends. I'm actually okay with that. To put a smile on my daughter's face is more important then the idea of swashbuckling with Satan. It is more valuable to me and I don't particularly care if no one is around to witness it.
> Out, out, brief candle!
> Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
> That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
> And then is heard no more: it is a tale
> Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
> Signifying nothing.
Yet it's the most important thing we have. If you can't handle not being a minor figure in an outlandish hollywood tale, I can't help you. I'm living my life and I'm quite happy.
> For those, on the other hand, who believe in the
> historicity of the Bible -- as opposed to the
> uniformity of natural causes in the impersonal,
> closed system of 'Dawinism' -- life is not just a
> gigantic hamster wheel ... precisely because God
> is the 'ultimate reality' and his 'morality'
> applies all the way from the Fall in the Garden of
> Eden to the return of his Son as King.
Again, I'm not a "Darwinist" or a 'Dawninist' (I'm not sure if you misspelled Darwinism or if this is a new term), but I do not view life as a 'gigantic hampster wheel'.
By your own implied admission, god's morality is no more objective, no less arbitrary, and no less subjective then any person's. So why ought we follow it?
The fact is, in this long post of yours where you attempt to address one of the three questions, you *STILL* cannot give us *ANY* reason we *ought* to follow God's morality.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: March 02, 2009 04:58PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> The fact is, in this long post of yours where you
> attempt to address one of the three questions, you
> *STILL* cannot give us *ANY* reason we *ought* to
> follow God's morality.
or more pertinently, why we should believe there is a god
- sorry I forgot that your argument is 'there is a god, therefore there is a god' - less than convincing I'm afraid
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> The fact is, in this long post of yours where you
> attempt to address one of the three questions, you
> *STILL* cannot give us *ANY* reason we *ought* to
> follow God's morality.
or more pertinently, why we should believe there is a god
- sorry I forgot that your argument is 'there is a god, therefore there is a god' - less than convincing I'm afraid
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 02, 2009 05:06PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> precisely because God
> is the 'ultimate reality' and his 'morality'
> applies all the way from the Fall in the Garden of
> Eden to the return of his Son as King.
You change things around a bit, but the point remains that you have not given us a reason we ought to follow god's morality. I suppose, based on the quote above, you think that god has an ownership claim to us and therefore we ought to follow his morality. This is slavery mentality and I hope that now that I've pointed it out to you, you'll realize how arbitrary and subjective and useless it is.
My guess is that you went to Lon asking for answers this Sunday and he was unable to give you anything better then what you've posted here. That is the reason you aren't fully addressing the questions I've set forth. That is the reason you cannot come up with an ought.
> They have hope for a truly better world. You have
> none, despite all the prancing and dancing on this
> forum, as the clock keeps ticking toward your
> forthcoming death.
?
This denies basic reality, Eliot. I have hope for a better world because I *care* about the world and I view reason as an avenue to address the problems in this world.
As for my forthcoming death, it's what gives my life value. Were I to live forever, then this world wouldn't matter at all to me.
I'm curious as to why you are pretending that this world means anything to you and why you would attempt (badly) to castigate me and my ilk in regards to hope for this world. You, and the Christian, have *NO* hope for this world. You all don't really care about it - in fairness, you don't really have to, with eternity and all.
> I guarantee that all the Christians who read this
> forum sincerely 'love' you despite your disdain
> for their hope ...
Then that is a 'shallow' love, as they do not know me at all.
Further, I take issue with your notion that I 'disdain' their hope. You seem to be upset with me, which indicates to me that your talk with Lon didn't go too well.
I'll clarify. I do not wish the Christian to have no hope. I do not wish the Christian to be sad in their worldview. I just wish the Christian would look at reality (or at least the worldview of the secularist) with honest eyes. It is not the horrible monster that the Christian has convinced himself it is. It is the most precious thing we all share.
> and that they pray (perhaps to
> your irritation) to the God that you think does
> not exist,
Again, why are you trying to make me out to be a seething anger monger. I am no such thing and I do not find it irritating when people pray for me. I'd prefer if they really cared for them to talk with me, but ultimately, I see their prayer in the manner as they (usually) intended - a request for god with the best of their intentions.
> that on your deathbed you'll turn to
> reading the Bible again for just one last time ...
> rather than seeking cold comfort by leafing
> through, say, "The Origin of Species" or
> "Cosmos."
Sounds like you are giving up instead of giving the issue the critical thought that it requires. I hope I'm wrong about that.
In any event, I would not read 'the origin of the species' or watch/read 'cosmos'. Both are too dry for me and one time was enough.
No, I'd rather spend my death bed with my family and those I care about. If none were around, I think I'd spend my time reading Camus.
-------------------------------------------------------
> precisely because God
> is the 'ultimate reality' and his 'morality'
> applies all the way from the Fall in the Garden of
> Eden to the return of his Son as King.
You change things around a bit, but the point remains that you have not given us a reason we ought to follow god's morality. I suppose, based on the quote above, you think that god has an ownership claim to us and therefore we ought to follow his morality. This is slavery mentality and I hope that now that I've pointed it out to you, you'll realize how arbitrary and subjective and useless it is.
My guess is that you went to Lon asking for answers this Sunday and he was unable to give you anything better then what you've posted here. That is the reason you aren't fully addressing the questions I've set forth. That is the reason you cannot come up with an ought.
> They have hope for a truly better world. You have
> none, despite all the prancing and dancing on this
> forum, as the clock keeps ticking toward your
> forthcoming death.
?
This denies basic reality, Eliot. I have hope for a better world because I *care* about the world and I view reason as an avenue to address the problems in this world.
As for my forthcoming death, it's what gives my life value. Were I to live forever, then this world wouldn't matter at all to me.
I'm curious as to why you are pretending that this world means anything to you and why you would attempt (badly) to castigate me and my ilk in regards to hope for this world. You, and the Christian, have *NO* hope for this world. You all don't really care about it - in fairness, you don't really have to, with eternity and all.
> I guarantee that all the Christians who read this
> forum sincerely 'love' you despite your disdain
> for their hope ...
Then that is a 'shallow' love, as they do not know me at all.
Further, I take issue with your notion that I 'disdain' their hope. You seem to be upset with me, which indicates to me that your talk with Lon didn't go too well.
I'll clarify. I do not wish the Christian to have no hope. I do not wish the Christian to be sad in their worldview. I just wish the Christian would look at reality (or at least the worldview of the secularist) with honest eyes. It is not the horrible monster that the Christian has convinced himself it is. It is the most precious thing we all share.
> and that they pray (perhaps to
> your irritation) to the God that you think does
> not exist,
Again, why are you trying to make me out to be a seething anger monger. I am no such thing and I do not find it irritating when people pray for me. I'd prefer if they really cared for them to talk with me, but ultimately, I see their prayer in the manner as they (usually) intended - a request for god with the best of their intentions.
> that on your deathbed you'll turn to
> reading the Bible again for just one last time ...
> rather than seeking cold comfort by leafing
> through, say, "The Origin of Species" or
> "Cosmos."
Sounds like you are giving up instead of giving the issue the critical thought that it requires. I hope I'm wrong about that.
In any event, I would not read 'the origin of the species' or watch/read 'cosmos'. Both are too dry for me and one time was enough.
No, I'd rather spend my death bed with my family and those I care about. If none were around, I think I'd spend my time reading Camus.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 02, 2009 05:12PM
nutters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Eliot Ness Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > The fact is, in this long post of yours where
> you
> > attempt to address one of the three questions,
> you
> > *STILL* cannot give us *ANY* reason we *ought*
> to
> > follow God's morality.
>
>
> or more pertinently, why we should believe there
> is a god
>
> - sorry I forgot that your argument is 'there is a
> god, therefore there is a god' - less than
> convincing I'm afraid
Perhaps I'm misreading Eliot's tone, but it appears to me that he's giving up. He tried to engage a few times after the Joshua Challenge, but I think that Lon's response to it (basically suggesting that Lon would have killed the children) took the wind from his sails.
I think he realizes that the might makes right authority of the bible is truly no different the Nazi rationalizations of morality that he was decrying earlier. He's left with 'hope' for eternal salvation and that's about it. He realizes there really isn't any reason to follow god's commands and he's been reduced to hoping he will survive by doing whatever god commands, no matter how horrible.
It reminds me of the Jews who during the holocaust would beat/mistreat other Jews in the camps just to save themselves. I can't remember what the name for those Jews were, BTW.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Eliot Ness Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > The fact is, in this long post of yours where
> you
> > attempt to address one of the three questions,
> you
> > *STILL* cannot give us *ANY* reason we *ought*
> to
> > follow God's morality.
>
>
> or more pertinently, why we should believe there
> is a god
>
> - sorry I forgot that your argument is 'there is a
> god, therefore there is a god' - less than
> convincing I'm afraid
Perhaps I'm misreading Eliot's tone, but it appears to me that he's giving up. He tried to engage a few times after the Joshua Challenge, but I think that Lon's response to it (basically suggesting that Lon would have killed the children) took the wind from his sails.
I think he realizes that the might makes right authority of the bible is truly no different the Nazi rationalizations of morality that he was decrying earlier. He's left with 'hope' for eternal salvation and that's about it. He realizes there really isn't any reason to follow god's commands and he's been reduced to hoping he will survive by doing whatever god commands, no matter how horrible.
It reminds me of the Jews who during the holocaust would beat/mistreat other Jews in the camps just to save themselves. I can't remember what the name for those Jews were, BTW.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 02, 2009 05:16PM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the issue being whether you are just something
> "kicked up out of the slime by chance" ... or an
> image-bearer of the living God, subject to
> 'morality', eligible for condemnation on the basis
> of your own actions or for forgiveness based upon
> the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.
Technically it's an issue between being 'of slime' or 'of dirt'. That distinction, I must admit, is lost on me.
As for being the 'image-bearer' of the 'living god', what does that mean? That god is a humanoid?
Regardless, it seems that your reason for rejecting reality (at least what *I* claim to be reality) is because you find it unpleasant that you would be related to slime.
Unfortunately reality is not obligated to subject itself to your wishes, Eliot. Why you think it has to be, I have no idea. Reality will not provide you better meaning or better relatives simply because you are upset by what you've been presented.
-------------------------------------------------------
> the issue being whether you are just something
> "kicked up out of the slime by chance" ... or an
> image-bearer of the living God, subject to
> 'morality', eligible for condemnation on the basis
> of your own actions or for forgiveness based upon
> the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.
Technically it's an issue between being 'of slime' or 'of dirt'. That distinction, I must admit, is lost on me.
As for being the 'image-bearer' of the 'living god', what does that mean? That god is a humanoid?
Regardless, it seems that your reason for rejecting reality (at least what *I* claim to be reality) is because you find it unpleasant that you would be related to slime.
Unfortunately reality is not obligated to subject itself to your wishes, Eliot. Why you think it has to be, I have no idea. Reality will not provide you better meaning or better relatives simply because you are upset by what you've been presented.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Eliot Ness
()
Date: March 03, 2009 09:18AM
Pangloss, nobody is ever going to 'argue' you into believing that Christianity is true.
But here's an idea. Since this forum is about McLean Bible Church, why don't you offer a critique of a sermon by Lon Solomon. For example, this recent one about the Return of Christ?
http://www.mcleanbible.org/media_player.asp?messageID=23883
But here's an idea. Since this forum is about McLean Bible Church, why don't you offer a critique of a sermon by Lon Solomon. For example, this recent one about the Return of Christ?
http://www.mcleanbible.org/media_player.asp?messageID=23883
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 03, 2009 09:54AM
Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, nobody is ever going to 'argue' you into
> believing that Christianity is true.
What do you base this on? Your poor argumentation? The evidence suggests that *I* can be argued into renouncing my beliefs as *it's happened in the past*!
Seriously, get real. If anything I think the reverse can be suggested of you, since you have been dodging theological issues left and right. Those issues you do deem to answer are answered poorly.
> But here's an idea. Since this forum is about
> McLean Bible Church, why don't you offer a
> critique of a sermon by Lon Solomon. For example,
> this recent one about the Return of Christ?
>
> http://www.mcleanbible.org/media_player.asp?messag
> eID=23883
I'm at work - I can't listen to this. I have no interest in arguing against Lon Solomon, as he's not here to defend himself and he can be misunderstood and all. That is why I've repeatedly asked *you* questions.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, nobody is ever going to 'argue' you into
> believing that Christianity is true.
What do you base this on? Your poor argumentation? The evidence suggests that *I* can be argued into renouncing my beliefs as *it's happened in the past*!
Seriously, get real. If anything I think the reverse can be suggested of you, since you have been dodging theological issues left and right. Those issues you do deem to answer are answered poorly.
> But here's an idea. Since this forum is about
> McLean Bible Church, why don't you offer a
> critique of a sermon by Lon Solomon. For example,
> this recent one about the Return of Christ?
>
> http://www.mcleanbible.org/media_player.asp?messag
> eID=23883
I'm at work - I can't listen to this. I have no interest in arguing against Lon Solomon, as he's not here to defend himself and he can be misunderstood and all. That is why I've repeatedly asked *you* questions.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 03, 2009 04:15PM
Eliot, I know you have a blog and I've criticized your, for a lack of a better term, "discussion" skills, but I am genuinely curious: Have you ever had a long drawn out religious discussion (either online or over the course of several days/weeks) with someone who was not your religion?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2009 04:35PM by Professor Pangloss.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2009 04:35PM by Professor Pangloss.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Olovio
()
Date: March 04, 2009 03:37PM
Ugh I go there on wednesday nights for the rock but everyone there is and idiot! The adults that supervise are annoying as hell and all the kids think that they're just too cool!!! There's this one kid Mika who thinks he's the biggest badass but he's my age and up to my neck! Lame as hell!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 04, 2009 03:40PM
I've actually never been to the church. What is it like? (physically as well as the people - aside from the idiots)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2009 03:40PM by Professor Pangloss.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2009 03:40PM by Professor Pangloss.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
asshat
()
Date: March 07, 2009 05:20AM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've actually never been to the church. What is
> it like? (physically as well as the people -
> aside from the idiots)
aside from the idiots? who does that leave?
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've actually never been to the church. What is
> it like? (physically as well as the people -
> aside from the idiots)
aside from the idiots? who does that leave?
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
KF
()
Date: March 07, 2009 09:28AM
Childish and foolish talk will never satisfy your souls, only Jesus... but if you won't believe you'll never understand why a man who follows Christ is blessed with or without finances. Take the money away and the man will be left standing and if he never forsake's the Lord, like Job, it will be given back many times.
The reason Lon is doing well will always be a mistery to you, the ministry by a Christ following church will always glorify the God of our Fathers. If god ordained this ministry, it is up to him what he wants to do with it. Man can dislike or hate God's decision, but His word is final. In Christ alone the church is not really the building, but the people who have a relationship with the Almighty. God's word is final, fear Him not man. Look at yourselves why are you complaining for what God has done,remember to whom much is given, much is reqiured. Do you get payed what you deserve, I hope so. If you give little you get little, give it up man are you mightier than God?
The reason Lon is doing well will always be a mistery to you, the ministry by a Christ following church will always glorify the God of our Fathers. If god ordained this ministry, it is up to him what he wants to do with it. Man can dislike or hate God's decision, but His word is final. In Christ alone the church is not really the building, but the people who have a relationship with the Almighty. God's word is final, fear Him not man. Look at yourselves why are you complaining for what God has done,remember to whom much is given, much is reqiured. Do you get payed what you deserve, I hope so. If you give little you get little, give it up man are you mightier than God?
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: March 07, 2009 10:42AM
KF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Childish and foolish talk will never satisfy your
> souls, only Jesus... but if you won't believe
> you'll never understand why a man who follows
> Christ is blessed with or without finances. Take
> the money away and the man will be left standing
> and if he never forsake's the Lord, like Job, it
> will be given back many times.
>
> The reason Lon is doing well will always be a
> mistery to you, the ministry by a Christ following
> church will always glorify the God of our Fathers.
> If god ordained this ministry, it is up to him
> what he wants to do with it. Man can dislike or
> hate God's decision, but His word is final. In
> Christ alone the church is not really the
> building, but the people who have a relationship
> with the Almighty. God's word is final, fear Him
> not man. Look at yourselves why are you
> complaining for what God has done,remember to whom
> much is given, much is reqiured. Do you get payed
> what you deserve, I hope so. If you give little
> you get little, give it up man are you mightier
> than God?
Cut the BS - show us some evidence of any of this
Put up or shut up
Time for religion to be expunged from rational society - its a cancer that's overdue for surgery
-------------------------------------------------------
> Childish and foolish talk will never satisfy your
> souls, only Jesus... but if you won't believe
> you'll never understand why a man who follows
> Christ is blessed with or without finances. Take
> the money away and the man will be left standing
> and if he never forsake's the Lord, like Job, it
> will be given back many times.
>
> The reason Lon is doing well will always be a
> mistery to you, the ministry by a Christ following
> church will always glorify the God of our Fathers.
> If god ordained this ministry, it is up to him
> what he wants to do with it. Man can dislike or
> hate God's decision, but His word is final. In
> Christ alone the church is not really the
> building, but the people who have a relationship
> with the Almighty. God's word is final, fear Him
> not man. Look at yourselves why are you
> complaining for what God has done,remember to whom
> much is given, much is reqiured. Do you get payed
> what you deserve, I hope so. If you give little
> you get little, give it up man are you mightier
> than God?
Cut the BS - show us some evidence of any of this
Put up or shut up
Time for religion to be expunged from rational society - its a cancer that's overdue for surgery
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
asshat
()
Date: March 08, 2009 12:29AM
KF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Childish and foolish talk will never satisfy your
> souls, only Jesus... but if you won't believe
> you'll never understand why a man who follows
> Christ is blessed with or without finances. Take
> the money away and the man will be left standing
> and if he never forsake's the Lord, like Job, it
> will be given back many times.
What you are saying is a basic truth, happiness is found through friends, family, and positive living, not in wealth. This is true, but has absolutely nothing to do with christianity. I can show you people from all over the world that are not christians yet are spiritually sound and happy.
>
> The reason Lon is doing well will always be a
> mistery to you
no it wont, its not a mystery, its sheep like you that pay him to lead you through this life without questioning anything that has been shoved in your face. Its hardly a mystery.
>, the ministry by a Christ following
> church will always glorify the God of our Fathers.
> If god ordained this ministry, it is up to him
> what he wants to do with it. Man can dislike or
> hate God's decision, but His word is final. In
> Christ alone the church is not really the
> building, but the people who have a relationship
> with the Almighty.
Then Why not take the money out of the equation? why build multi million dollar churches and homes for Lon. Who, even though im sure he believes what hes preaching, is still taking money from people too blind to see it.
> God's word is final, fear Him
> not man. Look at yourselves why are you
> complaining for what God has done,remember to whom
> much is given, much is reqiured. Do you get payed
> what you deserve, I hope so. If you give little
> you get little, give it up man are you mightier
> than God?
Man is god, god is the maniphestation of mans mind. this is easily seen when you look at god in the old and new testiments. He has been given humanistic qualities. He is angry, jealous, forgiving, and judgemental... these are all human qualities, and if their truly were a divine being, he would be above these feelings. their is no way to prove or disprove the existence of god, but you can disprove the existence of a christian god very easily. It just doesnt add up. Why does every christian I see post here speak like they are in the 1st century? they talk as if they are quoting scripture, and are speaking the divine word of god. I have yet to see a christian on the site that speaks from his heart about what he believes...
-------------------------------------------------------
> Childish and foolish talk will never satisfy your
> souls, only Jesus... but if you won't believe
> you'll never understand why a man who follows
> Christ is blessed with or without finances. Take
> the money away and the man will be left standing
> and if he never forsake's the Lord, like Job, it
> will be given back many times.
What you are saying is a basic truth, happiness is found through friends, family, and positive living, not in wealth. This is true, but has absolutely nothing to do with christianity. I can show you people from all over the world that are not christians yet are spiritually sound and happy.
>
> The reason Lon is doing well will always be a
> mistery to you
no it wont, its not a mystery, its sheep like you that pay him to lead you through this life without questioning anything that has been shoved in your face. Its hardly a mystery.
>, the ministry by a Christ following
> church will always glorify the God of our Fathers.
> If god ordained this ministry, it is up to him
> what he wants to do with it. Man can dislike or
> hate God's decision, but His word is final. In
> Christ alone the church is not really the
> building, but the people who have a relationship
> with the Almighty.
Then Why not take the money out of the equation? why build multi million dollar churches and homes for Lon. Who, even though im sure he believes what hes preaching, is still taking money from people too blind to see it.
> God's word is final, fear Him
> not man. Look at yourselves why are you
> complaining for what God has done,remember to whom
> much is given, much is reqiured. Do you get payed
> what you deserve, I hope so. If you give little
> you get little, give it up man are you mightier
> than God?
Man is god, god is the maniphestation of mans mind. this is easily seen when you look at god in the old and new testiments. He has been given humanistic qualities. He is angry, jealous, forgiving, and judgemental... these are all human qualities, and if their truly were a divine being, he would be above these feelings. their is no way to prove or disprove the existence of god, but you can disprove the existence of a christian god very easily. It just doesnt add up. Why does every christian I see post here speak like they are in the 1st century? they talk as if they are quoting scripture, and are speaking the divine word of god. I have yet to see a christian on the site that speaks from his heart about what he believes...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
TruthandFacts
()
Date: March 08, 2009 11:03PM
Hey asshat, I am just a bit curious about this one ... who was Jesus? Every historian (both believers and nonbelievers) agree that a man named Jesus - the one they called The Christ - actually lived on the face of the earth. So, tell me asshat, who was he???
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
asshat
()
Date: March 09, 2009 02:42AM
TruthandFacts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey asshat, I am just a bit curious about this one
> ... who was Jesus? Every historian (both
> believers and nonbelievers) agree that a man named
> Jesus - the one they called The Christ - actually
> lived on the face of the earth. So, tell me
> asshat, who was he???
actually you are wrong, there are many historians who do not believe he existed at all. At the time of his supposed life/death their were around 40 well known historians living within the region, and not one of them documented any man named jesus, or any of the other events that supposedly happened. The accounts that were written in the bible came many years after his death (if he existed), and they were all 2nd and 3rd hand accounts of what had transpired. So yea, do a little research.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey asshat, I am just a bit curious about this one
> ... who was Jesus? Every historian (both
> believers and nonbelievers) agree that a man named
> Jesus - the one they called The Christ - actually
> lived on the face of the earth. So, tell me
> asshat, who was he???
actually you are wrong, there are many historians who do not believe he existed at all. At the time of his supposed life/death their were around 40 well known historians living within the region, and not one of them documented any man named jesus, or any of the other events that supposedly happened. The accounts that were written in the bible came many years after his death (if he existed), and they were all 2nd and 3rd hand accounts of what had transpired. So yea, do a little research.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 09, 2009 08:17AM
TruthandFacts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey asshat, I am just a bit curious about this one
> ... who was Jesus? Every historian (both
> believers and nonbelievers) agree that a man named
> Jesus - the one they called The Christ - actually
> lived on the face of the earth. So, tell me
> asshat, who was he???
A lot of historians believe this - but not every. Off the top of my head, Robert Price doesn't believe this and argues against it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey asshat, I am just a bit curious about this one
> ... who was Jesus? Every historian (both
> believers and nonbelievers) agree that a man named
> Jesus - the one they called The Christ - actually
> lived on the face of the earth. So, tell me
> asshat, who was he???
A lot of historians believe this - but not every. Off the top of my head, Robert Price doesn't believe this and argues against it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: March 09, 2009 08:37AM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TruthandFacts Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey asshat, I am just a bit curious about this
> one
> > ... who was Jesus? Every historian (both
> > believers and nonbelievers) agree that a man
> named
> > Jesus - the one they called The Christ -
> actually
> > lived on the face of the earth. So, tell me
> > asshat, who was he???
>
>
> A lot of historians believe this - but not every.
> Off the top of my head, Robert Price doesn't
> believe this and argues against it.
And frankly, it doesn't make a lot of difference
The ancient, medieval and modern worlds are full of would be messiahs, miracle workers and mystics
None have provided any evidence that their own brand of snake-oil has any credibility
Eliot's only argument for his preferred snake-oil is 'the bible says so, and it even said it was going to say so!' and that just doesn't cut it
-------------------------------------------------------
> TruthandFacts Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey asshat, I am just a bit curious about this
> one
> > ... who was Jesus? Every historian (both
> > believers and nonbelievers) agree that a man
> named
> > Jesus - the one they called The Christ -
> actually
> > lived on the face of the earth. So, tell me
> > asshat, who was he???
>
>
> A lot of historians believe this - but not every.
> Off the top of my head, Robert Price doesn't
> believe this and argues against it.
And frankly, it doesn't make a lot of difference
The ancient, medieval and modern worlds are full of would be messiahs, miracle workers and mystics
None have provided any evidence that their own brand of snake-oil has any credibility
Eliot's only argument for his preferred snake-oil is 'the bible says so, and it even said it was going to say so!' and that just doesn't cut it
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
realist
()
Date: March 09, 2009 12:35PM
I go to McLean, I am one of those robots you speak of. I don't put money in the offering plate, I give to social programs affiliated with the church that put recreation centers in "needy" neighborhoods. While I have a bit of a problem with the size of the church, I am one degree of separation from the pastor there - who is a decent and good man, driven by compassion and a desire to see people succeed in life. He knows that without God (CHRIST), he would remain lost and searching for truth. Almost all of what people are saying here is untrue - it is completely unfair to spread lies - why don't you people just let others decide for themselves if this place is right for them? You are so wrong when you say the people there *hate*. I have never seen a church reach out to its community more than this one. While the churches I grew up in rejected divorced people and women who had unplanned pregnancies - this church does whatever it can to engage and help those less fortunate. They have a clothing bank, a food bank, and an open door policy. No one there even *has* to believe in God, give offering, or be publicly humiliated to attend - unlike the churches I was raised in. Give the guy a break - at the end of the day, he cares about people and is actually quite selfless compared to people who are just trying to tear others down. His life is devoted to spreading information about Christ. He could be working anywhere else (he is actually very educated and well traveled), but he doesn't. If he was in it for the money, he would have left a long time ago. This church and it's supporters will do more for the DC area than any government (OR YOU) ever will, and for that they have my respect. The people who go there who don't "get it" and continue to mistreat people, even in spite of sound teaching are just lame...there are a handful in every crowd...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: March 09, 2009 05:39PM
realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
This church and it's supporters
> will do more for the DC area than any government
> (OR YOU) ever will,
BS again
I hate to point out that tax payers (through the government) pay for the education, medicare, medicaid, defense, policing, EMT, transportation etc etc etc that the DC area relies on. That includes hundreds of thousands of tax payers in FFX.
Anything the church does, it could do without being a church or pushing its doomed theology
If mbc closed down tomorrow, the only thing we'd miss is the sound of whining.
If tax payers and government went away you'd miss a great deal more
Get a sense of perspective man.
-------------------------------------------------------
This church and it's supporters
> will do more for the DC area than any government
> (OR YOU) ever will,
BS again
I hate to point out that tax payers (through the government) pay for the education, medicare, medicaid, defense, policing, EMT, transportation etc etc etc that the DC area relies on. That includes hundreds of thousands of tax payers in FFX.
Anything the church does, it could do without being a church or pushing its doomed theology
If mbc closed down tomorrow, the only thing we'd miss is the sound of whining.
If tax payers and government went away you'd miss a great deal more
Get a sense of perspective man.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
realist
()
Date: March 09, 2009 09:53PM
Love your neighbor...it is the job of the church to teach that, not the government. McLean Bible does a good job - I can tell you all kinds of things they could be doing with their money *instead* of investing in people's lives. Not all of us who go there agree with each and every thing they do, but we are not blind followers...we are educated consumers (I used that word just for the "all church is a business" fella). We made an informed decision, and just like with anything else, we can change the channel at any given time...take our "business" elsewhere.
Good luck with your mission(s) to tear down believers in Christ and Lon...it will be in vain. You haters have a lot of energy, I hope it is well spent in great things at the end of the day. If Lon is not the real deal, he will self-destruct, regardless of your efforts - he has plenty of people holding him accountable...
Good luck with your mission(s) to tear down believers in Christ and Lon...it will be in vain. You haters have a lot of energy, I hope it is well spent in great things at the end of the day. If Lon is not the real deal, he will self-destruct, regardless of your efforts - he has plenty of people holding him accountable...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
NegativeDreamStealer
()
Date: March 10, 2009 08:18AM
"I give to social programs affiliated with the church that put recreation centers in 'needy' neighborhoods"
Where are these recreation centers? Please describe.
"he has plenty of people holding him accountable"
Who?
Where are these recreation centers? Please describe.
"he has plenty of people holding him accountable"
Who?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
realist
()
Date: March 10, 2009 11:04AM
The church supports the building of these centers in Anacostia (DC), and reaching out to the community there. Not sure how many structures they have right now - but this is where my money goes. http://www.thehousedc.org/home.shtml
"Since 1999, The House has been transforming and empowering the lives of inner city youth and their families. The House is located in the Anacostia area of Southeast, Washington, DC, on a street formerly known as "Murder Row." This former crack house is now a catalyst for youth to develop healthy relationships and experience changes of heart."
There is also a large "Turkey Outreach" at Thanksgiving, a huge outpouring via an "Angel Tree" program at Christmas, and many other service projects that go on throughout the year. There are outreaches for the troops, scholarships for kids who can't afford to go to church camp (if they want to go), and as I mentioned before, a huge clothing and food bank where I have seen people from all parts of the DC area come for help. Here's a very realistic (albeit negative in tone) article from the Washington Post about Lon and the church:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7933-2004Jun26?language=printer
As far as the accountability, many churches have elders that are in charge of financial oversight and doctrinal integrity. McLean is no different. Without getting too specific - I can tell you that the you will never hear pastors at McLean ad-libbing or doing off the cuff preaching - there is not fire and brimstone and dancing in the aisles. There is bullet point by bullet point *teaching*, speaking pastors who want to ramble on about their personal interpretations of scripture need not apply. Elders will be the first to squawk if something is said from the pulpit that goes against the teachings of the Bible. Lon has a likeable personality and is a great public speaker. The number one reason I choose this church is because I can see that the sermons there are intelligently constructed, and based on research, current events, science, and doctrinal theology. Who better to teach about the Bible than a Jewish person who can actually study the text, languages, and contexts presented in the scriptures and translate it to someone like me? Better than the church where I grew up, where the pastor just rolled out of bed and told stories that made no sense, completely abused the finances, and publicly humiliated the congregants, among many other horrible things. It doesn't matter to me that there are thousands of people there each week - if I want to get involved, I know where to look to find a service project, I can volunteer my time to the day care there, find a "small group" or otherwise. It's not up to them, it's up to me...
"Since 1999, The House has been transforming and empowering the lives of inner city youth and their families. The House is located in the Anacostia area of Southeast, Washington, DC, on a street formerly known as "Murder Row." This former crack house is now a catalyst for youth to develop healthy relationships and experience changes of heart."
There is also a large "Turkey Outreach" at Thanksgiving, a huge outpouring via an "Angel Tree" program at Christmas, and many other service projects that go on throughout the year. There are outreaches for the troops, scholarships for kids who can't afford to go to church camp (if they want to go), and as I mentioned before, a huge clothing and food bank where I have seen people from all parts of the DC area come for help. Here's a very realistic (albeit negative in tone) article from the Washington Post about Lon and the church:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7933-2004Jun26?language=printer
As far as the accountability, many churches have elders that are in charge of financial oversight and doctrinal integrity. McLean is no different. Without getting too specific - I can tell you that the you will never hear pastors at McLean ad-libbing or doing off the cuff preaching - there is not fire and brimstone and dancing in the aisles. There is bullet point by bullet point *teaching*, speaking pastors who want to ramble on about their personal interpretations of scripture need not apply. Elders will be the first to squawk if something is said from the pulpit that goes against the teachings of the Bible. Lon has a likeable personality and is a great public speaker. The number one reason I choose this church is because I can see that the sermons there are intelligently constructed, and based on research, current events, science, and doctrinal theology. Who better to teach about the Bible than a Jewish person who can actually study the text, languages, and contexts presented in the scriptures and translate it to someone like me? Better than the church where I grew up, where the pastor just rolled out of bed and told stories that made no sense, completely abused the finances, and publicly humiliated the congregants, among many other horrible things. It doesn't matter to me that there are thousands of people there each week - if I want to get involved, I know where to look to find a service project, I can volunteer my time to the day care there, find a "small group" or otherwise. It's not up to them, it's up to me...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 10, 2009 01:06PM
I don't know much about MCBC, so I can't and haven't really commented about it. However, I'm curious, what science do they teach?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Christian
()
Date: March 11, 2009 01:18AM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know much about MCBC, so I can't and
> haven't really commented about it. However, I'm
> curious, what science do they teach?
I'm not trying to officially speak for MBC, I don't work for them. I also haven't read this whole thread, so I don't know what has been talked about; I just read the last post and the post before.
I mainly (although I think Lon is great) go to Frontline and I know that the pastor there (Todd Phillips) teaches that MBC encourages science. They/I believe that the seeming contradictions could be explained with more research and that science and Christianity are harmonious, but that faith is ultimately what we have. I know that is something you've heard before and I'm sorry if that is vague, but furthermore I personally won't put a life-revolving faith in science anymore than I would put it in a single imperfect human.
So, in regards to realist's post, I would imagine the pastors at MBC use science when they see God revealing Himself through it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know much about MCBC, so I can't and
> haven't really commented about it. However, I'm
> curious, what science do they teach?
I'm not trying to officially speak for MBC, I don't work for them. I also haven't read this whole thread, so I don't know what has been talked about; I just read the last post and the post before.
I mainly (although I think Lon is great) go to Frontline and I know that the pastor there (Todd Phillips) teaches that MBC encourages science. They/I believe that the seeming contradictions could be explained with more research and that science and Christianity are harmonious, but that faith is ultimately what we have. I know that is something you've heard before and I'm sorry if that is vague, but furthermore I personally won't put a life-revolving faith in science anymore than I would put it in a single imperfect human.
So, in regards to realist's post, I would imagine the pastors at MBC use science when they see God revealing Himself through it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 11, 2009 08:18AM
Christian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't know much about MCBC, so I can't and
> > haven't really commented about it. However,
> I'm
> > curious, what science do they teach?
>
>
> I'm not trying to officially speak for MBC, I
> don't work for them. I also haven't read this
> whole thread, so I don't know what has been talked
> about; I just read the last post and the post
> before.
>
> I mainly (although I think Lon is great) go to
> Frontline and I know that the pastor there (Todd
> Phillips) teaches that MBC encourages science.
> They/I believe that the seeming contradictions
> could be explained with more research and that
> science and Christianity are harmonious, but that
> faith is ultimately what we have. I know that is
> something you've heard before and I'm sorry if
> that is vague, but furthermore I personally won't
> put a life-revolving faith in science anymore than
> I would put it in a single imperfect human.
>
> So, in regards to realist's post, I would imagine
> the pastors at MBC use science when they see God
> revealing Himself through it.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. It sounds like you/MBC look at the situation in the same way that Gould did; ie, non-overlapping magesteria. In other words, both science and religion ways of knowing and they do not overlap each other (except when people try to force the two).
Is this a fair assessment?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't know much about MCBC, so I can't and
> > haven't really commented about it. However,
> I'm
> > curious, what science do they teach?
>
>
> I'm not trying to officially speak for MBC, I
> don't work for them. I also haven't read this
> whole thread, so I don't know what has been talked
> about; I just read the last post and the post
> before.
>
> I mainly (although I think Lon is great) go to
> Frontline and I know that the pastor there (Todd
> Phillips) teaches that MBC encourages science.
> They/I believe that the seeming contradictions
> could be explained with more research and that
> science and Christianity are harmonious, but that
> faith is ultimately what we have. I know that is
> something you've heard before and I'm sorry if
> that is vague, but furthermore I personally won't
> put a life-revolving faith in science anymore than
> I would put it in a single imperfect human.
>
> So, in regards to realist's post, I would imagine
> the pastors at MBC use science when they see God
> revealing Himself through it.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. It sounds like you/MBC look at the situation in the same way that Gould did; ie, non-overlapping magesteria. In other words, both science and religion ways of knowing and they do not overlap each other (except when people try to force the two).
Is this a fair assessment?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Christian
()
Date: March 11, 2009 07:06PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> I'm not sure exactly what you mean. It sounds
> like you/MBC look at the situation in the same way
> that Gould did; ie, non-overlapping magesteria.
> In other words, both science and religion ways of
> knowing and they do not overlap each other (except
> when people try to force the two).
>
> Is this a fair assessment?
I believe that God can partially be experienced through nature. In the same way some of an artist is revealed through his paintings. I can see minor visual representations of Him in the order, majesty, beauty, vastness of science and nature to name a few. Maybe that is just because that is how I see the world now, but I don't think so. I would say that science and the nature of God not only overlap, but over time or divine revelation it will obvious one came from the other.
> I'm not sure exactly what you mean. It sounds
> like you/MBC look at the situation in the same way
> that Gould did; ie, non-overlapping magesteria.
> In other words, both science and religion ways of
> knowing and they do not overlap each other (except
> when people try to force the two).
>
> Is this a fair assessment?
I believe that God can partially be experienced through nature. In the same way some of an artist is revealed through his paintings. I can see minor visual representations of Him in the order, majesty, beauty, vastness of science and nature to name a few. Maybe that is just because that is how I see the world now, but I don't think so. I would say that science and the nature of God not only overlap, but over time or divine revelation it will obvious one came from the other.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: March 11, 2009 09:04PM
Christian Wrote:
>
>
> I believe that God can partially be experienced
> through nature. In the same way some of an artist
> is revealed through his paintings. I can see minor
> visual representations of Him in the order,
> majesty, beauty, vastness of science and nature to
> name a few. Maybe that is just because that is how
> I see the world now, but I don't think so. I would
> say that science and the nature of God not only
> overlap, but over time or divine revelation it
> will obvious one came from the other.
For goodness sake - why don't you people actually read some science
What science provides is an increasingly complete self consistent explanation of everything we experience and which you, any of us, can test
None of the religious posters here have managed to identify a single substantial gap or inconsistency whose explanation requires a deity - not one. Neither have they managed to show any evidence for one, or where one would provide a better explanation.
You'd have thought that given all those wasted Sunday's you'd be able to do better.
We've been through this in exhaustive detail over the last 15 tedious pages
astronomy explains:
a universe 93 Billion light years across
containing 100 billion galaxies
each containing 10 million to 1 trillion stars each
physics and quantum mechanics explain:
how the materials around us behave down to amazing sub-atomic detail
biology and evolutionary methods explain:
how life works
... and they fit together to give a self consistent explanation, with predictive characteristics, open to continuous detailed critique by anyone who wants to do the experiments
and in all that, not a single religious poster has managed anything better than "the bible is true because the bible says so"
Sir/madam, your theology is bankrupt and its basis laughable - give it up
>
>
> I believe that God can partially be experienced
> through nature. In the same way some of an artist
> is revealed through his paintings. I can see minor
> visual representations of Him in the order,
> majesty, beauty, vastness of science and nature to
> name a few. Maybe that is just because that is how
> I see the world now, but I don't think so. I would
> say that science and the nature of God not only
> overlap, but over time or divine revelation it
> will obvious one came from the other.
For goodness sake - why don't you people actually read some science
What science provides is an increasingly complete self consistent explanation of everything we experience and which you, any of us, can test
None of the religious posters here have managed to identify a single substantial gap or inconsistency whose explanation requires a deity - not one. Neither have they managed to show any evidence for one, or where one would provide a better explanation.
You'd have thought that given all those wasted Sunday's you'd be able to do better.
We've been through this in exhaustive detail over the last 15 tedious pages
astronomy explains:
a universe 93 Billion light years across
containing 100 billion galaxies
each containing 10 million to 1 trillion stars each
physics and quantum mechanics explain:
how the materials around us behave down to amazing sub-atomic detail
biology and evolutionary methods explain:
how life works
... and they fit together to give a self consistent explanation, with predictive characteristics, open to continuous detailed critique by anyone who wants to do the experiments
and in all that, not a single religious poster has managed anything better than "the bible is true because the bible says so"
Sir/madam, your theology is bankrupt and its basis laughable - give it up
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
asshat
()
Date: March 14, 2009 02:47AM
Christian Wrote:
> I believe that God can partially be experienced
> through nature. In the same way some of an artist
> is revealed through his paintings. I can see minor
> visual representations of Him in the order,
> majesty, beauty, vastness of science and nature to
> name a few.
I think everyone can see the beauty and wonder in nature and something that is unknown. I myself would refer to this wonder and majesty as "god" too, but not in the sense of a personal being, but as an all encompassing term. Though there is god in nature, this however does not point to a christian god. For as long as I can remember, christianity (catholisism specifically) has preached against nature. This I believe was a long campaign to discredit other religions who worshiped nature as god (druids, pagans, etc.) That is my point I guess, people all believe in something more than what is just seen heard and felt. But people usually turn to the only religion they have been exposed to, or what is socially acceptable in their community. I guess what im saying is that people dont understand that you can have spirituallity without having a religion. You do not need a bible to truly know "god", whatever that word means to you.
>Maybe that is just because that is how
> I see the world now, but I don't think so. I would
> say that science and the nature of God not only
> overlap, but over time or divine revelation it
> will obvious one came from the other.
Christianity has long rejected science instead of embracing it. Finding out that man was not the center of the universe, meant that man may not have been divine, or that even earth may not be gods only creation with life. The reason why they reject science is that if one supposed "truth" is found to be false, then a crack shows in the armor of the faith, and the bible in the case of christianity.
Science is god. That statement may seem extreme or unfathomable to some, but when you realize, nature is "god" and science is the study of nature, then it starts to make sense. The bible was a scientific document for its time.... meaning, that it was the observations of man, trying to understand and define what and why we exist. The only difference between science today and the bible of old, is that science is constantly updating itself. Theories are disproven and overturned, new evidence is found that contradicts, it is constantly evolving, and it is open to critique. Where as the bible, is "divine" and infallible.
> I believe that God can partially be experienced
> through nature. In the same way some of an artist
> is revealed through his paintings. I can see minor
> visual representations of Him in the order,
> majesty, beauty, vastness of science and nature to
> name a few.
I think everyone can see the beauty and wonder in nature and something that is unknown. I myself would refer to this wonder and majesty as "god" too, but not in the sense of a personal being, but as an all encompassing term. Though there is god in nature, this however does not point to a christian god. For as long as I can remember, christianity (catholisism specifically) has preached against nature. This I believe was a long campaign to discredit other religions who worshiped nature as god (druids, pagans, etc.) That is my point I guess, people all believe in something more than what is just seen heard and felt. But people usually turn to the only religion they have been exposed to, or what is socially acceptable in their community. I guess what im saying is that people dont understand that you can have spirituallity without having a religion. You do not need a bible to truly know "god", whatever that word means to you.
>Maybe that is just because that is how
> I see the world now, but I don't think so. I would
> say that science and the nature of God not only
> overlap, but over time or divine revelation it
> will obvious one came from the other.
Christianity has long rejected science instead of embracing it. Finding out that man was not the center of the universe, meant that man may not have been divine, or that even earth may not be gods only creation with life. The reason why they reject science is that if one supposed "truth" is found to be false, then a crack shows in the armor of the faith, and the bible in the case of christianity.
Science is god. That statement may seem extreme or unfathomable to some, but when you realize, nature is "god" and science is the study of nature, then it starts to make sense. The bible was a scientific document for its time.... meaning, that it was the observations of man, trying to understand and define what and why we exist. The only difference between science today and the bible of old, is that science is constantly updating itself. Theories are disproven and overturned, new evidence is found that contradicts, it is constantly evolving, and it is open to critique. Where as the bible, is "divine" and infallible.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
GW
()
Date: March 14, 2009 01:18PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Christian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I don't know much about MCBC, so I can't and
> > > haven't really commented about it. However,
> > I'm
> > > curious, what science do they teach?
> >
> >
> > I'm not trying to officially speak for MBC, I
> > don't work for them. I also haven't read this
> > whole thread, so I don't know what has been
> talked
> > about; I just read the last post and the post
> > before.
> >
> > I mainly (although I think Lon is great) go to
> > Frontline and I know that the pastor there
> (Todd
> > Phillips) teaches that MBC encourages science.
> > They/I believe that the seeming contradictions
> > could be explained with more research and that
> > science and Christianity are harmonious, but
> that
> > faith is ultimately what we have. I know that
> is
> > something you've heard before and I'm sorry if
> > that is vague, but furthermore I personally
> won't
> > put a life-revolving faith in science anymore
> than
> > I would put it in a single imperfect human.
> >
> > So, in regards to realist's post, I would
> imagine
> > the pastors at MBC use science when they see
> God
> > revealing Himself through it.
>
>
> I'm not sure exactly what you mean. It sounds
> like you/MBC look at the situation in the same way
> that Gould did; ie, non-overlapping magesteria.
> In other words, both science and religion ways of
> knowing and they do not overlap each other (except
> when people try to force the two).
>
> Is this a fair assessment?
Reply (to more than only Professor Pangloss):
First, I like you Professor Pangloss, no matter what anyone else says or thinks. You are definitely a thinker, and you seem to want to genuinely learn every area of learning, and seem to really want to know the truth. And truly, it is very true that those who truly want to know the real truth, will eventually learn what the real truth is. I certainly hope and pray that among so many others reading and writing in these columns, there are more who truly want to know the real truth, because if they do, one day they too will learn what that is.
As for science, in Genesis 1, we are told that "In the beginning God made the Heaven and the Earth". And certainly science does study as much of the heavens and the earth as it can. Therefore, since God created the Heavens and the earth and all of creation, including animals, plants and humans - then He actually created the true science. I'm glad He did, because it is not only very interesting, but a comfort as well, that He really is real and cares so much for us.
Thank you again for sharing.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Christian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I don't know much about MCBC, so I can't and
> > > haven't really commented about it. However,
> > I'm
> > > curious, what science do they teach?
> >
> >
> > I'm not trying to officially speak for MBC, I
> > don't work for them. I also haven't read this
> > whole thread, so I don't know what has been
> talked
> > about; I just read the last post and the post
> > before.
> >
> > I mainly (although I think Lon is great) go to
> > Frontline and I know that the pastor there
> (Todd
> > Phillips) teaches that MBC encourages science.
> > They/I believe that the seeming contradictions
> > could be explained with more research and that
> > science and Christianity are harmonious, but
> that
> > faith is ultimately what we have. I know that
> is
> > something you've heard before and I'm sorry if
> > that is vague, but furthermore I personally
> won't
> > put a life-revolving faith in science anymore
> than
> > I would put it in a single imperfect human.
> >
> > So, in regards to realist's post, I would
> imagine
> > the pastors at MBC use science when they see
> God
> > revealing Himself through it.
>
>
> I'm not sure exactly what you mean. It sounds
> like you/MBC look at the situation in the same way
> that Gould did; ie, non-overlapping magesteria.
> In other words, both science and religion ways of
> knowing and they do not overlap each other (except
> when people try to force the two).
>
> Is this a fair assessment?
Reply (to more than only Professor Pangloss):
First, I like you Professor Pangloss, no matter what anyone else says or thinks. You are definitely a thinker, and you seem to want to genuinely learn every area of learning, and seem to really want to know the truth. And truly, it is very true that those who truly want to know the real truth, will eventually learn what the real truth is. I certainly hope and pray that among so many others reading and writing in these columns, there are more who truly want to know the real truth, because if they do, one day they too will learn what that is.
As for science, in Genesis 1, we are told that "In the beginning God made the Heaven and the Earth". And certainly science does study as much of the heavens and the earth as it can. Therefore, since God created the Heavens and the earth and all of creation, including animals, plants and humans - then He actually created the true science. I'm glad He did, because it is not only very interesting, but a comfort as well, that He really is real and cares so much for us.
Thank you again for sharing.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: March 14, 2009 03:57PM
GW Wrote:
> As for science, in Genesis 1, we are told that "In
> the beginning God made the Heaven and the Earth".
> And certainly science does study as much of the
> heavens and the earth as it can. Therefore, since
> God created the Heavens and the earth and all of
> creation, including animals, plants and humans -
> then He actually created the true science. I'm
> glad He did, because it is not only very
> interesting, but a comfort as well, that He really
> is real and cares so much for us.
You religious relics are getting very boring and very very repetitive
You can't just quote scriptural 'as if by magic', claim its compatible with science and hope any one takes you seriously.
To be taken seriously, you have to identify significant areas which can only be explained by a deity whilst maintaining consistency with the way that biology, physics and astronomy can be shown to work - and no-one posting here has managed to come any where close.
If you say that science is true and compatible with Christianity, the you have to justify why evolution doesn't explain the emergence human species whilst simultaneously explaining a fossil record rich with dinosaurs etc. Similarly, you have to address issues of scale and complexity from the subatomic to the galactic in a manner at least as satisfactorily as contemporary science.
To be blunt:
you have to show that science is wrong
or
you have to show that religion adequately and consistently explains, in detail, the observations that science explains
and
you have to show that religion is a better and more complete explanation - with detail, no hand waving
Claiming a line or two of scripture and refusing to step up to the challenge rational explanation is intellectual cowardice
Religion is an intellectually bankrupt concept which should be wiped from modern society
> As for science, in Genesis 1, we are told that "In
> the beginning God made the Heaven and the Earth".
> And certainly science does study as much of the
> heavens and the earth as it can. Therefore, since
> God created the Heavens and the earth and all of
> creation, including animals, plants and humans -
> then He actually created the true science. I'm
> glad He did, because it is not only very
> interesting, but a comfort as well, that He really
> is real and cares so much for us.
You religious relics are getting very boring and very very repetitive
You can't just quote scriptural 'as if by magic', claim its compatible with science and hope any one takes you seriously.
To be taken seriously, you have to identify significant areas which can only be explained by a deity whilst maintaining consistency with the way that biology, physics and astronomy can be shown to work - and no-one posting here has managed to come any where close.
If you say that science is true and compatible with Christianity, the you have to justify why evolution doesn't explain the emergence human species whilst simultaneously explaining a fossil record rich with dinosaurs etc. Similarly, you have to address issues of scale and complexity from the subatomic to the galactic in a manner at least as satisfactorily as contemporary science.
To be blunt:
you have to show that science is wrong
or
you have to show that religion adequately and consistently explains, in detail, the observations that science explains
and
you have to show that religion is a better and more complete explanation - with detail, no hand waving
Claiming a line or two of scripture and refusing to step up to the challenge rational explanation is intellectual cowardice
Religion is an intellectually bankrupt concept which should be wiped from modern society
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 14, 2009 06:25PM
GW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reply (to more than only Professor Pangloss):
> First, I like you Professor Pangloss, no matter
> what anyone else says or thinks. You are
> definitely a thinker, and you seem to want to
> genuinely learn every area of learning, and seem
> to really want to know the truth. And truly, it
> is very true that those who truly want to know the
> real truth, will eventually learn what the real
> truth is. I certainly hope and pray that among so
> many others reading and writing in these columns,
> there are more who truly want to know the real
> truth, because if they do, one day they too will
> learn what that is.
>
> As for science, in Genesis 1, we are told that "In
> the beginning God made the Heaven and the Earth".
> And certainly science does study as much of the
> heavens and the earth as it can. Therefore, since
> God created the Heavens and the earth and all of
> creation, including animals, plants and humans -
> then He actually created the true science. I'm
> glad He did, because it is not only very
> interesting, but a comfort as well, that He really
> is real and cares so much for us.
>
> Thank you again for sharing.
Well, yes, in that respect the magisteria would overlap. I meant more along the lines of what science uncovered conflicting with religious truth. In otherwords, Gould's magisteria suggests that religion (ie, the bible/revelation) tells you how to live, whereas science tells you what life is.
I'm now a little more curious - what exactly does Lon teach? I suppose I just expected typical bible lessons and such.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reply (to more than only Professor Pangloss):
> First, I like you Professor Pangloss, no matter
> what anyone else says or thinks. You are
> definitely a thinker, and you seem to want to
> genuinely learn every area of learning, and seem
> to really want to know the truth. And truly, it
> is very true that those who truly want to know the
> real truth, will eventually learn what the real
> truth is. I certainly hope and pray that among so
> many others reading and writing in these columns,
> there are more who truly want to know the real
> truth, because if they do, one day they too will
> learn what that is.
>
> As for science, in Genesis 1, we are told that "In
> the beginning God made the Heaven and the Earth".
> And certainly science does study as much of the
> heavens and the earth as it can. Therefore, since
> God created the Heavens and the earth and all of
> creation, including animals, plants and humans -
> then He actually created the true science. I'm
> glad He did, because it is not only very
> interesting, but a comfort as well, that He really
> is real and cares so much for us.
>
> Thank you again for sharing.
Well, yes, in that respect the magisteria would overlap. I meant more along the lines of what science uncovered conflicting with religious truth. In otherwords, Gould's magisteria suggests that religion (ie, the bible/revelation) tells you how to live, whereas science tells you what life is.
I'm now a little more curious - what exactly does Lon teach? I suppose I just expected typical bible lessons and such.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: March 14, 2009 07:19PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In otherwords, Gould's magisteria suggests
> that religion (ie, the bible/revelation) tells you
> how to live, whereas science tells you what life
> is.
>
Its not appropriate to use 'tell' in the same way.
Science 'tells' based on observation, analysis, prediction and critique and provides a self consistent and increasingly fine-grained explanation of everything around us, including our own minds.
Religion can only 'tell' you anything in the same way a novel or a movie can - artistic observations on the human condition.
To take a religion as being in any way true without evidence is ridiculous.
Christianity is a perfect example:
- if you take the bible as 'true' you run straight into its complete incompatibility with observable reality, now well described by science, at the most obvious levels
- if you start chopping off the bits that are most patently absurd, you're left with a random jumble of poorly reported Jewish history and myth
Christianity cannot 'tell' you any more than Tolkien or Titanic
In modern societies law, social norms and markets provide the agreed social framework for, and bounds on, behavior, and are what tell you how to live through a snapshot of society's dynamic agreement patterns for interaction - not some imposed religious dogma.
Society functions through the local agreement (or forced compliance) of its members
-------------------------------------------------------
> In otherwords, Gould's magisteria suggests
> that religion (ie, the bible/revelation) tells you
> how to live, whereas science tells you what life
> is.
>
Its not appropriate to use 'tell' in the same way.
Science 'tells' based on observation, analysis, prediction and critique and provides a self consistent and increasingly fine-grained explanation of everything around us, including our own minds.
Religion can only 'tell' you anything in the same way a novel or a movie can - artistic observations on the human condition.
To take a religion as being in any way true without evidence is ridiculous.
Christianity is a perfect example:
- if you take the bible as 'true' you run straight into its complete incompatibility with observable reality, now well described by science, at the most obvious levels
- if you start chopping off the bits that are most patently absurd, you're left with a random jumble of poorly reported Jewish history and myth
Christianity cannot 'tell' you any more than Tolkien or Titanic
In modern societies law, social norms and markets provide the agreed social framework for, and bounds on, behavior, and are what tell you how to live through a snapshot of society's dynamic agreement patterns for interaction - not some imposed religious dogma.
Society functions through the local agreement (or forced compliance) of its members
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
realist
()
Date: March 15, 2009 04:28PM
The reason I did not respond to the question about "what science does MBC teach?" is that I knew this is where you all were going. Curiousity got the best of me and I came back to visit this thread - and just as I suspected, it had turned into a forum for throwing more insults at "believers". How can that be explained? I just knew... as if by magic, right? My point here is that there are many things for which there is no explanation. The mere thought that someone believes the earth or the galaxy is billions of years old is enough to throw a non-believer's argument out the window - how can it be *proven* that any of these things are more than a few thousand years old? Just as you argue that the existence of a Creator cannot be "proven", neither can it be "proven" that things in nature are the ages scientists have ascribed them.
Look, I am less of a scientist, and more of a "feeler". Not to the extent that all reason will go out the window, but I believe very simply that our basic human needs are met supernaturally and if there is a flaw in our ability to gain access to those human needs, we will spend the rest of our life searching for them and trying to become whole again (study Jesus in the wilderness for more on how to behave when we all of our basic needs are taken from us). I do deeply believe that the answers lie in the questions we ask, and where we search for answers. I am fascinated by archaeology and "science" as it pertains to religion - though I can't toss around theories and anti-theories as intelligently as our atheist friends, I am equally willing to engage in discussion about my belief system without trying to shove it down anyone's throat.
This thread is about McLean Bible Church, not about dis/belief in God. I simply cannot believe someone would choose to leave behind a legacy of bitterness and loneliness versus perhaps a more respectable existence of constantly looking for answers. People that arrive at Christianity do so by very different means - and if they are satisfied there, they find peace, they rest, and they strive for growth. These are personal journeys that we have no business trying to undo. People that arrive at the conclusion that they will oppose Christianity also do so by different means, but I find it doubtful that there is peace and rest there - perhaps the reasons for such late night activity by atheists Online.
If you are anti-Christian, then Lon and MBC are about as crazy and radical as they get - but very organized, very structured, very caring, while striving for excellence in all they do. I don't know what else to tell you.
If you are a Christian searching for a church - prepare for good teaching, good kids' programs, and to be lost in a sea of people - unless you find a Sunday school class or a small home group.
Good luck, everyone.
Look, I am less of a scientist, and more of a "feeler". Not to the extent that all reason will go out the window, but I believe very simply that our basic human needs are met supernaturally and if there is a flaw in our ability to gain access to those human needs, we will spend the rest of our life searching for them and trying to become whole again (study Jesus in the wilderness for more on how to behave when we all of our basic needs are taken from us). I do deeply believe that the answers lie in the questions we ask, and where we search for answers. I am fascinated by archaeology and "science" as it pertains to religion - though I can't toss around theories and anti-theories as intelligently as our atheist friends, I am equally willing to engage in discussion about my belief system without trying to shove it down anyone's throat.
This thread is about McLean Bible Church, not about dis/belief in God. I simply cannot believe someone would choose to leave behind a legacy of bitterness and loneliness versus perhaps a more respectable existence of constantly looking for answers. People that arrive at Christianity do so by very different means - and if they are satisfied there, they find peace, they rest, and they strive for growth. These are personal journeys that we have no business trying to undo. People that arrive at the conclusion that they will oppose Christianity also do so by different means, but I find it doubtful that there is peace and rest there - perhaps the reasons for such late night activity by atheists Online.
If you are anti-Christian, then Lon and MBC are about as crazy and radical as they get - but very organized, very structured, very caring, while striving for excellence in all they do. I don't know what else to tell you.
If you are a Christian searching for a church - prepare for good teaching, good kids' programs, and to be lost in a sea of people - unless you find a Sunday school class or a small home group.
Good luck, everyone.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: March 15, 2009 05:58PM
realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The reason I did not respond to the question about
> "what science does MBC teach?" is that I knew this
> is where you all were going. Curiousity got the
> best of me and I came back to visit this thread -
> and just as I suspected, it had turned into a
> forum for throwing more insults at "believers".
> How can that be explained? I just knew... as if
> by magic, right? My point here is that there are
> many things for which there is no explanation.
> The mere thought that someone believes the earth
> or the galaxy is billions of years old is enough
> to throw a non-believer's argument out the window
> - how can it be *proven* that any of these things
> are more than a few thousand years old?
This is the sort of religious BS that I've been talking about. No-one has set out to insult "believers[in religion]" - but if you spout this kind of stuff and expect special dispensations from society such as freedom from the taxes we all pay, then you should have to stand up to rigorous scrutiny - just saying you're a "feeler" and 'god did it' is just not good enough in the face of solid evidence.
There are a number of extremely good ways of determining the age of materials and minerals based on well categorized phenomena which we see around us every day such as radioactive decay.
Such methods are conclusive that the world is billions, not thousands of years old.
This is more than enough, in your words "to throw a non-believer[in science]'s argument out the window". Being a "feeler" is not an adequate justification for saying "well, I just prefer the supernatural"
If you have any real substantive arguments against the scientific results, the present them.
This not a 'mere thought that someone believes' - it is a rigorous set of testable and open methods that anyone can open up, replicate, test and critique.
Being "less of a scientist" is no badge of honor, but I can understand that turning up in church occasionally is less time consuming than actually understanding how the world works and much less challenging
To help, here are a few easy starters on the subjects under discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_timescale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life
Could I suggest that you actually read some of this material before you continue spouting off that there is no evidence that the world is more than a few thousand years old.
If you have any real, substantive criticism, questions or comments after reading the material - come back with them.
Its really not hard
-------------------------------------------------------
> The reason I did not respond to the question about
> "what science does MBC teach?" is that I knew this
> is where you all were going. Curiousity got the
> best of me and I came back to visit this thread -
> and just as I suspected, it had turned into a
> forum for throwing more insults at "believers".
> How can that be explained? I just knew... as if
> by magic, right? My point here is that there are
> many things for which there is no explanation.
> The mere thought that someone believes the earth
> or the galaxy is billions of years old is enough
> to throw a non-believer's argument out the window
> - how can it be *proven* that any of these things
> are more than a few thousand years old?
This is the sort of religious BS that I've been talking about. No-one has set out to insult "believers[in religion]" - but if you spout this kind of stuff and expect special dispensations from society such as freedom from the taxes we all pay, then you should have to stand up to rigorous scrutiny - just saying you're a "feeler" and 'god did it' is just not good enough in the face of solid evidence.
There are a number of extremely good ways of determining the age of materials and minerals based on well categorized phenomena which we see around us every day such as radioactive decay.
Such methods are conclusive that the world is billions, not thousands of years old.
This is more than enough, in your words "to throw a non-believer[in science]'s argument out the window". Being a "feeler" is not an adequate justification for saying "well, I just prefer the supernatural"
If you have any real substantive arguments against the scientific results, the present them.
This not a 'mere thought that someone believes' - it is a rigorous set of testable and open methods that anyone can open up, replicate, test and critique.
Being "less of a scientist" is no badge of honor, but I can understand that turning up in church occasionally is less time consuming than actually understanding how the world works and much less challenging
To help, here are a few easy starters on the subjects under discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_timescale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life
Could I suggest that you actually read some of this material before you continue spouting off that there is no evidence that the world is more than a few thousand years old.
If you have any real, substantive criticism, questions or comments after reading the material - come back with them.
Its really not hard
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
asshat
()
Date: March 16, 2009 02:54AM
lol, i love when people say that carbon dating is "not an accurate way of dating fossils", because it ISNT. Carbon has a decay rate of about 65,000 years, so it is NOT used to date fossils, they use other types of radioactive material (the names escapes me, there are many types), with decay rates up to 4 billion years i believe.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: March 16, 2009 06:23AM
asshat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lol, i love when people say that carbon dating is
> "not an accurate way of dating fossils", because
> it ISNT. Carbon has a decay rate of about 65,000
> years, so it is NOT used to date fossils, they use
> other types of radioactive material (the names
> escapes me, there are many types), with decay
> rates up to 4 billion years i believe.
As you say, there is a full set of tools for determining the age of materials of different age-ranges, including various radiometric systems such as uranium-lead
"One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
Carbon-14 is best for much younger organic samples
Then, of course, there's the simple observation that the further you dig down, the simpler the fossils get until they finally stop - another of that pesky satan's tricks
-------------------------------------------------------
> lol, i love when people say that carbon dating is
> "not an accurate way of dating fossils", because
> it ISNT. Carbon has a decay rate of about 65,000
> years, so it is NOT used to date fossils, they use
> other types of radioactive material (the names
> escapes me, there are many types), with decay
> rates up to 4 billion years i believe.
As you say, there is a full set of tools for determining the age of materials of different age-ranges, including various radiometric systems such as uranium-lead
"One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
Carbon-14 is best for much younger organic samples
Then, of course, there's the simple observation that the further you dig down, the simpler the fossils get until they finally stop - another of that pesky satan's tricks
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 16, 2009 09:01AM
nutters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > In otherwords, Gould's magisteria suggests
> > that religion (ie, the bible/revelation) tells
> you
> > how to live, whereas science tells you what
> life
> > is.
> >
>
> Its not appropriate to use 'tell' in the same
> way.
>
> Science 'tells' based on observation, analysis,
> prediction and critique and provides a self
> consistent and increasingly fine-grained
> explanation of everything around us, including our
> own minds.
>
> Religion can only 'tell' you anything in the same
> way a novel or a movie can - artistic observations
> on the human condition.
>
> To take a religion as being in any way true
> without evidence is ridiculous.
>
> Christianity is a perfect example:
> - if you take the bible as 'true' you run straight
> into its complete incompatibility with observable
> reality, now well described by science, at the
> most obvious levels
> - if you start chopping off the bits that are most
> patently absurd, you're left with a random jumble
> of poorly reported Jewish history and myth
>
> Christianity cannot 'tell' you any more than
> Tolkien or Titanic
>
> In modern societies law, social norms and markets
> provide the agreed social framework for, and
> bounds on, behavior, and are what tell you how to
> live through a snapshot of society's dynamic
> agreement patterns for interaction - not some
> imposed religious dogma.
>
> Society functions through the local agreement (or
> forced compliance) of its members
Fair enough - I'm not arguing that it's correct. I'm just saying that Gould suggest two different magisteria and that the two shouldn't overlap.
I would argue that religion tells you more then Tolkien or the Titanic, as neither of them really has a set of rules and such to follow - but your general point is correct and really, this would just be a pendantic exercize.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > In otherwords, Gould's magisteria suggests
> > that religion (ie, the bible/revelation) tells
> you
> > how to live, whereas science tells you what
> life
> > is.
> >
>
> Its not appropriate to use 'tell' in the same
> way.
>
> Science 'tells' based on observation, analysis,
> prediction and critique and provides a self
> consistent and increasingly fine-grained
> explanation of everything around us, including our
> own minds.
>
> Religion can only 'tell' you anything in the same
> way a novel or a movie can - artistic observations
> on the human condition.
>
> To take a religion as being in any way true
> without evidence is ridiculous.
>
> Christianity is a perfect example:
> - if you take the bible as 'true' you run straight
> into its complete incompatibility with observable
> reality, now well described by science, at the
> most obvious levels
> - if you start chopping off the bits that are most
> patently absurd, you're left with a random jumble
> of poorly reported Jewish history and myth
>
> Christianity cannot 'tell' you any more than
> Tolkien or Titanic
>
> In modern societies law, social norms and markets
> provide the agreed social framework for, and
> bounds on, behavior, and are what tell you how to
> live through a snapshot of society's dynamic
> agreement patterns for interaction - not some
> imposed religious dogma.
>
> Society functions through the local agreement (or
> forced compliance) of its members
Fair enough - I'm not arguing that it's correct. I'm just saying that Gould suggest two different magisteria and that the two shouldn't overlap.
I would argue that religion tells you more then Tolkien or the Titanic, as neither of them really has a set of rules and such to follow - but your general point is correct and really, this would just be a pendantic exercize.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 16, 2009 09:06AM
realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The reason I did not respond to the question about
> "what science does MBC teach?" is that I knew this
> is where you all were going. Curiousity got the
> best of me and I came back to visit this thread -
> and just as I suspected, it had turned into a
> forum for throwing more insults at "believers".
> How can that be explained? I just knew... as if
> by magic, right? My point here is that there are
> many things for which there is no explanation.
> The mere thought that someone believes the earth
> or the galaxy is billions of years old is enough
> to throw a non-believer's argument out the window
> - how can it be *proven* that any of these things
> are more than a few thousand years old? Just as
> you argue that the existence of a Creator cannot
> be "proven", neither can it be "proven" that
> things in nature are the ages scientists have
> ascribed them.
I don't look for things to be proven (although some do). I look for reasoned belief with evidence or rational argumentation.
You don't have to accept science, I have no truck with that. What I have a truck with is when groups of people want to teach religion as science.
> Look, I am less of a scientist, and more of a
> "feeler". Not to the extent that all reason will
> go out the window, but I believe very simply that
> our basic human needs are met supernaturally and
> if there is a flaw in our ability to gain access
> to those human needs, we will spend the rest of
> our life searching for them and trying to become
> whole again (study Jesus in the wilderness for
> more on how to behave when we all of our basic
> needs are taken from us). I do deeply believe
> that the answers lie in the questions we ask, and
> where we search for answers. I am fascinated by
> archaeology and "science" as it pertains to
> religion - though I can't toss around theories and
> anti-theories as intelligently as our atheist
> friends, I am equally willing to engage in
> discussion about my belief system without trying
> to shove it down anyone's throat.
I have no beef with this - my beef comes in when people teach other people who do not know any better that science supports X, when the reality is, it doesn't.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The reason I did not respond to the question about
> "what science does MBC teach?" is that I knew this
> is where you all were going. Curiousity got the
> best of me and I came back to visit this thread -
> and just as I suspected, it had turned into a
> forum for throwing more insults at "believers".
> How can that be explained? I just knew... as if
> by magic, right? My point here is that there are
> many things for which there is no explanation.
> The mere thought that someone believes the earth
> or the galaxy is billions of years old is enough
> to throw a non-believer's argument out the window
> - how can it be *proven* that any of these things
> are more than a few thousand years old? Just as
> you argue that the existence of a Creator cannot
> be "proven", neither can it be "proven" that
> things in nature are the ages scientists have
> ascribed them.
I don't look for things to be proven (although some do). I look for reasoned belief with evidence or rational argumentation.
You don't have to accept science, I have no truck with that. What I have a truck with is when groups of people want to teach religion as science.
> Look, I am less of a scientist, and more of a
> "feeler". Not to the extent that all reason will
> go out the window, but I believe very simply that
> our basic human needs are met supernaturally and
> if there is a flaw in our ability to gain access
> to those human needs, we will spend the rest of
> our life searching for them and trying to become
> whole again (study Jesus in the wilderness for
> more on how to behave when we all of our basic
> needs are taken from us). I do deeply believe
> that the answers lie in the questions we ask, and
> where we search for answers. I am fascinated by
> archaeology and "science" as it pertains to
> religion - though I can't toss around theories and
> anti-theories as intelligently as our atheist
> friends, I am equally willing to engage in
> discussion about my belief system without trying
> to shove it down anyone's throat.
I have no beef with this - my beef comes in when people teach other people who do not know any better that science supports X, when the reality is, it doesn't.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: March 16, 2009 09:22AM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> realist Wrote:
>
> You don't have to accept science, I have no truck
> with that. What I have a truck with is when
> groups of people want to teach religion as
> science.
>
I'd put it even more strongly.
Not accepting science is not intellectually defensible. Engineered artifacts such as TV's were not developed solely through iterative tinkering but through the fundamental sub-atomic science of people like JJ Thomson in the 1890s and the supporting disciplines such as chemistry for phosphors etc.
That science works is show extensively by the materials and products that have been successfully engineered based on its predictions, The prediction and recent practical sues of gravitational lensing are further examples
If you don't accept science, then you're back to claiming that elves pull the apples down from trees and there really are little people in your TV.
-------------------------------------------------------
> realist Wrote:
>
> You don't have to accept science, I have no truck
> with that. What I have a truck with is when
> groups of people want to teach religion as
> science.
>
I'd put it even more strongly.
Not accepting science is not intellectually defensible. Engineered artifacts such as TV's were not developed solely through iterative tinkering but through the fundamental sub-atomic science of people like JJ Thomson in the 1890s and the supporting disciplines such as chemistry for phosphors etc.
That science works is show extensively by the materials and products that have been successfully engineered based on its predictions, The prediction and recent practical sues of gravitational lensing are further examples
If you don't accept science, then you're back to claiming that elves pull the apples down from trees and there really are little people in your TV.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
realist
()
Date: March 16, 2009 09:57AM
Nutters, I think you want me to tell you that you are smarter than me. You are smarter than me. Does that make you feel better? I am still not sure how you *know* that all of the scientific methods used to determine age are 100% valid and correct. Believing those things wholeheartedly is parallel to believing in that which I cannot see with my physical eyes. I have much more faith in my personal and spiritual experiences, that they are real and solid and true and proven than I do this type of scientific talk. Not because it's easier, NO SIR...it is not easier!
Having said that, I think this thread needs to be moved - I wouldn't mind engaging with you about how simple you think I am, at the end of the day, I would still emerge confident in my belief structure, *because it just IS* (your turn to cut/paste/insult). I don't have a problem being perceived that way, whatsoever. Until you have seen the things I have seen and been taken from born to "born-again", I would never expect you to understand, relate, or comprehend. And I'm okay with that...I am in love with life, I am in awe of nature, I am at peace with every part of my past, present and future. Totally and 100% radical and "blindly following", in the eyes of people like you.
Pangloss - I kinda like you.
Having said that, I think this thread needs to be moved - I wouldn't mind engaging with you about how simple you think I am, at the end of the day, I would still emerge confident in my belief structure, *because it just IS* (your turn to cut/paste/insult). I don't have a problem being perceived that way, whatsoever. Until you have seen the things I have seen and been taken from born to "born-again", I would never expect you to understand, relate, or comprehend. And I'm okay with that...I am in love with life, I am in awe of nature, I am at peace with every part of my past, present and future. Totally and 100% radical and "blindly following", in the eyes of people like you.
Pangloss - I kinda like you.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: March 16, 2009 10:37AM
realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Until you have
> seen the things I have seen and been taken from
> born to "born-again", I would never expect you to
> understand, relate, or comprehend. And I'm okay
> with that...I am in love with life, I am in awe of
> nature, I am at peace with every part of my past,
> present and future. Totally and 100% radical and
> "blindly following", in the eyes of people like
> you.
>
> Pangloss - I kinda like you.
>Nutters, I think you want me to tell you that you are smarter than me. You are
> smarter than me. Does that make you feel better?
I've never claimed to be smarter than anyone, all I've ever said is that if anyone makes claims that diverge from observed reality, then they have to justify them.
Religions and religious organizations demand special treatment and privileges from society - tax breaks, inclusion in the pledge, influence over politicians, freedom from scrutiny etc - worst of all is the active indoctrination of children before they have an intellectual maturity to question what they are being told.
We now know enough about the way the universe, the world and our minds work that religion can no longer be given a free pass.
>I am still not
> sure how you *know* that all of the scientific
> methods used to determine age are 100% valid and
> correct.
So please enlighten us with what you think is wrong with these methods? Do you not like the observable physics of atomic decay? Do you not the dinosaur fossils? Are you pissed off that the geoligcal layers all line up so well with bacteria part way up through to todays flora and fauna at the top?
Thinking that it would be nice that the world was 6,000 years old is not the same as it being so.
Science never claims to be 100% accurate at any given time - it is constantly being refined. However, in this case, the vast convergence of evidence is overwhelming.
>I have much more faith in my personal and spiritual experiences, that they are
> real and solid and true and proven than I do this type of scientific talk.
>Not because it's easier, NO SIR...it is not easier!
Its intellectually lazy and socially destructive
What you're saying is that no evidence will ever trump your emotional attachment to your particular religious cult.
Exactly the same thinking as Al Qaeda, extreme zionist sects, dangerous lunatics like Falwell and Robertson and the crazies who committed suicide in Canada because they'd been told that the flying saucers were coming to collect them.
These are views that should be given no credence or special treatment by society - in fact kids should be given tools to actively question them.
If you want to be taken seriously, you have to think seriously and give serious rational arguments with evidence
Bottom line
===========
If you think that you have a theory that is "real and solid and true and proven than I do this type of scientific talk", put it out there... justify how it explains cosmology, geology, biology and neuroscience ... in detail ... not just how it makes you happy.
Why not pick one area as a starter - how about geology?
If you want to take teh leap into the la-la land of faith, then you also have to justify why your faith is better than Hindu faith, Buddhist faith or Wiccan faith
Just quoting genesis is not good enough and just claiming that evidence based science isn't true, because you don't like what it tells you, gains you no credibility at at all.
Damn this new fangled "type of scientific talk"
-------------------------------------------------------
> Until you have
> seen the things I have seen and been taken from
> born to "born-again", I would never expect you to
> understand, relate, or comprehend. And I'm okay
> with that...I am in love with life, I am in awe of
> nature, I am at peace with every part of my past,
> present and future. Totally and 100% radical and
> "blindly following", in the eyes of people like
> you.
>
> Pangloss - I kinda like you.
>Nutters, I think you want me to tell you that you are smarter than me. You are
> smarter than me. Does that make you feel better?
I've never claimed to be smarter than anyone, all I've ever said is that if anyone makes claims that diverge from observed reality, then they have to justify them.
Religions and religious organizations demand special treatment and privileges from society - tax breaks, inclusion in the pledge, influence over politicians, freedom from scrutiny etc - worst of all is the active indoctrination of children before they have an intellectual maturity to question what they are being told.
We now know enough about the way the universe, the world and our minds work that religion can no longer be given a free pass.
>I am still not
> sure how you *know* that all of the scientific
> methods used to determine age are 100% valid and
> correct.
So please enlighten us with what you think is wrong with these methods? Do you not like the observable physics of atomic decay? Do you not the dinosaur fossils? Are you pissed off that the geoligcal layers all line up so well with bacteria part way up through to todays flora and fauna at the top?
Thinking that it would be nice that the world was 6,000 years old is not the same as it being so.
Science never claims to be 100% accurate at any given time - it is constantly being refined. However, in this case, the vast convergence of evidence is overwhelming.
>I have much more faith in my personal and spiritual experiences, that they are
> real and solid and true and proven than I do this type of scientific talk.
>Not because it's easier, NO SIR...it is not easier!
Its intellectually lazy and socially destructive
What you're saying is that no evidence will ever trump your emotional attachment to your particular religious cult.
Exactly the same thinking as Al Qaeda, extreme zionist sects, dangerous lunatics like Falwell and Robertson and the crazies who committed suicide in Canada because they'd been told that the flying saucers were coming to collect them.
These are views that should be given no credence or special treatment by society - in fact kids should be given tools to actively question them.
If you want to be taken seriously, you have to think seriously and give serious rational arguments with evidence
Bottom line
===========
If you think that you have a theory that is "real and solid and true and proven than I do this type of scientific talk", put it out there... justify how it explains cosmology, geology, biology and neuroscience ... in detail ... not just how it makes you happy.
Why not pick one area as a starter - how about geology?
If you want to take teh leap into the la-la land of faith, then you also have to justify why your faith is better than Hindu faith, Buddhist faith or Wiccan faith
Just quoting genesis is not good enough and just claiming that evidence based science isn't true, because you don't like what it tells you, gains you no credibility at at all.
Damn this new fangled "type of scientific talk"
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 16, 2009 12:34PM
nutters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > realist Wrote:
>
> >
> > You don't have to accept science, I have no
> truck
> > with that. What I have a truck with is when
> > groups of people want to teach religion as
> > science.
> >
>
> I'd put it even more strongly.
>
> Not accepting science is not intellectually
> defensible. Engineered artifacts such as TV's were
> not developed solely through iterative tinkering
> but through the fundamental sub-atomic science of
> people like JJ Thomson in the 1890s and the
> supporting disciplines such as chemistry for
> phosphors etc.
>
> That science works is show extensively by the
> materials and products that have been successfully
> engineered based on its predictions, The
> prediction and recent practical sues of
> gravitational lensing are further examples
>
> If you don't accept science, then you're back to
> claiming that elves pull the apples down from
> trees and there really are little people in your
> TV.
Hm...I'm not entirely sure how to respond to this. On the one hand, I think pragmaticistically speaking (is that a word), you are completely correct. Science has enriched our lives and is fundamentally the best way of knowing about the world that mankind has come up with so far. It works and it is useful.
On the other hand, I'm reminded of the Amish.
To me, existence is a very important thing. It's the most important thing. That being said, I can't claim that there is a 'correct' way to exist. It seems to me that there is something wrong with interferring with how other people choose to exist. This is not to say that I feel that it's wrong in all cases to interfer. I feel that it is encumbent upon me to act on a serial killer, for instance. The serial killers actions are harming other people.
Whereas the Amish are not hurting anyone in this way. They are living their lives without modern science (for the most part) and they seem to be quite content. They even give their children an out after they become mature enough to understand their choices.
I realize that it could be argued that religion can be intellectually harmful, in the same way that afrocentricism or holocaust denial can be. I think this is what responsible citizens in the community should fight against.
But I don't think I can park my car in the same lot as the people who think that all religion is harmful. If someone wants to consciously reject science and live outside it, then fine. Conversely if someone wants to integrate their religion into their scientific worldview; a la Ken Miller (or Gould's suggestion), that's fine with me too.
It's when someone wants to change science *INTO* their worldview by foisting it upon the public, is when it starts to bother me.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > realist Wrote:
>
> >
> > You don't have to accept science, I have no
> truck
> > with that. What I have a truck with is when
> > groups of people want to teach religion as
> > science.
> >
>
> I'd put it even more strongly.
>
> Not accepting science is not intellectually
> defensible. Engineered artifacts such as TV's were
> not developed solely through iterative tinkering
> but through the fundamental sub-atomic science of
> people like JJ Thomson in the 1890s and the
> supporting disciplines such as chemistry for
> phosphors etc.
>
> That science works is show extensively by the
> materials and products that have been successfully
> engineered based on its predictions, The
> prediction and recent practical sues of
> gravitational lensing are further examples
>
> If you don't accept science, then you're back to
> claiming that elves pull the apples down from
> trees and there really are little people in your
> TV.
Hm...I'm not entirely sure how to respond to this. On the one hand, I think pragmaticistically speaking (is that a word), you are completely correct. Science has enriched our lives and is fundamentally the best way of knowing about the world that mankind has come up with so far. It works and it is useful.
On the other hand, I'm reminded of the Amish.
To me, existence is a very important thing. It's the most important thing. That being said, I can't claim that there is a 'correct' way to exist. It seems to me that there is something wrong with interferring with how other people choose to exist. This is not to say that I feel that it's wrong in all cases to interfer. I feel that it is encumbent upon me to act on a serial killer, for instance. The serial killers actions are harming other people.
Whereas the Amish are not hurting anyone in this way. They are living their lives without modern science (for the most part) and they seem to be quite content. They even give their children an out after they become mature enough to understand their choices.
I realize that it could be argued that religion can be intellectually harmful, in the same way that afrocentricism or holocaust denial can be. I think this is what responsible citizens in the community should fight against.
But I don't think I can park my car in the same lot as the people who think that all religion is harmful. If someone wants to consciously reject science and live outside it, then fine. Conversely if someone wants to integrate their religion into their scientific worldview; a la Ken Miller (or Gould's suggestion), that's fine with me too.
It's when someone wants to change science *INTO* their worldview by foisting it upon the public, is when it starts to bother me.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: March 16, 2009 03:56PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nutters Wrote:
>
> On the other hand, I'm reminded of the Amish.
>
> harmful. If someone wants to consciously reject
> science and live outside it, then fine.
I think there's an important distinction at play here between science and technology.
Its fair to opt out of using technology and its a personal or social decision.
Opting out of science is very different.
e.g. You can decide not to have a TV but you can't decide that they don't work
If you claim a worldview that explains everything, then if you decide to engage in its propagation or the benefits of its special religious status, you have to be prepared to stand up to scrutiny or give up those exemptions and benefits,
In effect, you can either accept the way that science shows you that the TV works, or you can propose a better mechanism - but it has to stand up to critique - and you have to follow where those arguments take you.
That's why 'realists' victim complaint against "this type of scientific talk" is intellectual cowardice opening the door to the propagation of all sort of crazy ideas - and people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Osama Bin Laden
If you want to claim that radioactive decay started on day a few thousand years ago, you have to explain the material that existed at that time and why/how its different from the materials that developed afterwards. And if you can't make a convincing argument, then you should not expect special treatment.
Science, as a process, provides that forum for global debate over time where evidence and theories can be compared openly.
So I have respect for the amish in that they do let their children explore the world at some point, but I have a real problem with the fact that they have 18 years of active indoctrination before hand. Its exactly the same as the Madrassas - indoctrinate kids, send them out into the world, and enough of them will still deliver the bomb according to doctrine. That's one reason why we shouldn't have god in the pledge of allegiance in schools every morning and why religious schools are an extremely bad idea.
It would be far better to educate children without religion for 18 years, then each religion could lay out its wares and see if they get picked
Religion does not see itself as socially neutral - particularly in the US, religious groups (many of the most outrageously bigoted form) attempt to dominate politics and the law. They expect to determine what you and I can do based on doctrines which can be shown to be farcical. They lead us into disastrous wars based on religious bias, they use religious backing for destructive social policies and they expect special access because they have a special phone to the divine - even if each phone seems to be saying something different. Go Figure.
That makes them harmful
-------------------------------------------------------
> nutters Wrote:
>
> On the other hand, I'm reminded of the Amish.
>
> harmful. If someone wants to consciously reject
> science and live outside it, then fine.
I think there's an important distinction at play here between science and technology.
Its fair to opt out of using technology and its a personal or social decision.
Opting out of science is very different.
e.g. You can decide not to have a TV but you can't decide that they don't work
If you claim a worldview that explains everything, then if you decide to engage in its propagation or the benefits of its special religious status, you have to be prepared to stand up to scrutiny or give up those exemptions and benefits,
In effect, you can either accept the way that science shows you that the TV works, or you can propose a better mechanism - but it has to stand up to critique - and you have to follow where those arguments take you.
That's why 'realists' victim complaint against "this type of scientific talk" is intellectual cowardice opening the door to the propagation of all sort of crazy ideas - and people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Osama Bin Laden
If you want to claim that radioactive decay started on day a few thousand years ago, you have to explain the material that existed at that time and why/how its different from the materials that developed afterwards. And if you can't make a convincing argument, then you should not expect special treatment.
Science, as a process, provides that forum for global debate over time where evidence and theories can be compared openly.
So I have respect for the amish in that they do let their children explore the world at some point, but I have a real problem with the fact that they have 18 years of active indoctrination before hand. Its exactly the same as the Madrassas - indoctrinate kids, send them out into the world, and enough of them will still deliver the bomb according to doctrine. That's one reason why we shouldn't have god in the pledge of allegiance in schools every morning and why religious schools are an extremely bad idea.
It would be far better to educate children without religion for 18 years, then each religion could lay out its wares and see if they get picked
Religion does not see itself as socially neutral - particularly in the US, religious groups (many of the most outrageously bigoted form) attempt to dominate politics and the law. They expect to determine what you and I can do based on doctrines which can be shown to be farcical. They lead us into disastrous wars based on religious bias, they use religious backing for destructive social policies and they expect special access because they have a special phone to the divine - even if each phone seems to be saying something different. Go Figure.
That makes them harmful
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
realist
()
Date: March 16, 2009 04:35PM
PASTE:
" If you want to claim that radioactive decay started on day a few thousand years ago, you have to explain the material that existed at that time and why/how its different from the materials that developed afterwards. And if you can't make a convincing argument, then you should not expect special treatment. "
I know you're not talking about "realist" - because "realist" didn't say that radioactive decay started on a day a few thousand years ago. BUT, just in case you are (or not!), I was hoping that based on your logic, that perhaps you could give me information about why you believe there is no God (don't forget to provide *evidence*!), or perhaps why Christ is not real (that is, if you believe that).
And then I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say "you should not expect special treatment". Christians in general? You win that one hands down. "Realist", not so much.
In reference to something you said earlier about Christianity being the lazy way - I would definitely challenge you to take the teachings of the New Testament and apply them to your life. Tell me if that is easy. If you're really up for a challenge, go to the Old Testament and follow the laws there. Again - not easy. Blindly following=easy. Following the teachings of Christ after picking them apart and applying them to life in 2009...goes against every fiber of my being - delaying self-gratification, forcing myself to be kind when all I want to do is be selfish, and not engaging in more worldly behaviors when that is the easiest way to self-medicate and self-gratify. The payoff is that after going through a dark time and enduring, "the universe" has a way of rewarding the sacrifices we make, and the return is tenfold. The joy that is experienced after coming through a hard time by leaning on scripture and the teachings of Christ is better than any drug and a methodology that has been repeated over and over again - why do you think people are so "on fire" about promoting Christianity? Because it worked for them on a personal level - for at least 2000 years. And not necessarily because they are looking to start wars in the name of God! The science-driven world is not without excitement and euphoria, but it comes up short, philosophically speaking - if one believes there is purpose in our existence.
" If you want to claim that radioactive decay started on day a few thousand years ago, you have to explain the material that existed at that time and why/how its different from the materials that developed afterwards. And if you can't make a convincing argument, then you should not expect special treatment. "
I know you're not talking about "realist" - because "realist" didn't say that radioactive decay started on a day a few thousand years ago. BUT, just in case you are (or not!), I was hoping that based on your logic, that perhaps you could give me information about why you believe there is no God (don't forget to provide *evidence*!), or perhaps why Christ is not real (that is, if you believe that).
And then I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say "you should not expect special treatment". Christians in general? You win that one hands down. "Realist", not so much.
In reference to something you said earlier about Christianity being the lazy way - I would definitely challenge you to take the teachings of the New Testament and apply them to your life. Tell me if that is easy. If you're really up for a challenge, go to the Old Testament and follow the laws there. Again - not easy. Blindly following=easy. Following the teachings of Christ after picking them apart and applying them to life in 2009...goes against every fiber of my being - delaying self-gratification, forcing myself to be kind when all I want to do is be selfish, and not engaging in more worldly behaviors when that is the easiest way to self-medicate and self-gratify. The payoff is that after going through a dark time and enduring, "the universe" has a way of rewarding the sacrifices we make, and the return is tenfold. The joy that is experienced after coming through a hard time by leaning on scripture and the teachings of Christ is better than any drug and a methodology that has been repeated over and over again - why do you think people are so "on fire" about promoting Christianity? Because it worked for them on a personal level - for at least 2000 years. And not necessarily because they are looking to start wars in the name of God! The science-driven world is not without excitement and euphoria, but it comes up short, philosophically speaking - if one believes there is purpose in our existence.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: March 16, 2009 05:39PM
realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PASTE:
> I was hoping
> that based on your logic, that perhaps you could
> give me information about why you believe there is
> no God (don't forget to provide *evidence*!), or
> perhaps why Christ is not real (that is, if you
> believe that).
That's the whole point - you don't have to make an argument for why 'things that don't exist' don't exist
Its like asking for evidence that fairies, the flying spaghetti monster, big floating pink elephants and cookie monsters don't exist.
Its fundamentally different from explaining things that do exist and can be observed and tested.
The underlying problem with religions is that they spend their time arguing amongst each other about which of their rival 'things that don't exist' everyone else should have to believe in
Science doesn't have to prove that god doesn't exist, its job is to explain what does exist - but it has provided a testable set of explanations for everything we see around us (and with enormous predictive powers) which does not indicate anything that requires a deity or supernatural experience. What it also does is provide conclusive evidence to exclude the basic teachings of religions to support their particular deities - for example, as we've discussed, the world is not 6,000 years old. Basically, science has squeezed the need for the supernatural as an explanation out of any question you care to ask. Religion is a cultural left over from a time when we didn't have rational explanations.
None of the religious posters here have identified any gap in evidence based science that requires the supernatural or would be better explained by it - which is really amazing when you think about it.
- why do you think people are so
> "on fire" about promoting Christianity? Because
> it worked for them on a personal level - for at
> least 2000 years.
it doesn't matter why they are on fire. All that matters is that they are on fire because of things that are demonstrably false, and that their impact is, on average, negative and dangerous.
Its not just christianity - but christianity is not exempt - particularly as the dominant religion in the US
-------------------------------------------------------
> PASTE:
> I was hoping
> that based on your logic, that perhaps you could
> give me information about why you believe there is
> no God (don't forget to provide *evidence*!), or
> perhaps why Christ is not real (that is, if you
> believe that).
That's the whole point - you don't have to make an argument for why 'things that don't exist' don't exist
Its like asking for evidence that fairies, the flying spaghetti monster, big floating pink elephants and cookie monsters don't exist.
Its fundamentally different from explaining things that do exist and can be observed and tested.
The underlying problem with religions is that they spend their time arguing amongst each other about which of their rival 'things that don't exist' everyone else should have to believe in
Science doesn't have to prove that god doesn't exist, its job is to explain what does exist - but it has provided a testable set of explanations for everything we see around us (and with enormous predictive powers) which does not indicate anything that requires a deity or supernatural experience. What it also does is provide conclusive evidence to exclude the basic teachings of religions to support their particular deities - for example, as we've discussed, the world is not 6,000 years old. Basically, science has squeezed the need for the supernatural as an explanation out of any question you care to ask. Religion is a cultural left over from a time when we didn't have rational explanations.
None of the religious posters here have identified any gap in evidence based science that requires the supernatural or would be better explained by it - which is really amazing when you think about it.
- why do you think people are so
> "on fire" about promoting Christianity? Because
> it worked for them on a personal level - for at
> least 2000 years.
it doesn't matter why they are on fire. All that matters is that they are on fire because of things that are demonstrably false, and that their impact is, on average, negative and dangerous.
Its not just christianity - but christianity is not exempt - particularly as the dominant religion in the US
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: March 16, 2009 09:08PM
Another way of looking at this.
Take a set of books
-the bible
-the complete works of shakespeare
-something by homer or virgil, say the aeniad
-something from another religion such as the hindu sruti and smriti
what can we say about them?
- we don't really know who wrote most of them, or much about the authors
- they all touch on historical events to some extent or another
- they all provide 'moral' guidance through parables and stories
- they have all encouraged some social stability
- most have caused virulent religious wars and wasteful discrimination
- they all include some historical figures viewed through the distortions of time and retelling
- they all include stories of the supernatural and supernatural explanations of the cosmos
-they are all incompatible
- everyone in them is dead and left no evidence of anything supernatural then or since
- they all originate form a time when we had no rational ways of explaining the world
How do you choose between any of them or none? You ask for evidence - and if none is forthcoming, you are forced to set all of them aside as historical, occasionally useful artifacts of literature.
Just because one of them makes you happy, doesn't make it true - anymore than the fact that one of the others makes someone else happy makes its incompatible statements true.
Compare that with science, where anyone can start from direct observations or first principles and rebuild or validate any element of the structure and then make predictions that can be validated through working engineered artifacts
Take a set of books
-the bible
-the complete works of shakespeare
-something by homer or virgil, say the aeniad
-something from another religion such as the hindu sruti and smriti
what can we say about them?
- we don't really know who wrote most of them, or much about the authors
- they all touch on historical events to some extent or another
- they all provide 'moral' guidance through parables and stories
- they have all encouraged some social stability
- most have caused virulent religious wars and wasteful discrimination
- they all include some historical figures viewed through the distortions of time and retelling
- they all include stories of the supernatural and supernatural explanations of the cosmos
-they are all incompatible
- everyone in them is dead and left no evidence of anything supernatural then or since
- they all originate form a time when we had no rational ways of explaining the world
How do you choose between any of them or none? You ask for evidence - and if none is forthcoming, you are forced to set all of them aside as historical, occasionally useful artifacts of literature.
Just because one of them makes you happy, doesn't make it true - anymore than the fact that one of the others makes someone else happy makes its incompatible statements true.
Compare that with science, where anyone can start from direct observations or first principles and rebuild or validate any element of the structure and then make predictions that can be validated through working engineered artifacts
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
azzhat
()
Date: March 23, 2009 06:58AM
realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know you're not talking about "realist" -
> because "realist" didn't say that radioactive
> decay started on a day a few thousand years ago.
no one said you believed this, it was a generalization of the christian community, who has to manipulate scientific data when it is convinient to their cause.
> BUT, just in case you are (or not!), I was hoping
> that based on your logic, that perhaps you could
> give me information about why you believe there is
> no God (don't forget to provide *evidence*!), or
> perhaps why Christ is not real (that is, if you
> believe that).
I dont think anyone on this board has stated that god can be disproven, what can be disproven is the christian god, who so clearly is the creation of the mind of man. The god with human qualities, made in mans image, clearly showing that we think of ourselves as god figures.
In terms of christ, yes there is some good historical evidence that he did exist, although there are many historians who are still not fully convinced of his existance.
>
> And then I'm not sure who you are referring to
> when you say "you should not expect special
> treatment". Christians in general? You win that
> one hands down. "Realist", not so much.
>
> In reference to something you said earlier about
> Christianity being the lazy way
Intillectualy lazy. Its easy to not want to think about the possibility that this is it. The human brain cannot fully comprehend the thought of not existing anymore, I think the brain even rejects the idea. Its lazy in the sense that it over simplifies every wonder in the world to say, "an earthquake just happened, god must be angry", when its a far more interesting shifting in the earths plates.
"ignorance is bliss"
>- I would
> definitely challenge you to take the teachings of
> the New Testament and apply them to your life.
> Tell me if that is easy. If you're really up for
> a challenge, go to the Old Testament and follow
> the laws there. Again - not easy. Blindly
> following=easy. Following the teachings of Christ
> after picking them apart and applying them to life
> in 2009...goes against every fiber of my being -
> delaying self-gratification, forcing myself to be
> kind when all I want to do is be selfish, and not
> engaging in more worldly behaviors when that is
> the easiest way to self-medicate and self-gratify.
> The payoff is that after going through a dark
> time and enduring, "the universe" has a way of
> rewarding the sacrifices we make, and the return
> is tenfold. The joy that is experienced after
> coming through a hard time by leaning on scripture
> and the teachings of Christ is better than any
> drug and a methodology that has been repeated over
> and over again - why do you think people are so
> "on fire" about promoting Christianity? Because
> it worked for them on a personal level - for at
> least 2000 years.
and before that, another religion was in its place, whether it be zeus, rah, or jesus christ, man has always yearned for a reason and explination and purpose for why we are here and where do we go. What religion does is to diminish those questions, and the mystery that truly is life. And you have to realize, you can have a profound sense of spirituality without being a christian, or a muslim, or a jew. And on that same note, there is a muslim on the other side of the world who has just as much faith as you, just as much conviction, and thinks he is just as right as you, does it not scare you that one of you has to be wrong? Take some shrooms one time, that is the challenge i offer you, tell me if you dont feel more connected to god or life or existance on that drug, then you ever have through religion. These drugs were indeed used for religios purposes for thousands of years, and are probably the start of religion in the first place.
> And not necessarily because
> they are looking to start wars in the name of God!
> The science-driven world is not without
> excitement and euphoria, but it comes up short,
> philosophically speaking - if one believes there
> is purpose in our existence.
As Lennon said, "religion is the opiate of the masses", it truly is a free drug. What is harder then following the rules of the old testiment, is making objective moral choices, and not choices that use fear of punishment vs reward in order to make you obey
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know you're not talking about "realist" -
> because "realist" didn't say that radioactive
> decay started on a day a few thousand years ago.
no one said you believed this, it was a generalization of the christian community, who has to manipulate scientific data when it is convinient to their cause.
> BUT, just in case you are (or not!), I was hoping
> that based on your logic, that perhaps you could
> give me information about why you believe there is
> no God (don't forget to provide *evidence*!), or
> perhaps why Christ is not real (that is, if you
> believe that).
I dont think anyone on this board has stated that god can be disproven, what can be disproven is the christian god, who so clearly is the creation of the mind of man. The god with human qualities, made in mans image, clearly showing that we think of ourselves as god figures.
In terms of christ, yes there is some good historical evidence that he did exist, although there are many historians who are still not fully convinced of his existance.
>
> And then I'm not sure who you are referring to
> when you say "you should not expect special
> treatment". Christians in general? You win that
> one hands down. "Realist", not so much.
>
> In reference to something you said earlier about
> Christianity being the lazy way
Intillectualy lazy. Its easy to not want to think about the possibility that this is it. The human brain cannot fully comprehend the thought of not existing anymore, I think the brain even rejects the idea. Its lazy in the sense that it over simplifies every wonder in the world to say, "an earthquake just happened, god must be angry", when its a far more interesting shifting in the earths plates.
"ignorance is bliss"
>- I would
> definitely challenge you to take the teachings of
> the New Testament and apply them to your life.
> Tell me if that is easy. If you're really up for
> a challenge, go to the Old Testament and follow
> the laws there. Again - not easy. Blindly
> following=easy. Following the teachings of Christ
> after picking them apart and applying them to life
> in 2009...goes against every fiber of my being -
> delaying self-gratification, forcing myself to be
> kind when all I want to do is be selfish, and not
> engaging in more worldly behaviors when that is
> the easiest way to self-medicate and self-gratify.
> The payoff is that after going through a dark
> time and enduring, "the universe" has a way of
> rewarding the sacrifices we make, and the return
> is tenfold. The joy that is experienced after
> coming through a hard time by leaning on scripture
> and the teachings of Christ is better than any
> drug and a methodology that has been repeated over
> and over again - why do you think people are so
> "on fire" about promoting Christianity? Because
> it worked for them on a personal level - for at
> least 2000 years.
and before that, another religion was in its place, whether it be zeus, rah, or jesus christ, man has always yearned for a reason and explination and purpose for why we are here and where do we go. What religion does is to diminish those questions, and the mystery that truly is life. And you have to realize, you can have a profound sense of spirituality without being a christian, or a muslim, or a jew. And on that same note, there is a muslim on the other side of the world who has just as much faith as you, just as much conviction, and thinks he is just as right as you, does it not scare you that one of you has to be wrong? Take some shrooms one time, that is the challenge i offer you, tell me if you dont feel more connected to god or life or existance on that drug, then you ever have through religion. These drugs were indeed used for religios purposes for thousands of years, and are probably the start of religion in the first place.
> And not necessarily because
> they are looking to start wars in the name of God!
> The science-driven world is not without
> excitement and euphoria, but it comes up short,
> philosophically speaking - if one believes there
> is purpose in our existence.
As Lennon said, "religion is the opiate of the masses", it truly is a free drug. What is harder then following the rules of the old testiment, is making objective moral choices, and not choices that use fear of punishment vs reward in order to make you obey
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: March 23, 2009 07:32AM
azzhat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> realist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> As Lennon said, "religion is the opiate of the
> masses", it truly is a free drug. What is harder
> then following the rules of the old testiment, is
> making objective moral choices, and not choices
> that use fear of punishment vs reward in order to
> make you obey
Although it was Marx (well ahead of his time) who said that, the sentiment is a good one.
-------------------------------------------------------
> realist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> As Lennon said, "religion is the opiate of the
> masses", it truly is a free drug. What is harder
> then following the rules of the old testiment, is
> making objective moral choices, and not choices
> that use fear of punishment vs reward in order to
> make you obey
Although it was Marx (well ahead of his time) who said that, the sentiment is a good one.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Steve Wilhite
()
Date: March 23, 2009 08:42AM
It was Marx who said it not "Lennon" whose name for those of us who aren't pig-ignorant idiots like you is spelled L-E-N-I-N. Lenin. Get it moron?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: March 23, 2009 09:06AM
Steve Wilhite Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was Marx who said it not "Lennon" whose name
> for those of us who aren't pig-ignorant idiots
> like you is spelled L-E-N-I-N. Lenin. Get it
> moron?
It does sound amazingly 'Lennon' though ;) - although I can't imagine Marx and Lennon getting on at a personal level, Engels and Ono probably wouldn't have worked either
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was Marx who said it not "Lennon" whose name
> for those of us who aren't pig-ignorant idiots
> like you is spelled L-E-N-I-N. Lenin. Get it
> moron?
It does sound amazingly 'Lennon' though ;) - although I can't imagine Marx and Lennon getting on at a personal level, Engels and Ono probably wouldn't have worked either
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Billy Bowlegs
()
Date: March 23, 2009 09:11AM
Wasn't it Groucho Marx who said "How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all?" Or was it John Lennon?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
azzz
()
Date: March 24, 2009 01:37AM
nutters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Steve Wilhite Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It was Marx who said it not "Lennon" whose name
> > for those of us who aren't pig-ignorant idiots
> > like you is spelled L-E-N-I-N. Lenin. Get it
> > moron?
>
>
> It does sound amazingly 'Lennon' though ;) -
> although I can't imagine Marx and Lennon getting
> on at a personal level, Engels and Ono probably
> wouldn't have worked either
oh i was totally talking about the beatles lennon :P, lol no, i guess i just suck at spelling
-------------------------------------------------------
> Steve Wilhite Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It was Marx who said it not "Lennon" whose name
> > for those of us who aren't pig-ignorant idiots
> > like you is spelled L-E-N-I-N. Lenin. Get it
> > moron?
>
>
> It does sound amazingly 'Lennon' though ;) -
> although I can't imagine Marx and Lennon getting
> on at a personal level, Engels and Ono probably
> wouldn't have worked either
oh i was totally talking about the beatles lennon :P, lol no, i guess i just suck at spelling
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Lynda
()
Date: March 29, 2009 12:52PM
I agree. Most of the writers on this blog need help if all they spend their time doing is bashing MBC and Lon. Lon and his wife are of an age to have received inheritances. I think a pastor purchasing his own home and not burdening his church for a free parsonage is admirable. Their daughter Jill needs lots of help and I understand mcLean is planning a school for handicapped children. That church does so many things to help people who want to be helped. As far as doing the right thing when no one is looking and just being kind to your fellowman, there are several on this site who have yet to live that one out. I would be careful about criticiing people of faith, their big bad God might just reap judgement on you. Sinners facing a righteous God. No, that big God even loves miserable people too and sent His son to die for them.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: March 29, 2009 01:10PM
Lynda Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree. Most of the writers on this blog need
> help if all they spend their time doing is bashing
> MBC and Lon. Lon and his wife are of an age to
> have received inheritances. I think a pastor
> purchasing his own home and not burdening his
> church for a free parsonage is admirable. Their
> daughter Jill needs lots of help and I understand
> mcLean is planning a school for handicapped
> children. That church does so many things to help
> people who want to be helped. As far as doing the
> right thing when no one is looking and just being
> kind to your fellowman, there are several on this
> site who have yet to live that one out. I would
> be careful about criticiing people of faith, their
> big bad God might just reap judgement on you.
> Sinners facing a righteous God. No, that big God
> even loves miserable people too and sent His son
> to die for them.
At the risk of feeding the trolls... Do you people NEVER SHUT UP?
Give us one single piece of evidence for a "big bad god' or a "little weeny god" and be might be able to have some kind of sensible conversation.
Faith in the face of overwhelming evidence is intellectual cowardice of the worst kind.
When asked to come up with any reasoned argument how religion gives a better, more supportable explanation for the world around us than science, and comes anywhere near its predictive capabilities, the christian posters to this threat have come up with zip, nadda, nothing.
(..although I like your 'shut up or my god will get you' - that was a winner in the 12th Century, great to see it dusted off again...)
Even when offered simple places to start like the fossil and geological record - nothing.
'Faith' is the intellectual equivalent of lobotomy.
Time for religion to finally be cast into the pit of history in which it belongs.
Either put up evidence, or an explanation that fits the evidence as well as science - or shut up.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree. Most of the writers on this blog need
> help if all they spend their time doing is bashing
> MBC and Lon. Lon and his wife are of an age to
> have received inheritances. I think a pastor
> purchasing his own home and not burdening his
> church for a free parsonage is admirable. Their
> daughter Jill needs lots of help and I understand
> mcLean is planning a school for handicapped
> children. That church does so many things to help
> people who want to be helped. As far as doing the
> right thing when no one is looking and just being
> kind to your fellowman, there are several on this
> site who have yet to live that one out. I would
> be careful about criticiing people of faith, their
> big bad God might just reap judgement on you.
> Sinners facing a righteous God. No, that big God
> even loves miserable people too and sent His son
> to die for them.
At the risk of feeding the trolls... Do you people NEVER SHUT UP?
Give us one single piece of evidence for a "big bad god' or a "little weeny god" and be might be able to have some kind of sensible conversation.
Faith in the face of overwhelming evidence is intellectual cowardice of the worst kind.
When asked to come up with any reasoned argument how religion gives a better, more supportable explanation for the world around us than science, and comes anywhere near its predictive capabilities, the christian posters to this threat have come up with zip, nadda, nothing.
(..although I like your 'shut up or my god will get you' - that was a winner in the 12th Century, great to see it dusted off again...)
Even when offered simple places to start like the fossil and geological record - nothing.
'Faith' is the intellectual equivalent of lobotomy.
Time for religion to finally be cast into the pit of history in which it belongs.
Either put up evidence, or an explanation that fits the evidence as well as science - or shut up.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: March 29, 2009 01:16PM
I agree with Nutters.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
azzz
()
Date: March 31, 2009 04:54AM
i agree with vince, who agrees with nutters.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
KoreanThinkTank
()
Date: March 31, 2009 05:10PM
My friend goes to McLean Bible Church and now he's crazy. He doesn't listen to a single thing I say, and he's always telling me to stop worry about problems. The rapture is coming, so quit my job (he's fucking insane) and let's just become homeless and wait for the rapture because its coming very soon.
I also had an ex-gf and she's a massive slut. Lon tells her its okay to be a whore because once you have accepted Jesus, you're going to heaven no matter what you do, so she uses that as an excuse to keep slutting it up.
hmm....
*****
I carry a very,very heavy cross with a White Jesus nailed to it.
I also had an ex-gf and she's a massive slut. Lon tells her its okay to be a whore because once you have accepted Jesus, you're going to heaven no matter what you do, so she uses that as an excuse to keep slutting it up.
hmm....
*****
I carry a very,very heavy cross with a White Jesus nailed to it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
ernie
()
Date: April 01, 2009 10:06AM
Can you post the number of your ex-gf. Its been awhile.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
KoreanThinkTank
()
Date: April 01, 2009 10:26AM
Wow Ernie, thanks for adding fuel to the fire shitbrick
*****
I carry a very,very heavy cross with a White Jesus nailed to it.
*****
I carry a very,very heavy cross with a White Jesus nailed to it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
azzz
()
Date: April 03, 2009 12:46AM
what is a korean think tank? and can i keep fish in it?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Dark Star
()
Date: April 05, 2009 05:14AM
Well, after reading this forum I have to comment about science and religion and the age of the universe. . .
I am a Christian believer, Jesus Christ is my savior. I am also a PhD-trained scientist, and I believe that the universe was created approximately 12-20 billion years ago, that the Sun is approximately 6 billion years old, and the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. How do I know this? And how do I reconcile it with my beliefs? Read on. . .
When conservative Christians say there is no "proof" that the universe is old, I have to ask them: what constitutes "proof" in their mind? For example, can it be proven that the civil war actually happened? There are no people alive today that fought in that war. So to prove that it happened, you have to rely on second-hand evidence, written accounts of people who were alive that day, physical evidence left behind (trenches, bullets, muskets, etc.), and photos taken during that time. For virtually everyone all that evidence is proof enough.
So what about the universe? Believe it or not, there are only a remarkably small number of basic principles that "prove" the age of the universe. It is much more difficult, and requires a very roundabout argument, to try to prove that the universe is young.
OK on to the evidence. . .given the laws of thermodynamics (which, by the way, allow your car to drive down the highway--did you know that?), some basic nuclear physics, and a spectrometer (which measures light from stars and galaxies), we find the following. First we can "hear" the Big Bang, and measure the current echo. Using thermodynamics, and high school math, what we are hearing and its current intensity originated about 15 billion years ago (give or take a few billion). To argue against that, which some try to do, requires very obtuse arguments that belie the basic fact: we can hear that explosion today.
If that's not enough, spectrometers tell us the chemical composition of the stars and galaxies. Nuclear physics tells us that you can assemble heavier elements (carbon, oxygen, silicon, etc.) from smaller elements (hydrogen and helium) through fusion. We know that the Sun operates as a fusion machine, and that at the rate its consuming its fuel it has another 5 billion or so years left in its life.
And now for the theory: it's not a stretch to assume that the initial explosion created a lot of hydrogen (there's direct evidence for that through spectrometers looking at distant quasars). The first stars consisted only of hydrogen, through fusion they created heavier elements. Those heavier elements found their way into second- and third-generation stars (our Sun is one of them). The observed abundance of these heavier materials is consistent with a 15-billion year old universe.
Now is this proof? Maybe not to some. What it represents is a consistent story of how things came to be that relies on very simple and well-verified physical laws and direct observations of what is around us. To argue otherwise you have to invoke very complicated arguments that, at some level, don't make much sense.
And what about the Bible? Well Genesis 1 is the place to look. In that book there is no constraint that the "days" are 24-hours long. Yes it says "evening and morning. . .the Nth day" (by the way, evening to morning is a night, not a day). But the 7th day has no evening and morning, and it is referred to in the present tense. We are living in the 7th day of creation--God's day of rest--and clearly it is more than 24 hours long. Also in the very beginning the Earth was shrouded with clouds, it wasn't until later that the stars and sun were visible--it would have been difficult to discren "day" and "night" from the surface of the planet prior to that event. All this leads me to believe that it is perfectly acceptable to God to believe that the creation occurred in stages that were not necessarily 24 hours long.
The order of the creation stages in Genesis 1, by the way, are correct from a scientific viewpoint. A remarkable achievement for Moses, given that he wrote the book circa 1900 BC without any knowledge of current science. Some might conclude that Moses could only have gotten the order of creation right if someone--say the Creator Himself--told Moses. But to some that's very difficult to believe.
Are these arguments proof that the Bible preaches an old Earth? Hardly. Many prominent theologians would disagree. But it represents a consistent way of viewing the Bible that is also consistent with the scientific view of creation.
So, to my critics I say the following: reject an old universe at your own peril. The same thermodynamics that allows you to drive your car also governs the age of the universe. And if you stubbornly insist that the universe was created in seven consecutive 24-hour days, and thus came into being on a Friday afternoon about 5:30 PM in 5500 BC or so, you will find yourself further and further removed from the evidence around you (which God has clearly put there) and you will become irrelevant within society (if you're not already).
For those who want to argue with this, all I have to say is. . .Go ahead, make my day. . . :-)
I am a Christian believer, Jesus Christ is my savior. I am also a PhD-trained scientist, and I believe that the universe was created approximately 12-20 billion years ago, that the Sun is approximately 6 billion years old, and the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. How do I know this? And how do I reconcile it with my beliefs? Read on. . .
When conservative Christians say there is no "proof" that the universe is old, I have to ask them: what constitutes "proof" in their mind? For example, can it be proven that the civil war actually happened? There are no people alive today that fought in that war. So to prove that it happened, you have to rely on second-hand evidence, written accounts of people who were alive that day, physical evidence left behind (trenches, bullets, muskets, etc.), and photos taken during that time. For virtually everyone all that evidence is proof enough.
So what about the universe? Believe it or not, there are only a remarkably small number of basic principles that "prove" the age of the universe. It is much more difficult, and requires a very roundabout argument, to try to prove that the universe is young.
OK on to the evidence. . .given the laws of thermodynamics (which, by the way, allow your car to drive down the highway--did you know that?), some basic nuclear physics, and a spectrometer (which measures light from stars and galaxies), we find the following. First we can "hear" the Big Bang, and measure the current echo. Using thermodynamics, and high school math, what we are hearing and its current intensity originated about 15 billion years ago (give or take a few billion). To argue against that, which some try to do, requires very obtuse arguments that belie the basic fact: we can hear that explosion today.
If that's not enough, spectrometers tell us the chemical composition of the stars and galaxies. Nuclear physics tells us that you can assemble heavier elements (carbon, oxygen, silicon, etc.) from smaller elements (hydrogen and helium) through fusion. We know that the Sun operates as a fusion machine, and that at the rate its consuming its fuel it has another 5 billion or so years left in its life.
And now for the theory: it's not a stretch to assume that the initial explosion created a lot of hydrogen (there's direct evidence for that through spectrometers looking at distant quasars). The first stars consisted only of hydrogen, through fusion they created heavier elements. Those heavier elements found their way into second- and third-generation stars (our Sun is one of them). The observed abundance of these heavier materials is consistent with a 15-billion year old universe.
Now is this proof? Maybe not to some. What it represents is a consistent story of how things came to be that relies on very simple and well-verified physical laws and direct observations of what is around us. To argue otherwise you have to invoke very complicated arguments that, at some level, don't make much sense.
And what about the Bible? Well Genesis 1 is the place to look. In that book there is no constraint that the "days" are 24-hours long. Yes it says "evening and morning. . .the Nth day" (by the way, evening to morning is a night, not a day). But the 7th day has no evening and morning, and it is referred to in the present tense. We are living in the 7th day of creation--God's day of rest--and clearly it is more than 24 hours long. Also in the very beginning the Earth was shrouded with clouds, it wasn't until later that the stars and sun were visible--it would have been difficult to discren "day" and "night" from the surface of the planet prior to that event. All this leads me to believe that it is perfectly acceptable to God to believe that the creation occurred in stages that were not necessarily 24 hours long.
The order of the creation stages in Genesis 1, by the way, are correct from a scientific viewpoint. A remarkable achievement for Moses, given that he wrote the book circa 1900 BC without any knowledge of current science. Some might conclude that Moses could only have gotten the order of creation right if someone--say the Creator Himself--told Moses. But to some that's very difficult to believe.
Are these arguments proof that the Bible preaches an old Earth? Hardly. Many prominent theologians would disagree. But it represents a consistent way of viewing the Bible that is also consistent with the scientific view of creation.
So, to my critics I say the following: reject an old universe at your own peril. The same thermodynamics that allows you to drive your car also governs the age of the universe. And if you stubbornly insist that the universe was created in seven consecutive 24-hour days, and thus came into being on a Friday afternoon about 5:30 PM in 5500 BC or so, you will find yourself further and further removed from the evidence around you (which God has clearly put there) and you will become irrelevant within society (if you're not already).
For those who want to argue with this, all I have to say is. . .Go ahead, make my day. . . :-)
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: April 05, 2009 12:18PM
Dark star - unfortunately, you appear to be cherry picking the bits of the explanations you happen to like - the God's days argument is a hack to crowbar theology in where science already gives good explanations
You're right in that refusing to accept thermodynamics is ridiculous because you can see it in action. I'd claim that the same is true about quantum mechanics, radioactive decay, the fossil record, genetics and the evolutionary mechanism
If you accept an old and vast universe based on scientific observation, then its extremely hard to ignore the fossil and biological/genetic evidence for evolution over extended periods of time - as you would say 'you do so at your peril'.
Once you do that, and I don't think you can avoid it without ignoring clear evidence such as the emergence of biological complexity over time through the geological record (dated using well known physical principles) that would need alternative explanation, you have to explain how a creator and evolution fit together in a defensible manner.
The fossil and geological evidence together show a consistent picture of dramatically varying environments over long periods of time adequate to explain the biological variations we see.
Quantum mechanics and complexity theory show us that the systems which make up the universe - or even a single planet or ecology, are so complex and chaotic (in the technical sense) that you cannot just pick the starting conditions required for a given outcome. E.g. you can't just pick your physics, line up your hydrogen atoms, press the go-button and end up with a predetermined set of species - e.g. you can't start with a hydrogen cloud and hope to end up with Moses.
Appealing to the bulk thresh-holding behavior of chemistry or the error correction mechanisms of biology, doesn't help.
Quantum computational theory suggests at the most fundamental level, you can only predict the outcome of a quantum system with a system of the same complexity over the same number of calculations - so, in effect, every universe is an independent experiment
Once you accept that heavy elements are formed in the quantum furnaces of stars, you're stuck with the dynamics of the math.
Evolution - based on the observed fossil record and our increasing understanding of systems biology gives us a very good model for understanding how biological complexity emerges and develops.
Ignoring this and claiming that a deity somehow removed from the nasty messiness of quantum mechanics, biology, complexity science and physics did it is to shift the problem into an area where you can safely never quote any evidence.
Once you accept thermodynamics (and you can't avoid it), you're stuck having to acknowledge other evidence and phenomena you see around you (to do otherwise is intellectually lazy)
When the mechanisms that you can see around you, test and can be used to make predictions, provide a consistent explanation, you have to either
1) show evidence of god (and preferably your own preferred version)
- which has NEVER been done
or
2) show a phenomena which can only reasonably be explained by one
- which worked while science was immature
or
3) show where one provides a better explanation than the phenomena you see around you
- which is avoided like the plague by most christians who use bizarre tactics to ignore evidence such as fossils
You're right in that refusing to accept thermodynamics is ridiculous because you can see it in action. I'd claim that the same is true about quantum mechanics, radioactive decay, the fossil record, genetics and the evolutionary mechanism
If you accept an old and vast universe based on scientific observation, then its extremely hard to ignore the fossil and biological/genetic evidence for evolution over extended periods of time - as you would say 'you do so at your peril'.
Once you do that, and I don't think you can avoid it without ignoring clear evidence such as the emergence of biological complexity over time through the geological record (dated using well known physical principles) that would need alternative explanation, you have to explain how a creator and evolution fit together in a defensible manner.
The fossil and geological evidence together show a consistent picture of dramatically varying environments over long periods of time adequate to explain the biological variations we see.
Quantum mechanics and complexity theory show us that the systems which make up the universe - or even a single planet or ecology, are so complex and chaotic (in the technical sense) that you cannot just pick the starting conditions required for a given outcome. E.g. you can't just pick your physics, line up your hydrogen atoms, press the go-button and end up with a predetermined set of species - e.g. you can't start with a hydrogen cloud and hope to end up with Moses.
Appealing to the bulk thresh-holding behavior of chemistry or the error correction mechanisms of biology, doesn't help.
Quantum computational theory suggests at the most fundamental level, you can only predict the outcome of a quantum system with a system of the same complexity over the same number of calculations - so, in effect, every universe is an independent experiment
Once you accept that heavy elements are formed in the quantum furnaces of stars, you're stuck with the dynamics of the math.
Evolution - based on the observed fossil record and our increasing understanding of systems biology gives us a very good model for understanding how biological complexity emerges and develops.
Ignoring this and claiming that a deity somehow removed from the nasty messiness of quantum mechanics, biology, complexity science and physics did it is to shift the problem into an area where you can safely never quote any evidence.
Once you accept thermodynamics (and you can't avoid it), you're stuck having to acknowledge other evidence and phenomena you see around you (to do otherwise is intellectually lazy)
When the mechanisms that you can see around you, test and can be used to make predictions, provide a consistent explanation, you have to either
1) show evidence of god (and preferably your own preferred version)
- which has NEVER been done
or
2) show a phenomena which can only reasonably be explained by one
- which worked while science was immature
or
3) show where one provides a better explanation than the phenomena you see around you
- which is avoided like the plague by most christians who use bizarre tactics to ignore evidence such as fossils
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Dark Star
()
Date: April 06, 2009 12:01AM
Nutters
Interesting post. First I'd like to point out that my original post said nothing whatsoever about evolution. I was merely pointing out the basic physical evidence for a 14-billion-year old universe. As you pointed out, thermodynamics and nuclear physics are not the only evidence for the old universe, there are other areas of science that support it as well.
But interestingly you also talk about evolution, and the apparent evidence for it. In doing so you appear to link evolution and Christian faith as diametrically opposite--that is, you can believe one or the other but apparently not both. Do you really believe that? Instead, could you believe that a benevolent God could have created life through evolution, just like He created the universe through the Big Bang?
But let's do a thought experiment and suppose that you cannot accept both ideas at once. Suppose that our minds are so limited and our philosophy so restricted that it's either evolution or God, and the two ideas cannot coexist.
I would then question whether the fossil record, over the past millions of years, is sufficient to show a gradual evolution from single-cell organisms to the complexity we see today. I would argue that the fossil record shows otherwise. A species apparently exists for millions of year--unchanged--and then there is a short pause and the fossil record continues, with a much more advanced form of the animal. We see this over and over again.
It's not that single genes are replaced one at a time and that you gradually evolve from a small dog-like creature to a horse, for example. Rather, the record shows that whole sequences of nucleotides are torn apart, replaced, and additional chromosomes are created where none existed in the unevolved species. And this all happens rather suddenly. In Darwin's day it appeared as though there was gradual evolution; today the fossil record is much more complete and it shows "step function" evolution.
Now don't get me wrong--step function evolution is OK, provided that a mechanism can be found to explain it. We need to discover the sequence of chemical reactions that form new chromosomes, that change whole genetic sequences and are transmitted from parent to child, and does so in such a way that the offspring are fertile, that there are more than one of themm so that the new creature actually survives and multiplies. None of this has been shown in the laboratory yet, or even on paper. What we do know is that when a mutation occurs, 99.9% of the time it is fatal for the offspring. The other 0.1% of the time it does nothing to help survival. For all our advances we cannot explain the basic chemistry behind evolution. Instead, we say "here's the fossil of a small dog-like creature and here's one a few million years later with similar characteristics but it looks more like a horse--presto, isn't evolution wonderful?" Hardly a convincing argument.
Thus my response to the evolution-vs-God idea is two-fold. First, to the extent that you believe in evolution, that belief does not conflict with any basic belief in the diety. In fact, Genesis 1, if anything, suggests evolution. Read it. The earth starts formless and void; oceans form; then continents; then small mammals, then large mammals, then birds, and after all that--finally man. Exactly the sequence that biologists will tell you happened according to the fossil record, and Moses could hardly have figured that out on his own in 1900 BC!
But from a scientific perspective evolution is far from certain. despite what your college biology professor would suggest. Evolution is taught because it is the only explanation science has for life on this earth--therefore, it must be correct, yes? Bear in mind in the mid-19th century students were taught that there is no speed limit in the universe. Then came the Michelson-Morley experiments, and a whole generation of physicists had to die before the obvious was stated: there is a speed limit, that limit is the speed of light in a vacuum, and everything is relative to that.
The point is not to re-hash history, but to show that science can be wrong. Yes, even the science that is in your high school and college textbooks. And evolution, whose detailed chemical reactions have never been demonstrated, is a particularly vulnerable theory ripe for an Einstein-type character to show otherwise.
Interesting post. First I'd like to point out that my original post said nothing whatsoever about evolution. I was merely pointing out the basic physical evidence for a 14-billion-year old universe. As you pointed out, thermodynamics and nuclear physics are not the only evidence for the old universe, there are other areas of science that support it as well.
But interestingly you also talk about evolution, and the apparent evidence for it. In doing so you appear to link evolution and Christian faith as diametrically opposite--that is, you can believe one or the other but apparently not both. Do you really believe that? Instead, could you believe that a benevolent God could have created life through evolution, just like He created the universe through the Big Bang?
But let's do a thought experiment and suppose that you cannot accept both ideas at once. Suppose that our minds are so limited and our philosophy so restricted that it's either evolution or God, and the two ideas cannot coexist.
I would then question whether the fossil record, over the past millions of years, is sufficient to show a gradual evolution from single-cell organisms to the complexity we see today. I would argue that the fossil record shows otherwise. A species apparently exists for millions of year--unchanged--and then there is a short pause and the fossil record continues, with a much more advanced form of the animal. We see this over and over again.
It's not that single genes are replaced one at a time and that you gradually evolve from a small dog-like creature to a horse, for example. Rather, the record shows that whole sequences of nucleotides are torn apart, replaced, and additional chromosomes are created where none existed in the unevolved species. And this all happens rather suddenly. In Darwin's day it appeared as though there was gradual evolution; today the fossil record is much more complete and it shows "step function" evolution.
Now don't get me wrong--step function evolution is OK, provided that a mechanism can be found to explain it. We need to discover the sequence of chemical reactions that form new chromosomes, that change whole genetic sequences and are transmitted from parent to child, and does so in such a way that the offspring are fertile, that there are more than one of themm so that the new creature actually survives and multiplies. None of this has been shown in the laboratory yet, or even on paper. What we do know is that when a mutation occurs, 99.9% of the time it is fatal for the offspring. The other 0.1% of the time it does nothing to help survival. For all our advances we cannot explain the basic chemistry behind evolution. Instead, we say "here's the fossil of a small dog-like creature and here's one a few million years later with similar characteristics but it looks more like a horse--presto, isn't evolution wonderful?" Hardly a convincing argument.
Thus my response to the evolution-vs-God idea is two-fold. First, to the extent that you believe in evolution, that belief does not conflict with any basic belief in the diety. In fact, Genesis 1, if anything, suggests evolution. Read it. The earth starts formless and void; oceans form; then continents; then small mammals, then large mammals, then birds, and after all that--finally man. Exactly the sequence that biologists will tell you happened according to the fossil record, and Moses could hardly have figured that out on his own in 1900 BC!
But from a scientific perspective evolution is far from certain. despite what your college biology professor would suggest. Evolution is taught because it is the only explanation science has for life on this earth--therefore, it must be correct, yes? Bear in mind in the mid-19th century students were taught that there is no speed limit in the universe. Then came the Michelson-Morley experiments, and a whole generation of physicists had to die before the obvious was stated: there is a speed limit, that limit is the speed of light in a vacuum, and everything is relative to that.
The point is not to re-hash history, but to show that science can be wrong. Yes, even the science that is in your high school and college textbooks. And evolution, whose detailed chemical reactions have never been demonstrated, is a particularly vulnerable theory ripe for an Einstein-type character to show otherwise.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
azzz
()
Date: April 06, 2009 06:56AM
I watched an interesting video the other day that i think both believers and non believers should watch. It was a town hall forum/debate on the book The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It had Dawkins debating for the side of Atheists, and another man (his name escapes me) debating, the other man was a scientist as well as a christian. They both gave great arguments, if you only listened to one side and not the other, that side would have completely convinced you that he was right. The christian argued that the world and its laws were the creation, the mechanism, and they needed a creator. Dawkins fired back that if it was a creation, and indeed it had a creator, then whom was the creator of the creator? Both were valid arguments, but they both brought me to one conclusion... that one can not be certain of whether or not there truly is a god or not. I came to the conclusion that the only true certainty is agnosticism. Its just my personal belief that if there is a god, most (if not all) religions have got it wrong.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: April 06, 2009 07:39AM
dark star - thanks for this - however I think you have some fundamental misconceptions
The fossil record presents a number of scientific challenges e.g. It only provides a very sparse record from which we have to extract a model of all species over all time - as very few individuals are preserved you must expect gaps in the record - for example, we don't have enough T-rex skeletons to say anything much about the diversity in the population at any time - which is one reason why we keep refining our views on dinosaur hair/feathers as news samples are found and new analysis tools are developed
In fact the fossil record does contain a very rich, long term record that stretches back about 3 Billion years which shows a very clear progression of complexity e,g, over two billion years of evolution before the first land invertebrates
Similarly, fossilization doesn't preserve DNA - so we have to use to extrapolate relationships and fine grain evolution from analysis of the DNA of current species. What that analysis is showing us that is that many morphological changes (such as how long a beak is) are actually relatively simple and can be achieved by regulating the expression of key genes. We also now know a great deal about the biochemical processes of evolution including phenomena such as gene transfer in microorganisms
It also provides deep insights into the relationship between species and within species. Your suggestion that 99% of mutations are fatal and all others make no difference is really untenable. In fact we know that many mutations just cause changes in the expression of other genes.
How would you explain the diversity within species? Is god in there with his tool kit at every conception or cell division?
You raise the question of how 'jerky' evolution is - and that's an interesting system level question - however the difference between say a Gould and Dawkins on this is fairly minor. The way to think about this is that individual communities will tend to come under local evolutionary pressures and be influenced by them at a relatively slow rate - it takes a long time for those communities to become sexually incompatible. Gould tends to emphasis the interaction of communities which have evolved in isolation from each other (e.g. being split by a mountain range or a river) and suggests that interaction is the point at which you observe macro morphological changes in the fossil record
None of this points towards the intervention of a deity. The idea that every-time you see mutation or evolution in the environment, its because god is sneaking in a wiggling the genome is a bit of a stretch - to be honest.
Your point that science is refined over time is a good one - however, its clear that we are not going to suddenly discover that the world is flat. But that refinement comes from a number of sources including
1) observation - phenomena that cannot be well explained by the current model
2) experimentation and refinement of model to improve the linkage between disciplines
You seem to be saying that science is fine at explaining what we see around us - but just you wait, there'll soon be an experiment that catches god out and we'l see him before he can hide - that does seem a bit desperate
The fossil record presents a number of scientific challenges e.g. It only provides a very sparse record from which we have to extract a model of all species over all time - as very few individuals are preserved you must expect gaps in the record - for example, we don't have enough T-rex skeletons to say anything much about the diversity in the population at any time - which is one reason why we keep refining our views on dinosaur hair/feathers as news samples are found and new analysis tools are developed
In fact the fossil record does contain a very rich, long term record that stretches back about 3 Billion years which shows a very clear progression of complexity e,g, over two billion years of evolution before the first land invertebrates
Similarly, fossilization doesn't preserve DNA - so we have to use to extrapolate relationships and fine grain evolution from analysis of the DNA of current species. What that analysis is showing us that is that many morphological changes (such as how long a beak is) are actually relatively simple and can be achieved by regulating the expression of key genes. We also now know a great deal about the biochemical processes of evolution including phenomena such as gene transfer in microorganisms
It also provides deep insights into the relationship between species and within species. Your suggestion that 99% of mutations are fatal and all others make no difference is really untenable. In fact we know that many mutations just cause changes in the expression of other genes.
How would you explain the diversity within species? Is god in there with his tool kit at every conception or cell division?
You raise the question of how 'jerky' evolution is - and that's an interesting system level question - however the difference between say a Gould and Dawkins on this is fairly minor. The way to think about this is that individual communities will tend to come under local evolutionary pressures and be influenced by them at a relatively slow rate - it takes a long time for those communities to become sexually incompatible. Gould tends to emphasis the interaction of communities which have evolved in isolation from each other (e.g. being split by a mountain range or a river) and suggests that interaction is the point at which you observe macro morphological changes in the fossil record
None of this points towards the intervention of a deity. The idea that every-time you see mutation or evolution in the environment, its because god is sneaking in a wiggling the genome is a bit of a stretch - to be honest.
Your point that science is refined over time is a good one - however, its clear that we are not going to suddenly discover that the world is flat. But that refinement comes from a number of sources including
1) observation - phenomena that cannot be well explained by the current model
2) experimentation and refinement of model to improve the linkage between disciplines
You seem to be saying that science is fine at explaining what we see around us - but just you wait, there'll soon be an experiment that catches god out and we'l see him before he can hide - that does seem a bit desperate
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: April 06, 2009 07:41AM
azzz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I watched an interesting video the other day that
> i think both believers and non believers should
> watch. It was a town hall forum/debate on the book
> The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It had
> Dawkins debating for the side of Atheists, and
> another man (his name escapes me) debating, the
> other man was a scientist as well as a christian.
> They both gave great arguments, if you only
> listened to one side and not the other, that side
> would have completely convinced you that he was
> right. The christian argued that the world and its
> laws were the creation, the mechanism, and they
> needed a creator. Dawkins fired back that if it
> was a creation, and indeed it had a creator, then
> whom was the creator of the creator? Both were
> valid arguments, but they both brought me to one
> conclusion... that one can not be certain of
> whether or not there truly is a god or not. I came
> to the conclusion that the only true certainty is
> agnosticism. Its just my personal belief that if
> there is a god, most (if not all) religions have
> got it wrong.
I'd strongly recommend some of Dawkin's biology books - particularly 'the blind watchmaker'
-------------------------------------------------------
> I watched an interesting video the other day that
> i think both believers and non believers should
> watch. It was a town hall forum/debate on the book
> The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It had
> Dawkins debating for the side of Atheists, and
> another man (his name escapes me) debating, the
> other man was a scientist as well as a christian.
> They both gave great arguments, if you only
> listened to one side and not the other, that side
> would have completely convinced you that he was
> right. The christian argued that the world and its
> laws were the creation, the mechanism, and they
> needed a creator. Dawkins fired back that if it
> was a creation, and indeed it had a creator, then
> whom was the creator of the creator? Both were
> valid arguments, but they both brought me to one
> conclusion... that one can not be certain of
> whether or not there truly is a god or not. I came
> to the conclusion that the only true certainty is
> agnosticism. Its just my personal belief that if
> there is a god, most (if not all) religions have
> got it wrong.
I'd strongly recommend some of Dawkin's biology books - particularly 'the blind watchmaker'
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: April 06, 2009 08:34AM
Dark Star Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And what about the Bible? Well Genesis 1 is the
> place to look. In that book there is no
> constraint that the "days" are 24-hours long. Yes
> it says "evening and morning. . .the Nth day" (by
> the way, evening to morning is a night, not a
> day). But the 7th day has no evening and morning,
> and it is referred to in the present tense. We
> are living in the 7th day of creation--God's day
> of rest--and clearly it is more than 24 hours
> long. Also in the very beginning the Earth was
> shrouded with clouds, it wasn't until later that
> the stars and sun were visible--it would have been
> difficult to discren "day" and "night" from the
> surface of the planet prior to that event. All
> this leads me to believe that it is perfectly
> acceptable to God to believe that the creation
> occurred in stages that were not necessarily 24
> hours long.
"Visible", huh, okay.
> The order of the creation stages in Genesis 1, by
> the way, are correct from a scientific viewpoint.
Not really. God creates grass and the oceans (Gen 1:11& Gen 1:12) before he created the two lights, the sun and the moon (which isn't an actual light) (Gen1:16)
> A remarkable achievement for Moses, given that he
> wrote the book circa 1900 BC without any knowledge
> of current science.
I very highly doubt that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, most scholars doubt this as well, preferring Friedman's documentary hypothesis. It would explain why Moses's death is written about and the various literary styles employed throughout the bible. It would also explain why there are two Noah's ark stories, two creation accounts, etc.
> Some might conclude that
> Moses could only have gotten the order of creation
> right if someone--say the Creator Himself--told
> Moses. But to some that's very difficult to
> believe.
Right, especially since "Moses" didn't get the creation account correct.
>Instead, could you believe that a benevolent God could have created life through >evolution, just like He created the universe through the Big Bang?
You weren't talking to me, but I'll answer anyway. No, I do not think that evolution disproves God. I think that if God exists, then God apparently used evolution (unless God is deceptive or something to that effect).
>I would then question whether the fossil record, over the past millions of >years, is sufficient to show a gradual evolution from single-cell organisms to >the complexity we see today. I would argue that the fossil record shows >otherwise. A species apparently exists for millions of year--unchanged--and then >there is a short pause and the fossil record continues, with a much more >advanced form of the animal. We see this over and over again.
I think it's clear that the fossil record supports common descent. It seems like you are attempting to support punctuated equilibrium here. In any event, my point is that the fossil record is not our only means of evidence for evolution. The twin nested hierarchy is powerful evidence.
>It's not that single genes are replaced one at a time and that you gradually >evolve from a small dog-like creature to a horse, for example. Rather, the >record shows that whole sequences of nucleotides are torn apart, replaced, and >additional chromosomes are created where none existed in the unevolved species. >And this all happens rather suddenly. In Darwin's day it appeared as though >there was gradual evolution; today the fossil record is much more complete and >it shows "step function" evolution.
Individuals do not evolve, populations do. In any event, I'm not sure what evidence you are pointing to here. Also, what is an 'unevolved' species? Do you mean one which has no mutations at all?
>Now don't get me wrong--step function evolution is OK, provided that a mechanism >can be found to explain it.
? Natural selection explains it. Gould would argue that populations achieve relative stasis for long periods of time and then the environment or other factors change (say a woodland turns into a desert) and that provides a rapid selection process. The changing environment provides an opportunity for the non traditional genes to flourish, hence the 'rapid' evolution in the span of a few million years.
>We need to discover the sequence of chemical reactions that form new >chromosomes, that change whole genetic sequences and are transmitted from parent >to child, and does so in such a way that the offspring are fertile, that there >are more than one of themm so that the new creature actually survives and >multiplies. None of this has been shown in the laboratory yet, or even on paper.
We have discovered sequences like this. In fact, humans and chimpanzees show a very powerful evidence of this.
>What we do know is that when a mutation occurs, 99.9% of the time it is fatal >for the offspring. The other 0.1% of the time it does nothing to help survival.
This is fictitious. On average, your run-of-the-mill human is walking around with 64 mutations (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB100.html).
>For all our advances we cannot explain the basic chemistry behind evolution. >Instead, we say "here's the fossil of a small dog-like creature and here's one a >few million years later with similar characteristics but it looks more like a >horse--presto, isn't evolution wonderful?" Hardly a convincing argument.
You would prefer a complete line of individual fossils? We are lucky to have ANY fossils, much less fossils which provide a transitional glimpse.
>Thus my response to the evolution-vs-God idea is two-fold. First, to the extent >that you believe in evolution, that belief does not conflict with any basic >belief in the diety.
I agree with this generally, depending on the deity.
>In fact, Genesis 1, if anything, suggests evolution. Read it.
I have read it. It's not a history book and it's not meant to be one. It's an allegory and reading it like a history book creates an absurd picture of what scientists believe occurred.
>The earth starts formless and void; oceans form; then continents; then small >mammals, then large mammals, then birds, and after all that--finally man.
You leave out the fact that the sun/moon form AFTER earth.
>Exactly the sequence that biologists will tell you happened according to the >fossil record, and Moses could hardly have figured that out on his own in 1900 >BC!
Um, no. Whales were mammals that went back into the water. The bible states that they were created in the water with other fish (Gen 1:21). Mammals were created the next day (Gen 1:24).
>But from a scientific perspective evolution is far from certain. despite what >your college biology professor would suggest.
Nonsense. Common descent is fact, the theory of evolution explains this fact in general. Sexual selection, evo devo, and other theories also help explain this fact.
>Evolution is taught because it is the only explanation science has for life on >this earth--therefore, it must be correct, yes?
Uh, again, no. There are many theories as to what occurred. Lamarkianism, saltation, and lysenkoism being other candidates - mostly refuted.
>Bear in mind in the mid-19th century students were taught that there is no speed >limit in the universe. Then came the Michelson-Morley experiments, and a whole >generation of physicists had to die before the obvious was stated: there is a >speed limit, that limit is the speed of light in a vacuum, and everything is >relative to that.
Right, and why did that change? Evidence. The best explanation of the evidence is evolution.
-------------------------------------------------------
> And what about the Bible? Well Genesis 1 is the
> place to look. In that book there is no
> constraint that the "days" are 24-hours long. Yes
> it says "evening and morning. . .the Nth day" (by
> the way, evening to morning is a night, not a
> day). But the 7th day has no evening and morning,
> and it is referred to in the present tense. We
> are living in the 7th day of creation--God's day
> of rest--and clearly it is more than 24 hours
> long. Also in the very beginning the Earth was
> shrouded with clouds, it wasn't until later that
> the stars and sun were visible--it would have been
> difficult to discren "day" and "night" from the
> surface of the planet prior to that event. All
> this leads me to believe that it is perfectly
> acceptable to God to believe that the creation
> occurred in stages that were not necessarily 24
> hours long.
"Visible", huh, okay.
> The order of the creation stages in Genesis 1, by
> the way, are correct from a scientific viewpoint.
Not really. God creates grass and the oceans (Gen 1:11& Gen 1:12) before he created the two lights, the sun and the moon (which isn't an actual light) (Gen1:16)
> A remarkable achievement for Moses, given that he
> wrote the book circa 1900 BC without any knowledge
> of current science.
I very highly doubt that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, most scholars doubt this as well, preferring Friedman's documentary hypothesis. It would explain why Moses's death is written about and the various literary styles employed throughout the bible. It would also explain why there are two Noah's ark stories, two creation accounts, etc.
> Some might conclude that
> Moses could only have gotten the order of creation
> right if someone--say the Creator Himself--told
> Moses. But to some that's very difficult to
> believe.
Right, especially since "Moses" didn't get the creation account correct.
>Instead, could you believe that a benevolent God could have created life through >evolution, just like He created the universe through the Big Bang?
You weren't talking to me, but I'll answer anyway. No, I do not think that evolution disproves God. I think that if God exists, then God apparently used evolution (unless God is deceptive or something to that effect).
>I would then question whether the fossil record, over the past millions of >years, is sufficient to show a gradual evolution from single-cell organisms to >the complexity we see today. I would argue that the fossil record shows >otherwise. A species apparently exists for millions of year--unchanged--and then >there is a short pause and the fossil record continues, with a much more >advanced form of the animal. We see this over and over again.
I think it's clear that the fossil record supports common descent. It seems like you are attempting to support punctuated equilibrium here. In any event, my point is that the fossil record is not our only means of evidence for evolution. The twin nested hierarchy is powerful evidence.
>It's not that single genes are replaced one at a time and that you gradually >evolve from a small dog-like creature to a horse, for example. Rather, the >record shows that whole sequences of nucleotides are torn apart, replaced, and >additional chromosomes are created where none existed in the unevolved species. >And this all happens rather suddenly. In Darwin's day it appeared as though >there was gradual evolution; today the fossil record is much more complete and >it shows "step function" evolution.
Individuals do not evolve, populations do. In any event, I'm not sure what evidence you are pointing to here. Also, what is an 'unevolved' species? Do you mean one which has no mutations at all?
>Now don't get me wrong--step function evolution is OK, provided that a mechanism >can be found to explain it.
? Natural selection explains it. Gould would argue that populations achieve relative stasis for long periods of time and then the environment or other factors change (say a woodland turns into a desert) and that provides a rapid selection process. The changing environment provides an opportunity for the non traditional genes to flourish, hence the 'rapid' evolution in the span of a few million years.
>We need to discover the sequence of chemical reactions that form new >chromosomes, that change whole genetic sequences and are transmitted from parent >to child, and does so in such a way that the offspring are fertile, that there >are more than one of themm so that the new creature actually survives and >multiplies. None of this has been shown in the laboratory yet, or even on paper.
We have discovered sequences like this. In fact, humans and chimpanzees show a very powerful evidence of this.
>What we do know is that when a mutation occurs, 99.9% of the time it is fatal >for the offspring. The other 0.1% of the time it does nothing to help survival.
This is fictitious. On average, your run-of-the-mill human is walking around with 64 mutations (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB100.html).
>For all our advances we cannot explain the basic chemistry behind evolution. >Instead, we say "here's the fossil of a small dog-like creature and here's one a >few million years later with similar characteristics but it looks more like a >horse--presto, isn't evolution wonderful?" Hardly a convincing argument.
You would prefer a complete line of individual fossils? We are lucky to have ANY fossils, much less fossils which provide a transitional glimpse.
>Thus my response to the evolution-vs-God idea is two-fold. First, to the extent >that you believe in evolution, that belief does not conflict with any basic >belief in the diety.
I agree with this generally, depending on the deity.
>In fact, Genesis 1, if anything, suggests evolution. Read it.
I have read it. It's not a history book and it's not meant to be one. It's an allegory and reading it like a history book creates an absurd picture of what scientists believe occurred.
>The earth starts formless and void; oceans form; then continents; then small >mammals, then large mammals, then birds, and after all that--finally man.
You leave out the fact that the sun/moon form AFTER earth.
>Exactly the sequence that biologists will tell you happened according to the >fossil record, and Moses could hardly have figured that out on his own in 1900 >BC!
Um, no. Whales were mammals that went back into the water. The bible states that they were created in the water with other fish (Gen 1:21). Mammals were created the next day (Gen 1:24).
>But from a scientific perspective evolution is far from certain. despite what >your college biology professor would suggest.
Nonsense. Common descent is fact, the theory of evolution explains this fact in general. Sexual selection, evo devo, and other theories also help explain this fact.
>Evolution is taught because it is the only explanation science has for life on >this earth--therefore, it must be correct, yes?
Uh, again, no. There are many theories as to what occurred. Lamarkianism, saltation, and lysenkoism being other candidates - mostly refuted.
>Bear in mind in the mid-19th century students were taught that there is no speed >limit in the universe. Then came the Michelson-Morley experiments, and a whole >generation of physicists had to die before the obvious was stated: there is a >speed limit, that limit is the speed of light in a vacuum, and everything is >relative to that.
Right, and why did that change? Evidence. The best explanation of the evidence is evolution.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
formerhick76
()
Date: April 06, 2009 09:26AM
God's pretty awesome. I think it's great He was able to either create the Earth in six days or put into place the mechanics of evolution.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Dark Star
()
Date: April 06, 2009 10:21AM
Professor Pangloss,
Another good post! This discussion makes interesting reading. What I want to zero in on here is the evolution part--particularly the lack of a mechanism to explain how new species arise. So here it goes:
> Individuals do not evolve, populations do. In any event, I'm not sure what evidence you are pointing to here. Also, what is an 'unevolved' species? Do you mean one which has no mutations at all?
I know you already know this, but let's start here. Biologists define different species as being animals that cannot interbreed. So a giraffe and a monkey can't produce fertile offspring (if they can breed at all), thus they are different species. Dogs, on the other hand, even though they might look quite different, can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
So my question back to you: what is the sequence of chemical reactions that cause offspring of parents to become a different species? The fossil record does not "prove" that it happens, it merely "suggests" that it might have happened. To prove it you have to go the extra mile, and show how our ancestors--who had fewer genes and chromosomes than we do now--created offspring with more genes and more chromosomes. How did that happen? The truth is, no one knows. The fossil record is so suggestive of gradual evolution that scientists are lured into thinking that it *must* have occurred. The fossil evidence is a good starting point, but again, the chemistry that shows how a self-replicating molecule can produce more advanced copies of itself has not been demonstrated.
An analogy would be clear here, albeit it's imperfect. Suppose a million years from now humans no longer inhabit the earth, and space aliens explore the planet (work with me here, I know it sounds silly so far). These aliens dig around and find a Model-T Ford. Then they find a 1950's-era Chrysler. Finally they find a 2000 Corvette. They then postulate that this planet at some point in the past must have had a way for these cars to evolve into more technically advanced models. They are convinced it happened even though they cannot explain how one car can produce another one that is superior to it.
That is where we are with evolution. Sure, there's fossils. Sure, it clearly shows that more advanced life forms followed simpler life forms. Sure, we know that chimpanzees and humans (two different species) share many common genes--just like two cars built in the year 2000 would be quite similar. But none of that makes any difference until Science can demonstrate exactly how a species (or a population of individuals) can produce offspring that are more advanced than itself. We don't see that happening today, for example: where are new species being created on the planet today?
How does DNA (a self-replicating molecule) not only replicate itself, but produce DNA with more genes and more chromosomes? The fossil record does not show how this happens, instead, it suggest that it might have happened. Scientists have no alternate explanation for life, so they cling to their faith that, sometime in the future, such a mechanism will be discovered.
All for now. . .
Another good post! This discussion makes interesting reading. What I want to zero in on here is the evolution part--particularly the lack of a mechanism to explain how new species arise. So here it goes:
> Individuals do not evolve, populations do. In any event, I'm not sure what evidence you are pointing to here. Also, what is an 'unevolved' species? Do you mean one which has no mutations at all?
I know you already know this, but let's start here. Biologists define different species as being animals that cannot interbreed. So a giraffe and a monkey can't produce fertile offspring (if they can breed at all), thus they are different species. Dogs, on the other hand, even though they might look quite different, can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
So my question back to you: what is the sequence of chemical reactions that cause offspring of parents to become a different species? The fossil record does not "prove" that it happens, it merely "suggests" that it might have happened. To prove it you have to go the extra mile, and show how our ancestors--who had fewer genes and chromosomes than we do now--created offspring with more genes and more chromosomes. How did that happen? The truth is, no one knows. The fossil record is so suggestive of gradual evolution that scientists are lured into thinking that it *must* have occurred. The fossil evidence is a good starting point, but again, the chemistry that shows how a self-replicating molecule can produce more advanced copies of itself has not been demonstrated.
An analogy would be clear here, albeit it's imperfect. Suppose a million years from now humans no longer inhabit the earth, and space aliens explore the planet (work with me here, I know it sounds silly so far). These aliens dig around and find a Model-T Ford. Then they find a 1950's-era Chrysler. Finally they find a 2000 Corvette. They then postulate that this planet at some point in the past must have had a way for these cars to evolve into more technically advanced models. They are convinced it happened even though they cannot explain how one car can produce another one that is superior to it.
That is where we are with evolution. Sure, there's fossils. Sure, it clearly shows that more advanced life forms followed simpler life forms. Sure, we know that chimpanzees and humans (two different species) share many common genes--just like two cars built in the year 2000 would be quite similar. But none of that makes any difference until Science can demonstrate exactly how a species (or a population of individuals) can produce offspring that are more advanced than itself. We don't see that happening today, for example: where are new species being created on the planet today?
How does DNA (a self-replicating molecule) not only replicate itself, but produce DNA with more genes and more chromosomes? The fossil record does not show how this happens, instead, it suggest that it might have happened. Scientists have no alternate explanation for life, so they cling to their faith that, sometime in the future, such a mechanism will be discovered.
All for now. . .
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: April 06, 2009 10:23AM
formerhick76 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> God's pretty awesome. I think it's great He was
> able to either create the Earth in six days or put
> into place the mechanics of evolution.
ahah - the shake and bake theology - take a cloud of superheated hydrogen, shake and wait until Moses appears
please provide
1. any evidence
2. how which particular gaps in observable science you claim to fill
3. how your theory works e.g how does it fit with our understanding of the predictability of complex/chaotic (in the technical sense) systems and quantum mechanics
4. any reason why yours is a better explanation than science
5. how your human centric, earth centric view fits with observable cosmology
6. any reason why your explanation is any more credible from viking mythology, tree spirit worship, hinduism, cthulism or mormonism
-------------------------------------------------------
> God's pretty awesome. I think it's great He was
> able to either create the Earth in six days or put
> into place the mechanics of evolution.
ahah - the shake and bake theology - take a cloud of superheated hydrogen, shake and wait until Moses appears
please provide
1. any evidence
2. how which particular gaps in observable science you claim to fill
3. how your theory works e.g how does it fit with our understanding of the predictability of complex/chaotic (in the technical sense) systems and quantum mechanics
4. any reason why yours is a better explanation than science
5. how your human centric, earth centric view fits with observable cosmology
6. any reason why your explanation is any more credible from viking mythology, tree spirit worship, hinduism, cthulism or mormonism
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
formerhick76
()
Date: April 06, 2009 10:25AM
nutters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> formerhick76 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > God's pretty awesome. I think it's great He was
> > able to either create the Earth in six days or
> put
> > into place the mechanics of evolution.
>
> ahah - the shake and bake theology - take a cloud
> of superheated hydrogen, shake and wait until
> Moses appears
>
> please provide
>
> 1. any evidence
> 2. how which particular gaps in observable science
> you claim to fill
> 3. how your theory works e.g how does it fit with
> our understanding of the predictability of
> complex/chaotic (in the technical sense) systems
> and quantum mechanics
> 4. any reason why yours is a better explanation
> than science
> 5. how your human centric, earth centric view fits
> with observable cosmology
> 6. any reason why your explanation is any more
> credible from viking mythology, tree spirit
> worship, hinduism, cthulism or mormonism
It's more about love than about hate. I hope you find what you're looking for.
-------------------------------------------------------
> formerhick76 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > God's pretty awesome. I think it's great He was
> > able to either create the Earth in six days or
> put
> > into place the mechanics of evolution.
>
> ahah - the shake and bake theology - take a cloud
> of superheated hydrogen, shake and wait until
> Moses appears
>
> please provide
>
> 1. any evidence
> 2. how which particular gaps in observable science
> you claim to fill
> 3. how your theory works e.g how does it fit with
> our understanding of the predictability of
> complex/chaotic (in the technical sense) systems
> and quantum mechanics
> 4. any reason why yours is a better explanation
> than science
> 5. how your human centric, earth centric view fits
> with observable cosmology
> 6. any reason why your explanation is any more
> credible from viking mythology, tree spirit
> worship, hinduism, cthulism or mormonism
It's more about love than about hate. I hope you find what you're looking for.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: April 06, 2009 10:46AM
formerhick76 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> It's more about love than about hate. I hope you
> find what you're looking for.
errr...
Religion has always been full of as much hate as love - see the crusades, invasion of latin america, taliban, mormon wars, the general tendency to hate/slaughter people of subtly different denominations for baroque reasons etc
If its about the love quotient of a religion, you'd be better off with Buddhism or TM
Science is entirely neutral about love and hate - it views them simply as social mechanisms with differing utilities. Science doesn't hate anyone - but it does root out superstition and hocus-pocus.
So - you'd advocate picking your local religion because it happens to be your local religion? The evidence is that even the taliban love their mothers ...
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> It's more about love than about hate. I hope you
> find what you're looking for.
errr...
Religion has always been full of as much hate as love - see the crusades, invasion of latin america, taliban, mormon wars, the general tendency to hate/slaughter people of subtly different denominations for baroque reasons etc
If its about the love quotient of a religion, you'd be better off with Buddhism or TM
Science is entirely neutral about love and hate - it views them simply as social mechanisms with differing utilities. Science doesn't hate anyone - but it does root out superstition and hocus-pocus.
So - you'd advocate picking your local religion because it happens to be your local religion? The evidence is that even the taliban love their mothers ...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: April 06, 2009 11:12AM
Dark Star Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>Another good post! This discussion makes interesting reading. What I want to zero >in on here is the evolution part--particularly the lack of a mechanism to explain >how new species arise. So here it goes:
Lack of a mechanism? That's interesting. That's actually why 'intelligent design' isn't a scientific theory, but whatever.
>I know you already know this, but let's start here. Biologists define different >species as being animals that cannot interbreed.
Not quite - after all, were this true, ring species would not exist. In fact, ring species would be entirely incoherent.
>So a giraffe and a monkey can't produce fertile offspring (if they can breed at >all), thus they are different species.
Uh, this isn't quite the whole story. They are a completely different order, not simply different species under the same genus.
>Dogs, on the other hand, even though they might look quite different, can >interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
Right, they are of the same genus.
>So my question back to you: what is the sequence of chemical reactions that >cause offspring of parents to become a different species?
There isn't a specific sequence of chemical reactions - this is a strawman. Speciation occurs through a variety of mechanisms, the most frequent being isolation. One group of a population gets isolated from another and both groups diverge genetically until interbreed cannot be achieved. Interestingly there are multitudes of examples of this; ie, there are two groups of species that cannot interbreed yet there is a different group that can interbreed with them both. These species are called ring species.
>The fossil record does not "prove" that it happens, it merely "suggests" that it >might have happened. To prove it you have to go the extra mile, and show how our >ancestors--who had fewer genes and chromosomes than we do now--created offspring >with more genes and more chromosomes.
Proof is for math and alcohol - science works off of abduction and induction. Also, what is this nonsense about fewer genes and chromosomes - where's your evidence for this? You do realize that some bacteria have larger genomes then us, don't you?
>How did that happen? The truth is, no one knows.
Not so, speciation has been observed: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
How it exactly happened (ie, one species went to X while another went to Y) might not ever be known, however likely scenarios can be constructed.
>The fossil record is so suggestive of gradual evolution that scientists are >lured into thinking that it *must* have occurred. The fossil evidence is a good >starting point, but again, the chemistry that shows how a self-replicating >molecule can produce more advanced copies of itself has not been demonstrated.
Not yet, you mean, but the precursors are there. We have developed protocells, for instance. We also have many hypothesis as to how it occurred. We don't have enough evidence to suggest *WHICH* one did occur yet - but that doesn't mean it didn't occur: Here's a good breakdown of how it might have happened:
"In brief, it goes as follows. The formation of amino acids can occur (and have been experimentally demonstrated to occur) in a variety of ways in early Earth conditions, and can subsequently, then, give you proteins (for example - water, sulfur, hydrogen and carbon monoxide give you acetic acid, more carbon monoxide gives rise to pyruvic acid, ammonia to that makes for alanine, and bingo, you're at a peptide). All well and good, but not quite the complete picture, yet. This is where the environment - in our case, hydrothermal vents - really come into play. All the available ingredients, plus a ready-made heat source, and you're looking at a life-making warehouse.
The most prevalent feature of the thermal vent model (aside from being an ideal catalyst for chemical reactions to take place) is the availability of methane, interestingly enough. It is empirically demonstrable that thermal vents on an early earth gave off more methane than they do today (which wouldn't actually be necessary for our purpose here, since they still give off an adequate ammount of methane in the present). Levels of hydrogen in the early atmosphere are now understood to be higher than previously thought. Hydrogen and methane in the atmosphere help give you hydrogen cyanide, from which you can derive your acgu bases. Top all that off with co2 leading to formaldehyde, and you'll end up with ribose, throw in some phosphate, and boom - you've got everything you need for some rna action to get going within a nice membrane-type environment. Provided, of course, that you have a membrane. And interestingly enough, it turns out that iron-sulfide minerals alone can very much develop a 'bubble' that can act as a membrane, and in doing so, creates a chemiostatic gradient (you can just think of it as a power supply, more or less).
The late Dr. Sidney Fox discovered something very important - the process by which certain amino acids form thermal proteins - what was at the time of his innitial discovery termed proteinoid microspheres. He replicated this process many many times in his lab, and discovered that different amino acids combine into different proteins naturally. It is not a random process, it is completely controlled (like most everything in chemistry) in short, essentially by valence and bonds between molecular structures involved. Meaning, the results are predictable. The mircrospheres could grow, could replicate sans DNA, responded to stimuli much like neurons do, and overall, exibit every characteristic of life as we define it in biological terms. When they form, they give off flavin as a by-product (for you non-biology folk, flavin is the basis for any metabolic system). MORE IMPORTANTLY - the oldest fossil evidence we have on planet earth goes back almost three and a half billion years. They are of microspheres that look exactly identical to the ones Dr. Fox was able to replicate. Nail in coffin."
>An analogy would be clear here, albeit it's imperfect. Suppose a million years >from now humans no longer inhabit the earth, and space aliens explore the planet >(work with me here, I know it sounds silly so far). These aliens dig around and >find a Model-T Ford. Then they find a 1950's-era Chrysler. Finally they find a >2000 Corvette. They then postulate that this planet at some point in the past >must have had a way for these cars to evolve into more technically advanced >models. They are convinced it happened even though they cannot explain how one >car can produce another one that is superior to it.
Yes, it's imperfect as their is no way for the cars to replicate. This also assumes that the aliens are sufficiently similar to us in technology - otherwise you fall victim to one of Hume's criticisms of the argument from design.
>That is where we are with evolution.
Uh, no, not really. We know how animals reproduce, how mutations occur, and how mutations are naturally selected.
>Sure, there's fossils. Sure, it clearly shows that more advanced life forms >followed simpler life forms. Sure, we know that chimpanzees and humans (two >different species) share many common genes--just like two cars built in the year >2000 would be quite similar. But none of that makes any difference until Science >can demonstrate exactly how a species (or a population of individuals) can >produce offspring that are more advanced than itself. We don't see that >happening today, for example: where are new species being created on the planet >today?
"Advanced" is an anthropomorphism. It's a value judgement that you are giving a species - it is not found in nature.
Species produce offspring that are different then themselves by having sex. They are combining their genetics with another individual of their own species which will create different a different combination of genetic information.
As for new species today, all one has to do is look. Here's one: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
>How does DNA (a self-replicating molecule) not only replicate itself, but >produce DNA with more genes and more chromosomes? The fossil record does not >show how this happens, instead, it suggest that it might have happened. >Scientists have no alternate explanation for life, so they cling to their faith >that, sometime in the future, such a mechanism will be discovered.
The link I gave above provides some illumination. Further, Chromosomes can fuse together, they can duplicate, they can change in a variety of ways.
Of course the fossil record doesn't show this - that is a strawman. The fossil record regards bones, not genes!
You are simply not up to speed on current biological or biochemical research. You made a number of false claims and a number of claims that can be refuted with a little research.
-------------------------------------------------------
>Another good post! This discussion makes interesting reading. What I want to zero >in on here is the evolution part--particularly the lack of a mechanism to explain >how new species arise. So here it goes:
Lack of a mechanism? That's interesting. That's actually why 'intelligent design' isn't a scientific theory, but whatever.
>I know you already know this, but let's start here. Biologists define different >species as being animals that cannot interbreed.
Not quite - after all, were this true, ring species would not exist. In fact, ring species would be entirely incoherent.
>So a giraffe and a monkey can't produce fertile offspring (if they can breed at >all), thus they are different species.
Uh, this isn't quite the whole story. They are a completely different order, not simply different species under the same genus.
>Dogs, on the other hand, even though they might look quite different, can >interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
Right, they are of the same genus.
>So my question back to you: what is the sequence of chemical reactions that >cause offspring of parents to become a different species?
There isn't a specific sequence of chemical reactions - this is a strawman. Speciation occurs through a variety of mechanisms, the most frequent being isolation. One group of a population gets isolated from another and both groups diverge genetically until interbreed cannot be achieved. Interestingly there are multitudes of examples of this; ie, there are two groups of species that cannot interbreed yet there is a different group that can interbreed with them both. These species are called ring species.
>The fossil record does not "prove" that it happens, it merely "suggests" that it >might have happened. To prove it you have to go the extra mile, and show how our >ancestors--who had fewer genes and chromosomes than we do now--created offspring >with more genes and more chromosomes.
Proof is for math and alcohol - science works off of abduction and induction. Also, what is this nonsense about fewer genes and chromosomes - where's your evidence for this? You do realize that some bacteria have larger genomes then us, don't you?
>How did that happen? The truth is, no one knows.
Not so, speciation has been observed: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
How it exactly happened (ie, one species went to X while another went to Y) might not ever be known, however likely scenarios can be constructed.
>The fossil record is so suggestive of gradual evolution that scientists are >lured into thinking that it *must* have occurred. The fossil evidence is a good >starting point, but again, the chemistry that shows how a self-replicating >molecule can produce more advanced copies of itself has not been demonstrated.
Not yet, you mean, but the precursors are there. We have developed protocells, for instance. We also have many hypothesis as to how it occurred. We don't have enough evidence to suggest *WHICH* one did occur yet - but that doesn't mean it didn't occur: Here's a good breakdown of how it might have happened:
"In brief, it goes as follows. The formation of amino acids can occur (and have been experimentally demonstrated to occur) in a variety of ways in early Earth conditions, and can subsequently, then, give you proteins (for example - water, sulfur, hydrogen and carbon monoxide give you acetic acid, more carbon monoxide gives rise to pyruvic acid, ammonia to that makes for alanine, and bingo, you're at a peptide). All well and good, but not quite the complete picture, yet. This is where the environment - in our case, hydrothermal vents - really come into play. All the available ingredients, plus a ready-made heat source, and you're looking at a life-making warehouse.
The most prevalent feature of the thermal vent model (aside from being an ideal catalyst for chemical reactions to take place) is the availability of methane, interestingly enough. It is empirically demonstrable that thermal vents on an early earth gave off more methane than they do today (which wouldn't actually be necessary for our purpose here, since they still give off an adequate ammount of methane in the present). Levels of hydrogen in the early atmosphere are now understood to be higher than previously thought. Hydrogen and methane in the atmosphere help give you hydrogen cyanide, from which you can derive your acgu bases. Top all that off with co2 leading to formaldehyde, and you'll end up with ribose, throw in some phosphate, and boom - you've got everything you need for some rna action to get going within a nice membrane-type environment. Provided, of course, that you have a membrane. And interestingly enough, it turns out that iron-sulfide minerals alone can very much develop a 'bubble' that can act as a membrane, and in doing so, creates a chemiostatic gradient (you can just think of it as a power supply, more or less).
The late Dr. Sidney Fox discovered something very important - the process by which certain amino acids form thermal proteins - what was at the time of his innitial discovery termed proteinoid microspheres. He replicated this process many many times in his lab, and discovered that different amino acids combine into different proteins naturally. It is not a random process, it is completely controlled (like most everything in chemistry) in short, essentially by valence and bonds between molecular structures involved. Meaning, the results are predictable. The mircrospheres could grow, could replicate sans DNA, responded to stimuli much like neurons do, and overall, exibit every characteristic of life as we define it in biological terms. When they form, they give off flavin as a by-product (for you non-biology folk, flavin is the basis for any metabolic system). MORE IMPORTANTLY - the oldest fossil evidence we have on planet earth goes back almost three and a half billion years. They are of microspheres that look exactly identical to the ones Dr. Fox was able to replicate. Nail in coffin."
>An analogy would be clear here, albeit it's imperfect. Suppose a million years >from now humans no longer inhabit the earth, and space aliens explore the planet >(work with me here, I know it sounds silly so far). These aliens dig around and >find a Model-T Ford. Then they find a 1950's-era Chrysler. Finally they find a >2000 Corvette. They then postulate that this planet at some point in the past >must have had a way for these cars to evolve into more technically advanced >models. They are convinced it happened even though they cannot explain how one >car can produce another one that is superior to it.
Yes, it's imperfect as their is no way for the cars to replicate. This also assumes that the aliens are sufficiently similar to us in technology - otherwise you fall victim to one of Hume's criticisms of the argument from design.
>That is where we are with evolution.
Uh, no, not really. We know how animals reproduce, how mutations occur, and how mutations are naturally selected.
>Sure, there's fossils. Sure, it clearly shows that more advanced life forms >followed simpler life forms. Sure, we know that chimpanzees and humans (two >different species) share many common genes--just like two cars built in the year >2000 would be quite similar. But none of that makes any difference until Science >can demonstrate exactly how a species (or a population of individuals) can >produce offspring that are more advanced than itself. We don't see that >happening today, for example: where are new species being created on the planet >today?
"Advanced" is an anthropomorphism. It's a value judgement that you are giving a species - it is not found in nature.
Species produce offspring that are different then themselves by having sex. They are combining their genetics with another individual of their own species which will create different a different combination of genetic information.
As for new species today, all one has to do is look. Here's one: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
>How does DNA (a self-replicating molecule) not only replicate itself, but >produce DNA with more genes and more chromosomes? The fossil record does not >show how this happens, instead, it suggest that it might have happened. >Scientists have no alternate explanation for life, so they cling to their faith >that, sometime in the future, such a mechanism will be discovered.
The link I gave above provides some illumination. Further, Chromosomes can fuse together, they can duplicate, they can change in a variety of ways.
Of course the fossil record doesn't show this - that is a strawman. The fossil record regards bones, not genes!
You are simply not up to speed on current biological or biochemical research. You made a number of false claims and a number of claims that can be refuted with a little research.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: April 06, 2009 11:20AM
Dark Star Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss,
>
> Another good post! This discussion makes
> interesting reading. What I want to zero in on
> here is the evolution part--particularly the lack
> of a mechanism to explain how new species arise.
> So here it goes:
>
Ok - modern biology has shown us many of the mechanisms e.g.
- we see gene swapping between micro-organisms
- we can see viral sequences in human and other dna
- we see mutations which add additional copies of sequences or whole chromosomes
- we can see the mechanisms which switch genes on and off to differing degrees and the effects that these have on morphology
-we see the genetic variability within species and the effect that sexual reproduction has
a good example is within our own species
For example, two chromosomes in the Homo genus fused to produce human chromosome 2; this fusion did not occur in the lineage of the other apes, and they retain these separate chromosomes. In evolution, the most important role of such chromosomal rearrangements may be to accelerate the divergence of a population into new species by making populations less likely to interbreed, and thereby preserving genetic differences between these populations.
We can see all of these processes and more underway on any lab bench and in any garden
The big difference between life and cars is that we do not see any such mechanisms in cars, Your car analogy is completely flawed - see Dawkins 'Blind Watchmaker' for far more on this
As darwin noted, the physical isolation of island such as the Galapagos gives the perfect environment in which speciation can occur. Even in more local micro-environments this holds true - there is far more variation between fresh water habitats than ocean habitats which is why we have far more varieties of snails (which live in streams and on land) than any other mollusca
oh,,, and 360,000 species of beetles
Leaving aside the fossil record :
Total number of species (estimated):
7 - 100 millions (identified and unidentified), including:
5-10 million bacteria;
74,000-120,000 fungi;
Of the identified eukaryote species we have:
1.6 million, including:
297,326 plants, including:
15,000 mosses,
13,025 Ferns and horsetails,
980 gymnosperms,
258,650 angiosperms,
199,350 dicotyledons,
59,300 monocotyledons,
9,671 Red and green algae,
28,849 fungi & other non-animals, including:
10,000 lichens,
16,000 mushrooms,
2,849 brown algae,
1,250,000 animals, including:
1,203,375 invertebrates:
950,000 insects,
81,000 mollusks,
40,000 crustaceans,
2,175 corals,
130,200 others;
59,811 vertebrates:
29,300 fish,
6,199 amphibians,
8,240 reptiles,
9,956 birds,
5,416 mammals.
so, your suggestion would be that every time one of the 350,000 micro beetle environments changes, god leans in with his toolkit and adds a few genes or duplicates a chromosome?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss,
>
> Another good post! This discussion makes
> interesting reading. What I want to zero in on
> here is the evolution part--particularly the lack
> of a mechanism to explain how new species arise.
> So here it goes:
>
Ok - modern biology has shown us many of the mechanisms e.g.
- we see gene swapping between micro-organisms
- we can see viral sequences in human and other dna
- we see mutations which add additional copies of sequences or whole chromosomes
- we can see the mechanisms which switch genes on and off to differing degrees and the effects that these have on morphology
-we see the genetic variability within species and the effect that sexual reproduction has
a good example is within our own species
For example, two chromosomes in the Homo genus fused to produce human chromosome 2; this fusion did not occur in the lineage of the other apes, and they retain these separate chromosomes. In evolution, the most important role of such chromosomal rearrangements may be to accelerate the divergence of a population into new species by making populations less likely to interbreed, and thereby preserving genetic differences between these populations.
We can see all of these processes and more underway on any lab bench and in any garden
The big difference between life and cars is that we do not see any such mechanisms in cars, Your car analogy is completely flawed - see Dawkins 'Blind Watchmaker' for far more on this
As darwin noted, the physical isolation of island such as the Galapagos gives the perfect environment in which speciation can occur. Even in more local micro-environments this holds true - there is far more variation between fresh water habitats than ocean habitats which is why we have far more varieties of snails (which live in streams and on land) than any other mollusca
oh,,, and 360,000 species of beetles
Leaving aside the fossil record :
Total number of species (estimated):
7 - 100 millions (identified and unidentified), including:
5-10 million bacteria;
74,000-120,000 fungi;
Of the identified eukaryote species we have:
1.6 million, including:
297,326 plants, including:
15,000 mosses,
13,025 Ferns and horsetails,
980 gymnosperms,
258,650 angiosperms,
199,350 dicotyledons,
59,300 monocotyledons,
9,671 Red and green algae,
28,849 fungi & other non-animals, including:
10,000 lichens,
16,000 mushrooms,
2,849 brown algae,
1,250,000 animals, including:
1,203,375 invertebrates:
950,000 insects,
81,000 mollusks,
40,000 crustaceans,
2,175 corals,
130,200 others;
59,811 vertebrates:
29,300 fish,
6,199 amphibians,
8,240 reptiles,
9,956 birds,
5,416 mammals.
so, your suggestion would be that every time one of the 350,000 micro beetle environments changes, god leans in with his toolkit and adds a few genes or duplicates a chromosome?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
i wear condoms when i fuck your dad
()
Date: April 06, 2009 12:13PM
nothing more disturbing than a bunch of religious fanatics. I rather share a cell with Charles Manson than go to church with any of you scary motherfuckers.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Big Dick Jesus
()
Date: April 06, 2009 12:22PM
lol
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Dark Star
()
Date: April 06, 2009 01:57PM
nutters,
Again good discussion. But I have to take exception with your last statement:
> so, your suggestion would be that every time one of the 350,000 micro beetle environments changes, god leans in with his toolkit and adds a few genes or duplicates a chromosome?
Nope, not at all. All I'm suggesting is that it is not clear that evolution works the way science says. Perhaps there is some other mechanism that caused life on this planet. To your specific points:
- we see gene swapping between micro-organisms
OK, but does that produce a new species?
- we can see viral sequences in human and other dna
well of course, that's how viruses work. They inject their DNA into host cells to take them over. But again, that does not create a new species.
- we see mutations which add additional copies of sequences or whole chromosomes
You do? Do you have a reference for this? Where can I find out more? This is what I'd be interested in studying.
- we can see the mechanisms which switch genes on and off to differing degrees and the effects that these have on morphology
Yes that happens all the time. Differences in morphology, however, are not different species. A chihuahua and a great dane are both dogs and can reproduce. Even though they appear quite different they are the same species.
-we see the genetic variability within species and the effect that sexual reproduction has
Yes there is certainly variability within a species, and sexual reproduction assures that such variablility occurs. But again, to my knowledge we have no example of a species that produces offspring of a different species. In order for evolution to work you must have that. Lacking that, and all you have are fossils.
>> For example, two chromosomes in the Homo genus fused to produce human chromosome 2; this fusion did not occur in the lineage of the other apes, and they retain these separate chromosomes. In evolution, the most important role of such chromosomal rearrangements may be to accelerate the divergence of a population into new species by making populations less likely to interbreed, and thereby preserving genetic differences between these populations.
Interesting. Do we know the chemical mechanism by which chromosomes fuse? The sequence of reactions that causes a self-replicating molecule like DNA to do something other than replicate? Apparently what we have is a genus that has some set of chromosomes. Later we find two other more advanced species, apes and humans. In one (humans) the chromosomes appeared to have fused, in the other they did not. But that hardly proves that the original genus evolved into the other two species. To prove the evolution, we need the chemical reactions. Otherwise all we have are bones. Evolution = chemical reactions, not bones!
That's where the science breaks down. It can't explain how evolution works--it only asserts that it must be true because it can't figure out any other explanation!
Now regarding its confluence with God, one of the two statements below will become true:
(1) Science will eventually figure out the chemical reactions that produce advanced copies of DNA. If that happens, I would then agree that evolution is proven.
or
(2) Some bright Einstein-type person will disprove evolution by providing a different mechanism for life on Earth, that is consistent with the fossil record but shows an entirely different mechanism for creating species.
Again good discussion. But I have to take exception with your last statement:
> so, your suggestion would be that every time one of the 350,000 micro beetle environments changes, god leans in with his toolkit and adds a few genes or duplicates a chromosome?
Nope, not at all. All I'm suggesting is that it is not clear that evolution works the way science says. Perhaps there is some other mechanism that caused life on this planet. To your specific points:
- we see gene swapping between micro-organisms
OK, but does that produce a new species?
- we can see viral sequences in human and other dna
well of course, that's how viruses work. They inject their DNA into host cells to take them over. But again, that does not create a new species.
- we see mutations which add additional copies of sequences or whole chromosomes
You do? Do you have a reference for this? Where can I find out more? This is what I'd be interested in studying.
- we can see the mechanisms which switch genes on and off to differing degrees and the effects that these have on morphology
Yes that happens all the time. Differences in morphology, however, are not different species. A chihuahua and a great dane are both dogs and can reproduce. Even though they appear quite different they are the same species.
-we see the genetic variability within species and the effect that sexual reproduction has
Yes there is certainly variability within a species, and sexual reproduction assures that such variablility occurs. But again, to my knowledge we have no example of a species that produces offspring of a different species. In order for evolution to work you must have that. Lacking that, and all you have are fossils.
>> For example, two chromosomes in the Homo genus fused to produce human chromosome 2; this fusion did not occur in the lineage of the other apes, and they retain these separate chromosomes. In evolution, the most important role of such chromosomal rearrangements may be to accelerate the divergence of a population into new species by making populations less likely to interbreed, and thereby preserving genetic differences between these populations.
Interesting. Do we know the chemical mechanism by which chromosomes fuse? The sequence of reactions that causes a self-replicating molecule like DNA to do something other than replicate? Apparently what we have is a genus that has some set of chromosomes. Later we find two other more advanced species, apes and humans. In one (humans) the chromosomes appeared to have fused, in the other they did not. But that hardly proves that the original genus evolved into the other two species. To prove the evolution, we need the chemical reactions. Otherwise all we have are bones. Evolution = chemical reactions, not bones!
That's where the science breaks down. It can't explain how evolution works--it only asserts that it must be true because it can't figure out any other explanation!
Now regarding its confluence with God, one of the two statements below will become true:
(1) Science will eventually figure out the chemical reactions that produce advanced copies of DNA. If that happens, I would then agree that evolution is proven.
or
(2) Some bright Einstein-type person will disprove evolution by providing a different mechanism for life on Earth, that is consistent with the fossil record but shows an entirely different mechanism for creating species.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: April 06, 2009 02:16PM
Dark Star Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nope, not at all. All I'm suggesting is that it
> is not clear that evolution works the way science
> says. Perhaps there is some other mechanism that
> caused life on this planet. To your specific
> points:
Abiogenesis and speciation aren't the same process. Further, the theories that we have adequately account for how life came to be and how it changed - rationally speaking. We don't have all the details yet, but we are getting pretty close.
> - we see mutations which add additional copies of
> sequences or whole chromosomes
>
> You do? Do you have a reference for this? Where
> can I find out more? This is what I'd be
> interested in studying.
There is plenty of information on this - I've provided a few links. Let me guess, you are one of those 'no new information' creationists.
Do you have a definition of 'information'?
> -we see the genetic variability within species and
> the effect that sexual reproduction has
>
> Yes there is certainly variability within a
> species, and sexual reproduction assures that such
> variablility occurs. But again, to my knowledge
> we have no example of a species that produces
> offspring of a different species. In order for
> evolution to work you must have that. Lacking
> that, and all you have are fossils.
There is plenty of evidence for speciation. You need to actually look for it. I've offered up a few links.
> Interesting. Do we know the chemical mechanism by
> which chromosomes fuse?
This is called 'moving the goal posts'. I don't even know what you are trying to ask here.
> The sequence of reactions
> that causes a self-replicating molecule like DNA
> to do something other than replicate?
...? What do you mean 'other than replicate'?
> Apparently
> what we have is a genus that has some set of
> chromosomes. Later we find two other more
> advanced species, apes and humans. In one
> (humans) the chromosomes appeared to have fused,
> in the other they did not. But that hardly proves
> that the original genus evolved into the other two
> species. To prove the evolution, we need the
> chemical reactions. Otherwise all we have are
> bones. Evolution = chemical reactions, not bones!
1. Proofs are for math and alcohol, not science.
2. We know how genes replicate and transform (point mutations, for instance).
3. We do not need the exact biochemical breakdown to what happened in order to conclude that it happened. Your question is setting an absurd demand of proof - akin to asking the exact details, down to the nano-second of how a murder occurred.
4. Common descent is the only reasonable explanation left on the table to explain the transformation. We know how it can happen (sex, mutation, isolation) and we have witnessed it happening. Requiring the exact breakdown is absurd - at least for an MB. If you want that level of precision, get a PhD in biochemistry.
> That's where the science breaks down. It can't
> explain how evolution works--it only asserts that
> it must be true because it can't figure out any
> other explanation!
Oh bullshit man. Look, we have the theoretical explanation for how common descent occurs and evidence that it occurred. You want the exact biochemical pathways - an unreasonable request - and because we aren't giving it to you, you are claiming that it has to be lamarkianism (the other explanation)!
> Now regarding its confluence with God, one of the
> two statements below will become true:
>
> (1) Science will eventually figure out the
> chemical reactions that produce advanced copies of
> DNA. If that happens, I would then agree that
> evolution is proven.
The chemical reactions are not needed for reasonable belief.
> or
>
> (2) Some bright Einstein-type person will disprove
> evolution by providing a different mechanism for
> life on Earth, that is consistent with the fossil
> record but shows an entirely different mechanism
> for creating species.
Lamarkianism and Lysenkoism have been demonstrated to be wrong. Evolution is the only theory left with the evidence that supports it.
So until you refute the evidence that favors the theory, you are a duck out of water.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nope, not at all. All I'm suggesting is that it
> is not clear that evolution works the way science
> says. Perhaps there is some other mechanism that
> caused life on this planet. To your specific
> points:
Abiogenesis and speciation aren't the same process. Further, the theories that we have adequately account for how life came to be and how it changed - rationally speaking. We don't have all the details yet, but we are getting pretty close.
> - we see mutations which add additional copies of
> sequences or whole chromosomes
>
> You do? Do you have a reference for this? Where
> can I find out more? This is what I'd be
> interested in studying.
There is plenty of information on this - I've provided a few links. Let me guess, you are one of those 'no new information' creationists.
Do you have a definition of 'information'?
> -we see the genetic variability within species and
> the effect that sexual reproduction has
>
> Yes there is certainly variability within a
> species, and sexual reproduction assures that such
> variablility occurs. But again, to my knowledge
> we have no example of a species that produces
> offspring of a different species. In order for
> evolution to work you must have that. Lacking
> that, and all you have are fossils.
There is plenty of evidence for speciation. You need to actually look for it. I've offered up a few links.
> Interesting. Do we know the chemical mechanism by
> which chromosomes fuse?
This is called 'moving the goal posts'. I don't even know what you are trying to ask here.
> The sequence of reactions
> that causes a self-replicating molecule like DNA
> to do something other than replicate?
...? What do you mean 'other than replicate'?
> Apparently
> what we have is a genus that has some set of
> chromosomes. Later we find two other more
> advanced species, apes and humans. In one
> (humans) the chromosomes appeared to have fused,
> in the other they did not. But that hardly proves
> that the original genus evolved into the other two
> species. To prove the evolution, we need the
> chemical reactions. Otherwise all we have are
> bones. Evolution = chemical reactions, not bones!
1. Proofs are for math and alcohol, not science.
2. We know how genes replicate and transform (point mutations, for instance).
3. We do not need the exact biochemical breakdown to what happened in order to conclude that it happened. Your question is setting an absurd demand of proof - akin to asking the exact details, down to the nano-second of how a murder occurred.
4. Common descent is the only reasonable explanation left on the table to explain the transformation. We know how it can happen (sex, mutation, isolation) and we have witnessed it happening. Requiring the exact breakdown is absurd - at least for an MB. If you want that level of precision, get a PhD in biochemistry.
> That's where the science breaks down. It can't
> explain how evolution works--it only asserts that
> it must be true because it can't figure out any
> other explanation!
Oh bullshit man. Look, we have the theoretical explanation for how common descent occurs and evidence that it occurred. You want the exact biochemical pathways - an unreasonable request - and because we aren't giving it to you, you are claiming that it has to be lamarkianism (the other explanation)!
> Now regarding its confluence with God, one of the
> two statements below will become true:
>
> (1) Science will eventually figure out the
> chemical reactions that produce advanced copies of
> DNA. If that happens, I would then agree that
> evolution is proven.
The chemical reactions are not needed for reasonable belief.
> or
>
> (2) Some bright Einstein-type person will disprove
> evolution by providing a different mechanism for
> life on Earth, that is consistent with the fossil
> record but shows an entirely different mechanism
> for creating species.
Lamarkianism and Lysenkoism have been demonstrated to be wrong. Evolution is the only theory left with the evidence that supports it.
So until you refute the evidence that favors the theory, you are a duck out of water.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: April 06, 2009 02:58PM
La estrella oscura escribió: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nope, en absoluto. Todo el I' el sugerir de m es que él > no está claro que la evolución trabaja la ciencia de la manera > dice. Quizás hay un cierto otro mecanismo eso > vida causada en este planeta. A su específico > puntos: Abiogenesis y speciation aren' t el mismo proceso. Además, las teorías que hacemos que adecuadamente expliquen cómo la vida vino ser y cómo cambió - racional hablando. Nosotros don' t tiene todos los detalles todavía, pero estamos consiguiendo bastante cerca. > - vemos las mutaciones de las cuales agregue las copias adicionales > secuencias o cromosomas enteros > > ¿Usted hace? ¿Usted tiene una referencia para esto? Donde > ¿puedo descubrir más? Esto es lo que I' d sea > interesado en estudiar. Hay un montón de información sobre esto - I' VE proporcionó algunos acoplamientos. Déjeme conjeturar, usted son uno de esos ' ninguÌn nuevo information' creationists. Usted tiene una definición de ' ¿information'? > - vemos la variabilidad genética dentro de la especie y > el efecto que la reproducción sexual tiene > > Sí hay ciertamente variabilidad dentro de a > la especie, y la reproducción sexual asegura que tales > el variablility ocurre. Pero otra vez, a mi conocimiento > no tenemos ninguÌn ejemplo de una especie que produzca > descendiente de una diversa especie. Para que > la evolución para trabajarle debe tener eso. Falta > ése, y todo lo que usted tiene son fósiles. Hay un montón de evidencia del speciation. Usted necesita buscarlo realmente. I' VE ofreció para arriba algunos acoplamientos. > Interesante. Sabemos el mecanismo químico cerca > ¿qué cromosomas se funden? Esto se llama ' mudanza de la meta posts'. I don' t incluso sabe lo que usted está intentando preguntar aquí. > La secuencia de reacciones > ese causa una molécula de uno mismo-repliegue como la DNA > ¿para hace algo con excepción de réplica? ¿…? Qué usted significan ' ¿con excepción de replicate'? > Al parecer > qué tenemos es un género de el cual tiene cierto sistema > cromosomas. Encontramos más adelante dos otros más > especie avanzada, monos y seres humanos. En uno > (seres humanos) los cromosomas aparecían haberse fundido, > en el otro no hicieron. Pero eso prueba apenas > que el género original se desarrolló en los otros dos > especie. Para probar la evolución, necesitamos > reacciones químicas. Si no todos lo que tenemos son > huesos. ¡Evolución = reacciones químicas, no huesos! 1. Las pruebas están para la matemáticas y el alcohol, no ciencia. 2. Sabemos los genes repliegan y transforman (las mutaciones de punto, por ejemplo). 3. No necesitamos la avería bioquímica exacta a qué sucedió para concluir que sucedió. Su pregunta está fijando una demanda absurda de la prueba - relacionada con pedir los detalles exactos, abajo con el nanosegundo de cómo ocurrió un asesinato. 4. La pendiente común es la única explicación razonable dejada en la tabla para explicar la transformación. Sabemos él podemos suceder (sexo, mutación, aislamiento) y lo hemos atestiguado que sucedía. Requerir la avería exacta es absurdo - por lo menos para un MB. Si usted quiere ese nivel de precisión, consiga un PhD en bioquímica. > That' s donde la ciencia analiza. Él can' t > explique cómo la evolución trabaja--afirma solamente eso > debe ser verdad porque él can' t imagina cualesquiera > ¡la otra explicación! Oh hombre del bullshit. Mire, tenemos la explicación teórica para cómo ocurre la pendiente común y evidencia que ocurrió. Usted quiere los caminos bioquímicos exactos - una petición desrazonable - y porque nosotros aren' ¡t que le lo da, usted está demandando que tiene que ser lamarkianism (la otra explicación)! > Ahora en relación con su confluencia con dios, uno de > dos declaraciones abajo llegarán a ser verdades: > > (1) la ciencia imaginará eventual > reacciones químicas de las cuales produzca las copias avanzadas > DNA. Si sucede eso, entonces convendría eso > se prueba la evolución. Las reacciones químicas no son necesarias para la creencia razonable. > o > > (2) un cierto Einstein-tipo brillante persona refutará > evolución proporcionando un diverso mecanismo para > la vida en la tierra, de que es constante con el fósil > registre solamente las demostraciones un mecanismo enteramente diverso > para crear especie. Lamarkianism y Lysenkoism se han demostrado para ser incorrectos. La evolución es la única teoría dejada con la evidencia que las ayudas él. Tan hasta que usted refute la evidencia que favorece la teoría, usted es un pato fuera de agua.
See?
I can do that, too.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2009 02:58PM by MrMephisto.
See?
I can do that, too.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2009 02:58PM by MrMephisto.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
KLO
()
Date: April 06, 2009 03:02PM
nothing more disturbing than a bunch of atheist fanatics. I rather share a cell with Charles Manson than go to church with any of you scary motherfuckers.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: April 06, 2009 03:08PM
KLO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nothing more disturbing than a bunch of atheist
> fanatics. I rather share a cell with Charles
> Manson than go to church with any of you scary
> motherfuckers.
Yeah, it really doesn't work the other way, does it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> nothing more disturbing than a bunch of atheist
> fanatics. I rather share a cell with Charles
> Manson than go to church with any of you scary
> motherfuckers.
Yeah, it really doesn't work the other way, does it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
FD
()
Date: April 06, 2009 03:14PM
"nothing more disturbing than a bunch of religious fanatics. I rather share a cell with Charles Manson than go to church with any of you scary motherfuckers."
Don't work that way huh Pangloss?? I agree entirely.
Don't work that way huh Pangloss?? I agree entirely.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: April 06, 2009 05:52PM
dark star
>But again, to my knowledge we have no example of a species that produces offspring of a different species. In order for evolution to work you must have that.
yet again you attempt to mislead - evolution does not suggest that parents give birth to off-spring of different species - if that happened, it would be rare for them to have anything to mate with. Evolution works by a series of slow steps leading to speciation
>The sequence of reactions that causes a self-replicating molecule like DNA to do something other than replicate?
we have a whole slew of biochemistry that operates with and on DNA - for example the mechanisms that lead to protein production and those by which viruses replicate
>>we see mutations which add additional copies of sequences or whole chromosomes
>You do? Do you have a reference for this? Where can I find out more? This is what I'd be interested in studying.
"When an individual is missing either a chromosome from a pair (monosomy) or has more than two chromosomes of a pair (trisomy, tetrasomy, etc). An example of a condition caused by a numerical anomaly is Down Syndrome, also known as Trisomy 21 (an individual with Down Syndrome has three copies of chromosome 21, rather than two). Turner Syndrome is an example of a monosomy where the individual is born with only one sex chromosome, an X."
http://tinyurl.com/d3g7jf
But I think you know all this - my guess is that you're a scared christian hanging on desperately to the dying gasps of an outdated religion - happier ignoring and misrepresenting the well documented science that reduces your faith to mere superstition than facing up to the truth about the way the world works.
>But again, to my knowledge we have no example of a species that produces offspring of a different species. In order for evolution to work you must have that.
yet again you attempt to mislead - evolution does not suggest that parents give birth to off-spring of different species - if that happened, it would be rare for them to have anything to mate with. Evolution works by a series of slow steps leading to speciation
>The sequence of reactions that causes a self-replicating molecule like DNA to do something other than replicate?
we have a whole slew of biochemistry that operates with and on DNA - for example the mechanisms that lead to protein production and those by which viruses replicate
>>we see mutations which add additional copies of sequences or whole chromosomes
>You do? Do you have a reference for this? Where can I find out more? This is what I'd be interested in studying.
"When an individual is missing either a chromosome from a pair (monosomy) or has more than two chromosomes of a pair (trisomy, tetrasomy, etc). An example of a condition caused by a numerical anomaly is Down Syndrome, also known as Trisomy 21 (an individual with Down Syndrome has three copies of chromosome 21, rather than two). Turner Syndrome is an example of a monosomy where the individual is born with only one sex chromosome, an X."
http://tinyurl.com/d3g7jf
But I think you know all this - my guess is that you're a scared christian hanging on desperately to the dying gasps of an outdated religion - happier ignoring and misrepresenting the well documented science that reduces your faith to mere superstition than facing up to the truth about the way the world works.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: April 06, 2009 05:54PM
nutters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dark star
>
and those by which
> viruses replicate
>
should have read
'and those by which viruses insert their sequences'
-------------------------------------------------------
> dark star
>
and those by which
> viruses replicate
>
should have read
'and those by which viruses insert their sequences'
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: April 07, 2009 08:00AM
nutters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But I think you know all this - my guess is that
> you're a scared christian hanging on desperately
> to the dying gasps of an outdated religion -
> happier ignoring and misrepresenting the well
> documented science that reduces your faith to mere
> superstition than facing up to the truth about the
> way the world works.
I think he's an advocate of Behe's new book. The asking of the entire specific pathways are something that Behe was asking for after his irreducibly complex flaggela (sp?) was shown to be reducible. If I recall correctly, some scientists showed how it could be broken down and true to his creationist nature he said that it didn't prove anything until the entire pathway was established.
This is a PRATT, similar to the PRATT that creationists use when shown a transitional fossil. They will not acknowledge the fossil as evidence, instead they will retort that now there are *two* gaps to be filled. It's intellectually dishonest. You sound like you've spent some time going the rounds with creationists, so I'm sure you've experience this.
-------------------------------------------------------
> But I think you know all this - my guess is that
> you're a scared christian hanging on desperately
> to the dying gasps of an outdated religion -
> happier ignoring and misrepresenting the well
> documented science that reduces your faith to mere
> superstition than facing up to the truth about the
> way the world works.
I think he's an advocate of Behe's new book. The asking of the entire specific pathways are something that Behe was asking for after his irreducibly complex flaggela (sp?) was shown to be reducible. If I recall correctly, some scientists showed how it could be broken down and true to his creationist nature he said that it didn't prove anything until the entire pathway was established.
This is a PRATT, similar to the PRATT that creationists use when shown a transitional fossil. They will not acknowledge the fossil as evidence, instead they will retort that now there are *two* gaps to be filled. It's intellectually dishonest. You sound like you've spent some time going the rounds with creationists, so I'm sure you've experience this.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: April 07, 2009 08:57AM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nutters Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
It's intellectually dishonest.
> You sound like you've spent some time going the
> rounds with creationists, so I'm sure you've
> experience this.
The key thing to me is that science is not the one on trial - over the last 3-400 years, its religion that been shown to be an illusion, a social construct rather than an explanation for the way that the universe works.
The high level intellectual dishonesty is the retreat to religious 'faith' when presented with evidence they don't like - and demanding exquisite detail while refusing to provide any of their own - or even to explain why their cult is true when the cult around the corner is evil
I also find the refusal to look at the big picture amazing - refusing to place cosmology, physics, quantum science, geology, the fossil record, biological sciences, systems biology, information science and neuroscience into the same context.
Its the young earth people that really typify this - refusing to accept or explain a continuous geological and nuclear-chemical history, even though its right in front of their noses and then refusing to say in detail what they don't accept in the physics - or what their alternative explanation is (other than 'Poof! and there it was, all fully formed, fossils, oil, strata and all)
Its the conscious decision not to ask 'how' and 'why' that I find so depressing - 'why is that beetle this color and not that color', 'why are people different', 'how do they differ,'how does society work', 'how do phages fit in', 'how do galaxies interact over time', 'what is time' etc
Rather, they settle for 'it must be magic' or 'god dunnit' because some random priest/preacher/witch-doctor/oprah has told them so.
Which would all be okay if it didn't have real social implications such as the enormous waste of talent and dangerous distortions of national policy
Its time that the America stopped pandering to these dark age religions and started demanding honesty.
-------------------------------------------------------
> nutters Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
It's intellectually dishonest.
> You sound like you've spent some time going the
> rounds with creationists, so I'm sure you've
> experience this.
The key thing to me is that science is not the one on trial - over the last 3-400 years, its religion that been shown to be an illusion, a social construct rather than an explanation for the way that the universe works.
The high level intellectual dishonesty is the retreat to religious 'faith' when presented with evidence they don't like - and demanding exquisite detail while refusing to provide any of their own - or even to explain why their cult is true when the cult around the corner is evil
I also find the refusal to look at the big picture amazing - refusing to place cosmology, physics, quantum science, geology, the fossil record, biological sciences, systems biology, information science and neuroscience into the same context.
Its the young earth people that really typify this - refusing to accept or explain a continuous geological and nuclear-chemical history, even though its right in front of their noses and then refusing to say in detail what they don't accept in the physics - or what their alternative explanation is (other than 'Poof! and there it was, all fully formed, fossils, oil, strata and all)
Its the conscious decision not to ask 'how' and 'why' that I find so depressing - 'why is that beetle this color and not that color', 'why are people different', 'how do they differ,'how does society work', 'how do phages fit in', 'how do galaxies interact over time', 'what is time' etc
Rather, they settle for 'it must be magic' or 'god dunnit' because some random priest/preacher/witch-doctor/oprah has told them so.
Which would all be okay if it didn't have real social implications such as the enormous waste of talent and dangerous distortions of national policy
Its time that the America stopped pandering to these dark age religions and started demanding honesty.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Dark Star
()
Date: April 09, 2009 03:35AM
Thanks everyone for your responses to my post about the old earth and evolution, there's so much written it's hard to respond to everything, but here's some info.
First, I certainly do admit some of my misconceptions, for example, my assertion that virtually all mutations are harmful to the species is not correct, after doing some research on the matter.
However, I still do defend my assertion that science has not shown a series of chemical reactions that demonstrate evolution.
First there are some (rather comical, IMHO) attacks on my character, which are quite odd because the individuals attacking no nothing about me or where I come from or exactly what I believe. An example of such an attack is the statement:
<<
"But I think you know all this - my guess is that you're a scared christian hanging on desperately to the dying gasps of an outdated religion - happier ignoring and misrepresenting the well documented science that reduces your faith to mere superstition than facing up to the truth about the way the world works."
>>
Not at all. Just a scientist skeptical about evolution looking for answers. Beyond the attacks, there are some interesting observations that show a double standard exists. An example:
<<
"The chemical reactions are not needed for reasonable belief."
>>
and
<<
1. Proofs are for math and alcohol, not science.
>>
(Before you conclude that I'm cherry picking, I'll get to the other points in a moment.) The double-standard is this: many people on this blog have demanded irrefutable proof that God exists. Fair enough. But then those who do not believe in God claim that the same standard of proof is not needed for such theories as evolution. Not right. We can't have it both ways.
Here's a common argument:
<<
3. We do not need the exact biochemical breakdown to what happened in order to conclude that it happened. Your question is setting an absurd demand of proof - akin to asking the exact details, down to the nano-second of how a murder occurred.
>>
Sure we do. Let me discuss what I would consider "proof." Consider how well scientists understand nuclear fusion, for example, two hydrogens forming a helim atom. We understand the chemical reaction; we understand the number of neutrons that are produced; we understand the pressure the system has to be under for the reaction to occur. We understand it so well that we can recreate it by engineering a Hydrogen Bomb. We also see it happening in nature, i.e. the Sun is fusing hydrogen to form helium as we speak.
The same understanding is not present in evolutionary theory. "We do not need the exact biochemical breakdown to what happened in order to conclude that it did happen" seems like a statement of faith to me. In other words, we seem to be saying that the fossil evidence is so compelling that the only possible explanation for the increasing sophistication of life on earth is mutation + natural selection. To me that's a statement of faith, not fact. (A statement of fact, for exmaple, would be something like the Sun's energy is derived through nuclear reactions whose properties we understand very well).
It is not unreasonable for a skeptic to ask the biochemical community to produce the sequence of reactions in which a strand of DNA not only copies itself, but creates a more advanced copy of itself. I did read the information about frame mutation (the nylon bug) and it is very interesting--thanks for the link.
But we still do not understand the chemical reactions in which advanced organisms arise from simpler ones. The earliest single-cell organisms on earth had very simple DNA strands; we have much more complicated ones. To get from there to here is a sequence of biochemical reactions. At least one such set of reactions, for example showing how a single-cell organism "evolved" to a multiple-cell organism (the simplest example I can think of) will suffice. Until we have figured out such biochemical reactions, I rest my case that evolution is unproven.
I did read about, and previously already knew, the theory that the amino-acid rich environment in early earth, coupled with other processes, may have produced the first strand of DNA. Again, it's faith until they can show the reactions.
Now don't get me wrong--I certainly do admit that there is strong evidence that evolution might have occurred--the fossil record, frame mutations, speciation in plants--all argue that it might be correct. But "might be correct" is different from it absolutely being correct. We believe nuclear fusion because we know it so well we can reproduce it. For evolution, the belief is largely hinged on faith: it must be true because we have no other explanation, and if anything is missing from the theory, it's only a matter of time until we discover it. A statement of faith as great as any God-believing Christian has.
As for alternatives to evolution, many people responding to me claim that I am arguing for intelligent design, or Larmackian evolution, or some such variant. Not at all. Just because I'm arguing that evolution is a theory, not a fact, does not mean that I am arguing for those other alternatives. I am not, And in the case of Lamarckian evolution it has shown to be incorrect and I would not argue for it at all.
The real truth is: no one knows what actually happened to cause life on this planet. People have opinions, and some rest on very strong evidence, but there's a leap of faith in every viewpoint. If you believe in evolution, note that the chemical reactions have not yet been worked out to show the mechanism of evolution. It is not unreasonable to ask for this, given that other areas of science have been so thoroughly explained. And if you believe in God, although there's some evidence for His existence, there's certainly a leap of faith in there as well.
First, I certainly do admit some of my misconceptions, for example, my assertion that virtually all mutations are harmful to the species is not correct, after doing some research on the matter.
However, I still do defend my assertion that science has not shown a series of chemical reactions that demonstrate evolution.
First there are some (rather comical, IMHO) attacks on my character, which are quite odd because the individuals attacking no nothing about me or where I come from or exactly what I believe. An example of such an attack is the statement:
<<
"But I think you know all this - my guess is that you're a scared christian hanging on desperately to the dying gasps of an outdated religion - happier ignoring and misrepresenting the well documented science that reduces your faith to mere superstition than facing up to the truth about the way the world works."
>>
Not at all. Just a scientist skeptical about evolution looking for answers. Beyond the attacks, there are some interesting observations that show a double standard exists. An example:
<<
"The chemical reactions are not needed for reasonable belief."
>>
and
<<
1. Proofs are for math and alcohol, not science.
>>
(Before you conclude that I'm cherry picking, I'll get to the other points in a moment.) The double-standard is this: many people on this blog have demanded irrefutable proof that God exists. Fair enough. But then those who do not believe in God claim that the same standard of proof is not needed for such theories as evolution. Not right. We can't have it both ways.
Here's a common argument:
<<
3. We do not need the exact biochemical breakdown to what happened in order to conclude that it happened. Your question is setting an absurd demand of proof - akin to asking the exact details, down to the nano-second of how a murder occurred.
>>
Sure we do. Let me discuss what I would consider "proof." Consider how well scientists understand nuclear fusion, for example, two hydrogens forming a helim atom. We understand the chemical reaction; we understand the number of neutrons that are produced; we understand the pressure the system has to be under for the reaction to occur. We understand it so well that we can recreate it by engineering a Hydrogen Bomb. We also see it happening in nature, i.e. the Sun is fusing hydrogen to form helium as we speak.
The same understanding is not present in evolutionary theory. "We do not need the exact biochemical breakdown to what happened in order to conclude that it did happen" seems like a statement of faith to me. In other words, we seem to be saying that the fossil evidence is so compelling that the only possible explanation for the increasing sophistication of life on earth is mutation + natural selection. To me that's a statement of faith, not fact. (A statement of fact, for exmaple, would be something like the Sun's energy is derived through nuclear reactions whose properties we understand very well).
It is not unreasonable for a skeptic to ask the biochemical community to produce the sequence of reactions in which a strand of DNA not only copies itself, but creates a more advanced copy of itself. I did read the information about frame mutation (the nylon bug) and it is very interesting--thanks for the link.
But we still do not understand the chemical reactions in which advanced organisms arise from simpler ones. The earliest single-cell organisms on earth had very simple DNA strands; we have much more complicated ones. To get from there to here is a sequence of biochemical reactions. At least one such set of reactions, for example showing how a single-cell organism "evolved" to a multiple-cell organism (the simplest example I can think of) will suffice. Until we have figured out such biochemical reactions, I rest my case that evolution is unproven.
I did read about, and previously already knew, the theory that the amino-acid rich environment in early earth, coupled with other processes, may have produced the first strand of DNA. Again, it's faith until they can show the reactions.
Now don't get me wrong--I certainly do admit that there is strong evidence that evolution might have occurred--the fossil record, frame mutations, speciation in plants--all argue that it might be correct. But "might be correct" is different from it absolutely being correct. We believe nuclear fusion because we know it so well we can reproduce it. For evolution, the belief is largely hinged on faith: it must be true because we have no other explanation, and if anything is missing from the theory, it's only a matter of time until we discover it. A statement of faith as great as any God-believing Christian has.
As for alternatives to evolution, many people responding to me claim that I am arguing for intelligent design, or Larmackian evolution, or some such variant. Not at all. Just because I'm arguing that evolution is a theory, not a fact, does not mean that I am arguing for those other alternatives. I am not, And in the case of Lamarckian evolution it has shown to be incorrect and I would not argue for it at all.
The real truth is: no one knows what actually happened to cause life on this planet. People have opinions, and some rest on very strong evidence, but there's a leap of faith in every viewpoint. If you believe in evolution, note that the chemical reactions have not yet been worked out to show the mechanism of evolution. It is not unreasonable to ask for this, given that other areas of science have been so thoroughly explained. And if you believe in God, although there's some evidence for His existence, there's certainly a leap of faith in there as well.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: April 09, 2009 06:25AM
What is totally ridiculous is holding the theory of evoulution in equal standing to faith based creationism/intelligent design ideas. Evolution is a scientific hypothesis worthy of scientific research...creationism/intelligent design is a topic for comparitive religion courses.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
nutters
()
Date: April 09, 2009 07:14AM
>(Before you conclude that I'm cherry picking, I'll get to the other points in a moment.) The double-standard is this: many people on this blog have demanded irrefutable proof that God exists. Fair enough. But then those who do not believe in God claim that the same standard of proof is not needed for such theories as evolution. Not right. We can't have it both ways.
Wow - that's BS again
No-one has demanded irrefutable proof of god - just some reasonable evidence that is not better explained by science
No single Christian posting here has done anything better than the self referential 'the bible says so'
They've shown no god, no evidence, no processes, no theory - just 'POOF' and pink smoke
I think that you're being deliberately intellectually dishonest. You assert a belief in nuclear science and what it tells us about the scale of and age of the universe. You accept the age of the fossil record and the mechanics of biochemistry.
Yet, when presented with a reasonable scalable theory such as evolution operating over Billions of years, you proclaim an unsupported and unsupportable revelation that it was all done by some invisible, undetectable being of infinite complexity (and no explained origin, structure or mechanisms) who cunningly leaves no evidence (and maybe red-herrings to trick the unwary) and that the constant god-tinkering works at the fine grain detail over all universal space and time.
An appeal to the supernatural when the intellectual going gets tough is like crying for mommy
>In other words, we seem to be saying that the fossil evidence is so compelling that the only possible explanation for the increasing sophistication of life on earth is mutation + natural selection. To me that's a statement of faith, not fact.
No, its a theory in line with the observed evidence of the fossils themselves, the geological record and the evidence within the genomes of existing species - exactly as operated in the development of the physical sciences. Science is doing what science does - in labs all over the world, scientists are running experiments at the chemical level, at the biological level, at the genetic level and at the field observational level to fill out the picture - and they are not finding inconsistencies.
By comparison, all that Christians are doing is winging about what the science shows them and predicting the impending apocalypse
>Now don't get me wrong--I certainly do admit that there is strong evidence that evolution might have occurred--the fossil record, frame mutations, speciation in plants--all argue that it might be correct
Perhaps you could speed the discussion by providing evidence of a similar quality for a god-based explanation and a detailed god-based theory with proposed mechanisms
we wait with baited breath
Wow - that's BS again
No-one has demanded irrefutable proof of god - just some reasonable evidence that is not better explained by science
No single Christian posting here has done anything better than the self referential 'the bible says so'
They've shown no god, no evidence, no processes, no theory - just 'POOF' and pink smoke
I think that you're being deliberately intellectually dishonest. You assert a belief in nuclear science and what it tells us about the scale of and age of the universe. You accept the age of the fossil record and the mechanics of biochemistry.
Yet, when presented with a reasonable scalable theory such as evolution operating over Billions of years, you proclaim an unsupported and unsupportable revelation that it was all done by some invisible, undetectable being of infinite complexity (and no explained origin, structure or mechanisms) who cunningly leaves no evidence (and maybe red-herrings to trick the unwary) and that the constant god-tinkering works at the fine grain detail over all universal space and time.
An appeal to the supernatural when the intellectual going gets tough is like crying for mommy
>In other words, we seem to be saying that the fossil evidence is so compelling that the only possible explanation for the increasing sophistication of life on earth is mutation + natural selection. To me that's a statement of faith, not fact.
No, its a theory in line with the observed evidence of the fossils themselves, the geological record and the evidence within the genomes of existing species - exactly as operated in the development of the physical sciences. Science is doing what science does - in labs all over the world, scientists are running experiments at the chemical level, at the biological level, at the genetic level and at the field observational level to fill out the picture - and they are not finding inconsistencies.
By comparison, all that Christians are doing is winging about what the science shows them and predicting the impending apocalypse
>Now don't get me wrong--I certainly do admit that there is strong evidence that evolution might have occurred--the fossil record, frame mutations, speciation in plants--all argue that it might be correct
Perhaps you could speed the discussion by providing evidence of a similar quality for a god-based explanation and a detailed god-based theory with proposed mechanisms
we wait with baited breath
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: April 09, 2009 08:26AM
Dark Star Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks everyone for your responses to my post
> about the old earth and evolution, there's so much
> written it's hard to respond to everything, but
> here's some info.
>
> First, I certainly do admit some of my
> misconceptions, for example, my assertion that
> virtually all mutations are harmful to the species
> is not correct, after doing some research on the
> matter.
>
> However, I still do defend my assertion that
> science has not shown a series of chemical
> reactions that demonstrate evolution.
I provided just an example of this, with the Nylon bug.
> First there are some (rather comical, IMHO)
> attacks on my character, which are quite odd
> because the individuals attacking no nothing about
> me or where I come from or exactly what I believe.
> An example of such an attack is the statement:
Let's see what you come up with regarding my statements.
> "But I think you know all this - my guess is that
> you're a scared christian hanging on desperately
> to the dying gasps of an outdated religion -
> happier ignoring and misrepresenting the well
> documented science that reduces your faith to mere
> superstition than facing up to the truth about the
> way the world works."
This wasn't mine, but I think it's a warranted conclusion as your argument is very similar to Behe's demands in the Edge of Evolution.
> "The chemical reactions are not needed for
> reasonable belief."
This is not an attack on your character - it is a comment regarding reasonable belief. This is a comment directed specifically towards your level of proof you require. HOW on earth do you regard this as a personal attack??
> 1. Proofs are for math and alcohol, not science.
This is a comment regarding epistemology. AGAIN, how on earth is this a personal attack???
> (Before you conclude that I'm cherry picking, I'll
> get to the other points in a moment.) The
> double-standard is this: many people on this blog
> have demanded irrefutable proof that God exists.
I certainly don't - you are creating a strawman.
> Fair enough. But then those who do not believe in
> God claim that the same standard of proof is not
> needed for such theories as evolution. Not right.
> We can't have it both ways.
Nonsense. Not only has your burden been fulfilled (I provided the Nylon bug), but you are confusing a demand for certainty (a logical proof of God's existence) with science - which works from abduction/induction and thus is not *certain*. In short, you are confusing or obfuscating your epistemological standards.
> Here's a common argument:
>
> <<
> 3. We do not need the exact biochemical breakdown
> to what happened in order to conclude that it
> happened. Your question is setting an absurd
> demand of proof - akin to asking the exact
> details, down to the nano-second of how a murder
> occurred.
> >>
>
> Sure we do.
No we don't, not for science. Seriously, what in science has been absolutely proven?
> Let me discuss what I would consider
> "proof." Consider how well scientists understand
> nuclear fusion, for example, two hydrogens forming
> a helim atom. We understand the chemical reaction;
These things have not been 'proven' in the same sense you are requesting that evolution be proven. You are equivocating. We have good evidence that nuclear fusion happens, but the fact is, we are not certain. After all, we could all be brains in a jar that are being tampered with by a malevolent doctor.
> we understand the number of neutrons that are
> produced; we understand the pressure the system
> has to be under for the reaction to occur. We
> understand it so well that we can recreate it by
> engineering a Hydrogen Bomb. We also see it
> happening in nature, i.e. the Sun is fusing
> hydrogen to form helium as we speak.
Another point I could point out is that since we do not have an underlying theory of everything then you are necessarily missing a point in your equation. Therefore since you are missing this point, we should reject this evidence. This is akin to your rejection of evolution because we don't know the chemical pathways of all common descent.
> The same understanding is not present in
> evolutionary theory. "We do not need the exact
> biochemical breakdown to what happened in order to
> conclude that it did happen" seems like a
> statement of faith to me.
Your personal feelings also led you to believe that most mutations were negative. Seems like your personal feelings are irrelevant. I provided you an example of a biochemical breakdown and you IGNORED it.
Were I to conclude anything from your posts it would be that you aren't interested in the actual evidence.
> In other words, we seem
> to be saying that the fossil evidence is so
> compelling that the only possible explanation for
> the increasing sophistication of life on earth is
> mutation + natural selection. To me that's a
> statement of faith, not fact. (A statement of
> fact, for exmaple, would be something like the
> Sun's energy is derived through nuclear reactions
> whose properties we understand very well).
That's also not what I have been saying. Natural selection is not the only factor and fossils aren't the only evidence. You are cherry picking my quote here. You ignore the Nylon bug which provides you with exactly what you ask for and you ignore the twin nested heirarchy.
> It is not unreasonable for a skeptic to ask the
> biochemical community to produce the sequence of
> reactions in which a strand of DNA not only copies
> itself, but creates a more advanced copy of
> itself. I did read the information about frame
> mutation (the nylon bug) and it is very
> interesting--thanks for the link.
No, it's not - however this is not a question for the biological community. You are asking about abiogenesis and I gave a model (WHICH YOU IGNORED) on how it could have occurred.
I don't think you read the link, as it provides adequate evidence of what you are demanding.
> But we still do not understand the chemical
> reactions in which advanced organisms arise from
> simpler ones.
How are you defining 'understand' and 'advanced' here - since the nylon bug is 'more advanced' by several criteria then it's predecessors (as it can digest nylon)!
You are being vague.
> The earliest single-cell organisms
> on earth had very simple DNA strands; we have much
> more complicated ones.
This is an assumption. You are assuming that the earliest single celled organisms had DNA. I have provided evidence for abiogenesis (you ignored it), but this is irrelevant since you are pushing back the goal posts FROM evolution to abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis could be totally false, yet the theory of evolution could be true - do you know why?
> To get from there to here
> is a sequence of biochemical reactions. At least
> one such set of reactions, for example showing how
> a single-cell organism "evolved" to a
> multiple-cell organism (the simplest example I can
> think of) will suffice. Until we have figured out
> such biochemical reactions, I rest my case that
> evolution is unproven.
This is a strawman. You are asking for abiogenesis to be demonstrated (while dishonestly not even touching my presentation of it) and then declaring that unless we have the specific pathway then evolution couldn't have occurred.
This is akin to saying that unless we have a theory of everything then relativity is 'unproven'. Which is ridiculous.
The fact is, I provided an example which showed the chemical reactions of the Nylon bug - exactly what you asked for and now you are shifting the goal posts to include abiogenesis.
That is dishonest.
> I did read about, and previously already knew, the
> theory that the amino-acid rich environment in
> early earth, coupled with other processes, may
> have produced the first strand of DNA. Again,
> it's faith until they can show the reactions.
You are confusing faith with science. It is a model that has empirical support. It shows how it could have happened.
This is different from faith which has no empirical support.
> Now don't get me wrong--I certainly do admit that
> there is strong evidence that evolution might have
> occurred--the fossil record, frame mutations,
> speciation in plants--all argue that it might be
> correct. But "might be correct" is different from
> it absolutely being correct.
Another strawman - science doesn't work off of being 'absolutely' correct. Nothing in science is absolute. Think about it, science is empirical. Is empiricism absolutist?
No.
Therefore you are being dishonest in requesting absolute certainty (and you are relegating all science into the 'might be correct' category, which you probably won't agree with).
> We believe nuclear
> fusion because we know it so well we can reproduce
> it. For evolution, the belief is largely hinged
> on faith:
This is a double standard - you say we trust nuclear fusion because we can reproduce it.
YET I showed you how we reproduced evolution - the nylon bug - yet you have the audacity to say it's a belief hinged on faith?
>it must be true because we have no other
> explanation, and if anything is missing from the
> theory, it's only a matter of time until we
> discover it. A statement of faith as great as any
> God-believing Christian has.
I gave several other explanations - this is another demonstratably false statement of yours. What of saltation, lamarkianism, lysenkoism? Those were 'other explanations'.
> As for alternatives to evolution, many people
> responding to me claim that I am arguing for
> intelligent design, or Larmackian evolution, or
> some such variant. Not at all. Just because I'm
> arguing that evolution is a theory, not a fact,
This clues me in on the fact that you aren't very familar with science. Evolution is both fact and theory. Common descent is a fact, the theory of evolution EXPLAINS that fact.
That's what theories in science do. They do not 'become facts' as you seemingly suggest.
Here are some other 'theories'
Relativity (according to you, gravity is 'only a theory')
Germ theory (Germs getting you sick is 'only a theory', it's not certain and therefore faith!)
Heliocentric theory (the earth going around the sun is only a theory)
CREATIONIST organizations actually ADVISE creationists NOT TO USE that argument. Don't believe me? Here's a Young Earth Creationist website: http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use
"‘Evolution is just a theory.’ What people usually mean when they say this is ‘Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.’ Therefore people should say that. The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin–Landau/Verwey–Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture. "
> does not mean that I am arguing for those other
> alternatives. I am not, And in the case of
> Lamarckian evolution it has shown to be incorrect
> and I would not argue for it at all.
I'm not so sure I believe you. You don't seem to have a good grasp on science.
> The real truth is: no one knows what actually
> happened to cause life on this planet. People
> have opinions, and some rest on very strong
> evidence, but there's a leap of faith in every
> viewpoint. If you believe in evolution, note that
> the chemical reactions have not yet been worked
> out to show the mechanism of evolution.
Utterly and demonstratively false - You ignore the examples provided. This is YOUR mistake and misconception.
> It is not
> unreasonable to ask for this, given that other
> areas of science have been so thoroughly
> explained. And if you believe in God, although
> there's some evidence for His existence, there's
> certainly a leap of faith in there as well.
It is unreasonable to expect evolution, which is a theory that explains the diversity of life, to explain the origin of life.
Such demands show that you don't know what you are talking about. When I provide you evidence of the chemical process behind a speciation event and you then ask for the chemical processes behind abiogenesis, that shows me that you DON'T actually CARE what you are talking about.
Your mind has been made up. You don't think evolution happened and no evidence will change your mind.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks everyone for your responses to my post
> about the old earth and evolution, there's so much
> written it's hard to respond to everything, but
> here's some info.
>
> First, I certainly do admit some of my
> misconceptions, for example, my assertion that
> virtually all mutations are harmful to the species
> is not correct, after doing some research on the
> matter.
>
> However, I still do defend my assertion that
> science has not shown a series of chemical
> reactions that demonstrate evolution.
I provided just an example of this, with the Nylon bug.
> First there are some (rather comical, IMHO)
> attacks on my character, which are quite odd
> because the individuals attacking no nothing about
> me or where I come from or exactly what I believe.
> An example of such an attack is the statement:
Let's see what you come up with regarding my statements.
> "But I think you know all this - my guess is that
> you're a scared christian hanging on desperately
> to the dying gasps of an outdated religion -
> happier ignoring and misrepresenting the well
> documented science that reduces your faith to mere
> superstition than facing up to the truth about the
> way the world works."
This wasn't mine, but I think it's a warranted conclusion as your argument is very similar to Behe's demands in the Edge of Evolution.
> "The chemical reactions are not needed for
> reasonable belief."
This is not an attack on your character - it is a comment regarding reasonable belief. This is a comment directed specifically towards your level of proof you require. HOW on earth do you regard this as a personal attack??
> 1. Proofs are for math and alcohol, not science.
This is a comment regarding epistemology. AGAIN, how on earth is this a personal attack???
> (Before you conclude that I'm cherry picking, I'll
> get to the other points in a moment.) The
> double-standard is this: many people on this blog
> have demanded irrefutable proof that God exists.
I certainly don't - you are creating a strawman.
> Fair enough. But then those who do not believe in
> God claim that the same standard of proof is not
> needed for such theories as evolution. Not right.
> We can't have it both ways.
Nonsense. Not only has your burden been fulfilled (I provided the Nylon bug), but you are confusing a demand for certainty (a logical proof of God's existence) with science - which works from abduction/induction and thus is not *certain*. In short, you are confusing or obfuscating your epistemological standards.
> Here's a common argument:
>
> <<
> 3. We do not need the exact biochemical breakdown
> to what happened in order to conclude that it
> happened. Your question is setting an absurd
> demand of proof - akin to asking the exact
> details, down to the nano-second of how a murder
> occurred.
> >>
>
> Sure we do.
No we don't, not for science. Seriously, what in science has been absolutely proven?
> Let me discuss what I would consider
> "proof." Consider how well scientists understand
> nuclear fusion, for example, two hydrogens forming
> a helim atom. We understand the chemical reaction;
These things have not been 'proven' in the same sense you are requesting that evolution be proven. You are equivocating. We have good evidence that nuclear fusion happens, but the fact is, we are not certain. After all, we could all be brains in a jar that are being tampered with by a malevolent doctor.
> we understand the number of neutrons that are
> produced; we understand the pressure the system
> has to be under for the reaction to occur. We
> understand it so well that we can recreate it by
> engineering a Hydrogen Bomb. We also see it
> happening in nature, i.e. the Sun is fusing
> hydrogen to form helium as we speak.
Another point I could point out is that since we do not have an underlying theory of everything then you are necessarily missing a point in your equation. Therefore since you are missing this point, we should reject this evidence. This is akin to your rejection of evolution because we don't know the chemical pathways of all common descent.
> The same understanding is not present in
> evolutionary theory. "We do not need the exact
> biochemical breakdown to what happened in order to
> conclude that it did happen" seems like a
> statement of faith to me.
Your personal feelings also led you to believe that most mutations were negative. Seems like your personal feelings are irrelevant. I provided you an example of a biochemical breakdown and you IGNORED it.
Were I to conclude anything from your posts it would be that you aren't interested in the actual evidence.
> In other words, we seem
> to be saying that the fossil evidence is so
> compelling that the only possible explanation for
> the increasing sophistication of life on earth is
> mutation + natural selection. To me that's a
> statement of faith, not fact. (A statement of
> fact, for exmaple, would be something like the
> Sun's energy is derived through nuclear reactions
> whose properties we understand very well).
That's also not what I have been saying. Natural selection is not the only factor and fossils aren't the only evidence. You are cherry picking my quote here. You ignore the Nylon bug which provides you with exactly what you ask for and you ignore the twin nested heirarchy.
> It is not unreasonable for a skeptic to ask the
> biochemical community to produce the sequence of
> reactions in which a strand of DNA not only copies
> itself, but creates a more advanced copy of
> itself. I did read the information about frame
> mutation (the nylon bug) and it is very
> interesting--thanks for the link.
No, it's not - however this is not a question for the biological community. You are asking about abiogenesis and I gave a model (WHICH YOU IGNORED) on how it could have occurred.
I don't think you read the link, as it provides adequate evidence of what you are demanding.
> But we still do not understand the chemical
> reactions in which advanced organisms arise from
> simpler ones.
How are you defining 'understand' and 'advanced' here - since the nylon bug is 'more advanced' by several criteria then it's predecessors (as it can digest nylon)!
You are being vague.
> The earliest single-cell organisms
> on earth had very simple DNA strands; we have much
> more complicated ones.
This is an assumption. You are assuming that the earliest single celled organisms had DNA. I have provided evidence for abiogenesis (you ignored it), but this is irrelevant since you are pushing back the goal posts FROM evolution to abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis could be totally false, yet the theory of evolution could be true - do you know why?
> To get from there to here
> is a sequence of biochemical reactions. At least
> one such set of reactions, for example showing how
> a single-cell organism "evolved" to a
> multiple-cell organism (the simplest example I can
> think of) will suffice. Until we have figured out
> such biochemical reactions, I rest my case that
> evolution is unproven.
This is a strawman. You are asking for abiogenesis to be demonstrated (while dishonestly not even touching my presentation of it) and then declaring that unless we have the specific pathway then evolution couldn't have occurred.
This is akin to saying that unless we have a theory of everything then relativity is 'unproven'. Which is ridiculous.
The fact is, I provided an example which showed the chemical reactions of the Nylon bug - exactly what you asked for and now you are shifting the goal posts to include abiogenesis.
That is dishonest.
> I did read about, and previously already knew, the
> theory that the amino-acid rich environment in
> early earth, coupled with other processes, may
> have produced the first strand of DNA. Again,
> it's faith until they can show the reactions.
You are confusing faith with science. It is a model that has empirical support. It shows how it could have happened.
This is different from faith which has no empirical support.
> Now don't get me wrong--I certainly do admit that
> there is strong evidence that evolution might have
> occurred--the fossil record, frame mutations,
> speciation in plants--all argue that it might be
> correct. But "might be correct" is different from
> it absolutely being correct.
Another strawman - science doesn't work off of being 'absolutely' correct. Nothing in science is absolute. Think about it, science is empirical. Is empiricism absolutist?
No.
Therefore you are being dishonest in requesting absolute certainty (and you are relegating all science into the 'might be correct' category, which you probably won't agree with).
> We believe nuclear
> fusion because we know it so well we can reproduce
> it. For evolution, the belief is largely hinged
> on faith:
This is a double standard - you say we trust nuclear fusion because we can reproduce it.
YET I showed you how we reproduced evolution - the nylon bug - yet you have the audacity to say it's a belief hinged on faith?
>it must be true because we have no other
> explanation, and if anything is missing from the
> theory, it's only a matter of time until we
> discover it. A statement of faith as great as any
> God-believing Christian has.
I gave several other explanations - this is another demonstratably false statement of yours. What of saltation, lamarkianism, lysenkoism? Those were 'other explanations'.
> As for alternatives to evolution, many people
> responding to me claim that I am arguing for
> intelligent design, or Larmackian evolution, or
> some such variant. Not at all. Just because I'm
> arguing that evolution is a theory, not a fact,
This clues me in on the fact that you aren't very familar with science. Evolution is both fact and theory. Common descent is a fact, the theory of evolution EXPLAINS that fact.
That's what theories in science do. They do not 'become facts' as you seemingly suggest.
Here are some other 'theories'
Relativity (according to you, gravity is 'only a theory')
Germ theory (Germs getting you sick is 'only a theory', it's not certain and therefore faith!)
Heliocentric theory (the earth going around the sun is only a theory)
CREATIONIST organizations actually ADVISE creationists NOT TO USE that argument. Don't believe me? Here's a Young Earth Creationist website: http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use
"‘Evolution is just a theory.’ What people usually mean when they say this is ‘Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.’ Therefore people should say that. The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin–Landau/Verwey–Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture. "
> does not mean that I am arguing for those other
> alternatives. I am not, And in the case of
> Lamarckian evolution it has shown to be incorrect
> and I would not argue for it at all.
I'm not so sure I believe you. You don't seem to have a good grasp on science.
> The real truth is: no one knows what actually
> happened to cause life on this planet. People
> have opinions, and some rest on very strong
> evidence, but there's a leap of faith in every
> viewpoint. If you believe in evolution, note that
> the chemical reactions have not yet been worked
> out to show the mechanism of evolution.
Utterly and demonstratively false - You ignore the examples provided. This is YOUR mistake and misconception.
> It is not
> unreasonable to ask for this, given that other
> areas of science have been so thoroughly
> explained. And if you believe in God, although
> there's some evidence for His existence, there's
> certainly a leap of faith in there as well.
It is unreasonable to expect evolution, which is a theory that explains the diversity of life, to explain the origin of life.
Such demands show that you don't know what you are talking about. When I provide you evidence of the chemical process behind a speciation event and you then ask for the chemical processes behind abiogenesis, that shows me that you DON'T actually CARE what you are talking about.
Your mind has been made up. You don't think evolution happened and no evidence will change your mind.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: April 09, 2009 08:28AM
This is the problem with creationists. They do not want to believe. They will fight and pretend and repeatedly make the same assertions over and over again.
Holocaust deniers, moon hoaxers, and 9/11 conspiracy theorists have the same pattern of argumentation.
Pretending to be interested in the truth when you really aren't is dishonest Dark Star.
Were you actually interested in the truth, Dark Star, you would have relinquished your position when the evidence you specifically asked for was provided.
Instead you pushed back the goal posts, demanding evidence for abiogenesis - which doesn't make a difference in whether or not the theory of evolution is correct.
That's simply dishonest.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2009 08:47AM by Professor Pangloss.
Holocaust deniers, moon hoaxers, and 9/11 conspiracy theorists have the same pattern of argumentation.
Pretending to be interested in the truth when you really aren't is dishonest Dark Star.
Were you actually interested in the truth, Dark Star, you would have relinquished your position when the evidence you specifically asked for was provided.
Instead you pushed back the goal posts, demanding evidence for abiogenesis - which doesn't make a difference in whether or not the theory of evolution is correct.
That's simply dishonest.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2009 08:47AM by Professor Pangloss.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Darwin
()
Date: April 09, 2009 09:55AM
This is the problem with darwinists. They do not want to believe. They will fight and pretend and repeatedly make the same assertions over and over again.
Holocaust deniers, moon hoaxers, Flat Earth Advocates, Bigfoot Enthusiasts, and 9/11 conspiracy theorists have the same pattern of argumentation.
Pretending to be interested in the truth when you really aren't is dishonest Pangloss.
Were you actually interested in the truth, Pangloss, you would have relinquished your position when the mountain of evidence rejected the absurd claims of the darwinists fundies .
Instead you pushed back the goal posts, demanding evidence for Creation - which doesn't make a difference in whether or not the theory of evolution is correct.
That's simply dishonest.
Holocaust deniers, moon hoaxers, Flat Earth Advocates, Bigfoot Enthusiasts, and 9/11 conspiracy theorists have the same pattern of argumentation.
Pretending to be interested in the truth when you really aren't is dishonest Pangloss.
Were you actually interested in the truth, Pangloss, you would have relinquished your position when the mountain of evidence rejected the absurd claims of the darwinists fundies .
Instead you pushed back the goal posts, demanding evidence for Creation - which doesn't make a difference in whether or not the theory of evolution is correct.
That's simply dishonest.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: April 09, 2009 10:00AM
Professor Darwin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is the problem with darwinists. They do not
> want to believe. They will fight and pretend and
> repeatedly make the same assertions over and over
> again.
Darwinists died with Darwin. Haven't you heard of the modern synthesis?
> Holocaust deniers, moon hoaxers, Flat Earth
> Advocates, Bigfoot Enthusiasts, and 9/11
> conspiracy theorists have the same pattern of
> argumentation.
> Pretending to be interested in the truth when you
> really aren't is dishonest Pangloss.
Point out some evidence of this, as I did, and maybe you have a point.
> Were you actually interested in the truth,
> Pangloss, you would have relinquished your
> position when the mountain of evidence rejected
> the absurd claims of the darwinists fundies .
No such thing as a darwinist fundy. Further, what evidence did I reject? Have you not been paying attention to this thread? Dark Star brought up questions, not evidence.
> Instead you pushed back the goal posts, demanding
> evidence for Creation - which doesn't make a
> difference in whether or not the theory of
> evolution is correct.
Where did I demand evidence for creation?
> That's simply dishonest.
Sorry, your parody FAILED as it simply ignored the relevant facts.
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is the problem with darwinists. They do not
> want to believe. They will fight and pretend and
> repeatedly make the same assertions over and over
> again.
Darwinists died with Darwin. Haven't you heard of the modern synthesis?
> Holocaust deniers, moon hoaxers, Flat Earth
> Advocates, Bigfoot Enthusiasts, and 9/11
> conspiracy theorists have the same pattern of
> argumentation.
> Pretending to be interested in the truth when you
> really aren't is dishonest Pangloss.
Point out some evidence of this, as I did, and maybe you have a point.
> Were you actually interested in the truth,
> Pangloss, you would have relinquished your
> position when the mountain of evidence rejected
> the absurd claims of the darwinists fundies .
No such thing as a darwinist fundy. Further, what evidence did I reject? Have you not been paying attention to this thread? Dark Star brought up questions, not evidence.
> Instead you pushed back the goal posts, demanding
> evidence for Creation - which doesn't make a
> difference in whether or not the theory of
> evolution is correct.
Where did I demand evidence for creation?
> That's simply dishonest.
Sorry, your parody FAILED as it simply ignored the relevant facts.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Proffesor Darwin
()
Date: April 09, 2009 12:07PM
Professor Pangloss wrote:
"
"Sorry, your parody FAILED as it simply ignored the relevant facts"
Sorry there fella, but your "criticism" of my post FAILED as it simply ingored the critical facts.
"
"Sorry, your parody FAILED as it simply ignored the relevant facts"
Sorry there fella, but your "criticism" of my post FAILED as it simply ingored the critical facts.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: April 09, 2009 12:42PM
I'm just curious as to why you aren't logging in under your regular user account.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Kenny_Powers
()
Date: April 12, 2009 01:21AM
Lol @ Darwinism, Im actually missing Elliot ness' posts... atleast they were fun to respond to
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
SK
()
Date: May 16, 2009 10:41PM
eyGku Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> re: scam church Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Whoever posted above, you have very inaccurate
> > information. Neither figure is close to being
> > correct, especially his salary.
>
>
> Where can we get better information? We'd be
> interested in the correct numbers.
It's easy to look up the correct numbers. Go to the Washington Post's online Real Estate section and there is a tool for looking up tax assessments on people's homes. Lon Solomon's home is assessed at $1.154 million. Solomon has been around at least 20-30 years. The average Fairfax County home that is assessed at $1.1 million was much less expensive (even factoring in inflation) back then and would have been considered a really modest place when he purchased it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> re: scam church Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Whoever posted above, you have very inaccurate
> > information. Neither figure is close to being
> > correct, especially his salary.
>
>
> Where can we get better information? We'd be
> interested in the correct numbers.
It's easy to look up the correct numbers. Go to the Washington Post's online Real Estate section and there is a tool for looking up tax assessments on people's homes. Lon Solomon's home is assessed at $1.154 million. Solomon has been around at least 20-30 years. The average Fairfax County home that is assessed at $1.1 million was much less expensive (even factoring in inflation) back then and would have been considered a really modest place when he purchased it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
amused MBC member
()
Date: May 31, 2009 11:37AM
MBC did attempt to widen/adjust the traffic pattern to Route 7 before we even moved in, but their new neighbors wouldn't let them. They're also utilizing the money us suckers give them to set-up other locations for members to meet to help alleviate the congestion on Route 7. It also allows members to meet "neighbors" they would otherwise have difficulties doing at the main campus.
As far as his salary goes, I don't think he makes nearly as much as you think he does, but nobody is forcing anyone to give what they give to the church. A lot of money given goes to support other people besides the staff, i.e. missionaries, their food bank, people in desperate need of financial assistance, The House in Anacostia, Jill's House that supports families of children with disabilities, etc. I'm sure you get the idea. So I'm not sure what a person and their staff who help to facilitate programs that lend assistance to thousands of people should be paid, but I've personally seen and heard stories from people positively affected by them; so I guess I'll continue to be one of the suckers that keeps giving them my money. By the way, they also have meetings for members of the church that go over how money is spent.
As far as his salary goes, I don't think he makes nearly as much as you think he does, but nobody is forcing anyone to give what they give to the church. A lot of money given goes to support other people besides the staff, i.e. missionaries, their food bank, people in desperate need of financial assistance, The House in Anacostia, Jill's House that supports families of children with disabilities, etc. I'm sure you get the idea. So I'm not sure what a person and their staff who help to facilitate programs that lend assistance to thousands of people should be paid, but I've personally seen and heard stories from people positively affected by them; so I guess I'll continue to be one of the suckers that keeps giving them my money. By the way, they also have meetings for members of the church that go over how money is spent.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
not a sermon
()
Date: June 20, 2009 06:11PM
To those who attend MBC or similar churches and think that if they're pissing people off they are doing something right:
No you are not. If your mission is to spread the word of God and Jesus and you are causing people to turn away, then you are failing at your mission.
Take accountability for your actions. Apologize to those whom you have angered, and use your God-given MINDS to come up with up with strategies that are more reasonable and less offensive.
Here's an idea to get you started: Accept people for who and what they are and get to know them individually before you try to change them. They just might have something to teach you as well. A Disciple is always a student first.
As Jesus said many times, "I demand mercy, not sacrifice."
No you are not. If your mission is to spread the word of God and Jesus and you are causing people to turn away, then you are failing at your mission.
Take accountability for your actions. Apologize to those whom you have angered, and use your God-given MINDS to come up with up with strategies that are more reasonable and less offensive.
Here's an idea to get you started: Accept people for who and what they are and get to know them individually before you try to change them. They just might have something to teach you as well. A Disciple is always a student first.
As Jesus said many times, "I demand mercy, not sacrifice."
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
dude
()
Date: June 20, 2009 06:34PM
The argument between Creationism and Evolution is moot for many reasons. What people on both sides seem to leave out is Physics. Time is relative. The true answer, if there is one, probably does lie somewhere in the middle.
Time as we experience and measure it, is surely not how God experiences and measures it, if God indeed does exist.
Time as we experience and measure it, is surely not how God experiences and measures it, if God indeed does exist.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
dude
()
Date: June 20, 2009 06:37PM
And to add another small thought to that. . . Time as we experience and measure it now is most likely different from how it was experienced and measured when Genesis was written.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
formerhick76
()
Date: June 23, 2009 10:12AM
not a sermon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To those who attend MBC or similar churches and
> think that if they're pissing people off they are
> doing something right:
>
> No you are not. If your mission is to spread the
> word of God and Jesus and you are causing people
> to turn away, then you are failing at your
> mission.
>
> Take accountability for your actions. Apologize
> to those whom you have angered, and use your
> God-given MINDS to come up with up with strategies
> that are more reasonable and less offensive.
>
> Here's an idea to get you started: Accept people
> for who and what they are and get to know them
> individually before you try to change them. They
> just might have something to teach you as well. A
> Disciple is always a student first.
>
> As Jesus said many times, "I demand mercy, not
> sacrifice."
I consider it a 'plus-minus for Jesus.'
If my life inspires three to come to Christ and none to turn away or close her/his mind, that's +3.
If someone else inspires 100 and turns off 500, that's -400.
-------------------------------------------------------
> To those who attend MBC or similar churches and
> think that if they're pissing people off they are
> doing something right:
>
> No you are not. If your mission is to spread the
> word of God and Jesus and you are causing people
> to turn away, then you are failing at your
> mission.
>
> Take accountability for your actions. Apologize
> to those whom you have angered, and use your
> God-given MINDS to come up with up with strategies
> that are more reasonable and less offensive.
>
> Here's an idea to get you started: Accept people
> for who and what they are and get to know them
> individually before you try to change them. They
> just might have something to teach you as well. A
> Disciple is always a student first.
>
> As Jesus said many times, "I demand mercy, not
> sacrifice."
I consider it a 'plus-minus for Jesus.'
If my life inspires three to come to Christ and none to turn away or close her/his mind, that's +3.
If someone else inspires 100 and turns off 500, that's -400.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Cwhite
()
Date: September 07, 2009 09:58AM
The fact that these people are interested in Mclean Bible Church suggest that they hunger for something. They are a pitty. We Christians are obliged to forgive them. Hope we get our reward one day. We ought not to retaliate or even say something bad about this people because we know better. We all are sinners but the only difference is: we are forgiven because we did ask for it. This is something that we need to reflect on. "Let us try to walk our talk."
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Naru Hodo
()
Date: September 07, 2009 01:11PM
Just when you thought this stupid thread had finally gone, here it comes back again!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: September 08, 2009 08:04AM
Cwhite Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The fact that these people are interested in
> Mclean Bible Church suggest that they hunger for
> something. They are a pitty. We Christians are
> obliged to forgive them. Hope we get our reward
> one day. We ought not to retaliate or even say
> something bad about this people because we know
> better. We all are sinners but the only difference
> is: we are forgiven because we did ask for it.
> This is something that we need to reflect on. "Let
> us try to walk our talk."
The fact that these people are questioning the establishment simply mean that there are questions the establishment should answer.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The fact that these people are interested in
> Mclean Bible Church suggest that they hunger for
> something. They are a pitty. We Christians are
> obliged to forgive them. Hope we get our reward
> one day. We ought not to retaliate or even say
> something bad about this people because we know
> better. We all are sinners but the only difference
> is: we are forgiven because we did ask for it.
> This is something that we need to reflect on. "Let
> us try to walk our talk."
The fact that these people are questioning the establishment simply mean that there are questions the establishment should answer.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Kenny_Powers
()
Date: September 10, 2009 04:29AM
zomg! thank you for rezzing this thread... ive been waiting for a long time but didnt want to be the douche that did it. Thank you for being a douche!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Jack Sprat
()
Date: October 06, 2009 02:27AM
Please do not take what you are about to read as an order, but rather a suggestion.
Let's start from the top........you heard a radio ad that "basically" said "everyone but us is going to hell". Just kinda curious how you came to that conclusion...since we didn't hear the actual commercial, and you didn't take the time to write a good amount of it out we simply are forced to take your word on it. And as they say, one man's word has no grounding.
Secondly, why do you care how much he makes? For one thing I say that's between him and God. Also, you shouldn't be giving if you feel like you are being forced to give. Give what your heart tells you to give.......my grandparents went to a small country church in PA that the pastor actually worked part time as a postal worker just to make ends meet. I go to a large church in MD, and I don't know nor do I really care how much my pastor makes because I believe it is none of my business. I wouldn't say that I am best friends with the guy, but from the few times I've had to interact with him I can tell his heart is pure. On another note why is it we always pick on pastors......why not lawyers or stock brokers, IRS agents, Movie and TV Show producers, actors, directors, musicians, comedians?
Have you considered the fact that maybe the house was donated by his church because of his daughter. I have a friend who when he was in high school (might have been college), during a basketball game was diving for the ball, but slid and hit his head on the wall. Today he is paralyzed from the neck down, but he still has his sense of humor. Anyway, their church donated not only a pretty good sized house, but also a van for him to ride around in, and also an electric wheelchair which if you don't know cost a good amount of money.
Lastly, I don't know Lon Solomon on any kind of personal level. I've never met the guy. I do have friends that have gone to the church, and they don't seem to have any beef about the guy. But, as I say, I don't feel it's any of my business.
In any religion you have the zealots and the half-asses...the ones who try their best to follow and the jokers. And just because you call yourself an atheist, an agnostic, or even an animist does not me you have no god or religion. Is your god your stomach, your wallet, your body, sex, your ancestors? Your god could be anything.......if you are wondering what it is you worship, maybe you should start by writing down what you do on a daily basis. See what you spend time doing more than anything else. Your religion is how you spend time with your god. And remember, Christian breaks the first commandment (no other gods) all time. Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I'm perfect. I'm a sinner saved by grace. Thank you for your time.
Let's start from the top........you heard a radio ad that "basically" said "everyone but us is going to hell". Just kinda curious how you came to that conclusion...since we didn't hear the actual commercial, and you didn't take the time to write a good amount of it out we simply are forced to take your word on it. And as they say, one man's word has no grounding.
Secondly, why do you care how much he makes? For one thing I say that's between him and God. Also, you shouldn't be giving if you feel like you are being forced to give. Give what your heart tells you to give.......my grandparents went to a small country church in PA that the pastor actually worked part time as a postal worker just to make ends meet. I go to a large church in MD, and I don't know nor do I really care how much my pastor makes because I believe it is none of my business. I wouldn't say that I am best friends with the guy, but from the few times I've had to interact with him I can tell his heart is pure. On another note why is it we always pick on pastors......why not lawyers or stock brokers, IRS agents, Movie and TV Show producers, actors, directors, musicians, comedians?
Have you considered the fact that maybe the house was donated by his church because of his daughter. I have a friend who when he was in high school (might have been college), during a basketball game was diving for the ball, but slid and hit his head on the wall. Today he is paralyzed from the neck down, but he still has his sense of humor. Anyway, their church donated not only a pretty good sized house, but also a van for him to ride around in, and also an electric wheelchair which if you don't know cost a good amount of money.
Lastly, I don't know Lon Solomon on any kind of personal level. I've never met the guy. I do have friends that have gone to the church, and they don't seem to have any beef about the guy. But, as I say, I don't feel it's any of my business.
In any religion you have the zealots and the half-asses...the ones who try their best to follow and the jokers. And just because you call yourself an atheist, an agnostic, or even an animist does not me you have no god or religion. Is your god your stomach, your wallet, your body, sex, your ancestors? Your god could be anything.......if you are wondering what it is you worship, maybe you should start by writing down what you do on a daily basis. See what you spend time doing more than anything else. Your religion is how you spend time with your god. And remember, Christian breaks the first commandment (no other gods) all time. Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I'm perfect. I'm a sinner saved by grace. Thank you for your time.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: October 06, 2009 07:42AM
Jack Sprat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In any religion you have the zealots and the
> half-asses...the ones who try their best to follow
> and the jokers. And just because you call yourself
> an atheist, an agnostic, or even an animist does
> not me you have no god or religion. Is your god
> your stomach, your wallet, your body, sex, your
> ancestors? Your god could be anything.......
Equivocation doesn't help your argument.
> if you
> are wondering what it is you worship, maybe you
> should start by writing down what you do on a
> daily basis. See what you spend time doing more
> than anything else.
So everyone worships sleep?? Your position is absurd.
-------------------------------------------------------
> In any religion you have the zealots and the
> half-asses...the ones who try their best to follow
> and the jokers. And just because you call yourself
> an atheist, an agnostic, or even an animist does
> not me you have no god or religion. Is your god
> your stomach, your wallet, your body, sex, your
> ancestors? Your god could be anything.......
Equivocation doesn't help your argument.
> if you
> are wondering what it is you worship, maybe you
> should start by writing down what you do on a
> daily basis. See what you spend time doing more
> than anything else.
So everyone worships sleep?? Your position is absurd.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
John the Baptist
()
Date: October 06, 2009 08:36AM
Jesus - and McLean Bible Church - rocks!!!!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Jack Sprat
()
Date: October 09, 2009 12:19AM
In order to worship sleep..........that would mean you would have to sleep probably at least 13 hours a day..........Sorry, but that's not healthy
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Harry Tuttle
()
Date: October 09, 2009 02:13AM
So you're saying that, in order to worship something, you have to devote at least 13 hours of your day to it?
Jack Sprat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In order to worship sleep..........that would mean
> you would have to sleep probably at least 13 hours
> a day..........Sorry, but that's not healthy
Jack Sprat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In order to worship sleep..........that would mean
> you would have to sleep probably at least 13 hours
> a day..........Sorry, but that's not healthy
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MM
()
Date: October 24, 2009 12:08PM
McLean Bible truly sucks. They are out to make money.
Frontline is bullshit.
Frontline is bullshit.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: October 24, 2009 01:42PM
I'm curious how many "Creationists" actually believe in the creation theory and how many just defend it for political or economic reasons.
I can't imagine that in this time period there can still be that many delusional people left that actually believe in giants, talking snakes, magic and that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
This is inconceivable for anyone over the age of 10.
In fact, religion should be treated like alcohol. There should be an legal age limit for indoctrination.
I can't imagine that in this time period there can still be that many delusional people left that actually believe in giants, talking snakes, magic and that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
This is inconceivable for anyone over the age of 10.
In fact, religion should be treated like alcohol. There should be an legal age limit for indoctrination.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
OBEE
()
Date: November 03, 2009 09:52AM
The pastor is a typical Jews for Jesus guy. In NY, their the guys who get no respect in the Synagog. So, they start up a JFJ shop. I hate the MFer.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Christian
()
Date: January 24, 2010 06:28PM
I attended Wesley UMC in Vienna several times many years ago. Wesley UMC is a Hindu Temple and NOT a Christian church. I heard Mr. Jim Winkler "preach" there one Sunday and denied the clear teachings of the Christ as recorded in the Bible. I never set foot in the place again. I don't know if every UMC "church" is like this or not but Wesley is certainly NOT a Christian church. Go somewhere else if you want to learn anything about Christianity. If you want to be a Hindu, go to Wesley!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Jenn
()
Date: January 24, 2010 09:31PM
McLean is not at all a gay-bashing church. It,as most Bible Preaching churches, does just that..It preaches from the Bible. The Bible and Christian values are what this country was founded on. We are supposedly a Christain country. Perhaps if we went back to the core beliefs and values that our nations founders had we wouldn't have so many problems in this world. The Bible teaches us that Homosexuality is wrong. They do not bash Gays, they teach what God has told us in the Bible. You cannot take parts of the scripture and only believe those that fit your lifestyle. Many pastors just want to preach "feel good" sermons. You have to believe in the whole truth and the entire Bible as being true or you might as well not believe in it at all. The Bible tells us that if you are not saved and have not accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Savior that you do not have eternal life. McLean Bible does not preach that only "they" are going to Heaven. They preach that only the followers of Christ are going to Heaven which is 100% Biblical... We all will go to either heaven or Hell.. maybe it is time you start reading the Bible and listen more carefully before carelessly judging a church that actually preaches the truth and does so much for its surrounding community.. Their ministries are too vast to even put on paper right now..
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
yes
()
Date: January 24, 2010 09:33PM
They're just a gay-oppressing one.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Harry Tuttle
()
Date: January 24, 2010 10:24PM
Jenn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Bible teaches us that
> Homosexuality is wrong.They do not bash Gays,
> they teach what God has told us in the Bible.
Hi, Jenn, I'm Harry Tuttle and I am very ignorant of the Holy Scriptures... Pleased to make your acquaintance.
Would you mind posting a link to, or telling me in what chapter I can find, where The Bible discusses homo-sex? I've heard a lot of people mention that God says homosexuality is a sin, but I've never heard where in the bible I can find it written explicitly.
Is it in the Ten Commandments?
> You
> cannot take parts of the scripture and only
> believe those that fit your lifestyle. Many
> pastors just want to preach "feel good" sermons.
> You have to believe in the whole truth and the
> entire Bible as being true or you might as well
> not believe in it at all.
Would you mind telling me where, in The Bible, it says this?
> The Bible tells us that
> if you are not saved and have not accepted Jesus
> Christ as your personal Savior that you do not
> have eternal life.
So you don't spend eternity in Hell?
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Bible teaches us that
> Homosexuality is wrong.They do not bash Gays,
> they teach what God has told us in the Bible.
Hi, Jenn, I'm Harry Tuttle and I am very ignorant of the Holy Scriptures... Pleased to make your acquaintance.
Would you mind posting a link to, or telling me in what chapter I can find, where The Bible discusses homo-sex? I've heard a lot of people mention that God says homosexuality is a sin, but I've never heard where in the bible I can find it written explicitly.
Is it in the Ten Commandments?
> You
> cannot take parts of the scripture and only
> believe those that fit your lifestyle. Many
> pastors just want to preach "feel good" sermons.
> You have to believe in the whole truth and the
> entire Bible as being true or you might as well
> not believe in it at all.
Would you mind telling me where, in The Bible, it says this?
> The Bible tells us that
> if you are not saved and have not accepted Jesus
> Christ as your personal Savior that you do not
> have eternal life.
So you don't spend eternity in Hell?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: January 24, 2010 10:32PM
LOL I'd love to see Jenn and Numbers in a room together.
Blessed are the murderous.
Blessed are the murderous.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
NegativeDreamStealer
()
Date: January 25, 2010 08:41AM
God told me she didn't write the Bible, and in fact much of it completely misrepresents her.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2010 12:47PM
Jenn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> McLean is not at all a gay-bashing church. It,as
> most Bible Preaching churches, does just that..It
> preaches from the Bible. The Bible and Christian
> values are what this country was founded on. We
> are supposedly a Christain country.
This country has a majority of Christians, that doesn't make it a Christian country.
> Perhaps if we
> went back to the core beliefs and values that our
> nations founders had we wouldn't have so many
> problems in this world.
This is a myth of the 'golden age'. There are always problems in the world - religion should do it's best to try not to create those problems.
> The Bible teaches us that
> Homosexuality is wrong. They do not bash Gays,
Stating that homosexuality is wrong is bashing Gays - it's setting up a hierarchy based on orientations that people cannot control.
> they teach what God has told us in the Bible. You
> cannot take parts of the scripture and only
> believe those that fit your lifestyle.
I'd be willing to bet that this is exactly what you do, actually. I'd also bet that you attempt to justify your cognitive dissonance with some sort of baseless rationalization.
> Many
> pastors just want to preach "feel good" sermons.
> You have to believe in the whole truth and the
> entire Bible as being true or you might as well
> not believe in it at all.
Why believe any of it?
> The Bible tells us that
> if you are not saved and have not accepted Jesus
> Christ as your personal Savior that you do not
> have eternal life. McLean Bible does not preach
> that only "they" are going to Heaven. They preach
> that only the followers of Christ are going to
> Heaven which is 100% Biblical... We all will go to
> either heaven or Hell.. maybe it is time you start
> reading the Bible and listen more carefully before
> carelessly judging a church that actually preaches
> the truth and does so much for its surrounding
> community.. Their ministries are too vast to even
> put on paper right now..
I've read the bible, cover to cover. Have you?
-------------------------------------------------------
> McLean is not at all a gay-bashing church. It,as
> most Bible Preaching churches, does just that..It
> preaches from the Bible. The Bible and Christian
> values are what this country was founded on. We
> are supposedly a Christain country.
This country has a majority of Christians, that doesn't make it a Christian country.
> Perhaps if we
> went back to the core beliefs and values that our
> nations founders had we wouldn't have so many
> problems in this world.
This is a myth of the 'golden age'. There are always problems in the world - religion should do it's best to try not to create those problems.
> The Bible teaches us that
> Homosexuality is wrong. They do not bash Gays,
Stating that homosexuality is wrong is bashing Gays - it's setting up a hierarchy based on orientations that people cannot control.
> they teach what God has told us in the Bible. You
> cannot take parts of the scripture and only
> believe those that fit your lifestyle.
I'd be willing to bet that this is exactly what you do, actually. I'd also bet that you attempt to justify your cognitive dissonance with some sort of baseless rationalization.
> Many
> pastors just want to preach "feel good" sermons.
> You have to believe in the whole truth and the
> entire Bible as being true or you might as well
> not believe in it at all.
Why believe any of it?
> The Bible tells us that
> if you are not saved and have not accepted Jesus
> Christ as your personal Savior that you do not
> have eternal life. McLean Bible does not preach
> that only "they" are going to Heaven. They preach
> that only the followers of Christ are going to
> Heaven which is 100% Biblical... We all will go to
> either heaven or Hell.. maybe it is time you start
> reading the Bible and listen more carefully before
> carelessly judging a church that actually preaches
> the truth and does so much for its surrounding
> community.. Their ministries are too vast to even
> put on paper right now..
I've read the bible, cover to cover. Have you?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Marsha Resch
()
Date: January 25, 2010 02:17PM
I attend a large non-denominational church north of Baltimore, and we run into the same thing. People who don't understand Christianity (belief, not RELIGION) just plain don't understand. We, too, are called names and not always identified in flattering terms by individuals who are both IN the world and OF the world, and don't know the difference. It's sad ... NONE of us are perfect ... but when people let the little (and they ARE little!) inconveniences of life affect their opinion of a church, not asking "what happened and why?", they are letting their "of the world" viewpoint keep them from becoming part of something truly amazing and life changing. I may change churches, and am looking to McClean Bible when I relocate to the area later this year. It won't be perfect, any more than I am, or my current church home is, but a church is also WHAT YOU MAKE IT. If you're not part of the solution, part of the TEAM, you really don't have the right to judge it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2010 02:42PM
Marsha Resch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I attend a large non-denominational church north
> of Baltimore, and we run into the same thing.
> People who don't understand Christianity (belief,
> not RELIGION) just plain don't understand.
Are you trying to differentiate your religion from all the others?
> We,
> too, are called names and not always identified in
> flattering terms by individuals who are both IN
> the world and OF the world, and don't know the
> difference.
Not in the world, eh? Sounds very nihilistic to me.
> It's sad ... NONE of us are perfect
> ... but when people let the little (and they ARE
> little!) inconveniences of life affect their
> opinion of a church, not asking "what happened and
> why?", they are letting their "of the world"
> viewpoint keep them from becoming part of
> something truly amazing and life changing.
Am I interpreting you correctly that you are trying to stifle any sort of criticism of the authority of the church?
> I may
> change churches, and am looking to McClean Bible
> when I relocate to the area later this year. It
> won't be perfect, any more than I am, or my
> current church home is, but a church is also WHAT
> YOU MAKE IT. If you're not part of the solution,
> part of the TEAM, you really don't have the right
> to judge it.
So since none of us were part of the solution of ending the holocaust, none of us has the right to judge it as wrong?
Reason doesn't work that way.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I attend a large non-denominational church north
> of Baltimore, and we run into the same thing.
> People who don't understand Christianity (belief,
> not RELIGION) just plain don't understand.
Are you trying to differentiate your religion from all the others?
> We,
> too, are called names and not always identified in
> flattering terms by individuals who are both IN
> the world and OF the world, and don't know the
> difference.
Not in the world, eh? Sounds very nihilistic to me.
> It's sad ... NONE of us are perfect
> ... but when people let the little (and they ARE
> little!) inconveniences of life affect their
> opinion of a church, not asking "what happened and
> why?", they are letting their "of the world"
> viewpoint keep them from becoming part of
> something truly amazing and life changing.
Am I interpreting you correctly that you are trying to stifle any sort of criticism of the authority of the church?
> I may
> change churches, and am looking to McClean Bible
> when I relocate to the area later this year. It
> won't be perfect, any more than I am, or my
> current church home is, but a church is also WHAT
> YOU MAKE IT. If you're not part of the solution,
> part of the TEAM, you really don't have the right
> to judge it.
So since none of us were part of the solution of ending the holocaust, none of us has the right to judge it as wrong?
Reason doesn't work that way.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Ham
()
Date: January 25, 2010 02:49PM
Jenn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
The Bible and Christian
> values are what this country was founded on.
So freedom of religion is a christian value? I doubt that people burned at the stake in the inquisition would agree. Or the people who don't agree with christianity and according to you and the bible are goign to be cast unto hell.
I missed the point in the bible about gun owership.
Or quartering troops.
The bible preaches that we are to turn the other cheek and forgive, yet the country's founders seemed to think that a fair and speedy trial was more important.
There's plenty of cruel and unusual punishment in the bible - being flooded, turned into salt, plagues, sacrificing, etc, but the founders thought that this was a bad idea.
We
> are supposedly a Christain country. Perhaps if we
> went back to the core beliefs and values that our
> nations founders had we wouldn't have so many
> problems in this world.
Our nations founders were slave owners who drank excessively compared to today's standards. They were also radical liberals who wanted to completely change the system. How many of the world's problems are because of foreign nations looking upon us as christian fundamentalists who wish to force our religion upon them? Maybe we should just go back to the old methods of blankets laced with smallpox to give to the heathens who won't embrace christianity. It worked for the previous indigenous owners of the tract of land you're probably writing from.
The Bible teaches us that
> Homosexuality is wrong. They do not bash Gays,
> they teach what God has told us in the Bible. You
> cannot take parts of the scripture and only
> believe those that fit your lifestyle.
Yes you can! It's called Free Will. It's the greatest gift that God gave us. It's what makes us different from being subservient slaves.
Many
> pastors just want to preach "feel good" sermons.
> You have to believe in the whole truth and the
> entire Bible as being true or you might as well
> not believe in it at all. The Bible tells us that
> if you are not saved and have not accepted Jesus
> Christ as your personal Savior that you do not
> have eternal life. McLean Bible does not preach
> that only "they" are going to Heaven. They preach
> that only the followers of Christ are going to
> Heaven which is 100% Biblical... We all will go to
> either heaven or Hell.. maybe it is time you start
> reading the Bible and listen more carefully before
> carelessly judging a church that actually preaches
> the truth and does so much for its surrounding
> community..
Yet we have that Free Will that god gave us, which allows us to do so. We also have the first amendment, which was created by those good ole christians that according to you was based on the bible.
Their ministries are too vast to even
> put on paper right now..
Actually, they're not. As a tax exempt religion they are required by law to document all of their activities. So what you're saying is that McLean Bible Church is breakign the law? The laws that according to you were established based on the bible?
-------------------------------------------------------
The Bible and Christian
> values are what this country was founded on.
So freedom of religion is a christian value? I doubt that people burned at the stake in the inquisition would agree. Or the people who don't agree with christianity and according to you and the bible are goign to be cast unto hell.
I missed the point in the bible about gun owership.
Or quartering troops.
The bible preaches that we are to turn the other cheek and forgive, yet the country's founders seemed to think that a fair and speedy trial was more important.
There's plenty of cruel and unusual punishment in the bible - being flooded, turned into salt, plagues, sacrificing, etc, but the founders thought that this was a bad idea.
We
> are supposedly a Christain country. Perhaps if we
> went back to the core beliefs and values that our
> nations founders had we wouldn't have so many
> problems in this world.
Our nations founders were slave owners who drank excessively compared to today's standards. They were also radical liberals who wanted to completely change the system. How many of the world's problems are because of foreign nations looking upon us as christian fundamentalists who wish to force our religion upon them? Maybe we should just go back to the old methods of blankets laced with smallpox to give to the heathens who won't embrace christianity. It worked for the previous indigenous owners of the tract of land you're probably writing from.
The Bible teaches us that
> Homosexuality is wrong. They do not bash Gays,
> they teach what God has told us in the Bible. You
> cannot take parts of the scripture and only
> believe those that fit your lifestyle.
Yes you can! It's called Free Will. It's the greatest gift that God gave us. It's what makes us different from being subservient slaves.
Many
> pastors just want to preach "feel good" sermons.
> You have to believe in the whole truth and the
> entire Bible as being true or you might as well
> not believe in it at all. The Bible tells us that
> if you are not saved and have not accepted Jesus
> Christ as your personal Savior that you do not
> have eternal life. McLean Bible does not preach
> that only "they" are going to Heaven. They preach
> that only the followers of Christ are going to
> Heaven which is 100% Biblical... We all will go to
> either heaven or Hell.. maybe it is time you start
> reading the Bible and listen more carefully before
> carelessly judging a church that actually preaches
> the truth and does so much for its surrounding
> community..
Yet we have that Free Will that god gave us, which allows us to do so. We also have the first amendment, which was created by those good ole christians that according to you was based on the bible.
Their ministries are too vast to even
> put on paper right now..
Actually, they're not. As a tax exempt religion they are required by law to document all of their activities. So what you're saying is that McLean Bible Church is breakign the law? The laws that according to you were established based on the bible?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Kenny_Powers
()
Date: January 26, 2010 04:54AM
My favorite quote on religion was made by sir Ron Bennington he said, "Im with the john lennon school of thought 'whatever gets you through the night'. Its ok if you want to warship a golden duck, but dont tell me we need a golden duck in every fucking building".
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Allen
()
Date: January 29, 2010 12:11AM
I often marvel at folks who condemn or deny GOD (who is perfect) by citng the acts of mortal humans (who are far from perfect). As a Christian I do believe that believing on Jesus is the ONLY way to Heaven, and that the alternative is everlasting torment in Hell. What people do not understand is that GOD does not send anybody to Hell. People go to Hell under their own power and of their own free will. And the tradgedy is, that when they get there; they will realize that they had to fight GOD every step of the way. The LORD GOD is in no way willing that ANYONE shall perish, but that ALL be saved and have ETERNAL LIFE. Which way you go is entireky up to you. The Lord is not about forcing you. Make your choice and live with it. For ever and ever.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 29, 2010 10:42AM
Allen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I often marvel at folks who condemn or deny GOD
> (who is perfect) by citng the acts of mortal
> humans (who are far from perfect).
"Perfect" is not an objective term.
> As a Christian
> I do believe that believing on Jesus is the ONLY
> way to Heaven, and that the alternative is
> everlasting torment in Hell.
What a horribly immoral thing to believe. So God/Jesus are like the mob in that they extort belief through fear of punishment?
> What people do not
> understand is that GOD does not send anybody to
> Hell. People go to Hell under their own power and
> of their own free will.
Nonsense. There is no hell and if there *was* one, no one would go there out of their own choice. You are simply attempting to water down your dogma so that the pablum is easier to swallow.
> And the tradgedy is, that
> when they get there; they will realize that they
> had to fight GOD every step of the way. The LORD
> GOD is in no way willing that ANYONE shall perish,
> but that ALL be saved and have ETERNAL LIFE.
Yeah, your vision of God is an immoral monster. I'm sorry, but I would never create or allow to be created a place of eternal torment - if I had the power to stop it.
> Which way you go is entireky up to you. The Lord
> is not about forcing you. Make your choice and
> live with it. For ever and ever.
You can either pay "Uncle" Tony or you can have your knee caps broken. The choice is up to you. Make your choice and live with it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I often marvel at folks who condemn or deny GOD
> (who is perfect) by citng the acts of mortal
> humans (who are far from perfect).
"Perfect" is not an objective term.
> As a Christian
> I do believe that believing on Jesus is the ONLY
> way to Heaven, and that the alternative is
> everlasting torment in Hell.
What a horribly immoral thing to believe. So God/Jesus are like the mob in that they extort belief through fear of punishment?
> What people do not
> understand is that GOD does not send anybody to
> Hell. People go to Hell under their own power and
> of their own free will.
Nonsense. There is no hell and if there *was* one, no one would go there out of their own choice. You are simply attempting to water down your dogma so that the pablum is easier to swallow.
> And the tradgedy is, that
> when they get there; they will realize that they
> had to fight GOD every step of the way. The LORD
> GOD is in no way willing that ANYONE shall perish,
> but that ALL be saved and have ETERNAL LIFE.
Yeah, your vision of God is an immoral monster. I'm sorry, but I would never create or allow to be created a place of eternal torment - if I had the power to stop it.
> Which way you go is entireky up to you. The Lord
> is not about forcing you. Make your choice and
> live with it. For ever and ever.
You can either pay "Uncle" Tony or you can have your knee caps broken. The choice is up to you. Make your choice and live with it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Krys
()
Date: January 30, 2010 04:47AM
and none of you know what your talking about... its funny the people who leave comments on this website YALL always have something negative to say. Y DNT YALL GET A LIFE LIKE REALLY..... u dnt like the church??? ok well keep it movin!! ooo n for everyone to kno LON always says where the money goes to BUT NONE OF YOU WOULD KNOW BECAUSE YOU DNT GO THR!!!! OH N THE 2 VACATIONS A YEAR IS TO ISREAL ON A MISSIONS TRIP!!!! STOP TALKING ABOUT WHAT YOU DONT KNOW!!!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
krys
()
Date: January 30, 2010 04:50AM
oh n to the ppl who say they dnt teach from the bible!!! well maybe yall r slow or somthin cuz wen lon preaches he reads verses out OF THE BIBLE n the half way thro he applys them to our world today. so um yea how doesnt he preach the word
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
ex mclean bible attendee
()
Date: January 31, 2010 09:18AM
I attended MBC for about six months. The positives are that it is a church that does a lot of good work within the community. Also, Lon Solomon is a powerful preacher and very effective communicator.
The biggest negative for me is that despite protestations to the contrary by Lon Solomon, they cater to a basically right-wing congregation and Lon's message is geared to that point of view. I am an independent - have voted for both Democratic and Republican candidates but a church that espouses - however covertly - the viewpoint of either party will not be one I can continue to maintain membership - and so I moved on.
I also found it troubling when he would cite his parents - and especially his mother - in a negative way in his sermons in terms of his life experiences. To do so to people who are not there to defend themselves is fundamentally unfair. Not sure how public criticism of his parents fits in with the commandment to "honor thy father and thy mother".
As far as his compensation is concerned, I did not realize that he made the kind of outrageous amounts that have been cited here - to me, if true, that is obscene. No matter how successful he is as a preacher or as a fund raiser, I cannot see the justification for a preacher - any preacher - to make that sort of money. The one reason that I suspect he makes a lot of money is that it is kept so confidential. If he felt what he was making was appropriate and reasonable, he would not have any problem with it being information that is part of the public domain. MBC is, after all, a tax-exempt organization, so why not be upfront with the compensation Lon earns?
The biggest negative for me is that despite protestations to the contrary by Lon Solomon, they cater to a basically right-wing congregation and Lon's message is geared to that point of view. I am an independent - have voted for both Democratic and Republican candidates but a church that espouses - however covertly - the viewpoint of either party will not be one I can continue to maintain membership - and so I moved on.
I also found it troubling when he would cite his parents - and especially his mother - in a negative way in his sermons in terms of his life experiences. To do so to people who are not there to defend themselves is fundamentally unfair. Not sure how public criticism of his parents fits in with the commandment to "honor thy father and thy mother".
As far as his compensation is concerned, I did not realize that he made the kind of outrageous amounts that have been cited here - to me, if true, that is obscene. No matter how successful he is as a preacher or as a fund raiser, I cannot see the justification for a preacher - any preacher - to make that sort of money. The one reason that I suspect he makes a lot of money is that it is kept so confidential. If he felt what he was making was appropriate and reasonable, he would not have any problem with it being information that is part of the public domain. MBC is, after all, a tax-exempt organization, so why not be upfront with the compensation Lon earns?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
TJ A
()
Date: January 31, 2010 10:55AM
how is that wrong??? Being rich isn't the issue... it is the LOVE for the money that keeps a rich man from heaven...King Soloman was rich, Kind David was rich. Jesus never said u had to be middle class to be a follower. He preached to everyone and even saved plenty of "rich" people.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
JasonO
()
Date: January 31, 2010 09:39PM
Reading through this thread is like watching retards scuffle.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Kenny_Powers
()
Date: January 31, 2010 11:58PM
Allen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I often marvel at folks who condemn or deny GOD
> (who is perfect)
Im not denying or accepting god, I am denying the beliefs of your religion and many of the others around the world. I am open to the idea of pretty much anything, there is just no proof either way.
by citng the acts of mortal
> humans (who are far from perfect).
i forget, who wrote the bible? humans? by your logic your own faith is based on imperfection.
As a Christian
> I do believe that believing on Jesus is the ONLY
> way to Heaven, and that the alternative is
> everlasting torment in Hell.
well according to the bible which you probably pick and choose from, believing in jesus christ is not good enough to get you into heaven, you must follow the words of god to the T. And if we go by that, than i would say 1% of 1% of the world will be getting into heaven, and the rest (most likely including you) will burn in hell. Narrow is the path to heaven, wide are the gates of hell.
What people do not
> understand is that GOD does not send anybody to
> Hell.
If he is all knowing and all powerful than he has the power to either send or keep people out of hell. Thus i think he is responsible.
People go to Hell under their own power and
> of their own free will.
God created hell, or atleast allows it to exist, which to me signifies his imperfection.
And the tradgedy is, that
> when they get there; they will realize that they
> had to fight GOD every step of the way. The LORD
> GOD is in no way willing that ANYONE shall perish,
> but that ALL be saved and have ETERNAL LIFE.
then why send people to hell.
> Which way you go is entireky up to you. The Lord
> is not about forcing you.
really? "believe in me and worship me or burn forever." is that choice, is that free will? is that love?
Make your choice and
> live with it. For ever and ever.
done and done.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I often marvel at folks who condemn or deny GOD
> (who is perfect)
Im not denying or accepting god, I am denying the beliefs of your religion and many of the others around the world. I am open to the idea of pretty much anything, there is just no proof either way.
by citng the acts of mortal
> humans (who are far from perfect).
i forget, who wrote the bible? humans? by your logic your own faith is based on imperfection.
As a Christian
> I do believe that believing on Jesus is the ONLY
> way to Heaven, and that the alternative is
> everlasting torment in Hell.
well according to the bible which you probably pick and choose from, believing in jesus christ is not good enough to get you into heaven, you must follow the words of god to the T. And if we go by that, than i would say 1% of 1% of the world will be getting into heaven, and the rest (most likely including you) will burn in hell. Narrow is the path to heaven, wide are the gates of hell.
What people do not
> understand is that GOD does not send anybody to
> Hell.
If he is all knowing and all powerful than he has the power to either send or keep people out of hell. Thus i think he is responsible.
People go to Hell under their own power and
> of their own free will.
God created hell, or atleast allows it to exist, which to me signifies his imperfection.
And the tradgedy is, that
> when they get there; they will realize that they
> had to fight GOD every step of the way. The LORD
> GOD is in no way willing that ANYONE shall perish,
> but that ALL be saved and have ETERNAL LIFE.
then why send people to hell.
> Which way you go is entireky up to you. The Lord
> is not about forcing you.
really? "believe in me and worship me or burn forever." is that choice, is that free will? is that love?
Make your choice and
> live with it. For ever and ever.
done and done.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Kenny_Powers
()
Date: February 01, 2010 12:02AM
krys Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> oh n to the ppl who say they dnt teach from the
> bible!!! well maybe yall r slow or somthin cuz wen
> lon preaches he reads verses out OF THE BIBLE n
> the half way thro he applys them to our world
> today. so um yea how doesnt he preach the word
holy shit i hope this was a joke, you do your church, and humanity a disservice. The reason people get so up in arms about religion is that it has been jammed down their throats consistently. It is part of the media, part of politics, and part of our social habbits. If atheism or god forbid (pun intended) islam was jammed into your face on a consistant basis, i cant even imagine the shit you would be saying.
-------------------------------------------------------
> oh n to the ppl who say they dnt teach from the
> bible!!! well maybe yall r slow or somthin cuz wen
> lon preaches he reads verses out OF THE BIBLE n
> the half way thro he applys them to our world
> today. so um yea how doesnt he preach the word
holy shit i hope this was a joke, you do your church, and humanity a disservice. The reason people get so up in arms about religion is that it has been jammed down their throats consistently. It is part of the media, part of politics, and part of our social habbits. If atheism or god forbid (pun intended) islam was jammed into your face on a consistant basis, i cant even imagine the shit you would be saying.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
TJb
()
Date: February 01, 2010 09:58AM
how is that wrong??? Being rich isn't the issue..
If there is no problem with the type of money that Lon Solomon makes, then why the secrecy regarding his compensation. Just make it public knowledge and let him then justify it to his congregation, if necessary, by citing any biblical support for it.
Lon, like other highly paid evangelists will not do that because they know full well that, at least, some of their congregation would be repelled by compensation levels that most people would deem excessive.
The reality is that Lon is a charismatic and very effective preacher who is able to motivate his congregation to contribute large sums of money - but that gravy train could come to an end very quickly if some in his congregation felt that he was over-paid.
If there is no problem with the type of money that Lon Solomon makes, then why the secrecy regarding his compensation. Just make it public knowledge and let him then justify it to his congregation, if necessary, by citing any biblical support for it.
Lon, like other highly paid evangelists will not do that because they know full well that, at least, some of their congregation would be repelled by compensation levels that most people would deem excessive.
The reality is that Lon is a charismatic and very effective preacher who is able to motivate his congregation to contribute large sums of money - but that gravy train could come to an end very quickly if some in his congregation felt that he was over-paid.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
catholic
()
Date: February 01, 2010 08:24PM
They have a food court and you can have smoothie while worshipping.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Kenny_Powers
()
Date: February 02, 2010 11:41PM
mmm sacralicious.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Sandra
()
Date: February 28, 2010 02:30PM
This is what happens when someone stands up for the truth, BIBLICAL truth! Absolutely not true and i will pray that you find salvation because IT IS THE ONLY WAY INTO HEAVEN, like it or NOT!!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Sandra
()
Date: February 28, 2010 02:33PM
we've already WON CHRIST is the prize and you also can find salvation and find some peace, i wish you luck!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
smothie king
()
Date: February 28, 2010 02:45PM
THEY HAVE A SMOOTHIE BAR WHAT ELSE SO YOU WANT
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: February 28, 2010 08:20PM
Sandra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is what happens when someone stands up for
> the truth, BIBLICAL truth! Absolutely not true and
> i will pray that you find salvation because IT IS
> THE ONLY WAY INTO HEAVEN, like it or NOT!!
where do they find these impressionable knuckleheads
no invisible man in the sky,
no soul,
no heaven,
no salvation,
you live, you die - finito benito
only the math remains
come up with a shred of evidence, or even a rational argument, for anything else - then we can have a reasonable conversation
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is what happens when someone stands up for
> the truth, BIBLICAL truth! Absolutely not true and
> i will pray that you find salvation because IT IS
> THE ONLY WAY INTO HEAVEN, like it or NOT!!
where do they find these impressionable knuckleheads
no invisible man in the sky,
no soul,
no heaven,
no salvation,
you live, you die - finito benito
only the math remains
come up with a shred of evidence, or even a rational argument, for anything else - then we can have a reasonable conversation
JESUS CHRIST can save all of you
Posted by:
Christ LOVES!!!
()
Date: March 08, 2010 08:18AM
By accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior you enter into a relationship that allows you to be connected with the living GOD of the universe. You can have eternal life you just have to accept Christ as Lord of your life. He loves you and wants you to accept Him, but it is your free will to accept Him. Just as you as a parent do not force your child to love you, He does not force you. We all want our children to come love us willingly this is the same way He wants you to love Him.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Non Denom
()
Date: March 08, 2010 10:19AM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> kl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > just something to think about:
> > what is your salary?
>
> I make around 70k/yr (before taxes) for working,
> not by telling people my interpretation of a book
> written about a bunch of desert nomads and a
> jewish zombie.
>
> I also do not receive any tax breaks, government
> benefits, or any of the other perks that a church
> enjoys, which is probably why...
>
> > How much is your house worth?
>
> ... I rent a one-bedroom apartment for about
> $1,300 a month, instead of owning a mansion.
>
> Fuck you.
that is one well paid janitor.
-------------------------------------------------------
> kl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > just something to think about:
> > what is your salary?
>
> I make around 70k/yr (before taxes) for working,
> not by telling people my interpretation of a book
> written about a bunch of desert nomads and a
> jewish zombie.
>
> I also do not receive any tax breaks, government
> benefits, or any of the other perks that a church
> enjoys, which is probably why...
>
> > How much is your house worth?
>
> ... I rent a one-bedroom apartment for about
> $1,300 a month, instead of owning a mansion.
>
> Fuck you.
that is one well paid janitor.
Re: JESUS CHRIST can save all of you
Posted by:
Kenny_Powers
()
Date: March 10, 2010 09:07PM
Christ LOVES!!! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior
> you enter into a relationship that allows you to
> be connected with the living GOD of the universe.
do i need internet access for that, or is it wireless?
> You can have eternal life you just have to accept
> Christ as Lord of your life.
not really what the bible says, but ill let you keep thinking it.
He loves you and
> wants you to accept Him, but it is your free will
> to accept Him. Just as you as a parent do not
> force your child to love you, He does not force
> you. We all want our children to come love us
> willingly this is the same way He wants you to
> love Him.
yes and we come to love our parents by them threatening us with hellfire, and eternal suffering
-------------------------------------------------------
> By accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior
> you enter into a relationship that allows you to
> be connected with the living GOD of the universe.
do i need internet access for that, or is it wireless?
> You can have eternal life you just have to accept
> Christ as Lord of your life.
not really what the bible says, but ill let you keep thinking it.
He loves you and
> wants you to accept Him, but it is your free will
> to accept Him. Just as you as a parent do not
> force your child to love you, He does not force
> you. We all want our children to come love us
> willingly this is the same way He wants you to
> love Him.
yes and we come to love our parents by them threatening us with hellfire, and eternal suffering
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
abc123
()
Date: March 14, 2010 01:54PM
ok, pretty interesting how people that don't know each other can start arguments online, trying to prove each other wrong...also, interesting how eager we are to look into the neighbor's yard instead of taking care of our own household...I realize it has been a couple of years since the discussion started, I still need to make a point or two:
1. to err is human: nobody is perfect, except God, so people are pretty much prone to error, no matter if pastor, president, home-stay mom, student, etc. So, I think that everyone should mind its own life and be preoccupied with his/her own sins and mistakes, because those are the ones everyone is responsible for...
2. if God decides to reward his disciple- in this case Lon Solomon down here on Earth, so be it. God is just, so I'm taking LS must have done something right ...Being jealous of his house doesn't really lead anywhere, except maybe to some inner bitterness...
3. MBC is huge indeed (not sure why they made it so big) and it's easy to feel lost and alone in the beginning, but I believe attending regularly and joining a small group, or community group can help building relationships among people...
4. the post about absolution vouchers is just RIDICULOUS...too many movies seen, I think...
Anyway, hope we all find inner peace and the right church to belong to....
1. to err is human: nobody is perfect, except God, so people are pretty much prone to error, no matter if pastor, president, home-stay mom, student, etc. So, I think that everyone should mind its own life and be preoccupied with his/her own sins and mistakes, because those are the ones everyone is responsible for...
2. if God decides to reward his disciple- in this case Lon Solomon down here on Earth, so be it. God is just, so I'm taking LS must have done something right ...Being jealous of his house doesn't really lead anywhere, except maybe to some inner bitterness...
3. MBC is huge indeed (not sure why they made it so big) and it's easy to feel lost and alone in the beginning, but I believe attending regularly and joining a small group, or community group can help building relationships among people...
4. the post about absolution vouchers is just RIDICULOUS...too many movies seen, I think...
Anyway, hope we all find inner peace and the right church to belong to....
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: March 14, 2010 03:17PM
abc123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ok, pretty interesting how people that don't know
> each other can start arguments online, trying to
> prove each other wrong...also, interesting how
> eager we are to look into the neighbor's yard
> instead of taking care of our own household...I
> realize it has been a couple of years since the
> discussion started, I still need to make a point
> or two:
>
> 1. to err is human: nobody is perfect, except God,
> so people are pretty much prone to error, no
> matter if pastor, president, home-stay mom,
> student, etc. So, I think that everyone should
> mind its own life and be preoccupied with his/her
> own sins and mistakes, because those are the ones
> everyone is responsible for...
>
> 2. if God decides to reward his disciple- in this
> case Lon Solomon down here on Earth, so be it. God
> is just, so I'm taking LS must have done something
> right ...Being jealous of his house doesn't really
> lead anywhere, except maybe to some inner
> bitterness...
>
> 3. MBC is huge indeed (not sure why they made it
> so big) and it's easy to feel lost and alone in
> the beginning, but I believe attending regularly
> and joining a small group, or community group can
> help building relationships among people...
>
> 4. the post about absolution vouchers is just
> RIDICULOUS...too many movies seen, I think...
>
> Anyway, hope we all find inner peace and the right
> church to belong to....
at the risk of repeating myself to people who don't have the sense to realize that there is no god and that all churches/religions are scams to fleece the unthinking and scared
every few Sundays one of the religious nutters turns up with their inane attempts to get in a mid ranking god-bother's good books
where do they find these impressionable knuckleheads
no invisible man in the sky,
no soul,
no heaven,
no salvation,
you live, you die - finito benito
only the math remains
come up with a shred of evidence, or even a rational argument, for anything else - then we can have a reasonable conversation
-------------------------------------------------------
> ok, pretty interesting how people that don't know
> each other can start arguments online, trying to
> prove each other wrong...also, interesting how
> eager we are to look into the neighbor's yard
> instead of taking care of our own household...I
> realize it has been a couple of years since the
> discussion started, I still need to make a point
> or two:
>
> 1. to err is human: nobody is perfect, except God,
> so people are pretty much prone to error, no
> matter if pastor, president, home-stay mom,
> student, etc. So, I think that everyone should
> mind its own life and be preoccupied with his/her
> own sins and mistakes, because those are the ones
> everyone is responsible for...
>
> 2. if God decides to reward his disciple- in this
> case Lon Solomon down here on Earth, so be it. God
> is just, so I'm taking LS must have done something
> right ...Being jealous of his house doesn't really
> lead anywhere, except maybe to some inner
> bitterness...
>
> 3. MBC is huge indeed (not sure why they made it
> so big) and it's easy to feel lost and alone in
> the beginning, but I believe attending regularly
> and joining a small group, or community group can
> help building relationships among people...
>
> 4. the post about absolution vouchers is just
> RIDICULOUS...too many movies seen, I think...
>
> Anyway, hope we all find inner peace and the right
> church to belong to....
at the risk of repeating myself to people who don't have the sense to realize that there is no god and that all churches/religions are scams to fleece the unthinking and scared
every few Sundays one of the religious nutters turns up with their inane attempts to get in a mid ranking god-bother's good books
where do they find these impressionable knuckleheads
no invisible man in the sky,
no soul,
no heaven,
no salvation,
you live, you die - finito benito
only the math remains
come up with a shred of evidence, or even a rational argument, for anything else - then we can have a reasonable conversation
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Matt0681
()
Date: March 14, 2010 07:43PM
finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> abc123 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ok, pretty interesting how people that don't
> know
> > each other can start arguments online, trying
> to
> > prove each other wrong...also, interesting how
> > eager we are to look into the neighbor's yard
> > instead of taking care of our own household...I
> > realize it has been a couple of years since the
> > discussion started, I still need to make a
> point
> > or two:
> >
> > 1. to err is human: nobody is perfect, except
> God,
> > so people are pretty much prone to error, no
> > matter if pastor, president, home-stay mom,
> > student, etc. So, I think that everyone should
> > mind its own life and be preoccupied with
> his/her
> > own sins and mistakes, because those are the
> ones
> > everyone is responsible for...
> >
> > 2. if God decides to reward his disciple- in
> this
> > case Lon Solomon down here on Earth, so be it.
> God
> > is just, so I'm taking LS must have done
> something
> > right ...Being jealous of his house doesn't
> really
> > lead anywhere, except maybe to some inner
> > bitterness...
> >
> > 3. MBC is huge indeed (not sure why they made
> it
> > so big) and it's easy to feel lost and alone in
> > the beginning, but I believe attending
> regularly
> > and joining a small group, or community group
> can
> > help building relationships among people...
> >
> > 4. the post about absolution vouchers is just
> > RIDICULOUS...too many movies seen, I think...
> >
> > Anyway, hope we all find inner peace and the
> right
> > church to belong to....
>
>
> at the risk of repeating myself to people who
> don't have the sense to realize that there is no
> god and that all churches/religions are scams to
> fleece the unthinking and scared
>
> every few Sundays one of the religious nutters
> turns up with their inane attempts to get in a mid
> ranking god-bother's good books
>
> where do they find these impressionable
> knuckleheads
>
> no invisible man in the sky,
> no soul,
> no heaven,
> no salvation,
> you live, you die - finito benito
> only the math remains
>
> come up with a shred of evidence, or even a
> rational argument, for anything else - then we can
> have a reasonable conversation
That is why it is called FAITH. However, it remains truth that the more that is dug out of the ground, the more the Bible is proved to be true. Is it what it is because Jesus said it is. Period. End of story. No further discussion required.
-------------------------------------------------------
> abc123 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ok, pretty interesting how people that don't
> know
> > each other can start arguments online, trying
> to
> > prove each other wrong...also, interesting how
> > eager we are to look into the neighbor's yard
> > instead of taking care of our own household...I
> > realize it has been a couple of years since the
> > discussion started, I still need to make a
> point
> > or two:
> >
> > 1. to err is human: nobody is perfect, except
> God,
> > so people are pretty much prone to error, no
> > matter if pastor, president, home-stay mom,
> > student, etc. So, I think that everyone should
> > mind its own life and be preoccupied with
> his/her
> > own sins and mistakes, because those are the
> ones
> > everyone is responsible for...
> >
> > 2. if God decides to reward his disciple- in
> this
> > case Lon Solomon down here on Earth, so be it.
> God
> > is just, so I'm taking LS must have done
> something
> > right ...Being jealous of his house doesn't
> really
> > lead anywhere, except maybe to some inner
> > bitterness...
> >
> > 3. MBC is huge indeed (not sure why they made
> it
> > so big) and it's easy to feel lost and alone in
> > the beginning, but I believe attending
> regularly
> > and joining a small group, or community group
> can
> > help building relationships among people...
> >
> > 4. the post about absolution vouchers is just
> > RIDICULOUS...too many movies seen, I think...
> >
> > Anyway, hope we all find inner peace and the
> right
> > church to belong to....
>
>
> at the risk of repeating myself to people who
> don't have the sense to realize that there is no
> god and that all churches/religions are scams to
> fleece the unthinking and scared
>
> every few Sundays one of the religious nutters
> turns up with their inane attempts to get in a mid
> ranking god-bother's good books
>
> where do they find these impressionable
> knuckleheads
>
> no invisible man in the sky,
> no soul,
> no heaven,
> no salvation,
> you live, you die - finito benito
> only the math remains
>
> come up with a shred of evidence, or even a
> rational argument, for anything else - then we can
> have a reasonable conversation
That is why it is called FAITH. However, it remains truth that the more that is dug out of the ground, the more the Bible is proved to be true. Is it what it is because Jesus said it is. Period. End of story. No further discussion required.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 15, 2010 08:17AM
Matt0681 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is why it is called FAITH.
Faith is believing in something while admitting there is no evidence for it. Why believe in that something instead of some other thing? In other words, since both Zoroastrianism and Christianity are equal in terms of lack of evidence, why be a Christian?
> However, it
> remains truth that the more that is dug out of the
> ground, the more the Bible is proved to be true.
No it doesn't. In fact, the more that is uncovered the more unreliable the bible is shown to be. The earth is not the center of the universe. There was not a world wide flood. There most likely was no exodus. I could go on and on.
> Is it what it is because Jesus said it is.
> Period. End of story. No further discussion
> required.
Nonsense - we should question authorities. Remember, people held the same position about Stalin. Using your reasoning, that was the exact right thing to do.
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is why it is called FAITH.
Faith is believing in something while admitting there is no evidence for it. Why believe in that something instead of some other thing? In other words, since both Zoroastrianism and Christianity are equal in terms of lack of evidence, why be a Christian?
> However, it
> remains truth that the more that is dug out of the
> ground, the more the Bible is proved to be true.
No it doesn't. In fact, the more that is uncovered the more unreliable the bible is shown to be. The earth is not the center of the universe. There was not a world wide flood. There most likely was no exodus. I could go on and on.
> Is it what it is because Jesus said it is.
> Period. End of story. No further discussion
> required.
Nonsense - we should question authorities. Remember, people held the same position about Stalin. Using your reasoning, that was the exact right thing to do.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: March 15, 2010 01:17PM
> > come up with a shred of evidence, or even a
> > rational argument, for anything else - then we
> can
> > have a reasonable conversation
>
> That is why it is called FAITH. However, it
> remains truth that the more that is dug out of the
> ground, the more the Bible is proved to be true.
> Is it what it is because Jesus said it is.
> Period. End of story. No further discussion
> required.
'fraid I have to call BS on that
Just because you find some walls in cities mentioned in the Jewish mythologies does not vindicate any of the supernatural claims of the bible or any other religion.
Just because we have the acropolis doesn't mean that we should go around believing in cyclops and just because we have viking ship burials doesn't mean we should start bowing down to the Valkyrie
Ancient societies had to explain the world with the intellectual tools that they had at the time - which is why you have N+1 faiths which all hold mutually incompatible and outdated beliefs. We now have better tools and aren't stuck with being scared of Zeus' bolt or Odin's hammer
The more we dig out of the ground, cosmology, our DNA and the way our minds work the more it destroys the fundamental basis of Christianity and all religions
Faith is for the lazy - when the facts don't line up with your faith, you have to stop ramming it down society's throat.
Wake up and smell the roses
> > rational argument, for anything else - then we
> can
> > have a reasonable conversation
>
> That is why it is called FAITH. However, it
> remains truth that the more that is dug out of the
> ground, the more the Bible is proved to be true.
> Is it what it is because Jesus said it is.
> Period. End of story. No further discussion
> required.
'fraid I have to call BS on that
Just because you find some walls in cities mentioned in the Jewish mythologies does not vindicate any of the supernatural claims of the bible or any other religion.
Just because we have the acropolis doesn't mean that we should go around believing in cyclops and just because we have viking ship burials doesn't mean we should start bowing down to the Valkyrie
Ancient societies had to explain the world with the intellectual tools that they had at the time - which is why you have N+1 faiths which all hold mutually incompatible and outdated beliefs. We now have better tools and aren't stuck with being scared of Zeus' bolt or Odin's hammer
The more we dig out of the ground, cosmology, our DNA and the way our minds work the more it destroys the fundamental basis of Christianity and all religions
Faith is for the lazy - when the facts don't line up with your faith, you have to stop ramming it down society's throat.
Wake up and smell the roses
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Matt0681
()
Date: March 15, 2010 04:57PM
OK... If I'm wrong about my faith, (I'm not) I've lost nothing in this life by following the Word of God. If you guys are right, and we do in fact fade to black upon death, what did you gain by consistently denying the living Christ?
I'd rather err on the side of caution so I know I won't spend an eternity in hell.
I've found a home at McLean Bible Church and am proud to say that I am Christian. It's not a religion, it's a relationship.
I'd rather err on the side of caution so I know I won't spend an eternity in hell.
I've found a home at McLean Bible Church and am proud to say that I am Christian. It's not a religion, it's a relationship.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Kenny_Powers
()
Date: March 15, 2010 05:30PM
Matt0681 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK... If I'm wrong about my faith, (I'm not) I've
> lost nothing in this life by following the Word of
> God. If you guys are right, and we do in fact
> fade to black upon death, what did you gain by
> consistently denying the living Christ?
well if you are wrong, you have waisted this life in preperation for the next. The human experience is not simply limited to obeying laws from on high. what we gain is freedom. freedom to think for ourselves, freedom to make moral decisions on our own with out being told how to.
>
> I'd rather err on the side of caution so I know I
> won't spend an eternity in hell.
again, one of my biggest problems with religion. Fear of punishment should not be a factor in making moral decisions. Ive seen people who have no faith in god, or any religion, make much more ethical decisions than the most devout christian.
>
> I've found a home at McLean Bible Church and am
> proud to say that I am Christian. It's not a
> religion, it's a relationship.
thats too big for a bumper sticker i think.
I dont understand this new form of christianity, where you simply need to "believe jesus is your savior". In order to be considered a true christian, shouldnt you follow the bible to the T? which clearly shows that the path to heaven is narrow, and the gates of hell are wide. Thus meaning , if you miss a sunday of church, straight to hell, you lie to your parents about staying up late, straight to hell, etc. This selectively picking and choosing which rules or beliefs we follow is bullshit. "god is loving" , bullshit the bible is full of his wrath and his unsimpathetic anger. Why do you need to follow a book, or another person to have a relationship with "god", or a creator, or existance, whatever the fuck you want to call it?
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK... If I'm wrong about my faith, (I'm not) I've
> lost nothing in this life by following the Word of
> God. If you guys are right, and we do in fact
> fade to black upon death, what did you gain by
> consistently denying the living Christ?
well if you are wrong, you have waisted this life in preperation for the next. The human experience is not simply limited to obeying laws from on high. what we gain is freedom. freedom to think for ourselves, freedom to make moral decisions on our own with out being told how to.
>
> I'd rather err on the side of caution so I know I
> won't spend an eternity in hell.
again, one of my biggest problems with religion. Fear of punishment should not be a factor in making moral decisions. Ive seen people who have no faith in god, or any religion, make much more ethical decisions than the most devout christian.
>
> I've found a home at McLean Bible Church and am
> proud to say that I am Christian. It's not a
> religion, it's a relationship.
thats too big for a bumper sticker i think.
I dont understand this new form of christianity, where you simply need to "believe jesus is your savior". In order to be considered a true christian, shouldnt you follow the bible to the T? which clearly shows that the path to heaven is narrow, and the gates of hell are wide. Thus meaning , if you miss a sunday of church, straight to hell, you lie to your parents about staying up late, straight to hell, etc. This selectively picking and choosing which rules or beliefs we follow is bullshit. "god is loving" , bullshit the bible is full of his wrath and his unsimpathetic anger. Why do you need to follow a book, or another person to have a relationship with "god", or a creator, or existance, whatever the fuck you want to call it?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: March 15, 2010 05:38PM
Matt0681 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK... If I'm wrong about my faith, (I'm not) I've
> lost nothing in this life by following the Word of
> God. If you guys are right, and we do in fact
> fade to black upon death, what did you gain by
> consistently denying the living Christ?
>
> I'd rather err on the side of caution so I know I
> won't spend an eternity in hell.
>
> I've found a home at McLean Bible Church and am
> proud to say that I am Christian. It's not a
> religion, it's a relationship.
religion is not a neutral act - especially in the US - it has consequences
Christians :
expect to be able to distort the minds of young children even in our schools
expect to have 'under god' in the pledge (unconstitutionally) - parotted by kids everyday
whine that 'faith' groups should have more influence in government
demand tax breaks
clog up the roads on sundays
demand laws based on religious mumbo jumbo rather than reason
enable the justification of unnecessary wars through religious bigotry
demand that US supports continued wars of aggression which threaten to drag us all into chaos - just because you think that Armageddon is coming
deny birth-control in poor developing nations dooming them to cyclical poverty
justify discrimination against women, homosexuals etc
religion is not a relationship - its a poison which should be stripped out of society
apart from that, I don't have many problems with religion (well that, and its provably wrong - see exhaustive explanations in the threads above)
[if you belong to a sub-cult that doesn't agree with 1 or more of these - please explain in exhaustive detail why you shouldn't be bundled in with the other sub-cults that do]
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK... If I'm wrong about my faith, (I'm not) I've
> lost nothing in this life by following the Word of
> God. If you guys are right, and we do in fact
> fade to black upon death, what did you gain by
> consistently denying the living Christ?
>
> I'd rather err on the side of caution so I know I
> won't spend an eternity in hell.
>
> I've found a home at McLean Bible Church and am
> proud to say that I am Christian. It's not a
> religion, it's a relationship.
religion is not a neutral act - especially in the US - it has consequences
Christians :
expect to be able to distort the minds of young children even in our schools
expect to have 'under god' in the pledge (unconstitutionally) - parotted by kids everyday
whine that 'faith' groups should have more influence in government
demand tax breaks
clog up the roads on sundays
demand laws based on religious mumbo jumbo rather than reason
enable the justification of unnecessary wars through religious bigotry
demand that US supports continued wars of aggression which threaten to drag us all into chaos - just because you think that Armageddon is coming
deny birth-control in poor developing nations dooming them to cyclical poverty
justify discrimination against women, homosexuals etc
religion is not a relationship - its a poison which should be stripped out of society
apart from that, I don't have many problems with religion (well that, and its provably wrong - see exhaustive explanations in the threads above)
[if you belong to a sub-cult that doesn't agree with 1 or more of these - please explain in exhaustive detail why you shouldn't be bundled in with the other sub-cults that do]
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: March 15, 2010 05:59PM
finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > > come up with a shred of evidence, or even a
> > > rational argument, for anything else - then
> we
> > can
> > > have a reasonable conversation
> >
> > That is why it is called FAITH. However, it
> > remains truth that the more that is dug out of
> the
> > ground, the more the Bible is proved to be true.
>
> > Is it what it is because Jesus said it is.
> > Period. End of story. No further discussion
> > required.
>
>
> 'fraid I have to call BS on that
>
>
> Just because you find some walls in cities
> mentioned in the Jewish mythologies does not
> vindicate any of the supernatural claims of the
> bible or any other religion.
>
> Just because we have the acropolis doesn't mean
> that we should go around believing in cyclops and
> just because we have viking ship burials doesn't
> mean we should start bowing down to the Valkyrie
>
> Ancient societies had to explain the world with
> the intellectual tools that they had at the time -
> which is why you have N+1 faiths which all hold
> mutually incompatible and outdated beliefs. We now
> have better tools and aren't stuck with being
> scared of Zeus' bolt or Odin's hammer
>
> The more we dig out of the ground, cosmology, our
> DNA and the way our minds work the more it
> destroys the fundamental basis of Christianity and
> all religions
>
> Faith is for the lazy - when the facts don't line
> up with your faith, you have to stop ramming it
> down society's throat.
>
> Wake up and smell the roses
Amazing isn't it - how science has yet to explain why some of the ancient civilizations had technology that no can explain how they could have had much of it back then.
I have to laugh at your last post - denying birth control? Sure, the religious groups don't give out condoms to everyone - but oh yeah, they are the only ones there really giving a shit about the third world countries. When the large atheist group gets together to send folks down to Africa and the poorest third world countries to help them out, then please, get up on your high horse. Maybe the French should spend a little less time down there destabilizing those countries so they can continue to take all their mineral wealth - or are you too shallow to understand WHY those countries over there are so poor and destitute?
Yeah, those secular French folks - they are the saviors huh? Motivated by nothing other then their care for the poor and downtrodden... lol
I know it is inconvenient history for you, but the Constitution does not mandate a separation of Church and State. It merely says that Congress can pass no law establishing religion, or the free exercise of religion. That people have twisted this somehow to mean that funding an institution that teaches on religious principles is mandating a state religion, or inhibiting the free exercise of religion is an amazing twisting of logic and facts in evidence.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
-------------------------------------------------------
> > > come up with a shred of evidence, or even a
> > > rational argument, for anything else - then
> we
> > can
> > > have a reasonable conversation
> >
> > That is why it is called FAITH. However, it
> > remains truth that the more that is dug out of
> the
> > ground, the more the Bible is proved to be true.
>
> > Is it what it is because Jesus said it is.
> > Period. End of story. No further discussion
> > required.
>
>
> 'fraid I have to call BS on that
>
>
> Just because you find some walls in cities
> mentioned in the Jewish mythologies does not
> vindicate any of the supernatural claims of the
> bible or any other religion.
>
> Just because we have the acropolis doesn't mean
> that we should go around believing in cyclops and
> just because we have viking ship burials doesn't
> mean we should start bowing down to the Valkyrie
>
> Ancient societies had to explain the world with
> the intellectual tools that they had at the time -
> which is why you have N+1 faiths which all hold
> mutually incompatible and outdated beliefs. We now
> have better tools and aren't stuck with being
> scared of Zeus' bolt or Odin's hammer
>
> The more we dig out of the ground, cosmology, our
> DNA and the way our minds work the more it
> destroys the fundamental basis of Christianity and
> all religions
>
> Faith is for the lazy - when the facts don't line
> up with your faith, you have to stop ramming it
> down society's throat.
>
> Wake up and smell the roses
Amazing isn't it - how science has yet to explain why some of the ancient civilizations had technology that no can explain how they could have had much of it back then.
I have to laugh at your last post - denying birth control? Sure, the religious groups don't give out condoms to everyone - but oh yeah, they are the only ones there really giving a shit about the third world countries. When the large atheist group gets together to send folks down to Africa and the poorest third world countries to help them out, then please, get up on your high horse. Maybe the French should spend a little less time down there destabilizing those countries so they can continue to take all their mineral wealth - or are you too shallow to understand WHY those countries over there are so poor and destitute?
Yeah, those secular French folks - they are the saviors huh? Motivated by nothing other then their care for the poor and downtrodden... lol
I know it is inconvenient history for you, but the Constitution does not mandate a separation of Church and State. It merely says that Congress can pass no law establishing religion, or the free exercise of religion. That people have twisted this somehow to mean that funding an institution that teaches on religious principles is mandating a state religion, or inhibiting the free exercise of religion is an amazing twisting of logic and facts in evidence.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Jimmy Jack
()
Date: March 15, 2010 07:30PM
Bible thumpers, the god squad, religious freaks...it really doesn't matter what you call them, because they are all mindless idiots giving up their hard earned money...the poor saps.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
abc123
()
Date: March 15, 2010 09:33PM
>The more we dig out of the ground, cosmology, our DNA and the way our minds work the more it destroys the fundamental basis of Christianity and all religions
Funny how you have all the facts and you end up drawing a wrong conclusion...
In our quest to unfold the mysteries of the universe we try to dig everything out, try to find a scientific explanation for everything, and in many instances we do manage to understand the world around us...But after a while we get to a dead end, because there is a limit to what our brain can process...In fact, the more you look into things, the more you realize how little you know and how little you are...What is sillier: to have all the facts and to believe that we owe everything to chance? or to have all the facts and believe that there is a mastermind behind creation of the world?
>Fear of punishment should not be a factor in making moral decisions.
True. We should give our lives to God because He gave everything for us. It should be an act of gratitude, but one cannot take this step unless he truly understand the mercy of God.
>apart from that, I don't have many problems with religion (well that, and its provably wrong - see exhaustive explanations in the threads above)
Well, this is a fine example of stereotyping people or groups...Only because you have had some negative experiences with people who claim to be christians, it doesn't mean that all christians are the same, believe the same, or act the same...Christianity is a way too broad concept, it is inaccurate to put everyone under the same umbrella. The benchmark for christianity is the Bible. If someone claims to be Christian, but it does not follow the Bible, than something is wrong.
>I dont understand this new form of christianity, where you simply need to "believe jesus is your savior".
James 2:14-17 (NIV)
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it not accompanied by action, is dead.
Just stating that I'm Christian is not enough...Ones life has to be a living proof of ones faith...And yes, we are not perfect, even though we commit to living by the word, we still fail to do the right thing every time...This is where mercy comes into the picture...
Funny how you have all the facts and you end up drawing a wrong conclusion...
In our quest to unfold the mysteries of the universe we try to dig everything out, try to find a scientific explanation for everything, and in many instances we do manage to understand the world around us...But after a while we get to a dead end, because there is a limit to what our brain can process...In fact, the more you look into things, the more you realize how little you know and how little you are...What is sillier: to have all the facts and to believe that we owe everything to chance? or to have all the facts and believe that there is a mastermind behind creation of the world?
>Fear of punishment should not be a factor in making moral decisions.
True. We should give our lives to God because He gave everything for us. It should be an act of gratitude, but one cannot take this step unless he truly understand the mercy of God.
>apart from that, I don't have many problems with religion (well that, and its provably wrong - see exhaustive explanations in the threads above)
Well, this is a fine example of stereotyping people or groups...Only because you have had some negative experiences with people who claim to be christians, it doesn't mean that all christians are the same, believe the same, or act the same...Christianity is a way too broad concept, it is inaccurate to put everyone under the same umbrella. The benchmark for christianity is the Bible. If someone claims to be Christian, but it does not follow the Bible, than something is wrong.
>I dont understand this new form of christianity, where you simply need to "believe jesus is your savior".
James 2:14-17 (NIV)
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it not accompanied by action, is dead.
Just stating that I'm Christian is not enough...Ones life has to be a living proof of ones faith...And yes, we are not perfect, even though we commit to living by the word, we still fail to do the right thing every time...This is where mercy comes into the picture...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
NegativeDreamStealer
()
Date: March 15, 2010 09:41PM
> I'd rather err on the side of caution so I know I
> won't spend an eternity in hell.
In that case, why not thoroughly hedge your bets and subscribe to all religions? And I do mean "all," not just the Middle Eastern ones like Christianity and Islam.
This is what many folks in Hong Kong do. Pragmatic.
> I have to laugh at your last post - denying birth control?
> Sure, the religious groups don't give out condoms to everyone -
> but oh yeah, they are the only ones there really giving a shit
> about the third world countries
Like the Baptists who were caught scavenging Haitian non-orphans to sell to Protestant Christian foreigners?
> won't spend an eternity in hell.
In that case, why not thoroughly hedge your bets and subscribe to all religions? And I do mean "all," not just the Middle Eastern ones like Christianity and Islam.
This is what many folks in Hong Kong do. Pragmatic.
> I have to laugh at your last post - denying birth control?
> Sure, the religious groups don't give out condoms to everyone -
> but oh yeah, they are the only ones there really giving a shit
> about the third world countries
Like the Baptists who were caught scavenging Haitian non-orphans to sell to Protestant Christian foreigners?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
laughing at Lon's victims
()
Date: March 15, 2010 11:30PM
A few weeks ago I was driving by that church and there were ex-members or current members out with signs protesting Lon Solomans's secret salary & benefit package. I stopped on the service road and spoke to one of them but couldn't talk much because some media lady was there interviewing one of the protesters for an article in the Washington post (so she claims). We may be reading all about the guys huge salary soon, LOL. Apparently he has a compensation package of around $800,000 and gets three months off every year. Pretty funny that a bunch of suckers are giving to such a massive scam, but picketing a church is bizarre.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 16, 2010 08:09AM
Matt0681 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK... If I'm wrong about my faith, (I'm not)
How do you know you aren't wrong about your *FAITH*?
> I've
> lost nothing in this life by following the Word of
> God.
Pascal's wager is singularly unimpressive. What if the Egyptian worldview is right? Then you are screwed since you didn't bother to memorize the book of the dead!
> If you guys are right, and we do in fact
> fade to black upon death, what did you gain by
> consistently denying the living Christ?
For one thing, I get to think for myself and I don't burden myself with a slave relationship based on extortion as the Christians do.
> I'd rather err on the side of caution so I know I
> won't spend an eternity in hell.
But you *aren't* actually erring on the side of caution, you are taking the lazy way out and accepting the beliefs of your parents/society. What if Zoroastrianism is true? Then you are working for Ahiriman and will be destroyed at the judgment.
> I've found a home at McLean Bible Church and am
> proud to say that I am Christian. It's not a
> religion, it's a relationship.
All religions are 'relationships', yours is nothing special.
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK... If I'm wrong about my faith, (I'm not)
How do you know you aren't wrong about your *FAITH*?
> I've
> lost nothing in this life by following the Word of
> God.
Pascal's wager is singularly unimpressive. What if the Egyptian worldview is right? Then you are screwed since you didn't bother to memorize the book of the dead!
> If you guys are right, and we do in fact
> fade to black upon death, what did you gain by
> consistently denying the living Christ?
For one thing, I get to think for myself and I don't burden myself with a slave relationship based on extortion as the Christians do.
> I'd rather err on the side of caution so I know I
> won't spend an eternity in hell.
But you *aren't* actually erring on the side of caution, you are taking the lazy way out and accepting the beliefs of your parents/society. What if Zoroastrianism is true? Then you are working for Ahiriman and will be destroyed at the judgment.
> I've found a home at McLean Bible Church and am
> proud to say that I am Christian. It's not a
> religion, it's a relationship.
All religions are 'relationships', yours is nothing special.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 16, 2010 08:12AM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amazing isn't it - how science has yet to explain
> why some of the ancient civilizations had
> technology that no can explain how they could have
> had much of it back then.
?
I'm not sure why you find it amazing that there are things about the past that haven't been uncovered.
> I have to laugh at your last post - denying birth
> control? Sure, the religious groups don't give out
> condoms to everyone - but oh yeah, they are the
> only ones there really giving a shit about the
> third world countries. When the large atheist
> group gets together to send folks down to Africa
> and the poorest third world countries to help them
> out, then please, get up on your high horse.
What *large* group of atheists? This is a strawman.
> Maybe
> the French should spend a little less time down
> there destabilizing those countries so they can
> continue to take all their mineral wealth - or are
> you too shallow to understand WHY those countries
> over there are so poor and destitute?
>
> Yeah, those secular French folks - they are the
> saviors huh? Motivated by nothing other then their
> care for the poor and downtrodden... lol
Strawman.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amazing isn't it - how science has yet to explain
> why some of the ancient civilizations had
> technology that no can explain how they could have
> had much of it back then.
?
I'm not sure why you find it amazing that there are things about the past that haven't been uncovered.
> I have to laugh at your last post - denying birth
> control? Sure, the religious groups don't give out
> condoms to everyone - but oh yeah, they are the
> only ones there really giving a shit about the
> third world countries. When the large atheist
> group gets together to send folks down to Africa
> and the poorest third world countries to help them
> out, then please, get up on your high horse.
What *large* group of atheists? This is a strawman.
> Maybe
> the French should spend a little less time down
> there destabilizing those countries so they can
> continue to take all their mineral wealth - or are
> you too shallow to understand WHY those countries
> over there are so poor and destitute?
>
> Yeah, those secular French folks - they are the
> saviors huh? Motivated by nothing other then their
> care for the poor and downtrodden... lol
Strawman.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 16, 2010 08:15AM
abc123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >The more we dig out of the ground, cosmology, our
> DNA and the way our minds work the more it
> destroys the fundamental basis of Christianity and
> all religions
>
>
> Funny how you have all the facts and you end up
> drawing a wrong conclusion...
> In our quest to unfold the mysteries of the
> universe we try to dig everything out, try to find
> a scientific explanation for everything, and in
> many instances we do manage to understand the
> world around us...But after a while we get to a
> dead end, because there is a limit to what our
> brain can process...In fact, the more you look
> into things, the more you realize how little you
> know and how little you are...
This is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to ignorance. We don't know the cause of X, therefore it's magic/god/etc.
> What is sillier: to
> have all the facts and to believe that we owe
> everything to chance? or to have all the facts and
> believe that there is a mastermind behind creation
> of the world?
Atheistic worldviews do not require things to be because of 'chance'. The 'sillier' option is the one that requires magic, which is the one you hold to.
> >Fear of punishment should not be a factor in
> making moral decisions.
>
> True. We should give our lives to God because He
> gave everything for us. It should be an act of
> gratitude, but one cannot take this step unless he
> truly understand the mercy of God.
And if one doesn't understand it, they are cast into the pit of hell. This is called extortion.
> >apart from that, I don't have many problems with
> religion (well that, and its provably wrong - see
> exhaustive explanations in the threads above)
>
> Well, this is a fine example of stereotyping
> people or groups...Only because you have had some
> negative experiences with people who claim to be
> christians, it doesn't mean that all christians
> are the same, believe the same, or act the
> same...Christianity is a way too broad concept, it
> is inaccurate to put everyone under the same
> umbrella. The benchmark for christianity is the
> Bible. If someone claims to be Christian, but it
> does not follow the Bible, than something is
> wrong.
I broadly agree with this although you are setting yourself up for a no true scotsman fallacy.
-------------------------------------------------------
> >The more we dig out of the ground, cosmology, our
> DNA and the way our minds work the more it
> destroys the fundamental basis of Christianity and
> all religions
>
>
> Funny how you have all the facts and you end up
> drawing a wrong conclusion...
> In our quest to unfold the mysteries of the
> universe we try to dig everything out, try to find
> a scientific explanation for everything, and in
> many instances we do manage to understand the
> world around us...But after a while we get to a
> dead end, because there is a limit to what our
> brain can process...In fact, the more you look
> into things, the more you realize how little you
> know and how little you are...
This is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to ignorance. We don't know the cause of X, therefore it's magic/god/etc.
> What is sillier: to
> have all the facts and to believe that we owe
> everything to chance? or to have all the facts and
> believe that there is a mastermind behind creation
> of the world?
Atheistic worldviews do not require things to be because of 'chance'. The 'sillier' option is the one that requires magic, which is the one you hold to.
> >Fear of punishment should not be a factor in
> making moral decisions.
>
> True. We should give our lives to God because He
> gave everything for us. It should be an act of
> gratitude, but one cannot take this step unless he
> truly understand the mercy of God.
And if one doesn't understand it, they are cast into the pit of hell. This is called extortion.
> >apart from that, I don't have many problems with
> religion (well that, and its provably wrong - see
> exhaustive explanations in the threads above)
>
> Well, this is a fine example of stereotyping
> people or groups...Only because you have had some
> negative experiences with people who claim to be
> christians, it doesn't mean that all christians
> are the same, believe the same, or act the
> same...Christianity is a way too broad concept, it
> is inaccurate to put everyone under the same
> umbrella. The benchmark for christianity is the
> Bible. If someone claims to be Christian, but it
> does not follow the Bible, than something is
> wrong.
I broadly agree with this although you are setting yourself up for a no true scotsman fallacy.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: March 16, 2010 08:44AM
Hey PP - bite me.
My point was that even with all the folks looking into issues from the past they still don't know everything, nor have scientists unlocked all the secrets of the universe. While I don't subscribe to formal religion myself, I don't spend my time trying to tear it down - no one here has proven there isn't A GOD - of whatever religion it might be. Folks want to believe in deities or not, that is their choice. And for some people it is probably good for them. Just because you are a smarmy prick, doesn't mean everyone else is.
The person that put forth that folks were not given birth control in third world countries was pushing a stupid, and "strawman" argument. Perhaps you can prove that person wrong in your own way. Their point was that religious groups were behind why these countries couldn't get birth control, and that somehow that was the key to keeping them in perpetual poverty. Feel free to argue against their point.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
My point was that even with all the folks looking into issues from the past they still don't know everything, nor have scientists unlocked all the secrets of the universe. While I don't subscribe to formal religion myself, I don't spend my time trying to tear it down - no one here has proven there isn't A GOD - of whatever religion it might be. Folks want to believe in deities or not, that is their choice. And for some people it is probably good for them. Just because you are a smarmy prick, doesn't mean everyone else is.
The person that put forth that folks were not given birth control in third world countries was pushing a stupid, and "strawman" argument. Perhaps you can prove that person wrong in your own way. Their point was that religious groups were behind why these countries couldn't get birth control, and that somehow that was the key to keeping them in perpetual poverty. Feel free to argue against their point.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: March 16, 2010 09:01AM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey PP - bite me.
>
>
> The person that put forth that folks were not
> given birth control in third world countries was
> pushing a stupid, and "strawman" argument.
well - that would have been me
The catholic church - the one with the best established record of being christian and probably the worst record of wiping out dissent and native societies of anyone since the Romans, has been a rabid opponent to birth control in developing nations.
But for an organization that has systemically condoned the physical and sexual abuse of children in many countries, this shouldn't be surprising
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey PP - bite me.
>
>
> The person that put forth that folks were not
> given birth control in third world countries was
> pushing a stupid, and "strawman" argument.
well - that would have been me
The catholic church - the one with the best established record of being christian and probably the worst record of wiping out dissent and native societies of anyone since the Romans, has been a rabid opponent to birth control in developing nations.
But for an organization that has systemically condoned the physical and sexual abuse of children in many countries, this shouldn't be surprising
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: March 16, 2010 09:21AM
They are against birth control EVERYWHERE.
What a stupid argument you made.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
What a stupid argument you made.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: March 16, 2010 09:22AM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amazing isn't it - how science has yet to explain
> why some of the ancient civilizations had
> technology that no can explain how they could have
> had much of it back then.
What?
A Von Danikan moment - I haven't seen one of those of years :)
Give an example?
Are you suggesting that the technologies used by ancient civilizations must have been given to them by aliens/angels/demons/leprachauns/step-by-step instructions on tablets of gold?
The fact that we have not been a stone based society for thousands of years would suggest that we don't train for the extremes of stone engineering - or the scales of labor and time available to some of the most impressive feats
I've yet to see anything that indicates any supernatural or extraterrestrial involvement in terrestrial engineering
>
> I know it is inconvenient history for you, but the
> Constitution does not mandate a separation of
> Church and State. It merely says that Congress can
> pass no law establishing religion, or the free
> exercise of religion. That people have twisted
> this somehow to mean that funding an institution
> that teaches on religious principles is mandating
> a state religion, or inhibiting the free exercise
> of religion is an amazing twisting of logic and
> facts in evidence.
We have to disagree - I read the constitution to include using my tax dollars (under law) to fund a religious institution for any purpose as an 'institution'.
Given that the constitution was written as the pillars of religion were only just beginning to crumble, this was quite insightful of the framers.
The final intellectual foundations of religion were destroyed in the late 19th century (as we began to understand the evolutionary process), the early 20th century (as we began to understand physics) and the late 20th century as we began to really understand cosmology, biochemistry and neuroscience.
The framers didn't kill the intellectual underpinings of god, but copernicus, newton, darwin, mendel, crick, watson, einstein and NASA did.
As dawkins point out, until we understood many of these things, there was no supportable alternative to an appeal to faith and superstition. But now we do, faith has been shown to be a dead-end, and the world as we see it is best explained by science. In fact, faith does not even offer any explanations for the remaining gaps that scientific observation and experimentation are currently filling in.
Q. How does gravity work?
A. God's got strings attached to all the bits and tugs continually
Q. how does the mind work?
A. God snuck this invisible bit in there because he loves you
Q. why are the stars moving apart?
A. God dropped some of the strings
Time to put aside childish things
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amazing isn't it - how science has yet to explain
> why some of the ancient civilizations had
> technology that no can explain how they could have
> had much of it back then.
What?
A Von Danikan moment - I haven't seen one of those of years :)
Give an example?
Are you suggesting that the technologies used by ancient civilizations must have been given to them by aliens/angels/demons/leprachauns/step-by-step instructions on tablets of gold?
The fact that we have not been a stone based society for thousands of years would suggest that we don't train for the extremes of stone engineering - or the scales of labor and time available to some of the most impressive feats
I've yet to see anything that indicates any supernatural or extraterrestrial involvement in terrestrial engineering
>
> I know it is inconvenient history for you, but the
> Constitution does not mandate a separation of
> Church and State. It merely says that Congress can
> pass no law establishing religion, or the free
> exercise of religion. That people have twisted
> this somehow to mean that funding an institution
> that teaches on religious principles is mandating
> a state religion, or inhibiting the free exercise
> of religion is an amazing twisting of logic and
> facts in evidence.
We have to disagree - I read the constitution to include using my tax dollars (under law) to fund a religious institution for any purpose as an 'institution'.
Given that the constitution was written as the pillars of religion were only just beginning to crumble, this was quite insightful of the framers.
The final intellectual foundations of religion were destroyed in the late 19th century (as we began to understand the evolutionary process), the early 20th century (as we began to understand physics) and the late 20th century as we began to really understand cosmology, biochemistry and neuroscience.
The framers didn't kill the intellectual underpinings of god, but copernicus, newton, darwin, mendel, crick, watson, einstein and NASA did.
As dawkins point out, until we understood many of these things, there was no supportable alternative to an appeal to faith and superstition. But now we do, faith has been shown to be a dead-end, and the world as we see it is best explained by science. In fact, faith does not even offer any explanations for the remaining gaps that scientific observation and experimentation are currently filling in.
Q. How does gravity work?
A. God's got strings attached to all the bits and tugs continually
Q. how does the mind work?
A. God snuck this invisible bit in there because he loves you
Q. why are the stars moving apart?
A. God dropped some of the strings
Time to put aside childish things
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: March 16, 2010 09:25AM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They are against birth control EVERYWHERE.
>
> What a stupid argument you made.
Exactly - and by attempting to force this on developing nations they condemn millions to poverty and early death
They should feel free to not use birth control in their own homes but keep their views out of other people's lives
The strangle hold that the Catholic church has built up over poor nations over centuries continues to have terrible consequences.
This is an example of why you cannot be neutral on religion
-------------------------------------------------------
> They are against birth control EVERYWHERE.
>
> What a stupid argument you made.
Exactly - and by attempting to force this on developing nations they condemn millions to poverty and early death
They should feel free to not use birth control in their own homes but keep their views out of other people's lives
The strangle hold that the Catholic church has built up over poor nations over centuries continues to have terrible consequences.
This is an example of why you cannot be neutral on religion
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 16, 2010 09:38AM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey PP - bite me.
No.
> My point was that even with all the folks looking
> into issues from the past they still don't know
> everything, nor have scientists unlocked all the
> secrets of the universe.
Yes, and this is relevant how?
> While I don't subscribe
> to formal religion myself, I don't spend my time
> trying to tear it down - no one here has proven
> there isn't A GOD - of whatever religion it might
> be.
No one has to prove there isn't a God - to demand that would be to demand that an appeal to ignorance is rational. However people do demand that others follow their belief in God, that their God's morality be included into law, that their book be taught as a literal truth - all of this without evidence and in some case without reason.
So those religions *SHOULD* have evidence, if they want a place at the table.
> Folks want to believe in deities or not, that
> is their choice. And for some people it is
> probably good for them. Just because you are a
> smarmy prick, doesn't mean everyone else is.
I have no problem with people believing whatever they want - it's when they step on my toes or my children's toes that it gets annoying. Yes, you can believe in a God who extorts belief through threats. I don't care.
When you want to introduce a silly creation story into a science classroom I *do* care. When you want to introduce bigoted laws because your god doesn't approve of X or Y, I *do* care and furthermore, so should you.
> The person that put forth that folks were not
> given birth control in third world countries was
> pushing a stupid, and "strawman" argument. Perhaps
> you can prove that person wrong in your own way.
The catholic church doesn't support birth control. How is this a strawman?
> Their point was that religious groups were behind
> why these countries couldn't get birth control,
> and that somehow that was the key to keeping them
> in perpetual poverty. Feel free to argue against
> their point.
I'm not arguing that. I would argue that the catholic church impinges on the believers safety by including ridiculous proclamations against birth control.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey PP - bite me.
No.
> My point was that even with all the folks looking
> into issues from the past they still don't know
> everything, nor have scientists unlocked all the
> secrets of the universe.
Yes, and this is relevant how?
> While I don't subscribe
> to formal religion myself, I don't spend my time
> trying to tear it down - no one here has proven
> there isn't A GOD - of whatever religion it might
> be.
No one has to prove there isn't a God - to demand that would be to demand that an appeal to ignorance is rational. However people do demand that others follow their belief in God, that their God's morality be included into law, that their book be taught as a literal truth - all of this without evidence and in some case without reason.
So those religions *SHOULD* have evidence, if they want a place at the table.
> Folks want to believe in deities or not, that
> is their choice. And for some people it is
> probably good for them. Just because you are a
> smarmy prick, doesn't mean everyone else is.
I have no problem with people believing whatever they want - it's when they step on my toes or my children's toes that it gets annoying. Yes, you can believe in a God who extorts belief through threats. I don't care.
When you want to introduce a silly creation story into a science classroom I *do* care. When you want to introduce bigoted laws because your god doesn't approve of X or Y, I *do* care and furthermore, so should you.
> The person that put forth that folks were not
> given birth control in third world countries was
> pushing a stupid, and "strawman" argument. Perhaps
> you can prove that person wrong in your own way.
The catholic church doesn't support birth control. How is this a strawman?
> Their point was that religious groups were behind
> why these countries couldn't get birth control,
> and that somehow that was the key to keeping them
> in perpetual poverty. Feel free to argue against
> their point.
I'm not arguing that. I would argue that the catholic church impinges on the believers safety by including ridiculous proclamations against birth control.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: March 16, 2010 09:50AM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
I would argue that the
> catholic church impinges on the believers safety
> by including ridiculous proclamations against
> birth control.
I'd go further - I'd suggest that such proclamations impinge on the safety of non-believers - particularly in the issue of over population -and even worse with the peculiarly American, Palinist concept of man's 'dominion' over nature in the run-up to the end-times aka "use and destroy at will because it just doesn't matter as the millennium's nearly here"
If religious groups just stayed inside their compounds, then we'd all be much safer
I would argue that the
> catholic church impinges on the believers safety
> by including ridiculous proclamations against
> birth control.
I'd go further - I'd suggest that such proclamations impinge on the safety of non-believers - particularly in the issue of over population -and even worse with the peculiarly American, Palinist concept of man's 'dominion' over nature in the run-up to the end-times aka "use and destroy at will because it just doesn't matter as the millennium's nearly here"
If religious groups just stayed inside their compounds, then we'd all be much safer
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
abc123
()
Date: March 16, 2010 11:40AM
Ok, so it seems to me that the discussion has narrowed down to Christianity=Catholic church...In my head these two concepts can barely relate to each other...Although the Catholic church claims to be the founder and corner stone of Christianity, boy, they got it down wrong; they are very far from what the Bible teaches...When I stand up for Christianity, I do not use the term as equivalent to Catholicism...just wanted to make this clear...
>When you want to introduce a silly creation story into a science classroom I *do* care.
Well, I don't want my kid brain washed with silly evolution stories that do not stand.
Probably it would be best to have all theories presented in the classroom in an unbiased way, so that everyone can practice its own free will in deciding what to accept as the ultimate truth.
>When you want to introduce a silly creation story into a science classroom I *do* care.
Well, I don't want my kid brain washed with silly evolution stories that do not stand.
Probably it would be best to have all theories presented in the classroom in an unbiased way, so that everyone can practice its own free will in deciding what to accept as the ultimate truth.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 16, 2010 11:48AM
abc123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok, so it seems to me that the discussion has
> narrowed down to Christianity=Catholic church...In
> my head these two concepts can barely relate to
> each other...
Your head sounds like a strange place then... ;-)
> Although the Catholic church claims
> to be the founder and corner stone of
> Christianity, boy, they got it down wrong; they
> are very far from what the Bible teaches...When I
> stand up for Christianity, I do not use the term
> as equivalent to Catholicism...just wanted to make
> this clear...
I'm sure they, and 40,000 other sects would claim the same of whatever version of Christianity you accept.
> >When you want to introduce a silly creation story
> into a science classroom I *do* care.
>
> Well, I don't want my kid brain washed with silly
> evolution stories that do not stand.
I see, so you don't understand biology. I'm betting this coincides with your religious training. You shouldn't punish your children by denying them a quality scientific education based on your ignorance.
> Probably it would be best to have all theories
> presented in the classroom in an unbiased way, so
> that everyone can practice its own free will in
> deciding what to accept as the ultimate truth.
All theories? Including lamarkianism and lysenkoism? Guess what, let's say that science should teach all theories, including the two that i mentioned, that would still mean that creationism has no business in the science class room, since creationism is *NOT* a scientific theory.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok, so it seems to me that the discussion has
> narrowed down to Christianity=Catholic church...In
> my head these two concepts can barely relate to
> each other...
Your head sounds like a strange place then... ;-)
> Although the Catholic church claims
> to be the founder and corner stone of
> Christianity, boy, they got it down wrong; they
> are very far from what the Bible teaches...When I
> stand up for Christianity, I do not use the term
> as equivalent to Catholicism...just wanted to make
> this clear...
I'm sure they, and 40,000 other sects would claim the same of whatever version of Christianity you accept.
> >When you want to introduce a silly creation story
> into a science classroom I *do* care.
>
> Well, I don't want my kid brain washed with silly
> evolution stories that do not stand.
I see, so you don't understand biology. I'm betting this coincides with your religious training. You shouldn't punish your children by denying them a quality scientific education based on your ignorance.
> Probably it would be best to have all theories
> presented in the classroom in an unbiased way, so
> that everyone can practice its own free will in
> deciding what to accept as the ultimate truth.
All theories? Including lamarkianism and lysenkoism? Guess what, let's say that science should teach all theories, including the two that i mentioned, that would still mean that creationism has no business in the science class room, since creationism is *NOT* a scientific theory.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 16, 2010 11:51AM
The truth of the matter is that you don't want all theories to be taught. You want *your religious nonsense taught*. You can teach your kids that all you want. You can take them to church and have them learn that crap. Go ahead.
Seriously, I don't see your types trying to get Egyptian creationism taught in the science classroom. Why not, if you want all 'sides' taught (Notice I didn't say 'theories' there?)?
You don't advocate teaching the children every idea out there because you don't actually want every idea taught. Keep your delusions to your own family, but don't force science to teach mythology as though it were validated through the scientific method.
Seriously, I don't see your types trying to get Egyptian creationism taught in the science classroom. Why not, if you want all 'sides' taught (Notice I didn't say 'theories' there?)?
You don't advocate teaching the children every idea out there because you don't actually want every idea taught. Keep your delusions to your own family, but don't force science to teach mythology as though it were validated through the scientific method.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: March 16, 2010 11:53AM
abc123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok, so it seems to me that the discussion has
> narrowed down to Christianity=Catholic church...In
> my head these two concepts can barely relate to
> each other...Although the Catholic church claims
> to be the founder and corner stone of
> Christianity, boy, they got it down wrong; they
> are very far from what the Bible teaches...When I
> stand up for Christianity, I do not use the term
> as equivalent to Catholicism...just wanted to make
> this clear...
This is the bit I love - my cult is more christian than your cult
excellent
just in time for some burning of heretics - excuse me while I go and count the the angels on my pinhead
>
> >When you want to introduce a silly creation story
> into a science classroom I *do* care.
>
> Well, I don't want my kid brain washed with silly
> evolution stories that do not stand.
> Probably it would be best to have all theories
> presented in the classroom in an unbiased way, so
> that everyone can practice its own free will in
> deciding what to accept as the ultimate truth.
Actually, there is a fundamental difference.
There is substantial evidence for evolution - see something like Dawkins' Greatest Show as a primer...
...but none for religious 'faiths' and nothing other dogma and myths than to separate them
faith is not a theory
see 9 long pages of fluff above from the pro-religionists
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok, so it seems to me that the discussion has
> narrowed down to Christianity=Catholic church...In
> my head these two concepts can barely relate to
> each other...Although the Catholic church claims
> to be the founder and corner stone of
> Christianity, boy, they got it down wrong; they
> are very far from what the Bible teaches...When I
> stand up for Christianity, I do not use the term
> as equivalent to Catholicism...just wanted to make
> this clear...
This is the bit I love - my cult is more christian than your cult
excellent
just in time for some burning of heretics - excuse me while I go and count the the angels on my pinhead
>
> >When you want to introduce a silly creation story
> into a science classroom I *do* care.
>
> Well, I don't want my kid brain washed with silly
> evolution stories that do not stand.
> Probably it would be best to have all theories
> presented in the classroom in an unbiased way, so
> that everyone can practice its own free will in
> deciding what to accept as the ultimate truth.
Actually, there is a fundamental difference.
There is substantial evidence for evolution - see something like Dawkins' Greatest Show as a primer...
...but none for religious 'faiths' and nothing other dogma and myths than to separate them
faith is not a theory
see 9 long pages of fluff above from the pro-religionists
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
abc123
()
Date: March 16, 2010 12:42PM
>I see, so you don't understand biology. I'm betting this coincides with your religious training. You shouldn't punish your children by denying them a quality scientific education based on your ignorance.
Funny conclusion you drew here. I'm not punishing my kids, don't worry. Didn't I just say that people need to hear all the aspects of a problem and than decide for themselves?
For those of you outraged by the fact that I said that all theories should be taught, I rephrase and say all "points of view" should be presented. Hope this is less offensive...
>This is the bit I love - my cult is more christian than your cult.
okaaaay, what are we debating here? My point was that Christians are those who believe the word and live by the word. I did not say that belonging to any group out there makes you better or takes you to heaven...only saying that "I am Christian, Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal, Adventist, Baptist, etc" it does not mean a thing...belonging to a denomination, wearing a name doesn't prove anything...How we act day by day does...once again, the Bible is the etalon to Christianity..
Funny conclusion you drew here. I'm not punishing my kids, don't worry. Didn't I just say that people need to hear all the aspects of a problem and than decide for themselves?
For those of you outraged by the fact that I said that all theories should be taught, I rephrase and say all "points of view" should be presented. Hope this is less offensive...
>This is the bit I love - my cult is more christian than your cult.
okaaaay, what are we debating here? My point was that Christians are those who believe the word and live by the word. I did not say that belonging to any group out there makes you better or takes you to heaven...only saying that "I am Christian, Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal, Adventist, Baptist, etc" it does not mean a thing...belonging to a denomination, wearing a name doesn't prove anything...How we act day by day does...once again, the Bible is the etalon to Christianity..
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Albert Muirr
()
Date: March 16, 2010 12:43PM
Ever since NWF sold the property to MBC they've become pretty much a non-entity. Are any of the trails or trees left on the MBC from the old NWF days?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Albert Muirr
()
Date: March 16, 2010 12:43PM
Ever since NWF sold the property to MBC they've become pretty much a non-entity. Are any of the trails or trees left on the MBC property from the old NWF days?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 16, 2010 12:50PM
abc123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >I see, so you don't understand biology. I'm
> betting this coincides with your religious
> training. You shouldn't punish your children by
> denying them a quality scientific education based
> on your ignorance.
>
> Funny conclusion you drew here. I'm not punishing
> my kids, don't worry.
My conclusion is based on experience. If you'd like to prove it wrong, then go ahead. Please explain the following in your own words:
What does science mean by:
Theory
Hypothesis
Evolution
Common Descent
Abiogenesis
> Didn't I just say that
> people need to hear all the aspects of a problem
> and than decide for themselves?
Do you believe that holocaust denial should be taught in history? That the earth could be the center of the universe? That the earth is flat?
> For those of you outraged by the fact that I said
> that all theories should be taught, I rephrase and
> say all "points of view" should be presented. Hope
> this is less offensive...
No, this is more nonsense. So you'd have it taught in science that the reason we don't float into the sky is because angels hold us down? That people get sick because one of the four humors is out of balance? That aids was created by the government?
No, of course you wouldn't, you wouldn't be that silly.
> >This is the bit I love - my cult is more
> christian than your cult.
>
> okaaaay, what are we debating here? My point was
> that Christians are those who believe the word and
> live by the word.
So *you* determine what a 'Christian' is? Who gave you this authority?
> I did not say that belonging to
> any group out there makes you better or takes you
> to heaven...only saying that "I am Christian,
> Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal, Adventist,
> Baptist, etc" it does not mean a thing...belonging
> to a denomination, wearing a name doesn't prove
> anything...How we act day by day does...once
> again, the Bible is the etalon to Christianity..
And who determines whether someone is acting as a Christian or not?
-------------------------------------------------------
> >I see, so you don't understand biology. I'm
> betting this coincides with your religious
> training. You shouldn't punish your children by
> denying them a quality scientific education based
> on your ignorance.
>
> Funny conclusion you drew here. I'm not punishing
> my kids, don't worry.
My conclusion is based on experience. If you'd like to prove it wrong, then go ahead. Please explain the following in your own words:
What does science mean by:
Theory
Hypothesis
Evolution
Common Descent
Abiogenesis
> Didn't I just say that
> people need to hear all the aspects of a problem
> and than decide for themselves?
Do you believe that holocaust denial should be taught in history? That the earth could be the center of the universe? That the earth is flat?
> For those of you outraged by the fact that I said
> that all theories should be taught, I rephrase and
> say all "points of view" should be presented. Hope
> this is less offensive...
No, this is more nonsense. So you'd have it taught in science that the reason we don't float into the sky is because angels hold us down? That people get sick because one of the four humors is out of balance? That aids was created by the government?
No, of course you wouldn't, you wouldn't be that silly.
> >This is the bit I love - my cult is more
> christian than your cult.
>
> okaaaay, what are we debating here? My point was
> that Christians are those who believe the word and
> live by the word.
So *you* determine what a 'Christian' is? Who gave you this authority?
> I did not say that belonging to
> any group out there makes you better or takes you
> to heaven...only saying that "I am Christian,
> Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal, Adventist,
> Baptist, etc" it does not mean a thing...belonging
> to a denomination, wearing a name doesn't prove
> anything...How we act day by day does...once
> again, the Bible is the etalon to Christianity..
And who determines whether someone is acting as a Christian or not?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: March 16, 2010 04:10PM
The argument of atheists:
"We are so smart - we know all the facts about everything, therefor your faith is pointless"
The problem is, again, if you want a secular society go to France. That was the result of their revolution. If you want a state religion, go to the UK - that was their result. If you want to live someplace where all beliefs are welcome, come to America - at least that was the original intent. Today it seems folks who choose to NOT believe in religion means that everyone else has to follow their lead. Sorry, it doesn't work that way in America.
You can choose to go the way that science is proving everything, and that is fine. If you want absolutes taught to your values, then enroll your kids in private schools and cry about how you have to pay taxes for everyone else. Of course if everyone approved school vouchers that would solve a good bit of the problem. But just because science has made great discoveries in how things work - it still has not proven - proven - the origins of the universe and many other related topics. Lots of theories, no proof. Folks that choose the faith based approach have every right to do so. Period. As far as public schools go - that is why they have school boards - argue your case there for curriculum.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
"We are so smart - we know all the facts about everything, therefor your faith is pointless"
The problem is, again, if you want a secular society go to France. That was the result of their revolution. If you want a state religion, go to the UK - that was their result. If you want to live someplace where all beliefs are welcome, come to America - at least that was the original intent. Today it seems folks who choose to NOT believe in religion means that everyone else has to follow their lead. Sorry, it doesn't work that way in America.
You can choose to go the way that science is proving everything, and that is fine. If you want absolutes taught to your values, then enroll your kids in private schools and cry about how you have to pay taxes for everyone else. Of course if everyone approved school vouchers that would solve a good bit of the problem. But just because science has made great discoveries in how things work - it still has not proven - proven - the origins of the universe and many other related topics. Lots of theories, no proof. Folks that choose the faith based approach have every right to do so. Period. As far as public schools go - that is why they have school boards - argue your case there for curriculum.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 16, 2010 04:27PM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The argument of atheists:
>
> "We are so smart - we know all the facts about
> everything, therefor your faith is pointless"
Strawman.
Put up or shut up, attempting to denigrate your intellectual opposition does not actually help your case. If you want creationism/theism/etc to be respected in the market place of ideas then you must provide rational arguments in favor of it.
> The problem is, again, if you want a secular
> society go to France. That was the result of their
> revolution. If you want a state religion, go to
> the UK - that was their result. If you want to
> live someplace where all beliefs are welcome, come
> to America - at least that was the original
> intent. Today it seems folks who choose to NOT
> believe in religion means that everyone else has
> to follow their lead. Sorry, it doesn't work that
> way in America.
I don't know what you are babbling about here - it is certainly not a mirror of my position since I am all for freedom of religion. I am just also in favor of freedom *FROM* religion.
> You can choose to go the way that science is
> proving everything, and that is fine. If you want
> absolutes taught to your values, then enroll your
> kids in private schools and cry about how you have
> to pay taxes for everyone else.
Again, you seem to be off on a tangent here. I will leave you to it - what I am arguing for is science to be taught in science class. That history is taught in history class.
Not mythology.
> Of course if
> everyone approved school vouchers that would solve
> a good bit of the problem. But just because
> science has made great discoveries in how things
> work - it still has not proven - proven - the
> origins of the universe and many other related
> topics.
I'm sorry, you are laboring under a misunderstanding. Nothing in science is 'proved'. Proof is for math and alcohol, not science. Science works on induction, abduction, and falsification. What you are demanding is deduction.
You are demanding that since we don't know everything then we should teach mythology - if that's not what you are demanding, then be clear about why you keep bringing this nonsense up about 'proven' and 'not proven'.
> Lots of theories, no proof.
Do you know what a 'theory' means in science? Do you think that well established theories become 'laws'?
> Folks that
> choose the faith based approach have every right
> to do so. Period.
Who is arguing otherwise? You can believe the holocaust never happened as far as I'm concerned - just don't teach it in schools.
> As far as public schools go -
> that is why they have school boards - argue your
> case there for curriculum.
Yes, we see how well that worked in texas. School boards do not have 'experts' in the relevant fields. Ergo, idiots get elected and promote idiocy in the schools.
Again, see texas.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The argument of atheists:
>
> "We are so smart - we know all the facts about
> everything, therefor your faith is pointless"
Strawman.
Put up or shut up, attempting to denigrate your intellectual opposition does not actually help your case. If you want creationism/theism/etc to be respected in the market place of ideas then you must provide rational arguments in favor of it.
> The problem is, again, if you want a secular
> society go to France. That was the result of their
> revolution. If you want a state religion, go to
> the UK - that was their result. If you want to
> live someplace where all beliefs are welcome, come
> to America - at least that was the original
> intent. Today it seems folks who choose to NOT
> believe in religion means that everyone else has
> to follow their lead. Sorry, it doesn't work that
> way in America.
I don't know what you are babbling about here - it is certainly not a mirror of my position since I am all for freedom of religion. I am just also in favor of freedom *FROM* religion.
> You can choose to go the way that science is
> proving everything, and that is fine. If you want
> absolutes taught to your values, then enroll your
> kids in private schools and cry about how you have
> to pay taxes for everyone else.
Again, you seem to be off on a tangent here. I will leave you to it - what I am arguing for is science to be taught in science class. That history is taught in history class.
Not mythology.
> Of course if
> everyone approved school vouchers that would solve
> a good bit of the problem. But just because
> science has made great discoveries in how things
> work - it still has not proven - proven - the
> origins of the universe and many other related
> topics.
I'm sorry, you are laboring under a misunderstanding. Nothing in science is 'proved'. Proof is for math and alcohol, not science. Science works on induction, abduction, and falsification. What you are demanding is deduction.
You are demanding that since we don't know everything then we should teach mythology - if that's not what you are demanding, then be clear about why you keep bringing this nonsense up about 'proven' and 'not proven'.
> Lots of theories, no proof.
Do you know what a 'theory' means in science? Do you think that well established theories become 'laws'?
> Folks that
> choose the faith based approach have every right
> to do so. Period.
Who is arguing otherwise? You can believe the holocaust never happened as far as I'm concerned - just don't teach it in schools.
> As far as public schools go -
> that is why they have school boards - argue your
> case there for curriculum.
Yes, we see how well that worked in texas. School boards do not have 'experts' in the relevant fields. Ergo, idiots get elected and promote idiocy in the schools.
Again, see texas.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: March 16, 2010 04:34PM
What I am saying PP - but your overbearing mind keeps getting in the way...
To each his own. Toleration, not denigration. Yes, science class is science class - they should also have religion classes (for those who choose to take them) and do comparative teachings on creationism vs evolution. Pretty basic stuff.
Your use of far radical beliefs is indicative you don't want to hear it. You are the only one attempting to use things like the holocaust to justify yourself. I am merely pointing out that until you can DISPROVE religion (and obviously, you can't atm) then arguing for some absolute that says it is BS is just that - BS. Just because you choose to not accept the teachings of religion (your choice) does not mean others should not be able to ask for their inclusion in curriculum choices. I suppose the "adult" in you can't figure out how to be accommodating, or perhaps use your common sense, to be creative in figuring how to let both ideas of thought co-exist in schools.
As I said, if you would like freedom FROM religion - move to France. They have the best setup for that. Trying to change the US to emulate them is a non-starter.
Everything is a strawman to you. Typical PP MO when you don't want to have a conversation on an issue, just overwhelm everyone with your obviously superior intellect. Russians (in technical fields) do that a lot too if you have ever worked with them. Not that they are necessarily right - they just like to show everyone else how superior they are - and I am talking from direct experience, not speculation.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2010 04:36PM by Registered Voter.
To each his own. Toleration, not denigration. Yes, science class is science class - they should also have religion classes (for those who choose to take them) and do comparative teachings on creationism vs evolution. Pretty basic stuff.
Your use of far radical beliefs is indicative you don't want to hear it. You are the only one attempting to use things like the holocaust to justify yourself. I am merely pointing out that until you can DISPROVE religion (and obviously, you can't atm) then arguing for some absolute that says it is BS is just that - BS. Just because you choose to not accept the teachings of religion (your choice) does not mean others should not be able to ask for their inclusion in curriculum choices. I suppose the "adult" in you can't figure out how to be accommodating, or perhaps use your common sense, to be creative in figuring how to let both ideas of thought co-exist in schools.
As I said, if you would like freedom FROM religion - move to France. They have the best setup for that. Trying to change the US to emulate them is a non-starter.
Everything is a strawman to you. Typical PP MO when you don't want to have a conversation on an issue, just overwhelm everyone with your obviously superior intellect. Russians (in technical fields) do that a lot too if you have ever worked with them. Not that they are necessarily right - they just like to show everyone else how superior they are - and I am talking from direct experience, not speculation.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2010 04:36PM by Registered Voter.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 16, 2010 04:47PM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I am saying PP - but your overbearing mind
> keeps getting in the way...
>
> To each his own. Toleration, not denigration. Yes,
> science class is science class - they should also
> have religion classes (for those who choose to
> take them) and do comparative teachings on
> creationism vs evolution. Pretty basic stuff.
They do have religion classes.
> Your use of far radical beliefs is indicative you
> don't want to hear it.
What are you babbling about - be specific. What are my 'far radical beliefs'?
> You are the only one
> attempting to use things like the holocaust to
> justify yourself.
I am arguing positions into absurdity - hence the holocaust denial stuff. This is a fairly standard rhetorical attack.
> I am merely pointing out that
> until you can DISPROVE religion (and obviously,
> you can't atm)
This is called an argument from ignorance - it does not need to be disproven since it is already a logical fallacy.
> then arguing for some absolute that
> says it is BS is just that - BS.
What are you babbling about here? I am not arguing for 'some absolute'.
> Just because you
> choose to not accept the teachings of religion
> (your choice) does not mean others should not be
> able to ask for their inclusion in curriculum
> choices.
I have not argued that just because I don't accept something therefore it should not be taught. I have consistently argued that you shouldn't teach mythology in science class. You are simply making up positions and then claiming I hold them.
That's dishonest.
> I suppose the "adult" in you can't figure
> out how to be accommodating, or perhaps use your
> common sense, to be creative in figuring how to
> let both ideas of thought co-exist in schools.
This is more nonsense. I have no problem with religion being a course on its own or included in some fashion in a philosophy course. You are, again, dishonestly making up a position and then claiming I hold to it. Then you are attempting to denigrate me by casting aspersions toward my maturity. That says something about how desperate you are.
> As I said, if you would like freedom FROM religion
> - move to France. They have the best setup for
> that. Trying to change the US to emulate them is a
> non-starter.
I accept the US as the constitution intended, not whatever you are making up currently.
> Everything is a strawman to you.
More strawmen. I have no indicated this - this is a desperate attempt to alleviate yourself from having to demonstrate that your strawmen are accurate.
> Typical PP MO
> when you don't want to have a conversation on an
> issue, just overwhelm everyone with your obviously
> superior intellect.
This is an attack on character - notice how you don't actually try to defend any of the arguments you made or attack any of the arguments I made? Instead you attempt to persuade me to forget about the actual conversation and to focus on my character.
Please be rational and stay on topic.
> Russians (in technical fields)
> do that a lot too if you have ever worked with
> them.
Ah, stereotyping... I suppose you find stereotypes easier to attack then arguments?
Otherwise, why bring this nonsense up?
> Not that they are necessarily right - they
> just like to show everyone else how superior they
> are - and I am talking from direct experience, not
> speculation.
This is just your (apparent) inferiority complex showing through. Nothing I've stated warrants this. You are just retreating from the argument and trying to attack my character.
Please get back on topic and address what is being argued. Quit playing armchair psychologist, quit making up easier positions to pick on, and actually address what i wrote.
A quick tip, if you quote the text that you are arguing against, then it's harder to unintentionally strawman a position.
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I am saying PP - but your overbearing mind
> keeps getting in the way...
>
> To each his own. Toleration, not denigration. Yes,
> science class is science class - they should also
> have religion classes (for those who choose to
> take them) and do comparative teachings on
> creationism vs evolution. Pretty basic stuff.
They do have religion classes.
> Your use of far radical beliefs is indicative you
> don't want to hear it.
What are you babbling about - be specific. What are my 'far radical beliefs'?
> You are the only one
> attempting to use things like the holocaust to
> justify yourself.
I am arguing positions into absurdity - hence the holocaust denial stuff. This is a fairly standard rhetorical attack.
> I am merely pointing out that
> until you can DISPROVE religion (and obviously,
> you can't atm)
This is called an argument from ignorance - it does not need to be disproven since it is already a logical fallacy.
> then arguing for some absolute that
> says it is BS is just that - BS.
What are you babbling about here? I am not arguing for 'some absolute'.
> Just because you
> choose to not accept the teachings of religion
> (your choice) does not mean others should not be
> able to ask for their inclusion in curriculum
> choices.
I have not argued that just because I don't accept something therefore it should not be taught. I have consistently argued that you shouldn't teach mythology in science class. You are simply making up positions and then claiming I hold them.
That's dishonest.
> I suppose the "adult" in you can't figure
> out how to be accommodating, or perhaps use your
> common sense, to be creative in figuring how to
> let both ideas of thought co-exist in schools.
This is more nonsense. I have no problem with religion being a course on its own or included in some fashion in a philosophy course. You are, again, dishonestly making up a position and then claiming I hold to it. Then you are attempting to denigrate me by casting aspersions toward my maturity. That says something about how desperate you are.
> As I said, if you would like freedom FROM religion
> - move to France. They have the best setup for
> that. Trying to change the US to emulate them is a
> non-starter.
I accept the US as the constitution intended, not whatever you are making up currently.
> Everything is a strawman to you.
More strawmen. I have no indicated this - this is a desperate attempt to alleviate yourself from having to demonstrate that your strawmen are accurate.
> Typical PP MO
> when you don't want to have a conversation on an
> issue, just overwhelm everyone with your obviously
> superior intellect.
This is an attack on character - notice how you don't actually try to defend any of the arguments you made or attack any of the arguments I made? Instead you attempt to persuade me to forget about the actual conversation and to focus on my character.
Please be rational and stay on topic.
> Russians (in technical fields)
> do that a lot too if you have ever worked with
> them.
Ah, stereotyping... I suppose you find stereotypes easier to attack then arguments?
Otherwise, why bring this nonsense up?
> Not that they are necessarily right - they
> just like to show everyone else how superior they
> are - and I am talking from direct experience, not
> speculation.
This is just your (apparent) inferiority complex showing through. Nothing I've stated warrants this. You are just retreating from the argument and trying to attack my character.
Please get back on topic and address what is being argued. Quit playing armchair psychologist, quit making up easier positions to pick on, and actually address what i wrote.
A quick tip, if you quote the text that you are arguing against, then it's harder to unintentionally strawman a position.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: March 16, 2010 04:52PM
Maybe you should try the "Debaters-R-Us" site PP.
You spend much more time showing everyone why they are wrong, and very little as to why you are correct. Maybe you should actually state what you believe, and how it should be done, versus telling everyone else they are wrong because you obviously have all the answers.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
You spend much more time showing everyone why they are wrong, and very little as to why you are correct. Maybe you should actually state what you believe, and how it should be done, versus telling everyone else they are wrong because you obviously have all the answers.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Harry Tuttle
()
Date: March 16, 2010 04:56PM
Damn, I'm digging the Regis vs. Pangloss "dialogue"...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
NegativeDreamStealer
()
Date: March 16, 2010 04:57PM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To each his own. Toleration, not denigration. Yes,
> science class is science class - they should also
> have religion classes (for those who choose to
> take them) and do comparative teachings on
> creationism vs evolution. Pretty basic stuff.
Okay, I'll bite. How are creationism and evolution comparable?
-------------------------------------------------------
> To each his own. Toleration, not denigration. Yes,
> science class is science class - they should also
> have religion classes (for those who choose to
> take them) and do comparative teachings on
> creationism vs evolution. Pretty basic stuff.
Okay, I'll bite. How are creationism and evolution comparable?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 16, 2010 04:59PM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe you should try the "Debaters-R-Us" site PP.
Since we are apparently in the 'despencing advice' style of argument, I suggest that you stay out of topics you can't rationally defend.
> You spend much more time showing everyone why they
> are wrong, and very little as to why you are
> correct.
Two things here:
1. I have argued why I believe as I do, in this thread and throughout the intrawebs.
2. You are still attempting to take the focus off the argument by trying (desperately) to switch the topic.
But lets play with this, what exactly should I try to show I am correct on? Why creationism isn't science? Why science should be taught in science classes?
These are the issues that I've specifically targeted. Do you want me to defend either of these, is this what you are now belly aching about?
> Maybe you should actually state what you
> believe, and how it should be done, versus telling
> everyone else they are wrong because you obviously
> have all the answers.
Where have I stated I have all the answers? Where have I stated that what I believe should be taught in school? As to some of my metaphysical beliefs, they are in this very thread.
Face it, this is just your newest attempt to distract from the topic. Your prior ones of linking me to the Russians and attempting to link me to a banning of religion have failed.
I'm guessing this one will fail as well. So do you want to get back on topic? Or are you next going to attack the color of my skin?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe you should try the "Debaters-R-Us" site PP.
Since we are apparently in the 'despencing advice' style of argument, I suggest that you stay out of topics you can't rationally defend.
> You spend much more time showing everyone why they
> are wrong, and very little as to why you are
> correct.
Two things here:
1. I have argued why I believe as I do, in this thread and throughout the intrawebs.
2. You are still attempting to take the focus off the argument by trying (desperately) to switch the topic.
But lets play with this, what exactly should I try to show I am correct on? Why creationism isn't science? Why science should be taught in science classes?
These are the issues that I've specifically targeted. Do you want me to defend either of these, is this what you are now belly aching about?
> Maybe you should actually state what you
> believe, and how it should be done, versus telling
> everyone else they are wrong because you obviously
> have all the answers.
Where have I stated I have all the answers? Where have I stated that what I believe should be taught in school? As to some of my metaphysical beliefs, they are in this very thread.
Face it, this is just your newest attempt to distract from the topic. Your prior ones of linking me to the Russians and attempting to link me to a banning of religion have failed.
I'm guessing this one will fail as well. So do you want to get back on topic? Or are you next going to attack the color of my skin?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Tim McGraw
()
Date: March 16, 2010 05:25PM
Jesus is my friend....America is my home.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: March 16, 2010 05:28PM
NegativeDreamStealer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > To each his own. Toleration, not denigration.
> Yes,
> > science class is science class - they should
> also
> > have religion classes (for those who choose to
> > take them) and do comparative teachings on
> > creationism vs evolution. Pretty basic stuff.
>
> Okay, I'll bite. How are creationism and evolution
> comparable?
Creationism speaks to God creating the world, the skies, the animals, the people, etc. Christian religions have adjusted (somewhat) through the years/decade/centuries as science has advanced in trying to fit many points of what science has been able to prove within the bible teachings. Evolution could be said to be a granular breakdown of creationism (could be) - in particular since the bible wasn't written until after man had evolved to a point of looking to better understand the processes/events going on around them.
Although, my point on religion wasn't just the bible and creationism. They should teach other religions/beliefs as well. And as part of that, they should do comparative religion and show the commonalities and differences between them, the common myths of religion, and how religion has either helped or hurt the development of modern civilization.
You do understand - I am not someone who believes the bible is the word of God. There are a lot of different religions in the world. What I don't want to see is this absolute dedication to science that just says because you have religious beliefs you are somehow a lesser person because of it. That seems to be what I am hearing argued here. There are folks that are firm believers in their respective religion, and they attempt to live their lives to a standard they believe is correct. There are others who say they are "of a religion" and act anything but. There are people claim atheism, and then act like that gives them the moral authority to tell everyone else that isn't an atheist what they should/shouldn't believe.
These days, for the most part, religion plays as large a role in keeping the peace as it does in causing strife. Most of the strife is caused by folks who cling to seriously outdated beliefs, and those who indoctrinate their children with the more violent passages of their respective religions (see radical Islam and some minor christian cults - Branch Davidian as an example). Essentially the folks who want to manipulate religion to serve their own ends. Most folks are "religious" in the US because it gives them comfort in their lives - maybe they aren't as well learned as some other folks, maybe they are looking for guidance or a purpose so they are not depressed, etc. The folks you want to look out for are the manipulators of faith that use it to their own ends. But if you want to gain acceptance for the reasons why science is better than religion, you need to setup programs that can teach the reasons why without making it a confrontation on why they are stupid or lazy or just outright loons for believing what they believe. The way most people go about it, they just get people's backs up, or back them into a corner - at which point they will most certainly redouble their efforts to make sure you don't succeed.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2010 05:30PM by Registered Voter.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > To each his own. Toleration, not denigration.
> Yes,
> > science class is science class - they should
> also
> > have religion classes (for those who choose to
> > take them) and do comparative teachings on
> > creationism vs evolution. Pretty basic stuff.
>
> Okay, I'll bite. How are creationism and evolution
> comparable?
Creationism speaks to God creating the world, the skies, the animals, the people, etc. Christian religions have adjusted (somewhat) through the years/decade/centuries as science has advanced in trying to fit many points of what science has been able to prove within the bible teachings. Evolution could be said to be a granular breakdown of creationism (could be) - in particular since the bible wasn't written until after man had evolved to a point of looking to better understand the processes/events going on around them.
Although, my point on religion wasn't just the bible and creationism. They should teach other religions/beliefs as well. And as part of that, they should do comparative religion and show the commonalities and differences between them, the common myths of religion, and how religion has either helped or hurt the development of modern civilization.
You do understand - I am not someone who believes the bible is the word of God. There are a lot of different religions in the world. What I don't want to see is this absolute dedication to science that just says because you have religious beliefs you are somehow a lesser person because of it. That seems to be what I am hearing argued here. There are folks that are firm believers in their respective religion, and they attempt to live their lives to a standard they believe is correct. There are others who say they are "of a religion" and act anything but. There are people claim atheism, and then act like that gives them the moral authority to tell everyone else that isn't an atheist what they should/shouldn't believe.
These days, for the most part, religion plays as large a role in keeping the peace as it does in causing strife. Most of the strife is caused by folks who cling to seriously outdated beliefs, and those who indoctrinate their children with the more violent passages of their respective religions (see radical Islam and some minor christian cults - Branch Davidian as an example). Essentially the folks who want to manipulate religion to serve their own ends. Most folks are "religious" in the US because it gives them comfort in their lives - maybe they aren't as well learned as some other folks, maybe they are looking for guidance or a purpose so they are not depressed, etc. The folks you want to look out for are the manipulators of faith that use it to their own ends. But if you want to gain acceptance for the reasons why science is better than religion, you need to setup programs that can teach the reasons why without making it a confrontation on why they are stupid or lazy or just outright loons for believing what they believe. The way most people go about it, they just get people's backs up, or back them into a corner - at which point they will most certainly redouble their efforts to make sure you don't succeed.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2010 05:30PM by Registered Voter.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: March 16, 2010 08:47PM
Tim McGraw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jesus is my friend....America is my home.
What a terrible combination - religion and patriotism
just add guns, racism, wife beating and prescription drug abuse and you have the full set
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jesus is my friend....America is my home.
What a terrible combination - religion and patriotism
just add guns, racism, wife beating and prescription drug abuse and you have the full set
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 17, 2010 08:00AM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NegativeDreamStealer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > To each his own. Toleration, not denigration.
> > Yes,
> > > science class is science class - they should
> > also
> > > have religion classes (for those who choose
> to
> > > take them) and do comparative teachings on
> > > creationism vs evolution. Pretty basic stuff.
> >
> > Okay, I'll bite. How are creationism and
> evolution
> > comparable?
>
> Creationism speaks to God creating the world, the
> skies, the animals, the people, etc. Christian
> religions have adjusted (somewhat) through the
> years/decade/centuries as science has advanced in
> trying to fit many points of what science has been
> able to prove within the bible teachings.
> Evolution could be said to be a granular breakdown
> of creationism (could be) - in particular since
> the bible wasn't written until after man had
> evolved to a point of looking to better understand
> the processes/events going on around them.
I realize that 'creationism' is a somewhat liquid word. It can refer to a lot of different things. In the context of this thread though, I think that creationism has a connotation that is in opposition to evolution. What you suggest is theistic evolution, something I don't really have any truck with (well, other then I think it's wrong, but so what?).
> Although, my point on religion wasn't just the
> bible and creationism. They should teach other
> religions/beliefs as well. And as part of that,
> they should do comparative religion and show the
> commonalities and differences between them, the
> common myths of religion, and how religion has
> either helped or hurt the development of modern
> civilization.
I'm going to try to cut through some of the miscommunication by asking you to be specific - where should they teach this? A religion course or in the science classroom?
> You do understand - I am not someone who believes
> the bible is the word of God. There are a lot of
> different religions in the world. What I don't
> want to see is this absolute dedication to science
> that just says because you have religious beliefs
> you are somehow a lesser person because of it.
I'm not in favor of some sort of absolute dedication to science. At the same time, I'm not in favor of watering down science so that it becomes an 'ideas and religion' course. Science is not absolutist. It is not about proof and certainty. Perhaps students should be taught this sort of thing in a philosophy or critical thinking course.
> That seems to be what I am hearing argued here.
Some people probably are arguing just that. At the same time though, in the market place of ideas, the ideas that cannot be supported should be held up for inspection. Beliefs shouldn't just be given a free intellectual pass because their dissolution would hurt people's feelings.
> There are folks that are firm believers in their
> respective religion, and they attempt to live
> their lives to a standard they believe is correct.
> There are others who say they are "of a religion"
> and act anything but. There are people claim
> atheism, and then act like that gives them the
> moral authority to tell everyone else that isn't
> an atheist what they should/shouldn't believe.
Yes, there are a-holes in every spectrum.
> These days, for the most part, religion plays as
> large a role in keeping the peace as it does in
> causing strife. Most of the strife is caused by
> folks who cling to seriously outdated beliefs, and
> those who indoctrinate their children with the
> more violent passages of their respective
> religions (see radical Islam and some minor
> christian cults - Branch Davidian as an example).
> Essentially the folks who want to manipulate
> religion to serve their own ends.
I largely agree with this - however I think we differ in that I would agree with Richard Harris in that we need to have these discussions. We need to make people uncomfortable about the 'bad' portions of religion. The trouble today is that the fundamentalists often get a pass because of the moderates and the moderates keep a strangle hold on the conversation.
> Most folks are
> "religious" in the US because it gives them
> comfort in their lives - maybe they aren't as well
> learned as some other folks, maybe they are
> looking for guidance or a purpose so they are not
> depressed, etc.
I would actually disagree with this - I would say that most people are religious because of their upbringings, but I can agree with you somewhat here in some cases.
> The folks you want to look out for
> are the manipulators of faith that use it to their
> own ends. But if you want to gain acceptance for
> the reasons why science is better than religion,
> you need to setup programs that can teach the
> reasons why without making it a confrontation on
> why they are stupid or lazy or just outright loons
> for believing what they believe.
I don't look at it as a choice between science and religion. It seems to me that they are very different metaphysical things. Granted, you could shove them both into the epistemological field, with science as empiricism and religion as revealed revelation, but I don't think that would capture all of religion.
In any event, science is a way of knowing about the world - one that works and one that most people use (if only for pragmatic reasons). Religion *can* work like that, but most people do not use it in that fashion. In other words, I don't think that the 'spheres' necessarily overlap (so I kind of agree with Gould's non-overlapping magisteria).
> The way most
> people go about it, they just get people's backs
> up, or back them into a corner - at which point
> they will most certainly redouble their efforts to
> make sure you don't succeed.
Some do, some don't. With firmly entrenched beliefs - be they religion, political, etc - it's not as simple as tearing down beliefs or offering them rhetorical honey.
-------------------------------------------------------
> NegativeDreamStealer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > To each his own. Toleration, not denigration.
> > Yes,
> > > science class is science class - they should
> > also
> > > have religion classes (for those who choose
> to
> > > take them) and do comparative teachings on
> > > creationism vs evolution. Pretty basic stuff.
> >
> > Okay, I'll bite. How are creationism and
> evolution
> > comparable?
>
> Creationism speaks to God creating the world, the
> skies, the animals, the people, etc. Christian
> religions have adjusted (somewhat) through the
> years/decade/centuries as science has advanced in
> trying to fit many points of what science has been
> able to prove within the bible teachings.
> Evolution could be said to be a granular breakdown
> of creationism (could be) - in particular since
> the bible wasn't written until after man had
> evolved to a point of looking to better understand
> the processes/events going on around them.
I realize that 'creationism' is a somewhat liquid word. It can refer to a lot of different things. In the context of this thread though, I think that creationism has a connotation that is in opposition to evolution. What you suggest is theistic evolution, something I don't really have any truck with (well, other then I think it's wrong, but so what?).
> Although, my point on religion wasn't just the
> bible and creationism. They should teach other
> religions/beliefs as well. And as part of that,
> they should do comparative religion and show the
> commonalities and differences between them, the
> common myths of religion, and how religion has
> either helped or hurt the development of modern
> civilization.
I'm going to try to cut through some of the miscommunication by asking you to be specific - where should they teach this? A religion course or in the science classroom?
> You do understand - I am not someone who believes
> the bible is the word of God. There are a lot of
> different religions in the world. What I don't
> want to see is this absolute dedication to science
> that just says because you have religious beliefs
> you are somehow a lesser person because of it.
I'm not in favor of some sort of absolute dedication to science. At the same time, I'm not in favor of watering down science so that it becomes an 'ideas and religion' course. Science is not absolutist. It is not about proof and certainty. Perhaps students should be taught this sort of thing in a philosophy or critical thinking course.
> That seems to be what I am hearing argued here.
Some people probably are arguing just that. At the same time though, in the market place of ideas, the ideas that cannot be supported should be held up for inspection. Beliefs shouldn't just be given a free intellectual pass because their dissolution would hurt people's feelings.
> There are folks that are firm believers in their
> respective religion, and they attempt to live
> their lives to a standard they believe is correct.
> There are others who say they are "of a religion"
> and act anything but. There are people claim
> atheism, and then act like that gives them the
> moral authority to tell everyone else that isn't
> an atheist what they should/shouldn't believe.
Yes, there are a-holes in every spectrum.
> These days, for the most part, religion plays as
> large a role in keeping the peace as it does in
> causing strife. Most of the strife is caused by
> folks who cling to seriously outdated beliefs, and
> those who indoctrinate their children with the
> more violent passages of their respective
> religions (see radical Islam and some minor
> christian cults - Branch Davidian as an example).
> Essentially the folks who want to manipulate
> religion to serve their own ends.
I largely agree with this - however I think we differ in that I would agree with Richard Harris in that we need to have these discussions. We need to make people uncomfortable about the 'bad' portions of religion. The trouble today is that the fundamentalists often get a pass because of the moderates and the moderates keep a strangle hold on the conversation.
> Most folks are
> "religious" in the US because it gives them
> comfort in their lives - maybe they aren't as well
> learned as some other folks, maybe they are
> looking for guidance or a purpose so they are not
> depressed, etc.
I would actually disagree with this - I would say that most people are religious because of their upbringings, but I can agree with you somewhat here in some cases.
> The folks you want to look out for
> are the manipulators of faith that use it to their
> own ends. But if you want to gain acceptance for
> the reasons why science is better than religion,
> you need to setup programs that can teach the
> reasons why without making it a confrontation on
> why they are stupid or lazy or just outright loons
> for believing what they believe.
I don't look at it as a choice between science and religion. It seems to me that they are very different metaphysical things. Granted, you could shove them both into the epistemological field, with science as empiricism and religion as revealed revelation, but I don't think that would capture all of religion.
In any event, science is a way of knowing about the world - one that works and one that most people use (if only for pragmatic reasons). Religion *can* work like that, but most people do not use it in that fashion. In other words, I don't think that the 'spheres' necessarily overlap (so I kind of agree with Gould's non-overlapping magisteria).
> The way most
> people go about it, they just get people's backs
> up, or back them into a corner - at which point
> they will most certainly redouble their efforts to
> make sure you don't succeed.
Some do, some don't. With firmly entrenched beliefs - be they religion, political, etc - it's not as simple as tearing down beliefs or offering them rhetorical honey.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Holy shit
()
Date: March 17, 2010 09:33AM
Holy shit... this thread went full retard.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: March 17, 2010 11:00AM
Quick breakdown:
1. Teach Science in Science Class
2. Teach Religion as electives in their own class, or even a primer class on religion(s) - the religious classes have lesson topics to deal with how science and religion collide, why, and discussion on where they may co-exist.
3. Any time a question comes up in Science class by someone who is religious that wants to deal with religious connotations of the lesson, point out to them that topic is covered in the religion classes.
I would agree that some people go to church due to their religious upbringing. I also know that most kids STOP going to church at some point in their lives - all the kids in my family did, my nephews and nieces all have (and we have quite a few). I don't know of any kid in my family who just decided to follow on. During college and the military, most of them stopped going. Later there were a few that decided to go back - either as part of getting married, looking for guidance, etc. I suppose if you were in a strictly fundamentalist compound you would have little choice - but that is certainly not, by far, the norm in our country.
I think we need to be more inclusive of religion in schools. The primer course would be used to at least give examples/coverage of other religions not offered in the primary electives - until such time that there was a demand for it to be taught as a separate course. But certainly religious electives could count as social studies. I think classes like these would go a long way toward bringing folks back together and working through issues, rather than shutting them out and acting like they shouldn't exist in the first place.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2010 11:00AM by Registered Voter.
1. Teach Science in Science Class
2. Teach Religion as electives in their own class, or even a primer class on religion(s) - the religious classes have lesson topics to deal with how science and religion collide, why, and discussion on where they may co-exist.
3. Any time a question comes up in Science class by someone who is religious that wants to deal with religious connotations of the lesson, point out to them that topic is covered in the religion classes.
I would agree that some people go to church due to their religious upbringing. I also know that most kids STOP going to church at some point in their lives - all the kids in my family did, my nephews and nieces all have (and we have quite a few). I don't know of any kid in my family who just decided to follow on. During college and the military, most of them stopped going. Later there were a few that decided to go back - either as part of getting married, looking for guidance, etc. I suppose if you were in a strictly fundamentalist compound you would have little choice - but that is certainly not, by far, the norm in our country.
I think we need to be more inclusive of religion in schools. The primer course would be used to at least give examples/coverage of other religions not offered in the primary electives - until such time that there was a demand for it to be taught as a separate course. But certainly religious electives could count as social studies. I think classes like these would go a long way toward bringing folks back together and working through issues, rather than shutting them out and acting like they shouldn't exist in the first place.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2010 11:00AM by Registered Voter.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 17, 2010 11:12AM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quick breakdown:
>
> 1. Teach Science in Science Class
> 2. Teach Religion as electives in their own class,
> or even a primer class on religion(s) - the
> religious classes have lesson topics to deal with
> how science and religion collide, why, and
> discussion on where they may co-exist.
I think that a comparative religion course, should perhaps, be mandatory due to it's influence on people.
> 3. Any time a question comes up in Science class
> by someone who is religious that wants to deal
> with religious connotations of the lesson, point
> out to them that topic is covered in the religion
> classes.
I don't think that religion should be part of the class, however, I recognize that it sometimes comes up and I think the teacher should have the freedom to address it. I just don't think it should be part of the curriculum.
> I would agree that some people go to church due to
> their religious upbringing. I also know that most
> kids STOP going to church at some point in their
> lives - all the kids in my family did, my nephews
> and nieces all have (and we have quite a few). I
> don't know of any kid in my family who just
> decided to follow on. During college and the
> military, most of them stopped going. Later there
> were a few that decided to go back - either as
> part of getting married, looking for guidance,
> etc. I suppose if you were in a strictly
> fundamentalist compound you would have little
> choice - but that is certainly not, by far, the
> norm in our country.
I would concede that there are probably a multitude of reasons beyond upbringing.
> I think we need to be more inclusive of religion
> in schools. The primer course would be used to at
> least give examples/coverage of other religions
> not offered in the primary electives - until such
> time that there was a demand for it to be taught
> as a separate course. But certainly religious
> electives could count as social studies. I think
> classes like these would go a long way toward
> bringing folks back together and working through
> issues, rather than shutting them out and acting
> like they shouldn't exist in the first place.
I'd agree with this.
On these points I don't think there's a lot of difference between us.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quick breakdown:
>
> 1. Teach Science in Science Class
> 2. Teach Religion as electives in their own class,
> or even a primer class on religion(s) - the
> religious classes have lesson topics to deal with
> how science and religion collide, why, and
> discussion on where they may co-exist.
I think that a comparative religion course, should perhaps, be mandatory due to it's influence on people.
> 3. Any time a question comes up in Science class
> by someone who is religious that wants to deal
> with religious connotations of the lesson, point
> out to them that topic is covered in the religion
> classes.
I don't think that religion should be part of the class, however, I recognize that it sometimes comes up and I think the teacher should have the freedom to address it. I just don't think it should be part of the curriculum.
> I would agree that some people go to church due to
> their religious upbringing. I also know that most
> kids STOP going to church at some point in their
> lives - all the kids in my family did, my nephews
> and nieces all have (and we have quite a few). I
> don't know of any kid in my family who just
> decided to follow on. During college and the
> military, most of them stopped going. Later there
> were a few that decided to go back - either as
> part of getting married, looking for guidance,
> etc. I suppose if you were in a strictly
> fundamentalist compound you would have little
> choice - but that is certainly not, by far, the
> norm in our country.
I would concede that there are probably a multitude of reasons beyond upbringing.
> I think we need to be more inclusive of religion
> in schools. The primer course would be used to at
> least give examples/coverage of other religions
> not offered in the primary electives - until such
> time that there was a demand for it to be taught
> as a separate course. But certainly religious
> electives could count as social studies. I think
> classes like these would go a long way toward
> bringing folks back together and working through
> issues, rather than shutting them out and acting
> like they shouldn't exist in the first place.
I'd agree with this.
On these points I don't think there's a lot of difference between us.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: March 17, 2010 02:51PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Quick breakdown:
> On these points I don't think there's a lot of
> difference between us.
I'd have to disagree with this approach
1) Comparative religion is already taught in elementary schools - my 5th grader was working through compulsory units on jewish and other mythology (mandated by the state) see http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/history_socialscience/index.shtml - no mention of the FSM though
Frankly I was appalled that this was being taught before evolution was even mentioned.
2) Religion is already imposed as a de facto through the morning chant of the pledge of allegiance with its cold war era "we're not those godless ruskies" under god clause
3) What's missing is not more religion in the schools but more and better science - part of the issue is that there are so few scientists teaching in schools,and so few students taking hard science. The real triumph of the scientific revolution is when you see it in the round - when you see how the issues of scale and complexity impact on the world you see around you from cosmology to quantum science, how similar and how different species are and why, how ecosystems adapt, how your brain and mind work. Teaching that in a way that kids get a sense of the whole early is hard - which is why the pernicious, pervasive drip drip drip of 'under god' and encouraging 'faith based organizations' is so destructive
4) Religion's pervasive and corrosive grip on American public life is already far too great - for example, why do presidential candidates have to kowtow to some of the sleaziest of religious figures in order to get elected
5) Religion has no place whatsoever in science classes - other than perhaps within pyschology
A better approach would be to avoid exposing children to religion until they understood what science already shows us - then they could decide whether they need a deity to fill the gaps
Its clear that by the age of 7 or 8, most elementary school children have already been pre-conditioned to assume that there is a god. Its always fun to ask 7 year olds who bring up religion "so what happened to the dinosaurs and why are there no human fossils mixed up with them" - answers I've heard include "because they were too slow to get on the ark", which clearly something they've been told, not something they've postulated for themselves
I was recently in a fairfax county high school and spotted a poster "the mathematics of genesis" taped in the center of a prominent classroom wipeboard - conflating Schrodinger and Einstein's equations with biblical phrases.
I thought that was disgraceful
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Quick breakdown:
> On these points I don't think there's a lot of
> difference between us.
I'd have to disagree with this approach
1) Comparative religion is already taught in elementary schools - my 5th grader was working through compulsory units on jewish and other mythology (mandated by the state) see http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/history_socialscience/index.shtml - no mention of the FSM though
Frankly I was appalled that this was being taught before evolution was even mentioned.
2) Religion is already imposed as a de facto through the morning chant of the pledge of allegiance with its cold war era "we're not those godless ruskies" under god clause
3) What's missing is not more religion in the schools but more and better science - part of the issue is that there are so few scientists teaching in schools,and so few students taking hard science. The real triumph of the scientific revolution is when you see it in the round - when you see how the issues of scale and complexity impact on the world you see around you from cosmology to quantum science, how similar and how different species are and why, how ecosystems adapt, how your brain and mind work. Teaching that in a way that kids get a sense of the whole early is hard - which is why the pernicious, pervasive drip drip drip of 'under god' and encouraging 'faith based organizations' is so destructive
4) Religion's pervasive and corrosive grip on American public life is already far too great - for example, why do presidential candidates have to kowtow to some of the sleaziest of religious figures in order to get elected
5) Religion has no place whatsoever in science classes - other than perhaps within pyschology
A better approach would be to avoid exposing children to religion until they understood what science already shows us - then they could decide whether they need a deity to fill the gaps
Its clear that by the age of 7 or 8, most elementary school children have already been pre-conditioned to assume that there is a god. Its always fun to ask 7 year olds who bring up religion "so what happened to the dinosaurs and why are there no human fossils mixed up with them" - answers I've heard include "because they were too slow to get on the ark", which clearly something they've been told, not something they've postulated for themselves
I was recently in a fairfax county high school and spotted a poster "the mathematics of genesis" taped in the center of a prominent classroom wipeboard - conflating Schrodinger and Einstein's equations with biblical phrases.
I thought that was disgraceful
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: March 17, 2010 03:53PM
finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 5) Religion has no place whatsoever in science
> classes - other than perhaps within pyschology
Note - I didn't say to teach religion in science classes - I said if a student brings it up, point them to the religion courses.
>
> A better approach would be to avoid exposing
> children to religion until they understood what
> science already shows us - then they could decide
> whether they need a deity to fill the gaps
We don't live in China.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
-------------------------------------------------------
> 5) Religion has no place whatsoever in science
> classes - other than perhaps within pyschology
Note - I didn't say to teach religion in science classes - I said if a student brings it up, point them to the religion courses.
>
> A better approach would be to avoid exposing
> children to religion until they understood what
> science already shows us - then they could decide
> whether they need a deity to fill the gaps
We don't live in China.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: March 17, 2010 05:23PM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > 5) Religion has no place whatsoever in science
> > classes - other than perhaps within pyschology
>
> Note - I didn't say to teach religion in science
> classes - I said if a student brings it up, point
> them to the religion courses.
No need - point them at their church - it already has tax-exempt status
>
> >
> > A better approach would be to avoid exposing
> > children to religion until they understood what
> > science already shows us - then they could
> decide
> > whether they need a deity to fill the gaps
>
> We don't live in China.
However, much as some of the posters would complain, we don't live in a theocracy either - although we do seem to back them wherever we can
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > 5) Religion has no place whatsoever in science
> > classes - other than perhaps within pyschology
>
> Note - I didn't say to teach religion in science
> classes - I said if a student brings it up, point
> them to the religion courses.
No need - point them at their church - it already has tax-exempt status
>
> >
> > A better approach would be to avoid exposing
> > children to religion until they understood what
> > science already shows us - then they could
> decide
> > whether they need a deity to fill the gaps
>
> We don't live in China.
However, much as some of the posters would complain, we don't live in a theocracy either - although we do seem to back them wherever we can
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: March 17, 2010 05:52PM
You're whacked.
We don't live in anything close to a theocracy, and even if they made religion a required class in public school we would be nowhere near one.
Take places like Iran, etc - where religious figures lead the government. That is a theocracy. Please, tell me when we have ever had a priest running the country. Or why you believe we could have a priest that would be elected, or issue religious edicts that we all must follow blindly.
You need to teach religion - especially in high school - so that kids learn to understand the whys behind religion, and can have an intelligent conversation about it. I agree, 5th graders are a bit too young to try and have a seriously intelligent discussion on it. The problem you see, is that there are religions practiced on a regular basis in the US - so, if you don't give ONLY Christian religion classes, then you are not establishing a State religion. If the school has Christian, Muslim, and belief systems like Hinduism and such, you allow for all people to be included. I am not talking about RELIGION - Religious teachings. I am talking about religion origins, backgrounds, how a particular religion came to be established per the myths, and per what we know factually. You know, TEACH the kids something. Yes, you want to get your daily dose of religion go to a church or your worship site of choice. And not as a way to knock off what the religion teaches - more to give the kids a look "behind the curtain" so to speak. Not a judgment of religion at all. Again, folks can make much better decisions about life if they have a better understanding of the history, and how modern ideas impact and compare to a given religion.
Parents should take their kids to church if that is their choice. But schools also need to be cognizant of the place religion has in our society, and not act as if it doesn't exist.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
We don't live in anything close to a theocracy, and even if they made religion a required class in public school we would be nowhere near one.
Take places like Iran, etc - where religious figures lead the government. That is a theocracy. Please, tell me when we have ever had a priest running the country. Or why you believe we could have a priest that would be elected, or issue religious edicts that we all must follow blindly.
You need to teach religion - especially in high school - so that kids learn to understand the whys behind religion, and can have an intelligent conversation about it. I agree, 5th graders are a bit too young to try and have a seriously intelligent discussion on it. The problem you see, is that there are religions practiced on a regular basis in the US - so, if you don't give ONLY Christian religion classes, then you are not establishing a State religion. If the school has Christian, Muslim, and belief systems like Hinduism and such, you allow for all people to be included. I am not talking about RELIGION - Religious teachings. I am talking about religion origins, backgrounds, how a particular religion came to be established per the myths, and per what we know factually. You know, TEACH the kids something. Yes, you want to get your daily dose of religion go to a church or your worship site of choice. And not as a way to knock off what the religion teaches - more to give the kids a look "behind the curtain" so to speak. Not a judgment of religion at all. Again, folks can make much better decisions about life if they have a better understanding of the history, and how modern ideas impact and compare to a given religion.
Parents should take their kids to church if that is their choice. But schools also need to be cognizant of the place religion has in our society, and not act as if it doesn't exist.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: March 17, 2010 08:35PM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're whacked.
>
> We don't live in anything close to a theocracy,
I never said that we were (in fact my words were "we don't live in a theocracy either") - however there are clearly people in the US who think we should be
My point is that religion has a dangerously disproportionate influence in government in this country and there are clearly elected officials who believe that this is a christian country and should ever remain so
The recent scandals over the role of evangelicals at US military training schools shows that aggressive religious recruitment is pervasive in this country
>
> Take places like Iran, etc - where religious
> figures lead the government. That is a theocracy.
Or Israel, the recipient of vast amounts of our tax dollars that they then spend on territorial expansion. For example, the situation in Gaza only arose because Israel is afraid of becoming a minority Jewish country
Now that's a theocracy on your tax dime
>
> You need to teach religion - especially in high
> school - so that kids learn to understand the whys
> behind religion, and can have an intelligent
> conversation about it. I agree, 5th graders are a
> bit too young to try and have a seriously
> intelligent discussion on it. The problem you see,
> is that there are religions practiced on a regular
> basis in the US - so, if you don't give ONLY
> Christian religion classes, then you are not
> establishing a State religion. If the school has
> Christian, Muslim, and belief systems like
> Hinduism and such, you allow for all people to be
> included. I am not talking about RELIGION -
> Religious teachings. I am talking about religion
> origins, backgrounds, how a particular religion
> came to be established per the myths, and per what
> we know factually. You know, TEACH the kids
> something. Yes, you want to get your daily dose of
> religion go to a church or your worship site of
> choice. And not as a way to knock off what the
> religion teaches - more to give the kids a look
> "behind the curtain" so to speak. Not a judgment
> of religion at all. Again, folks can make much
> better decisions about life if they have a better
> understanding of the history, and how modern ideas
> impact and compare to a given religion.
I disagree - kids get ample exposure to religion outside of school
You can't complain that kids should be exposed when they're small "because we don't live in China" and then demand that they should be re-indoctrinated later in high school
Religion should only be taught in the way we teach murder, cannibalism, schizophrenia, female circumcision and incest - as unfortunate characteristics of the human condition
>
> Parents should take their kids to church if that
> is their choice. But schools also need to be
> cognizant of the place religion has in our
> society, and not act as if it doesn't exist.
That's like giving equal time to the easter bunny, flatworlders and people who believe they've been kidnapped by aliens or should be able to marry horses
Religion is a left over social artifact from a time when we didn't understand how the world worked and had to be scared of shadows
Our schools should be doing nothing to propagate it further
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're whacked.
>
> We don't live in anything close to a theocracy,
I never said that we were (in fact my words were "we don't live in a theocracy either") - however there are clearly people in the US who think we should be
My point is that religion has a dangerously disproportionate influence in government in this country and there are clearly elected officials who believe that this is a christian country and should ever remain so
The recent scandals over the role of evangelicals at US military training schools shows that aggressive religious recruitment is pervasive in this country
>
> Take places like Iran, etc - where religious
> figures lead the government. That is a theocracy.
Or Israel, the recipient of vast amounts of our tax dollars that they then spend on territorial expansion. For example, the situation in Gaza only arose because Israel is afraid of becoming a minority Jewish country
Now that's a theocracy on your tax dime
>
> You need to teach religion - especially in high
> school - so that kids learn to understand the whys
> behind religion, and can have an intelligent
> conversation about it. I agree, 5th graders are a
> bit too young to try and have a seriously
> intelligent discussion on it. The problem you see,
> is that there are religions practiced on a regular
> basis in the US - so, if you don't give ONLY
> Christian religion classes, then you are not
> establishing a State religion. If the school has
> Christian, Muslim, and belief systems like
> Hinduism and such, you allow for all people to be
> included. I am not talking about RELIGION -
> Religious teachings. I am talking about religion
> origins, backgrounds, how a particular religion
> came to be established per the myths, and per what
> we know factually. You know, TEACH the kids
> something. Yes, you want to get your daily dose of
> religion go to a church or your worship site of
> choice. And not as a way to knock off what the
> religion teaches - more to give the kids a look
> "behind the curtain" so to speak. Not a judgment
> of religion at all. Again, folks can make much
> better decisions about life if they have a better
> understanding of the history, and how modern ideas
> impact and compare to a given religion.
I disagree - kids get ample exposure to religion outside of school
You can't complain that kids should be exposed when they're small "because we don't live in China" and then demand that they should be re-indoctrinated later in high school
Religion should only be taught in the way we teach murder, cannibalism, schizophrenia, female circumcision and incest - as unfortunate characteristics of the human condition
>
> Parents should take their kids to church if that
> is their choice. But schools also need to be
> cognizant of the place religion has in our
> society, and not act as if it doesn't exist.
That's like giving equal time to the easter bunny, flatworlders and people who believe they've been kidnapped by aliens or should be able to marry horses
Religion is a left over social artifact from a time when we didn't understand how the world worked and had to be scared of shadows
Our schools should be doing nothing to propagate it further
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: March 17, 2010 11:14PM
Maybe you should move to France. This is not France. Nor is anything that I suggested "indoctrination". Read it again - I didn't say to teach religious theology and prepare them for seminary. I said teach them ABOUT religion(s) and how they came about - then go into comparisons to other religions, etc.
No, kids DON'T get "that" exposed to religions - the main thing they get is people ridiculing folks that are religious, and acting as if they are some kind of nutjob because they have a certain belief system. As PP suggested, comparative religion should most likely be a mandatory class to give folks an understanding of religions - probably two years of it. It would help when dealing with the overtly religious countries in the world - that way they might understand them, rather then just dismiss them as deluded.
As far as Israel goes, the issues there are much deeper than your flawed, shallow analysis of the situation. If that is your understanding of what is going on over there, that doesn't lend much credibility to the rest of your statements here.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
No, kids DON'T get "that" exposed to religions - the main thing they get is people ridiculing folks that are religious, and acting as if they are some kind of nutjob because they have a certain belief system. As PP suggested, comparative religion should most likely be a mandatory class to give folks an understanding of religions - probably two years of it. It would help when dealing with the overtly religious countries in the world - that way they might understand them, rather then just dismiss them as deluded.
As far as Israel goes, the issues there are much deeper than your flawed, shallow analysis of the situation. If that is your understanding of what is going on over there, that doesn't lend much credibility to the rest of your statements here.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: March 17, 2010 11:40PM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I said teach them ABOUT religion(s) and
> how they came about - then go into comparisons to
> other religions, etc.
The only way that could work is if it were during a history class that was focused on a period of history where certain events in the bible may coincide with known events. Otherwise, a comparative religion class would waste WAY too much time and prove nothing to anyone. Since religion is really just speculation, with little of no evidence to support it, it would be far better suited to a non-mandatory class or not at all.
> No, kids DON'T get "that" exposed to religions -
> the main thing they get is people ridiculing folks
> that are religious, and acting as if they are some
> kind of nutjob because they have a certain belief
> system.
LOL! You mean like Christians have been doing to non-believers for the last 2000 years? Awwwww, poor Christians. They can sure dish it out, but as soon as they get fired upon, they start crying about being repressed because they have no counter to the facts they argue against.
> As PP suggested, comparative religion
> should most likely be a mandatory class to give
> folks an understanding of religions - probably two
> years of it. It would help when dealing with the
> overtly religious countries in the world - that
> way they might understand them, rather then just
> dismiss them as deluded.
And I'm sure these 2 years of "mandatory classes" will be taught by non-biased and open-minded professors, right?
Bullshit! There are crazy Creationists and insane Islamic "scholars" chomping at the bit for that day.
-------------------------------------------------------
I said teach them ABOUT religion(s) and
> how they came about - then go into comparisons to
> other religions, etc.
The only way that could work is if it were during a history class that was focused on a period of history where certain events in the bible may coincide with known events. Otherwise, a comparative religion class would waste WAY too much time and prove nothing to anyone. Since religion is really just speculation, with little of no evidence to support it, it would be far better suited to a non-mandatory class or not at all.
> No, kids DON'T get "that" exposed to religions -
> the main thing they get is people ridiculing folks
> that are religious, and acting as if they are some
> kind of nutjob because they have a certain belief
> system.
LOL! You mean like Christians have been doing to non-believers for the last 2000 years? Awwwww, poor Christians. They can sure dish it out, but as soon as they get fired upon, they start crying about being repressed because they have no counter to the facts they argue against.
> As PP suggested, comparative religion
> should most likely be a mandatory class to give
> folks an understanding of religions - probably two
> years of it. It would help when dealing with the
> overtly religious countries in the world - that
> way they might understand them, rather then just
> dismiss them as deluded.
And I'm sure these 2 years of "mandatory classes" will be taught by non-biased and open-minded professors, right?
Bullshit! There are crazy Creationists and insane Islamic "scholars" chomping at the bit for that day.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: March 18, 2010 12:02AM
There would be a curriculum for this. The folks you are speaking of - most likely they are already happily employed by the local private religious schools (of various denominations) doing exactly what you think.
You know, maybe you should take a moment to think about what I stated. I am not talking about teaching religion. I am talking about teaching ABOUT religion. Sure, a class on Christianity would cover Catholics, protestants, baptists, mormons, etc. You think a class that went into the origins of the religion, the history of the sects splitting off, and talking to the issues of things like the crusades, the advent of the Vatican and such, etc. Or with Islam - the various muslim sects, the reasons behind the splits and such, or with Hinduism, or Buddhism with the same kinds of thought - you don't think those course would be a good way to talk about the good and bad sides of religion, and also covering science in relation to religion. You think that is a bad idea?
History will cover some aspects of this from other angles. But for the most part history glosses over why things were done. What were the reasons behind slavery? Not just in the US, but in the world, and then later how it was applied in Africa, Europe and the Americas? A lot of that has roots in religions and beliefs - but is rarely covered in depth due to the fact that it starts talking about religion.
What I see is a way to educate kids on the whys and hows that religions came about. What they were trying to accomplish. Much of the good and bad things that have resulted from them, etc. A waste of time? Doubtful. It is more likely to give the kids a way to rationalize their religious beliefs and figure out if they make sense to them or not moving forward. You aren't going to stop parents from immersing their kids in religion - but it certainly wouldn't hurt to give them a more rational education of the issues involved.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2010 12:03AM by Registered Voter.
You know, maybe you should take a moment to think about what I stated. I am not talking about teaching religion. I am talking about teaching ABOUT religion. Sure, a class on Christianity would cover Catholics, protestants, baptists, mormons, etc. You think a class that went into the origins of the religion, the history of the sects splitting off, and talking to the issues of things like the crusades, the advent of the Vatican and such, etc. Or with Islam - the various muslim sects, the reasons behind the splits and such, or with Hinduism, or Buddhism with the same kinds of thought - you don't think those course would be a good way to talk about the good and bad sides of religion, and also covering science in relation to religion. You think that is a bad idea?
History will cover some aspects of this from other angles. But for the most part history glosses over why things were done. What were the reasons behind slavery? Not just in the US, but in the world, and then later how it was applied in Africa, Europe and the Americas? A lot of that has roots in religions and beliefs - but is rarely covered in depth due to the fact that it starts talking about religion.
What I see is a way to educate kids on the whys and hows that religions came about. What they were trying to accomplish. Much of the good and bad things that have resulted from them, etc. A waste of time? Doubtful. It is more likely to give the kids a way to rationalize their religious beliefs and figure out if they make sense to them or not moving forward. You aren't going to stop parents from immersing their kids in religion - but it certainly wouldn't hurt to give them a more rational education of the issues involved.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2010 12:03AM by Registered Voter.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: March 18, 2010 12:30AM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know, maybe you should take a moment to think
> about what I stated. I am not talking about
> teaching religion. I am talking about teaching
> ABOUT religion. Sure, a class on Christianity
> would cover Catholics, protestants, baptists,
> mormons, etc. You think a class that went into the
> origins of the religion, the history of the sects
> splitting off, and talking to the issues of things
> like the crusades, the advent of the Vatican and
> such, etc. Or with Islam - the various muslim
> sects, the reasons behind the splits and such, or
> with Hinduism, or Buddhism with the same kinds of
> thought - you don't think those course would be a
> good way to talk about the good and bad sides of
> religion, and also covering science in relation to
> religion. You think that is a bad idea?
YES! The pivotal decisions and actions throughout time, especially those that effect our current way of life should be included in social studies or history classes. They don't need a mandatory class dedicated to it.
> History will cover some aspects of this from other
> angles. But for the most part history glosses over
> why things were done.
I agree with that, but I think that just needs to be corrected. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
> What were the reasons behind
> slavery? Not just in the US, but in the world, and
> then later how it was applied in Africa, Europe
> and the Americas? A lot of that has roots in
> religions and beliefs - but is rarely covered in
> depth due to the fact that it starts talking about
> religion.
Well, I'm glad we agree that religion was a big reason for slavery.
> What I see is a way to educate kids on the whys
> and hows that religions came about. What they were
> trying to accomplish. Much of the good and bad
> things that have resulted from them, etc. A waste
> of time?
No, not a waste of time if taught in the context of real evidentiary history. But yes as a mandatory class.
> It is more likely to give the
> kids a way to rationalize their religious beliefs
> and figure out if they make sense to them or not
> moving forward.
There is no rational for religious beliefs once you begin to understand about cosmology, history, science and philosophy.
> You aren't going to stop parents
> from immersing their kids in religion
Probably not, but it's worth a try, don't you think?
> but it
> certainly wouldn't hurt to give them a more
> rational education of the issues involved.
+ 1 on the "issues involved"
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know, maybe you should take a moment to think
> about what I stated. I am not talking about
> teaching religion. I am talking about teaching
> ABOUT religion. Sure, a class on Christianity
> would cover Catholics, protestants, baptists,
> mormons, etc. You think a class that went into the
> origins of the religion, the history of the sects
> splitting off, and talking to the issues of things
> like the crusades, the advent of the Vatican and
> such, etc. Or with Islam - the various muslim
> sects, the reasons behind the splits and such, or
> with Hinduism, or Buddhism with the same kinds of
> thought - you don't think those course would be a
> good way to talk about the good and bad sides of
> religion, and also covering science in relation to
> religion. You think that is a bad idea?
YES! The pivotal decisions and actions throughout time, especially those that effect our current way of life should be included in social studies or history classes. They don't need a mandatory class dedicated to it.
> History will cover some aspects of this from other
> angles. But for the most part history glosses over
> why things were done.
I agree with that, but I think that just needs to be corrected. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
> What were the reasons behind
> slavery? Not just in the US, but in the world, and
> then later how it was applied in Africa, Europe
> and the Americas? A lot of that has roots in
> religions and beliefs - but is rarely covered in
> depth due to the fact that it starts talking about
> religion.
Well, I'm glad we agree that religion was a big reason for slavery.
> What I see is a way to educate kids on the whys
> and hows that religions came about. What they were
> trying to accomplish. Much of the good and bad
> things that have resulted from them, etc. A waste
> of time?
No, not a waste of time if taught in the context of real evidentiary history. But yes as a mandatory class.
> It is more likely to give the
> kids a way to rationalize their religious beliefs
> and figure out if they make sense to them or not
> moving forward.
There is no rational for religious beliefs once you begin to understand about cosmology, history, science and philosophy.
> You aren't going to stop parents
> from immersing their kids in religion
Probably not, but it's worth a try, don't you think?
> but it
> certainly wouldn't hurt to give them a more
> rational education of the issues involved.
+ 1 on the "issues involved"
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: March 18, 2010 07:16AM
Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> There is no rational for religious beliefs once
> you begin to understand about cosmology, history,
> science and philosophy.
>
absolutely - so start with them
start with the discoveries of the Hubble and Planck satellite e.g. on continuous star and planet foundation - after that genesis looks a bit wimpy as an explanation http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8571418.stm
70 sextillion stars (17 followed by 22 zeros)
...spread amongst 170 billion galaxies
...some containing upto a trillion stars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy
and god has time for a personal relationship with you?
That's even without thinking about the complex dynamics of a system containing ...10 to the power 80 atoms,
...operating at dramatically varying temperatures
...over 13.7 billion years
...and a current diameter of about 16 Billion light years
don't forget, every atom heavier than hydrogen has been through the middle of at least one star (that's the only way they get made - well if you ignore the elves chipping away at them in santa's grotto)
so lets really think about this...
a) if your a 6 thousand year-er then kindly explain the above...
b) if you think that god or gods are still behind all of this - god presses the button 16.7 Billion years ago, massive quantum mechanical ferment, star formation blah blah blah - all so he can chat to Registered Voter over breakfast one thursday?
I forgot to mention that in the middle of all of this god took time to bury fake dino bones to test the unwary - that old joker :)
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> There is no rational for religious beliefs once
> you begin to understand about cosmology, history,
> science and philosophy.
>
absolutely - so start with them
start with the discoveries of the Hubble and Planck satellite e.g. on continuous star and planet foundation - after that genesis looks a bit wimpy as an explanation http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8571418.stm
70 sextillion stars (17 followed by 22 zeros)
...spread amongst 170 billion galaxies
...some containing upto a trillion stars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy
and god has time for a personal relationship with you?
That's even without thinking about the complex dynamics of a system containing ...10 to the power 80 atoms,
...operating at dramatically varying temperatures
...over 13.7 billion years
...and a current diameter of about 16 Billion light years
don't forget, every atom heavier than hydrogen has been through the middle of at least one star (that's the only way they get made - well if you ignore the elves chipping away at them in santa's grotto)
so lets really think about this...
a) if your a 6 thousand year-er then kindly explain the above...
b) if you think that god or gods are still behind all of this - god presses the button 16.7 Billion years ago, massive quantum mechanical ferment, star formation blah blah blah - all so he can chat to Registered Voter over breakfast one thursday?
I forgot to mention that in the middle of all of this god took time to bury fake dino bones to test the unwary - that old joker :)
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: March 18, 2010 08:39AM
and gave us a perfect DNA tree that clearly germinated with a single cell.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: March 18, 2010 08:40AM
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
NegativeDreamStealer
()
Date: March 18, 2010 09:07AM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe you should move to France. This is not
> France.
I don't disagree with many of your arguments, but I'm having a hard time understanding your point about France. France is a country in which freedom of religion is recognized by law. It's also a majority Catholic country. Despite this, I find the place to be quite civilized.
> No, kids DON'T get "that" exposed to religions -
> the main thing they get is people ridiculing folks
> that are religious, and acting as if they are some
> kind of nutjob because they have a certain belief
> system.
Well, the beliefs are absurd. How are rational people supposed to react to them?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe you should move to France. This is not
> France.
I don't disagree with many of your arguments, but I'm having a hard time understanding your point about France. France is a country in which freedom of religion is recognized by law. It's also a majority Catholic country. Despite this, I find the place to be quite civilized.
> No, kids DON'T get "that" exposed to religions -
> the main thing they get is people ridiculing folks
> that are religious, and acting as if they are some
> kind of nutjob because they have a certain belief
> system.
Well, the beliefs are absurd. How are rational people supposed to react to them?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: March 18, 2010 09:18AM
NegativeDreamStealer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > No, kids DON'T get "that" exposed to religions
> -
> > the main thing they get is people ridiculing
> folks
> > that are religious, and acting as if they are
> some
> > kind of nutjob because they have a certain
> belief
> > system.
>
> Well, the beliefs are absurd. How are rational
> people supposed to react to them?
If you have a nut-job belief system that runs completely counter to the evidence and you insist on foisting it on everyone else while expecting special treatment, then the price is opposition and ridicule
Pushing faith in opposition to evidence is going to get you justifiably grouped with the other faithers - some of whom are even nutjobbier
if you're going to Valhalla anyway it really shouldn't bother you
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > No, kids DON'T get "that" exposed to religions
> -
> > the main thing they get is people ridiculing
> folks
> > that are religious, and acting as if they are
> some
> > kind of nutjob because they have a certain
> belief
> > system.
>
> Well, the beliefs are absurd. How are rational
> people supposed to react to them?
If you have a nut-job belief system that runs completely counter to the evidence and you insist on foisting it on everyone else while expecting special treatment, then the price is opposition and ridicule
Pushing faith in opposition to evidence is going to get you justifiably grouped with the other faithers - some of whom are even nutjobbier
if you're going to Valhalla anyway it really shouldn't bother you
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: March 18, 2010 09:53AM
NegativeDreamStealer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Maybe you should move to France. This is not
> > France.
>
> I don't disagree with many of your arguments, but
> I'm having a hard time understanding your point
> about France. France is a country in which freedom
> of religion is recognized by law. It's also a
> majority Catholic country. Despite this, I find
> the place to be quite civilized.
France setup their government to be a secular government. France has a law - adopted 1905 - on the Separation of Church and State.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_French_law_on_the_separation_of_Church_and_State
Please show me that law in the US, or in any form. Sure, they are quite civilized - but they also do not allow the full freedom of expression (ie 1st Amendment) in particular where it comes to religion. Religion is strictly private in France, although you do have some State funded religious schools there - they just have very strict requirements on curriculum standards. So yeah, you want these things you folks are promoting, then learn French, and move to France. It appears they are right there with ya, and will satisfy your religious problems. Just don't ridicule politicians if you are newscasters or on the air personalities (or even a blogger), it is very possible you will go to jail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country
> Well, the beliefs are absurd. How are rational
> people supposed to react to them?
What makes you "rational"? Just because you have a good understanding of science, that does not mean you aren't a nut. Again, you mistake me for a religious person. I don't practice any religion - although I am probably a Deist of a sort. Just because as a human being we might have a hard time dealing with all the complexities of managing a billion trillion stars, doesn't mean it is impossible for a larger consciousness to do so. But, I don't have an answer to that one - that is just my personal belief. My point being - you live in the US which was founded on religious tolerance, and not France, which was reformed on religious secularism. The ideas you are expressing are practiced there. In the US, our Constitution doesn't allow for the kinds of restriction in place in France, so that should tell you something. It's obvious your rational thinking didn't give you a firm grasp of the morality behind tolerance.
EDIT: Oh yeah, I am also sure there are other forms of life out there. I doubt any "God" would limit themselves to one little planet in the cosmos to allow for the development of intelligent life on - but I am not really arguing for a "God" either.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2010 10:23AM by Registered Voter.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Maybe you should move to France. This is not
> > France.
>
> I don't disagree with many of your arguments, but
> I'm having a hard time understanding your point
> about France. France is a country in which freedom
> of religion is recognized by law. It's also a
> majority Catholic country. Despite this, I find
> the place to be quite civilized.
France setup their government to be a secular government. France has a law - adopted 1905 - on the Separation of Church and State.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_French_law_on_the_separation_of_Church_and_State
Please show me that law in the US, or in any form. Sure, they are quite civilized - but they also do not allow the full freedom of expression (ie 1st Amendment) in particular where it comes to religion. Religion is strictly private in France, although you do have some State funded religious schools there - they just have very strict requirements on curriculum standards. So yeah, you want these things you folks are promoting, then learn French, and move to France. It appears they are right there with ya, and will satisfy your religious problems. Just don't ridicule politicians if you are newscasters or on the air personalities (or even a blogger), it is very possible you will go to jail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country
Quote
...
As part of “internal security” enactments passed in 2003, it an offense to insult the national flag or anthem, with a penalty of a maximum 9,000 euro fine or up to six months' imprisonment. Restrictions on "offending the dignity of the republic", on the other hand, include "insulting" anyone who serves the public (potentially magistrates, police, firefighters, teachers and even bus conductors).
...
> Well, the beliefs are absurd. How are rational
> people supposed to react to them?
What makes you "rational"? Just because you have a good understanding of science, that does not mean you aren't a nut. Again, you mistake me for a religious person. I don't practice any religion - although I am probably a Deist of a sort. Just because as a human being we might have a hard time dealing with all the complexities of managing a billion trillion stars, doesn't mean it is impossible for a larger consciousness to do so. But, I don't have an answer to that one - that is just my personal belief. My point being - you live in the US which was founded on religious tolerance, and not France, which was reformed on religious secularism. The ideas you are expressing are practiced there. In the US, our Constitution doesn't allow for the kinds of restriction in place in France, so that should tell you something. It's obvious your rational thinking didn't give you a firm grasp of the morality behind tolerance.
EDIT: Oh yeah, I am also sure there are other forms of life out there. I doubt any "God" would limit themselves to one little planet in the cosmos to allow for the development of intelligent life on - but I am not really arguing for a "God" either.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2010 10:23AM by Registered Voter.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: March 18, 2010 10:36AM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NegativeDreamStealer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> >
> France setup their government to be a secular
> government. France has a law - adopted 1905 - on
> the Separation of Church and State.
>
And that's a very sensible thing to do
We don't need to because the constitution already does it for us
> As part of “internal security” enactments passed
> in 2003, it an offense to insult the national flag
> or anthem, with a penalty of a maximum 9,000 euro
> fine or up to six months' imprisonment.
> Restrictions on "offending the dignity of the
> republic", on the other hand, include "insulting"
> anyone who serves the public (potentially
> magistrates, police, firefighters, teachers and
> even bus conductors).
> ...
>
So I think we'd all agree that offending bus conductors is going a tad far - but so is allowing open carry of sidearms in bars (another FXU favorite)
but we have to bear in mind why Europeans tend to have limits to acceptable free speech - especially two world wars and a holocaust
There's a reason why Germany has limits on neo-nazi activities
Do I agree with all of the tradeoffs they've made, no but its clear that they have made tradeoffs
>
> > Well, the beliefs are absurd. How are rational
> > people supposed to react to them?
>
> What makes you "rational"? Just because you have a
> good understanding of science, that does not mean
> you aren't a nut. Again, you mistake me for a
> religious person. I don't practice any religion -
> although I am probably a Deist of a sort. Just
> because as a human being we might have a hard time
> dealing with all the complexities of managing a
> billion trillion stars, doesn't mean it is
> impossible for a larger consciousness to do so.
That's not the point.
The point is that the physics and the maths of complex systems show you that it fundamentally can't be done.
You can't start with a universal atomic fireball and predict the outcomes at the level of a given species, a given planet or even a given galaxy
To model the outcomes of a quantum system, you need another of the same scale, running alongside - or a far larger or running exponentially faster
To envisage an exponentially larger parallel universe sat alongside, just so you can have a Pope to talk to on rainy tuesdays when they're not out massacring heretics is a really odd suggestion
And even designing that universe, you'd need an even bigger one... you get the picture
science goes the other way and gives you a set of simple building blocks that scale and explain the universe around you
> But, I don't have an answer to that one - that is
> just my personal belief. My point being - you live
> in the US which was founded on religious
> tolerance, and not France, which was reformed on
> religious secularism. The ideas you are expressing
> are practiced there. In the US, our Constitution
> doesn't allow for the kinds of restriction in
> place in France, so that should tell you
> something. It's obvious your rational thinking
> didn't give you a firm grasp of the morality
> behind tolerance.
Well firstly, I don't see much tolerance in most religions - I see centuries of extermination and domination, explosive bouts of hunt-the-heretic and a persistent 'crusader' mentality
Secondly, morality is a social artifact and as such is always up for discussion - the universe doesn't care about morality, its just an agreement we come to that has localized evolutionary advantages
Thirdly, I don't think any of the non-faithers were arguing against freedom of speech.
Rather I limit myself to protecting the ban on religion in schools in the same way we ban racism and knife fights - and opposing religion and its pernicious impacts through the expression of free speech
>
> EDIT: Oh yeah, I am also sure there are other
> forms of life out there. I doubt any "God" would
> limit themselves to one little planet in the
> cosmos to put intelligent life on - but I am not
> really arguing for a God either.
The arguments still hold regardless of however many forms of life you have - that's the deep folly of creationism and intelligent design
-------------------------------------------------------
> NegativeDreamStealer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> >
> France setup their government to be a secular
> government. France has a law - adopted 1905 - on
> the Separation of Church and State.
>
And that's a very sensible thing to do
We don't need to because the constitution already does it for us
> As part of “internal security” enactments passed
> in 2003, it an offense to insult the national flag
> or anthem, with a penalty of a maximum 9,000 euro
> fine or up to six months' imprisonment.
> Restrictions on "offending the dignity of the
> republic", on the other hand, include "insulting"
> anyone who serves the public (potentially
> magistrates, police, firefighters, teachers and
> even bus conductors).
> ...
>
So I think we'd all agree that offending bus conductors is going a tad far - but so is allowing open carry of sidearms in bars (another FXU favorite)
but we have to bear in mind why Europeans tend to have limits to acceptable free speech - especially two world wars and a holocaust
There's a reason why Germany has limits on neo-nazi activities
Do I agree with all of the tradeoffs they've made, no but its clear that they have made tradeoffs
>
> > Well, the beliefs are absurd. How are rational
> > people supposed to react to them?
>
> What makes you "rational"? Just because you have a
> good understanding of science, that does not mean
> you aren't a nut. Again, you mistake me for a
> religious person. I don't practice any religion -
> although I am probably a Deist of a sort. Just
> because as a human being we might have a hard time
> dealing with all the complexities of managing a
> billion trillion stars, doesn't mean it is
> impossible for a larger consciousness to do so.
That's not the point.
The point is that the physics and the maths of complex systems show you that it fundamentally can't be done.
You can't start with a universal atomic fireball and predict the outcomes at the level of a given species, a given planet or even a given galaxy
To model the outcomes of a quantum system, you need another of the same scale, running alongside - or a far larger or running exponentially faster
To envisage an exponentially larger parallel universe sat alongside, just so you can have a Pope to talk to on rainy tuesdays when they're not out massacring heretics is a really odd suggestion
And even designing that universe, you'd need an even bigger one... you get the picture
science goes the other way and gives you a set of simple building blocks that scale and explain the universe around you
> But, I don't have an answer to that one - that is
> just my personal belief. My point being - you live
> in the US which was founded on religious
> tolerance, and not France, which was reformed on
> religious secularism. The ideas you are expressing
> are practiced there. In the US, our Constitution
> doesn't allow for the kinds of restriction in
> place in France, so that should tell you
> something. It's obvious your rational thinking
> didn't give you a firm grasp of the morality
> behind tolerance.
Well firstly, I don't see much tolerance in most religions - I see centuries of extermination and domination, explosive bouts of hunt-the-heretic and a persistent 'crusader' mentality
Secondly, morality is a social artifact and as such is always up for discussion - the universe doesn't care about morality, its just an agreement we come to that has localized evolutionary advantages
Thirdly, I don't think any of the non-faithers were arguing against freedom of speech.
Rather I limit myself to protecting the ban on religion in schools in the same way we ban racism and knife fights - and opposing religion and its pernicious impacts through the expression of free speech
>
> EDIT: Oh yeah, I am also sure there are other
> forms of life out there. I doubt any "God" would
> limit themselves to one little planet in the
> cosmos to put intelligent life on - but I am not
> really arguing for a God either.
The arguments still hold regardless of however many forms of life you have - that's the deep folly of creationism and intelligent design
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: March 18, 2010 01:49PM
finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The arguments still hold regardless of however
> many forms of life you have - that's the deep
> folly of creationism and intelligent design
So you would rather argue we developed as the dominant intelligence species through a series of cosmic accidents and mutations, and that we are totally a random collection of protoplasm that just happened to finally evolve. In a universe full of suns, planets, etc - random universal "constants" finally allowed for the accident of "us" to happen.
Why should that "theory" hold total dominance over intelligent design? Just because you can't prove or determine a higher intelligence? Horton Hear a Who?
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
-------------------------------------------------------
> The arguments still hold regardless of however
> many forms of life you have - that's the deep
> folly of creationism and intelligent design
So you would rather argue we developed as the dominant intelligence species through a series of cosmic accidents and mutations, and that we are totally a random collection of protoplasm that just happened to finally evolve. In a universe full of suns, planets, etc - random universal "constants" finally allowed for the accident of "us" to happen.
Why should that "theory" hold total dominance over intelligent design? Just because you can't prove or determine a higher intelligence? Horton Hear a Who?
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: March 18, 2010 02:22PM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The arguments still hold regardless of however
> > many forms of life you have - that's the deep
> > folly of creationism and intelligent design
>
> So you would rather argue we developed as the
> dominant intelligence species through a series of
> cosmic accidents and mutations, and that we are
> totally a random collection of protoplasm that
> just happened to finally evolve. In a universe
> full of suns, planets, etc - random universal
> "constants" finally allowed for the accident of
> "us" to happen.
Yup
But it would be a mistake to think of ourselves as any kind of summit of anything
There will almost certainly be multiple forms of life in multiple places at multiple times
we only think we're special because we only see ourselves
10^80 atoms over vast timescales and vastly varying conditions is a heck of a lot of experiments
My take on chemistry and biology is that once they kick off, and subject to inputs of energy e.g. sunlight you tend towards increasing complexity.
Once you've started down the line of chemistry all sorts of things start to happen - similarly once you have molecules that replicate and carry information
I'm pretty confident that just as we see life in all sorts of extreme corners of the earth, we'll find it in other places within the solar system as we explore it. The vast rest of the universe is almost certainly teeming with life - all going "isn't it amazing that the 8-eyed silicon god chose us"
>
> Why should that "theory" hold total dominance over
> intelligent design? Just because you can't prove
> or determine a higher intelligence? Horton Hear a
> Who?
Because, as explained above, that intelligent design is not a practical scenario - it just doesn't scale in the way that the scientific explanation does.
Not only that, you don't need it to explain everything that you see around you - science offers far simpler, scaleable mechanisms. Faithers just invent stuff to stop them being scared of the dark or because that's what there Mom's told them to keep them quiet in church
Religion just seems simpler because you don't ask the difficult questions - you put them down to ineffable elegance of the invisible guy and resort to faith,
Souls are a good example - can't find one, can't see one, can't measure one, can't see its effects - but I can't be bothered to understand neuroscience so I'll just assume that the bearded-one hid it behind my ears
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The arguments still hold regardless of however
> > many forms of life you have - that's the deep
> > folly of creationism and intelligent design
>
> So you would rather argue we developed as the
> dominant intelligence species through a series of
> cosmic accidents and mutations, and that we are
> totally a random collection of protoplasm that
> just happened to finally evolve. In a universe
> full of suns, planets, etc - random universal
> "constants" finally allowed for the accident of
> "us" to happen.
Yup
But it would be a mistake to think of ourselves as any kind of summit of anything
There will almost certainly be multiple forms of life in multiple places at multiple times
we only think we're special because we only see ourselves
10^80 atoms over vast timescales and vastly varying conditions is a heck of a lot of experiments
My take on chemistry and biology is that once they kick off, and subject to inputs of energy e.g. sunlight you tend towards increasing complexity.
Once you've started down the line of chemistry all sorts of things start to happen - similarly once you have molecules that replicate and carry information
I'm pretty confident that just as we see life in all sorts of extreme corners of the earth, we'll find it in other places within the solar system as we explore it. The vast rest of the universe is almost certainly teeming with life - all going "isn't it amazing that the 8-eyed silicon god chose us"
>
> Why should that "theory" hold total dominance over
> intelligent design? Just because you can't prove
> or determine a higher intelligence? Horton Hear a
> Who?
Because, as explained above, that intelligent design is not a practical scenario - it just doesn't scale in the way that the scientific explanation does.
Not only that, you don't need it to explain everything that you see around you - science offers far simpler, scaleable mechanisms. Faithers just invent stuff to stop them being scared of the dark or because that's what there Mom's told them to keep them quiet in church
Religion just seems simpler because you don't ask the difficult questions - you put them down to ineffable elegance of the invisible guy and resort to faith,
Souls are a good example - can't find one, can't see one, can't measure one, can't see its effects - but I can't be bothered to understand neuroscience so I'll just assume that the bearded-one hid it behind my ears
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
abc123
()
Date: March 18, 2010 03:10PM
finito benito,
Is anyone literally forcing you to believe in something/someone/God? is anyone forcing you to go to church or to adopt Christian faith? is anyone forcing you to listen to Christian radio stations or watch Christian Channels? I doubt it. You have the right not to. It is solely your decision, your will, your responsibility. The same way I and millions of others have the right to believe or not. It's ok to be exposed to religious views, and it's ok to make up your mind about them. Having the ability to think, hope, believe is human. Trying to completely exclude faith, it's like making people deny a part of their self, trying to erase a part of their being. If you don't want to believe in God/bible, it's fine. But you shouldn't try to decide what's best for others.
Professor P,
Since Christianity is a belief system derived from the life and teachings of Jesus/God, it is enough to compare one's life/actions to the guidelines set out in the New Testament/Bible by Jesus/God, and it can be easily determined if someone is "Christian"- by name or Christian by real. Does being Christian make you perfect? No, it doesn't. So, Christians can make mistakes too. Do I have the right to judge a person making a mistake/failing to live by the word? No, I don't. Why not? Because, the Bible teaches me not to, and because tomorrow I might commit the same mistake.
I'm curious: has any of you read the Bible or at least the New Testament?
Is anyone literally forcing you to believe in something/someone/God? is anyone forcing you to go to church or to adopt Christian faith? is anyone forcing you to listen to Christian radio stations or watch Christian Channels? I doubt it. You have the right not to. It is solely your decision, your will, your responsibility. The same way I and millions of others have the right to believe or not. It's ok to be exposed to religious views, and it's ok to make up your mind about them. Having the ability to think, hope, believe is human. Trying to completely exclude faith, it's like making people deny a part of their self, trying to erase a part of their being. If you don't want to believe in God/bible, it's fine. But you shouldn't try to decide what's best for others.
Professor P,
Since Christianity is a belief system derived from the life and teachings of Jesus/God, it is enough to compare one's life/actions to the guidelines set out in the New Testament/Bible by Jesus/God, and it can be easily determined if someone is "Christian"- by name or Christian by real. Does being Christian make you perfect? No, it doesn't. So, Christians can make mistakes too. Do I have the right to judge a person making a mistake/failing to live by the word? No, I don't. Why not? Because, the Bible teaches me not to, and because tomorrow I might commit the same mistake.
I'm curious: has any of you read the Bible or at least the New Testament?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: March 18, 2010 03:22PM
abc123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito,
>
> Is anyone literally forcing you to believe in
> something/someone/God? is anyone forcing you to go
> to church or to adopt Christian faith? is anyone
> forcing you to listen to Christian radio stations
> or watch Christian Channels? I doubt it. You have
> the right not to. It is solely your decision, your
> will, your responsibility. The same way I and
> millions of others have the right to believe or
> not. It's ok to be exposed to religious views, and
> it's ok to make up your mind about them. Having
> the ability to think, hope, believe is human.
> Trying to completely exclude faith, it's like
> making people deny a part of their self, trying to
> erase a part of their being. If you don't want to
> believe in God/bible, it's fine. But you shouldn't
> try to decide what's best for others.
>
But it is right to push back against the special role and influence that religion and its thoroughly discredited ideas have on society
It is right to question whether religious institutions should get tax breaks and special influence. The tools of fear and damnation that religion uses over the weak and vulnerable are disgraceful and would be banned if used by a bank or a civic group - religion gets a free pas
As we've discussed over the last pages - religion is not neutral in its effects on society
I'm not forced to accept religion - but it is forced on my children, it does distort the political process and it is used to justify some of the most egregious and destructive conflicts including our support for rogue regimes such as Israel - and all the costs that have arisen from that
I'm fully happy for people to believe what they want in the peace and quiet of their own homes - but once you start to force that into the public square, then you have to be able to justify it
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito,
>
> Is anyone literally forcing you to believe in
> something/someone/God? is anyone forcing you to go
> to church or to adopt Christian faith? is anyone
> forcing you to listen to Christian radio stations
> or watch Christian Channels? I doubt it. You have
> the right not to. It is solely your decision, your
> will, your responsibility. The same way I and
> millions of others have the right to believe or
> not. It's ok to be exposed to religious views, and
> it's ok to make up your mind about them. Having
> the ability to think, hope, believe is human.
> Trying to completely exclude faith, it's like
> making people deny a part of their self, trying to
> erase a part of their being. If you don't want to
> believe in God/bible, it's fine. But you shouldn't
> try to decide what's best for others.
>
But it is right to push back against the special role and influence that religion and its thoroughly discredited ideas have on society
It is right to question whether religious institutions should get tax breaks and special influence. The tools of fear and damnation that religion uses over the weak and vulnerable are disgraceful and would be banned if used by a bank or a civic group - religion gets a free pas
As we've discussed over the last pages - religion is not neutral in its effects on society
I'm not forced to accept religion - but it is forced on my children, it does distort the political process and it is used to justify some of the most egregious and destructive conflicts including our support for rogue regimes such as Israel - and all the costs that have arisen from that
I'm fully happy for people to believe what they want in the peace and quiet of their own homes - but once you start to force that into the public square, then you have to be able to justify it
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: March 18, 2010 03:34PM
abc123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito,
>
> Is anyone literally forcing you to believe in
> something/someone/God? is anyone forcing you to go
> to church or to adopt Christian faith? is anyone
> forcing you to listen to Christian radio stations
> or watch Christian Channels? I doubt it. You have
> the right not to. It is solely your decision, your
> will, your responsibility. The same way I and
> millions of others have the right to believe or
> not. It's ok to be exposed to religious views, and
> it's ok to make up your mind about them. Having
> the ability to think, hope, believe is human.
> Trying to completely exclude faith, it's like
> making people deny a part of their self, trying to
> erase a part of their being. If you don't want to
> believe in God/bible, it's fine. But you shouldn't
> try to decide what's best for others.
I think you're missing the point. Though I can't speak for Benito, I will say that for me it religions political and social influences that disturb me. The fact that Texas may actually change public school textbooks to cross out and opine people and events that don't jive with their christian beliefs is one current example. The chances of the USA electing a non religious person for president is unthinkable right now.
No atheists give a shit if you want to worship God or any other mythical creature. Pray all you want, go to church and give and give them all your money. We DON't Care. Just don't fuck with our children, politics, schools and as long as churches pay taxes like everyone else, we won't bug you ever again (except to goof on you every now and then for being so silly).
> Professor P,
>
> Since Christianity is a belief system derived from
> the life and teachings of Jesus/God, it is enough
> to compare one's life/actions to the guidelines
> set out in the New Testament/Bible by Jesus/God,
> and it can be easily determined if someone is
> "Christian"- by name or Christian by real. Does
> being Christian make you perfect? No, it doesn't.
> So, Christians can make mistakes too. Do I have
> the right to judge a person making a
> mistake/failing to live by the word? No, I don't.
> Why not? Because, the Bible teaches me not to, and
> because tomorrow I might commit the same mistake.
>
>
> I'm curious: has any of you read the Bible or at
> least the New Testament?
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito,
>
> Is anyone literally forcing you to believe in
> something/someone/God? is anyone forcing you to go
> to church or to adopt Christian faith? is anyone
> forcing you to listen to Christian radio stations
> or watch Christian Channels? I doubt it. You have
> the right not to. It is solely your decision, your
> will, your responsibility. The same way I and
> millions of others have the right to believe or
> not. It's ok to be exposed to religious views, and
> it's ok to make up your mind about them. Having
> the ability to think, hope, believe is human.
> Trying to completely exclude faith, it's like
> making people deny a part of their self, trying to
> erase a part of their being. If you don't want to
> believe in God/bible, it's fine. But you shouldn't
> try to decide what's best for others.
I think you're missing the point. Though I can't speak for Benito, I will say that for me it religions political and social influences that disturb me. The fact that Texas may actually change public school textbooks to cross out and opine people and events that don't jive with their christian beliefs is one current example. The chances of the USA electing a non religious person for president is unthinkable right now.
No atheists give a shit if you want to worship God or any other mythical creature. Pray all you want, go to church and give and give them all your money. We DON't Care. Just don't fuck with our children, politics, schools and as long as churches pay taxes like everyone else, we won't bug you ever again (except to goof on you every now and then for being so silly).
> Professor P,
>
> Since Christianity is a belief system derived from
> the life and teachings of Jesus/God, it is enough
> to compare one's life/actions to the guidelines
> set out in the New Testament/Bible by Jesus/God,
> and it can be easily determined if someone is
> "Christian"- by name or Christian by real. Does
> being Christian make you perfect? No, it doesn't.
> So, Christians can make mistakes too. Do I have
> the right to judge a person making a
> mistake/failing to live by the word? No, I don't.
> Why not? Because, the Bible teaches me not to, and
> because tomorrow I might commit the same mistake.
>
>
> I'm curious: has any of you read the Bible or at
> least the New Testament?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: March 18, 2010 03:37PM
finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> abc123 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > finito benito,
> >
> > Is anyone literally forcing you to believe in
> > something/someone/God? is anyone forcing you to
> go
> > to church or to adopt Christian faith? is
> anyone
> > forcing you to listen to Christian radio
> stations
> > or watch Christian Channels? I doubt it. You
> have
> > the right not to. It is solely your decision,
> your
> > will, your responsibility. The same way I and
> > millions of others have the right to believe or
> > not. It's ok to be exposed to religious views,
> and
> > it's ok to make up your mind about them. Having
> > the ability to think, hope, believe is human.
> > Trying to completely exclude faith, it's like
> > making people deny a part of their self, trying
> to
> > erase a part of their being. If you don't want
> to
> > believe in God/bible, it's fine. But you
> shouldn't
> > try to decide what's best for others.
> >
>
>
> But it is right to push back against the special
> role and influence that religion and its
> thoroughly discredited ideas have on society
>
> It is right to question whether religious
> institutions should get tax breaks and special
> influence. The tools of fear and damnation that
> religion uses over the weak and vulnerable are
> disgraceful and would be banned if used by a bank
> or a civic group - religion gets a free pas
>
> As we've discussed over the last pages - religion
> is not neutral in its effects on society
>
> I'm not forced to accept religion - but it is
> forced on my children, it does distort the
> political process and it is used to justify some
> of the most egregious and destructive conflicts
> including our support for rogue regimes such as
> Israel - and all the costs that have arisen from
> that
>
> I'm fully happy for people to believe what they
> want in the peace and quiet of their own homes -
> but once you start to force that into the public
> square, then you have to be able to justify it
France.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
-------------------------------------------------------
> abc123 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > finito benito,
> >
> > Is anyone literally forcing you to believe in
> > something/someone/God? is anyone forcing you to
> go
> > to church or to adopt Christian faith? is
> anyone
> > forcing you to listen to Christian radio
> stations
> > or watch Christian Channels? I doubt it. You
> have
> > the right not to. It is solely your decision,
> your
> > will, your responsibility. The same way I and
> > millions of others have the right to believe or
> > not. It's ok to be exposed to religious views,
> and
> > it's ok to make up your mind about them. Having
> > the ability to think, hope, believe is human.
> > Trying to completely exclude faith, it's like
> > making people deny a part of their self, trying
> to
> > erase a part of their being. If you don't want
> to
> > believe in God/bible, it's fine. But you
> shouldn't
> > try to decide what's best for others.
> >
>
>
> But it is right to push back against the special
> role and influence that religion and its
> thoroughly discredited ideas have on society
>
> It is right to question whether religious
> institutions should get tax breaks and special
> influence. The tools of fear and damnation that
> religion uses over the weak and vulnerable are
> disgraceful and would be banned if used by a bank
> or a civic group - religion gets a free pas
>
> As we've discussed over the last pages - religion
> is not neutral in its effects on society
>
> I'm not forced to accept religion - but it is
> forced on my children, it does distort the
> political process and it is used to justify some
> of the most egregious and destructive conflicts
> including our support for rogue regimes such as
> Israel - and all the costs that have arisen from
> that
>
> I'm fully happy for people to believe what they
> want in the peace and quiet of their own homes -
> but once you start to force that into the public
> square, then you have to be able to justify it
France.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: March 18, 2010 03:38PM
abc123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito,
>
> I'm curious: has any of you read the Bible or at
> least the New Testament?
yup - plus pliny, catullus, virgil, chaucer, Shakespeare, dickens, Marx, sagan, lewis, tolkein, dawkins, bronoswki, feynman and the sunday funnies
if you're looking for a good fireside book - try
A short history of nearly everything
Bill Bryson
http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly-Everything/dp/076790818X/
its on sale and a good read
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito,
>
> I'm curious: has any of you read the Bible or at
> least the New Testament?
yup - plus pliny, catullus, virgil, chaucer, Shakespeare, dickens, Marx, sagan, lewis, tolkein, dawkins, bronoswki, feynman and the sunday funnies
if you're looking for a good fireside book - try
A short history of nearly everything
Bill Bryson
http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly-Everything/dp/076790818X/
its on sale and a good read
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: March 18, 2010 03:40PM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > abc123 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > finito benito,
> > >
> > but once you start to force that into the
> public
> > square, then you have to be able to justify it
>
>
> France.
at least you can get decent cheese and the wine's a reasonable price
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > abc123 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > finito benito,
> > >
> > but once you start to force that into the
> public
> > square, then you have to be able to justify it
>
>
> France.
at least you can get decent cheese and the wine's a reasonable price
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 19, 2010 08:19AM
finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Quick breakdown:
>
> > On these points I don't think there's a lot of
> > difference between us.
>
> I'd have to disagree with this approach
>
> 1) Comparative religion is already taught in
> elementary schools - my 5th grader was working
> through compulsory units on jewish and other
> mythology (mandated by the state) see
> http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_
> docs/history_socialscience/index.shtml - no
> mention of the FSM though
Yes, I'm aware that religion is taught in schools.
> Frankly I was appalled that this was being taught
> before evolution was even mentioned.
I'm not entirely sure why this is bothersome.
> 2) Religion is already imposed as a de facto
> through the morning chant of the pledge of
> allegiance with its cold war era "we're not those
> godless ruskies" under god clause
That might be a bit of a stretch. Maybe theism, but not *religion*.
> 3) What's missing is not more religion in the
> schools but more and better science - part of the
> issue is that there are so few scientists teaching
> in schools,and so few students taking hard
> science. The real triumph of the scientific
> revolution is when you see it in the round - when
> you see how the issues of scale and complexity
> impact on the world you see around you from
> cosmology to quantum science, how similar and how
> different species are and why, how ecosystems
> adapt, how your brain and mind work. Teaching that
> in a way that kids get a sense of the whole early
> is hard - which is why the pernicious, pervasive
> drip drip drip of 'under god' and encouraging
> 'faith based organizations' is so destructive
I agree and somewhat disagree with you here. Science teaching throughout the US is pretty bad. That said, I think that comparative religion is very important as well. Perhaps it's getting it's fair shake now. I'm not sure, but religion is a LARGE part of people's lives and children should have a passing familiarity with religion.
> 4) Religion's pervasive and corrosive grip on
> American public life is already far too great -
> for example, why do presidential candidates have
> to kowtow to some of the sleaziest of religious
> figures in order to get elected
I agree with this.
> 5) Religion has no place whatsoever in science
> classes - other than perhaps within pyschology
I agree in the general curriculum aspect - but if a student asks a question about Noah's ark, I think the science teacher is well within their bounds to explain how such an event as a world wide flood is scientifically impossible.
> A better approach would be to avoid exposing
> children to religion until they understood what
> science already shows us - then they could decide
> whether they need a deity to fill the gaps
>
> Its clear that by the age of 7 or 8, most
> elementary school children have already been
> pre-conditioned to assume that there is a god. Its
> always fun to ask 7 year olds who bring up
> religion "so what happened to the dinosaurs and
> why are there no human fossils mixed up with them"
> - answers I've heard include "because they were
> too slow to get on the ark", which clearly
> something they've been told, not something they've
> postulated for themselves
Perhaps delaying it would be helpful - I'm not a psychologist, so I don't know.
> I was recently in a fairfax county high school and
> spotted a poster "the mathematics of genesis"
> taped in the center of a prominent classroom
> wipeboard - conflating Schrodinger and Einstein's
> equations with biblical phrases.
>
> I thought that was disgraceful
Yes, that is.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Quick breakdown:
>
> > On these points I don't think there's a lot of
> > difference between us.
>
> I'd have to disagree with this approach
>
> 1) Comparative religion is already taught in
> elementary schools - my 5th grader was working
> through compulsory units on jewish and other
> mythology (mandated by the state) see
> http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_
> docs/history_socialscience/index.shtml - no
> mention of the FSM though
Yes, I'm aware that religion is taught in schools.
> Frankly I was appalled that this was being taught
> before evolution was even mentioned.
I'm not entirely sure why this is bothersome.
> 2) Religion is already imposed as a de facto
> through the morning chant of the pledge of
> allegiance with its cold war era "we're not those
> godless ruskies" under god clause
That might be a bit of a stretch. Maybe theism, but not *religion*.
> 3) What's missing is not more religion in the
> schools but more and better science - part of the
> issue is that there are so few scientists teaching
> in schools,and so few students taking hard
> science. The real triumph of the scientific
> revolution is when you see it in the round - when
> you see how the issues of scale and complexity
> impact on the world you see around you from
> cosmology to quantum science, how similar and how
> different species are and why, how ecosystems
> adapt, how your brain and mind work. Teaching that
> in a way that kids get a sense of the whole early
> is hard - which is why the pernicious, pervasive
> drip drip drip of 'under god' and encouraging
> 'faith based organizations' is so destructive
I agree and somewhat disagree with you here. Science teaching throughout the US is pretty bad. That said, I think that comparative religion is very important as well. Perhaps it's getting it's fair shake now. I'm not sure, but religion is a LARGE part of people's lives and children should have a passing familiarity with religion.
> 4) Religion's pervasive and corrosive grip on
> American public life is already far too great -
> for example, why do presidential candidates have
> to kowtow to some of the sleaziest of religious
> figures in order to get elected
I agree with this.
> 5) Religion has no place whatsoever in science
> classes - other than perhaps within pyschology
I agree in the general curriculum aspect - but if a student asks a question about Noah's ark, I think the science teacher is well within their bounds to explain how such an event as a world wide flood is scientifically impossible.
> A better approach would be to avoid exposing
> children to religion until they understood what
> science already shows us - then they could decide
> whether they need a deity to fill the gaps
>
> Its clear that by the age of 7 or 8, most
> elementary school children have already been
> pre-conditioned to assume that there is a god. Its
> always fun to ask 7 year olds who bring up
> religion "so what happened to the dinosaurs and
> why are there no human fossils mixed up with them"
> - answers I've heard include "because they were
> too slow to get on the ark", which clearly
> something they've been told, not something they've
> postulated for themselves
Perhaps delaying it would be helpful - I'm not a psychologist, so I don't know.
> I was recently in a fairfax county high school and
> spotted a poster "the mathematics of genesis"
> taped in the center of a prominent classroom
> wipeboard - conflating Schrodinger and Einstein's
> equations with biblical phrases.
>
> I thought that was disgraceful
Yes, that is.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 19, 2010 08:23AM
Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> I said teach them ABOUT religion(s) and
> > how they came about - then go into comparisons
> to
> > other religions, etc.
>
>
> The only way that could work is if it were during
> a history class that was focused on a period of
> history where certain events in the bible may
> coincide with known events. Otherwise, a
> comparative religion class would waste WAY too
> much time and prove nothing to anyone. Since
> religion is really just speculation, with little
> of no evidence to support it, it would be far
> better suited to a non-mandatory class or not at
> all.
Why would such a class even attempt to prove anything? I envision such a course similar to one I took in highschool - you get a general breakdown of various religions. Kind of like a history course, as you mentioned.
> And I'm sure these 2 years of "mandatory classes"
> will be taught by non-biased and open-minded
> professors, right?
> Bullshit! There are crazy Creationists and insane
> Islamic "scholars" chomping at the bit for that
> day.
Dude, you have crazy creationists shoving their ridiculousness into all sorts of places where it doesn't belong. You will always have bad teachers teaching bad stuff.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> I said teach them ABOUT religion(s) and
> > how they came about - then go into comparisons
> to
> > other religions, etc.
>
>
> The only way that could work is if it were during
> a history class that was focused on a period of
> history where certain events in the bible may
> coincide with known events. Otherwise, a
> comparative religion class would waste WAY too
> much time and prove nothing to anyone. Since
> religion is really just speculation, with little
> of no evidence to support it, it would be far
> better suited to a non-mandatory class or not at
> all.
Why would such a class even attempt to prove anything? I envision such a course similar to one I took in highschool - you get a general breakdown of various religions. Kind of like a history course, as you mentioned.
> And I'm sure these 2 years of "mandatory classes"
> will be taught by non-biased and open-minded
> professors, right?
> Bullshit! There are crazy Creationists and insane
> Islamic "scholars" chomping at the bit for that
> day.
Dude, you have crazy creationists shoving their ridiculousness into all sorts of places where it doesn't belong. You will always have bad teachers teaching bad stuff.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 19, 2010 08:28AM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There would be a curriculum for this. The folks
> you are speaking of - most likely they are already
> happily employed by the local private religious
> schools (of various denominations) doing exactly
> what you think.
>
> You know, maybe you should take a moment to think
> about what I stated. I am not talking about
> teaching religion. I am talking about teaching
> ABOUT religion. Sure, a class on Christianity
> would cover Catholics, protestants, baptists,
> mormons, etc. You think a class that went into the
> origins of the religion, the history of the sects
> splitting off, and talking to the issues of things
> like the crusades, the advent of the Vatican and
> such, etc. Or with Islam - the various muslim
> sects, the reasons behind the splits and such, or
> with Hinduism, or Buddhism with the same kinds of
> thought - you don't think those course would be a
> good way to talk about the good and bad sides of
> religion, and also covering science in relation to
> religion. You think that is a bad idea?
Actually, when I took a comparative religion course (decade + ago), the startling thing was the *OTHER* religions (zoroastrianism, toaism, shintoism, African religions whose name I can't even remember). The course was a 'history' in that it started out with ancient religions (such as Egyptian and others) and worked it's way to modern beliefs.
> History will cover some aspects of this from other
> angles. But for the most part history glosses over
> why things were done. What were the reasons behind
> slavery? Not just in the US, but in the world, and
> then later how it was applied in Africa, Europe
> and the Americas? A lot of that has roots in
> religions and beliefs - but is rarely covered in
> depth due to the fact that it starts talking about
> religion.
I agree with this - history leaves out a lot of 'whys' and religion, unfortunately, can be used to fill in some of those whys (such as the deification of the emperor of Japan during WWII).
> What I see is a way to educate kids on the whys
> and hows that religions came about. What they were
> trying to accomplish. Much of the good and bad
> things that have resulted from them, etc. A waste
> of time? Doubtful. It is more likely to give the
> kids a way to rationalize their religious beliefs
> and figure out if they make sense to them or not
> moving forward. You aren't going to stop parents
> from immersing their kids in religion - but it
> certainly wouldn't hurt to give them a more
> rational education of the issues involved.
To be honest, I would think the fundies would have a bigger problem with this, since you are exposing their children to 'satanic religions'....
-------------------------------------------------------
> There would be a curriculum for this. The folks
> you are speaking of - most likely they are already
> happily employed by the local private religious
> schools (of various denominations) doing exactly
> what you think.
>
> You know, maybe you should take a moment to think
> about what I stated. I am not talking about
> teaching religion. I am talking about teaching
> ABOUT religion. Sure, a class on Christianity
> would cover Catholics, protestants, baptists,
> mormons, etc. You think a class that went into the
> origins of the religion, the history of the sects
> splitting off, and talking to the issues of things
> like the crusades, the advent of the Vatican and
> such, etc. Or with Islam - the various muslim
> sects, the reasons behind the splits and such, or
> with Hinduism, or Buddhism with the same kinds of
> thought - you don't think those course would be a
> good way to talk about the good and bad sides of
> religion, and also covering science in relation to
> religion. You think that is a bad idea?
Actually, when I took a comparative religion course (decade + ago), the startling thing was the *OTHER* religions (zoroastrianism, toaism, shintoism, African religions whose name I can't even remember). The course was a 'history' in that it started out with ancient religions (such as Egyptian and others) and worked it's way to modern beliefs.
> History will cover some aspects of this from other
> angles. But for the most part history glosses over
> why things were done. What were the reasons behind
> slavery? Not just in the US, but in the world, and
> then later how it was applied in Africa, Europe
> and the Americas? A lot of that has roots in
> religions and beliefs - but is rarely covered in
> depth due to the fact that it starts talking about
> religion.
I agree with this - history leaves out a lot of 'whys' and religion, unfortunately, can be used to fill in some of those whys (such as the deification of the emperor of Japan during WWII).
> What I see is a way to educate kids on the whys
> and hows that religions came about. What they were
> trying to accomplish. Much of the good and bad
> things that have resulted from them, etc. A waste
> of time? Doubtful. It is more likely to give the
> kids a way to rationalize their religious beliefs
> and figure out if they make sense to them or not
> moving forward. You aren't going to stop parents
> from immersing their kids in religion - but it
> certainly wouldn't hurt to give them a more
> rational education of the issues involved.
To be honest, I would think the fundies would have a bigger problem with this, since you are exposing their children to 'satanic religions'....
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 19, 2010 08:29AM
finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > There is no rational for religious beliefs once
> > you begin to understand about cosmology,
> history,
> > science and philosophy.
> >
>
> absolutely - so start with them
>
> start with the discoveries of the Hubble and
> Planck satellite e.g. on continuous star and
> planet foundation - after that genesis looks a bit
> wimpy as an explanation
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8571418.
> stm
>
> 70 sextillion stars (17 followed by 22 zeros)
> ...spread amongst 170 billion galaxies
> ...some containing upto a trillion stars
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy
>
> and god has time for a personal relationship with
> you?
This reminds me of the Bertrand Russell story of the theologian who dies and goes to heaven. He meets an alien in the library who has no idea what 'humans' are and the theologian becomes shocked at just how insignificant humanity is. Good story.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > There is no rational for religious beliefs once
> > you begin to understand about cosmology,
> history,
> > science and philosophy.
> >
>
> absolutely - so start with them
>
> start with the discoveries of the Hubble and
> Planck satellite e.g. on continuous star and
> planet foundation - after that genesis looks a bit
> wimpy as an explanation
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8571418.
> stm
>
> 70 sextillion stars (17 followed by 22 zeros)
> ...spread amongst 170 billion galaxies
> ...some containing upto a trillion stars
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy
>
> and god has time for a personal relationship with
> you?
This reminds me of the Bertrand Russell story of the theologian who dies and goes to heaven. He meets an alien in the library who has no idea what 'humans' are and the theologian becomes shocked at just how insignificant humanity is. Good story.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 19, 2010 08:32AM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The arguments still hold regardless of however
> > many forms of life you have - that's the deep
> > folly of creationism and intelligent design
>
> So you would rather argue we developed as the
> dominant intelligence species through a series of
> cosmic accidents and mutations, and that we are
> totally a random collection of protoplasm that
> just happened to finally evolve. In a universe
> full of suns, planets, etc - random universal
> "constants" finally allowed for the accident of
> "us" to happen.
>
> Why should that "theory" hold total dominance over
> intelligent design? Just because you can't prove
> or determine a higher intelligence? Horton Hear a
> Who?
This is a strawman - evolution is not random. Further, you seem to be using the term 'theory' in an equivocal way. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It does not belong in the market place of ideas in science because it's not a scientific theory.
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The arguments still hold regardless of however
> > many forms of life you have - that's the deep
> > folly of creationism and intelligent design
>
> So you would rather argue we developed as the
> dominant intelligence species through a series of
> cosmic accidents and mutations, and that we are
> totally a random collection of protoplasm that
> just happened to finally evolve. In a universe
> full of suns, planets, etc - random universal
> "constants" finally allowed for the accident of
> "us" to happen.
>
> Why should that "theory" hold total dominance over
> intelligent design? Just because you can't prove
> or determine a higher intelligence? Horton Hear a
> Who?
This is a strawman - evolution is not random. Further, you seem to be using the term 'theory' in an equivocal way. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It does not belong in the market place of ideas in science because it's not a scientific theory.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 19, 2010 08:34AM
abc123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor P,
>
> Since Christianity is a belief system derived from
> the life and teachings of Jesus/God, it is enough
> to compare one's life/actions to the guidelines
> set out in the New Testament/Bible by Jesus/God,
> and it can be easily determined if someone is
> "Christian"- by name or Christian by real. Does
> being Christian make you perfect? No, it doesn't.
You don't get it. You seem to think that there is some objective POV that can be used to determine this. The point I have been making is that those you rail against as being non christian would rail against you equally for not being a christian. They would ALSO have biblical support.
> So, Christians can make mistakes too. Do I have
> the right to judge a person making a
> mistake/failing to live by the word? No, I don't.
Yet you believe you have the right to determine who is or is not a Christian?
> Why not? Because, the Bible teaches me not to, and
> because tomorrow I might commit the same mistake.
>
>
> I'm curious: has any of you read the Bible or at
> least the New Testament?
I've read the entire bible, cover to cover, twice and I've read portions several times throughout my life.
Have you?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor P,
>
> Since Christianity is a belief system derived from
> the life and teachings of Jesus/God, it is enough
> to compare one's life/actions to the guidelines
> set out in the New Testament/Bible by Jesus/God,
> and it can be easily determined if someone is
> "Christian"- by name or Christian by real. Does
> being Christian make you perfect? No, it doesn't.
You don't get it. You seem to think that there is some objective POV that can be used to determine this. The point I have been making is that those you rail against as being non christian would rail against you equally for not being a christian. They would ALSO have biblical support.
> So, Christians can make mistakes too. Do I have
> the right to judge a person making a
> mistake/failing to live by the word? No, I don't.
Yet you believe you have the right to determine who is or is not a Christian?
> Why not? Because, the Bible teaches me not to, and
> because tomorrow I might commit the same mistake.
>
>
> I'm curious: has any of you read the Bible or at
> least the New Testament?
I've read the entire bible, cover to cover, twice and I've read portions several times throughout my life.
Have you?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 19, 2010 08:35AM
finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A short history of nearly everything
> Bill Bryson
> http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly-Everyth
> ing/dp/076790818X/
> its on sale and a good read
+1
The audio version is also really good.
-------------------------------------------------------
> A short history of nearly everything
> Bill Bryson
> http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly-Everyth
> ing/dp/076790818X/
> its on sale and a good read
+1
The audio version is also really good.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: March 19, 2010 08:35AM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To be honest, I would think the fundies would have
> a bigger problem with this, since you are exposing
> their children to 'satanic religions'....
Yeah, I agree. But at least it gives us a way to start getting past calling everyone who has a belief in religion a nutcase. People seem to have forgotten what tolerance is. Fundamentalists are way beyond that already, so you could only hope to draw some of them in.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
-------------------------------------------------------
> To be honest, I would think the fundies would have
> a bigger problem with this, since you are exposing
> their children to 'satanic religions'....
Yeah, I agree. But at least it gives us a way to start getting past calling everyone who has a belief in religion a nutcase. People seem to have forgotten what tolerance is. Fundamentalists are way beyond that already, so you could only hope to draw some of them in.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
NegativeDreamStealer
()
Date: March 21, 2010 10:39AM
abc123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm curious: has any of you read the Bible or at
> least the New Testament?
No, I get all my biblical information from Mel Brooks.
That's how I know there had been 15 commandments until Moses accidentally dropped a tablet. I'm pretty sure that was the one with "Thou shalt not rape," "Thou shalt not enslave," and "Thou shalt not abuse children" on it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm curious: has any of you read the Bible or at
> least the New Testament?
No, I get all my biblical information from Mel Brooks.
That's how I know there had been 15 commandments until Moses accidentally dropped a tablet. I'm pretty sure that was the one with "Thou shalt not rape," "Thou shalt not enslave," and "Thou shalt not abuse children" on it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
hopeful one
()
Date: March 22, 2010 11:10PM
I know that those who passionately attack Lon Solomon, McLean Bible Church...and those that teach things that are not popular with modern society will come back with all kinds of things that aren't favorable to the sentiments of my post. I'm ok with that.
I have looked at these threads for quite some time (a little over 2 years now)...and each time I do...I feel the same...sad and hurt. I guess today, it was a little harder than the others. Not sure why, but I feel that my thoughts should be heard today.
It is so very sad that so many people have been so hurt somewhere along life's path that they cannot believe that there can be goodness, generosity, love and passion and true commitment to God in men any more.
How will anyone ever know if someone is 'the real deal'? What should 'the real deal 'look' like? What should it 'feel' like? What should it 'taste' like? What should it 'smell' like? What should it 'sound' like?
Is it human nature to envy if we have the same things as others? Or, do we envy when we don't? The bible speaks of many, many men who were blessed with incredible financial wealth. It is also recorded that men of great wealth lost in great measure. I will take a wild guess and bet everything I own, that if what Lon Solomon has in assets was compared to those in the bible I have referenced, he would be considered a very, very, very poor man. It is a matter of perspective.
I would be an 'idiot and/or moron' to say that there haven't been men and women in the ministry who have given into greed and other sin? I would also be an 'idiot and/or moron' to say that CHRISTIANS ARE IMMUNE!!!
Human nature loves a 'great story'...and for some strange reason, when Christian leaders fail, it becomes a great story for those who fight against the ideals of 'faith, trust and belief in God' or pure goodness. It is highly publicized when someone in leadership falls. It is sad...and so many followers lose their faith, never to have it again. Failure in such leadership comes at a great cost. But of course, that is the goal of the devil.
Today more than ever, churches and their leadership know just how serious accountability is in so many areas of ministry. Because of this, much change has occurred throughout the church and the leadership to protect leaders and followers alike, from those very situations. Is it fool-proof? Absolutely not. But it has been recognized and addressed...and will continue to be monitored as time passes.
Accountability...yes, even Lon Solomon has accountability to the other leaders of the church. Obviously there are many who do not believe this, but there are meetings that cover finances that are opened to the public...not only members, but non-members.
Regarding Lon Solomon's family and his daughter's handicap... Who would wish that on any individual or family? I give those writing on this thread the benefit of the doubt...that they wouldn't. You may be very compassionate people. But there is a question I have for those that do not support Lon Solomon's leadership...even the ones that are compassionate towards others. How many people can look at such handicaps...or any others for that matter, as a blessing? Those who have a strong faith and trust in God may. Some followers may not because it challenges their faith so much that they turn against everything they have believed all of their lives. That is a very sad day...when someone gives up. But God doesn't. He is faithful...and will be there the moment they desire to 'come back'.
Do all of the readers of this thread know how Lon Solomon feels about his daughter's struggles and how it impacted his own faith? Ask him...so you know and understand what motivates him. Are readers of this thread aware of the blessing that Access Ministries has been to so many families? Jill's House...and how that is going to bless the community's families and those beautiful children?
What about all of the other wonderful ministries supported by McLean Bible Church? How many lives are changed for good...forever? Is it possible that there may be a 'hint of goodness' in this man that so many speak out against?
Who knows 'the man' Lon Solomon on an intimate friendship level? Do readers of this thread? I have listened to him teach passionately for almost 2 years. I definitely do not know him on a personal level. I don't feel that I need to. Reason being is that he answers to God...not me...or anyone else...plain and simple. If he is doing something wrong, God will reveal it in His own way...and in His own timing. If he isn't a 'phoney', people will still try to prove he is. That is just the way things are sometimes.
I trust God and the leadership of the Holy Spirit...not man. That does not make me or anyone else who does...idiots and/or morons.
Why isn't the idea of Lon Solomon (or any other influential leader) having an honest love for God a 'potential thought' for so many of the people who have attacked this pastor on this thread? Haven't or couldn't any in Christian leadership escape the snares that others haven't in the past? I sure hope so. Isn't it even worth it to have hope that we can believe in God's goodness that is possible in men...to come to full fruition...in anyone's life? Have we all lost all hope and ability to have such faith? Why is it that those who do have such faith are labeled 'idiots or morons'? I don't think I am a moron or idiot. Nor do I consider those who say unfavorable things idiots or morons.
How can anyone judge anothers' heart or motives? Our hearts are wicked because of sin. Lon Solomon is steadfast in what he teaches, popular or not, to those who listen. Is it supposed to 'feel good' when we face some 'ugly truths' about ourselves? Of course not. It is up to the listener to be honest with themselves and search their hearts and truly seek out what God's word says...to know what change is necessary. Not only know...but to do what it is for good. I know on a personal level that some of the things he teaches about aren't easy for me to hear. Who wants to hear that if they want to serve God as God himself wants us to, that we need to make changes and/or give worldly pleasure up? It is never comfortable, but the rewards are guaranteed. I am reminded every day I wake up...it isn't always easy, but by God's grace...we can do it.
I tried to shorten this...but I just couldn't. Please readers, ask yourself some of the questions I have posed. Be honest with yourselves. Is it Lon Solomon that you are upset with...or possibly something or someone else. Soul search...and ask God to speak to you. He will, but you have to be willing to listen...even if it is uncomfortable.
God bless you all...from one who can only thank God for his continued and unmerited grace and mercy.
I have looked at these threads for quite some time (a little over 2 years now)...and each time I do...I feel the same...sad and hurt. I guess today, it was a little harder than the others. Not sure why, but I feel that my thoughts should be heard today.
It is so very sad that so many people have been so hurt somewhere along life's path that they cannot believe that there can be goodness, generosity, love and passion and true commitment to God in men any more.
How will anyone ever know if someone is 'the real deal'? What should 'the real deal 'look' like? What should it 'feel' like? What should it 'taste' like? What should it 'smell' like? What should it 'sound' like?
Is it human nature to envy if we have the same things as others? Or, do we envy when we don't? The bible speaks of many, many men who were blessed with incredible financial wealth. It is also recorded that men of great wealth lost in great measure. I will take a wild guess and bet everything I own, that if what Lon Solomon has in assets was compared to those in the bible I have referenced, he would be considered a very, very, very poor man. It is a matter of perspective.
I would be an 'idiot and/or moron' to say that there haven't been men and women in the ministry who have given into greed and other sin? I would also be an 'idiot and/or moron' to say that CHRISTIANS ARE IMMUNE!!!
Human nature loves a 'great story'...and for some strange reason, when Christian leaders fail, it becomes a great story for those who fight against the ideals of 'faith, trust and belief in God' or pure goodness. It is highly publicized when someone in leadership falls. It is sad...and so many followers lose their faith, never to have it again. Failure in such leadership comes at a great cost. But of course, that is the goal of the devil.
Today more than ever, churches and their leadership know just how serious accountability is in so many areas of ministry. Because of this, much change has occurred throughout the church and the leadership to protect leaders and followers alike, from those very situations. Is it fool-proof? Absolutely not. But it has been recognized and addressed...and will continue to be monitored as time passes.
Accountability...yes, even Lon Solomon has accountability to the other leaders of the church. Obviously there are many who do not believe this, but there are meetings that cover finances that are opened to the public...not only members, but non-members.
Regarding Lon Solomon's family and his daughter's handicap... Who would wish that on any individual or family? I give those writing on this thread the benefit of the doubt...that they wouldn't. You may be very compassionate people. But there is a question I have for those that do not support Lon Solomon's leadership...even the ones that are compassionate towards others. How many people can look at such handicaps...or any others for that matter, as a blessing? Those who have a strong faith and trust in God may. Some followers may not because it challenges their faith so much that they turn against everything they have believed all of their lives. That is a very sad day...when someone gives up. But God doesn't. He is faithful...and will be there the moment they desire to 'come back'.
Do all of the readers of this thread know how Lon Solomon feels about his daughter's struggles and how it impacted his own faith? Ask him...so you know and understand what motivates him. Are readers of this thread aware of the blessing that Access Ministries has been to so many families? Jill's House...and how that is going to bless the community's families and those beautiful children?
What about all of the other wonderful ministries supported by McLean Bible Church? How many lives are changed for good...forever? Is it possible that there may be a 'hint of goodness' in this man that so many speak out against?
Who knows 'the man' Lon Solomon on an intimate friendship level? Do readers of this thread? I have listened to him teach passionately for almost 2 years. I definitely do not know him on a personal level. I don't feel that I need to. Reason being is that he answers to God...not me...or anyone else...plain and simple. If he is doing something wrong, God will reveal it in His own way...and in His own timing. If he isn't a 'phoney', people will still try to prove he is. That is just the way things are sometimes.
I trust God and the leadership of the Holy Spirit...not man. That does not make me or anyone else who does...idiots and/or morons.
Why isn't the idea of Lon Solomon (or any other influential leader) having an honest love for God a 'potential thought' for so many of the people who have attacked this pastor on this thread? Haven't or couldn't any in Christian leadership escape the snares that others haven't in the past? I sure hope so. Isn't it even worth it to have hope that we can believe in God's goodness that is possible in men...to come to full fruition...in anyone's life? Have we all lost all hope and ability to have such faith? Why is it that those who do have such faith are labeled 'idiots or morons'? I don't think I am a moron or idiot. Nor do I consider those who say unfavorable things idiots or morons.
How can anyone judge anothers' heart or motives? Our hearts are wicked because of sin. Lon Solomon is steadfast in what he teaches, popular or not, to those who listen. Is it supposed to 'feel good' when we face some 'ugly truths' about ourselves? Of course not. It is up to the listener to be honest with themselves and search their hearts and truly seek out what God's word says...to know what change is necessary. Not only know...but to do what it is for good. I know on a personal level that some of the things he teaches about aren't easy for me to hear. Who wants to hear that if they want to serve God as God himself wants us to, that we need to make changes and/or give worldly pleasure up? It is never comfortable, but the rewards are guaranteed. I am reminded every day I wake up...it isn't always easy, but by God's grace...we can do it.
I tried to shorten this...but I just couldn't. Please readers, ask yourself some of the questions I have posed. Be honest with yourselves. Is it Lon Solomon that you are upset with...or possibly something or someone else. Soul search...and ask God to speak to you. He will, but you have to be willing to listen...even if it is uncomfortable.
God bless you all...from one who can only thank God for his continued and unmerited grace and mercy.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: March 22, 2010 11:31PM
Hopeful one,
I don't think the majority of non believers think of you as a moron or idiot, unless of course you say something moronic or idiotic.
As for myself, a non believer, when I hear someone say things like "I trust God and the leadership of the Holy Spirit...not man." I can't help but feel they are delusional. The term delusional doesn't necessarily mean you're an idiot, it just means you've been duped, possibly since you were very young.
What do you trust God to do? More importantly, what do you trust the leadership of the Holy Spirit to do?
Do you lack trust in yourself or your friends?
Why do you trust in a being that has absolutely no evidence to back his story up and an overwhelming amount of evidence against it? Please don't use the "faith" answer as this will only make you seem more delusional and irrational.
How many prayers has God answered sufficiently for you and how many has he not answered at all?
I don't think the majority of non believers think of you as a moron or idiot, unless of course you say something moronic or idiotic.
As for myself, a non believer, when I hear someone say things like "I trust God and the leadership of the Holy Spirit...not man." I can't help but feel they are delusional. The term delusional doesn't necessarily mean you're an idiot, it just means you've been duped, possibly since you were very young.
What do you trust God to do? More importantly, what do you trust the leadership of the Holy Spirit to do?
Do you lack trust in yourself or your friends?
Why do you trust in a being that has absolutely no evidence to back his story up and an overwhelming amount of evidence against it? Please don't use the "faith" answer as this will only make you seem more delusional and irrational.
How many prayers has God answered sufficiently for you and how many has he not answered at all?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Soon2BXmember
()
Date: March 24, 2010 11:27AM
A letter from McLean Bible (their head elder) in response to the Picketing going on outside the church. I'm (currently) a member and I can tell you the financial truth of this church is causing me renounce my membership. There is no external accountability at Mclean Bible Church or Jill's House, let alone HLP Tours (Lon's tour business or partnership).
Take a look at their Housing Allowances, their Salaries and the Solomon's Expense Accounts / Credit Cards. If the claims of the picketers are errant, why doesn't he (Lon) simply show his last 5 year W2s? Such openness would absolve the accusations, however that cannot be addressed as this truth would cause major descension in the giving and cause unrest in the staff. So, keep hiding the truth because the day it's found out is the day it falls apart. What would you do?
The disheartening piece of this is the fact the Church Management does not seem to realize this lack of trust and accountability feeling is growing inside the congregation. Too bad they quit providing the financial disclosure as used to be done. They keep trying to stifle it one person at a time, but that won't last forever.
____________________________________
By now, many of you have seen the men with the sign boards outside the Tysons campus on Rt. 7 on Sundays. Some have asked what is going on out there. To address these questions, please read the following short explanation.
The leader of this group has a deep doctrinal disagreement with MBC. He believes that our position on the nation of Israel, the return of Christ, and many other doctrinal issues is wrong. He has accused Lon of teaching heresy and the MBC Elders of supporting heresy in allowing Lon to teach as he does. He wants MBC to renounce our position on all these issues and to discipline Lon. He accuses Lon of other supposedly sinful statements in his sermons.
Because of the Elder Board's support for Lon's supposed heresy, he wants to neutralize and, over time, remove the present board from authority and to supplant it with a committee of MBC congregation members (including himself). This committee would then force change to MBC's doctrinal position and would effectively run church affairs.
Last, he wants all of the MBC staff salaries to be made a matter of public record.
Tom McMahon (our Elder Vice Chairman) and I have met with this man; and, in addition, I have interacted with him via email and one-on-one conversation. We told him that we will not acquiesce to any of his demands. We have tried to appeal to him as a brother in the Lord to attend another church that more closely aligns with his doctrinal position and to be happy serving the Lord there.
We also reviewed with him our position and process for salary administration and oversight. As a part of that, we explained that it has been our practice for 30 years not to reveal staff salaries for two reasons: (1) we feel it is a disrespectful invasion of our staff's privacy for everyone to know their salaries, and (2) we believe that it cannot help but be a divisive issue within our church family.
We are commanded in the Scripture (Eph 4:3) to "guard the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" in the church. All eight of our non-paid, volunteer Elders oversee and decide on the salaries of our staff with careful attention to doing what is fair for our staff and, at the same time, being responsible stewards of the Lord's money. Even though we do not reveal staff salaries, I want you to know that the figure this man's sign suggests for our senior pastor's salary ($750,000) is outrageously high and totally incorrect. You also need to know that even though Lon is an Elder, he is not present and does not participate in any deliberations when his salary is discussed by the Board, nor does he vote on any salaries for other church staff members. Overseeing the church compensation program is an Elder responsibility, and Lon is not a part of this.
We have asked this man repeatedly not to damage and embarrass the work of God by doing things like he is doing on Rt. 7 on Sundays. But he has firmly rebuffed all our attempts to try to address this matter decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40) and in a way that protects the reputation of God's work in Washington, DC. In fact, he told us that he has no intention of stopping and will "ratchet up" his efforts. He mentioned that he might move on to do the same things at another evangelical Bible church in the area next after he achieves his goals at MBC.
Since he conducts his Rt. 7 activities on public property, he is within his rights to be there. We ask you to pray for him and his associates out there.
If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call at 301-299-2748.
Thank you for your kindness in reading my email. Please join me and the Elders in praying that God will continue to protect and use MBC in a great way here in Washington for His glory. Also, please pray for Lon, that God will keep his eyes focused on the Lord in spite of this vituperative attack on him, and that God will give him encouragement to keep preaching the Word and leading MBC with his characteristic vigor and godly passion.
Serving Christ together,
Larry Cooper
Chairman, MBC board of Elders
Take a look at their Housing Allowances, their Salaries and the Solomon's Expense Accounts / Credit Cards. If the claims of the picketers are errant, why doesn't he (Lon) simply show his last 5 year W2s? Such openness would absolve the accusations, however that cannot be addressed as this truth would cause major descension in the giving and cause unrest in the staff. So, keep hiding the truth because the day it's found out is the day it falls apart. What would you do?
The disheartening piece of this is the fact the Church Management does not seem to realize this lack of trust and accountability feeling is growing inside the congregation. Too bad they quit providing the financial disclosure as used to be done. They keep trying to stifle it one person at a time, but that won't last forever.
____________________________________
By now, many of you have seen the men with the sign boards outside the Tysons campus on Rt. 7 on Sundays. Some have asked what is going on out there. To address these questions, please read the following short explanation.
The leader of this group has a deep doctrinal disagreement with MBC. He believes that our position on the nation of Israel, the return of Christ, and many other doctrinal issues is wrong. He has accused Lon of teaching heresy and the MBC Elders of supporting heresy in allowing Lon to teach as he does. He wants MBC to renounce our position on all these issues and to discipline Lon. He accuses Lon of other supposedly sinful statements in his sermons.
Because of the Elder Board's support for Lon's supposed heresy, he wants to neutralize and, over time, remove the present board from authority and to supplant it with a committee of MBC congregation members (including himself). This committee would then force change to MBC's doctrinal position and would effectively run church affairs.
Last, he wants all of the MBC staff salaries to be made a matter of public record.
Tom McMahon (our Elder Vice Chairman) and I have met with this man; and, in addition, I have interacted with him via email and one-on-one conversation. We told him that we will not acquiesce to any of his demands. We have tried to appeal to him as a brother in the Lord to attend another church that more closely aligns with his doctrinal position and to be happy serving the Lord there.
We also reviewed with him our position and process for salary administration and oversight. As a part of that, we explained that it has been our practice for 30 years not to reveal staff salaries for two reasons: (1) we feel it is a disrespectful invasion of our staff's privacy for everyone to know their salaries, and (2) we believe that it cannot help but be a divisive issue within our church family.
We are commanded in the Scripture (Eph 4:3) to "guard the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" in the church. All eight of our non-paid, volunteer Elders oversee and decide on the salaries of our staff with careful attention to doing what is fair for our staff and, at the same time, being responsible stewards of the Lord's money. Even though we do not reveal staff salaries, I want you to know that the figure this man's sign suggests for our senior pastor's salary ($750,000) is outrageously high and totally incorrect. You also need to know that even though Lon is an Elder, he is not present and does not participate in any deliberations when his salary is discussed by the Board, nor does he vote on any salaries for other church staff members. Overseeing the church compensation program is an Elder responsibility, and Lon is not a part of this.
We have asked this man repeatedly not to damage and embarrass the work of God by doing things like he is doing on Rt. 7 on Sundays. But he has firmly rebuffed all our attempts to try to address this matter decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40) and in a way that protects the reputation of God's work in Washington, DC. In fact, he told us that he has no intention of stopping and will "ratchet up" his efforts. He mentioned that he might move on to do the same things at another evangelical Bible church in the area next after he achieves his goals at MBC.
Since he conducts his Rt. 7 activities on public property, he is within his rights to be there. We ask you to pray for him and his associates out there.
If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call at 301-299-2748.
Thank you for your kindness in reading my email. Please join me and the Elders in praying that God will continue to protect and use MBC in a great way here in Washington for His glory. Also, please pray for Lon, that God will keep his eyes focused on the Lord in spite of this vituperative attack on him, and that God will give him encouragement to keep preaching the Word and leading MBC with his characteristic vigor and godly passion.
Serving Christ together,
Larry Cooper
Chairman, MBC board of Elders
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
flock!
()
Date: March 24, 2010 03:32PM
Soon2BXmember Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I want you to know that the figure this
> man's sign suggests for our senior pastor's salary
> ($750,000) is outrageously high and totally
> incorrect. You also need to know that even though
> Lon is an Elder, he is not present and does not
> participate in any deliberations when his salary
> is discussed by the Board, nor does he vote on any
> salaries for other church staff members.
> Overseeing the church compensation program is an
> Elder responsibility, and Lon is not a part of
> this.
>
Goodness gracious - looks like I need a change in careers!!!
If you're going to fleece a flock, you might as well do it properly I suppose
-------------------------------------------------------
I want you to know that the figure this
> man's sign suggests for our senior pastor's salary
> ($750,000) is outrageously high and totally
> incorrect. You also need to know that even though
> Lon is an Elder, he is not present and does not
> participate in any deliberations when his salary
> is discussed by the Board, nor does he vote on any
> salaries for other church staff members.
> Overseeing the church compensation program is an
> Elder responsibility, and Lon is not a part of
> this.
>
Goodness gracious - looks like I need a change in careers!!!
If you're going to fleece a flock, you might as well do it properly I suppose
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
KGD
()
Date: March 26, 2010 05:20PM
Pah-leeze! do you all believe everything you hear and read? My sister lived in Lon's neigborhood and sold her home for $364K about 6 years ago... So What?
I don't know if Lon does have a boat but So What if he does? Lon does not have a plane, but he may have a jacuzzi. I do know that a worker is worth his wages and Lon probably puts more hours into his work than we'd imagine. He has always done this, even when he was a young pastor on a small church budget. He did not start out earning a lot of money, nor did he ever imagine falling into the place he is now at MBC. I doubt it's easy to be Lon... to live with the pain of a little girl that struggles so much; to hear words like this web page and still have the joy to continue on in his work. It would be much simpler to retire and write books than to bear up under the false accusations and comments people make on pages like this.
Why do you all take the time to complain? You sound like you are jealous of Lon. Jealous of things that are not even true. Do you not have anything more productive to do with your time? If you don't like MBC, don't attend.
However, if you want to make a positive difference in this world, like Mr. Obama suggests we do, get involved and make a positive difference in the DC area,
Please don't respond with objections to the the things we do, unless you are able to be specific about what is wrong with the following:
MBC feeds THOUSANDS of families at Thanksgiving; provides Christmas toys for children who have incarcerated parents; takes care of disabled children so their parent can have a break for a few hours; provides free clothing and food to people who are unable to provide for themselves; sends gifts & letters to soldiers; provides help to women who are pregnant; has a ministry for individuals with disabilities and their families, We help people find employment thru Career Network, We provide Counseling, Divorce Recovery and Financial Help.
We help people who are grieving, We are building a facility for children who are disabled (Google Jill's House) - tell me what is wrong with that? We train people for Medical Emergency Response; we care about people and will even allow you into the church to check it out for yourself.
We partner with a DC inner city groups to help kids; check out both http://www.thehousedc.org/ and http://daybreakkids.org/
This is only a partial list of how McLean Bible church reaches out to help people. They are not self serving, but sacrificial in their time and giving. If we want to give to the church, SO WHAT? This is what the church SHOULD do rather that rely on the government to provide for the needs of the people.
Maybe you should stop worrying about all we do or don't do and visit the church for yourself. A big church is not for everyone, but we are able to do significant work when united in our hearts to serve a loving God. Oh, yeah, God loves you, too. I hope you are able to understand that before you die. What if you're wrong? If I'm wrong I have nothing to lose, but you do.
Not a sermon, just some thoughts.
I don't know if Lon does have a boat but So What if he does? Lon does not have a plane, but he may have a jacuzzi. I do know that a worker is worth his wages and Lon probably puts more hours into his work than we'd imagine. He has always done this, even when he was a young pastor on a small church budget. He did not start out earning a lot of money, nor did he ever imagine falling into the place he is now at MBC. I doubt it's easy to be Lon... to live with the pain of a little girl that struggles so much; to hear words like this web page and still have the joy to continue on in his work. It would be much simpler to retire and write books than to bear up under the false accusations and comments people make on pages like this.
Why do you all take the time to complain? You sound like you are jealous of Lon. Jealous of things that are not even true. Do you not have anything more productive to do with your time? If you don't like MBC, don't attend.
However, if you want to make a positive difference in this world, like Mr. Obama suggests we do, get involved and make a positive difference in the DC area,
Please don't respond with objections to the the things we do, unless you are able to be specific about what is wrong with the following:
MBC feeds THOUSANDS of families at Thanksgiving; provides Christmas toys for children who have incarcerated parents; takes care of disabled children so their parent can have a break for a few hours; provides free clothing and food to people who are unable to provide for themselves; sends gifts & letters to soldiers; provides help to women who are pregnant; has a ministry for individuals with disabilities and their families, We help people find employment thru Career Network, We provide Counseling, Divorce Recovery and Financial Help.
We help people who are grieving, We are building a facility for children who are disabled (Google Jill's House) - tell me what is wrong with that? We train people for Medical Emergency Response; we care about people and will even allow you into the church to check it out for yourself.
We partner with a DC inner city groups to help kids; check out both http://www.thehousedc.org/ and http://daybreakkids.org/
This is only a partial list of how McLean Bible church reaches out to help people. They are not self serving, but sacrificial in their time and giving. If we want to give to the church, SO WHAT? This is what the church SHOULD do rather that rely on the government to provide for the needs of the people.
Maybe you should stop worrying about all we do or don't do and visit the church for yourself. A big church is not for everyone, but we are able to do significant work when united in our hearts to serve a loving God. Oh, yeah, God loves you, too. I hope you are able to understand that before you die. What if you're wrong? If I'm wrong I have nothing to lose, but you do.
Not a sermon, just some thoughts.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: March 26, 2010 05:37PM
KGD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pah-leeze! do you all believe everything you hear
> and read? My sister lived in Lon's neigborhood
> and sold her home for $364K about 6 years ago...
> So What?
>
> I don't know if Lon does have a boat but So What
> if he does? Lon does not have a plane, but he may
> have a jacuzzi. I do know that a worker is worth
> his wages
>united in our hearts to
> serve a loving God. Oh, yeah, God loves you, too.
> I hope you are able to understand that before you
> die. What if you're wrong? If I'm wrong I have
> nothing to lose, but you do.
>
> Not a sermon, just some thoughts.
Dude - no God, no soul, no redemption - just physics and worms
If you want to keep any of your shamans and priests in the living luxury that you so clearly think they need, then its your money, go ahead
I love this wealth through religion kick - its worked for messiahs, god-emperors, living-gods, popes and fanatics for thousands of years - its the best scam out there, its a ponzi-scheme for the afterlife and no-one comes back to point out that they've been had
BUT...
don't expect tax breaks, don't expect special planning privileges, don't expect discredited religions to special rights and privileges in society, don't expect a free pass by claiming 'faith' over evidence and stop distorting the minds of children
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pah-leeze! do you all believe everything you hear
> and read? My sister lived in Lon's neigborhood
> and sold her home for $364K about 6 years ago...
> So What?
>
> I don't know if Lon does have a boat but So What
> if he does? Lon does not have a plane, but he may
> have a jacuzzi. I do know that a worker is worth
> his wages
>united in our hearts to
> serve a loving God. Oh, yeah, God loves you, too.
> I hope you are able to understand that before you
> die. What if you're wrong? If I'm wrong I have
> nothing to lose, but you do.
>
> Not a sermon, just some thoughts.
Dude - no God, no soul, no redemption - just physics and worms
If you want to keep any of your shamans and priests in the living luxury that you so clearly think they need, then its your money, go ahead
I love this wealth through religion kick - its worked for messiahs, god-emperors, living-gods, popes and fanatics for thousands of years - its the best scam out there, its a ponzi-scheme for the afterlife and no-one comes back to point out that they've been had
BUT...
don't expect tax breaks, don't expect special planning privileges, don't expect discredited religions to special rights and privileges in society, don't expect a free pass by claiming 'faith' over evidence and stop distorting the minds of children
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MBC member
()
Date: March 27, 2010 12:24AM
You are not a member our our church any longer and sadly your weak doctrin will prove itself. I am sad for you Francise knowing you through the singles ministry! Sad to know you heard the truth, yet just like Judas Iscariot, God knew you would not turn your heart to Him being no less than evil toward Him... We love you brother, why would you set yourself against God? For MBC is HIS and you have placed yourself against the HOLY God of all! Only one filled with the spirit of evil would do such a foolish thing and so I pray in sorrow for your sole... FURTHERMORE,the financial statements you speak of you do in the blindness of the evil one himself! Your focus on an idol (money) leading a church that has led more soles to the Kingdom of God in our area is interesting as well as sad to note... satan is scared of us... and you have been chosen to lead his way and make ready our country for the coming of our LORD! For we know, this all must happen... at least those of us who have studied the word of God! Lord have mercy on your sole Francise!
Luke 16:22-229 (New International Version)
22)"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23) In hell,[a] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24) So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' 25) "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26) And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.
27) "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28) for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' 29)"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets;let them listen to them.' 30)'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "
-------------------------------------------------------
> A letter from McLean Bible (their head elder) in
> response to the Picketing going on outside the
> church. I'm (currently) a member and I can tell
> you the financial truth of this church is causing
> me renounce my membership. There is no external
> accountability at Mclean Bible Church or Jill's
> House, let alone HLP Tours (Lon's tour business or
> partnership).
>
> Take a look at their Housing Allowances, their
> Salaries and the Solomon's Expense Accounts /
> Credit Cards. If the claims of the picketers are
> errant, why doesn't he (Lon) simply show his last
> 5 year W2s? Such openness would absolve the
> accusations, however that cannot be addressed as
> this truth would cause major descension in the
> giving and cause unrest in the staff. So, keep
> hiding the truth because the day it's found out is
> the day it falls apart. What would you do?
>
> The disheartening piece of this is the fact the
> Church Management does not seem to realize this
> lack of trust and accountability feeling is
> growing inside the congregation. Too bad they quit
> providing the financial disclosure as used to be
> done. They keep trying to stifle it one person at
> a time, but that won't last forever.
>
>
> ____________________________________
>
>
> By now, many of you have seen the men with the
> sign boards outside the Tysons campus on Rt. 7 on
> Sundays. Some have asked what is going on out
> there. To address these questions, please read the
> following short explanation.
>
> The leader of this group has a deep doctrinal
> disagreement with MBC. He believes that our
> position on the nation of Israel, the return of
> Christ, and many other doctrinal issues is wrong.
> He has accused Lon of teaching heresy and the MBC
> Elders of supporting heresy in allowing Lon to
> teach as he does. He wants MBC to renounce our
> position on all these issues and to discipline
> Lon. He accuses Lon of other supposedly sinful
> statements in his sermons.
>
> Because of the Elder Board's support for Lon's
> supposed heresy, he wants to neutralize and, over
> time, remove the present board from authority and
> to supplant it with a committee of MBC
> congregation members (including himself). This
> committee would then force change to MBC's
> doctrinal position and would effectively run
> church affairs.
>
> Last, he wants all of the MBC staff salaries to be
> made a matter of public record.
>
> Tom McMahon (our Elder Vice Chairman) and I have
> met with this man; and, in addition, I have
> interacted with him via email and one-on-one
> conversation. We told him that we will not
> acquiesce to any of his demands. We have tried to
> appeal to him as a brother in the Lord to attend
> another church that more closely aligns with his
> doctrinal position and to be happy serving the
> Lord there.
>
> We also reviewed with him our position and process
> for salary administration and oversight. As a part
> of that, we explained that it has been our
> practice for 30 years not to reveal staff salaries
> for two reasons: (1) we feel it is a disrespectful
> invasion of our staff's privacy for everyone to
> know their salaries, and (2) we believe that it
> cannot help but be a divisive issue within our
> church family.
>
> We are commanded in the Scripture (Eph 4:3) to
> "guard the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
> peace" in the church. All eight of our non-paid,
> volunteer Elders oversee and decide on the
> salaries of our staff with careful attention to
> doing what is fair for our staff and, at the same
> time, being responsible stewards of the Lord's
> money. Even though we do not reveal staff
> salaries, I want you to know that the figure this
> man's sign suggests for our senior pastor's salary
> ($750,000) is outrageously high and totally
> incorrect. You also need to know that even though
> Lon is an Elder, he is not present and does not
> participate in any deliberations when his salary
> is discussed by the Board, nor does he vote on any
> salaries for other church staff members.
> Overseeing the church compensation program is an
> Elder responsibility, and Lon is not a part of
> this.
>
> We have asked this man repeatedly not to damage
> and embarrass the work of God by doing things like
> he is doing on Rt. 7 on Sundays. But he has firmly
> rebuffed all our attempts to try to address this
> matter decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40) and in
> a way that protects the reputation of God's work
> in Washington, DC. In fact, he told us that he has
> no intention of stopping and will "ratchet up" his
> efforts. He mentioned that he might move on to do
> the same things at another evangelical Bible
> church in the area next after he achieves his
> goals at MBC.
>
> Since he conducts his Rt. 7 activities on public
> property, he is within his rights to be there. We
> ask you to pray for him and his associates out
> there.
>
> If you have any questions, please feel free to
> give me a call at 301-299-2748.
>
> Thank you for your kindness in reading my email.
> Please join me and the Elders in praying that God
> will continue to protect and use MBC in a great
> way here in Washington for His glory. Also, please
> pray for Lon, that God will keep his eyes focused
> on the Lord in spite of this vituperative attack
> on him, and that God will give him encouragement
> to keep preaching the Word and leading MBC with
> his characteristic vigor and godly passion.
>
> Serving Christ together,
>
> Larry Cooper
> Chairman, MBC board of Elders
Luke 16:22-229 (New International Version)
22)"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23) In hell,[a] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24) So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' 25) "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26) And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.
27) "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28) for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' 29)"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets;let them listen to them.' 30)'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "
-------------------------------------------------------
> A letter from McLean Bible (their head elder) in
> response to the Picketing going on outside the
> church. I'm (currently) a member and I can tell
> you the financial truth of this church is causing
> me renounce my membership. There is no external
> accountability at Mclean Bible Church or Jill's
> House, let alone HLP Tours (Lon's tour business or
> partnership).
>
> Take a look at their Housing Allowances, their
> Salaries and the Solomon's Expense Accounts /
> Credit Cards. If the claims of the picketers are
> errant, why doesn't he (Lon) simply show his last
> 5 year W2s? Such openness would absolve the
> accusations, however that cannot be addressed as
> this truth would cause major descension in the
> giving and cause unrest in the staff. So, keep
> hiding the truth because the day it's found out is
> the day it falls apart. What would you do?
>
> The disheartening piece of this is the fact the
> Church Management does not seem to realize this
> lack of trust and accountability feeling is
> growing inside the congregation. Too bad they quit
> providing the financial disclosure as used to be
> done. They keep trying to stifle it one person at
> a time, but that won't last forever.
>
>
> ____________________________________
>
>
> By now, many of you have seen the men with the
> sign boards outside the Tysons campus on Rt. 7 on
> Sundays. Some have asked what is going on out
> there. To address these questions, please read the
> following short explanation.
>
> The leader of this group has a deep doctrinal
> disagreement with MBC. He believes that our
> position on the nation of Israel, the return of
> Christ, and many other doctrinal issues is wrong.
> He has accused Lon of teaching heresy and the MBC
> Elders of supporting heresy in allowing Lon to
> teach as he does. He wants MBC to renounce our
> position on all these issues and to discipline
> Lon. He accuses Lon of other supposedly sinful
> statements in his sermons.
>
> Because of the Elder Board's support for Lon's
> supposed heresy, he wants to neutralize and, over
> time, remove the present board from authority and
> to supplant it with a committee of MBC
> congregation members (including himself). This
> committee would then force change to MBC's
> doctrinal position and would effectively run
> church affairs.
>
> Last, he wants all of the MBC staff salaries to be
> made a matter of public record.
>
> Tom McMahon (our Elder Vice Chairman) and I have
> met with this man; and, in addition, I have
> interacted with him via email and one-on-one
> conversation. We told him that we will not
> acquiesce to any of his demands. We have tried to
> appeal to him as a brother in the Lord to attend
> another church that more closely aligns with his
> doctrinal position and to be happy serving the
> Lord there.
>
> We also reviewed with him our position and process
> for salary administration and oversight. As a part
> of that, we explained that it has been our
> practice for 30 years not to reveal staff salaries
> for two reasons: (1) we feel it is a disrespectful
> invasion of our staff's privacy for everyone to
> know their salaries, and (2) we believe that it
> cannot help but be a divisive issue within our
> church family.
>
> We are commanded in the Scripture (Eph 4:3) to
> "guard the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
> peace" in the church. All eight of our non-paid,
> volunteer Elders oversee and decide on the
> salaries of our staff with careful attention to
> doing what is fair for our staff and, at the same
> time, being responsible stewards of the Lord's
> money. Even though we do not reveal staff
> salaries, I want you to know that the figure this
> man's sign suggests for our senior pastor's salary
> ($750,000) is outrageously high and totally
> incorrect. You also need to know that even though
> Lon is an Elder, he is not present and does not
> participate in any deliberations when his salary
> is discussed by the Board, nor does he vote on any
> salaries for other church staff members.
> Overseeing the church compensation program is an
> Elder responsibility, and Lon is not a part of
> this.
>
> We have asked this man repeatedly not to damage
> and embarrass the work of God by doing things like
> he is doing on Rt. 7 on Sundays. But he has firmly
> rebuffed all our attempts to try to address this
> matter decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40) and in
> a way that protects the reputation of God's work
> in Washington, DC. In fact, he told us that he has
> no intention of stopping and will "ratchet up" his
> efforts. He mentioned that he might move on to do
> the same things at another evangelical Bible
> church in the area next after he achieves his
> goals at MBC.
>
> Since he conducts his Rt. 7 activities on public
> property, he is within his rights to be there. We
> ask you to pray for him and his associates out
> there.
>
> If you have any questions, please feel free to
> give me a call at 301-299-2748.
>
> Thank you for your kindness in reading my email.
> Please join me and the Elders in praying that God
> will continue to protect and use MBC in a great
> way here in Washington for His glory. Also, please
> pray for Lon, that God will keep his eyes focused
> on the Lord in spite of this vituperative attack
> on him, and that God will give him encouragement
> to keep preaching the Word and leading MBC with
> his characteristic vigor and godly passion.
>
> Serving Christ together,
>
> Larry Cooper
> Chairman, MBC board of Elders
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: March 27, 2010 09:38AM
MBC member Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
... satan is scared of us... and you
> have been chosen to lead his way and make ready
> our country for the coming of our LORD! For we
> know, this all must happen... at least those of us
> who have studied the word of God! Lord have mercy
> on your sole Francise!
>
Most excellent - an apocalyptic cult on out doorstop - God and Satan's chosen rolling their sleeves up for a fight - that must break some anti gang legislation
I can't help but think that bringing on the apocalypse. or even advocating for it, is a contravention of the Patriot Act
Time for the FBI to send a SWAT team round for all members and former members
Given that the Catholic church seems to be fighting a rear-guard action for its institutionalized child abuse at the same time, we may be on a roll
-------------------------------------------------------
... satan is scared of us... and you
> have been chosen to lead his way and make ready
> our country for the coming of our LORD! For we
> know, this all must happen... at least those of us
> who have studied the word of God! Lord have mercy
> on your sole Francise!
>
Most excellent - an apocalyptic cult on out doorstop - God and Satan's chosen rolling their sleeves up for a fight - that must break some anti gang legislation
I can't help but think that bringing on the apocalypse. or even advocating for it, is a contravention of the Patriot Act
Time for the FBI to send a SWAT team round for all members and former members
Given that the Catholic church seems to be fighting a rear-guard action for its institutionalized child abuse at the same time, we may be on a roll
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: March 27, 2010 11:42AM
It's funny how most atheists and non believers hope for mankind to continue evolving ,prospering and building towards a more perfect future and to explore the vast unknown.
Yet most religious people cant wait for some sort of apocalypse to happen and end everything.
Yet most religious people cant wait for some sort of apocalypse to happen and end everything.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MBC member
()
Date: March 27, 2010 12:00PM
Actually I am not a religious person as most who are true Christian's... read that Christ-ones,are not.
It is not about religion, it is about a relationship with Jesus. The Catholic church has religion and I am pretty certain there will be many among them who will find Matthew 7:22-23 is the fruit of their religious faith.
And you are correct that we look to the time when all this suffering will be no more for those of us who have faith in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. We may be in this world, but we are not of it.
It is not about religion, it is about a relationship with Jesus. The Catholic church has religion and I am pretty certain there will be many among them who will find Matthew 7:22-23 is the fruit of their religious faith.
And you are correct that we look to the time when all this suffering will be no more for those of us who have faith in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. We may be in this world, but we are not of it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: March 27, 2010 12:54PM
MBC member Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually I am not a religious person as most who
> are true Christian's... read that Christ-ones,are
> not.
>
> It is not about religion, it is about a
> relationship with Jesus. The Catholic church has
> religion and I am pretty certain there will be
> many among them who will find Matthew 7:22-23 is
> the fruit of their religious faith.
>
> And you are correct that we look to the time when
> all this suffering will be no more for those of us
> who have faith in Christ Jesus our Lord and
> Savior. We may be in this world, but we are not
> of it.
Ahhh - the quiet sound of self destruction, the counting of angels on pin-heads, the smell of burning compounds, the taste of freshly made Kool-Aid and the cries of "I'm more X than those Y's who only claim they're X"
You can't beat a cult vs cult smackdown - all the rage in the middle ages and sorely missed - especially the regular Millenarian vs Papacy grudge match (normally my bet would be on Rome, always a strong player on the long courses, but with the abuse cover-up thing going on who can tell)
I feel a Solar Temple moment coming on
Perhaps those who don't think they're of this world should not be able to vote or hold property in it - not a sermon, just some thoughts (tm)
Time to call the ATF
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually I am not a religious person as most who
> are true Christian's... read that Christ-ones,are
> not.
>
> It is not about religion, it is about a
> relationship with Jesus. The Catholic church has
> religion and I am pretty certain there will be
> many among them who will find Matthew 7:22-23 is
> the fruit of their religious faith.
>
> And you are correct that we look to the time when
> all this suffering will be no more for those of us
> who have faith in Christ Jesus our Lord and
> Savior. We may be in this world, but we are not
> of it.
Ahhh - the quiet sound of self destruction, the counting of angels on pin-heads, the smell of burning compounds, the taste of freshly made Kool-Aid and the cries of "I'm more X than those Y's who only claim they're X"
You can't beat a cult vs cult smackdown - all the rage in the middle ages and sorely missed - especially the regular Millenarian vs Papacy grudge match (normally my bet would be on Rome, always a strong player on the long courses, but with the abuse cover-up thing going on who can tell)
I feel a Solar Temple moment coming on
Perhaps those who don't think they're of this world should not be able to vote or hold property in it - not a sermon, just some thoughts (tm)
Time to call the ATF
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MBC Supporter
()
Date: March 27, 2010 02:43PM
No burning compounds, just the burning desire of our hearts as we wait upon the Lord... No need for kool-aid, for we have the living water and will never thurst again...I don't claim to be anything but a simple servant, a bond slave to the Lord God Almighty.
There is no grudge match with Rome, their own foolish doctrine will bring the church under judgement.
As for the rights of those of us not of this world any longer having been adopted into God's family, we already own ALL the real property through our inheritance from our Father and King...
Tell me fb... You seem to be so worldly and clever, who do you say Jesus is? And what of eternity?
There is no grudge match with Rome, their own foolish doctrine will bring the church under judgement.
As for the rights of those of us not of this world any longer having been adopted into God's family, we already own ALL the real property through our inheritance from our Father and King...
Tell me fb... You seem to be so worldly and clever, who do you say Jesus is? And what of eternity?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: March 27, 2010 03:30PM
MBC Supporter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No burning compounds, just the burning desire of
> our hearts as we wait upon the Lord... No need for
> kool-aid, for we have the living water and will
> never thurst again...I don't claim to be anything
> but a simple servant, a bond slave to the Lord God
> Almighty.
>
> There is no grudge match with Rome, their own
> foolish doctrine will bring the church under
> judgement.
>
> As for the rights of those of us not of this world
> any longer having been adopted into God's family,
> we already own ALL the real property through our
> inheritance from our Father and King...
>
> Tell me fb... You seem to be so worldly and
> clever, who do you say Jesus is? And what of
> eternity?
I'm calling BS on MBC Supporter. His/her ramblings are just too insane to be real.
-------------------------------------------------------
> No burning compounds, just the burning desire of
> our hearts as we wait upon the Lord... No need for
> kool-aid, for we have the living water and will
> never thurst again...I don't claim to be anything
> but a simple servant, a bond slave to the Lord God
> Almighty.
>
> There is no grudge match with Rome, their own
> foolish doctrine will bring the church under
> judgement.
>
> As for the rights of those of us not of this world
> any longer having been adopted into God's family,
> we already own ALL the real property through our
> inheritance from our Father and King...
>
> Tell me fb... You seem to be so worldly and
> clever, who do you say Jesus is? And what of
> eternity?
I'm calling BS on MBC Supporter. His/her ramblings are just too insane to be real.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Kenny_Powers
()
Date: March 27, 2010 04:01PM
Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's funny how most atheists and non believers
> hope for mankind to continue evolving ,prospering
> and building towards a more perfect future and to
> explore the vast unknown.
>
> Yet most religious people cant wait for some sort
> of apocalypse to happen and end everything.
As an agnostic, or really more of a spinozist, i have to disagree. I think we had our chance with this planet, and this life, and we fucked it big time. We were given "eden" and we go to war over pieces of land and minor differences in our beliefs. We are fucking animals who through some crazy twist in evolution came to where we are now. And we ruined it. I welcome an apocolypse, because even with best intentions, we still cant get anything right.
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's funny how most atheists and non believers
> hope for mankind to continue evolving ,prospering
> and building towards a more perfect future and to
> explore the vast unknown.
>
> Yet most religious people cant wait for some sort
> of apocalypse to happen and end everything.
As an agnostic, or really more of a spinozist, i have to disagree. I think we had our chance with this planet, and this life, and we fucked it big time. We were given "eden" and we go to war over pieces of land and minor differences in our beliefs. We are fucking animals who through some crazy twist in evolution came to where we are now. And we ruined it. I welcome an apocolypse, because even with best intentions, we still cant get anything right.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
KGD - Kathy
()
Date: March 27, 2010 04:26PM
Say Finito amigo -
what if you ARE WRONG WRT "no God, no soul, no redemption - just physics and worms"? What if I'm right? And if I'm wrong, no loss for me, eh? But I do believe w/ all my heart as God has healed me and allowed me to live to share his LOVE with you and others. There is too much evidence, too many miracles in my own life to deny His existence.
You said "If you want to keep any of your shamans and priests in the living luxury that you so clearly think they need, then its your money, go ahead." The Word of God spoken thru the ministers at my church has given me hope and purpose. It's worth every penny,... in fact, I'd like to eventually live on 10 percent of my income and give 90% away.
How do you make this statement?
"I love this wealth through religion kick - its worked for messiahs,
god-emperors, living-gods, popes and fanatics for thousands of years
- its the best scam out there, its a ponzi-scheme for the afterlife
and no-one comes back to point out that they've been had"
Lon, whatever he makes, is underpaid. I can't take my money with me, but I can lay my treasure in heavenly things (ministry and purposeful things to help others... or do you think the government should dictate where I give my money... is it better that they steal my money and waste it on their unproductive "programs".
Finally, you say "BUT...don't expect tax breaks, don't expect special planning privileges, don't expect discredited religions to special rights and privileges in society, don't expect a free pass by claiming 'faith' over evidence and stop distorting the minds of children" The Government is a fraud and stealing our money, friend. They are distorting the minds of our children by helping them get pregnant and then abortion and then not disclosing the emotional pain of abortion. My abortion was "justified" because I was raped. It was the worst mistake I ever made. Ah, i digress.
You, my friend, stayed focused on the MBC money concerns you have. you did not respond to the good works MBC does for the benefit of others. How is that bad?
How have you contributed to the well being of a hungry child or needy family lately? How often have you fed or clothed or helped someone who is hurting and in need? How often have you provided a room in your home to someone in trouble? What is it you do to contribute something positive to our society?
People at MBC who are in volunteer ministry are unselfishly giving of their time to help others. What's up with that? WHY would busy people give up their "spare" time to help others? Because it is good, and just, and fair, and right. Not because they receive pay or accolades, but b/c they love other people. They have the gift of mercy and compassion. What a tragedy that you are unable to understand.
What do you do with your spare time? Maybe you think we waste our time and money but we are able to give up what we cannot lose. How do you prefer to waste your time? is it better? selfish? or purposeful? Or do you just like to play the devil's advocate and harass believers? It's your life... waste it if you like, but deep in your heart you have a lonely, empty longing for something more.
Moreover Fini, believers who read this page are praying for you. I'm sure you don't care now, but there will be a day when you meet your maker. You are not pond scum, something formed from goo... you were created by a thoughtful, loving God and you have been deceived. I pity you.
what if you ARE WRONG WRT "no God, no soul, no redemption - just physics and worms"? What if I'm right? And if I'm wrong, no loss for me, eh? But I do believe w/ all my heart as God has healed me and allowed me to live to share his LOVE with you and others. There is too much evidence, too many miracles in my own life to deny His existence.
You said "If you want to keep any of your shamans and priests in the living luxury that you so clearly think they need, then its your money, go ahead." The Word of God spoken thru the ministers at my church has given me hope and purpose. It's worth every penny,... in fact, I'd like to eventually live on 10 percent of my income and give 90% away.
How do you make this statement?
"I love this wealth through religion kick - its worked for messiahs,
god-emperors, living-gods, popes and fanatics for thousands of years
- its the best scam out there, its a ponzi-scheme for the afterlife
and no-one comes back to point out that they've been had"
Lon, whatever he makes, is underpaid. I can't take my money with me, but I can lay my treasure in heavenly things (ministry and purposeful things to help others... or do you think the government should dictate where I give my money... is it better that they steal my money and waste it on their unproductive "programs".
Finally, you say "BUT...don't expect tax breaks, don't expect special planning privileges, don't expect discredited religions to special rights and privileges in society, don't expect a free pass by claiming 'faith' over evidence and stop distorting the minds of children" The Government is a fraud and stealing our money, friend. They are distorting the minds of our children by helping them get pregnant and then abortion and then not disclosing the emotional pain of abortion. My abortion was "justified" because I was raped. It was the worst mistake I ever made. Ah, i digress.
You, my friend, stayed focused on the MBC money concerns you have. you did not respond to the good works MBC does for the benefit of others. How is that bad?
How have you contributed to the well being of a hungry child or needy family lately? How often have you fed or clothed or helped someone who is hurting and in need? How often have you provided a room in your home to someone in trouble? What is it you do to contribute something positive to our society?
People at MBC who are in volunteer ministry are unselfishly giving of their time to help others. What's up with that? WHY would busy people give up their "spare" time to help others? Because it is good, and just, and fair, and right. Not because they receive pay or accolades, but b/c they love other people. They have the gift of mercy and compassion. What a tragedy that you are unable to understand.
What do you do with your spare time? Maybe you think we waste our time and money but we are able to give up what we cannot lose. How do you prefer to waste your time? is it better? selfish? or purposeful? Or do you just like to play the devil's advocate and harass believers? It's your life... waste it if you like, but deep in your heart you have a lonely, empty longing for something more.
Moreover Fini, believers who read this page are praying for you. I'm sure you don't care now, but there will be a day when you meet your maker. You are not pond scum, something formed from goo... you were created by a thoughtful, loving God and you have been deceived. I pity you.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Kenny_Powers
()
Date: March 27, 2010 05:20PM
KGD - Kathy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Say Finito amigo -
>
> what if you ARE WRONG WRT "no God, no soul, no
> redemption - just physics and worms"? What if I'm
> right? And if I'm wrong, no loss for me, eh? But
> I do believe w/ all my heart as God has healed me
> and allowed me to live to share his LOVE with you
> and others. There is too much evidence, too many
> miracles in my own life to deny His existence.
You speak of evidence and fact, when in fact it is a belief, I can respect your convictions, but please dont report them as facts.
If we are wrong we may go to hell or whatever, but the same goes for you and many other christians who follow the bible, imperfectly. Those who pick and choose what they want to believe, those who follow what is convinient. These people also commit cardinal sins which will land you in hell. Ever wack off? hell. Ever lie to your parents? Hell. etc... And i never understood the "im just playing the odds" approach to faith.
>
> You said "If you want to keep any of your shamans
> and priests in the living luxury that you so
> clearly think they need, then its your money, go
> ahead." The Word of God spoken thru the ministers
> at my church has given me hope and purpose. It's
> worth every penny,... in fact, I'd like to
> eventually live on 10 percent of my income and
> give 90% away.
thats good for you, i personally dont care how much money lon makes, but if i was following a man speaking the word of god, i would like him to practice what he preached.
>
> How do you make this statement?
> "I love this wealth through religion kick - its
> worked for messiahs,
> god-emperors, living-gods, popes and fanatics
> for thousands of years
> - its the best scam out there, its a ponzi-scheme
> for the afterlife
> and no-one comes back to point out that they've
> been had"
its an easy statement to make. For thousands of years governments and leaders (political and religious) have been using religion to grow their bank roll and to come to power.
>
> Lon, whatever he makes, is underpaid. I can't take
> my money with me, but I can lay my treasure in
> heavenly things (ministry and purposeful things to
> help others... or do you think the government
> should dictate where I give my money... is it
> better that they steal my money and waste it on
> their unproductive "programs".
Well i would closely compair any church to the government, they both do good and their true intent is to better their people, but they both become large and bloated feeding more money and power into themselves, adding to their salaries and their corruption. Which can be seen in the catholic church, which has ( or maybe had at this point) billions of dollars and power over much of the world.
>
> Finally, you say "BUT...don't expect tax breaks,
> don't expect special planning privileges, don't
> expect discredited religions to special rights and
> privileges in society, don't expect a free pass by
> claiming 'faith' over evidence and stop distorting
> the minds of children" The Government is a fraud
> and stealing our money, friend. They are
> distorting the minds of our children by helping
> them get pregnant and then abortion and then not
> disclosing the emotional pain of abortion. My
> abortion was "justified" because I was raped. It
> was the worst mistake I ever made. Ah, i digress.
>
>
> You, my friend, stayed focused on the MBC money
> concerns you have. you did not respond to the
> good works MBC does for the benefit of others.
> How is that bad?
A true statement, nothing is black and white, nothing is true evil or true good, MBC has done a great share of good, while im sure they do have negative qualities as well.
>
> How have you contributed to the well being of a
> hungry child or needy family lately? How often
> have you fed or clothed or helped someone who is
> hurting and in need? How often have you provided
> a room in your home to someone in trouble? What is
> it you do to contribute something positive to our
> society?
I dont understand why or how it became that religion has a monopoly on morality. Some of the best human beings i know affiliate with no religion. They make decisions based on what they know is the right choice. The key term being choice. Because if the only reason you are doing good is to avoid punishment, then in reality, is that a moral decision?
>
> People at MBC who are in volunteer ministry are
> unselfishly giving of their time to help others.
> What's up with that? WHY would busy people give
> up their "spare" time to help others? Because it
> is good, and just, and fair, and right. Not
> because they receive pay or accolades, but b/c
> they love other people. They have the gift of
> mercy and compassion. What a tragedy that you are
> unable to understand.
Do you think that people that volunteer in soup kitchens, or help the less fortunate are exclusively christian? Again, i dont know where religion got this monopoly on righteousness. And you say they do it for no reason but to do good. When in reality they think it will help get them into heaven. The true test would be to do that same good with no alterior motive.
>
> What do you do with your spare time? Maybe you
> think we waste our time and money but we are able
> to give up what we cannot lose. How do you prefer
> to waste your time? is it better? selfish? or
> purposeful? Or do you just like to play the
> devil's advocate and harass believers? It's your
> life... waste it if you like, but deep in your
> heart you have a lonely, empty longing for
> something more.
Just as you have the right to tell me all about your faith and beliefs, we have that same right to tell you our true feelings.
>
> Moreover Fini, believers who read this page are
> praying for you. I'm sure you don't care now, but
> there will be a day when you meet your maker. You
> are not pond scum, something formed from goo...
> you were created by a thoughtful, loving God and
> you have been deceived. I pity you.
theres that famous christian spirit!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Say Finito amigo -
>
> what if you ARE WRONG WRT "no God, no soul, no
> redemption - just physics and worms"? What if I'm
> right? And if I'm wrong, no loss for me, eh? But
> I do believe w/ all my heart as God has healed me
> and allowed me to live to share his LOVE with you
> and others. There is too much evidence, too many
> miracles in my own life to deny His existence.
You speak of evidence and fact, when in fact it is a belief, I can respect your convictions, but please dont report them as facts.
If we are wrong we may go to hell or whatever, but the same goes for you and many other christians who follow the bible, imperfectly. Those who pick and choose what they want to believe, those who follow what is convinient. These people also commit cardinal sins which will land you in hell. Ever wack off? hell. Ever lie to your parents? Hell. etc... And i never understood the "im just playing the odds" approach to faith.
>
> You said "If you want to keep any of your shamans
> and priests in the living luxury that you so
> clearly think they need, then its your money, go
> ahead." The Word of God spoken thru the ministers
> at my church has given me hope and purpose. It's
> worth every penny,... in fact, I'd like to
> eventually live on 10 percent of my income and
> give 90% away.
thats good for you, i personally dont care how much money lon makes, but if i was following a man speaking the word of god, i would like him to practice what he preached.
>
> How do you make this statement?
> "I love this wealth through religion kick - its
> worked for messiahs,
> god-emperors, living-gods, popes and fanatics
> for thousands of years
> - its the best scam out there, its a ponzi-scheme
> for the afterlife
> and no-one comes back to point out that they've
> been had"
its an easy statement to make. For thousands of years governments and leaders (political and religious) have been using religion to grow their bank roll and to come to power.
>
> Lon, whatever he makes, is underpaid. I can't take
> my money with me, but I can lay my treasure in
> heavenly things (ministry and purposeful things to
> help others... or do you think the government
> should dictate where I give my money... is it
> better that they steal my money and waste it on
> their unproductive "programs".
Well i would closely compair any church to the government, they both do good and their true intent is to better their people, but they both become large and bloated feeding more money and power into themselves, adding to their salaries and their corruption. Which can be seen in the catholic church, which has ( or maybe had at this point) billions of dollars and power over much of the world.
>
> Finally, you say "BUT...don't expect tax breaks,
> don't expect special planning privileges, don't
> expect discredited religions to special rights and
> privileges in society, don't expect a free pass by
> claiming 'faith' over evidence and stop distorting
> the minds of children" The Government is a fraud
> and stealing our money, friend. They are
> distorting the minds of our children by helping
> them get pregnant and then abortion and then not
> disclosing the emotional pain of abortion. My
> abortion was "justified" because I was raped. It
> was the worst mistake I ever made. Ah, i digress.
>
>
> You, my friend, stayed focused on the MBC money
> concerns you have. you did not respond to the
> good works MBC does for the benefit of others.
> How is that bad?
A true statement, nothing is black and white, nothing is true evil or true good, MBC has done a great share of good, while im sure they do have negative qualities as well.
>
> How have you contributed to the well being of a
> hungry child or needy family lately? How often
> have you fed or clothed or helped someone who is
> hurting and in need? How often have you provided
> a room in your home to someone in trouble? What is
> it you do to contribute something positive to our
> society?
I dont understand why or how it became that religion has a monopoly on morality. Some of the best human beings i know affiliate with no religion. They make decisions based on what they know is the right choice. The key term being choice. Because if the only reason you are doing good is to avoid punishment, then in reality, is that a moral decision?
>
> People at MBC who are in volunteer ministry are
> unselfishly giving of their time to help others.
> What's up with that? WHY would busy people give
> up their "spare" time to help others? Because it
> is good, and just, and fair, and right. Not
> because they receive pay or accolades, but b/c
> they love other people. They have the gift of
> mercy and compassion. What a tragedy that you are
> unable to understand.
Do you think that people that volunteer in soup kitchens, or help the less fortunate are exclusively christian? Again, i dont know where religion got this monopoly on righteousness. And you say they do it for no reason but to do good. When in reality they think it will help get them into heaven. The true test would be to do that same good with no alterior motive.
>
> What do you do with your spare time? Maybe you
> think we waste our time and money but we are able
> to give up what we cannot lose. How do you prefer
> to waste your time? is it better? selfish? or
> purposeful? Or do you just like to play the
> devil's advocate and harass believers? It's your
> life... waste it if you like, but deep in your
> heart you have a lonely, empty longing for
> something more.
Just as you have the right to tell me all about your faith and beliefs, we have that same right to tell you our true feelings.
>
> Moreover Fini, believers who read this page are
> praying for you. I'm sure you don't care now, but
> there will be a day when you meet your maker. You
> are not pond scum, something formed from goo...
> you were created by a thoughtful, loving God and
> you have been deceived. I pity you.
theres that famous christian spirit!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: March 27, 2010 05:22PM
KGD - Kathy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Say Finito amigo -
>
> what if you ARE WRONG WRT "no God, no soul, no
> redemption - just physics and worms"? What if I'm
> right? And if I'm wrong, no loss for me, eh? But
> I do believe w/ all my heart as God has healed me
> and allowed me to live to share his LOVE with you
> and others. There is too much evidence, too many
> miracles in my own life to deny His existence.
>
Okay - so here's an opportunity. If you have a single event that has no non-supernatural explanation - take your documentation and contact
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
James is a nice guy and very straightforward. If you have a good case, you'll get your million dollars and can give it to Lon
let us know how you get on
> You said "If you want to keep any of your shamans
> and priests in the living luxury that you so
> clearly think they need, then its your money, go
> ahead." The Word of God spoken thru the ministers
> at my church has given me hope and purpose. It's
> worth every penny,... in fact, I'd like to
> eventually live on 10 percent of my income and
> give 90% away.
>
> How do you make this statement?
> "I love this wealth through religion kick - its
> worked for messiahs,
> god-emperors, living-gods, popes and fanatics
> for thousands of years
> - its the best scam out there, its a ponzi-scheme
> for the afterlife
> and no-one comes back to point out that they've
> been had"
>
> Lon, whatever he makes, is underpaid. I can't take
> my money with me, but I can lay my treasure in
> heavenly things (ministry and purposeful things to
> help others... or do you think the government
> should dictate where I give my money... is it
> better that they steal my money and waste it on
> their unproductive "programs".
>
If you think that you can live without government then try living somewhere where there is none and see how your cult survives
The past history of groups that have tried this is quite instructive.
If you live in a civil society then you have to play and pay by its rules.
I don't remember seeing the MBC fire-trucks or the MBC medicare and medicaid programs or the MBC coast guard or the MBC medical schools or the MBC road building
> Finally, you say "BUT...don't expect tax breaks,
> don't expect special planning privileges, don't
> expect discredited religions to special rights and
> privileges in society, don't expect a free pass by
> claiming 'faith' over evidence and stop distorting
> the minds of children" The Government is a fraud
> and stealing our money, friend. They are
> distorting the minds of our children by helping
> them get pregnant and then abortion and then not
> disclosing the emotional pain of abortion. My
> abortion was "justified" because I was raped. It
> was the worst mistake I ever made. Ah, i digress.
>
>
No western government is helping kids get pregnant - certainly not ours.
A simple way of thinking about this is to compare the birth rates and infant mortality rates in societies dominated by religion and those with secular governments.
Take the Catholic church as an example - intent on preventing millions of poor women worldwide having access to birth control with the result that they all die poor and many die very young and in squalor.
Just look at the typical age of first childbirth in western nations with governments and those in developing nations where religion and superstition reign
I'm sorry if your were raped, and I'm sorry if you regret your abortion - but that doesn't give you the right to take that choice away from other women
> You, my friend, stayed focused on the MBC money
> concerns you have. you did not respond to the
> good works MBC does for the benefit of others.
> How is that bad?
>
> How have you contributed to the well being of a
> hungry child or needy family lately? How often
> have you fed or clothed or helped someone who is
> hurting and in need? How often have you provided
> a room in your home to someone in trouble? What is
> it you do to contribute something positive to our
> society?
>
> People at MBC who are in volunteer ministry are
> unselfishly giving of their time to help others.
> What's up with that? WHY would busy people give
> up their "spare" time to help others? Because it
> is good, and just, and fair, and right. Not
> because they receive pay or accolades, but b/c
> they love other people. They have the gift of
> mercy and compassion. What a tragedy that you are
> unable to understand.
hang on a second - if government has programs to help, educate and protect, then they're "unproductive" programs
but if your cult does it, its your ticket to invisible cloud land?
>
> What do you do with your spare time? Maybe you
> think we waste our time and money but we are able
> to give up what we cannot lose. How do you prefer
> to waste your time? is it better? selfish? or
> purposeful? Or do you just like to play the
> devil's advocate and harass believers? It's your
> life... waste it if you like, but deep in your
> heart you have a lonely, empty longing for
> something more.
>
> Moreover Fini, believers who read this page are
> praying for you. I'm sure you don't care now, but
> there will be a day when you meet your maker. You
> are not pond scum, something formed from goo...
> you were created by a thoughtful, loving God and
> you have been deceived. I pity you.
We all come from pond scum - you only have to look at the fossil and DNA record to understand that.
Do you not believe in fossils? Do you not believe in DNA? Do you not believe in astronomy or geology? Are you not a believer in math?
A suggestion - spend the day at the Smithsonian Natural History Museum - or even quicker, have a wander through the woods and really try to explain what you see around you - don't just say "I don't understand that, the invisible guy must have done it"
-------------------------------------------------------
> Say Finito amigo -
>
> what if you ARE WRONG WRT "no God, no soul, no
> redemption - just physics and worms"? What if I'm
> right? And if I'm wrong, no loss for me, eh? But
> I do believe w/ all my heart as God has healed me
> and allowed me to live to share his LOVE with you
> and others. There is too much evidence, too many
> miracles in my own life to deny His existence.
>
Okay - so here's an opportunity. If you have a single event that has no non-supernatural explanation - take your documentation and contact
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
James is a nice guy and very straightforward. If you have a good case, you'll get your million dollars and can give it to Lon
let us know how you get on
> You said "If you want to keep any of your shamans
> and priests in the living luxury that you so
> clearly think they need, then its your money, go
> ahead." The Word of God spoken thru the ministers
> at my church has given me hope and purpose. It's
> worth every penny,... in fact, I'd like to
> eventually live on 10 percent of my income and
> give 90% away.
>
> How do you make this statement?
> "I love this wealth through religion kick - its
> worked for messiahs,
> god-emperors, living-gods, popes and fanatics
> for thousands of years
> - its the best scam out there, its a ponzi-scheme
> for the afterlife
> and no-one comes back to point out that they've
> been had"
>
> Lon, whatever he makes, is underpaid. I can't take
> my money with me, but I can lay my treasure in
> heavenly things (ministry and purposeful things to
> help others... or do you think the government
> should dictate where I give my money... is it
> better that they steal my money and waste it on
> their unproductive "programs".
>
If you think that you can live without government then try living somewhere where there is none and see how your cult survives
The past history of groups that have tried this is quite instructive.
If you live in a civil society then you have to play and pay by its rules.
I don't remember seeing the MBC fire-trucks or the MBC medicare and medicaid programs or the MBC coast guard or the MBC medical schools or the MBC road building
> Finally, you say "BUT...don't expect tax breaks,
> don't expect special planning privileges, don't
> expect discredited religions to special rights and
> privileges in society, don't expect a free pass by
> claiming 'faith' over evidence and stop distorting
> the minds of children" The Government is a fraud
> and stealing our money, friend. They are
> distorting the minds of our children by helping
> them get pregnant and then abortion and then not
> disclosing the emotional pain of abortion. My
> abortion was "justified" because I was raped. It
> was the worst mistake I ever made. Ah, i digress.
>
>
No western government is helping kids get pregnant - certainly not ours.
A simple way of thinking about this is to compare the birth rates and infant mortality rates in societies dominated by religion and those with secular governments.
Take the Catholic church as an example - intent on preventing millions of poor women worldwide having access to birth control with the result that they all die poor and many die very young and in squalor.
Just look at the typical age of first childbirth in western nations with governments and those in developing nations where religion and superstition reign
I'm sorry if your were raped, and I'm sorry if you regret your abortion - but that doesn't give you the right to take that choice away from other women
> You, my friend, stayed focused on the MBC money
> concerns you have. you did not respond to the
> good works MBC does for the benefit of others.
> How is that bad?
>
> How have you contributed to the well being of a
> hungry child or needy family lately? How often
> have you fed or clothed or helped someone who is
> hurting and in need? How often have you provided
> a room in your home to someone in trouble? What is
> it you do to contribute something positive to our
> society?
>
> People at MBC who are in volunteer ministry are
> unselfishly giving of their time to help others.
> What's up with that? WHY would busy people give
> up their "spare" time to help others? Because it
> is good, and just, and fair, and right. Not
> because they receive pay or accolades, but b/c
> they love other people. They have the gift of
> mercy and compassion. What a tragedy that you are
> unable to understand.
hang on a second - if government has programs to help, educate and protect, then they're "unproductive" programs
but if your cult does it, its your ticket to invisible cloud land?
>
> What do you do with your spare time? Maybe you
> think we waste our time and money but we are able
> to give up what we cannot lose. How do you prefer
> to waste your time? is it better? selfish? or
> purposeful? Or do you just like to play the
> devil's advocate and harass believers? It's your
> life... waste it if you like, but deep in your
> heart you have a lonely, empty longing for
> something more.
>
> Moreover Fini, believers who read this page are
> praying for you. I'm sure you don't care now, but
> there will be a day when you meet your maker. You
> are not pond scum, something formed from goo...
> you were created by a thoughtful, loving God and
> you have been deceived. I pity you.
We all come from pond scum - you only have to look at the fossil and DNA record to understand that.
Do you not believe in fossils? Do you not believe in DNA? Do you not believe in astronomy or geology? Are you not a believer in math?
A suggestion - spend the day at the Smithsonian Natural History Museum - or even quicker, have a wander through the woods and really try to explain what you see around you - don't just say "I don't understand that, the invisible guy must have done it"
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MBC Supporter
()
Date: March 27, 2010 10:02PM
Well Numbers - if it is insane to you it is because you do not know the inerrant word of God.
Reading all these blogs it is easy to see why the Lord said "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." Matt 7:13.
The gate is wide because their are so many...evident by just the sampling on this site.
Bob Dylan said it well in his song "Gotta Serve Somebody"
You may be an ambassador to England or France,
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance,
You may be the heavyweight champion of the world,
You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You’re gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.
It's one or the other Numbers...I guarantee it!
Reading all these blogs it is easy to see why the Lord said "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." Matt 7:13.
The gate is wide because their are so many...evident by just the sampling on this site.
Bob Dylan said it well in his song "Gotta Serve Somebody"
You may be an ambassador to England or France,
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance,
You may be the heavyweight champion of the world,
You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You’re gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.
It's one or the other Numbers...I guarantee it!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: March 27, 2010 10:44PM
MBC Supporter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You may be an ambassador to England or France,
> You may like to gamble, you might like to dance,
> You may be the heavyweight champion of the world,
> You may be a socialite with a long string of
> pearls
> But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes
> indeed
> You’re gonna have to serve somebody,
> Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
> But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.
>
> It's one or the other Numbers...I guarantee it!
So I HAVE to serve either God or Satan?
That's going to be very difficult, since I don't believe in either of them.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You may be an ambassador to England or France,
> You may like to gamble, you might like to dance,
> You may be the heavyweight champion of the world,
> You may be a socialite with a long string of
> pearls
> But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes
> indeed
> You’re gonna have to serve somebody,
> Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
> But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.
>
> It's one or the other Numbers...I guarantee it!
So I HAVE to serve either God or Satan?
That's going to be very difficult, since I don't believe in either of them.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
NegativeDreamStealer
()
Date: March 28, 2010 07:43AM
I would also dare say Christians necessitate a far broader gate than atheists.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 29, 2010 12:15PM
MBC member Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually I am not a religious person as most who
> are true Christian's... read that Christ-ones,are
> not.
>
> It is not about religion, it is about a
> relationship with Jesus. The Catholic church has
> religion and I am pretty certain there will be
> many among them who will find Matthew 7:22-23 is
> the fruit of their religious faith.
>
> And you are correct that we look to the time when
> all this suffering will be no more for those of us
> who have faith in Christ Jesus our Lord and
> Savior. We may be in this world, but we are not
> of it.
Religions *ARE* relationships with X deity. Don't pretend you don't belong to a religion, you do.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually I am not a religious person as most who
> are true Christian's... read that Christ-ones,are
> not.
>
> It is not about religion, it is about a
> relationship with Jesus. The Catholic church has
> religion and I am pretty certain there will be
> many among them who will find Matthew 7:22-23 is
> the fruit of their religious faith.
>
> And you are correct that we look to the time when
> all this suffering will be no more for those of us
> who have faith in Christ Jesus our Lord and
> Savior. We may be in this world, but we are not
> of it.
Religions *ARE* relationships with X deity. Don't pretend you don't belong to a religion, you do.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 29, 2010 12:17PM
KGD - Kathy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Say Finito amigo -
>
> what if you ARE WRONG WRT "no God, no soul, no
> redemption - just physics and worms"?
Then he's wrong. No biggie.
> What if I'm
> right? And if I'm wrong, no loss for me, eh?
What if we are both wrong and Allah smites us both?
> But
> I do believe w/ all my heart as God has healed me
> and allowed me to live to share his LOVE with you
> and others. There is too much evidence, too many
> miracles in my own life to deny His existence.
Then you are most likely mistaken.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Say Finito amigo -
>
> what if you ARE WRONG WRT "no God, no soul, no
> redemption - just physics and worms"?
Then he's wrong. No biggie.
> What if I'm
> right? And if I'm wrong, no loss for me, eh?
What if we are both wrong and Allah smites us both?
> But
> I do believe w/ all my heart as God has healed me
> and allowed me to live to share his LOVE with you
> and others. There is too much evidence, too many
> miracles in my own life to deny His existence.
Then you are most likely mistaken.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: March 29, 2010 12:20PM
MBC Supporter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well Numbers - if it is insane to you it is
> because you do not know the inerrant word of God.
I've always been curious as to how someone can believe this is possible. I mean, surely you don't believe that God actually wrote the bible, right? It was written by a variety of men over eons.
That said, some manuscripts are different then others. Which means that some bibles are errant necessarily. Or do you not believe this?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well Numbers - if it is insane to you it is
> because you do not know the inerrant word of God.
I've always been curious as to how someone can believe this is possible. I mean, surely you don't believe that God actually wrote the bible, right? It was written by a variety of men over eons.
That said, some manuscripts are different then others. Which means that some bibles are errant necessarily. Or do you not believe this?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
DerekSchmoe
()
Date: March 29, 2010 02:33PM
the whole bible innerency thing is a total joke. Bible innerency refers to the original manuscripts being without error, but we do not have the originals. All we have are copies of the originals, which conflict in minor differences with each other. So how can you possibly take a bible innerency position? Oh i see, because we do not have the originals to validate the bible innerency position, we also cannot repute them either! GOTCHA real clever!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Soon2BXmember
()
Date: March 31, 2010 11:55PM
That is so funny.
RE Response by "MBC member () - Date: March 27, 2010 12:24AM"
Who are you calling "Francise". You are so mistaken if you were commenting back to me. I'm probably the guy you've seen on Sunday at "Big Church", you've seen at First Light, you seen working in different ministries or even been involved with at Frontline. I've been there, I've seen it and we're watching biblical integrity depart from McLean.
The problems of McLean are mostly financial. It is a financial circus and MOST of the general pastoral team doesn't even know it.
Make it simple and look at Lon's 1040s for the past 5 years. Ask him to provide it. He won't offer it, I guarantee that. You'd think it would be very easy for him to follow Jesus' words, "The Truth shall set you free". If it is God's plan their should nothing to hide or keep private.
So many problems, in fact, all of the housing allowances, compensation rates, etc. would blow most people out of the water. Except for the lower end folks as they would just be upset and insulted to see how much they are NOT in the club.
Heck, ask them about 'special' pastor's home financing. Who raised their down-payments, who bought the houses and then who owns them (or got the title transferred for peanuts). You'll find a very interesting (deceptive) twist on indirect compensation. Most churches will donate a living quarters to their pastor, however when pastor leaves, he leaves the home. McLean goes much further. It is good to be a McLean pastor. While the younger and newer pastors don't have this benefit, the seniors do.
You gotta wonder why Lon use to disclose his salary and all the church details but then one day stopped. THe salaries would cause the congregation to wonder given the benefits of clergy (special tax brackets) but the housing allowances would be the breaker.
I hope you are not so easily impressed by the theatrics, the glitter and the show performance and take time to investigate what is really going on behind the scenes.
Blessed to have my eyes open.
RE Response by "MBC member () - Date: March 27, 2010 12:24AM"
Who are you calling "Francise". You are so mistaken if you were commenting back to me. I'm probably the guy you've seen on Sunday at "Big Church", you've seen at First Light, you seen working in different ministries or even been involved with at Frontline. I've been there, I've seen it and we're watching biblical integrity depart from McLean.
The problems of McLean are mostly financial. It is a financial circus and MOST of the general pastoral team doesn't even know it.
Make it simple and look at Lon's 1040s for the past 5 years. Ask him to provide it. He won't offer it, I guarantee that. You'd think it would be very easy for him to follow Jesus' words, "The Truth shall set you free". If it is God's plan their should nothing to hide or keep private.
So many problems, in fact, all of the housing allowances, compensation rates, etc. would blow most people out of the water. Except for the lower end folks as they would just be upset and insulted to see how much they are NOT in the club.
Heck, ask them about 'special' pastor's home financing. Who raised their down-payments, who bought the houses and then who owns them (or got the title transferred for peanuts). You'll find a very interesting (deceptive) twist on indirect compensation. Most churches will donate a living quarters to their pastor, however when pastor leaves, he leaves the home. McLean goes much further. It is good to be a McLean pastor. While the younger and newer pastors don't have this benefit, the seniors do.
You gotta wonder why Lon use to disclose his salary and all the church details but then one day stopped. THe salaries would cause the congregation to wonder given the benefits of clergy (special tax brackets) but the housing allowances would be the breaker.
I hope you are not so easily impressed by the theatrics, the glitter and the show performance and take time to investigate what is really going on behind the scenes.
Blessed to have my eyes open.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
SoontobeMBCMember
()
Date: April 03, 2010 04:35PM
I started attending McLean Bible Church when they opened the Prince William Campus. It is much more convenient to my home than my previous church was. My spiritual walk has grown leaps and bounds since I began attending.
I feel people are threatened by Lon because he speaks the truth, straight out of the Bible. I'm sure Lon is compensated highly, but it is what God provides for him. I assumed Lon was in the million $$$ a year range, and I am not the least bit bothered. He deserves it.
As we celebrate Jesus's Ressurection on this Easter, I can only pray for the people posting in this and the other thread regarding McLean Bible Church. You all should have your focus directed towards Obama's administration, and the mishandling of our tax money that is TAKEN from us, not money we willfully give, rather than how much a pastor makes at a local church. Jealousy gets no one anywhere.
I feel people are threatened by Lon because he speaks the truth, straight out of the Bible. I'm sure Lon is compensated highly, but it is what God provides for him. I assumed Lon was in the million $$$ a year range, and I am not the least bit bothered. He deserves it.
As we celebrate Jesus's Ressurection on this Easter, I can only pray for the people posting in this and the other thread regarding McLean Bible Church. You all should have your focus directed towards Obama's administration, and the mishandling of our tax money that is TAKEN from us, not money we willfully give, rather than how much a pastor makes at a local church. Jealousy gets no one anywhere.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: April 03, 2010 05:17PM
SoontobeMBCMember Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sure Lon is compensated highly, but it is what God provides for him
>I assumed Lon was in the million $$$ a year range, and I am not the least bit bothered. He deserves it.
I love this - "God provides?", surely a bit of a surprise to the church members who thought they were providing
I find it hard to believe that any priest/shaman/pastor deserves any multiple of the salary of a fireman, a marine, a police officer or a teacher - let alone the >20x that you're advocating
> As we celebrate Jesus's Ressurection on this
> Easter, I can only pray for the people posting in
> this and the other thread regarding McLean Bible
> Church. You all should have your focus directed
> towards Obama's administration, and the
> mishandling of our tax money that is TAKEN from
> us, not money we willfully give, rather than how
> much a pastor makes at a local church. Jealousy
> gets no one anywhere.
Excellent - yet another delusional right wing christian nutter extolling the virtues of a disgraced religion
Sounds like you were one of those who voted for an administration that p*ssed away over $700 Billion on an unnecessary war in Iraq, widened the gap between the rich and the poor and drove us headlong into the deepest recession since the 20's
I didn't hear much from the right during the period that your tax dollars were being poured into a hole in the sand rather than schools and hospitals - towards what end exactly?
Sounds as if you and a delusional religious group preparing for the End of the World are perfect partners
So, its okay to grossly overpay an executive (because God provides) but not okay to spend taxes on services for the poor and needy (because if God cared, presumably he's provide)?
Mmmm.....
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sure Lon is compensated highly, but it is what God provides for him
>I assumed Lon was in the million $$$ a year range, and I am not the least bit bothered. He deserves it.
I love this - "God provides?", surely a bit of a surprise to the church members who thought they were providing
I find it hard to believe that any priest/shaman/pastor deserves any multiple of the salary of a fireman, a marine, a police officer or a teacher - let alone the >20x that you're advocating
> As we celebrate Jesus's Ressurection on this
> Easter, I can only pray for the people posting in
> this and the other thread regarding McLean Bible
> Church. You all should have your focus directed
> towards Obama's administration, and the
> mishandling of our tax money that is TAKEN from
> us, not money we willfully give, rather than how
> much a pastor makes at a local church. Jealousy
> gets no one anywhere.
Excellent - yet another delusional right wing christian nutter extolling the virtues of a disgraced religion
Sounds like you were one of those who voted for an administration that p*ssed away over $700 Billion on an unnecessary war in Iraq, widened the gap between the rich and the poor and drove us headlong into the deepest recession since the 20's
I didn't hear much from the right during the period that your tax dollars were being poured into a hole in the sand rather than schools and hospitals - towards what end exactly?
Sounds as if you and a delusional religious group preparing for the End of the World are perfect partners
So, its okay to grossly overpay an executive (because God provides) but not okay to spend taxes on services for the poor and needy (because if God cared, presumably he's provide)?
Mmmm.....
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
WowIAmShocked
()
Date: June 17, 2010 11:44PM
WOW, I am not sure what to write, so let me just start typing to see what develops. I've posted on a message thread like this only once in about the past 10 years. I've taken the past 45 minutes to read the first page and a half of this set of posts that started in August 2008 and to read a few of the last ones here. As an outsider to message threads/posts/whatever they are called, I can say this: I am seeing most people who are posting on here just picking on each other. Most people come across as though they think not only is their side correct, but that they have the distinct, individual answer for everyone else. Name-calling is rampant. "I know better than you" opinions are rampant. Does anyone NOT have all the answers? Or does any one at least NOT have SOME of the answers?
I may not post again, so please do not be surprised if you do not hear from me again. Best regards to all and thanks for the interesting reading.
I may not post again, so please do not be surprised if you do not hear from me again. Best regards to all and thanks for the interesting reading.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: June 18, 2010 07:59AM
WowIAmShocked Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WOW, I am not sure what to write, so let me just
> start typing to see what develops. I've posted on
> a message thread like this only once in about the
> past 10 years. I've taken the past 45 minutes to
> read the first page and a half of this set of
> posts that started in August 2008 and to read a
> few of the last ones here. As an outsider to
> message threads/posts/whatever they are called, I
> can say this: I am seeing most people who are
> posting on here just picking on each other. Most
> people come across as though they think not only
> is their side correct, but that they have the
> distinct, individual answer for everyone else.
> Name-calling is rampant. "I know better than you"
> opinions are rampant. Does anyone NOT have all
> the answers? Or does any one at least NOT have
> SOME of the answers?
> I may not post again, so please do not be
> surprised if you do not hear from me again. Best
> regards to all and thanks for the interesting
> reading.
If all of this thread was devoted to name calling and one upping, then how could this have been an interesting read?
-------------------------------------------------------
> WOW, I am not sure what to write, so let me just
> start typing to see what develops. I've posted on
> a message thread like this only once in about the
> past 10 years. I've taken the past 45 minutes to
> read the first page and a half of this set of
> posts that started in August 2008 and to read a
> few of the last ones here. As an outsider to
> message threads/posts/whatever they are called, I
> can say this: I am seeing most people who are
> posting on here just picking on each other. Most
> people come across as though they think not only
> is their side correct, but that they have the
> distinct, individual answer for everyone else.
> Name-calling is rampant. "I know better than you"
> opinions are rampant. Does anyone NOT have all
> the answers? Or does any one at least NOT have
> SOME of the answers?
> I may not post again, so please do not be
> surprised if you do not hear from me again. Best
> regards to all and thanks for the interesting
> reading.
If all of this thread was devoted to name calling and one upping, then how could this have been an interesting read?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Snapple
()
Date: June 18, 2010 04:30PM
Geez, religion brings out the crazies.
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
abr135
()
Date: June 19, 2010 12:41PM
I'm sorry the people of this church have lost their way. The Catholic church always has their doors open when people in this church are ready to hear the true message of Jesus Christ.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: June 21, 2010 08:17AM
abr135 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sorry the people of this church have lost
> their way. The Catholic church always has their
> doors open when people in this church are ready to
> hear the true message of Jesus Christ.
And how much will it cost to hear the 'true message' of Jesus Christ?
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sorry the people of this church have lost
> their way. The Catholic church always has their
> doors open when people in this church are ready to
> hear the true message of Jesus Christ.
And how much will it cost to hear the 'true message' of Jesus Christ?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Sherri
()
Date: June 28, 2010 01:20PM
Dear Sir:
Sorry about your experience at McLean, but please realize, that real people actually go there, and while they aren't perfect, they/we are interested in working on making changes when those needs are expressed.
I have been attending McLean for eight years, but it was very hard to find my place for a while. I kept going because I knew that the sermon was biblically sound, and I was challenged in my own being. It was when I started attending Sunday school that I ended up making real friends. There are plenty of good service opportunities (I volunteer at the clothing ministry and meet all kinds there). Also, there's a huge list of different theme groups -- literally, the Goths have their own group, and those who love high performance vehicles, etc. You'll meet folks with similar interests who may be very different than you in age/experience, but that's part of the awesome network of God's diverse people.
I really hope you will give this a chance again, and make your needs known in a gracious way to someone, so they can try to help you. If you look me up on Facebook, I would be pleased to help as much as I can.
Sincerely,
Sherri LaReaux
Sorry about your experience at McLean, but please realize, that real people actually go there, and while they aren't perfect, they/we are interested in working on making changes when those needs are expressed.
I have been attending McLean for eight years, but it was very hard to find my place for a while. I kept going because I knew that the sermon was biblically sound, and I was challenged in my own being. It was when I started attending Sunday school that I ended up making real friends. There are plenty of good service opportunities (I volunteer at the clothing ministry and meet all kinds there). Also, there's a huge list of different theme groups -- literally, the Goths have their own group, and those who love high performance vehicles, etc. You'll meet folks with similar interests who may be very different than you in age/experience, but that's part of the awesome network of God's diverse people.
I really hope you will give this a chance again, and make your needs known in a gracious way to someone, so they can try to help you. If you look me up on Facebook, I would be pleased to help as much as I can.
Sincerely,
Sherri LaReaux
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
cup of tea
()
Date: June 28, 2010 03:35PM
I am not a Christian. I do have concerns like many others over the sometimes narrow minded positions that churches such as MBC often adopt. I am also perplexed at any variant of Creationism - whether cast in the form of irreducible complexity or some other dressed up quasi-scientific notion - leave Creationism to divinity class and not science instruction. And I do think that to some degree churches such as MBC encourage anti-intellectualism, which I don't think is helpful or productive. In sum, none of this is my cup of tea.
Having said this, I do think any number of posters here are intolerant. The church does lots of good works (I think undeniable), and provides aid and comfort to a lot of people - and often in a much more personal and productive way than any government agency could perform. It brings happiness to many, so while I have little in common with their views, I don't begrudge their happiness either. One
I don't think publishing staff salaries is helpful or fair, either. Most of the staff did not sign on to be public figures. I do think Solomon should make public his compensation - he is a public figure - and head of one of the larger churches in the country. This is a common sense position - and one that MBC should favor for their own good. But just a thought.
Having said this, I do think any number of posters here are intolerant. The church does lots of good works (I think undeniable), and provides aid and comfort to a lot of people - and often in a much more personal and productive way than any government agency could perform. It brings happiness to many, so while I have little in common with their views, I don't begrudge their happiness either. One
I don't think publishing staff salaries is helpful or fair, either. Most of the staff did not sign on to be public figures. I do think Solomon should make public his compensation - he is a public figure - and head of one of the larger churches in the country. This is a common sense position - and one that MBC should favor for their own good. But just a thought.
Re: McLean Bible Church does not suck
Posted by:
Maddy Blair
()
Date: August 09, 2010 12:33PM
alright now listen up i happen to go to McLean. And i love it there!
ok 1st. we do belive that non-belivers r going to hell because they, get this, dont believe and u have to believe to go to heaven simple as that.
2nd. we dont hate gay people we hate what they do, because the bible says that homosexuality is worng so there for we arnt fans of it but we still love them like christ does as a person. its just another sin like lying and we dont like it.
3rd. we r not wacky, extremist idiots. all we do is preach what the bible says thats all and if u think the bible is to "wacky and exstreem" then u better take that up with god since he is the one who wrote it.
ok this has to stop dont make fun of lon like really why do you care what he gets paid?
ok 1st. we do belive that non-belivers r going to hell because they, get this, dont believe and u have to believe to go to heaven simple as that.
2nd. we dont hate gay people we hate what they do, because the bible says that homosexuality is worng so there for we arnt fans of it but we still love them like christ does as a person. its just another sin like lying and we dont like it.
3rd. we r not wacky, extremist idiots. all we do is preach what the bible says thats all and if u think the bible is to "wacky and exstreem" then u better take that up with god since he is the one who wrote it.
ok this has to stop dont make fun of lon like really why do you care what he gets paid?
Re: McLean Bible Church does not suck
Posted by:
Gonads & Strife
()
Date: August 09, 2010 12:34PM
Maddy Blair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> alright now listen up i happen to go to McLean.
> And i love it there!
>
> ok 1st. we do belive that non-belivers r going to
> hell because they, get this, dont believe and u
> have to believe to go to heaven simple as that.
>
> 2nd. we dont hate gay people we hate what they do,
> because the bible says that homosexuality is worng
> so there for we arnt fans of it but we still love
> them like christ does as a person. its just
> another sin like lying and we dont like it.
>
> 3rd. we r not wacky, extremist idiots. all we do
> is preach what the bible says thats all and if u
> think the bible is to "wacky and exstreem" then u
> better take that up with god since he is the one
> who wrote it.
>
> ok this has to stop dont make fun of lon like
> really why do you care what he gets paid?
You're retarded
-------------------------------------------------------
> alright now listen up i happen to go to McLean.
> And i love it there!
>
> ok 1st. we do belive that non-belivers r going to
> hell because they, get this, dont believe and u
> have to believe to go to heaven simple as that.
>
> 2nd. we dont hate gay people we hate what they do,
> because the bible says that homosexuality is worng
> so there for we arnt fans of it but we still love
> them like christ does as a person. its just
> another sin like lying and we dont like it.
>
> 3rd. we r not wacky, extremist idiots. all we do
> is preach what the bible says thats all and if u
> think the bible is to "wacky and exstreem" then u
> better take that up with god since he is the one
> who wrote it.
>
> ok this has to stop dont make fun of lon like
> really why do you care what he gets paid?
You're retarded
Re: McLean Bible Church does not suck
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: August 10, 2010 08:36AM
Maddy Blair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> alright now listen up i happen to go to McLean.
> And i love it there!
>
> ok 1st. we do belive that non-belivers r going to
> hell because they, get this, dont believe and u
> have to believe to go to heaven simple as that.
Okay, so your god is a sadist. What I can't believe is that you are not only *okay* with people suffering for eternity, you actually celebrate the deity who allows it to happen.
Hitler killed Ann Frank because she was Jewish and Christians call him bad. God burns Ann Frank for eternity and Christians call him good.
> 2nd. we dont hate gay people we hate what they do,
> because the bible says that homosexuality is worng
> so there for we arnt fans of it but we still love
> them like christ does as a person. its just
> another sin like lying and we dont like it.
Okay, so you hate gay people. You are attempting to make a distinction without a difference.
It's like saying 'we don't hate black people, we just hate their being black'. Utterly absurd.
> 3rd. we r not wacky, extremist idiots. all we do
> is preach what the bible says thats all and if u
> think the bible is to "wacky and exstreem" then u
> better take that up with god since he is the one
> who wrote it.
Unfortunately this is true. To be an 'extremist' you would have to be a minority. It seems like your views are the majority.
-------------------------------------------------------
> alright now listen up i happen to go to McLean.
> And i love it there!
>
> ok 1st. we do belive that non-belivers r going to
> hell because they, get this, dont believe and u
> have to believe to go to heaven simple as that.
Okay, so your god is a sadist. What I can't believe is that you are not only *okay* with people suffering for eternity, you actually celebrate the deity who allows it to happen.
Hitler killed Ann Frank because she was Jewish and Christians call him bad. God burns Ann Frank for eternity and Christians call him good.
> 2nd. we dont hate gay people we hate what they do,
> because the bible says that homosexuality is worng
> so there for we arnt fans of it but we still love
> them like christ does as a person. its just
> another sin like lying and we dont like it.
Okay, so you hate gay people. You are attempting to make a distinction without a difference.
It's like saying 'we don't hate black people, we just hate their being black'. Utterly absurd.
> 3rd. we r not wacky, extremist idiots. all we do
> is preach what the bible says thats all and if u
> think the bible is to "wacky and exstreem" then u
> better take that up with god since he is the one
> who wrote it.
Unfortunately this is true. To be an 'extremist' you would have to be a minority. It seems like your views are the majority.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Not2sure
()
Date: August 15, 2010 04:05PM
This is just a few words on my experience. I've lived a wealth life of sin. Meaning I have made a lot of money, been a lot of places, had a lot of fun, My belief in GOD has not changed. When I lived the life I wanted; I did. To myself I enjoyed all the selfish things I did. Now I know it was selfish because I know the TRUTH behind WHY I did them. I can justify anything I've done. But as a MAN OF GOD, no longer a selfish acting child,boy, or young man; I know in the sight of GOD I was WRONG in my actions and SELFISH in my choices.
All that to say, when I was wrong I was offended by anyone or anything that exposed my WRONG ACTIONS OR THINKING. Which made me defend and even accuse other of what I thought was WRONG or deceiving. The old statement it take one to know one.
If GOD decides to use you for the purpose of exposer or to inform for him, you will not remain the same. You shall KNOW THE TRUTH and THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE.
The things you use to do you don't do them no more! The way you use to think YOU DON'T THINK NO MORE. For NOW SALVATION HAS COME TO YOUR HOUSE TODAY.
The people who have not been changed will talk about you, bring up your past, even try to have you return to the old bad ways of thinking and acting. For THEIR DEEDS ARE SELFISH, THEIR MOTIVES ARE WRONG! They choose to continue in their ways.And will defend, justify, and even accuse for their heart do not believe THAT JESUS CHRIST IS LORD, and GOD CAN AND WILL USE AND GIVE GRACE AND FAVOR TO WHOMEVER HE DECIDES.
But you must 1st believe that GOD IS, CONFESS YOUR SINS, ASK JESUS TO BE LORD OF YOUR LIFE. RECEIVE FORGIVENESS FROM GOD, THEN WALK BY FAITH, THAT YOU NOW KNOW THE TRUTH AND CONDUCT YOUR ACTION BASED ON THE TRUTH. GOD'S TRUTH.
And YOU SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE.
All that to say, when I was wrong I was offended by anyone or anything that exposed my WRONG ACTIONS OR THINKING. Which made me defend and even accuse other of what I thought was WRONG or deceiving. The old statement it take one to know one.
If GOD decides to use you for the purpose of exposer or to inform for him, you will not remain the same. You shall KNOW THE TRUTH and THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE.
The things you use to do you don't do them no more! The way you use to think YOU DON'T THINK NO MORE. For NOW SALVATION HAS COME TO YOUR HOUSE TODAY.
The people who have not been changed will talk about you, bring up your past, even try to have you return to the old bad ways of thinking and acting. For THEIR DEEDS ARE SELFISH, THEIR MOTIVES ARE WRONG! They choose to continue in their ways.And will defend, justify, and even accuse for their heart do not believe THAT JESUS CHRIST IS LORD, and GOD CAN AND WILL USE AND GIVE GRACE AND FAVOR TO WHOMEVER HE DECIDES.
But you must 1st believe that GOD IS, CONFESS YOUR SINS, ASK JESUS TO BE LORD OF YOUR LIFE. RECEIVE FORGIVENESS FROM GOD, THEN WALK BY FAITH, THAT YOU NOW KNOW THE TRUTH AND CONDUCT YOUR ACTION BASED ON THE TRUTH. GOD'S TRUTH.
And YOU SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mr. Know-it-all
()
Date: August 15, 2010 05:10PM
There is a simple answer to the question of whether religion, from any standpoint, should be taught in public schools. That answer is to eliminate public education. The government should not be in the business of educating our children about anything, including religion. Down with public schools!!!!! They suck and are a blight on this nation!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Corruption of Blood
()
Date: August 15, 2010 05:52PM
Maddy Blair Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
> > we dont hate gay people we hate what they do,
> > because the bible says that homosexuality is worng
> > so there for we arnt fans of it but we still love
> > them like christ does as a person. its just
> > another sin like lying and we dont like it.
Professor Pangloss Replied:
-----------------------------------------------
> Okay, so you hate gay people.
>
> You are attempting to make a distinction without a difference.
This is an utterly specious response.
He didn't say he hates gay people, and he didn't make a "distinction without a difference."
His position could be compared to saying, "I love John, but I hate his getting drunk" (or substitute any behavioral sin/wrong).
To so hold does not mean that he "hates John."
In fact, one could very well love John, while hating a particular behavior such as getting drunk (or whatever). An obvious example would be if John was one's husband, or son, or friend.
> It's like saying 'we don't hate black people, we
> just hate their being black'. Utterly absurd.
False analogy.
First of all, black is not a behavior.
If you hate someone for "being black," i.e., having black skin, then you do indeed hate black people.
But that's not Maddy's position wrt gay people, which draws a distinction between the person and the person's behavior.
I have not read all his posts, but Maddy sounds like a Bible Christian, and as such he presumably believes that all are sinners, himself included (1 John 1:8-10).
But despite their being sinners, he is called to love rather than hate them, for someone who hates his brother is "in darkness" (1 John 2:9-11). And indeed if he hates his brother, he himself risks losing salvation (Galatians 5:19-21).
Now a gay person may say: I don't want Maddy's kind of "love," a love that repudiates a behavior that I consider intrinsic to my person, to "who I am." I don't think such "love" is logical, or even possible.
And that would be his prerogative.
But the gay person's attitude doesn't obviate Maddy's position.
I think some or perhaps many of us have had the experience of having good friends who engaged in certain behaviors we hated, that we felt were wrong and self-destructive, yet whom we still considered friends, while not approving of that behavior. I know I've had friends like that - drunks, drug addicts, adulterers.
Maybe none of your friends engage in any behavior you disapprove of. Or if they do, you simply cut them off, and end the friendship.
Perhaps you hate the sin (or wrong) and the sinner (or wrongdoer) equally, making no distinction.
But that's not the only way to live in this world.
--------------------------------------------------
> > we dont hate gay people we hate what they do,
> > because the bible says that homosexuality is worng
> > so there for we arnt fans of it but we still love
> > them like christ does as a person. its just
> > another sin like lying and we dont like it.
Professor Pangloss Replied:
-----------------------------------------------
> Okay, so you hate gay people.
>
> You are attempting to make a distinction without a difference.
This is an utterly specious response.
He didn't say he hates gay people, and he didn't make a "distinction without a difference."
His position could be compared to saying, "I love John, but I hate his getting drunk" (or substitute any behavioral sin/wrong).
To so hold does not mean that he "hates John."
In fact, one could very well love John, while hating a particular behavior such as getting drunk (or whatever). An obvious example would be if John was one's husband, or son, or friend.
> It's like saying 'we don't hate black people, we
> just hate their being black'. Utterly absurd.
False analogy.
First of all, black is not a behavior.
If you hate someone for "being black," i.e., having black skin, then you do indeed hate black people.
But that's not Maddy's position wrt gay people, which draws a distinction between the person and the person's behavior.
I have not read all his posts, but Maddy sounds like a Bible Christian, and as such he presumably believes that all are sinners, himself included (1 John 1:8-10).
But despite their being sinners, he is called to love rather than hate them, for someone who hates his brother is "in darkness" (1 John 2:9-11). And indeed if he hates his brother, he himself risks losing salvation (Galatians 5:19-21).
Now a gay person may say: I don't want Maddy's kind of "love," a love that repudiates a behavior that I consider intrinsic to my person, to "who I am." I don't think such "love" is logical, or even possible.
And that would be his prerogative.
But the gay person's attitude doesn't obviate Maddy's position.
I think some or perhaps many of us have had the experience of having good friends who engaged in certain behaviors we hated, that we felt were wrong and self-destructive, yet whom we still considered friends, while not approving of that behavior. I know I've had friends like that - drunks, drug addicts, adulterers.
Maybe none of your friends engage in any behavior you disapprove of. Or if they do, you simply cut them off, and end the friendship.
Perhaps you hate the sin (or wrong) and the sinner (or wrongdoer) equally, making no distinction.
But that's not the only way to live in this world.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mr. Know-nothing
()
Date: August 15, 2010 05:53PM
Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is a simple answer to the question of
> whether religion, from any standpoint, should be
> taught in public schools. That answer is to
> eliminate public education. The government should
> not be in the business of educating our children
> about anything, including religion. Down with
> public schools!!!!! They suck and are a blight on
> this nation!
Ah, yes. Let's go back to the days before public schools - when only the wealthy received a proper education and the others were either half taught by some random group of religious extremists or not taught at all. All the better to ensure that handy dandy underclass and a ready supply of sheep for religious indoctrination.
The perpetual global revelations of the Catholic school system are an object lesson in why education can't be left to special interest groups with their own shady rules.
Education is exactly the sort of thing that should be a shared service funded by society. The costs are incurred when families are young and struggle to meet the costs, and the benefits are accrued, and can be recouped, over a lifetime.
The biggest problem with American schools isn't the schools themselves - its the fact that half of the kids can't be bothered to learn and half the parents couldn't care less about education.
Much more of a problem is that there are too many religious schools - they're the real insult to any 21 century society.
Oh, and creationist nutters trying to push their fantasies to kids and mess with text books.
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is a simple answer to the question of
> whether religion, from any standpoint, should be
> taught in public schools. That answer is to
> eliminate public education. The government should
> not be in the business of educating our children
> about anything, including religion. Down with
> public schools!!!!! They suck and are a blight on
> this nation!
Ah, yes. Let's go back to the days before public schools - when only the wealthy received a proper education and the others were either half taught by some random group of religious extremists or not taught at all. All the better to ensure that handy dandy underclass and a ready supply of sheep for religious indoctrination.
The perpetual global revelations of the Catholic school system are an object lesson in why education can't be left to special interest groups with their own shady rules.
Education is exactly the sort of thing that should be a shared service funded by society. The costs are incurred when families are young and struggle to meet the costs, and the benefits are accrued, and can be recouped, over a lifetime.
The biggest problem with American schools isn't the schools themselves - its the fact that half of the kids can't be bothered to learn and half the parents couldn't care less about education.
Much more of a problem is that there are too many religious schools - they're the real insult to any 21 century society.
Oh, and creationist nutters trying to push their fantasies to kids and mess with text books.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mr. Know-it-all
()
Date: August 16, 2010 07:31AM
Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There is a simple answer to the question of
> > whether religion, from any standpoint, should
> be
> > taught in public schools. That answer is to
> > eliminate public education. The government
> should
> > not be in the business of educating our
> children
> > about anything, including religion. Down with
> > public schools!!!!! They suck and are a blight
> on
> > this nation!
>
> Ah, yes. Let's go back to the days before public
> schools - when only the wealthy received a proper
> education and the others were either half taught
> by some random group of religious extremists or
> not taught at all. All the better to ensure that
> handy dandy underclass and a ready supply of sheep
> for religious indoctrination.
>
> The perpetual global revelations of the Catholic
> school system are an object lesson in why
> education can't be left to special interest groups
> with their own shady rules.
>
> Education is exactly the sort of thing that should
> be a shared service funded by society. The costs
> are incurred when families are young and struggle
> to meet the costs, and the benefits are accrued,
> and can be recouped, over a lifetime.
>
> The biggest problem with American schools isn't
> the schools themselves - its the fact that half of
> the kids can't be bothered to learn and half the
> parents couldn't care less about education.
>
> Much more of a problem is that there are too many
> religious schools - they're the real insult to any
> 21 century society.
>
> Oh, and creationist nutters trying to push their
> fantasies to kids and mess with text books.
You apparently are a "graduate" of America's laughable public school system. As such, I have to consider any opinion that you choose to share as uninformed. Public schools must go.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There is a simple answer to the question of
> > whether religion, from any standpoint, should
> be
> > taught in public schools. That answer is to
> > eliminate public education. The government
> should
> > not be in the business of educating our
> children
> > about anything, including religion. Down with
> > public schools!!!!! They suck and are a blight
> on
> > this nation!
>
> Ah, yes. Let's go back to the days before public
> schools - when only the wealthy received a proper
> education and the others were either half taught
> by some random group of religious extremists or
> not taught at all. All the better to ensure that
> handy dandy underclass and a ready supply of sheep
> for religious indoctrination.
>
> The perpetual global revelations of the Catholic
> school system are an object lesson in why
> education can't be left to special interest groups
> with their own shady rules.
>
> Education is exactly the sort of thing that should
> be a shared service funded by society. The costs
> are incurred when families are young and struggle
> to meet the costs, and the benefits are accrued,
> and can be recouped, over a lifetime.
>
> The biggest problem with American schools isn't
> the schools themselves - its the fact that half of
> the kids can't be bothered to learn and half the
> parents couldn't care less about education.
>
> Much more of a problem is that there are too many
> religious schools - they're the real insult to any
> 21 century society.
>
> Oh, and creationist nutters trying to push their
> fantasies to kids and mess with text books.
You apparently are a "graduate" of America's laughable public school system. As such, I have to consider any opinion that you choose to share as uninformed. Public schools must go.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
yup
()
Date: August 16, 2010 08:03AM
Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> You apparently are a "graduate" of America's
> laughable public school system. As such, I have
> to consider any opinion that you choose to share
> as uninformed. Public schools must go.
and what would your proposed alternative would be?
pedophile priests?
profit making small-businesses with no standards?
just give in?
home schooling of the uneducated by the uneducated?
madrassas?
just toss 'em a bible and let 'em get on with it?
barefoot and pregnant?
clearly many of our schools and school districts have problems - but I don't see you coming up with an scalable alternative which would tackle our national competitiveness problem
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> You apparently are a "graduate" of America's
> laughable public school system. As such, I have
> to consider any opinion that you choose to share
> as uninformed. Public schools must go.
and what would your proposed alternative would be?
pedophile priests?
profit making small-businesses with no standards?
just give in?
home schooling of the uneducated by the uneducated?
madrassas?
just toss 'em a bible and let 'em get on with it?
barefoot and pregnant?
clearly many of our schools and school districts have problems - but I don't see you coming up with an scalable alternative which would tackle our national competitiveness problem
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: August 16, 2010 08:34AM
Corruption of Blood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maddy Blair Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > we dont hate gay people we hate what they do,
> > > because the bible says that homosexuality is
> worng
> > > so there for we arnt fans of it but we still
> love
> > > them like christ does as a person. its just
> > > another sin like lying and we dont like it.
>
> Professor Pangloss Replied:
> -----------------------------------------------
> > Okay, so you hate gay people.
> >
> > You are attempting to make a distinction without
> a difference.
>
> This is an utterly specious response.
>
> He didn't say he hates gay people, and he didn't
> make a "distinction without a difference."
>
> His position could be compared to saying, "I love
> John, but I hate his getting drunk" (or substitute
> any behavioral sin/wrong).
Yeah, I'd respond the same way - his 'drunk driving' is a part of his personality. Compartmentalizing someone is being disingenuous.
> To so hold does not mean that he "hates John."
>
> In fact, one could very well love John, while
> hating a particular behavior such as getting drunk
> (or whatever). An obvious example would be if
> John was one's husband, or son, or friend.
To do this is to compartmentalize John, which is absurd. You can still *love* the person, but the truth is that the drunk driving *IS* relevant to that love.
Pretending that it's not is simply dishonest.
> > It's like saying 'we don't hate black people,
> we
> > just hate their being black'. Utterly absurd.
>
> False analogy.
>
> First of all, black is not a behavior.
Neither is sexual orientation.
You don't like the comparison because it hits too close to home.
That's not my problem.
> If you hate someone for "being black," i.e.,
> having black skin, then you do indeed hate black
> people.
>
> But that's not Maddy's position wrt gay people,
> which draws a distinction between the person and
> the person's behavior.
Which is, of course, absurd, since orientation is not a behavior.
> I have not read all his posts, but Maddy sounds
> like a Bible Christian, and as such he presumably
> believes that all are sinners, himself included (1
> John 1:8-10).
>
> But despite their being sinners, he is called to
> love rather than hate them, for someone who hates
> his brother is "in darkness" (1 John 2:9-11). And
> indeed if he hates his brother, he himself risks
> losing salvation (Galatians 5:19-21).
>
> Now a gay person may say: I don't want Maddy's
> kind of "love," a love that repudiates a behavior
> that I consider intrinsic to my person, to "who I
> am." I don't think such "love" is logical, or
> even possible.
>
> And that would be his prerogative.
>
> But the gay person's attitude doesn't obviate
> Maddy's position.
>
> I think some or perhaps many of us have had the
> experience of having good friends who engaged in
> certain behaviors we hated, that we felt were
> wrong and self-destructive, yet whom we still
> considered friends, while not approving of that
> behavior. I know I've had friends like that -
> drunks, drug addicts, adulterers.
>
> Maybe none of your friends engage in any behavior
> you disapprove of. Or if they do, you simply cut
> them off, and end the friendship.
You are, once again, compartmentalizing your friends. If your friend was a rapist, would you still 'love' your friend, while hating his 'raping behavior'?
If your friend, family member, whatever, was a child molester would you still love him/her the same or would that 'behavior' sour your relationship with them?
If you say it wouldn't, then I don't believe you. The fact is, you can't *honestly* compartmentalize the way you are suggesting you can.
> Perhaps you hate the sin (or wrong) and the sinner
> (or wrongdoer) equally, making no distinction.
>
> But that's not the only way to live in this world.
It's dishonest to pretend that one can 'hate the sin' and love the sinner. You maybe able to 'not prefer' the sin or 'accept' the sin and love the sinner, but not 'hate'. To pretend otherwise is, again, dishonest.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maddy Blair Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > we dont hate gay people we hate what they do,
> > > because the bible says that homosexuality is
> worng
> > > so there for we arnt fans of it but we still
> love
> > > them like christ does as a person. its just
> > > another sin like lying and we dont like it.
>
> Professor Pangloss Replied:
> -----------------------------------------------
> > Okay, so you hate gay people.
> >
> > You are attempting to make a distinction without
> a difference.
>
> This is an utterly specious response.
>
> He didn't say he hates gay people, and he didn't
> make a "distinction without a difference."
>
> His position could be compared to saying, "I love
> John, but I hate his getting drunk" (or substitute
> any behavioral sin/wrong).
Yeah, I'd respond the same way - his 'drunk driving' is a part of his personality. Compartmentalizing someone is being disingenuous.
> To so hold does not mean that he "hates John."
>
> In fact, one could very well love John, while
> hating a particular behavior such as getting drunk
> (or whatever). An obvious example would be if
> John was one's husband, or son, or friend.
To do this is to compartmentalize John, which is absurd. You can still *love* the person, but the truth is that the drunk driving *IS* relevant to that love.
Pretending that it's not is simply dishonest.
> > It's like saying 'we don't hate black people,
> we
> > just hate their being black'. Utterly absurd.
>
> False analogy.
>
> First of all, black is not a behavior.
Neither is sexual orientation.
You don't like the comparison because it hits too close to home.
That's not my problem.
> If you hate someone for "being black," i.e.,
> having black skin, then you do indeed hate black
> people.
>
> But that's not Maddy's position wrt gay people,
> which draws a distinction between the person and
> the person's behavior.
Which is, of course, absurd, since orientation is not a behavior.
> I have not read all his posts, but Maddy sounds
> like a Bible Christian, and as such he presumably
> believes that all are sinners, himself included (1
> John 1:8-10).
>
> But despite their being sinners, he is called to
> love rather than hate them, for someone who hates
> his brother is "in darkness" (1 John 2:9-11). And
> indeed if he hates his brother, he himself risks
> losing salvation (Galatians 5:19-21).
>
> Now a gay person may say: I don't want Maddy's
> kind of "love," a love that repudiates a behavior
> that I consider intrinsic to my person, to "who I
> am." I don't think such "love" is logical, or
> even possible.
>
> And that would be his prerogative.
>
> But the gay person's attitude doesn't obviate
> Maddy's position.
>
> I think some or perhaps many of us have had the
> experience of having good friends who engaged in
> certain behaviors we hated, that we felt were
> wrong and self-destructive, yet whom we still
> considered friends, while not approving of that
> behavior. I know I've had friends like that -
> drunks, drug addicts, adulterers.
>
> Maybe none of your friends engage in any behavior
> you disapprove of. Or if they do, you simply cut
> them off, and end the friendship.
You are, once again, compartmentalizing your friends. If your friend was a rapist, would you still 'love' your friend, while hating his 'raping behavior'?
If your friend, family member, whatever, was a child molester would you still love him/her the same or would that 'behavior' sour your relationship with them?
If you say it wouldn't, then I don't believe you. The fact is, you can't *honestly* compartmentalize the way you are suggesting you can.
> Perhaps you hate the sin (or wrong) and the sinner
> (or wrongdoer) equally, making no distinction.
>
> But that's not the only way to live in this world.
It's dishonest to pretend that one can 'hate the sin' and love the sinner. You maybe able to 'not prefer' the sin or 'accept' the sin and love the sinner, but not 'hate'. To pretend otherwise is, again, dishonest.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mr. Know-it-all
()
Date: August 16, 2010 06:50PM
yup Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
>
> > You apparently are a "graduate" of America's
> > laughable public school system. As such, I
> have
> > to consider any opinion that you choose to
> share
> > as uninformed. Public schools must go.
>
> and what would your proposed alternative would
> be?
>
> pedophile priests?
> profit making small-businesses with no standards?
> just give in?
> home schooling of the uneducated by the
> uneducated?
> madrassas?
> just toss 'em a bible and let 'em get on with it?
> barefoot and pregnant?
>
> clearly many of our schools and school districts
> have problems - but I don't see you coming up with
> an scalable alternative which would tackle our
> national competitiveness problem
This is the problem with statists like you. Every issue/problem/concern has to be met with a huge macro-level response. Education should not be the business of the goverment. Individual families should be left alone to figure out how their children will/should be educated. It's none of your fucking business how your neighbor decides to educate his children. The problem, though, is that leftists like you can NEVER mind your own business. You people are such a pain in the ass.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
>
> > You apparently are a "graduate" of America's
> > laughable public school system. As such, I
> have
> > to consider any opinion that you choose to
> share
> > as uninformed. Public schools must go.
>
> and what would your proposed alternative would
> be?
>
> pedophile priests?
> profit making small-businesses with no standards?
> just give in?
> home schooling of the uneducated by the
> uneducated?
> madrassas?
> just toss 'em a bible and let 'em get on with it?
> barefoot and pregnant?
>
> clearly many of our schools and school districts
> have problems - but I don't see you coming up with
> an scalable alternative which would tackle our
> national competitiveness problem
This is the problem with statists like you. Every issue/problem/concern has to be met with a huge macro-level response. Education should not be the business of the goverment. Individual families should be left alone to figure out how their children will/should be educated. It's none of your fucking business how your neighbor decides to educate his children. The problem, though, is that leftists like you can NEVER mind your own business. You people are such a pain in the ass.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
the grammar police
()
Date: August 16, 2010 07:46PM
> This is the problem with statists like you. Every
> issue/problem/concern has to be met with a huge
> macro-level response. Education should not be the
> business of the goverment. Individual families
> should be left alone to figure out how their
> children will/should be educated. It's none of
> your fucking business how your neighbor decides to
> educate his children. The problem, though, is
> that leftists like you can NEVER mind your own
> business. You people are such a pain in the ass.
This is a horrable idea, on many levels. There has to be a baseline-education for children to know whats right from whats wrong. secondly, the world would not function as we know it, because all of these self-involved christians would be hunkered over there children. How are they suppose to regulate college admissions when there are parents teaching their kids that there is an invisable sky-daddy and 2+2=7? this would cause an education/economic/relgious failure on a massive scale.
AKA - think it through DIPSHIT
> issue/problem/concern has to be met with a huge
> macro-level response. Education should not be the
> business of the goverment. Individual families
> should be left alone to figure out how their
> children will/should be educated. It's none of
> your fucking business how your neighbor decides to
> educate his children. The problem, though, is
> that leftists like you can NEVER mind your own
> business. You people are such a pain in the ass.
This is a horrable idea, on many levels. There has to be a baseline-education for children to know whats right from whats wrong. secondly, the world would not function as we know it, because all of these self-involved christians would be hunkered over there children. How are they suppose to regulate college admissions when there are parents teaching their kids that there is an invisable sky-daddy and 2+2=7? this would cause an education/economic/relgious failure on a massive scale.
AKA - think it through DIPSHIT
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mr. Know-it-all
()
Date: August 16, 2010 09:47PM
the grammar police Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > This is the problem with statists like you.
> Every
> > issue/problem/concern has to be met with a huge
> > macro-level response. Education should not be
> the
> > business of the goverment. Individual families
> > should be left alone to figure out how their
> > children will/should be educated. It's none of
> > your fucking business how your neighbor decides
> to
> > educate his children. The problem, though, is
> > that leftists like you can NEVER mind your own
> > business. You people are such a pain in the
> ass.
>
>
> This is a horrable idea, on many levels. There has
> to be a baseline-education for children to know
> whats right from whats wrong. secondly, the world
> would not function as we know it, because all of
> these self-involved christians would be hunkered
> over there children. How are they suppose to
> regulate college admissions when there are parents
> teaching their kids that there is an invisable
> sky-daddy and 2+2=7? this would cause an
> education/economic/relgious failure on a massive
> scale.
>
>
> AKA - think it through DIPSHIT
You can come up with all kinds of justifications for the state to control our lives and those of our children. Indoctrination of our kids through state-run schools is one of the most blatant abuses of government power that currently exist, yet sheep like you are more than willing to follow in lock step. Well, I value my freedom and that of my loved ones. Let the colleges figure out how to admit students. I'm quite confident that they'd come up with a way to determine who gets in and who doesn't. Why does the state have to provide education in order for it to have validity in your mind? Grow up, try to live like a free person and, most importantly, quit trying to argue in favor of denying the rest of us to do the same. Liberals like you are just worry-wart pussies who are afraid to take control of their own lives. Try to grow a pair, will ya?
-------------------------------------------------------
> > This is the problem with statists like you.
> Every
> > issue/problem/concern has to be met with a huge
> > macro-level response. Education should not be
> the
> > business of the goverment. Individual families
> > should be left alone to figure out how their
> > children will/should be educated. It's none of
> > your fucking business how your neighbor decides
> to
> > educate his children. The problem, though, is
> > that leftists like you can NEVER mind your own
> > business. You people are such a pain in the
> ass.
>
>
> This is a horrable idea, on many levels. There has
> to be a baseline-education for children to know
> whats right from whats wrong. secondly, the world
> would not function as we know it, because all of
> these self-involved christians would be hunkered
> over there children. How are they suppose to
> regulate college admissions when there are parents
> teaching their kids that there is an invisable
> sky-daddy and 2+2=7? this would cause an
> education/economic/relgious failure on a massive
> scale.
>
>
> AKA - think it through DIPSHIT
You can come up with all kinds of justifications for the state to control our lives and those of our children. Indoctrination of our kids through state-run schools is one of the most blatant abuses of government power that currently exist, yet sheep like you are more than willing to follow in lock step. Well, I value my freedom and that of my loved ones. Let the colleges figure out how to admit students. I'm quite confident that they'd come up with a way to determine who gets in and who doesn't. Why does the state have to provide education in order for it to have validity in your mind? Grow up, try to live like a free person and, most importantly, quit trying to argue in favor of denying the rest of us to do the same. Liberals like you are just worry-wart pussies who are afraid to take control of their own lives. Try to grow a pair, will ya?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Teach all of the Bible in Schools
()
Date: August 17, 2010 12:04AM
If they are going to teach the creation story from the Bible in school, then I think they should teach the whole Bible, not just the pretty sounding verses. You know I think they should teach the verses that have the biblical god teaching humanity that it's ok to buy and sell slaves (and even beat them to the brink of death), and kill even the babies of your enemies in warfare. I think it should be known that the Biblical god commands that a woman's hand be chopped off if she grabs a guys balls in defense. I think it should be known Jesus was proud to claim to be the very god that supposedly said all of this:
•This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' [1 Samuel 15:2-4]
•Moses was angry with the officers of the army who returned from battle. "Have you allowed all the women to live? They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and turned the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.[Num 31:14-18]
•O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be who repays you with what you have done to us! Blessed shall he be who takes your little suckling babes and dashes them against sharp rocks! [Psalm 137:8-9]
•When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your slaves and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall kill all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you. [Deuteronomy 20:10-14]
•Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them permanent slaves for life. [Leviticus 25:44-46]
•If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property. [Exodus 21:20-21]
•If you buy a hired servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. [Exodus 21:1-4]
•All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing [Christian] masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. [1 Timothy 6:1-2]
•Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive. [Titus 2:9-10]
•Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. [1 Peter 2:18-20 (NRSV)]
•Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.[Colossians 3:22-24]
•If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. [Exodus 21:7-10]
•A slave cannot be corrected by mere words; though he understands, he will not respond.†[Proverbs 29:19]
•When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you see among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. [Deut 21:10-14]
•If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her fathers house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. [Deut. 22:20]
•If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity. [Deuteronomy 25:11-12]
•If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. [Deuteronomy 22:28-29]
•Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. [Exodus 31:15]
•"Anyone who curses or hits his father or mother must be put to death." [Mthw 15:4; Ex 21:15,17]
•But nothing that a man owns and devotes to the LORD—whether man or animal or family land may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD. No person so devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he must be put to death. [Leviticus 27:28-29]
•But if without hostility someone suddenly shoves another or throws something at him unintentionally or, without seeing him, drops a stone on him that could kill him, and he dies, then since he was not his enemy and he did not intend to harm him, the assembly must judge between him and the avenger of blood according to these regulations. The assembly must protect the one accused of murder from the avenger of blood and send him back to the city of refuge to which he fled. He must stay there until the death of the high priest, who was anointed with the holy oil. But if the accused ever goes outside the limits of the city of refuge to which he has fled and the avenger of blood finds him outside the city, the avenger of blood may kill the accused without being guilty of murder. [Numbers 35:22-27 ]
•I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.' [Jer. 19:9]
•Give them, O LORD - what will you give them? Give them wombs that miscarry and breasts that are dry. [Hosea 9:14]
•If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again. [Deuteronomy 13:6-11]
•Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." [Gen. 9:4-8]
•This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' [1 Samuel 15:2-4]
•Moses was angry with the officers of the army who returned from battle. "Have you allowed all the women to live? They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and turned the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.[Num 31:14-18]
•O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be who repays you with what you have done to us! Blessed shall he be who takes your little suckling babes and dashes them against sharp rocks! [Psalm 137:8-9]
•When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your slaves and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall kill all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you. [Deuteronomy 20:10-14]
•Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them permanent slaves for life. [Leviticus 25:44-46]
•If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property. [Exodus 21:20-21]
•If you buy a hired servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. [Exodus 21:1-4]
•All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing [Christian] masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. [1 Timothy 6:1-2]
•Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive. [Titus 2:9-10]
•Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. [1 Peter 2:18-20 (NRSV)]
•Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.[Colossians 3:22-24]
•If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. [Exodus 21:7-10]
•A slave cannot be corrected by mere words; though he understands, he will not respond.†[Proverbs 29:19]
•When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you see among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. [Deut 21:10-14]
•If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her fathers house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. [Deut. 22:20]
•If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity. [Deuteronomy 25:11-12]
•If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. [Deuteronomy 22:28-29]
•Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. [Exodus 31:15]
•"Anyone who curses or hits his father or mother must be put to death." [Mthw 15:4; Ex 21:15,17]
•But nothing that a man owns and devotes to the LORD—whether man or animal or family land may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD. No person so devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he must be put to death. [Leviticus 27:28-29]
•But if without hostility someone suddenly shoves another or throws something at him unintentionally or, without seeing him, drops a stone on him that could kill him, and he dies, then since he was not his enemy and he did not intend to harm him, the assembly must judge between him and the avenger of blood according to these regulations. The assembly must protect the one accused of murder from the avenger of blood and send him back to the city of refuge to which he fled. He must stay there until the death of the high priest, who was anointed with the holy oil. But if the accused ever goes outside the limits of the city of refuge to which he has fled and the avenger of blood finds him outside the city, the avenger of blood may kill the accused without being guilty of murder. [Numbers 35:22-27 ]
•I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.' [Jer. 19:9]
•Give them, O LORD - what will you give them? Give them wombs that miscarry and breasts that are dry. [Hosea 9:14]
•If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again. [Deuteronomy 13:6-11]
•Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." [Gen. 9:4-8]
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Corruption of Blood
()
Date: August 17, 2010 02:25AM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, I'd respond the same way - his 'drunk
> driving' is a part of his personality.
> Compartmentalizing someone is being disingenuous.
"Compartmentalizing someone is being disingenuous."
Sez who? Miss Manners? The Ethicist? Freud?
Pretending that we cannot or do not "compartmentalize" our attitudes towards
others is ridiculous. Robots might be programmed to behave in such an unnatural
fashion; it's natural for human beings.
For example, it has long been a matter of social convention to "compartmentalize"
talk of politics and religion in social gatherings, as these topics are apt to
trigger unpleasant and angry disputes. In so doing, we "compartmentalize" both
ourselves and others, for the greater good of maintaining community.
Of course, one is free to reject this, whether in society or personal relations.
Thus for example, an atheist might conclude he can no longer maintain his
friendship with a Christian whom he knows disagrees with his atheism. (Or
vice-versa.)
Some groups separate themselves from society because they cannot, or have no
wish to "compartmentalize": certain Orthodox Jews, and the Amish, to name two
prominent examples.
Too, there are rigid personality-types who cannot abide inconsistency, and who
would repudiate any friend who does an action they consider wrong.
In sum, an anti-"compartmentalization" stance leads to separation, and in its
more extreme forms has a whiff of fanaticism, eg, Hawthorne's "Scarlet Letter."
> > First of all, black is not a behavior.
>
> Neither is sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is not like race.
The outward signs of race, "such as skin color and hair texture -- are dictated
by a handful of genes." http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-race-exist-overviewg
This is not so in the case of homosexuality. According to the very pro-gay
American Psychological Association, "There is no consensus among scientists
about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual,
gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible
genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual
orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that
sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors." http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf
From a sociological perspective, the history of black oppression and enslavement
that gave rise to the Civil Rights movement is radically different than gay
experience.
Unlike blacks, gays are more affluent and better educated than the general
population. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/26/business/e-commerce-report-more-companies-are-working-attract-gay-lesbian-customers.html
They are not denied the right to vote, or forced to sit in the back of the bus,
or denied service in restaurants, or beset by attack dogs when they march.
There are a number of openly gay politicians.
They may have their grievances, but in 2010 gays are quite simply not an
oppressed minority in any sense comparable to the experience of blacks in the
pre-Civil Rights era.
> You don't like the comparison because it hits too
> close to home.
> That's not my problem.
Your comparison rests on a false analogy. That's the problem.
> Which is, of course, absurd, since orientation is
> not a behavior.
If it was only a question of orientation and not behavior, there would be no
issue in the real world (eg, laws, court cases, relations between friends).
Your attempt to cabin the issue to orientation only, and not behavior, is
specious.
> You are, once again, compartmentalizing your
> friends. If your friend was a rapist, would you
> still 'love' your friend, while hating his 'raping
> behavior'?
> If your friend, family member, whatever, was a
> child molester would you still love him/her the
> same or would that 'behavior' sour your
> relationship with them?
> If you say it wouldn't, then I don't believe you.
Once again, the only way you have to advance your argument is through false
analogy, in this case comparing sociopathic acts of violence to to homosexual
acts. The two are not analogous.
> The fact is, you can't *honestly* compartmentalize
> the way you are suggesting you can.
And again I say it's human nature to "compartmentalize," and draconian not to,
i.e, to take an all-or-nothing stance vis a vis one's friends and family.
> It's dishonest to pretend that one can 'hate the
> sin' and love the sinner.
Christianity is premised on the idea that all are sinners, and we're called to love all.
If it were impossible to draw a distinction between the sin and the sinner, we
would be forced to hate everyone (including ourselves).
This is an attitude, moreover, which is entrenched in American culture high and
low; in Lincoln's second inaugural, and in films like "On the Waterfront,"
"Raging Bull," and "Dead Man Walking," for example.
It may be a difficult standard to live up - and doubtless not always is - but
it is an admirable ideal, not impossible of achievement, and one I have
experienced it in my own life, and in the lives of others.
> You maybe able to 'not
> prefer' the sin or 'accept' the sin and love the
> sinner, but not 'hate'. To pretend otherwise is,
> again, dishonest.
This is a legitimate point.
The phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" is a somewhat facile slogan, and is
not found in the Bible, although it does point toward a requirement for
Christian behavior, as discussed in my prior post.
As used in this phrase, I understand "hate" as meaning to firmly reject, as
distinguished from "hate" in the sense of uncontrolled antipathy or aversion.
Cf. discussion of New Testament use of the term "hate," where flat translation
into English fails to capture the necessary Hebrew nuance. http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/lovehate.htm
Too, as a matter of practice, I think Christians who live by this motto
understand it in its proper sense, i.e., as a foundation for, rather than a
repudiation of friendship -- with repudiation, I agree, hard to avoid if "hate"
is understood as antipathy, rather than mere rejection or non-acceptance.
Thus the clear underlying teleogy of the motto preserves its proper sense, and
obviates an unsound reading that would be, as you note, impossible of
accomplishment.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, I'd respond the same way - his 'drunk
> driving' is a part of his personality.
> Compartmentalizing someone is being disingenuous.
"Compartmentalizing someone is being disingenuous."
Sez who? Miss Manners? The Ethicist? Freud?
Pretending that we cannot or do not "compartmentalize" our attitudes towards
others is ridiculous. Robots might be programmed to behave in such an unnatural
fashion; it's natural for human beings.
For example, it has long been a matter of social convention to "compartmentalize"
talk of politics and religion in social gatherings, as these topics are apt to
trigger unpleasant and angry disputes. In so doing, we "compartmentalize" both
ourselves and others, for the greater good of maintaining community.
Of course, one is free to reject this, whether in society or personal relations.
Thus for example, an atheist might conclude he can no longer maintain his
friendship with a Christian whom he knows disagrees with his atheism. (Or
vice-versa.)
Some groups separate themselves from society because they cannot, or have no
wish to "compartmentalize": certain Orthodox Jews, and the Amish, to name two
prominent examples.
Too, there are rigid personality-types who cannot abide inconsistency, and who
would repudiate any friend who does an action they consider wrong.
In sum, an anti-"compartmentalization" stance leads to separation, and in its
more extreme forms has a whiff of fanaticism, eg, Hawthorne's "Scarlet Letter."
> > First of all, black is not a behavior.
>
> Neither is sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is not like race.
The outward signs of race, "such as skin color and hair texture -- are dictated
by a handful of genes." http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-race-exist-overviewg
This is not so in the case of homosexuality. According to the very pro-gay
American Psychological Association, "There is no consensus among scientists
about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual,
gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible
genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual
orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that
sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors." http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf
From a sociological perspective, the history of black oppression and enslavement
that gave rise to the Civil Rights movement is radically different than gay
experience.
Unlike blacks, gays are more affluent and better educated than the general
population. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/26/business/e-commerce-report-more-companies-are-working-attract-gay-lesbian-customers.html
They are not denied the right to vote, or forced to sit in the back of the bus,
or denied service in restaurants, or beset by attack dogs when they march.
There are a number of openly gay politicians.
They may have their grievances, but in 2010 gays are quite simply not an
oppressed minority in any sense comparable to the experience of blacks in the
pre-Civil Rights era.
> You don't like the comparison because it hits too
> close to home.
> That's not my problem.
Your comparison rests on a false analogy. That's the problem.
> Which is, of course, absurd, since orientation is
> not a behavior.
If it was only a question of orientation and not behavior, there would be no
issue in the real world (eg, laws, court cases, relations between friends).
Your attempt to cabin the issue to orientation only, and not behavior, is
specious.
> You are, once again, compartmentalizing your
> friends. If your friend was a rapist, would you
> still 'love' your friend, while hating his 'raping
> behavior'?
> If your friend, family member, whatever, was a
> child molester would you still love him/her the
> same or would that 'behavior' sour your
> relationship with them?
> If you say it wouldn't, then I don't believe you.
Once again, the only way you have to advance your argument is through false
analogy, in this case comparing sociopathic acts of violence to to homosexual
acts. The two are not analogous.
> The fact is, you can't *honestly* compartmentalize
> the way you are suggesting you can.
And again I say it's human nature to "compartmentalize," and draconian not to,
i.e, to take an all-or-nothing stance vis a vis one's friends and family.
> It's dishonest to pretend that one can 'hate the
> sin' and love the sinner.
Christianity is premised on the idea that all are sinners, and we're called to love all.
If it were impossible to draw a distinction between the sin and the sinner, we
would be forced to hate everyone (including ourselves).
This is an attitude, moreover, which is entrenched in American culture high and
low; in Lincoln's second inaugural, and in films like "On the Waterfront,"
"Raging Bull," and "Dead Man Walking," for example.
It may be a difficult standard to live up - and doubtless not always is - but
it is an admirable ideal, not impossible of achievement, and one I have
experienced it in my own life, and in the lives of others.
> You maybe able to 'not
> prefer' the sin or 'accept' the sin and love the
> sinner, but not 'hate'. To pretend otherwise is,
> again, dishonest.
This is a legitimate point.
The phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" is a somewhat facile slogan, and is
not found in the Bible, although it does point toward a requirement for
Christian behavior, as discussed in my prior post.
As used in this phrase, I understand "hate" as meaning to firmly reject, as
distinguished from "hate" in the sense of uncontrolled antipathy or aversion.
Cf. discussion of New Testament use of the term "hate," where flat translation
into English fails to capture the necessary Hebrew nuance. http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/lovehate.htm
Too, as a matter of practice, I think Christians who live by this motto
understand it in its proper sense, i.e., as a foundation for, rather than a
repudiation of friendship -- with repudiation, I agree, hard to avoid if "hate"
is understood as antipathy, rather than mere rejection or non-acceptance.
Thus the clear underlying teleogy of the motto preserves its proper sense, and
obviates an unsound reading that would be, as you note, impossible of
accomplishment.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: August 17, 2010 08:15AM
Corruption of Blood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah, I'd respond the same way - his 'drunk
> > driving' is a part of his personality.
> > Compartmentalizing someone is being
> disingenuous.
>
> "Compartmentalizing someone is being
> disingenuous."
>
> Sez who? Miss Manners? The Ethicist? Freud?
Reason, that's 'who'. You aren't taking the entire person into account and you are only seeing what you want to see.
> Pretending that we cannot or do not
> "compartmentalize" our attitudes towards
> others is ridiculous. Robots might be programmed
> to behave in such an unnatural
> fashion; it's natural for human beings.
To an extent, as I believe I indicated. The point is that you cannot *hate* a portion of someone and pretend to love the rest. As I indicated you can, perhaps, dislike something or grudgingly approve of it, but not *hate* it. My rapist example points this out.
> For example, it has long been a matter of social
> convention to "compartmentalize"
> talk of politics and religion in social
> gatherings, as these topics are apt to
> trigger unpleasant and angry disputes. In so
> doing, we "compartmentalize" both
> ourselves and others, for the greater good of
> maintaining community.
>
> Of course, one is free to reject this, whether in
> society or personal relations.
> Thus for example, an atheist might conclude he can
> no longer maintain his
> friendship with a Christian whom he knows
> disagrees with his atheism. (Or
> vice-versa.)
>
> Some groups separate themselves from society
> because they cannot, or have no
> wish to "compartmentalize": certain Orthodox Jews,
> and the Amish, to name two
> prominent examples.
>
> Too, there are rigid personality-types who cannot
> abide inconsistency, and who
> would repudiate any friend who does an action they
> consider wrong.
>
> In sum, an anti-"compartmentalization" stance
> leads to separation, and in its
> more extreme forms has a whiff of fanaticism, eg,
> Hawthorne's "Scarlet Letter."
This is largely a strawman against my position.
>
> > > First of all, black is not a behavior.
> >
> > Neither is sexual orientation.
>
> Sexual orientation is not like race.
It is in the sense that neither are a behavior.
> The outward signs of race, "such as skin color and
> hair texture -- are dictated
> by a handful of genes."
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=d
> oes-race-exist-overviewg
>
> This is not so in the case of homosexuality.
> According to the very pro-gay
> American Psychological Association, "There is no
> consensus among scientists
> about the exact reasons that an individual
> develops a heterosexual, bisexual,
> gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much
> research has examined the possible
> genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and
> cultural influences on sexual
> orientation, no findings have emerged that permit
> scientists to conclude that
> sexual orientation is determined by any particular
> factor or factors."
> http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.p
> df
This is not relevant. I'm not arguing that orientation is *exactly* like race. My comparison is that neither are 'choices'. Your link does not dispute this.
> From a sociological perspective, the history of
> black oppression and enslavement
> that gave rise to the Civil Rights movement is
> radically different than gay
> experience.
?
I'm not arguing that homosexuals were slaves.
> Unlike blacks, gays are more affluent and better
> educated than the general
> population.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/26/business/e-comme
> rce-report-more-companies-are-working-attract-gay-
> lesbian-customers.html
>
> They are not denied the right to vote, or forced
> to sit in the back of the bus,
> or denied service in restaurants, or beset by
> attack dogs when they march.
> There are a number of openly gay politicians
I'm not arguing that any of those *specific* things occur to homosexuals, although I would say they are being treated as second class citizens with regards to marriage and they have been subject to persecution based on their oreintation (matthew shepard).
You are erect a strawman, without actually *trying* to look at what I brought up.
> They may have their grievances, but in 2010 gays
> are quite simply not an
> oppressed minority in any sense comparable to the
> experience of blacks in the
> pre-Civil Rights era.
With the exception of marriage, you mean, right?
>
> > You don't like the comparison because it hits
> too
> > close to home.
> > That's not my problem.
>
> Your comparison rests on a false analogy. That's
> the problem.
Nonsense, my comparison was meant to point out that orientation was not a behavior or choice - you erect an elaborate strawman to distract from this fact.
>
> > Which is, of course, absurd, since orientation
> is
> > not a behavior.
>
> If it was only a question of orientation and not
> behavior, there would be no
> issue in the real world (eg, laws, court cases,
> relations between friends).
Non sequitur.
> Your attempt to cabin the issue to orientation
> only, and not behavior, is
> specious.
Why, because you say so? That's not compelling.
>
> > You are, once again, compartmentalizing your
> > friends. If your friend was a rapist, would
> you
> > still 'love' your friend, while hating his
> 'raping
> > behavior'?
> > If your friend, family member, whatever, was a
> > child molester would you still love him/her the
> > same or would that 'behavior' sour your
> > relationship with them?
> > If you say it wouldn't, then I don't believe
> you.
>
> Once again, the only way you have to advance your
> argument is through false
> analogy, in this case comparing sociopathic acts
> of violence to to homosexual
> acts. The two are not analogous.
*sigh*
I'm reducing your argument to the absurd. I was not saying homosexuality is the same thing as a violent act. To suggest so is to argue deceptively.
My point is that when you take the clear example of something that is 'hated', most people would be influenced enough to drop the friendship.
My point is that while Christians say they 'hate the sin, love the sinner' they either aren't telling the truth or they truly do hate the sinner.
Remember, all sin is the same in the eyes of God, is it not?
Hence my analogy stands.
> > The fact is, you can't *honestly*
> compartmentalize
> > the way you are suggesting you can.
>
> And again I say it's human nature to
> "compartmentalize," and draconian not to,
> i.e, to take an all-or-nothing stance vis a vis
> one's friends and family.
Again, strawman.
I'm not suggesting that no compartimentalization occurs, I'm suggesting that the compartmentalization that *YOU* suggest is absurd.
You haven't rebutted this - you've simply ignored it or baselessly asserted that it's not analogous.
>
> > It's dishonest to pretend that one can 'hate
> the
> > sin' and love the sinner.
>
> Christianity is premised on the idea that all are
> sinners, and we're called to love all.
Nonsense - do you 'bring the sword' to those you love? Do you let those you love suffer for eternity in torment?
No, it's lip service. It's the same cognitive dissonance that suggests that you can simultaneously *hate* someone and *love* them.
> If it were impossible to draw a distinction
> between the sin and the sinner, we
> would be forced to hate everyone (including
> ourselves).
I wouldn't say *hate*, in this case, I would say that Christianity does teach that humans are fallen and it is only through God that we have any worth.
So, yes, I would say that Christians are commanded to view themselves as worthless. None can do any good apart from God, remember?
> This is an attitude, moreover, which is entrenched
> in American culture high and
> low; in Lincoln's second inaugural, and in films
> like "On the Waterfront,"
> "Raging Bull," and "Dead Man Walking," for
> example.
>
> It may be a difficult standard to live up - and
> doubtless not always is - but
> it is an admirable ideal, not impossible of
> achievement, and one I have
> experienced it in my own life, and in the lives of
> others.
>
>
> > You maybe able to 'not
> > prefer' the sin or 'accept' the sin and love
> the
> > sinner, but not 'hate'. To pretend otherwise
> is,
> > again, dishonest.
>
> This is a legitimate point.
>
> The phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" is a
> somewhat facile slogan, and is
> not found in the Bible, although it does point
> toward a requirement for
> Christian behavior, as discussed in my prior
> post.
>
> As used in this phrase, I understand "hate" as
> meaning to firmly reject, as
> distinguished from "hate" in the sense of
> uncontrolled antipathy or aversion.
> Cf. discussion of New Testament use of the term
> "hate," where flat translation
> into English fails to capture the necessary Hebrew
> nuance.
> http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/lovehate.htm
>
> Too, as a matter of practice, I think Christians
> who live by this motto
> understand it in its proper sense, i.e., as a
> foundation for, rather than a
> repudiation of friendship -- with repudiation, I
> agree, hard to avoid if "hate"
> is understood as antipathy, rather than mere
> rejection or non-acceptance.
So it's a definitional difference then. Fine, if that's the way you feel. I'm not sure you can 'not accept' a friend though, but whatever.
I repudiate my friends for eating chocolate and peanut butter together, if this is the sense that you mean, then we have no issue.
> Thus the clear underlying teleogy of the motto
> preserves its proper sense, and
> obviates an unsound reading that would be, as you
> note, impossible of
> accomplishment.
No, you just shift the goal posts, dissolving the discussion. If you want to water it down to such a thing go right ahead.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah, I'd respond the same way - his 'drunk
> > driving' is a part of his personality.
> > Compartmentalizing someone is being
> disingenuous.
>
> "Compartmentalizing someone is being
> disingenuous."
>
> Sez who? Miss Manners? The Ethicist? Freud?
Reason, that's 'who'. You aren't taking the entire person into account and you are only seeing what you want to see.
> Pretending that we cannot or do not
> "compartmentalize" our attitudes towards
> others is ridiculous. Robots might be programmed
> to behave in such an unnatural
> fashion; it's natural for human beings.
To an extent, as I believe I indicated. The point is that you cannot *hate* a portion of someone and pretend to love the rest. As I indicated you can, perhaps, dislike something or grudgingly approve of it, but not *hate* it. My rapist example points this out.
> For example, it has long been a matter of social
> convention to "compartmentalize"
> talk of politics and religion in social
> gatherings, as these topics are apt to
> trigger unpleasant and angry disputes. In so
> doing, we "compartmentalize" both
> ourselves and others, for the greater good of
> maintaining community.
>
> Of course, one is free to reject this, whether in
> society or personal relations.
> Thus for example, an atheist might conclude he can
> no longer maintain his
> friendship with a Christian whom he knows
> disagrees with his atheism. (Or
> vice-versa.)
>
> Some groups separate themselves from society
> because they cannot, or have no
> wish to "compartmentalize": certain Orthodox Jews,
> and the Amish, to name two
> prominent examples.
>
> Too, there are rigid personality-types who cannot
> abide inconsistency, and who
> would repudiate any friend who does an action they
> consider wrong.
>
> In sum, an anti-"compartmentalization" stance
> leads to separation, and in its
> more extreme forms has a whiff of fanaticism, eg,
> Hawthorne's "Scarlet Letter."
This is largely a strawman against my position.
>
> > > First of all, black is not a behavior.
> >
> > Neither is sexual orientation.
>
> Sexual orientation is not like race.
It is in the sense that neither are a behavior.
> The outward signs of race, "such as skin color and
> hair texture -- are dictated
> by a handful of genes."
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=d
> oes-race-exist-overviewg
>
> This is not so in the case of homosexuality.
> According to the very pro-gay
> American Psychological Association, "There is no
> consensus among scientists
> about the exact reasons that an individual
> develops a heterosexual, bisexual,
> gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much
> research has examined the possible
> genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and
> cultural influences on sexual
> orientation, no findings have emerged that permit
> scientists to conclude that
> sexual orientation is determined by any particular
> factor or factors."
> http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.p
> df
This is not relevant. I'm not arguing that orientation is *exactly* like race. My comparison is that neither are 'choices'. Your link does not dispute this.
> From a sociological perspective, the history of
> black oppression and enslavement
> that gave rise to the Civil Rights movement is
> radically different than gay
> experience.
?
I'm not arguing that homosexuals were slaves.
> Unlike blacks, gays are more affluent and better
> educated than the general
> population.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/26/business/e-comme
> rce-report-more-companies-are-working-attract-gay-
> lesbian-customers.html
>
> They are not denied the right to vote, or forced
> to sit in the back of the bus,
> or denied service in restaurants, or beset by
> attack dogs when they march.
> There are a number of openly gay politicians
I'm not arguing that any of those *specific* things occur to homosexuals, although I would say they are being treated as second class citizens with regards to marriage and they have been subject to persecution based on their oreintation (matthew shepard).
You are erect a strawman, without actually *trying* to look at what I brought up.
> They may have their grievances, but in 2010 gays
> are quite simply not an
> oppressed minority in any sense comparable to the
> experience of blacks in the
> pre-Civil Rights era.
With the exception of marriage, you mean, right?
>
> > You don't like the comparison because it hits
> too
> > close to home.
> > That's not my problem.
>
> Your comparison rests on a false analogy. That's
> the problem.
Nonsense, my comparison was meant to point out that orientation was not a behavior or choice - you erect an elaborate strawman to distract from this fact.
>
> > Which is, of course, absurd, since orientation
> is
> > not a behavior.
>
> If it was only a question of orientation and not
> behavior, there would be no
> issue in the real world (eg, laws, court cases,
> relations between friends).
Non sequitur.
> Your attempt to cabin the issue to orientation
> only, and not behavior, is
> specious.
Why, because you say so? That's not compelling.
>
> > You are, once again, compartmentalizing your
> > friends. If your friend was a rapist, would
> you
> > still 'love' your friend, while hating his
> 'raping
> > behavior'?
> > If your friend, family member, whatever, was a
> > child molester would you still love him/her the
> > same or would that 'behavior' sour your
> > relationship with them?
> > If you say it wouldn't, then I don't believe
> you.
>
> Once again, the only way you have to advance your
> argument is through false
> analogy, in this case comparing sociopathic acts
> of violence to to homosexual
> acts. The two are not analogous.
*sigh*
I'm reducing your argument to the absurd. I was not saying homosexuality is the same thing as a violent act. To suggest so is to argue deceptively.
My point is that when you take the clear example of something that is 'hated', most people would be influenced enough to drop the friendship.
My point is that while Christians say they 'hate the sin, love the sinner' they either aren't telling the truth or they truly do hate the sinner.
Remember, all sin is the same in the eyes of God, is it not?
Hence my analogy stands.
> > The fact is, you can't *honestly*
> compartmentalize
> > the way you are suggesting you can.
>
> And again I say it's human nature to
> "compartmentalize," and draconian not to,
> i.e, to take an all-or-nothing stance vis a vis
> one's friends and family.
Again, strawman.
I'm not suggesting that no compartimentalization occurs, I'm suggesting that the compartmentalization that *YOU* suggest is absurd.
You haven't rebutted this - you've simply ignored it or baselessly asserted that it's not analogous.
>
> > It's dishonest to pretend that one can 'hate
> the
> > sin' and love the sinner.
>
> Christianity is premised on the idea that all are
> sinners, and we're called to love all.
Nonsense - do you 'bring the sword' to those you love? Do you let those you love suffer for eternity in torment?
No, it's lip service. It's the same cognitive dissonance that suggests that you can simultaneously *hate* someone and *love* them.
> If it were impossible to draw a distinction
> between the sin and the sinner, we
> would be forced to hate everyone (including
> ourselves).
I wouldn't say *hate*, in this case, I would say that Christianity does teach that humans are fallen and it is only through God that we have any worth.
So, yes, I would say that Christians are commanded to view themselves as worthless. None can do any good apart from God, remember?
> This is an attitude, moreover, which is entrenched
> in American culture high and
> low; in Lincoln's second inaugural, and in films
> like "On the Waterfront,"
> "Raging Bull," and "Dead Man Walking," for
> example.
>
> It may be a difficult standard to live up - and
> doubtless not always is - but
> it is an admirable ideal, not impossible of
> achievement, and one I have
> experienced it in my own life, and in the lives of
> others.
>
>
> > You maybe able to 'not
> > prefer' the sin or 'accept' the sin and love
> the
> > sinner, but not 'hate'. To pretend otherwise
> is,
> > again, dishonest.
>
> This is a legitimate point.
>
> The phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" is a
> somewhat facile slogan, and is
> not found in the Bible, although it does point
> toward a requirement for
> Christian behavior, as discussed in my prior
> post.
>
> As used in this phrase, I understand "hate" as
> meaning to firmly reject, as
> distinguished from "hate" in the sense of
> uncontrolled antipathy or aversion.
> Cf. discussion of New Testament use of the term
> "hate," where flat translation
> into English fails to capture the necessary Hebrew
> nuance.
> http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/lovehate.htm
>
> Too, as a matter of practice, I think Christians
> who live by this motto
> understand it in its proper sense, i.e., as a
> foundation for, rather than a
> repudiation of friendship -- with repudiation, I
> agree, hard to avoid if "hate"
> is understood as antipathy, rather than mere
> rejection or non-acceptance.
So it's a definitional difference then. Fine, if that's the way you feel. I'm not sure you can 'not accept' a friend though, but whatever.
I repudiate my friends for eating chocolate and peanut butter together, if this is the sense that you mean, then we have no issue.
> Thus the clear underlying teleogy of the motto
> preserves its proper sense, and
> obviates an unsound reading that would be, as you
> note, impossible of
> accomplishment.
No, you just shift the goal posts, dissolving the discussion. If you want to water it down to such a thing go right ahead.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Corruption of Blood
()
Date: August 18, 2010 07:49PM
So it's a definitional difference then.
This is rather an anticlimax, but I do think it boils down to a definitional
difference. I honestly didn't realize this until I read the second-to-last
sentence of your August 16, 2010 08:34AM post.
I started to draft a response to the entirety of your most recent post, but most
of it turns on side issues, not all of them trivial by any means, but really
rather beside the specific point which drew me into this discussion in the first
place, the controversial "hate the sin, love the sinner" slogan.
I'll respond here to that central issue, which is addressed at the end of your
post (if you were interested, I could finish and post my reply to the other
points you raised).
For the sake of clarity, I'm going to set this up with the relevant portion of
our discussion: You in blue,color> me in green,color> followed by my response in black.
Professor Pangloss wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
You maybe able to 'not prefer' the sin or 'accept' the sin and love the
sinner, but not 'hate'. To pretend otherwise is, again, dishonest.color>
Corruption of Blood replied:
-------------------------------------------------------
This is a legitimate point.
The phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" is a somewhat facile slogan,
and is not found in the Bible, although it does point toward a requirement
for Christian behavior, as discussed in my prior post.
As used in this phrase, I understand "hate" as meaning to firmly reject,
as distinguished from "hate" in the sense of uncontrolled antipathy or
aversion. Cf. discussion of New Testament use of the term "hate," where
flat translation into English fails to capture the necessary Hebrew nuance.
http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/lovehate.htm
Too, as a matter of practice, I think Christians who live by this motto
understand it in its proper sense, i.e., as a foundation for, rather than
a repudiation of friendship -- with repudiation, I agree, hard to avoid
if "hate" is understood as antipathy, rather than mere rejection or non-
acceptance.
Thus the clear underlying teleogy of the motto preserves its proper sense,
and obviates an unsound reading that would be, as you note, impossible of
accomplishment.color>
Professor Pangloss replied:
-------------------------------------------------------
So it's a definitional difference then. Fine, if that's the way you feel.
I'm not sure you can 'not accept' a friend though, but whatever.
I repudiate my friends for eating chocolate and peanut butter together,
if this is the sense that you mean, then we have no issue.color>
> Thus the clear underlying teleogy of the motto
> preserves its proper sense, and
> obviates an unsound reading that would be, as you
> note, impossible of
> accomplishment.
No, you just shift the goal posts, dissolving the discussion. If you want
to water it down to such a thing go right ahead.color>
I assure you, I would not have written such a detailed reply to your August 16
post only to pull an ultimately self-defeating - in that I admitted you had made
a legitimate point - rhetorical move like "shifting the goal posts."
Nor do I wish to water things down. There's still a rather substantial area of
disagreement between us. But it's quite obvious that on the main point we were
mostly talking past each other.
In short, you understand the phrase "hate the sin, love the sinner" literally,
and on that basis think it makes no sense. Upon consideration, I think that's an
entirely reasonable and understandable interpretation.
By contrast, I understand it from inside my Christian experience. Specifically,
from my experience of having a gay friend, Paul, who knew very well that I was a
conservative Christian, and yet was able to maintain a close friendship with me
for several years.
When I first read the second-to-last sentence of your August 16 post - "You
maybe able to 'not prefer' the sin or 'accept' the sin and love the sinner,
but not 'hate'" - I was confused by the "maybe" typo. Then your point struck
me, and I realized that what you were saying was essentially true, if "hate"
is understood in a literal sense (which, again, is a reasonable and indeed
perfectly natural way to understand it).
I on the other hand interpret "hate the sin, love the sinner" based on my
experience with Paul, and a few other friends I've had over the years. I
believed Paul's sexual activity was sinful, no ifs, ands or buts, and this
was no secret. Yet we had a very rich friendship that turned on our mutual
love of the arts, literature, and music. If I had "hated" his sin in the
fullest emotional/psychological meaning of the word, I don't think we could
have been friends. Such an attitude would inevitably poison a friendship.
As noted, "hate the sin, love the sinner" is not a direct quotation from
scripture, but a summary slogan or catchphrase (in this sense, perhaps
somewhat similar to "what would Jesus do?").
So what about that word "hate"?
Maddy Blair wrote: "we dont hate gay people we hate what they do, because the
bible says that homosexuality is worng so there for we arnt fans of it but we
still love them like christ does as a person. its just another sin like lying and
we dont like it."
So, for Maddy, homosexuality is "just another sin... like lying."
And "we dont like it," but "we still love them like christ does as a person."
Whatever slogan he might profess, it seems to me that Maddy's attitude is very
far from true hatred.
And basically, I agree with him, although I think genital homosexual activity
is more serious than lying (as indeed I think heterosexual fornication and
masturbation are more serious than lying) (I don't agree with those who hold
that all sins are equal).
In my case, I rejected Paul's sin, but didn't reject him. I could probably
unpack that with greater psychological nuance and precision, but that was my
position in a nutshell. This did not involve a great deal of psychological
strain. Broadly speaking, I might compare it to having a Jewish friend, or an
atheist friend; these entail a rather different dynamic than my friendship with
Paul, yet both would involve fundamental differences of opinion on very serious
issues, indeed matters (in my view) of eternal consequence. (If Paul had been a
sexual predator, such as a rapist or a pedophile, that would be different; if he
was actively pursuing such criminal activity, he would belong in prison. I could
not be friends with an active rapist or pedophile, i.e., a sociopath. If a person
had repented and put away such behavior, friendship might conceivably be
possible, but friendship requires a certain natural affinity; Christians are
called to love all, in the 1 Corinthians 13 sense of agape love, but that is not
equivalent to saying Christians are called to have a particular form of love,
such as friendship (phileo), or romantic love (eros) with all.)
The ground of Christianity is love.
"If anyone says, 'I love God,' yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone
who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, Whom
he has not seen." 1 John 4:20.
And yet, all are sinners. To reconcile these two ideas requires developing
certain habits of thinking, about one's attitude towards oneself and others,
and about the meaning and purpose of life (cf. Romans 12:2).
The bottom line is, any reasonably mature and orthodox Christian is simply not
going to interpret "hate the sin, love the sinner" in a way that involves, in fact,
hating the sinner.
The "hate the sin" component will be understood along the lines Maddy
articulated it: "its just another sin... and we dont like it.... we arnt
fans of it but we still love them like christ does as a person."
A healthy Christian faith will preserve a right understanding of "hate the sin,
love the sinner," that is to say an understanding rooted in love of, rather than
hatred of, one's neighbor.
An unhealthy faith, I suppose, will misconstrue "hate the sin, love the sinner"
and much else besides.
That said, language does matter, and it's important to express ideas, perhaps
especially theological ideas, with as much clarity as possible. Not that it's
going to happen, but I wouldn't object if the phrase "hate the sin, love the
sinner" were dropped from popular Christian vocabulary: it's imprecise, needlessly
provocative to non-Christians, and could be potentially misleading to at least
some within the Christian community.
This is rather an anticlimax, but I do think it boils down to a definitional
difference. I honestly didn't realize this until I read the second-to-last
sentence of your August 16, 2010 08:34AM post.
I started to draft a response to the entirety of your most recent post, but most
of it turns on side issues, not all of them trivial by any means, but really
rather beside the specific point which drew me into this discussion in the first
place, the controversial "hate the sin, love the sinner" slogan.
I'll respond here to that central issue, which is addressed at the end of your
post (if you were interested, I could finish and post my reply to the other
points you raised).
For the sake of clarity, I'm going to set this up with the relevant portion of
our discussion: You in blue,color> me in green,color> followed by my response in black.
Professor Pangloss wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
You maybe able to 'not prefer' the sin or 'accept' the sin and love the
sinner, but not 'hate'. To pretend otherwise is, again, dishonest.color>
Corruption of Blood replied:
-------------------------------------------------------
This is a legitimate point.
The phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" is a somewhat facile slogan,
and is not found in the Bible, although it does point toward a requirement
for Christian behavior, as discussed in my prior post.
As used in this phrase, I understand "hate" as meaning to firmly reject,
as distinguished from "hate" in the sense of uncontrolled antipathy or
aversion. Cf. discussion of New Testament use of the term "hate," where
flat translation into English fails to capture the necessary Hebrew nuance.
http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/lovehate.htm
Too, as a matter of practice, I think Christians who live by this motto
understand it in its proper sense, i.e., as a foundation for, rather than
a repudiation of friendship -- with repudiation, I agree, hard to avoid
if "hate" is understood as antipathy, rather than mere rejection or non-
acceptance.
Thus the clear underlying teleogy of the motto preserves its proper sense,
and obviates an unsound reading that would be, as you note, impossible of
accomplishment.color>
Professor Pangloss replied:
-------------------------------------------------------
So it's a definitional difference then. Fine, if that's the way you feel.
I'm not sure you can 'not accept' a friend though, but whatever.
I repudiate my friends for eating chocolate and peanut butter together,
if this is the sense that you mean, then we have no issue.color>
> Thus the clear underlying teleogy of the motto
> preserves its proper sense, and
> obviates an unsound reading that would be, as you
> note, impossible of
> accomplishment.
No, you just shift the goal posts, dissolving the discussion. If you want
to water it down to such a thing go right ahead.color>
I assure you, I would not have written such a detailed reply to your August 16
post only to pull an ultimately self-defeating - in that I admitted you had made
a legitimate point - rhetorical move like "shifting the goal posts."
Nor do I wish to water things down. There's still a rather substantial area of
disagreement between us. But it's quite obvious that on the main point we were
mostly talking past each other.
In short, you understand the phrase "hate the sin, love the sinner" literally,
and on that basis think it makes no sense. Upon consideration, I think that's an
entirely reasonable and understandable interpretation.
By contrast, I understand it from inside my Christian experience. Specifically,
from my experience of having a gay friend, Paul, who knew very well that I was a
conservative Christian, and yet was able to maintain a close friendship with me
for several years.
When I first read the second-to-last sentence of your August 16 post - "You
maybe able to 'not prefer' the sin or 'accept' the sin and love the sinner,
but not 'hate'" - I was confused by the "maybe" typo. Then your point struck
me, and I realized that what you were saying was essentially true, if "hate"
is understood in a literal sense (which, again, is a reasonable and indeed
perfectly natural way to understand it).
I on the other hand interpret "hate the sin, love the sinner" based on my
experience with Paul, and a few other friends I've had over the years. I
believed Paul's sexual activity was sinful, no ifs, ands or buts, and this
was no secret. Yet we had a very rich friendship that turned on our mutual
love of the arts, literature, and music. If I had "hated" his sin in the
fullest emotional/psychological meaning of the word, I don't think we could
have been friends. Such an attitude would inevitably poison a friendship.
As noted, "hate the sin, love the sinner" is not a direct quotation from
scripture, but a summary slogan or catchphrase (in this sense, perhaps
somewhat similar to "what would Jesus do?").
So what about that word "hate"?
Maddy Blair wrote: "we dont hate gay people we hate what they do, because the
bible says that homosexuality is worng so there for we arnt fans of it but we
still love them like christ does as a person. its just another sin like lying and
we dont like it."
So, for Maddy, homosexuality is "just another sin... like lying."
And "we dont like it," but "we still love them like christ does as a person."
Whatever slogan he might profess, it seems to me that Maddy's attitude is very
far from true hatred.
And basically, I agree with him, although I think genital homosexual activity
is more serious than lying (as indeed I think heterosexual fornication and
masturbation are more serious than lying) (I don't agree with those who hold
that all sins are equal).
In my case, I rejected Paul's sin, but didn't reject him. I could probably
unpack that with greater psychological nuance and precision, but that was my
position in a nutshell. This did not involve a great deal of psychological
strain. Broadly speaking, I might compare it to having a Jewish friend, or an
atheist friend; these entail a rather different dynamic than my friendship with
Paul, yet both would involve fundamental differences of opinion on very serious
issues, indeed matters (in my view) of eternal consequence. (If Paul had been a
sexual predator, such as a rapist or a pedophile, that would be different; if he
was actively pursuing such criminal activity, he would belong in prison. I could
not be friends with an active rapist or pedophile, i.e., a sociopath. If a person
had repented and put away such behavior, friendship might conceivably be
possible, but friendship requires a certain natural affinity; Christians are
called to love all, in the 1 Corinthians 13 sense of agape love, but that is not
equivalent to saying Christians are called to have a particular form of love,
such as friendship (phileo), or romantic love (eros) with all.)
The ground of Christianity is love.
"If anyone says, 'I love God,' yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone
who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, Whom
he has not seen." 1 John 4:20.
And yet, all are sinners. To reconcile these two ideas requires developing
certain habits of thinking, about one's attitude towards oneself and others,
and about the meaning and purpose of life (cf. Romans 12:2).
The bottom line is, any reasonably mature and orthodox Christian is simply not
going to interpret "hate the sin, love the sinner" in a way that involves, in fact,
hating the sinner.
The "hate the sin" component will be understood along the lines Maddy
articulated it: "its just another sin... and we dont like it.... we arnt
fans of it but we still love them like christ does as a person."
A healthy Christian faith will preserve a right understanding of "hate the sin,
love the sinner," that is to say an understanding rooted in love of, rather than
hatred of, one's neighbor.
An unhealthy faith, I suppose, will misconstrue "hate the sin, love the sinner"
and much else besides.
That said, language does matter, and it's important to express ideas, perhaps
especially theological ideas, with as much clarity as possible. Not that it's
going to happen, but I wouldn't object if the phrase "hate the sin, love the
sinner" were dropped from popular Christian vocabulary: it's imprecise, needlessly
provocative to non-Christians, and could be potentially misleading to at least
some within the Christian community.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
the grammar police
()
Date: August 18, 2010 08:06PM
Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the grammar police Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > This is the problem with statists like you.
> > Every
> > > issue/problem/concern has to be met with a
> huge
> > > macro-level response. Education should not
> be
> > the
> > > business of the goverment. Individual
> families
> > > should be left alone to figure out how their
> > > children will/should be educated. It's none
> of
> > > your fucking business how your neighbor
> decides
> > to
> > > educate his children. The problem, though,
> is
> > > that leftists like you can NEVER mind your
> own
> > > business. You people are such a pain in the
> > ass.
> >
> >
> > This is a horrable idea, on many levels. There
> has
> > to be a baseline-education for children to know
> > whats right from whats wrong. secondly, the
> world
> > would not function as we know it, because all
> of
> > these self-involved christians would be
> hunkered
> > over there children. How are they suppose to
> > regulate college admissions when there are
> parents
> > teaching their kids that there is an invisable
> > sky-daddy and 2+2=7? this would cause an
> > education/economic/relgious failure on a
> massive
> > scale.
> >
> >
> > AKA - think it through DIPSHIT
>
> You can come up with all kinds of justifications
> for the state to control our lives and those of
> our children. Indoctrination of our kids through
> state-run schools is one of the most blatant
> abuses of government power that currently exist,
> yet sheep like you are more than willing to follow
> in lock step. Well, I value my freedom and that
> of my loved ones. Let the colleges figure out how
> to admit students. I'm quite confident that
> they'd come up with a way to determine who gets in
> and who doesn't. Why does the state have to
> provide education in order for it to have validity
> in your mind? Grow up, try to live like a free
> person and, most importantly, quit trying to argue
> in favor of denying the rest of us to do the same.
> Liberals like you are just worry-wart pussies who
> are afraid to take control of their own lives.
> Try to grow a pair, will ya?
I CAN come up with all kinds of justifications because its JUSTIFIED. It's not like you cant send your kids to a private school that fits your views. OR you can move to the mid-west, and find a nice cult to join. Nobody is making your kids attend public schools. Although if you do, your kids are going to think everyone thinks the way they do, and when they go through normal life experiances (applying for a job) they're going to say something extremely offensive, and NOT relize it. The way you're thinking is only going to create more hostility, and close-minded people.
-------------------------------------------------------
> the grammar police Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > This is the problem with statists like you.
> > Every
> > > issue/problem/concern has to be met with a
> huge
> > > macro-level response. Education should not
> be
> > the
> > > business of the goverment. Individual
> families
> > > should be left alone to figure out how their
> > > children will/should be educated. It's none
> of
> > > your fucking business how your neighbor
> decides
> > to
> > > educate his children. The problem, though,
> is
> > > that leftists like you can NEVER mind your
> own
> > > business. You people are such a pain in the
> > ass.
> >
> >
> > This is a horrable idea, on many levels. There
> has
> > to be a baseline-education for children to know
> > whats right from whats wrong. secondly, the
> world
> > would not function as we know it, because all
> of
> > these self-involved christians would be
> hunkered
> > over there children. How are they suppose to
> > regulate college admissions when there are
> parents
> > teaching their kids that there is an invisable
> > sky-daddy and 2+2=7? this would cause an
> > education/economic/relgious failure on a
> massive
> > scale.
> >
> >
> > AKA - think it through DIPSHIT
>
> You can come up with all kinds of justifications
> for the state to control our lives and those of
> our children. Indoctrination of our kids through
> state-run schools is one of the most blatant
> abuses of government power that currently exist,
> yet sheep like you are more than willing to follow
> in lock step. Well, I value my freedom and that
> of my loved ones. Let the colleges figure out how
> to admit students. I'm quite confident that
> they'd come up with a way to determine who gets in
> and who doesn't. Why does the state have to
> provide education in order for it to have validity
> in your mind? Grow up, try to live like a free
> person and, most importantly, quit trying to argue
> in favor of denying the rest of us to do the same.
> Liberals like you are just worry-wart pussies who
> are afraid to take control of their own lives.
> Try to grow a pair, will ya?
I CAN come up with all kinds of justifications because its JUSTIFIED. It's not like you cant send your kids to a private school that fits your views. OR you can move to the mid-west, and find a nice cult to join. Nobody is making your kids attend public schools. Although if you do, your kids are going to think everyone thinks the way they do, and when they go through normal life experiances (applying for a job) they're going to say something extremely offensive, and NOT relize it. The way you're thinking is only going to create more hostility, and close-minded people.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Exodus21v20
()
Date: August 18, 2010 10:15PM
Let's examine the biblical god's wonderful ideas on family values. Let's see if god values the institution of marriage more than he values the god-endorsed institution of male servitude and female slavery.
If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for 6 years. But in the 7th year, he shall go free, paying nothing. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him kids, the woman and her kids shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. [Ex. 21:2-6]
The children and mother "belong" to the master?!?!? Evidently the hebrew god does not value the freedom of women and children over the rights of ownership by a slave owner. What if the kids want to stay with their own father, why is this forbidden. Why make the children property of someone who isn't even their father? After all, none of this is their choosing or fault.
That's just not ethical. It isn't right today and it wasn't right then. You just can't reconcile that with the golden rule. If you assert this rubbish came from god, then it’s more than just a depraved law of a bronze-aged society. What we have here is god showing teaching humans that he does not value the rights and opinions of women at all; instead he prefers to give men the right to deny them the most basic of freedoms: who they want to spend their life with.
Do you think women should have any say in the matter of staying with the man of their choosing OR do you agree with the bible that women are the mere property of men?
If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for 6 years. But in the 7th year, he shall go free, paying nothing. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him kids, the woman and her kids shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. [Ex. 21:2-6]
The children and mother "belong" to the master?!?!? Evidently the hebrew god does not value the freedom of women and children over the rights of ownership by a slave owner. What if the kids want to stay with their own father, why is this forbidden. Why make the children property of someone who isn't even their father? After all, none of this is their choosing or fault.
That's just not ethical. It isn't right today and it wasn't right then. You just can't reconcile that with the golden rule. If you assert this rubbish came from god, then it’s more than just a depraved law of a bronze-aged society. What we have here is god showing teaching humans that he does not value the rights and opinions of women at all; instead he prefers to give men the right to deny them the most basic of freedoms: who they want to spend their life with.
Do you think women should have any say in the matter of staying with the man of their choosing OR do you agree with the bible that women are the mere property of men?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: August 19, 2010 07:41AM
No offense, but the issue was a definitional one. I'm not sure what there is left to say. If there was a specific point you wanted me to address, please let me know.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mr. Know-nothing
()
Date: August 19, 2010 09:25AM
Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the grammar police Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > This is the problem with statists like you.
> > Every
> > > issue/problem/concern has to be met with a
> huge
> > > macro-level response. Education should not
> be
> > the
> > > business of the goverment. Individual
> families
> > > should be left alone to figure out how their
> > > children will/should be educated. It's none
> of
> > > your fucking business how your neighbor
> decides
> > to
> > > educate his children. The problem, though,
> is
> > > that leftists like you can NEVER mind your
> own
> > > business. You people are such a pain in the
> > ass.
> >
> >
> > This is a horrable idea, on many levels. There
> has
> > to be a baseline-education for children to know
> > whats right from whats wrong. secondly, the
> world
> > would not function as we know it, because all
> of
> > these self-involved christians would be
> hunkered
> > over there children. How are they suppose to
> > regulate college admissions when there are
> parents
> > teaching their kids that there is an invisable
> > sky-daddy and 2+2=7? this would cause an
> > education/economic/relgious failure on a
> massive
> > scale.
> >
> >
> > AKA - think it through DIPSHIT
>
> You can come up with all kinds of justifications
> for the state to control our lives and those of
> our children. Indoctrination of our kids through
> state-run schools is one of the most blatant
> abuses of government power that currently exist,
> yet sheep like you are more than willing to follow
> in lock step. Well, I value my freedom and that
> of my loved ones. Let the colleges figure out how
> to admit students. I'm quite confident that
> they'd come up with a way to determine who gets in
> and who doesn't. Why does the state have to
> provide education in order for it to have validity
> in your mind? Grow up, try to live like a free
> person and, most importantly, quit trying to argue
> in favor of denying the rest of us to do the same.
> Liberals like you are just worry-wart pussies who
> are afraid to take control of their own lives.
> Try to grow a pair, will ya?
This is the most retarded argument I've ever seen
Religion is by far the most pernicious and pervasive indoctrination at large in this country
A basic right should be for children to be free from the poisonous indoctrination of entirely discredited religions
If you really believed there was any truth in religion, you'd expose it to children as adults once they had the necessary analytical skills to make a sensible judgment - but you don't, you indoctrinate from birth and attempt to pervert the education system to reinforce that indoctrination
That alone, even ignoring the economic and social benefits of universal education. is a fine reason for having a tax-funded high quality secular education system
One of the key outputs of a universal education system is people who can read, count be economically active and make their own rational decisions - not be slaves of some discredited religion and its elites, or random set of extreme christian cultists
-------------------------------------------------------
> the grammar police Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > This is the problem with statists like you.
> > Every
> > > issue/problem/concern has to be met with a
> huge
> > > macro-level response. Education should not
> be
> > the
> > > business of the goverment. Individual
> families
> > > should be left alone to figure out how their
> > > children will/should be educated. It's none
> of
> > > your fucking business how your neighbor
> decides
> > to
> > > educate his children. The problem, though,
> is
> > > that leftists like you can NEVER mind your
> own
> > > business. You people are such a pain in the
> > ass.
> >
> >
> > This is a horrable idea, on many levels. There
> has
> > to be a baseline-education for children to know
> > whats right from whats wrong. secondly, the
> world
> > would not function as we know it, because all
> of
> > these self-involved christians would be
> hunkered
> > over there children. How are they suppose to
> > regulate college admissions when there are
> parents
> > teaching their kids that there is an invisable
> > sky-daddy and 2+2=7? this would cause an
> > education/economic/relgious failure on a
> massive
> > scale.
> >
> >
> > AKA - think it through DIPSHIT
>
> You can come up with all kinds of justifications
> for the state to control our lives and those of
> our children. Indoctrination of our kids through
> state-run schools is one of the most blatant
> abuses of government power that currently exist,
> yet sheep like you are more than willing to follow
> in lock step. Well, I value my freedom and that
> of my loved ones. Let the colleges figure out how
> to admit students. I'm quite confident that
> they'd come up with a way to determine who gets in
> and who doesn't. Why does the state have to
> provide education in order for it to have validity
> in your mind? Grow up, try to live like a free
> person and, most importantly, quit trying to argue
> in favor of denying the rest of us to do the same.
> Liberals like you are just worry-wart pussies who
> are afraid to take control of their own lives.
> Try to grow a pair, will ya?
This is the most retarded argument I've ever seen
Religion is by far the most pernicious and pervasive indoctrination at large in this country
A basic right should be for children to be free from the poisonous indoctrination of entirely discredited religions
If you really believed there was any truth in religion, you'd expose it to children as adults once they had the necessary analytical skills to make a sensible judgment - but you don't, you indoctrinate from birth and attempt to pervert the education system to reinforce that indoctrination
That alone, even ignoring the economic and social benefits of universal education. is a fine reason for having a tax-funded high quality secular education system
One of the key outputs of a universal education system is people who can read, count be economically active and make their own rational decisions - not be slaves of some discredited religion and its elites, or random set of extreme christian cultists
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mr. Know-nothing
()
Date: August 19, 2010 09:32AM
Corruption of Blood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>fails to capture the
> necessary Hebrew nuance.
> http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/lovehate.htm
>
Any argument that uses the phrase "necessary Hebrew nuance" labels itself as irrelevant
Random set of middle-eastern nomads, thousands of years ago - its like arguing from the markings on Stonehenge
-------------------------------------------------------
>fails to capture the
> necessary Hebrew nuance.
> http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/lovehate.htm
>
Any argument that uses the phrase "necessary Hebrew nuance" labels itself as irrelevant
Random set of middle-eastern nomads, thousands of years ago - its like arguing from the markings on Stonehenge
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
slubdawg
()
Date: August 19, 2010 09:56AM
Mr. Know Nothing Stated:
This is the most retarded argument I've ever seen
Religion is by far the most pernicious and pervasive indoctrination at large in this country
A basic right should be for children to be free from the poisonous indoctrination of entirely discredited religions
If you really believed there was any truth in religion, you'd expose it to children as adults once they had the necessary analytical skills to make a sensible judgment - but you don't, you indoctrinate from birth and attempt to pervert the education system to reinforce that indoctrination
That alone, even ignoring the economic and social benefits of universal education. is a fine reason for having a tax-funded high quality secular education system
One of the key outputs of a universal education system is people who can read, count be economically active and make their own rational decisions - not be slaves of some discredited religion and its elites, or random set of extreme christian cultists
Don't for a minute think that public education does not teach religion, years ago it was Christianity, in fact the fundamental premise on which public education was based was on the need to impart Christian doctrine, as well as ensure that the public could read, write, and do simple math. However, that has morphed into whatever is in vogue. Currently, justifying Islam is the main focal point. New textbooks devote an inordinate amount of space to Islam and its beliefs and in many cases distorts hisorical fact.
This is the most retarded argument I've ever seen
Religion is by far the most pernicious and pervasive indoctrination at large in this country
A basic right should be for children to be free from the poisonous indoctrination of entirely discredited religions
If you really believed there was any truth in religion, you'd expose it to children as adults once they had the necessary analytical skills to make a sensible judgment - but you don't, you indoctrinate from birth and attempt to pervert the education system to reinforce that indoctrination
That alone, even ignoring the economic and social benefits of universal education. is a fine reason for having a tax-funded high quality secular education system
One of the key outputs of a universal education system is people who can read, count be economically active and make their own rational decisions - not be slaves of some discredited religion and its elites, or random set of extreme christian cultists
Don't for a minute think that public education does not teach religion, years ago it was Christianity, in fact the fundamental premise on which public education was based was on the need to impart Christian doctrine, as well as ensure that the public could read, write, and do simple math. However, that has morphed into whatever is in vogue. Currently, justifying Islam is the main focal point. New textbooks devote an inordinate amount of space to Islam and its beliefs and in many cases distorts hisorical fact.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mr. Know-nothing
()
Date: August 19, 2010 10:17AM
slubdawg Wrote:
>
> Don't for a minute think that public education
> does not teach religion, years ago it was
> Christianity, in fact the fundamental premise on
> which public education was based was on the need
> to impart Christian doctrine, as well as ensure
> that the public could read, write, and do simple
> math. However, that has morphed into whatever is
> in vogue. Currently, justifying Islam is the main
> focal point. New textbooks devote an inordinate
> amount of space to Islam and its beliefs and in
> many cases distorts hisorical fact.
This is such mind-bendingly dumb right-wing faux-news BS propaganda
You're clearly right - I've seen the evidence all over my kids math homework
Facts please
>
> Don't for a minute think that public education
> does not teach religion, years ago it was
> Christianity, in fact the fundamental premise on
> which public education was based was on the need
> to impart Christian doctrine, as well as ensure
> that the public could read, write, and do simple
> math. However, that has morphed into whatever is
> in vogue. Currently, justifying Islam is the main
> focal point. New textbooks devote an inordinate
> amount of space to Islam and its beliefs and in
> many cases distorts hisorical fact.
This is such mind-bendingly dumb right-wing faux-news BS propaganda
You're clearly right - I've seen the evidence all over my kids math homework
Facts please
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Corruption of Blood
()
Date: August 19, 2010 05:44PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No offense, but the issue was a definitional one.
> I'm not sure what there is left to say. If there
> was a specific point you wanted me to address,
> please let me know.
No, that's fine. I know the slogan does give offense, and just wanted to make the reasoning behind my position clear.
-------------------------------------------------------
> No offense, but the issue was a definitional one.
> I'm not sure what there is left to say. If there
> was a specific point you wanted me to address,
> please let me know.
No, that's fine. I know the slogan does give offense, and just wanted to make the reasoning behind my position clear.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
grone
()
Date: August 19, 2010 06:56PM
Roman Catholic church>>>protestant churches
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mr. Know-it-all
()
Date: August 19, 2010 08:36PM
Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > the grammar police Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > > This is the problem with statists like you.
>
> > > Every
> > > > issue/problem/concern has to be met with a
> > huge
> > > > macro-level response. Education should not
> > be
> > > the
> > > > business of the goverment. Individual
> > families
> > > > should be left alone to figure out how
> their
> > > > children will/should be educated. It's
> none
> > of
> > > > your fucking business how your neighbor
> > decides
> > > to
> > > > educate his children. The problem, though,
> > is
> > > > that leftists like you can NEVER mind your
> > own
> > > > business. You people are such a pain in
> the
> > > ass.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is a horrable idea, on many levels.
> There
> > has
> > > to be a baseline-education for children to
> know
> > > whats right from whats wrong. secondly, the
> > world
> > > would not function as we know it, because all
> > of
> > > these self-involved christians would be
> > hunkered
> > > over there children. How are they suppose to
> > > regulate college admissions when there are
> > parents
> > > teaching their kids that there is an
> invisable
> > > sky-daddy and 2+2=7? this would cause an
> > > education/economic/relgious failure on a
> > massive
> > > scale.
> > >
> > >
> > > AKA - think it through DIPSHIT
> >
> > You can come up with all kinds of
> justifications
> > for the state to control our lives and those of
> > our children. Indoctrination of our kids
> through
> > state-run schools is one of the most blatant
> > abuses of government power that currently
> exist,
> > yet sheep like you are more than willing to
> follow
> > in lock step. Well, I value my freedom and
> that
> > of my loved ones. Let the colleges figure out
> how
> > to admit students. I'm quite confident that
> > they'd come up with a way to determine who gets
> in
> > and who doesn't. Why does the state have to
> > provide education in order for it to have
> validity
> > in your mind? Grow up, try to live like a free
> > person and, most importantly, quit trying to
> argue
> > in favor of denying the rest of us to do the
> same.
> > Liberals like you are just worry-wart pussies
> who
> > are afraid to take control of their own lives.
> > Try to grow a pair, will ya?
>
> This is the most retarded argument I've ever seen
>
> Religion is by far the most pernicious and
> pervasive indoctrination at large in this country
>
> A basic right should be for children to be free
> from the poisonous indoctrination of entirely
> discredited religions
>
> If you really believed there was any truth in
> religion, you'd expose it to children as adults
> once they had the necessary analytical skills to
> make a sensible judgment - but you don't, you
> indoctrinate from birth and attempt to pervert the
> education system to reinforce that indoctrination
>
> That alone, even ignoring the economic and social
> benefits of universal education. is a fine reason
> for having a tax-funded high quality secular
> education system
>
> One of the key outputs of a universal education
> system is people who can read, count be
> economically active and make their own rational
> decisions - not be slaves of some discredited
> religion and its elites, or random set of extreme
> christian cultists
Talk about a non sequitur. Who said anything about religion? Not I. Religion is only an issue because we have government-run schools. Take government out of the equation and the issue of religion is rendered moot. Those of you who like the idea of the government indoctrinating our children through "public" schools are responsible for the fact that religion in the classroom even has to be debated. Fucking morons.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > the grammar police Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > > This is the problem with statists like you.
>
> > > Every
> > > > issue/problem/concern has to be met with a
> > huge
> > > > macro-level response. Education should not
> > be
> > > the
> > > > business of the goverment. Individual
> > families
> > > > should be left alone to figure out how
> their
> > > > children will/should be educated. It's
> none
> > of
> > > > your fucking business how your neighbor
> > decides
> > > to
> > > > educate his children. The problem, though,
> > is
> > > > that leftists like you can NEVER mind your
> > own
> > > > business. You people are such a pain in
> the
> > > ass.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is a horrable idea, on many levels.
> There
> > has
> > > to be a baseline-education for children to
> know
> > > whats right from whats wrong. secondly, the
> > world
> > > would not function as we know it, because all
> > of
> > > these self-involved christians would be
> > hunkered
> > > over there children. How are they suppose to
> > > regulate college admissions when there are
> > parents
> > > teaching their kids that there is an
> invisable
> > > sky-daddy and 2+2=7? this would cause an
> > > education/economic/relgious failure on a
> > massive
> > > scale.
> > >
> > >
> > > AKA - think it through DIPSHIT
> >
> > You can come up with all kinds of
> justifications
> > for the state to control our lives and those of
> > our children. Indoctrination of our kids
> through
> > state-run schools is one of the most blatant
> > abuses of government power that currently
> exist,
> > yet sheep like you are more than willing to
> follow
> > in lock step. Well, I value my freedom and
> that
> > of my loved ones. Let the colleges figure out
> how
> > to admit students. I'm quite confident that
> > they'd come up with a way to determine who gets
> in
> > and who doesn't. Why does the state have to
> > provide education in order for it to have
> validity
> > in your mind? Grow up, try to live like a free
> > person and, most importantly, quit trying to
> argue
> > in favor of denying the rest of us to do the
> same.
> > Liberals like you are just worry-wart pussies
> who
> > are afraid to take control of their own lives.
> > Try to grow a pair, will ya?
>
> This is the most retarded argument I've ever seen
>
> Religion is by far the most pernicious and
> pervasive indoctrination at large in this country
>
> A basic right should be for children to be free
> from the poisonous indoctrination of entirely
> discredited religions
>
> If you really believed there was any truth in
> religion, you'd expose it to children as adults
> once they had the necessary analytical skills to
> make a sensible judgment - but you don't, you
> indoctrinate from birth and attempt to pervert the
> education system to reinforce that indoctrination
>
> That alone, even ignoring the economic and social
> benefits of universal education. is a fine reason
> for having a tax-funded high quality secular
> education system
>
> One of the key outputs of a universal education
> system is people who can read, count be
> economically active and make their own rational
> decisions - not be slaves of some discredited
> religion and its elites, or random set of extreme
> christian cultists
Talk about a non sequitur. Who said anything about religion? Not I. Religion is only an issue because we have government-run schools. Take government out of the equation and the issue of religion is rendered moot. Those of you who like the idea of the government indoctrinating our children through "public" schools are responsible for the fact that religion in the classroom even has to be debated. Fucking morons.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mr. Know-nothing
()
Date: August 19, 2010 09:49PM
Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
>
> Talk about a non sequitur. Who said anything
> about religion? Not I. Religion is only an issue
> because we have government-run schools. Take
> government out of the equation and the issue of
> religion is rendered moot. Those of you who like
> the idea of the government indoctrinating our
> children through "public" schools are responsible
> for the fact that religion in the classroom even
> has to be debated. Fucking morons.
I call BS on that
The vocal majority of people destroy public education in the US have always been, and will always be religious right wingers
Who else is scared that other people's kids get a wide education which is not dominated by religion?
By your argument the only reason why we have religion in the public classroom is because we have public classrooms
If you don't like public education don't use it
>
> Talk about a non sequitur. Who said anything
> about religion? Not I. Religion is only an issue
> because we have government-run schools. Take
> government out of the equation and the issue of
> religion is rendered moot. Those of you who like
> the idea of the government indoctrinating our
> children through "public" schools are responsible
> for the fact that religion in the classroom even
> has to be debated. Fucking morons.
I call BS on that
The vocal majority of people destroy public education in the US have always been, and will always be religious right wingers
Who else is scared that other people's kids get a wide education which is not dominated by religion?
By your argument the only reason why we have religion in the public classroom is because we have public classrooms
If you don't like public education don't use it
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Troll@AOL
()
Date: August 19, 2010 10:41PM
Anon jerk wrote:
------------------------------
>"Who else is scared that other people's kids get a wide education which is not dominated by religion?"
-Who else?
The ANTI-RELIGIOUS LEFT, who will cater to the will and beckon of anyone who will vote for them. We call them 'DEMOCRATS' even though there is NOTHING democratic about them.
Oh and I would address the rest of what you wrote, but it appears you can not write a coherant sentence.
==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"
- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.
------------------------------
>"Who else is scared that other people's kids get a wide education which is not dominated by religion?"
-Who else?
The ANTI-RELIGIOUS LEFT, who will cater to the will and beckon of anyone who will vote for them. We call them 'DEMOCRATS' even though there is NOTHING democratic about them.
Oh and I would address the rest of what you wrote, but it appears you can not write a coherant sentence.
==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"
- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mr. Know-it-all
()
Date: August 20, 2010 08:48AM
Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
>
> >
> > Talk about a non sequitur. Who said anything
> > about religion? Not I. Religion is only an
> issue
> > because we have government-run schools. Take
> > government out of the equation and the issue of
> > religion is rendered moot. Those of you who
> like
> > the idea of the government indoctrinating our
> > children through "public" schools are
> responsible
> > for the fact that religion in the classroom
> even
> > has to be debated. Fucking morons.
>
> I call BS on that
>
> The vocal majority of people destroy public
> education in the US have always been, and will
> always be religious right wingers
>
> Who else is scared that other people's kids get a
> wide education which is not dominated by
> religion?
>
> By your argument the only reason why we have
> religion in the public classroom is because we
> have public classrooms
>
> If you don't like public education don't use it
So, your issue isn't really with religion in public schools. Your problem is with religion. I don't care about what religion other people do or do not follow. It's none of my business and it's none of yours.
I don't like public education. I also don't use it. But I still have to pay for it, so I have as much right to condemn it as you do to defend it.
You're just a mind-control fascist who, if he could, would deny people their right to follow the religion of their choice. You've made that abundantly clear. You know, atheism is as much a crapshoot as religion, by the way, so get over thinking that you somehow have stumbled upon on objective truth that adherents to religious faith are ignoring. Douchebag.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
>
> >
> > Talk about a non sequitur. Who said anything
> > about religion? Not I. Religion is only an
> issue
> > because we have government-run schools. Take
> > government out of the equation and the issue of
> > religion is rendered moot. Those of you who
> like
> > the idea of the government indoctrinating our
> > children through "public" schools are
> responsible
> > for the fact that religion in the classroom
> even
> > has to be debated. Fucking morons.
>
> I call BS on that
>
> The vocal majority of people destroy public
> education in the US have always been, and will
> always be religious right wingers
>
> Who else is scared that other people's kids get a
> wide education which is not dominated by
> religion?
>
> By your argument the only reason why we have
> religion in the public classroom is because we
> have public classrooms
>
> If you don't like public education don't use it
So, your issue isn't really with religion in public schools. Your problem is with religion. I don't care about what religion other people do or do not follow. It's none of my business and it's none of yours.
I don't like public education. I also don't use it. But I still have to pay for it, so I have as much right to condemn it as you do to defend it.
You're just a mind-control fascist who, if he could, would deny people their right to follow the religion of their choice. You've made that abundantly clear. You know, atheism is as much a crapshoot as religion, by the way, so get over thinking that you somehow have stumbled upon on objective truth that adherents to religious faith are ignoring. Douchebag.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mr. Know-nothing
()
Date: August 20, 2010 09:28AM
Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
>
>
> You're just a mind-control fascist who, if he
> could, would deny people their right to follow the
> religion of their choice. You've made that
> abundantly clear. You know, atheism is as much a
> crapshoot as religion, by the way, so get over
> thinking that you somehow have stumbled upon on
> objective truth that adherents to religious faith
> are ignoring. Douchebag.
Sure, I oppose religion - any sane person looking at the evidence has to
As the arguments pages and pages back detail, all religion is based on deeply flawed assumptions
Since the late 19th century science has given us enough practical and provable explanations for the universe works to entirely rule out supernatural explanations and gods
Its as simple as that
Religion is at best mis-understanding, at worst self deception. Organized religion is willful deception
As the pages and pages of discussion above covered, the impact of religion is not neutral.
People should be free to follow their own beliefs in their own homes - but not to indoctrinate the next generation to the detriment of society, and certainly not to expect tax breaks and avoid proper scrutiny
Religion and science are not the same thing - they approach the world from different direction, and they are not compatible. Faith and science are antithetical, and faith is being driven into increasingly darker and darker corners and more and more ridiculous justifications as science progresses
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
>
>
> You're just a mind-control fascist who, if he
> could, would deny people their right to follow the
> religion of their choice. You've made that
> abundantly clear. You know, atheism is as much a
> crapshoot as religion, by the way, so get over
> thinking that you somehow have stumbled upon on
> objective truth that adherents to religious faith
> are ignoring. Douchebag.
Sure, I oppose religion - any sane person looking at the evidence has to
As the arguments pages and pages back detail, all religion is based on deeply flawed assumptions
Since the late 19th century science has given us enough practical and provable explanations for the universe works to entirely rule out supernatural explanations and gods
Its as simple as that
Religion is at best mis-understanding, at worst self deception. Organized religion is willful deception
As the pages and pages of discussion above covered, the impact of religion is not neutral.
People should be free to follow their own beliefs in their own homes - but not to indoctrinate the next generation to the detriment of society, and certainly not to expect tax breaks and avoid proper scrutiny
Religion and science are not the same thing - they approach the world from different direction, and they are not compatible. Faith and science are antithetical, and faith is being driven into increasingly darker and darker corners and more and more ridiculous justifications as science progresses
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mr. Know-it-all
()
Date: August 20, 2010 11:10AM
Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
> >
> >
> > You're just a mind-control fascist who, if he
> > could, would deny people their right to follow
> the
> > religion of their choice. You've made that
> > abundantly clear. You know, atheism is as much
> a
> > crapshoot as religion, by the way, so get over
> > thinking that you somehow have stumbled upon on
> > objective truth that adherents to religious
> faith
> > are ignoring. Douchebag.
>
> Sure, I oppose religion - any sane person looking
> at the evidence has to
>
> As the arguments pages and pages back detail, all
> religion is based on deeply flawed assumptions
>
> Since the late 19th century science has given us
> enough practical and provable explanations for the
> universe works to entirely rule out supernatural
> explanations and gods
>
> Its as simple as that
>
> Religion is at best mis-understanding, at worst
> self deception. Organized religion is willful
> deception
>
> As the pages and pages of discussion above
> covered, the impact of religion is not neutral.
>
> People should be free to follow their own beliefs
> in their own homes - but not to indoctrinate the
> next generation to the detriment of society, and
> certainly not to expect tax breaks and avoid
> proper scrutiny
>
> Religion and science are not the same thing - they
> approach the world from different direction, and
> they are not compatible. Faith and science are
> antithetical, and faith is being driven into
> increasingly darker and darker corners and more
> and more ridiculous justifications as science
> progresses
Who said that religion and science are the same thing? You're not very bright, I guess, as you continue to infer things that I am not stating or implying. Or are you equating atheism with science? Science can no more prove the non-existence of a supreme being than religion can prove its existence. If you had your way, you seem to be saying that parents should be legally precluded from rearing their children in any kind of religious faith or tradition. Is that correct? If so, how would you have that enforced and what would be the punishment for those who violated the law? Would you throw them in jail? Would you take their children away? If I am not correct about what you are saying, what did you mean when you said that people should not be able to "indoctrinate the next generation to the detriment of society," (which, I should add, is exactly what our public schools have been doing for decades)?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
> >
> >
> > You're just a mind-control fascist who, if he
> > could, would deny people their right to follow
> the
> > religion of their choice. You've made that
> > abundantly clear. You know, atheism is as much
> a
> > crapshoot as religion, by the way, so get over
> > thinking that you somehow have stumbled upon on
> > objective truth that adherents to religious
> faith
> > are ignoring. Douchebag.
>
> Sure, I oppose religion - any sane person looking
> at the evidence has to
>
> As the arguments pages and pages back detail, all
> religion is based on deeply flawed assumptions
>
> Since the late 19th century science has given us
> enough practical and provable explanations for the
> universe works to entirely rule out supernatural
> explanations and gods
>
> Its as simple as that
>
> Religion is at best mis-understanding, at worst
> self deception. Organized religion is willful
> deception
>
> As the pages and pages of discussion above
> covered, the impact of religion is not neutral.
>
> People should be free to follow their own beliefs
> in their own homes - but not to indoctrinate the
> next generation to the detriment of society, and
> certainly not to expect tax breaks and avoid
> proper scrutiny
>
> Religion and science are not the same thing - they
> approach the world from different direction, and
> they are not compatible. Faith and science are
> antithetical, and faith is being driven into
> increasingly darker and darker corners and more
> and more ridiculous justifications as science
> progresses
Who said that religion and science are the same thing? You're not very bright, I guess, as you continue to infer things that I am not stating or implying. Or are you equating atheism with science? Science can no more prove the non-existence of a supreme being than religion can prove its existence. If you had your way, you seem to be saying that parents should be legally precluded from rearing their children in any kind of religious faith or tradition. Is that correct? If so, how would you have that enforced and what would be the punishment for those who violated the law? Would you throw them in jail? Would you take their children away? If I am not correct about what you are saying, what did you mean when you said that people should not be able to "indoctrinate the next generation to the detriment of society," (which, I should add, is exactly what our public schools have been doing for decades)?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mr. Know-nothing
()
Date: August 20, 2010 01:08PM
Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
Or are you equating atheism with
> science? Science can no more prove the
> non-existence of a supreme being than religion can
> prove its existence. If you had your way, you
Science doesn't have to prove the non-existence of a supreme being - in the same way that it doesn't have to prove the non-existence of flying pink giraffes or the long lost floating island of Yollaballo
What science does do extremely well is to model in a consistent and predictable way the mechanisms by which the universe, life and our minds work.
I'd argue that religion does have the burden of proof because its assertions run entirely counter to what we now know about how the universe works
It can either go up against science and disprove its assertions - as the established church has often done and always failed - or it can claim dominion over the gaps over which the current state of science at any point does not yet make strong assertions.
To do be credible in either it has to provide evidence - "Supreme Being B planted fossils in a manner wholly congruent with physics, geology and embryology just to test us", "Supreme Being B started the photons from stars Billions of light years away 6,000 years ago just to make bamboozle astronomers" doesn't cut it
The problem for religion is there are less and less gaps in which to hide Supreme Beings 1..n (my belief is actually that are now none)
My personal view, is that even the current state of science gives a good enough account of the phenomena we see about us (over vast ranges of time, physical scale and complexity)- to discount the existence of supreme being(s)
Just shouting 'yah boo sucks' and name calling doesn't make any of the highly congruent evidence to support this proposition go away
If you don't like it, its simple - either come up with some evidence, or come up with a testable gap that is best explained by a Supreme Being - how hard can that be? You can even chose your own set of Supreme Beings - but expect their proposed Supreme Being special powers to be held up to scrutiny
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
Or are you equating atheism with
> science? Science can no more prove the
> non-existence of a supreme being than religion can
> prove its existence. If you had your way, you
Science doesn't have to prove the non-existence of a supreme being - in the same way that it doesn't have to prove the non-existence of flying pink giraffes or the long lost floating island of Yollaballo
What science does do extremely well is to model in a consistent and predictable way the mechanisms by which the universe, life and our minds work.
I'd argue that religion does have the burden of proof because its assertions run entirely counter to what we now know about how the universe works
It can either go up against science and disprove its assertions - as the established church has often done and always failed - or it can claim dominion over the gaps over which the current state of science at any point does not yet make strong assertions.
To do be credible in either it has to provide evidence - "Supreme Being B planted fossils in a manner wholly congruent with physics, geology and embryology just to test us", "Supreme Being B started the photons from stars Billions of light years away 6,000 years ago just to make bamboozle astronomers" doesn't cut it
The problem for religion is there are less and less gaps in which to hide Supreme Beings 1..n (my belief is actually that are now none)
My personal view, is that even the current state of science gives a good enough account of the phenomena we see about us (over vast ranges of time, physical scale and complexity)- to discount the existence of supreme being(s)
Just shouting 'yah boo sucks' and name calling doesn't make any of the highly congruent evidence to support this proposition go away
If you don't like it, its simple - either come up with some evidence, or come up with a testable gap that is best explained by a Supreme Being - how hard can that be? You can even chose your own set of Supreme Beings - but expect their proposed Supreme Being special powers to be held up to scrutiny
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mr. Know-it-all
()
Date: August 20, 2010 02:10PM
Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Or are you equating atheism with
> > science? Science can no more prove the
> > non-existence of a supreme being than religion
> can
> > prove its existence. If you had your way, you
>
> Science doesn't have to prove the non-existence of
> a supreme being - in the same way that it doesn't
> have to prove the non-existence of flying pink
> giraffes or the long lost floating island of
> Yollaballo
>
> What science does do extremely well is to model in
> a consistent and predictable way the mechanisms by
> which the universe, life and our minds work.
>
> I'd argue that religion does have the burden of
> proof because its assertions run entirely counter
> to what we now know about how the universe works
>
> It can either go up against science and disprove
> its assertions - as the established church has
> often done and always failed - or it can claim
> dominion over the gaps over which the current
> state of science at any point does not yet make
> strong assertions.
>
> To do be credible in either it has to provide
> evidence - "Supreme Being B planted fossils in a
> manner wholly congruent with physics, geology and
> embryology just to test us", "Supreme Being B
> started the photons from stars Billions of light
> years away 6,000 years ago just to make bamboozle
> astronomers" doesn't cut it
>
> The problem for religion is there are less and
> less gaps in which to hide Supreme Beings 1..n
> (my belief is actually that are now none)
>
> My personal view, is that even the current state
> of science gives a good enough account of the
> phenomena we see about us (over vast ranges of
> time, physical scale and complexity)- to discount
> the existence of supreme being(s)
>
> Just shouting 'yah boo sucks' and name calling
> doesn't make any of the highly congruent evidence
> to support this proposition go away
>
> If you don't like it, its simple - either come up
> with some evidence, or come up with a testable gap
> that is best explained by a Supreme Being - how
> hard can that be? You can even chose your own set
> of Supreme Beings - but expect their proposed
> Supreme Being special powers to be held up to
> scrutiny
You seem to be mistaking me for someone who is trying to prove the existence of God or the rationality of religion. My point is that disagreements over religion in the schools would go away tomorrow if we got rid of our public schools. They are incredibly inefficient, do a lousy job of educating our children (particularly in light of the amount of money that is wasted on them), and, because they are government run, are hostage to political disagreements such as the proper role, if any, of religion.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Or are you equating atheism with
> > science? Science can no more prove the
> > non-existence of a supreme being than religion
> can
> > prove its existence. If you had your way, you
>
> Science doesn't have to prove the non-existence of
> a supreme being - in the same way that it doesn't
> have to prove the non-existence of flying pink
> giraffes or the long lost floating island of
> Yollaballo
>
> What science does do extremely well is to model in
> a consistent and predictable way the mechanisms by
> which the universe, life and our minds work.
>
> I'd argue that religion does have the burden of
> proof because its assertions run entirely counter
> to what we now know about how the universe works
>
> It can either go up against science and disprove
> its assertions - as the established church has
> often done and always failed - or it can claim
> dominion over the gaps over which the current
> state of science at any point does not yet make
> strong assertions.
>
> To do be credible in either it has to provide
> evidence - "Supreme Being B planted fossils in a
> manner wholly congruent with physics, geology and
> embryology just to test us", "Supreme Being B
> started the photons from stars Billions of light
> years away 6,000 years ago just to make bamboozle
> astronomers" doesn't cut it
>
> The problem for religion is there are less and
> less gaps in which to hide Supreme Beings 1..n
> (my belief is actually that are now none)
>
> My personal view, is that even the current state
> of science gives a good enough account of the
> phenomena we see about us (over vast ranges of
> time, physical scale and complexity)- to discount
> the existence of supreme being(s)
>
> Just shouting 'yah boo sucks' and name calling
> doesn't make any of the highly congruent evidence
> to support this proposition go away
>
> If you don't like it, its simple - either come up
> with some evidence, or come up with a testable gap
> that is best explained by a Supreme Being - how
> hard can that be? You can even chose your own set
> of Supreme Beings - but expect their proposed
> Supreme Being special powers to be held up to
> scrutiny
You seem to be mistaking me for someone who is trying to prove the existence of God or the rationality of religion. My point is that disagreements over religion in the schools would go away tomorrow if we got rid of our public schools. They are incredibly inefficient, do a lousy job of educating our children (particularly in light of the amount of money that is wasted on them), and, because they are government run, are hostage to political disagreements such as the proper role, if any, of religion.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Troll@AOL
()
Date: August 20, 2010 03:14PM
Mr Nothing wrote:
------------------------------
>"Since the late 19th century science has given us enough practical
and provable explanations for the universe works to entirely rule out supernatural explanations and gods"
BS!
Science has given us NOTHING to explain how the universe works!
If it has, please give me a detailed explanation as to HOW MAGNETS
work, or HOW GRAVITY works, dumbass.
'Mr Nothing wrote:
------------------------------
>"Science doesn't have to prove the non-existence of a
supreme being - in the same way that it doesn't have to prove
the non-existence of flying pink giraffes or the long lost
floating island of Yollaballo"
BS!
Science is the systematic process of PROVING hypothesis
through REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS!
Boy, talk about, talking out of your ASS!
Mr Nothing wrote:
------------------------------
>"I'd argue that religion does have the burden of proof because
its assertions run entirely counter to what we now know about
how the universe works"
BS!
Science BY DEFINITION has the burden of PROOF on IT'S shoulders.
YOU as a 'SCIENTIST' are the one FALLING SHORT of EXPECTATIONS BOZO!
Religious people don't need a complete comprehension of the
cosmos to see that it was CREATED!
.
==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"
- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.
------------------------------
>"Since the late 19th century science has given us enough practical
and provable explanations for the universe works to entirely rule out supernatural explanations and gods"
BS!
Science has given us NOTHING to explain how the universe works!
If it has, please give me a detailed explanation as to HOW MAGNETS
work, or HOW GRAVITY works, dumbass.
'Mr Nothing wrote:
------------------------------
>"Science doesn't have to prove the non-existence of a
supreme being - in the same way that it doesn't have to prove
the non-existence of flying pink giraffes or the long lost
floating island of Yollaballo"
BS!
Science is the systematic process of PROVING hypothesis
through REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS!
Boy, talk about, talking out of your ASS!
Mr Nothing wrote:
------------------------------
>"I'd argue that religion does have the burden of proof because
its assertions run entirely counter to what we now know about
how the universe works"
BS!
Science BY DEFINITION has the burden of PROOF on IT'S shoulders.
YOU as a 'SCIENTIST' are the one FALLING SHORT of EXPECTATIONS BOZO!
Religious people don't need a complete comprehension of the
cosmos to see that it was CREATED!
.
==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"
- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mr. Know-nothing
()
Date: August 20, 2010 03:19PM
Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You seem to be mistaking me for someone who is
> trying to prove the existence of God or the
> rationality of religion. My point is that
> disagreements over religion in the schools would
> go away tomorrow if we got rid of our public
> schools. They are incredibly inefficient, do a
> lousy job of educating our children (particularly
> in light of the amount of money that is wasted on
> them), and, because they are government run, are
> hostage to political disagreements such as the
> proper role, if any, of religion.
The problem is that no-one has demonstrated a better model that works at national scale - even with far smaller countries.
In fact, all of our economic rivals have strong public schools (often stronger than ours)
Primary failure modes:
1) the rich get a good education - the poor get nothing or next to nothing
2) they get run by religions who have other objectives e.g. Eire
Its hard to believe that we would have affordable college education accessible to many if we didn't have state colleges such as UVA, Tech, Berkeley etc - the private sector never demonstrated the desire or ability to scale. So why should we think a private-only system would work for K-12?
I don't believe that home schooling is an option for the majority of families - especially at high school level
Churches are certainly not the way to go for mass education
Charities have a spotty record and mixed capabilities/objectives
None of the alternatives seem like a good national bet - so you're left with improve what you've got
I'd argue that we just don't waste that much money on schools - especially compared to the alternative
Now, can we do a better job - for sure. But its not by throwing the baby out with the bathwater
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You seem to be mistaking me for someone who is
> trying to prove the existence of God or the
> rationality of religion. My point is that
> disagreements over religion in the schools would
> go away tomorrow if we got rid of our public
> schools. They are incredibly inefficient, do a
> lousy job of educating our children (particularly
> in light of the amount of money that is wasted on
> them), and, because they are government run, are
> hostage to political disagreements such as the
> proper role, if any, of religion.
The problem is that no-one has demonstrated a better model that works at national scale - even with far smaller countries.
In fact, all of our economic rivals have strong public schools (often stronger than ours)
Primary failure modes:
1) the rich get a good education - the poor get nothing or next to nothing
2) they get run by religions who have other objectives e.g. Eire
Its hard to believe that we would have affordable college education accessible to many if we didn't have state colleges such as UVA, Tech, Berkeley etc - the private sector never demonstrated the desire or ability to scale. So why should we think a private-only system would work for K-12?
I don't believe that home schooling is an option for the majority of families - especially at high school level
Churches are certainly not the way to go for mass education
Charities have a spotty record and mixed capabilities/objectives
None of the alternatives seem like a good national bet - so you're left with improve what you've got
I'd argue that we just don't waste that much money on schools - especially compared to the alternative
Now, can we do a better job - for sure. But its not by throwing the baby out with the bathwater
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
va00
()
Date: August 20, 2010 05:15PM
I just found out my coworker at my new job belongs to this church and will say really inappropriate things about others, ironically while she is drunk. I hope I don't have to deal with this.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
GODONHIGH
()
Date: August 21, 2010 06:36PM
Well if he's a clown, he's "MY CLOWN"
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
GODONHIGH
()
Date: August 21, 2010 06:42PM
Wow why the foul language, you know if you chose not to believe we can't make you, but when you find your on the wrong end of the stick it'ss gonna be too late.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
GODONHIGH
()
Date: August 21, 2010 06:50PM
Satan is alive and well cause man some of his kids that are on this blog are fighting to the death, to say there is no God.
How said to know the truth in your heart and to be a fool and on your way to hell.
How said to know the truth in your heart and to be a fool and on your way to hell.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
GODONHIGH
()
Date: August 21, 2010 06:50PM
GODONHIGH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Satan is alive and well cause man some of his kids
> that are on this blog are fighting to the death,
> to say there is no God.
>
> How sad to know the truth in your heart and to be
> a fool and on your way to hell.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Satan is alive and well cause man some of his kids
> that are on this blog are fighting to the death,
> to say there is no God.
>
> How sad to know the truth in your heart and to be
> a fool and on your way to hell.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mr. Know-nothing
()
Date: August 21, 2010 07:19PM
GODONHIGH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Satan is alive and well cause man some of his kids
> that are on this blog are fighting to the death,
> to say there is no God.
>
> How said to know the truth in your heart and to be
> a fool and on your way to hell.
And you wonder why thinking people have nothing but contempt for religious dogma and its pushers?
Okay - so you haven't been able to demonstrate the do-good supreme being, lets see you demonstrate the do-bad supreme being - I guess that'll be easier as it would have less reason to be shy
one bit of evidence - just one...thought not
No god, no gods, no satan, no demons/devils/sucubus/incubus/vampires, no souls to lose, no hell - just old stories to scare children and old people
-------------------------------------------------------
> Satan is alive and well cause man some of his kids
> that are on this blog are fighting to the death,
> to say there is no God.
>
> How said to know the truth in your heart and to be
> a fool and on your way to hell.
And you wonder why thinking people have nothing but contempt for religious dogma and its pushers?
Okay - so you haven't been able to demonstrate the do-good supreme being, lets see you demonstrate the do-bad supreme being - I guess that'll be easier as it would have less reason to be shy
one bit of evidence - just one...thought not
No god, no gods, no satan, no demons/devils/sucubus/incubus/vampires, no souls to lose, no hell - just old stories to scare children and old people
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Troll@AOL
()
Date: August 22, 2010 08:12PM
Mr. Know-nothing,
Your mother scares children and old people,
so is she a sect of religion aslo?
I can prove the Do-Stupid Supreme Being, YOU.
.
==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"
- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.
Your mother scares children and old people,
so is she a sect of religion aslo?
I can prove the Do-Stupid Supreme Being, YOU.
.
==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"
- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
the grammar police
()
Date: August 22, 2010 08:20PM
Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-nothing,
>
> Your mother scares children and old people,
> so is she a sect of religion aslo?
>
> I can prove the Do-Stupid Supreme Being, YOU.
>
>
> .
You Lose.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-nothing,
>
> Your mother scares children and old people,
> so is she a sect of religion aslo?
>
> I can prove the Do-Stupid Supreme Being, YOU.
>
>
> .
You Lose.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
acts411
()
Date: September 21, 2010 03:10PM
Jesus fought religion! and it killed him. If you cant stand religion then you are more like God then you know. We are comanded to love God and people, not religion. We are the church. We are in a hell. The Bible clearly states that Satan is the god of this age. Thas why we enjoy evil things.
If you are miserable here than you are more like Jesus and the prophets than you know. Dont look to a church to get what you need, find three different types of Bibles' and start reading/comparing and you will get what you need, thats a promis.
Life is long, its the past thats short.
If you are miserable here than you are more like Jesus and the prophets than you know. Dont look to a church to get what you need, find three different types of Bibles' and start reading/comparing and you will get what you need, thats a promis.
Life is long, its the past thats short.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Kardinal
()
Date: September 21, 2010 03:15PM
acts411 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jesus fought religion!
Not really. Jesus fought false religion. Saying that religion is a bad thing in and of itself is foolish and unbliblical.
> We are comanded to love God and
> people, not religion.
Naturally. But the manner in which we love God and people is called, in English, religion.
> Dont look to
> a church to get what you need, find three
> different types of Bibles' and start
> reading/comparing and you will get what you need,
> thats a promis.
The problem is that without a Church, you would have no bible. So you're sort of dependent on a Church. Especially since Jesus founded a Church, but he did not commission the writing of Scriptures.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jesus fought religion!
Not really. Jesus fought false religion. Saying that religion is a bad thing in and of itself is foolish and unbliblical.
> We are comanded to love God and
> people, not religion.
Naturally. But the manner in which we love God and people is called, in English, religion.
> Dont look to
> a church to get what you need, find three
> different types of Bibles' and start
> reading/comparing and you will get what you need,
> thats a promis.
The problem is that without a Church, you would have no bible. So you're sort of dependent on a Church. Especially since Jesus founded a Church, but he did not commission the writing of Scriptures.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
acts411
()
Date: September 21, 2010 04:39PM
Your giving man a lot of credit here.
---Not really. Jesus fought false religion. Saying that religion is a bad thing in and of itself is foolish and unbliblical.
Judaism was more of THE religion. And up to Jesus' crusade was the old covenant with God. The way to Heavan. The religion.
----Naturally. But the manner in which we love God and people is called, in English, religion.
James 1:27, "Pure and udefiled religion before God and the Father is this:to visit orphans and widows in their trouble and to keep oneself unspotted from the world". That is the biblical definition of religion, I'm not at all concerned with any of mans translations of the word religion. I think love is a manner in which we treat God and people.
----The problem is that without a Church, you would have no bible. So you're sort of dependent on a Church. Especially since Jesus founded a Church, but he did not commission the writing of Scriptures.
I think more, without God we would have no Bible. If the church didnt continue the Bible He would have made sure it happened, like the "world" leaders and professional scribes He used.....I just dont think a church is the best place to start if your looking for God. I think the Bible is the best start, then you can go to a church with your questions. Most churces are just a division of believers and not a hospital for sinners like they should be.
---Not really. Jesus fought false religion. Saying that religion is a bad thing in and of itself is foolish and unbliblical.
Judaism was more of THE religion. And up to Jesus' crusade was the old covenant with God. The way to Heavan. The religion.
----Naturally. But the manner in which we love God and people is called, in English, religion.
James 1:27, "Pure and udefiled religion before God and the Father is this:to visit orphans and widows in their trouble and to keep oneself unspotted from the world". That is the biblical definition of religion, I'm not at all concerned with any of mans translations of the word religion. I think love is a manner in which we treat God and people.
----The problem is that without a Church, you would have no bible. So you're sort of dependent on a Church. Especially since Jesus founded a Church, but he did not commission the writing of Scriptures.
I think more, without God we would have no Bible. If the church didnt continue the Bible He would have made sure it happened, like the "world" leaders and professional scribes He used.....I just dont think a church is the best place to start if your looking for God. I think the Bible is the best start, then you can go to a church with your questions. Most churces are just a division of believers and not a hospital for sinners like they should be.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
ChristiansFTW
()
Date: September 30, 2010 07:32PM
You have false thoughts. Your whole post is wrong because we do not hate gays, nor evolution. We do not say everyone but us is going to hell. and its more than 5million+ people. We are not a society nor a organization. We are Christ. We are the Church. So please get your facts straight instead of borrowing your friends laptop. taking it to your local redneck monster truck rally. and posting up hate.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Les
()
Date: September 30, 2010 08:05PM
In the old days, everyone went to hell for up to 12 months to purify the soul. The notion of hell as eternal punishment came much later in the medieval times. They added to the scriptures and embellished the stories and concepts.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Kardinal
()
Date: September 30, 2010 09:26PM
ChristiansFTW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We are Christ.
Let's be careful friend. Christ is the son of God, he is different from us. While he invites us and makes it possible for us to participate in Divine Sonship, we are not he, nor he us.
> So please get your facts straight instead
> of borrowing your friends laptop. taking it to
> your local redneck monster truck rally. and
> posting up hate.
You're not doing your side, whatever it is, any favors with this sort of language. If you want people to respect what you say, don't insult them.
-------------------------------------------------------
> We are Christ.
Let's be careful friend. Christ is the son of God, he is different from us. While he invites us and makes it possible for us to participate in Divine Sonship, we are not he, nor he us.
> So please get your facts straight instead
> of borrowing your friends laptop. taking it to
> your local redneck monster truck rally. and
> posting up hate.
You're not doing your side, whatever it is, any favors with this sort of language. If you want people to respect what you say, don't insult them.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Kardinal
()
Date: September 30, 2010 09:31PM
Les Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the old days, everyone went to hell for up to
> 12 months to purify the soul. The notion of hell
> as eternal punishment came much later in the
> medieval times. They added to the scriptures and
> embellished the stories and concepts.
Hm. Interesting. Many first and second century sources reference hell. See below. No, my friend, eternal punishment is not an "invention" of the medieval period, but has been taught by the Church, in Scripture, and by Christ himself since the beginning.
Ignatius of Antioch
Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupt by evil reaching the faith of God for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire, and so will anyone who listens to him (Letter to the Ephesians 16:1-2 [A.D. 110]).
Second Clement
If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment (Second Clement 5:5 [A.D. 150]).
Justin Martyr
No more is it possible for the evildoer, the avaricious, and the treacherous to hide from God than it is for the virtuous. Every man will receive the eternal punishment or reward which his actions deserve. Indeed, if all men recognized this, no one would choose evil even for a short time, knowing that he would incur the eternal sentence of fire. On the contrary, he would take every means to control himself and to adorn himself in virtue, so that he might obtain the good gifts of God and escape the punishments (First Apology 12 [A.D. 151]).
[Jesus] shall come from the heavens in glory with his angelic host, when he shall raise the bodies of all the men who ever lived. Then he will clothe the worthy in immortality; but the wicked, clothed in eternal sensibility, he will commit to the eternal fire, along with the evil demons (ibid. 52).
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
Fixing their minds on the grace of Christ, [the martyrs] despised worldly tortures and purchased eternal life with but a single hour. To them, the fire of their cruel torturers was cold. They kept before their eyes their escape from the eternal and unquenchable fire (Martyrdom of Polycarp 2:3 [A.D. 155]).
Theophilus of Antioch
Give studious attention to the prophetic writings [the Bible] and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God.... [God] will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortally by the patient exercise of good works, he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things. . . , For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries, and fornications, and homosexualities, and avarice, and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish; and in the end, such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire (To Autolycus 1:14 [A.D. 181]).
Irenaeus
The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God and despise his coming. . . . It is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, "Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire," they will be damned forever (Against Heresies 4:28:2 [A.D. 189]).
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the old days, everyone went to hell for up to
> 12 months to purify the soul. The notion of hell
> as eternal punishment came much later in the
> medieval times. They added to the scriptures and
> embellished the stories and concepts.
Hm. Interesting. Many first and second century sources reference hell. See below. No, my friend, eternal punishment is not an "invention" of the medieval period, but has been taught by the Church, in Scripture, and by Christ himself since the beginning.
Ignatius of Antioch
Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupt by evil reaching the faith of God for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire, and so will anyone who listens to him (Letter to the Ephesians 16:1-2 [A.D. 110]).
Second Clement
If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment (Second Clement 5:5 [A.D. 150]).
Justin Martyr
No more is it possible for the evildoer, the avaricious, and the treacherous to hide from God than it is for the virtuous. Every man will receive the eternal punishment or reward which his actions deserve. Indeed, if all men recognized this, no one would choose evil even for a short time, knowing that he would incur the eternal sentence of fire. On the contrary, he would take every means to control himself and to adorn himself in virtue, so that he might obtain the good gifts of God and escape the punishments (First Apology 12 [A.D. 151]).
[Jesus] shall come from the heavens in glory with his angelic host, when he shall raise the bodies of all the men who ever lived. Then he will clothe the worthy in immortality; but the wicked, clothed in eternal sensibility, he will commit to the eternal fire, along with the evil demons (ibid. 52).
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
Fixing their minds on the grace of Christ, [the martyrs] despised worldly tortures and purchased eternal life with but a single hour. To them, the fire of their cruel torturers was cold. They kept before their eyes their escape from the eternal and unquenchable fire (Martyrdom of Polycarp 2:3 [A.D. 155]).
Theophilus of Antioch
Give studious attention to the prophetic writings [the Bible] and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God.... [God] will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortally by the patient exercise of good works, he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things. . . , For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries, and fornications, and homosexualities, and avarice, and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish; and in the end, such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire (To Autolycus 1:14 [A.D. 181]).
Irenaeus
The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God and despise his coming. . . . It is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, "Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire," they will be damned forever (Against Heresies 4:28:2 [A.D. 189]).
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
faithfull
()
Date: September 30, 2010 10:11PM
Religion is man made.
Science is man made.
Both are full of rules written by man.
God is not man made.
Believing in God is NOT religion or science.
It is faith.
God does not need man.
Man needs God.
Arguing any of the above is futile.
It doesn't change God.
He will go on with or without you.
As for me and my house, we will serve The Lord.
God Bless you all.
Science is man made.
Both are full of rules written by man.
God is not man made.
Believing in God is NOT religion or science.
It is faith.
God does not need man.
Man needs God.
Arguing any of the above is futile.
It doesn't change God.
He will go on with or without you.
As for me and my house, we will serve The Lord.
God Bless you all.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Atheist
()
Date: September 30, 2010 10:16PM
Good news everyone! There is no God so you don't have to waste your Sundays praying to a deity that made the entire fucking universe in seven days!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Kardinal
()
Date: September 30, 2010 10:20PM
faithfull Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Religion is man made.
See, you start out with an error already. The Bible itself speaks of religion. Religion means beliefs related to our relationship with God. So as long as you're speaking English...any belief in God, any faith, is religion.
Don't be afraid of the word. Just work to show others that God is worth believing in.
> Believing in God is NOT religion...
As long as you're speaking English...yes it is.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Religion is man made.
See, you start out with an error already. The Bible itself speaks of religion. Religion means beliefs related to our relationship with God. So as long as you're speaking English...any belief in God, any faith, is religion.
Don't be afraid of the word. Just work to show others that God is worth believing in.
> Believing in God is NOT religion...
As long as you're speaking English...yes it is.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
the god your serve
()
Date: September 30, 2010 10:24PM
>
> Arguing any of the above is futile.
> It doesn't change God.
> He will go on with or without you.
> As for me and my house, we will serve The Lord.
>
That's right, keep on serving me bitch! I'll probably go on without you in heaven too, but that's another story.
In the mean time, fill up on faith unlike you did with spelling lessons. Heaven has no vacancies for the weak. Here is a tool that I, god, created to help you:
http://orangoo.com/spellcheck/
Faithful has only one l at the end.
> Arguing any of the above is futile.
> It doesn't change God.
> He will go on with or without you.
> As for me and my house, we will serve The Lord.
>
That's right, keep on serving me bitch! I'll probably go on without you in heaven too, but that's another story.
In the mean time, fill up on faith unlike you did with spelling lessons. Heaven has no vacancies for the weak. Here is a tool that I, god, created to help you:
http://orangoo.com/spellcheck/
Faithful has only one l at the end.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Atheism
()
Date: October 01, 2010 01:18PM
Hell is shared across all pagan religions and mythologies. The actual Hell was in Gehenna, a valley on the outskirts of Jerusalem, where the Romans took the bodies of corpses of criminals to be burned. The story of Jesus's descent into hell and subsequent rise is a metaphor for the process of being cremated and the soul ascending to the thereafter. The stories of that time were embellished by zealots.
A messiah is supposed to be a military leader who would free the Jews from Roman rule. When a Jewish rebellion failed to materialize as Jesus predicted, the whole concept was spiritualized rather than accept that he had failed.
A messiah is supposed to be a military leader who would free the Jews from Roman rule. When a Jewish rebellion failed to materialize as Jesus predicted, the whole concept was spiritualized rather than accept that he had failed.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Troll@AOL
()
Date: October 01, 2010 01:35PM
Atheism = FAGGOT
==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"
- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.
==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"
- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Jimi H
()
Date: October 01, 2010 02:10PM
Clapton is God.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: October 01, 2010 02:39PM
Atheism Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hell is shared across all pagan religions and
> mythologies.
Actually I'm not sure this is true. It was a popular Helenized idea, but unless you are rather liberal with your 'hell', this doesn't seem to be true.
Egyptian mythology, for instance, had a judgment, where you either were destroyed or the bad part of you was destroyed and then you would find your way to the afterlife.
> The actual Hell was in Gehenna, a
> valley on the outskirts of Jerusalem, where the
> Romans took the bodies of corpses of criminals to
> be burned. The story of Jesus's descent into hell
> and subsequent rise is a metaphor for the process
> of being cremated and the soul ascending to the
> thereafter. The stories of that time were
> embellished by zealots.
I thought the descent into hell was from the apocrapha, not the actual 'legitimate' bible.
> A messiah is supposed to be a military leader who
> would free the Jews from Roman rule. When a
> Jewish rebellion failed to materialize as Jesus
> predicted, the whole concept was spiritualized
> rather than accept that he had failed.
Basically, yes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hell is shared across all pagan religions and
> mythologies.
Actually I'm not sure this is true. It was a popular Helenized idea, but unless you are rather liberal with your 'hell', this doesn't seem to be true.
Egyptian mythology, for instance, had a judgment, where you either were destroyed or the bad part of you was destroyed and then you would find your way to the afterlife.
> The actual Hell was in Gehenna, a
> valley on the outskirts of Jerusalem, where the
> Romans took the bodies of corpses of criminals to
> be burned. The story of Jesus's descent into hell
> and subsequent rise is a metaphor for the process
> of being cremated and the soul ascending to the
> thereafter. The stories of that time were
> embellished by zealots.
I thought the descent into hell was from the apocrapha, not the actual 'legitimate' bible.
> A messiah is supposed to be a military leader who
> would free the Jews from Roman rule. When a
> Jewish rebellion failed to materialize as Jesus
> predicted, the whole concept was spiritualized
> rather than accept that he had failed.
Basically, yes.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Troll@AOL
()
Date: October 01, 2010 06:47PM
Actually NO.
***Nowhere does the definition mention
ANYTHING about a MILITARY leader.***
ASSWIPES.
http://i.word.com/idictionary/messiah :
Main Entry: MES-SI-AH
Pronunciation: \mə-ˈsī-ə\
Function: noun
Etymology: Hebrew mÄshÄ«aḥ & Aramaic mÄ•shīḥÄ,
literally, anointed
Date: 1560
1 CAPITALIZED a : the expected king and deliverer of the Jews
b : jesus 1
2 : a professed or accepted leader of some HOPE or CAUSE.
So STFU !
.
==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"
- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.
***Nowhere does the definition mention
ANYTHING about a MILITARY leader.***
ASSWIPES.
http://i.word.com/idictionary/messiah :
Main Entry: MES-SI-AH
Pronunciation: \mə-ˈsī-ə\
Function: noun
Etymology: Hebrew mÄshÄ«aḥ & Aramaic mÄ•shīḥÄ,
literally, anointed
Date: 1560
1 CAPITALIZED a : the expected king and deliverer of the Jews
b : jesus 1
2 : a professed or accepted leader of some HOPE or CAUSE.
So STFU !
.
==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"
- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
F. Allen Norman Jr
()
Date: November 03, 2010 01:26AM
"Hammer away, ye Heathen Hands!
Your Hammers break,
God's Anvil stands!"
Does not anyone see the Cosmic Joke - the Divine Comedy, as it were?
Humans are a creation of God. He created them as replicas of Himself. He placed but one limitation on them: they must not eat of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Eventually they would have eaten of the Tree of Eternal Life.
This enraged Satan, who basically wanted our job. So he smooth-talked the first humans into disobeying God. But God knew this would happen, so he had a plan.
See, just as you can only die once for one crime, leaving the others to be paid for; so one totally perfect and pure can die for every crime ever commited. God became human and took our sins upon Himself, and died for us. Now for the best prt of the Joke!
When, at Jesus's trial the Jews shouted "May His blood be upon us and our Children!" Satan thought he had finally tricked God into condemning His Chosen. But Christians know that the Blood of the Christ is a covering for sin. So the Lost Sheep of Israel were the first people to claim the benefit of Salvation, albeit they did not know it. And so Satan, in trying to destroy God's Creation, in fact thwarted his own self. That is the Divine Comedy.
Those folks on this forum who try to deny the existence of God say there is no "scientific proof". There is no scientific proof because human science does not have adequate means to measure that which is present in every last cubic inch of the universe and which dwells in all time, past present and future; which inhabits every dimension the human mind can concieve (and even more).
I have never met an Atheist who raged against Hinduism or Bhuddism or Islam. The world over, atheists rage against Christianity. And in their heart of hearts, they know they are actively denying the Truth. You may not believe in God now.
BUT YOU WILL. I hope sincerely that you do not come to the corect conclusion too late.
Your Hammers break,
God's Anvil stands!"
Does not anyone see the Cosmic Joke - the Divine Comedy, as it were?
Humans are a creation of God. He created them as replicas of Himself. He placed but one limitation on them: they must not eat of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Eventually they would have eaten of the Tree of Eternal Life.
This enraged Satan, who basically wanted our job. So he smooth-talked the first humans into disobeying God. But God knew this would happen, so he had a plan.
See, just as you can only die once for one crime, leaving the others to be paid for; so one totally perfect and pure can die for every crime ever commited. God became human and took our sins upon Himself, and died for us. Now for the best prt of the Joke!
When, at Jesus's trial the Jews shouted "May His blood be upon us and our Children!" Satan thought he had finally tricked God into condemning His Chosen. But Christians know that the Blood of the Christ is a covering for sin. So the Lost Sheep of Israel were the first people to claim the benefit of Salvation, albeit they did not know it. And so Satan, in trying to destroy God's Creation, in fact thwarted his own self. That is the Divine Comedy.
Those folks on this forum who try to deny the existence of God say there is no "scientific proof". There is no scientific proof because human science does not have adequate means to measure that which is present in every last cubic inch of the universe and which dwells in all time, past present and future; which inhabits every dimension the human mind can concieve (and even more).
I have never met an Atheist who raged against Hinduism or Bhuddism or Islam. The world over, atheists rage against Christianity. And in their heart of hearts, they know they are actively denying the Truth. You may not believe in God now.
BUT YOU WILL. I hope sincerely that you do not come to the corect conclusion too late.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: November 03, 2010 11:31AM
F. Allen Norman Jr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does not anyone see the Cosmic Joke - the Divine
> Comedy, as it were?
Yes, but it hurts too much to laugh.
> Humans are a creation of God. He created them as
> replicas of Himself. He placed but one limitation
> on them: they must not eat of the tree of the
> knowledge of Good and Evil.
In other words, he wanted us to be stupid. Easier to maintain that way.
> Eventually they would
> have eaten of the Tree of Eternal Life.
And been stupid for ever and ever. Great!
> This enraged Satan, who basically wanted our job.
> So he smooth-talked the first humans into
> disobeying God. But God knew this would happen, so
> he had a plan.
>
> See, just as you can only die once for one crime,
> leaving the others to be paid for; so one totally
> perfect and pure can die for every crime ever
> commited. God became human and took our sins upon
> Himself, and died for us. Now for the best prt of
> the Joke!
> When, at Jesus's trial the Jews shouted "May His
> blood be upon us and our Children!" Satan thought
> he had finally tricked God into condemning His
> Chosen. But Christians know that the Blood of the
> Christ is a covering for sin. So the Lost Sheep of
> Israel were the first people to claim the benefit
> of Salvation, albeit they did not know it. And so
> Satan, in trying to destroy God's Creation, in
> fact thwarted his own self. That is the Divine
> Comedy.
Not funny at all. Too complicated and self-indulgent. Why didn't God just do away with Satan and save everyone all the headaches?
> Those folks on this forum who try to deny the
> existence of God say there is no "scientific
> proof". There is no scientific proof because
> human science does not have adequate means to
> measure that which is present in every last cubic
> inch of the universe and which dwells in all time,
> past present and future; which inhabits every
> dimension the human mind can concieve (and even
> more).
Then why should anyone believe it? Because a book of short stories that was written in the bronze age says so?
> I have never met an Atheist who raged against
> Hinduism or Bhuddism or Islam.
I take it you don't know many atheists? All the ones I know provide equal admonishment to all religions. BTW, many people (including myself) don't view Buddism as a religion because there is no God involved. Buddism seeks to end suffering where most of the others (including Christianity) seek to condone it.
> The world over,
> atheists rage against Christianity. And in their
> heart of hearts, they know they are actively
> denying the Truth. You may not believe in God
> now.
>
> BUT YOU WILL. I hope sincerely that you do not
> come to the corect conclusion too late.
When is too late? On our deathbeds? Not gonna happen. If someone spends their adult life not believing in religion, what makes you think we'll suddenly have a change of thought?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does not anyone see the Cosmic Joke - the Divine
> Comedy, as it were?
Yes, but it hurts too much to laugh.
> Humans are a creation of God. He created them as
> replicas of Himself. He placed but one limitation
> on them: they must not eat of the tree of the
> knowledge of Good and Evil.
In other words, he wanted us to be stupid. Easier to maintain that way.
> Eventually they would
> have eaten of the Tree of Eternal Life.
And been stupid for ever and ever. Great!
> This enraged Satan, who basically wanted our job.
> So he smooth-talked the first humans into
> disobeying God. But God knew this would happen, so
> he had a plan.
>
> See, just as you can only die once for one crime,
> leaving the others to be paid for; so one totally
> perfect and pure can die for every crime ever
> commited. God became human and took our sins upon
> Himself, and died for us. Now for the best prt of
> the Joke!
> When, at Jesus's trial the Jews shouted "May His
> blood be upon us and our Children!" Satan thought
> he had finally tricked God into condemning His
> Chosen. But Christians know that the Blood of the
> Christ is a covering for sin. So the Lost Sheep of
> Israel were the first people to claim the benefit
> of Salvation, albeit they did not know it. And so
> Satan, in trying to destroy God's Creation, in
> fact thwarted his own self. That is the Divine
> Comedy.
Not funny at all. Too complicated and self-indulgent. Why didn't God just do away with Satan and save everyone all the headaches?
> Those folks on this forum who try to deny the
> existence of God say there is no "scientific
> proof". There is no scientific proof because
> human science does not have adequate means to
> measure that which is present in every last cubic
> inch of the universe and which dwells in all time,
> past present and future; which inhabits every
> dimension the human mind can concieve (and even
> more).
Then why should anyone believe it? Because a book of short stories that was written in the bronze age says so?
> I have never met an Atheist who raged against
> Hinduism or Bhuddism or Islam.
I take it you don't know many atheists? All the ones I know provide equal admonishment to all religions. BTW, many people (including myself) don't view Buddism as a religion because there is no God involved. Buddism seeks to end suffering where most of the others (including Christianity) seek to condone it.
> The world over,
> atheists rage against Christianity. And in their
> heart of hearts, they know they are actively
> denying the Truth. You may not believe in God
> now.
>
> BUT YOU WILL. I hope sincerely that you do not
> come to the corect conclusion too late.
When is too late? On our deathbeds? Not gonna happen. If someone spends their adult life not believing in religion, what makes you think we'll suddenly have a change of thought?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Kardinal
()
Date: November 03, 2010 11:45AM
Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In other words, he wanted us to be stupid. Easier
> to maintain that way.
No. He wanted us to not commit evil. "knowledge" of evil would require us to do evil, which is, by definition, bad.
> Not funny at all. Too complicated and
> self-indulgent. Why didn't God just do away with
> Satan and save everyone all the headaches?
A universe without choice is a universe without love. God doesn't want slaves.
> Then why should anyone believe it? Because a book
> of short stories that was written in the bronze
> age says so?
It's a matter of faith; you can choose to believe or not to. the evidence is that miracles which occured thousands of years ago are attested to by multiple witnesses. The choice is yours, and like me and everyone else, we all are accountable for that choice and its consequences. Miracles continue to occur, if you're interested in looking for them. Religious miracles still occur, but most nonbelievers do not investigate them.
http://ministryvalues.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1237&Itemid=127
> When is too late? On our deathbeds? Not gonna
> happen. If someone spends their adult life not
> believing in religion, what makes you think we'll
> suddenly have a change of thought?
Happens all the time. Like a persistent suitor, God never gives up in pursuing his beloved.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2010 11:47AM by Kardinal.
-------------------------------------------------------
> In other words, he wanted us to be stupid. Easier
> to maintain that way.
No. He wanted us to not commit evil. "knowledge" of evil would require us to do evil, which is, by definition, bad.
> Not funny at all. Too complicated and
> self-indulgent. Why didn't God just do away with
> Satan and save everyone all the headaches?
A universe without choice is a universe without love. God doesn't want slaves.
> Then why should anyone believe it? Because a book
> of short stories that was written in the bronze
> age says so?
It's a matter of faith; you can choose to believe or not to. the evidence is that miracles which occured thousands of years ago are attested to by multiple witnesses. The choice is yours, and like me and everyone else, we all are accountable for that choice and its consequences. Miracles continue to occur, if you're interested in looking for them. Religious miracles still occur, but most nonbelievers do not investigate them.
http://ministryvalues.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1237&Itemid=127
Quote
Scalia cited the 10-year-old case of a priest in the Washington archdiocese who was said to have the stigmata. Statues of Mary and the saints appeared to weep in his presence. Reporters for The Washington Post did a story and were unable to find an explanation for the strange phenomena.
“Why wasn’t that church absolutely packed with nonbelievers,†Scalia asked, “seeking to determine if there might be something to this?â€
> When is too late? On our deathbeds? Not gonna
> happen. If someone spends their adult life not
> believing in religion, what makes you think we'll
> suddenly have a change of thought?
Happens all the time. Like a persistent suitor, God never gives up in pursuing his beloved.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2010 11:47AM by Kardinal.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: November 03, 2010 11:46AM
F. Allen Norman Jr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have never met an Atheist who raged against
> Hinduism or Bhuddism or Islam. The world over,
> atheists rage against Christianity. And in their
> heart of hearts, they know they are actively
> denying the Truth.
I'm sorry, but this just indicates that you aren't very well read. The modern crop of 'new atheists' all seem to bash Islam. Look at Harris and Hitchens. There is even a prominent female atheist who wrote a book detailing her escape from Islam.
> You may not believe in God
> now.
>
> BUT YOU WILL. I hope sincerely that you do not
> come to the corect conclusion too late.
This is wishful thinking.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have never met an Atheist who raged against
> Hinduism or Bhuddism or Islam. The world over,
> atheists rage against Christianity. And in their
> heart of hearts, they know they are actively
> denying the Truth.
I'm sorry, but this just indicates that you aren't very well read. The modern crop of 'new atheists' all seem to bash Islam. Look at Harris and Hitchens. There is even a prominent female atheist who wrote a book detailing her escape from Islam.
> You may not believe in God
> now.
>
> BUT YOU WILL. I hope sincerely that you do not
> come to the corect conclusion too late.
This is wishful thinking.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Les
()
Date: November 03, 2010 12:47PM
Atheists are very skeptical of the mystical and spiritual claims in Buddhism, just as they are with every other religion that claims to map out what happens outside of the real world.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: November 03, 2010 08:10PM
Kardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. He wanted us to not commit evil. "knowledge"
> of evil would require us to do evil, which is, by
> definition, bad.
What a ridiculous statement. Didn't God create evil to start with? Why dangle a carrot if not some sort of sick game or experiment?
> A universe without choice is a universe without
> love. God doesn't want slaves.
What is the choice? Obey God or spend eternity burning in hell? Not much of a choice there, is it?
> It's a matter of faith; you can choose to believe
> or not to. the evidence is that miracles which
> occured thousands of years ago are attested to by
> multiple witnesses. The choice is yours, and like
> me and everyone else, we all are accountable for
> that choice and its consequences. Miracles
> continue to occur, if you're interested in looking
> for them. Religious miracles still occur, but
> most nonbelievers do not investigate them.
It seems to me like what those people who "witnessed miracles" saw is just something they didn't understand. The same goes for any "miracle" today. Just because you don't have the wherewithal to understand basic physics and science of certian events, doesn't mean its a miracle. I'm sure any miracle you can point to can be explained by people that can actually recreate them.
> Scalia cited the 10-year-old case of a priest in
> the Washington archdiocese who was said to have
> the stigmata. Statues of Mary and the saints
> appeared to weep in his presence. Reporters for
> The Washington Post did a story and were unable to
> find an explanation for the strange phenomena.
Wait a second. You expected reporters from the Washington Post to explain this? Those reporters should have asked credible scientists for an explanation, but even that wasn't necessary as this "statue crying" thing has been debunked a thousand times.
"What is needed is a hollow statue made of a porous material such as plaster or ceramic. The icon must be glazed or painted with some sort of impermeable coating. If the statue is then filled up with a liquid (surreptitiously, through a tiny hole in the head, for example), the porous material will absorb it, but the glazing will stop it from flowing out. If the glazing, however, is imperceptibly scratched away on or around the eyes, tear-like drops will leak out, as if materialising from thin air. If the cavity behind the eyes is small enough, once all the liquid has dripped out there are virtually no traces left in the icon. When I put it to the test, this trick proved to be very satisfactory, baffling all onlookers."
> “Why wasn’t that church absolutely packed with
> nonbelievers,†Scalia asked, “seeking to
> determine if there might be something to this?â€
Because we know its a hoax and why they do it and how they do it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. He wanted us to not commit evil. "knowledge"
> of evil would require us to do evil, which is, by
> definition, bad.
What a ridiculous statement. Didn't God create evil to start with? Why dangle a carrot if not some sort of sick game or experiment?
> A universe without choice is a universe without
> love. God doesn't want slaves.
What is the choice? Obey God or spend eternity burning in hell? Not much of a choice there, is it?
> It's a matter of faith; you can choose to believe
> or not to. the evidence is that miracles which
> occured thousands of years ago are attested to by
> multiple witnesses. The choice is yours, and like
> me and everyone else, we all are accountable for
> that choice and its consequences. Miracles
> continue to occur, if you're interested in looking
> for them. Religious miracles still occur, but
> most nonbelievers do not investigate them.
It seems to me like what those people who "witnessed miracles" saw is just something they didn't understand. The same goes for any "miracle" today. Just because you don't have the wherewithal to understand basic physics and science of certian events, doesn't mean its a miracle. I'm sure any miracle you can point to can be explained by people that can actually recreate them.
> Scalia cited the 10-year-old case of a priest in
> the Washington archdiocese who was said to have
> the stigmata. Statues of Mary and the saints
> appeared to weep in his presence. Reporters for
> The Washington Post did a story and were unable to
> find an explanation for the strange phenomena.
Wait a second. You expected reporters from the Washington Post to explain this? Those reporters should have asked credible scientists for an explanation, but even that wasn't necessary as this "statue crying" thing has been debunked a thousand times.
"What is needed is a hollow statue made of a porous material such as plaster or ceramic. The icon must be glazed or painted with some sort of impermeable coating. If the statue is then filled up with a liquid (surreptitiously, through a tiny hole in the head, for example), the porous material will absorb it, but the glazing will stop it from flowing out. If the glazing, however, is imperceptibly scratched away on or around the eyes, tear-like drops will leak out, as if materialising from thin air. If the cavity behind the eyes is small enough, once all the liquid has dripped out there are virtually no traces left in the icon. When I put it to the test, this trick proved to be very satisfactory, baffling all onlookers."
> “Why wasn’t that church absolutely packed with
> nonbelievers,†Scalia asked, “seeking to
> determine if there might be something to this?â€
Because we know its a hoax and why they do it and how they do it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Kardinal
()
Date: November 03, 2010 09:08PM
Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a ridiculous statement. Didn't God create
> evil to start with? Why dangle a carrot if not
> some sort of sick game or experiment?
No. Evil is the absence of good. Thus it is not created.
> > A universe without choice is a universe without
> > love. God doesn't want slaves.
>
> What is the choice? Obey God or spend eternity
> burning in hell? Not much of a choice there, is
> it?
No. The choice is to love God or not to. The consequences make the correct answer obvious, but it's still a choice.
> It seems to me like what those people who
> "witnessed miracles" saw is just something they
> didn't understand. The same goes for any "miracle"
> today. Just because you don't have the wherewithal
> to understand basic physics and science of certian
> events, doesn't mean its a miracle. I'm sure any
> miracle you can point to can be explained by
> people that can actually recreate them.
Perhaps. But have you actually investigated such things or are you putting your...faith...in the empirical that it can be replicated? :)
> Wait a second. You expected reporters from the
> Washington Post to explain this? Those reporters
> should have asked credible scientists for an
> explanation, but even that wasn't necessary as
> this "statue crying" thing has been debunked a
> thousand times.
Perhaps. But I don't see atheists coming out of the woodwork to investigate, which would indicate their honest interest in it being "proven" nor did I see anyone ACTUALLY disprove it.
Which tells me they're simply operating on...as much faith as believers. Except their faith is in the belief that there is no metaphysical, that everything is empirical, and there is nothing more than that. For which, of course, there is, and cannot be...proof. :)
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a ridiculous statement. Didn't God create
> evil to start with? Why dangle a carrot if not
> some sort of sick game or experiment?
No. Evil is the absence of good. Thus it is not created.
> > A universe without choice is a universe without
> > love. God doesn't want slaves.
>
> What is the choice? Obey God or spend eternity
> burning in hell? Not much of a choice there, is
> it?
No. The choice is to love God or not to. The consequences make the correct answer obvious, but it's still a choice.
> It seems to me like what those people who
> "witnessed miracles" saw is just something they
> didn't understand. The same goes for any "miracle"
> today. Just because you don't have the wherewithal
> to understand basic physics and science of certian
> events, doesn't mean its a miracle. I'm sure any
> miracle you can point to can be explained by
> people that can actually recreate them.
Perhaps. But have you actually investigated such things or are you putting your...faith...in the empirical that it can be replicated? :)
> Wait a second. You expected reporters from the
> Washington Post to explain this? Those reporters
> should have asked credible scientists for an
> explanation, but even that wasn't necessary as
> this "statue crying" thing has been debunked a
> thousand times.
Perhaps. But I don't see atheists coming out of the woodwork to investigate, which would indicate their honest interest in it being "proven" nor did I see anyone ACTUALLY disprove it.
Which tells me they're simply operating on...as much faith as believers. Except their faith is in the belief that there is no metaphysical, that everything is empirical, and there is nothing more than that. For which, of course, there is, and cannot be...proof. :)
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: November 03, 2010 10:50PM
Kardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. Evil is the absence of good. Thus it is not
> created.
Without everything there would be nothing, right? Didn't God create everything? Are you claiming that evil was something that existed without Gods consent?
Spin away.
> No. The choice is to love God or not to. The
> consequences make the correct answer obvious, but
> it's still a choice.
Sooooo, there is no choice is what you're saying here. That's like paying a mob boss for "protection" or my business might "accidentally" burn down. That's not a choice, it's extortion.
> Perhaps. But have you actually investigated such
> things or are you putting your...faith...in the
> empirical that it can be replicated? :)
I have not personally investigated these events and have no desire to because the explanation given by people that do investigate them makes perfect sense and no further investigation is warranted.
> Perhaps. But I don't see atheists coming out of
> the woodwork to investigate, which would indicate
> their honest interest in it being "proven" nor did
> I see anyone ACTUALLY disprove it.
You obviously didn't look very hard. I just gave you one explanation for why statues cry and you've already ignored it. There was an incident in Woodbridge a few years back at a Catholic church where Mary supposedly cried. It turned out to be just humidity building up on her eye lid and was nothing more. That happens on most statues all summer long, but no one cares unless it happens on a religious statue. The less porous the surface of the statue, the more humidity build up. It's not rocket science.
> Which tells me they're simply operating on...as
> much faith as believers. Except their faith is in
> the belief that there is no metaphysical, that
> everything is empirical, and there is nothing more
> than that. For which, of course, there is, and
> cannot be...proof. :)
Testing, re-testing, comparing evidence with scientific peers that constantly try to disprove theories is NOT faith. It's just the opposite of faith. It's something we can see and touch or at least make sense of. Faith is the absence of this. I don't have faith that the sun warms me and helps create life, I know it and can prove it.
Why would anyone believe in the metaphysical or spiritual without any reason to? Do you also believe in the underwater civilization of Atlantis? If not, why?
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. Evil is the absence of good. Thus it is not
> created.
Without everything there would be nothing, right? Didn't God create everything? Are you claiming that evil was something that existed without Gods consent?
Spin away.
> No. The choice is to love God or not to. The
> consequences make the correct answer obvious, but
> it's still a choice.
Sooooo, there is no choice is what you're saying here. That's like paying a mob boss for "protection" or my business might "accidentally" burn down. That's not a choice, it's extortion.
> Perhaps. But have you actually investigated such
> things or are you putting your...faith...in the
> empirical that it can be replicated? :)
I have not personally investigated these events and have no desire to because the explanation given by people that do investigate them makes perfect sense and no further investigation is warranted.
> Perhaps. But I don't see atheists coming out of
> the woodwork to investigate, which would indicate
> their honest interest in it being "proven" nor did
> I see anyone ACTUALLY disprove it.
You obviously didn't look very hard. I just gave you one explanation for why statues cry and you've already ignored it. There was an incident in Woodbridge a few years back at a Catholic church where Mary supposedly cried. It turned out to be just humidity building up on her eye lid and was nothing more. That happens on most statues all summer long, but no one cares unless it happens on a religious statue. The less porous the surface of the statue, the more humidity build up. It's not rocket science.
> Which tells me they're simply operating on...as
> much faith as believers. Except their faith is in
> the belief that there is no metaphysical, that
> everything is empirical, and there is nothing more
> than that. For which, of course, there is, and
> cannot be...proof. :)
Testing, re-testing, comparing evidence with scientific peers that constantly try to disprove theories is NOT faith. It's just the opposite of faith. It's something we can see and touch or at least make sense of. Faith is the absence of this. I don't have faith that the sun warms me and helps create life, I know it and can prove it.
Why would anyone believe in the metaphysical or spiritual without any reason to? Do you also believe in the underwater civilization of Atlantis? If not, why?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: November 04, 2010 08:51AM
Kardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. Evil is the absence of good. Thus it is not
> created.
You know, this is one of the more uncritically accepted ramblings that I've read in email forwards. It makes no sense.
So evil is just the absence of good? What does that even mean?
Evil pertains to actions, and deliberate actions at that. The actions of the Nazi's during WWII, putting people to death, was a deliberate action. It was not simply the absence of good.
> Perhaps. But I don't see atheists coming out of
> the woodwork to investigate, which would indicate
> their honest interest in it being "proven" nor did
> I see anyone ACTUALLY disprove it.
Check out the Skeptical Inquirer or other skeptical magazines. Granted they aren't the province of atheists (well, *only* atheists), but they do debunk such things.
> Which tells me they're simply operating on...as
> much faith as believers.
What it should tell you is that you aren't very well read.
> Except their faith is in
> the belief that there is no metaphysical, that
> everything is empirical, and there is nothing more
> than that. For which, of course, there is, and
> cannot be...proof.
This should also tell you that you aren't very well read, since you are creating a strawman out of what atheist's believe. You are conflating a specific metaphysical view (materialism) with all atheists. Which, of course, is a mistake.
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. Evil is the absence of good. Thus it is not
> created.
You know, this is one of the more uncritically accepted ramblings that I've read in email forwards. It makes no sense.
So evil is just the absence of good? What does that even mean?
Evil pertains to actions, and deliberate actions at that. The actions of the Nazi's during WWII, putting people to death, was a deliberate action. It was not simply the absence of good.
> Perhaps. But I don't see atheists coming out of
> the woodwork to investigate, which would indicate
> their honest interest in it being "proven" nor did
> I see anyone ACTUALLY disprove it.
Check out the Skeptical Inquirer or other skeptical magazines. Granted they aren't the province of atheists (well, *only* atheists), but they do debunk such things.
> Which tells me they're simply operating on...as
> much faith as believers.
What it should tell you is that you aren't very well read.
> Except their faith is in
> the belief that there is no metaphysical, that
> everything is empirical, and there is nothing more
> than that. For which, of course, there is, and
> cannot be...proof.
This should also tell you that you aren't very well read, since you are creating a strawman out of what atheist's believe. You are conflating a specific metaphysical view (materialism) with all atheists. Which, of course, is a mistake.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: November 04, 2010 08:52AM
Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Without everything there would be nothing, right?
> Didn't God create everything? Are you claiming
> that evil was something that existed without Gods
> consent?
> Spin away.
Obviously the position is absurd since if you accept an omnimax God, then you accept that such an entity is ultimately responsible for everything. After all, this is all 'his plan', correct?
I agree with you, obviously, it's simply apologetic spin.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Without everything there would be nothing, right?
> Didn't God create everything? Are you claiming
> that evil was something that existed without Gods
> consent?
> Spin away.
Obviously the position is absurd since if you accept an omnimax God, then you accept that such an entity is ultimately responsible for everything. After all, this is all 'his plan', correct?
I agree with you, obviously, it's simply apologetic spin.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
F. Allen Norman Jr
()
Date: November 14, 2010 06:50PM
Here is a question the LORD wants me to pose to all you so-called "atheists".
It is now possible to clone human beings. This opens the possibility - nay, the inevitability that it will soom be (or already is) possible for a human to create a genetically identical replica of himself to be used as an "organ reservoir". Keep them in stockades, and if you need a kidney, just harvest it. Need a new heart or liver? Just harvest and make a new clone. Sell spare parts from dead clones to folks who cannot afford to clone themselves. Etcetera.
Is this good, evil, or morally neutral?
Now if you believe this is good or "morally neutral", then you are a ghoul.
But if you believe it evil, well, says who? YOU? "Commom consensus"? After all, "IT" is "just" a "man-made" copy of you.
AGet back to me at tis space. I shall be watching.
It is now possible to clone human beings. This opens the possibility - nay, the inevitability that it will soom be (or already is) possible for a human to create a genetically identical replica of himself to be used as an "organ reservoir". Keep them in stockades, and if you need a kidney, just harvest it. Need a new heart or liver? Just harvest and make a new clone. Sell spare parts from dead clones to folks who cannot afford to clone themselves. Etcetera.
Is this good, evil, or morally neutral?
Now if you believe this is good or "morally neutral", then you are a ghoul.
But if you believe it evil, well, says who? YOU? "Commom consensus"? After all, "IT" is "just" a "man-made" copy of you.
AGet back to me at tis space. I shall be watching.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
wackiness
()
Date: November 14, 2010 07:02PM
I already have a clone. She is my identical twin. I don't consider her an "IT" for my biological purposes.
What you don't understand is that the clone will have a mind and will of its own. Unless you can clone someone without a brain, I don't think there will be a problem. You still have to sign your driver's license in order to donate your organs---they can't just take them out of your body. Our government would have to change drastically in order for this to be a possibility. Not gonna happen without a HUGE fight. The clones will rebel.
What you don't understand is that the clone will have a mind and will of its own. Unless you can clone someone without a brain, I don't think there will be a problem. You still have to sign your driver's license in order to donate your organs---they can't just take them out of your body. Our government would have to change drastically in order for this to be a possibility. Not gonna happen without a HUGE fight. The clones will rebel.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Bruce
()
Date: November 14, 2010 08:38PM
Maybe God intended for scientists to discover cloning and the ability to create "spare parts"? Maybe he created stem cells so that humans could heal their worst ailments? Or does your pastor tell you that could NEVER be the case, so you never question anything? The bottom line is that you do not know for sure. You can only guess.
Maybe those clones could give you a brain and a spine, seeing as though your kind have "tithed" them to guy in the slick suit called a pastor after falling victim to his sales pitch.
I have no problem with faith. I've gained my understanding of Jesus and God. From what I understand, I would bet Jesus would be furious with what most people around here consider a "church" and the way many "believers" use him name to justify acts of discrimination. In the case of the pastors, the way they use his name to afford a very comfortable living.
Of course I also believe that if I live my life as a good honest man, I'd be rewarded by God, regardless of what church I didn't attend. Apparently a lot of these "believers" think I am wrong. God gave us guidelines for living a "good" life. Jesus set an example. Everything else that has become "Christianity" is purely manmade. It is the work of Popes, clergy, pastors, whoever else had a business interest in the "industry" of religion.
Maybe those clones could give you a brain and a spine, seeing as though your kind have "tithed" them to guy in the slick suit called a pastor after falling victim to his sales pitch.
I have no problem with faith. I've gained my understanding of Jesus and God. From what I understand, I would bet Jesus would be furious with what most people around here consider a "church" and the way many "believers" use him name to justify acts of discrimination. In the case of the pastors, the way they use his name to afford a very comfortable living.
Of course I also believe that if I live my life as a good honest man, I'd be rewarded by God, regardless of what church I didn't attend. Apparently a lot of these "believers" think I am wrong. God gave us guidelines for living a "good" life. Jesus set an example. Everything else that has become "Christianity" is purely manmade. It is the work of Popes, clergy, pastors, whoever else had a business interest in the "industry" of religion.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Out For Myself
()
Date: November 14, 2010 09:07PM
va00 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just found out my coworker at my new job belongs
> to this church and will say really inappropriate
> things about others, ironically while she is
> drunk. I hope I don't have to deal with this.
Is she hot?
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just found out my coworker at my new job belongs
> to this church and will say really inappropriate
> things about others, ironically while she is
> drunk. I hope I don't have to deal with this.
Is she hot?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Rock
()
Date: November 14, 2010 09:10PM
Out For Myself Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> va00 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I just found out my coworker at my new job
> belongs
> > to this church and will say really
> inappropriate
> > things about others, ironically while she is
> > drunk. I hope I don't have to deal with this.
>
>
> Is she hot?
Yeah those religious types are often not so religious behind closed doors and after a few drinks. Especially since so many "believe" because they think they are supposed to. They don't believe anything, they just go to church for appearances.
-------------------------------------------------------
> va00 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I just found out my coworker at my new job
> belongs
> > to this church and will say really
> inappropriate
> > things about others, ironically while she is
> > drunk. I hope I don't have to deal with this.
>
>
> Is she hot?
Yeah those religious types are often not so religious behind closed doors and after a few drinks. Especially since so many "believe" because they think they are supposed to. They don't believe anything, they just go to church for appearances.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
F. Allen Norman Jr
()
Date: November 15, 2010 04:34AM
Way to sidestep the question.
I know, of course that these clones will have "independent will" which is why I said keep them in stockades. The clones wouldn't HAVE any rights. My question wqs NOT whether you had a twin, either. The question wqs two parts.ONE, would you consider this practice to be right, wrong, or morally neutral.
TWO, what is your authority for calling this or indeed anything "right" or "wrong"?? If our rights are granted by government, then they can be cancelled out by government also. If you say our rights stem from "social consensus" or some such, then basically you are saying "government". and in that case you agree that if the "social consensus" was that atheists be burned at the stake (as indeed was once the case) then you would be cool with that.
Wait. WhAT? You object? Well, of course you do. I object also. (There was nothing Biblical about the practice, which was a perversion of Christianity). But since you are (or claim to be) an atheist, then your argument boils down to our rights being granted by you and everybody who agrees with you.
Now kindly answer parts ONE and TWO, and don't change the subject and attack this time. Do these clones have any rights? And if so, what is your authority for saying they do?
I know, of course that these clones will have "independent will" which is why I said keep them in stockades. The clones wouldn't HAVE any rights. My question wqs NOT whether you had a twin, either. The question wqs two parts.ONE, would you consider this practice to be right, wrong, or morally neutral.
TWO, what is your authority for calling this or indeed anything "right" or "wrong"?? If our rights are granted by government, then they can be cancelled out by government also. If you say our rights stem from "social consensus" or some such, then basically you are saying "government". and in that case you agree that if the "social consensus" was that atheists be burned at the stake (as indeed was once the case) then you would be cool with that.
Wait. WhAT? You object? Well, of course you do. I object also. (There was nothing Biblical about the practice, which was a perversion of Christianity). But since you are (or claim to be) an atheist, then your argument boils down to our rights being granted by you and everybody who agrees with you.
Now kindly answer parts ONE and TWO, and don't change the subject and attack this time. Do these clones have any rights? And if so, what is your authority for saying they do?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: November 15, 2010 12:54PM
F. Allen Norman Jr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is a question the LORD wants me to pose to
> all you so-called "atheists".
You hear voices in your head asking you to post on messageboards?
> It is now possible to clone human beings. This
> opens the possibility - nay, the inevitability
> that it will soom be (or already is) possible for
> a human to create a genetically identical replica
> of himself to be used as an "organ reservoir".
> Keep them in stockades, and if you need a kidney,
> just harvest it. Need a new heart or liver? Just
> harvest and make a new clone. Sell spare parts
> from dead clones to folks who cannot afford to
> clone themselves. Etcetera.
So, basically the plot of "The Island"?
> Is this good, evil, or morally neutral?
Are these people conscious? If so, then I would say that it is wrong.
> Now if you believe this is good or "morally
> neutral", then you are a ghoul.
Ad-homs are simply not persuasive.
> But if you believe it evil, well, says who? YOU?
> "Commom consensus"? After all, "IT" is "just" a
> "man-made" copy of you.
I don't know what you mean by 'evil' - an immaterial entity? A "Boogey man"?
So, no I wouldn't consider it 'evil'. It is a wrong action because it would harm that individual (assuming they have a conscious).
> AGet back to me at tis space. I shall be watching.
You should first go and get your meds adjusted.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is a question the LORD wants me to pose to
> all you so-called "atheists".
You hear voices in your head asking you to post on messageboards?
> It is now possible to clone human beings. This
> opens the possibility - nay, the inevitability
> that it will soom be (or already is) possible for
> a human to create a genetically identical replica
> of himself to be used as an "organ reservoir".
> Keep them in stockades, and if you need a kidney,
> just harvest it. Need a new heart or liver? Just
> harvest and make a new clone. Sell spare parts
> from dead clones to folks who cannot afford to
> clone themselves. Etcetera.
So, basically the plot of "The Island"?
> Is this good, evil, or morally neutral?
Are these people conscious? If so, then I would say that it is wrong.
> Now if you believe this is good or "morally
> neutral", then you are a ghoul.
Ad-homs are simply not persuasive.
> But if you believe it evil, well, says who? YOU?
> "Commom consensus"? After all, "IT" is "just" a
> "man-made" copy of you.
I don't know what you mean by 'evil' - an immaterial entity? A "Boogey man"?
So, no I wouldn't consider it 'evil'. It is a wrong action because it would harm that individual (assuming they have a conscious).
> AGet back to me at tis space. I shall be watching.
You should first go and get your meds adjusted.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: November 15, 2010 01:05PM
F. Allen Norman Jr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Way to sidestep the question.
> I know, of course that these clones will have
> "independent will" which is why I said keep them
> in stockades. The clones wouldn't HAVE any
> rights. My question wqs NOT whether you had a
> twin, either. The question wqs two parts.ONE,
> would you consider this practice to be right,
> wrong, or morally neutral.
Why wouldn't they have any rights?
I'm actually a twin as well and both my brother and I have rights.
> TWO, what is your authority for calling this or
> indeed anything "right" or "wrong"?? If our
> rights are granted by government, then they can be
> cancelled out by government also.
My authority comes from the tentative agreement of the society I live in. It is culturally relative, for sure, but it is objective in the sense that we can compare it to other morality schemes and determine which one is superior at the goal of human happiness.
You realize that your objections here (that rights can be cancelled) can be leveled at your God as well and is a red herring, with regard whether or not a morality is subjective or objective.
> If you say our
> rights stem from "social consensus" or some such,
> then basically you are saying "government". and
> in that case you agree that if the "social
> consensus" was that atheists be burned at the
> stake (as indeed was once the case) then you would
> be cool with that.
No, you aren't basically saying that - but whatever. Also, I fail to see why atheists would be 'cool with' a set of laws that dictated that atheists be burned at the stakes. Further, I don't see a society being cool with that arbitrary law either. A functioning society wouldn't be, since a *new* arbitrary law could just as easily be made to effect those members who had not been originally burned at the stake.
> Wait. WhAT? You object? Well, of course you do. I
> object also. (There was nothing Biblical about the
> practice, which was a perversion of Christianity).
Oh, so you haven't actually *read* your book? Or are you making a difference (without a distinction) between Witches and Atheists?
> But since you are (or claim to be) an atheist,
> then your argument boils down to our rights being
> granted by you and everybody who agrees with you.
Not precisely.
>
> Now kindly answer parts ONE and TWO, and don't
> change the subject and attack this time. Do these
> clones have any rights? And if so, what is your
> authority for saying they do?
I've answered this.
Also, you realize that you are essentially appealing to the subjectivity of that authority, don't you?
In other words, what if God said that you should eat people. Would that make it right?
Oh, your god wouldn't say that, would he? Why? Is it because you believe there is a standard of goodness that your God relies on?
Oh, wait, let me guess, your God is that standard (meaning your God isn't a personal God at all). If that's the case, why not simply just believe that such a standard is an intrinsic part of the universe?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Way to sidestep the question.
> I know, of course that these clones will have
> "independent will" which is why I said keep them
> in stockades. The clones wouldn't HAVE any
> rights. My question wqs NOT whether you had a
> twin, either. The question wqs two parts.ONE,
> would you consider this practice to be right,
> wrong, or morally neutral.
Why wouldn't they have any rights?
I'm actually a twin as well and both my brother and I have rights.
> TWO, what is your authority for calling this or
> indeed anything "right" or "wrong"?? If our
> rights are granted by government, then they can be
> cancelled out by government also.
My authority comes from the tentative agreement of the society I live in. It is culturally relative, for sure, but it is objective in the sense that we can compare it to other morality schemes and determine which one is superior at the goal of human happiness.
You realize that your objections here (that rights can be cancelled) can be leveled at your God as well and is a red herring, with regard whether or not a morality is subjective or objective.
> If you say our
> rights stem from "social consensus" or some such,
> then basically you are saying "government". and
> in that case you agree that if the "social
> consensus" was that atheists be burned at the
> stake (as indeed was once the case) then you would
> be cool with that.
No, you aren't basically saying that - but whatever. Also, I fail to see why atheists would be 'cool with' a set of laws that dictated that atheists be burned at the stakes. Further, I don't see a society being cool with that arbitrary law either. A functioning society wouldn't be, since a *new* arbitrary law could just as easily be made to effect those members who had not been originally burned at the stake.
> Wait. WhAT? You object? Well, of course you do. I
> object also. (There was nothing Biblical about the
> practice, which was a perversion of Christianity).
Oh, so you haven't actually *read* your book? Or are you making a difference (without a distinction) between Witches and Atheists?
> But since you are (or claim to be) an atheist,
> then your argument boils down to our rights being
> granted by you and everybody who agrees with you.
Not precisely.
>
> Now kindly answer parts ONE and TWO, and don't
> change the subject and attack this time. Do these
> clones have any rights? And if so, what is your
> authority for saying they do?
I've answered this.
Also, you realize that you are essentially appealing to the subjectivity of that authority, don't you?
In other words, what if God said that you should eat people. Would that make it right?
Oh, your god wouldn't say that, would he? Why? Is it because you believe there is a standard of goodness that your God relies on?
Oh, wait, let me guess, your God is that standard (meaning your God isn't a personal God at all). If that's the case, why not simply just believe that such a standard is an intrinsic part of the universe?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
F. Allen Norman Jr
()
Date: November 15, 2010 05:21PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> F. Allen Norman Jr Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Way to sidestep the question.
> > I know, of course that these clones will have
> > "independent will" which is why I said keep
> them
> > in stockades. The clones wouldn't HAVE any
> > rights. My question wqs NOT whether you had a
> > twin, either. The question wqs two parts.ONE,
> > would you consider this practice to be right,
> > wrong, or morally neutral.
>
> Why wouldn't they have any rights?
>
> I'm actually a twin as well and both my brother
> and I have rights.
>
> > TWO, what is your authority for calling this or
> > indeed anything "right" or "wrong"?? If our
> > rights are granted by government, then they can
> be
> > cancelled out by government also.
>
> My authority comes from the tentative agreement of
> the society I live in. It is culturally relative,
> for sure, but it is objective in the sense that we
> can compare it to other morality schemes and
> determine which one is superior at the goal of
> human happiness.
>
> You realize that your objections here (that rights
> can be cancelled) can be leveled at your God as
> well and is a red herring, with regard whether or
> not a morality is subjective or objective.
>
> > If you say our
> > rights stem from "social consensus" or some
> such,
> > then basically you are saying "government".
> and
> > in that case you agree that if the "social
> > consensus" was that atheists be burned at the
> > stake (as indeed was once the case) then you
> would
> > be cool with that.
>
> No, you aren't basically saying that - but
> whatever. Also, I fail to see why atheists would
> be 'cool with' a set of laws that dictated that
> atheists be burned at the stakes. Further, I
> don't see a society being cool with that arbitrary
> law either. A functioning society wouldn't be,
> since a *new* arbitrary law could just as easily
> be made to effect those members who had not been
> originally burned at the stake.
>
> > Wait. WhAT? You object? Well, of course you do.
> I
> > object also. (There was nothing Biblical about
> the
> > practice, which was a perversion of
> Christianity).
>
> Oh, so you haven't actually *read* your book? Or
> are you making a difference (without a
> distinction) between Witches and Atheists?
>
> > But since you are (or claim to be) an atheist,
> > then your argument boils down to our rights
> being
> > granted by you and everybody who agrees with
> you.
>
> Not precisely.
>
> >
> > Now kindly answer parts ONE and TWO, and don't
> > change the subject and attack this time. Do
> these
> > clones have any rights? And if so, what is your
> > authority for saying they do?
>
> I've answered this.
>
> Also, you realize that you are essentially
> appealing to the subjectivity of that authority,
> don't you?
>
> In other words, what if God said that you should
> eat people. Would that make it right?
>
> Oh, your god wouldn't say that, would he? Why? Is
> it because you believe there is a standard of
> goodness that your God relies on?
>
> Oh, wait, let me guess, your God is that standard
> (meaning your God isn't a personal God at all). If
> that's the case, why not simply just believe that
> such a standard is an intrinsic part of the
> universe?
I tried to answer point-by-point, but the LORD answered me by way of a connection failure that He did not wish me to do that. Here is what I have been authorized by the LORD to tell you:
You may not believe in the LORD now, but you will. I only hope it is not too late.
Not only do I believe that the standard is an intrinsic part of the Universe, but that the LORD Jesus of Nazareth, the Almighty God who lives forever and reigns for ever and ever, AMEN; IS THE SOURCE OF AND EMBODIMET OF THAT STANDARD. He is the Almighty Creator and Redeemer of the Universe. Every single thing that exists belongs to Him.
There is no such thing as a true atheist. God created you with lights in your soul. Atheists fear those lights, for sundry and varied reasons. They and also adherents of pagan religions often cite as reasons for believing as they do that the "prefer" to believe in a god who fits their pre-concieved view of the universe.
The ONLY valid reason for believing ANYTHING is because it is TRUE.
This is truth: There are only two possibilities. They are either the Joys of the Kingdom of Heaven or eternal separation from God, a torment known as "hell". In the eyes of the LORD I am no more or less precious to him than are you. God became human and walked among us, living a perfect life. He shed His Blood and lay down His Life to give our lives back to us.
My duty is that of a watchman, to warn you not to turn your back upon the King when He is offering you a Royal Pardon; and even more than that, an inheritance of linitless riches. Spurn it if you like. Laugh at it if you wish, who am I to stop you?? But you have been warned of the eternal consequenses.
The things you have said in your replies will - no kidding - sound to your ears like a "dog-ate-my-homework" story when you stand before the Lord. Amd you know this, and you fear it, and you muster all your knowledge and all your education and all your wit to deny it.
I would share that fate, except that God will see me covered in His inncent Blood. This is also available to you, should you but ask.
The decision is yours. I have fulfilled my duty to you as a watchman, and warned you of the approaching destruction and told you of the way out. You have a decision to take. I shall pray you take the opton that leds to the Kingdom, and hope to see you there.
-------------------------------------------------------
> F. Allen Norman Jr Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Way to sidestep the question.
> > I know, of course that these clones will have
> > "independent will" which is why I said keep
> them
> > in stockades. The clones wouldn't HAVE any
> > rights. My question wqs NOT whether you had a
> > twin, either. The question wqs two parts.ONE,
> > would you consider this practice to be right,
> > wrong, or morally neutral.
>
> Why wouldn't they have any rights?
>
> I'm actually a twin as well and both my brother
> and I have rights.
>
> > TWO, what is your authority for calling this or
> > indeed anything "right" or "wrong"?? If our
> > rights are granted by government, then they can
> be
> > cancelled out by government also.
>
> My authority comes from the tentative agreement of
> the society I live in. It is culturally relative,
> for sure, but it is objective in the sense that we
> can compare it to other morality schemes and
> determine which one is superior at the goal of
> human happiness.
>
> You realize that your objections here (that rights
> can be cancelled) can be leveled at your God as
> well and is a red herring, with regard whether or
> not a morality is subjective or objective.
>
> > If you say our
> > rights stem from "social consensus" or some
> such,
> > then basically you are saying "government".
> and
> > in that case you agree that if the "social
> > consensus" was that atheists be burned at the
> > stake (as indeed was once the case) then you
> would
> > be cool with that.
>
> No, you aren't basically saying that - but
> whatever. Also, I fail to see why atheists would
> be 'cool with' a set of laws that dictated that
> atheists be burned at the stakes. Further, I
> don't see a society being cool with that arbitrary
> law either. A functioning society wouldn't be,
> since a *new* arbitrary law could just as easily
> be made to effect those members who had not been
> originally burned at the stake.
>
> > Wait. WhAT? You object? Well, of course you do.
> I
> > object also. (There was nothing Biblical about
> the
> > practice, which was a perversion of
> Christianity).
>
> Oh, so you haven't actually *read* your book? Or
> are you making a difference (without a
> distinction) between Witches and Atheists?
>
> > But since you are (or claim to be) an atheist,
> > then your argument boils down to our rights
> being
> > granted by you and everybody who agrees with
> you.
>
> Not precisely.
>
> >
> > Now kindly answer parts ONE and TWO, and don't
> > change the subject and attack this time. Do
> these
> > clones have any rights? And if so, what is your
> > authority for saying they do?
>
> I've answered this.
>
> Also, you realize that you are essentially
> appealing to the subjectivity of that authority,
> don't you?
>
> In other words, what if God said that you should
> eat people. Would that make it right?
>
> Oh, your god wouldn't say that, would he? Why? Is
> it because you believe there is a standard of
> goodness that your God relies on?
>
> Oh, wait, let me guess, your God is that standard
> (meaning your God isn't a personal God at all). If
> that's the case, why not simply just believe that
> such a standard is an intrinsic part of the
> universe?
I tried to answer point-by-point, but the LORD answered me by way of a connection failure that He did not wish me to do that. Here is what I have been authorized by the LORD to tell you:
You may not believe in the LORD now, but you will. I only hope it is not too late.
Not only do I believe that the standard is an intrinsic part of the Universe, but that the LORD Jesus of Nazareth, the Almighty God who lives forever and reigns for ever and ever, AMEN; IS THE SOURCE OF AND EMBODIMET OF THAT STANDARD. He is the Almighty Creator and Redeemer of the Universe. Every single thing that exists belongs to Him.
There is no such thing as a true atheist. God created you with lights in your soul. Atheists fear those lights, for sundry and varied reasons. They and also adherents of pagan religions often cite as reasons for believing as they do that the "prefer" to believe in a god who fits their pre-concieved view of the universe.
The ONLY valid reason for believing ANYTHING is because it is TRUE.
This is truth: There are only two possibilities. They are either the Joys of the Kingdom of Heaven or eternal separation from God, a torment known as "hell". In the eyes of the LORD I am no more or less precious to him than are you. God became human and walked among us, living a perfect life. He shed His Blood and lay down His Life to give our lives back to us.
My duty is that of a watchman, to warn you not to turn your back upon the King when He is offering you a Royal Pardon; and even more than that, an inheritance of linitless riches. Spurn it if you like. Laugh at it if you wish, who am I to stop you?? But you have been warned of the eternal consequenses.
The things you have said in your replies will - no kidding - sound to your ears like a "dog-ate-my-homework" story when you stand before the Lord. Amd you know this, and you fear it, and you muster all your knowledge and all your education and all your wit to deny it.
I would share that fate, except that God will see me covered in His inncent Blood. This is also available to you, should you but ask.
The decision is yours. I have fulfilled my duty to you as a watchman, and warned you of the approaching destruction and told you of the way out. You have a decision to take. I shall pray you take the opton that leds to the Kingdom, and hope to see you there.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: November 15, 2010 06:21PM
I was wondering how long it would be until F. Allen dried up and offered the inevitable "death threats". I actually thought he would try a little harder and I'm a little disappointed.
Quoting the nonsensical, megalomaniacal christian doctrine and acting like a pawn for the "Great Mob Boss in the Sky" only reenforces my non-belief and disassociation from religion.
Thanks F. Allen
Quoting the nonsensical, megalomaniacal christian doctrine and acting like a pawn for the "Great Mob Boss in the Sky" only reenforces my non-belief and disassociation from religion.
Thanks F. Allen
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
F. Allen Norman Jr
()
Date: November 15, 2010 07:58PM
Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was wondering how long it would be until F.
> Allen dried up and offered the inevitable "death
> threats". I actually thought he would try a little
> harder and I'm a little disappointed.
>
> Quoting the nonsensical, megalomaniacal christian
> doctrine and acting like a pawn for the "Great Mob
> Boss in the Sky" only reenforces my non-belief and
> disassociation from religion.
>
> Thanks F. Allen
I offer not a threat, but a warning of what is coming. You are free to call me a fool or whatever you like.
When the LORD saw what I had been writing, an inexplicable failure stopped me from posting. I have never encountered such a strange failure, even the offline resources I had would not allow me to post, even though I could post on other sites. Not until I deleted my post 2nd posted wh2t He 2uthorized wzs I zble to successfully post.
God is not the "Great Man-Boss in the sky". He is the Eternal and only Creator and Saviour of everything and every one who comes to Him. The choice is yours. Do as you wish, believe as you wish. But do you believe as you wish because it conforms with your wishes? Or do you believe what you believe because it is TRUE??
You are very welcome.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was wondering how long it would be until F.
> Allen dried up and offered the inevitable "death
> threats". I actually thought he would try a little
> harder and I'm a little disappointed.
>
> Quoting the nonsensical, megalomaniacal christian
> doctrine and acting like a pawn for the "Great Mob
> Boss in the Sky" only reenforces my non-belief and
> disassociation from religion.
>
> Thanks F. Allen
I offer not a threat, but a warning of what is coming. You are free to call me a fool or whatever you like.
When the LORD saw what I had been writing, an inexplicable failure stopped me from posting. I have never encountered such a strange failure, even the offline resources I had would not allow me to post, even though I could post on other sites. Not until I deleted my post 2nd posted wh2t He 2uthorized wzs I zble to successfully post.
God is not the "Great Man-Boss in the sky". He is the Eternal and only Creator and Saviour of everything and every one who comes to Him. The choice is yours. Do as you wish, believe as you wish. But do you believe as you wish because it conforms with your wishes? Or do you believe what you believe because it is TRUE??
You are very welcome.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: November 16, 2010 07:53AM
F. Allen Norman Jr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I tried to answer point-by-point, but the LORD
> answered me by way of a connection failure that He
> did not wish me to do that. Here is what I have
> been authorized by the LORD to tell you:
How exactly does the "Lord" talk to you? Through a neighbor's dog, perhaps?
> You may not believe in the LORD now, but you will.
> I only hope it is not too late.
You may believe in the Lord now, but you won't in time.
> Not only do I believe that the standard is an
> intrinsic part of the Universe, but that the LORD
> Jesus of Nazareth, the Almighty God who lives
> forever and reigns for ever and ever, AMEN; IS THE
> SOURCE OF AND EMBODIMET OF THAT STANDARD. He is
> the Almighty Creator and Redeemer of the Universe.
> Every single thing that exists belongs to Him.
That is a contradictory position to take. A moral standard is not a personal entity. Further, if your God was different, your standard would be different. Hence, the standard you profess is necessarily arbitrary.
SO:
1. Relying on a personal God AS the standard is incoherent.
2. If you are to believe in something, why not just the standard itself - it's metaphysically simpler and logically consistent (your current position, as noted, is not).
>
> There is no such thing as a true atheist.
Your opinion is noted and rejected in favor of empirical evidence to the contrary.
> God
> created you with lights in your soul.
This is meaningless mumbo-jumbo.
> Atheists
> fear those lights, for sundry and varied reasons.
> They and also adherents of pagan religions often
> cite as reasons for believing as they do that the
> "prefer" to believe in a god who fits their
> pre-concieved view of the universe.
This is a strawman - I fear no 'light' and I would actually prefer to live in a world with a omnimax personal entity. In other words, I provide empirical evidence that your supposition is wrong.
As to your non-sense about pagan religions - that has to be argued for, not assumed. You are begging the question.
> The ONLY valid reason for believing ANYTHING is
> because it is TRUE.
This is actually not necessarily true - it is perfectly valid to believe in a falsehood *if* such a belief achieves some goal. Say believing in the effects of a medicine even though it is, in reality, a placebo. I would say that reasons for belief are *contextual*.
> This is truth: There are only two possibilities.
> They are either the Joys of the Kingdom of Heaven
> or eternal separation from God, a torment known as
> "hell".
Again, this is false - it could be true that at the end of our life we will be weighed against Ma'at and those of us who do not know the proper incantations will be destroyed.
> In the eyes of the LORD I am no more or
> less precious to him than are you. God became
> human and walked among us, living a perfect life.
> He shed His Blood and lay down His Life to give
> our lives back to us.
>
> My duty is that of a watchman, to warn you not to
> turn your back upon the King when He is offering
> you a Royal Pardon; and even more than that, an
> inheritance of linitless riches. Spurn it if you
> like. Laugh at it if you wish, who am I to stop
> you?? But you have been warned of the eternal
> consequenses.
I do not laugh or spurn you - I point out that your arguments are illogical and your position is irrational. Your attempt at Pascal's Wager demonstrates that you are not well versed in apologetics, theology, or philosophy.
> The things you have said in your replies will - no
> kidding - sound to your ears like a
> "dog-ate-my-homework" story when you stand before
> the Lord. Amd you know this, and you fear it, and
> you muster all your knowledge and all your
> education and all your wit to deny it.
>
> I would share that fate, except that God will see
> me covered in His inncent Blood. This is also
> available to you, should you but ask.
>
> The decision is yours. I have fulfilled my duty to
> you as a watchman, and warned you of the
> approaching destruction and told you of the way
> out. You have a decision to take. I shall pray
> you take the opton that leds to the Kingdom, and
> hope to see you there.
Right now you are giving up the intellectual side of the argument and you are trying to appeal to fear - which, again, is not logical.
I think that readers can safely dismiss what you have to offer since it is irrational.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2010 07:57AM by Professor Pangloss.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I tried to answer point-by-point, but the LORD
> answered me by way of a connection failure that He
> did not wish me to do that. Here is what I have
> been authorized by the LORD to tell you:
How exactly does the "Lord" talk to you? Through a neighbor's dog, perhaps?
> You may not believe in the LORD now, but you will.
> I only hope it is not too late.
You may believe in the Lord now, but you won't in time.
> Not only do I believe that the standard is an
> intrinsic part of the Universe, but that the LORD
> Jesus of Nazareth, the Almighty God who lives
> forever and reigns for ever and ever, AMEN; IS THE
> SOURCE OF AND EMBODIMET OF THAT STANDARD. He is
> the Almighty Creator and Redeemer of the Universe.
> Every single thing that exists belongs to Him.
That is a contradictory position to take. A moral standard is not a personal entity. Further, if your God was different, your standard would be different. Hence, the standard you profess is necessarily arbitrary.
SO:
1. Relying on a personal God AS the standard is incoherent.
2. If you are to believe in something, why not just the standard itself - it's metaphysically simpler and logically consistent (your current position, as noted, is not).
>
> There is no such thing as a true atheist.
Your opinion is noted and rejected in favor of empirical evidence to the contrary.
> God
> created you with lights in your soul.
This is meaningless mumbo-jumbo.
> Atheists
> fear those lights, for sundry and varied reasons.
> They and also adherents of pagan religions often
> cite as reasons for believing as they do that the
> "prefer" to believe in a god who fits their
> pre-concieved view of the universe.
This is a strawman - I fear no 'light' and I would actually prefer to live in a world with a omnimax personal entity. In other words, I provide empirical evidence that your supposition is wrong.
As to your non-sense about pagan religions - that has to be argued for, not assumed. You are begging the question.
> The ONLY valid reason for believing ANYTHING is
> because it is TRUE.
This is actually not necessarily true - it is perfectly valid to believe in a falsehood *if* such a belief achieves some goal. Say believing in the effects of a medicine even though it is, in reality, a placebo. I would say that reasons for belief are *contextual*.
> This is truth: There are only two possibilities.
> They are either the Joys of the Kingdom of Heaven
> or eternal separation from God, a torment known as
> "hell".
Again, this is false - it could be true that at the end of our life we will be weighed against Ma'at and those of us who do not know the proper incantations will be destroyed.
> In the eyes of the LORD I am no more or
> less precious to him than are you. God became
> human and walked among us, living a perfect life.
> He shed His Blood and lay down His Life to give
> our lives back to us.
>
> My duty is that of a watchman, to warn you not to
> turn your back upon the King when He is offering
> you a Royal Pardon; and even more than that, an
> inheritance of linitless riches. Spurn it if you
> like. Laugh at it if you wish, who am I to stop
> you?? But you have been warned of the eternal
> consequenses.
I do not laugh or spurn you - I point out that your arguments are illogical and your position is irrational. Your attempt at Pascal's Wager demonstrates that you are not well versed in apologetics, theology, or philosophy.
> The things you have said in your replies will - no
> kidding - sound to your ears like a
> "dog-ate-my-homework" story when you stand before
> the Lord. Amd you know this, and you fear it, and
> you muster all your knowledge and all your
> education and all your wit to deny it.
>
> I would share that fate, except that God will see
> me covered in His inncent Blood. This is also
> available to you, should you but ask.
>
> The decision is yours. I have fulfilled my duty to
> you as a watchman, and warned you of the
> approaching destruction and told you of the way
> out. You have a decision to take. I shall pray
> you take the opton that leds to the Kingdom, and
> hope to see you there.
Right now you are giving up the intellectual side of the argument and you are trying to appeal to fear - which, again, is not logical.
I think that readers can safely dismiss what you have to offer since it is irrational.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2010 07:57AM by Professor Pangloss.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: November 16, 2010 07:56AM
F. Allen Norman Jr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I offer not a threat, but a warning of what is
> coming. You are free to call me a fool or whatever
> you like.
Um, you *did* appeal to a threat. Your God of love paradoxically will burn those he loves in hell.
This demonstrates the cognitive dissonance of some believers. You clearly threaten us with eternal hell fire if we do not believe and when you are called on it you *deny it*.
It boggles the mind.
> When the LORD saw what I had been writing, an
> inexplicable failure stopped me from posting. I
> have never encountered such a strange failure,
> even the offline resources I had would not allow
> me to post, even though I could post on other
> sites. Not until I deleted my post 2nd posted
> wh2t He 2uthorized wzs I zble to successfully
> post.
> God is not the "Great Man-Boss in the sky". He is
> the Eternal and only Creator and Saviour of
> everything and every one who comes to Him. The
> choice is yours. Do as you wish, believe as you
> wish. But do you believe as you wish because it
> conforms with your wishes? Or do you believe what
> you believe because it is TRUE??
> You are very welcome.
I have to ask, are you a Poe?
As to what I believe, I believe what I find to be the most rational appraisal of the evidence. It has nothing to do with my personal desires. If I based my beliefs on personal desires then I would believe in an afterlife, an eternal place of bliss, etc.
That seems to be what you believe though...Funny how you accuse us atheists of what you are suffering from.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I offer not a threat, but a warning of what is
> coming. You are free to call me a fool or whatever
> you like.
Um, you *did* appeal to a threat. Your God of love paradoxically will burn those he loves in hell.
This demonstrates the cognitive dissonance of some believers. You clearly threaten us with eternal hell fire if we do not believe and when you are called on it you *deny it*.
It boggles the mind.
> When the LORD saw what I had been writing, an
> inexplicable failure stopped me from posting. I
> have never encountered such a strange failure,
> even the offline resources I had would not allow
> me to post, even though I could post on other
> sites. Not until I deleted my post 2nd posted
> wh2t He 2uthorized wzs I zble to successfully
> post.
> God is not the "Great Man-Boss in the sky". He is
> the Eternal and only Creator and Saviour of
> everything and every one who comes to Him. The
> choice is yours. Do as you wish, believe as you
> wish. But do you believe as you wish because it
> conforms with your wishes? Or do you believe what
> you believe because it is TRUE??
> You are very welcome.
I have to ask, are you a Poe?
As to what I believe, I believe what I find to be the most rational appraisal of the evidence. It has nothing to do with my personal desires. If I based my beliefs on personal desires then I would believe in an afterlife, an eternal place of bliss, etc.
That seems to be what you believe though...Funny how you accuse us atheists of what you are suffering from.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Nothing from Nothing leaves NOTHING
()
Date: November 16, 2010 11:39AM
Funny, a Poe asking someone if they are a Poe.
Is that your favorite line?
Cuz it's gettin' kinda stale.
As far as threats are concerned,
OBVIOUSLY YOU are the one who sees HELL as a THREAT and rightfully so.
Because you are fully aware that irrational logic is what you are using
to rationalize your DEEP DESIRE for NO GOD or CREATOR to exist despite
your grand explanation of everything as some huge Cosmological Crap-shoot.
Love how you use words that you think spice up your literary compositions to sound more intelligent.
For ex. "appraisal of the evidence".
Trying to SOUND smart makes you LOOK stupid.
More ex.s;
"Your God of love paradoxically will burn those he loves in hell."
AHHHHHEMMMMM there is NOTHING 'paradoxical' about it.
He does NOT love those who he does NOT KNOW. [like YOU, Ass-Gloss]
"This demonstrates the cognitive dissonance of some believers."
YOU demonstrate RATIONAL DISSONANCE, when you look @ the world around you
and LIE to yourself and others about it being self perpetuating when the
LAWS of THERMODYNAMICS CLEARLY refute your PISS-POOR Athiest defenses
for your bombastic assertions.
Think maybe it might help to think about it like this;
time and space are like pixels on your TV.
It is NOTHING until it gets a command to be something.
The pixels -or possibility of time space and matter has to be created.
Otherwise there is just NOTHING, the same nothing you faggots want
us to believe we should attribute our existance to.
U R PATHETIC.
Is that your favorite line?
Cuz it's gettin' kinda stale.
As far as threats are concerned,
OBVIOUSLY YOU are the one who sees HELL as a THREAT and rightfully so.
Because you are fully aware that irrational logic is what you are using
to rationalize your DEEP DESIRE for NO GOD or CREATOR to exist despite
your grand explanation of everything as some huge Cosmological Crap-shoot.
Love how you use words that you think spice up your literary compositions to sound more intelligent.
For ex. "appraisal of the evidence".
Trying to SOUND smart makes you LOOK stupid.
More ex.s;
"Your God of love paradoxically will burn those he loves in hell."
AHHHHHEMMMMM there is NOTHING 'paradoxical' about it.
He does NOT love those who he does NOT KNOW. [like YOU, Ass-Gloss]
"This demonstrates the cognitive dissonance of some believers."
YOU demonstrate RATIONAL DISSONANCE, when you look @ the world around you
and LIE to yourself and others about it being self perpetuating when the
LAWS of THERMODYNAMICS CLEARLY refute your PISS-POOR Athiest defenses
for your bombastic assertions.
Think maybe it might help to think about it like this;
time and space are like pixels on your TV.
It is NOTHING until it gets a command to be something.
The pixels -or possibility of time space and matter has to be created.
Otherwise there is just NOTHING, the same nothing you faggots want
us to believe we should attribute our existance to.
U R PATHETIC.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: November 16, 2010 12:23PM
Nothing from Nothing leaves NOTHING Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny, a Poe asking someone if they are a Poe.
> Is that your favorite line?
> Cuz it's gettin' kinda stale.
?
I'm not a Poe.
> As far as threats are concerned,
>
> OBVIOUSLY YOU are the one who sees HELL as a
> THREAT and rightfully so.
It's extortion. Believe or burn. As noted by others, the Mafia uses similar tactics - Pay or get a broken leg.
> Because you are fully aware that irrational logic
> is what you are using
> to rationalize your DEEP DESIRE for NO GOD or
> CREATOR to exist despite
> your grand explanation of everything as some huge
> Cosmological Crap-shoot.
This is an ad-hom - an appeal to character - it doesn't actually refute anything that I've written. It's a distraction technique that is meant to take the reader away from the problems with the argument.
Did you think that no one would notice that you were doing this?
> Love how you use words that you think spice up
> your literary compositions to sound more
> intelligent.
>
> For ex. "appraisal of the evidence".
>
> Trying to SOUND smart makes you LOOK stupid.
Noted: Words emasculate you and make you defensive.
> More ex.s;
>
> "Your God of love paradoxically will burn those he
> loves in hell."
>
> AHHHHHEMMMMM there is NOTHING 'paradoxical'
> about it.
> He does NOT love those who he does NOT KNOW.
So your God is not omniscient?
> "This demonstrates the cognitive dissonance of
> some believers."
>
> YOU demonstrate RATIONAL DISSONANCE, when you look
> @ the world around you
> and LIE to yourself and others about it being self
> perpetuating when the
"Rational Dissonance"? Is that supposed to be an insult? I take it you don't know what the words mean, since you didn't use them correctly here - in fact, it's kind of funny how you used them, since you appear to be serious.
You are the poster who used to go by 'troll' something, right?
Read up on Cognitive dissonance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
> LAWS of THERMODYNAMICS CLEARLY refute your
> PISS-POOR Athiest defenses
> for your bombastic assertions.
Yeah, I'm sure you think they do. I bet you don't know (sans google) how many laws of thermodynamics there are or what they are. I fail to see why we should take your word on the matter though.
> Think maybe it might help to think about it like
> this;
> time and space are like pixels on your TV.
> It is NOTHING until it gets a command to be
> something.
> The pixels -or possibility of time space and
> matter has to be created.
I think it would help if you caught up with modern physics - your grasp on the subject betrays the idea of the a theory of time, which I've gone over with you several times now.
> Otherwise there is just NOTHING, the same nothing
> you faggots want
> us to believe we should attribute our existance
> to.
>
> U R PATHETIC.
You can't argue your side, so you breakdown and hurl insults.
I'm underwhelmed. Further, you know that I don't support the notion that there ever was 'nothing'. Either you can't keep up with the conversation or you don't care to. In either case, why should anyone care about your opinion?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny, a Poe asking someone if they are a Poe.
> Is that your favorite line?
> Cuz it's gettin' kinda stale.
?
I'm not a Poe.
> As far as threats are concerned,
>
> OBVIOUSLY YOU are the one who sees HELL as a
> THREAT and rightfully so.
It's extortion. Believe or burn. As noted by others, the Mafia uses similar tactics - Pay or get a broken leg.
> Because you are fully aware that irrational logic
> is what you are using
> to rationalize your DEEP DESIRE for NO GOD or
> CREATOR to exist despite
> your grand explanation of everything as some huge
> Cosmological Crap-shoot.
This is an ad-hom - an appeal to character - it doesn't actually refute anything that I've written. It's a distraction technique that is meant to take the reader away from the problems with the argument.
Did you think that no one would notice that you were doing this?
> Love how you use words that you think spice up
> your literary compositions to sound more
> intelligent.
>
> For ex. "appraisal of the evidence".
>
> Trying to SOUND smart makes you LOOK stupid.
Noted: Words emasculate you and make you defensive.
> More ex.s;
>
> "Your God of love paradoxically will burn those he
> loves in hell."
>
> AHHHHHEMMMMM there is NOTHING 'paradoxical'
> about it.
> He does NOT love those who he does NOT KNOW.
So your God is not omniscient?
> "This demonstrates the cognitive dissonance of
> some believers."
>
> YOU demonstrate RATIONAL DISSONANCE, when you look
> @ the world around you
> and LIE to yourself and others about it being self
> perpetuating when the
"Rational Dissonance"? Is that supposed to be an insult? I take it you don't know what the words mean, since you didn't use them correctly here - in fact, it's kind of funny how you used them, since you appear to be serious.
You are the poster who used to go by 'troll' something, right?
Read up on Cognitive dissonance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
> LAWS of THERMODYNAMICS CLEARLY refute your
> PISS-POOR Athiest defenses
> for your bombastic assertions.
Yeah, I'm sure you think they do. I bet you don't know (sans google) how many laws of thermodynamics there are or what they are. I fail to see why we should take your word on the matter though.
> Think maybe it might help to think about it like
> this;
> time and space are like pixels on your TV.
> It is NOTHING until it gets a command to be
> something.
> The pixels -or possibility of time space and
> matter has to be created.
I think it would help if you caught up with modern physics - your grasp on the subject betrays the idea of the a theory of time, which I've gone over with you several times now.
> Otherwise there is just NOTHING, the same nothing
> you faggots want
> us to believe we should attribute our existance
> to.
>
> U R PATHETIC.
You can't argue your side, so you breakdown and hurl insults.
I'm underwhelmed. Further, you know that I don't support the notion that there ever was 'nothing'. Either you can't keep up with the conversation or you don't care to. In either case, why should anyone care about your opinion?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
YOU are my PUPPET
()
Date: November 16, 2010 01:50PM
Nothing from Nothing leaves NOTHING Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny, a Poe asking someone if they are a Poe.
> Is that your favorite line?
> Cuz it's gettin' kinda stale.
?
I'm not a Poe.
***YES YOU ARE.
> As far as threats are concerned,
>
> OBVIOUSLY YOU are the one who sees HELL as a
> THREAT and rightfully so.
It's extortion.
*** "APPRAISAL" NOW "EXTORTION" see the pattern.
Believe or burn. As noted by others, the Mafia uses similar tactics
- Pay or get a broken leg.
*** TALK ABOUT IRRELEVANT NONSENSICAL TANGENTS
> Because you are fully aware that irrational logic
> is what you are using
> to rationalize your DEEP DESIRE for NO GOD or
> CREATOR to exist despite
> your grand explanation of everything as some huge
> Cosmological Crap-shoot.
This is an ad-hom
*** NO IT'S NOT
- an appeal to character
*** AGAIN NO IT'S NOT
- it doesn't actually refute anything that I've written.
*** YES IT DOES & YOU KNOW IT
It's a distraction technique that is meant to take the reader
away from the problems with the argument.
*** TALK ABOUT DISTRACTIONS
Did you think that no one would notice that you were doing this?
*** DID YOU THINK NOBODY WOULD NOTICE YOUR STATEMENT WAS PURE-BULLSHIT
AND AN OBVIOUS GOOSE-NECKED FLEA-BRAINED REBUTTAL
> Love how you use words that you think spice up
> your literary compositions to sound more
> intelligent.
>
> For ex. "appraisal of the evidence".
>
> Trying to SOUND smart makes you LOOK stupid.
Noted: Words emasculate you and make you defensive.
*** NOTE YOUR MENTAL HANDICAP WHILE YOU ARE @ IT
> More ex.s;
>
> "Your God of love paradoxically will burn those he
> loves in hell."
>
> AHHHHHEMMMMM there is NOTHING 'paradoxical'
> about it.
> He does NOT love those who he does NOT KNOW.
So your God is not omniscient?
*** WHY WOULD YOU DOUBT GOD'S OMNISCIENCE?
BECAUSE YOU ARE A MORON TRYING TO DIRECT ATTENTION
FROM THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO PARADOX AND YOUR USE
OF THE WORD WAS YET AGAIN ANOTHER FAILED ATTEMPT TO
MAKE THE CASUAL READER THINK YOU ARE SMART OR KNOW WHAT
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IN THE LEAST BIT.
> "This demonstrates the cognitive dissonance of
> some believers."
>
> YOU demonstrate RATIONAL DISSONANCE, when you look
> @ the world around you
> and LIE to yourself and others about it being self
> perpetuating when the
"Rational Dissonance"?
*** YES, THAT'S WHAT I WROTE
Is that supposed to be an insult?
***WHY ASK STUPID QUESTIONS?
I take it you don't know what the words mean, since you didn't use them correctly here
***YES I DID
- in fact, it's kind of funny how you used them,
***REALLY, A DAMNED COMPELLING ARGUMENT YOU ARE CRAFTING
since you appear to be serious.
*** UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU, YOU ARE SERIOUSLY STUPID
You are the poster who used to go by 'troll' something, right?
*** WHO CARES IDIOT, YOU GOT NOTHING SO FAR
Read up on Cognitive dissonance: [en.wikipedia.org]
*** NO THANKS THAT WOULD BE LIKE ME RE-READING THE STATE DRIVERS ED MANUAL
> LAWS of THERMODYNAMICS CLEARLY refute your
> PISS-POOR Athiest defenses
> for your bombastic assertions.
Yeah, I'm sure you think they do. I bet you don't know (sans google) how many laws of thermodynamics there are or what they are. I fail to see why we should take your word on the matter though.
I FAIL TO SEE ANY RELEVANT ARGUMENTS THUS FAR
> Think maybe it might help to think about it like
> this;
> time and space are like pixels on your TV.
> It is NOTHING until it gets a command to be
> something.
> The pixels -or possibility of time space and
> matter has to be created.
I think it would help if you caught up with modern physics - your grasp on the subject betrays the idea of the a theory of time,
which I've gone over with you several times now.
*** NO YOU HAVE NOT, BUT AGAIN YOUR THEORY AND ARGUMENT ARE STILL IRRELEVANT
> Otherwise there is just NOTHING, the same nothing
> you faggots want
> us to believe we should attribute our existance
> to.
>
> U R PATHETIC.
You can't argue your side, so you breakdown and hurl insults.
*** U R PATHETIC is a really BAD INSULT HUH?
NOPE JUST A *FACT*
I'm underwhelmed.
*** BECAUSE YOU ARE RETARDED
Further, you know that I don't support the notion that there ever was 'nothing'.
***OH OKAY THEN, SO IF THERE WAS NEVER NOTHING, THEN WHAT WAS HERE BEFORE THIS?
Either you can't keep up with the conversation or you don't care to.
*** YOU'RE ONE TO TALK
In either case, why should anyone care about your opinion?
*** THAT'S JUST THE THING, *NOBODY* DOES, NO MORE THAN THEY CARE ABOUT YOURS.
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE NOTHING BUT PISS-POOR ILLOGICAL CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny, a Poe asking someone if they are a Poe.
> Is that your favorite line?
> Cuz it's gettin' kinda stale.
?
I'm not a Poe.
***YES YOU ARE.
> As far as threats are concerned,
>
> OBVIOUSLY YOU are the one who sees HELL as a
> THREAT and rightfully so.
It's extortion.
*** "APPRAISAL" NOW "EXTORTION" see the pattern.
Believe or burn. As noted by others, the Mafia uses similar tactics
- Pay or get a broken leg.
*** TALK ABOUT IRRELEVANT NONSENSICAL TANGENTS
> Because you are fully aware that irrational logic
> is what you are using
> to rationalize your DEEP DESIRE for NO GOD or
> CREATOR to exist despite
> your grand explanation of everything as some huge
> Cosmological Crap-shoot.
This is an ad-hom
*** NO IT'S NOT
- an appeal to character
*** AGAIN NO IT'S NOT
- it doesn't actually refute anything that I've written.
*** YES IT DOES & YOU KNOW IT
It's a distraction technique that is meant to take the reader
away from the problems with the argument.
*** TALK ABOUT DISTRACTIONS
Did you think that no one would notice that you were doing this?
*** DID YOU THINK NOBODY WOULD NOTICE YOUR STATEMENT WAS PURE-BULLSHIT
AND AN OBVIOUS GOOSE-NECKED FLEA-BRAINED REBUTTAL
> Love how you use words that you think spice up
> your literary compositions to sound more
> intelligent.
>
> For ex. "appraisal of the evidence".
>
> Trying to SOUND smart makes you LOOK stupid.
Noted: Words emasculate you and make you defensive.
*** NOTE YOUR MENTAL HANDICAP WHILE YOU ARE @ IT
> More ex.s;
>
> "Your God of love paradoxically will burn those he
> loves in hell."
>
> AHHHHHEMMMMM there is NOTHING 'paradoxical'
> about it.
> He does NOT love those who he does NOT KNOW.
So your God is not omniscient?
*** WHY WOULD YOU DOUBT GOD'S OMNISCIENCE?
BECAUSE YOU ARE A MORON TRYING TO DIRECT ATTENTION
FROM THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO PARADOX AND YOUR USE
OF THE WORD WAS YET AGAIN ANOTHER FAILED ATTEMPT TO
MAKE THE CASUAL READER THINK YOU ARE SMART OR KNOW WHAT
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IN THE LEAST BIT.
> "This demonstrates the cognitive dissonance of
> some believers."
>
> YOU demonstrate RATIONAL DISSONANCE, when you look
> @ the world around you
> and LIE to yourself and others about it being self
> perpetuating when the
"Rational Dissonance"?
*** YES, THAT'S WHAT I WROTE
Is that supposed to be an insult?
***WHY ASK STUPID QUESTIONS?
I take it you don't know what the words mean, since you didn't use them correctly here
***YES I DID
- in fact, it's kind of funny how you used them,
***REALLY, A DAMNED COMPELLING ARGUMENT YOU ARE CRAFTING
since you appear to be serious.
*** UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU, YOU ARE SERIOUSLY STUPID
You are the poster who used to go by 'troll' something, right?
*** WHO CARES IDIOT, YOU GOT NOTHING SO FAR
Read up on Cognitive dissonance: [en.wikipedia.org]
*** NO THANKS THAT WOULD BE LIKE ME RE-READING THE STATE DRIVERS ED MANUAL
> LAWS of THERMODYNAMICS CLEARLY refute your
> PISS-POOR Athiest defenses
> for your bombastic assertions.
Yeah, I'm sure you think they do. I bet you don't know (sans google) how many laws of thermodynamics there are or what they are. I fail to see why we should take your word on the matter though.
I FAIL TO SEE ANY RELEVANT ARGUMENTS THUS FAR
> Think maybe it might help to think about it like
> this;
> time and space are like pixels on your TV.
> It is NOTHING until it gets a command to be
> something.
> The pixels -or possibility of time space and
> matter has to be created.
I think it would help if you caught up with modern physics - your grasp on the subject betrays the idea of the a theory of time,
which I've gone over with you several times now.
*** NO YOU HAVE NOT, BUT AGAIN YOUR THEORY AND ARGUMENT ARE STILL IRRELEVANT
> Otherwise there is just NOTHING, the same nothing
> you faggots want
> us to believe we should attribute our existance
> to.
>
> U R PATHETIC.
You can't argue your side, so you breakdown and hurl insults.
*** U R PATHETIC is a really BAD INSULT HUH?
NOPE JUST A *FACT*
I'm underwhelmed.
*** BECAUSE YOU ARE RETARDED
Further, you know that I don't support the notion that there ever was 'nothing'.
***OH OKAY THEN, SO IF THERE WAS NEVER NOTHING, THEN WHAT WAS HERE BEFORE THIS?
Either you can't keep up with the conversation or you don't care to.
*** YOU'RE ONE TO TALK
In either case, why should anyone care about your opinion?
*** THAT'S JUST THE THING, *NOBODY* DOES, NO MORE THAN THEY CARE ABOUT YOURS.
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE NOTHING BUT PISS-POOR ILLOGICAL CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: November 16, 2010 02:07PM
YOU are my PUPPET Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nothing from Nothing leaves NOTHING Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Funny, a Poe asking someone if they are a Poe.
> > Is that your favorite line?
> > Cuz it's gettin' kinda stale.
>
> ?
>
> I'm not a Poe.
>
> ***YES YOU ARE.
Obviously you don't know what a Poe is.
> > As far as threats are concerned,
> >
> > OBVIOUSLY YOU are the one who sees HELL as a
> > THREAT and rightfully so.
>
> It's extortion.
>
> *** "APPRAISAL" NOW "EXTORTION" see the pattern.
?
Not at all, actually. WRT Appraisal, I was talking about the evidence. With regard to extortion I was talking about your God's actions.
Two different things.
I'm continually puzzled
>
> Believe or burn. As noted by others, the Mafia
> uses similar tactics
> - Pay or get a broken leg.
>
> *** TALK ABOUT IRRELEVANT NONSENSICAL TANGENTS
Okay, now this tells me that you aren't even paying attention.
Look man, I disengaged with you once before and I'm going to do it again now. There is no benefit in dialogue with you. All you do is post irrational nonsense and when you are called on it you spout inflammatory rhetoric. You get 'insulted' when people use words you don't understand and you continually fail to keep up with the conversation.
In short you are a complete waste of time.
I did find this bit of cognitive dissonance funny, though, so I had to mention it:
You wrote:
> He does NOT love those who he does NOT KNOW.
Later you blathered:
>*** WHY WOULD YOU DOUBT GOD'S OMNISCIENCE?
Comedy gold right there.
Do you even read what *YOU* write?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nothing from Nothing leaves NOTHING Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Funny, a Poe asking someone if they are a Poe.
> > Is that your favorite line?
> > Cuz it's gettin' kinda stale.
>
> ?
>
> I'm not a Poe.
>
> ***YES YOU ARE.
Obviously you don't know what a Poe is.
> > As far as threats are concerned,
> >
> > OBVIOUSLY YOU are the one who sees HELL as a
> > THREAT and rightfully so.
>
> It's extortion.
>
> *** "APPRAISAL" NOW "EXTORTION" see the pattern.
?
Not at all, actually. WRT Appraisal, I was talking about the evidence. With regard to extortion I was talking about your God's actions.
Two different things.
I'm continually puzzled
>
> Believe or burn. As noted by others, the Mafia
> uses similar tactics
> - Pay or get a broken leg.
>
> *** TALK ABOUT IRRELEVANT NONSENSICAL TANGENTS
Okay, now this tells me that you aren't even paying attention.
Look man, I disengaged with you once before and I'm going to do it again now. There is no benefit in dialogue with you. All you do is post irrational nonsense and when you are called on it you spout inflammatory rhetoric. You get 'insulted' when people use words you don't understand and you continually fail to keep up with the conversation.
In short you are a complete waste of time.
I did find this bit of cognitive dissonance funny, though, so I had to mention it:
You wrote:
> He does NOT love those who he does NOT KNOW.
Later you blathered:
>*** WHY WOULD YOU DOUBT GOD'S OMNISCIENCE?
Comedy gold right there.
Do you even read what *YOU* write?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
ssolgnaP rosseforP
()
Date: November 16, 2010 02:49PM
Professor Idiot-Gloss wrote :
> "Obviously you don't know what a Poe is."
WHAT A COMPELLING ARGUMENT YOU HAVE MADE, MORON.
> > As far as threats are concerned,
> >
> > OBVIOUSLY YOU are the one who sees HELL as a
> > THREAT and rightfully so.
>
> It's extortion.
>
> *** "APPRAISAL" NOW "EXTORTION" see the pattern.
?
> "Not at all, actually. WRT Appraisal, I was talking about the evidence.
> With regard to extortion I was talking about your God's actions.
> Two different things."
THE MOST COMMON USAGE OF APPRAISAL HAS TO DO WITH MONEY VALUATION
EXTORTION AGAIN HAS TO DO WITH MONEY.
ONE TRACK MIND MUCH?
> "I'm continually puzzled"
THIS IS NORMAL FOR MORONS LIKE *YOU*
>
> Believe or burn. As noted by others, the Mafia
> uses similar tactics
> - Pay or get a broken leg.
>
> *** TALK ABOUT IRRELEVANT NONSENSICAL TANGENTS
> Okay, now this tells me that you aren't even paying attention.
AGAIN, WHAT A COMPELLING ARGUMENT YOU PRESENT
> Look man, I disengaged with you once before and I'm going to do it again now.
BECAUSE YOU PRESENT NOTHING BUT NONSENSE AND CLAIM TO HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS
> There is no benefit in dialogue with you.
LIKEWISE
> All you do is post irrational nonsense
YOU ARE GETTING ME CONFUSED WITH YOURSELF
> and when you are called on it
YOU HAVE NOT CALLED SHIT BOZO
> you spout inflammatory rhetoric.
GEEZ, WHO'DA THOUGHT YOU WOULD TAKE SO MUCH OFFENSE TOE TYPING "U R PATHETIC"
> You get 'insulted'
I'M NOT INSULTED BY MENTAL NEANDERTHALS LIKE YOURSELF
> when people use words you don't understand
GIMME A BREAK ASSWIPE, EVEN WITH ELECTRONIC THESAURUSES AT YOUR DISPOSAL YOU ***CONTINUALLU*** USE WORDS BOTH WITH IMPROPER MEANING AND OUT OF CONTEXT.
> "and you continually fail to keep up with the conversation."
MY FAVORITE THING ABOUT YOU IS YOUR LONG BEAUTIFUL HAIR
AND THAT SPARKLE IN YOUR EYE.
> In short you are a complete waste of time.
YEAH, YOU'RE ONE TO TALK. Not only are you a LOSER you're a QUITER
> I did find this bit of cognitive dissonance funny, though, so I had to mention it:
You wrote:
> He does NOT love those who he does NOT KNOW.
AS IN HE CHOOSES NOT TO KNOW YOU, BECAUSE YOU CHOSE HELL OVER SEEKING HIM.
OF COURSE HE KNOWD OF YOUR EXISTENCE, JUST LIKE YOU KNOW THE EXISTENCE OF A TURD YOU SHIT IN YOUR TOILET BOWL.
IT IS NO SURPRISE I HAD TO EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU THOUGH.
Later you blathered:
>*** WHY WOULD YOU DOUBT GOD'S OMNISCIENCE?
> Comedy gold right there.
NO IT'S NOT MORON
-*FAR* FROM IT, BOZO
BUT KEEP LAUGHING, BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE IS LAUGHING AT YOU.
> Do you even read what *YOU* write?
ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE WORD *FAILURE* SHOULD HAVE
YOUR PICTURE NEXT TO IT IN THE DICTIONARY?
> "Obviously you don't know what a Poe is."
WHAT A COMPELLING ARGUMENT YOU HAVE MADE, MORON.
> > As far as threats are concerned,
> >
> > OBVIOUSLY YOU are the one who sees HELL as a
> > THREAT and rightfully so.
>
> It's extortion.
>
> *** "APPRAISAL" NOW "EXTORTION" see the pattern.
?
> "Not at all, actually. WRT Appraisal, I was talking about the evidence.
> With regard to extortion I was talking about your God's actions.
> Two different things."
THE MOST COMMON USAGE OF APPRAISAL HAS TO DO WITH MONEY VALUATION
EXTORTION AGAIN HAS TO DO WITH MONEY.
ONE TRACK MIND MUCH?
> "I'm continually puzzled"
THIS IS NORMAL FOR MORONS LIKE *YOU*
>
> Believe or burn. As noted by others, the Mafia
> uses similar tactics
> - Pay or get a broken leg.
>
> *** TALK ABOUT IRRELEVANT NONSENSICAL TANGENTS
> Okay, now this tells me that you aren't even paying attention.
AGAIN, WHAT A COMPELLING ARGUMENT YOU PRESENT
> Look man, I disengaged with you once before and I'm going to do it again now.
BECAUSE YOU PRESENT NOTHING BUT NONSENSE AND CLAIM TO HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS
> There is no benefit in dialogue with you.
LIKEWISE
> All you do is post irrational nonsense
YOU ARE GETTING ME CONFUSED WITH YOURSELF
> and when you are called on it
YOU HAVE NOT CALLED SHIT BOZO
> you spout inflammatory rhetoric.
GEEZ, WHO'DA THOUGHT YOU WOULD TAKE SO MUCH OFFENSE TOE TYPING "U R PATHETIC"
> You get 'insulted'
I'M NOT INSULTED BY MENTAL NEANDERTHALS LIKE YOURSELF
> when people use words you don't understand
GIMME A BREAK ASSWIPE, EVEN WITH ELECTRONIC THESAURUSES AT YOUR DISPOSAL YOU ***CONTINUALLU*** USE WORDS BOTH WITH IMPROPER MEANING AND OUT OF CONTEXT.
> "and you continually fail to keep up with the conversation."
MY FAVORITE THING ABOUT YOU IS YOUR LONG BEAUTIFUL HAIR
AND THAT SPARKLE IN YOUR EYE.
> In short you are a complete waste of time.
YEAH, YOU'RE ONE TO TALK. Not only are you a LOSER you're a QUITER
> I did find this bit of cognitive dissonance funny, though, so I had to mention it:
You wrote:
> He does NOT love those who he does NOT KNOW.
AS IN HE CHOOSES NOT TO KNOW YOU, BECAUSE YOU CHOSE HELL OVER SEEKING HIM.
OF COURSE HE KNOWD OF YOUR EXISTENCE, JUST LIKE YOU KNOW THE EXISTENCE OF A TURD YOU SHIT IN YOUR TOILET BOWL.
IT IS NO SURPRISE I HAD TO EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU THOUGH.
Later you blathered:
>*** WHY WOULD YOU DOUBT GOD'S OMNISCIENCE?
> Comedy gold right there.
NO IT'S NOT MORON
-*FAR* FROM IT, BOZO
BUT KEEP LAUGHING, BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE IS LAUGHING AT YOU.
> Do you even read what *YOU* write?
ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE WORD *FAILURE* SHOULD HAVE
YOUR PICTURE NEXT TO IT IN THE DICTIONARY?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: November 16, 2010 02:58PM
More comedy gold:
>GIMME A BREAK ASSWIPE, EVEN WITH ELECTRONIC THESAURUSES AT YOUR DISPOSAL YOU >***CONTINUALLU*** USE WORDS BOTH WITH IMPROPER MEANING AND OUT OF CONTEXT.
"Continuallu"
:-)
Comedy gold right there - attempting to scold me on my use of words while misspelling a fairly simple word to spell.
More comedy gold in your post:
When arguing about omniscience(because this is funny):
I called you out saying that your God wasn't omniscient according to your own definition, since you specifically said that "He does NOT love those who he does NOT KNOW."
Instead of refuting me, you only further hammer home the point that your God isn't omniscient when you write:
>AS IN HE CHOOSES NOT TO KNOW YOU
Funny troll is funny.
Look, 'choice' doesn't matter with regard to omniscience (in this context) since you are admitting that God doesn't 'know me'. Let me repeat:
You.are.admitting.God.doesn't.know.something.
It doesn't matter if he 'choose' not to know it or if it was forced.
You don't get this - which is funny.
I'm done with you - all you are doing is providing evidence for what I've written: You don't know what you are talking, you misuse words, and you can't follow a conversation.
>GIMME A BREAK ASSWIPE, EVEN WITH ELECTRONIC THESAURUSES AT YOUR DISPOSAL YOU >***CONTINUALLU*** USE WORDS BOTH WITH IMPROPER MEANING AND OUT OF CONTEXT.
"Continuallu"
:-)
Comedy gold right there - attempting to scold me on my use of words while misspelling a fairly simple word to spell.
More comedy gold in your post:
When arguing about omniscience(because this is funny):
I called you out saying that your God wasn't omniscient according to your own definition, since you specifically said that "He does NOT love those who he does NOT KNOW."
Instead of refuting me, you only further hammer home the point that your God isn't omniscient when you write:
>AS IN HE CHOOSES NOT TO KNOW YOU
Funny troll is funny.
Look, 'choice' doesn't matter with regard to omniscience (in this context) since you are admitting that God doesn't 'know me'. Let me repeat:
You.are.admitting.God.doesn't.know.something.
It doesn't matter if he 'choose' not to know it or if it was forced.
You don't get this - which is funny.
I'm done with you - all you are doing is providing evidence for what I've written: You don't know what you are talking, you misuse words, and you can't follow a conversation.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
ssolgnaP rosseforP
()
Date: November 16, 2010 04:04PM
Again your "comedy gold" is nothing other than a simple *typo*
-NOT even a "misspelling".
What a COMPLETE FAGGOT you are.
> "Instead of refuting me,"
WHY? YOU DO SUCH A GOOD JOB OF REFUTING YOURSELF!
> "you only further hammer home the point that your
> God isn't omniscient when you write:"
LOOK AT YOU, ACTING AS THOUGH I AM "HAMMERING HOME"
SOME QUEER WISHFULL OPINION OF YOURS.
AND HE IS *YOUR* GOD ALSO REGARDLESS OF YOU DENYING HIM
>AS IN HE CHOOSES NOT TO KNOW YOU
> "Funny troll is funny."
PROFESSOR PANGLOSS = NOT FUNNY [but FUNNY to laugh @]
> "Look, 'choice' doesn't matter with regard to omniscience (in this context)"
IRRELEVANT AND POINTLESS STATEMENT
> "since you are admitting that God doesn't 'know me'."
I AM ADMITTING NO SUCH THING.
IT WAS FIGURATIVE SPEECH, AS I *ALREADY* HAVE EXPLAINED.
HE KNOWS YOU AND IS YOUR GOD, LIKE IT OR NOT.
> Let me repeat:
> "You.are.admitting.God.doesn't.know.something."
NOW LET ME REPEAT.
I.Have.Admitted.No.Such.Thing.
> "It doesn't matter if he 'choose' not to know it or if it was forced."
WHAT IS IT?
AND IF HE CHOOSES TO NOT INTERACT WITH 'IT' IN EFFECT IT CAN NOT KNOW HIM THEREFORE 'IT' IS ... You ready? *** NOT RELEVANT***
LIKE YOU : )~
> "You don't get this - which is funny."
YOU ARE DEFINITELY 'FUNNY', ACTUALLY YOUR LEVEL OF STUPIDITY IS MORE ON THE HILARIOUS SIDE.
> "I'm done with you - all you are doing is providing evidence
> for what I've written:"
HAHA! YEAH RIGHT BOZO.
> "You don't know what you are talking"
OK, IF YOU SAY SO. JUST KEEP IN MIND YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN
YOURSELF ANY AUTHORITY ABOUT SHIT !
> ", you misuse words"
DON'T TWIST YOUR FATAL FLAW AROUND AND ACT LIKE I AM AS DUMB AS YOU ARE WITH ALL THE EXAMPLES I HAVE GIVEN YOU THUS FAR CONCERNING YOUR POOR GRAMATICAL COMPOSITIONS AND RETARDED LITERARY DIATRIBES
> ", and you can't follow a conversation."
WELL IF SO, YOUR RUNNING OFF ON IRRELEVANT TANGENTS TO THE DISCUSSION LIKE FIXATING ON TYPOS AND DISREGARDING THE TOPIC AND OR QUESTIONS -DOESN'T HELP AT ALL.
-NOT even a "misspelling".
What a COMPLETE FAGGOT you are.
> "Instead of refuting me,"
WHY? YOU DO SUCH A GOOD JOB OF REFUTING YOURSELF!
> "you only further hammer home the point that your
> God isn't omniscient when you write:"
LOOK AT YOU, ACTING AS THOUGH I AM "HAMMERING HOME"
SOME QUEER WISHFULL OPINION OF YOURS.
AND HE IS *YOUR* GOD ALSO REGARDLESS OF YOU DENYING HIM
>AS IN HE CHOOSES NOT TO KNOW YOU
> "Funny troll is funny."
PROFESSOR PANGLOSS = NOT FUNNY [but FUNNY to laugh @]
> "Look, 'choice' doesn't matter with regard to omniscience (in this context)"
IRRELEVANT AND POINTLESS STATEMENT
> "since you are admitting that God doesn't 'know me'."
I AM ADMITTING NO SUCH THING.
IT WAS FIGURATIVE SPEECH, AS I *ALREADY* HAVE EXPLAINED.
HE KNOWS YOU AND IS YOUR GOD, LIKE IT OR NOT.
> Let me repeat:
> "You.are.admitting.God.doesn't.know.something."
NOW LET ME REPEAT.
I.Have.Admitted.No.Such.Thing.
> "It doesn't matter if he 'choose' not to know it or if it was forced."
WHAT IS IT?
AND IF HE CHOOSES TO NOT INTERACT WITH 'IT' IN EFFECT IT CAN NOT KNOW HIM THEREFORE 'IT' IS ... You ready? *** NOT RELEVANT***
LIKE YOU : )~
> "You don't get this - which is funny."
YOU ARE DEFINITELY 'FUNNY', ACTUALLY YOUR LEVEL OF STUPIDITY IS MORE ON THE HILARIOUS SIDE.
> "I'm done with you - all you are doing is providing evidence
> for what I've written:"
HAHA! YEAH RIGHT BOZO.
> "You don't know what you are talking"
OK, IF YOU SAY SO. JUST KEEP IN MIND YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN
YOURSELF ANY AUTHORITY ABOUT SHIT !
> ", you misuse words"
DON'T TWIST YOUR FATAL FLAW AROUND AND ACT LIKE I AM AS DUMB AS YOU ARE WITH ALL THE EXAMPLES I HAVE GIVEN YOU THUS FAR CONCERNING YOUR POOR GRAMATICAL COMPOSITIONS AND RETARDED LITERARY DIATRIBES
> ", and you can't follow a conversation."
WELL IF SO, YOUR RUNNING OFF ON IRRELEVANT TANGENTS TO THE DISCUSSION LIKE FIXATING ON TYPOS AND DISREGARDING THE TOPIC AND OR QUESTIONS -DOESN'T HELP AT ALL.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: November 16, 2010 04:23PM
I feel like I should pat you on the head and tell you that everything is going to be alright. Calm down, this is just the intrawebs, man. If you can't admit when you've been schooled, then the internet is no place for you.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
*Check Mate*
()
Date: November 16, 2010 04:43PM
Wow.
That just sounded really GAY.
You LOSE.
Play again?
Insert three tokens.
Player2 time left: 7
That just sounded really GAY.
You LOSE.
Play again?
Insert three tokens.
Player2 time left: 7
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
F. Allen Norman Jr
()
Date: November 16, 2010 05:15PM
Hey "Nothing from Nothing";
I assume you are a Christian. So please do remember that we are commissioned to show these misguided precious folks the way out of their predicament. Why on Earth are you using the term "faggot"?? First, some of the hardest-to-reach souls on this planet are homosexual persons. They have been excoriated from the pulpit so much that they have become hardened to the true message of the Gospel. So-called "Ex-Gay" ministeries have done much damage in this regard, mainly because they have as their central goal NOT the honosexual's turning to Jesus, but in the conversion of a homosexual into a married, normal family guy. While it might be nice if this could be done, JOB ONE IS NOT TURNING GAY PEOPLE STRAIGHT. JOB ONE IS SHOWING THEM THEIR NEED FOR GOD'S MERCY AND TELLING THEM HOW IT CAN BE OBTAINED. And don't get me started about the loons in the so-called "Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka Kansas". The net effect of such approaches is not the winning of souls to the LORD, but a hardening of hearts and a turning away from God, which is exactly what the enemy wants.
Second, insulting and condemning should be left to those who oppose us. We know, do we not, that "There is threfore now NO CONDEMNATION TO THOSE WHO ARE IN CHRIST JESUS"?? We are not here called to keel-haul unbelievers under the church bus. Do you not know what the LORD said to Jeremiah the Prophet? "I WILL WATCH MY WORD TO PERFORM IT"; and to Isaiah; "MY WORD SHALL NOT RETURN TO ME EMPTY, BUT SHALL ACCOMPLISH THAT FOR WHICH I SENT IT FORTH".
Speak the Truth in Love, my brother. Remember that the seed you sow may wind up on rocky soil or get choked with weeds. But some will sprout and yield a great harvest. No one will come to Jesus because we speak to them, but that he lays it on their hearts to look honestly at what we have said, and at what they believe, and to seek the truth.
We are dealing with people who are precious to God. Insulting them does the cause of our LORD no good, and in fact is almost inevitably counter-productive. We do what we can. We must trust the Holy Spirit to do the rest.
Yours in Christ,
F. Allen Norman, Jr.
I assume you are a Christian. So please do remember that we are commissioned to show these misguided precious folks the way out of their predicament. Why on Earth are you using the term "faggot"?? First, some of the hardest-to-reach souls on this planet are homosexual persons. They have been excoriated from the pulpit so much that they have become hardened to the true message of the Gospel. So-called "Ex-Gay" ministeries have done much damage in this regard, mainly because they have as their central goal NOT the honosexual's turning to Jesus, but in the conversion of a homosexual into a married, normal family guy. While it might be nice if this could be done, JOB ONE IS NOT TURNING GAY PEOPLE STRAIGHT. JOB ONE IS SHOWING THEM THEIR NEED FOR GOD'S MERCY AND TELLING THEM HOW IT CAN BE OBTAINED. And don't get me started about the loons in the so-called "Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka Kansas". The net effect of such approaches is not the winning of souls to the LORD, but a hardening of hearts and a turning away from God, which is exactly what the enemy wants.
Second, insulting and condemning should be left to those who oppose us. We know, do we not, that "There is threfore now NO CONDEMNATION TO THOSE WHO ARE IN CHRIST JESUS"?? We are not here called to keel-haul unbelievers under the church bus. Do you not know what the LORD said to Jeremiah the Prophet? "I WILL WATCH MY WORD TO PERFORM IT"; and to Isaiah; "MY WORD SHALL NOT RETURN TO ME EMPTY, BUT SHALL ACCOMPLISH THAT FOR WHICH I SENT IT FORTH".
Speak the Truth in Love, my brother. Remember that the seed you sow may wind up on rocky soil or get choked with weeds. But some will sprout and yield a great harvest. No one will come to Jesus because we speak to them, but that he lays it on their hearts to look honestly at what we have said, and at what they believe, and to seek the truth.
We are dealing with people who are precious to God. Insulting them does the cause of our LORD no good, and in fact is almost inevitably counter-productive. We do what we can. We must trust the Holy Spirit to do the rest.
Yours in Christ,
F. Allen Norman, Jr.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: November 17, 2010 06:41AM
Norman, he's not a Christian, he is a troll (his old username). They operate under a different set of morals.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/2010 06:41AM by Professor Pangloss.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/2010 06:41AM by Professor Pangloss.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
F. Allen Norman Jr
()
Date: November 17, 2010 02:08PM
My, my. Lost sheep everywhere I look.
I am beginning to feel a bit like Little Bo Peep.
I am beginning to feel a bit like Little Bo Peep.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
jose morales
()
Date: December 01, 2010 05:20PM
To all the haters on this site does it not clearly say in the bible Luke 6:42 "How can you think of saying, 'Friend, let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,' when you can't see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye." stop being hypocrits. and if yur going to say all these things do them on FACTS.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
OneWhoKnowTheTruth
()
Date: December 03, 2010 10:11AM
Just RELEASE THE FINANCIALS!
Jill's House was supposed to be an independent organization. To hide the "miss-handling" of funds thus pulling one over on the initial investors as well avoiding IRS obligations, they made it part of the church.
Sadly the church cannot afford this expense and Jill's House will not as it was initially presented and intended.
Repentance begins with admission and coming clean. So I'm praying for the surrender and wisdom of the MBC Leaders.
Unfortunately such disclosure will entail a reduction of "entitlements" to many who are employed, and as we have seen in Congress and the Senate, that is a very hard move to make.
I'm all for financially supporting MBC financially after, and only after, the return to the practice of full Financial Disclosure.
Anyone here who proclaims their faith in Christ, should know the emphasis Jesus placed on Money in the Bible. Don't buy the baloney that says financial confidentiality is Biblical. That is heresy, and bad doctrine. You cannot get that conclusion biblically. That belief is only propagated by those who interpret scripture for their own benefit. It conveys the idea that God's supreme Sovereignty is imperfect as it cannot protect true financial details from onlooking men. Sorry... Those who know God, know he is Sovereign in all things.
Disclose your truths MBC and let the cards fall where they may. Trust God with what you say is His!
Jill's House was supposed to be an independent organization. To hide the "miss-handling" of funds thus pulling one over on the initial investors as well avoiding IRS obligations, they made it part of the church.
Sadly the church cannot afford this expense and Jill's House will not as it was initially presented and intended.
Repentance begins with admission and coming clean. So I'm praying for the surrender and wisdom of the MBC Leaders.
Unfortunately such disclosure will entail a reduction of "entitlements" to many who are employed, and as we have seen in Congress and the Senate, that is a very hard move to make.
I'm all for financially supporting MBC financially after, and only after, the return to the practice of full Financial Disclosure.
Anyone here who proclaims their faith in Christ, should know the emphasis Jesus placed on Money in the Bible. Don't buy the baloney that says financial confidentiality is Biblical. That is heresy, and bad doctrine. You cannot get that conclusion biblically. That belief is only propagated by those who interpret scripture for their own benefit. It conveys the idea that God's supreme Sovereignty is imperfect as it cannot protect true financial details from onlooking men. Sorry... Those who know God, know he is Sovereign in all things.
Disclose your truths MBC and let the cards fall where they may. Trust God with what you say is His!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
snowdenscold
()
Date: December 03, 2010 10:52AM
What mis-handling? What disclosure? (The budget is made public). Any facts?
Do you want all individual salaries published? (Is that what they do at your work?)
Actually, is that you Fran? If so, you seem to have softened your tone from when you were holding signs on Route 7, so perhaps it's not you.
Do you want all individual salaries published? (Is that what they do at your work?)
Actually, is that you Fran? If so, you seem to have softened your tone from when you were holding signs on Route 7, so perhaps it's not you.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Edgar Allen
()
Date: December 03, 2010 11:01AM
As long as the McLean Bible church doesn't have sex with the children like the Catholic church does, then they are okay with me.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
tmill9
()
Date: December 03, 2010 11:12AM
Neither McLean Bible Church or the Catholic Church has sex with children. Only perverted members or priests of any church could do that. It's not accurate to say any church does.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
OneWhoKnowTheTruth
()
Date: December 04, 2010 11:24AM
Snow,
R U Kidding? They do not disclose any meaningful derails to allow ANY non- reproachable accountability. There are several Christian financial accountability standards that define minimal levels of disclosure for accountability and McLean won't come close to revealing that minuscule amount of data.
Yes, the company I work for discloses salaries. All public companies disclose management / leaders total compensation. You'd think a church would before willing to demonstrate their stewardship and financial integrity compared to a public company.
Fran? I don't know Fran.
What you obviously don't know is simply McLean USED to disclose their financial details, including Lon's compensation. In fact, they used to boast about their open standards and the integrity of their own financial integrity. That all ended during the BFL (Building for Life) fund raising campaign when the move from the Ball's Hill building commenced. In the old building, before all the large financing, you could take the printed financials home. Not today.
I'm surprised some reporter hasn't yet, and will be surprised if one doesn't soon seek (attempt to seek) these simple truths.
MBC used to claim they compensated Senior staff congruent to that of the Fairfax County's Avg Inc per capita. That is such a farse given: Clergy tax benefits, Housing allowance abuse, External Speaking engagements while away on "Church" excursions, etc.
I doubt MBC will be able to handle the facts as they are if they tried to return to their original levels of disclosure in the late 90's.
Snow, I'm glad to see you seek to defend what you believe in. However, I'm dad your beliefs are based on false or incomplete facts.
In God's honor, I write.
OneWhoKnows
R U Kidding? They do not disclose any meaningful derails to allow ANY non- reproachable accountability. There are several Christian financial accountability standards that define minimal levels of disclosure for accountability and McLean won't come close to revealing that minuscule amount of data.
Yes, the company I work for discloses salaries. All public companies disclose management / leaders total compensation. You'd think a church would before willing to demonstrate their stewardship and financial integrity compared to a public company.
Fran? I don't know Fran.
What you obviously don't know is simply McLean USED to disclose their financial details, including Lon's compensation. In fact, they used to boast about their open standards and the integrity of their own financial integrity. That all ended during the BFL (Building for Life) fund raising campaign when the move from the Ball's Hill building commenced. In the old building, before all the large financing, you could take the printed financials home. Not today.
I'm surprised some reporter hasn't yet, and will be surprised if one doesn't soon seek (attempt to seek) these simple truths.
MBC used to claim they compensated Senior staff congruent to that of the Fairfax County's Avg Inc per capita. That is such a farse given: Clergy tax benefits, Housing allowance abuse, External Speaking engagements while away on "Church" excursions, etc.
I doubt MBC will be able to handle the facts as they are if they tried to return to their original levels of disclosure in the late 90's.
Snow, I'm glad to see you seek to defend what you believe in. However, I'm dad your beliefs are based on false or incomplete facts.
In God's honor, I write.
OneWhoKnows
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
F. Allen Norman Jr
()
Date: December 04, 2010 02:36PM
Whoever is saying MBC is engaged in jiggery-pokery with money, please post here as completely as you can (and coherently, please) ALL details. The only thing I get from here is that there are a lot of rumors, and as one poster stated it is surprising if there is really all this smoke that the liberal anti-Christian media would be sniffing out the fire.
Where there's smoke, there's fire. But sometimes the "smoke' turns out to be a lot of steam generated by a lot of hot air.
Where there's smoke, there's fire. But sometimes the "smoke' turns out to be a lot of steam generated by a lot of hot air.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
rob
()
Date: December 04, 2010 02:58PM
religious people are truely the evil ones these days. i dont mind if you want to believe in whatever god you feel like believing in, but keep that shit to yourself.More people have DIED over religion than both world wars & vietnam combined.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
moron hater
()
Date: December 04, 2010 02:58PM
Mormons are much worse. They believe CRAZY shit AND condemn all those outside of their ridiculous religion.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
F. Allen Norman Jr
()
Date: December 05, 2010 07:44PM
rob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> religious people are truely the evil ones these
> days. i dont mind if you want to believe in
> whatever god you feel like believing in, but keep
> that shit to yourself.More people have DIED over
> religion than both world wars & vietnam combined.
Christians are commanded and commissioned to "proclaim the Gospel". That some folks involved in Christianity and other belief systems see their duty as being to FORCE others to believe is not a characteritic of God, but of sinful men who are looking for an excuse to dominate others.
Why you would want me to "keep to myself" the offer of a full and free pardon from the Almighty Creator and Redeemer of the Universe is beyond me. And in any case I cannot and will not "Keep it to myself". Christians are not commanded to take over politics and force the nations to conform to Christian standards. You are confusing us with Islam.
What we Christians are doing (and why people oppose us even as they preach tolerance for such a repressive belief as Islam) is that spiritually we are the person on the bus who offers a mint to someone with bad breath. We try to do it politely (and frankly some of us need another mint ourselves); but even this gentle appproach is often met with hostility by those who widh to deny that they have - spiritually speaking - bad breath.
Now, I believe that Jesus is Jehovah God, that He walked among us and lived a sinless life, that He became sin for me and took my guilt to the Cross, where He lay down His life; and that He rose from the dead and took His Life back up. The Bible says that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is God, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, then you are saved.
That is ten-second salvation. Those are the requirements, there qre no others. You don't have to go to church, you don't have to be a good boy, you don't have to live up to some standard. Say that, and believe that, and you are saved from condemnation no matter your misdeeds. Say it not, and believe it not, and you are bound for Hell no matter your good works.
Mint?
-------------------------------------------------------
> religious people are truely the evil ones these
> days. i dont mind if you want to believe in
> whatever god you feel like believing in, but keep
> that shit to yourself.More people have DIED over
> religion than both world wars & vietnam combined.
Christians are commanded and commissioned to "proclaim the Gospel". That some folks involved in Christianity and other belief systems see their duty as being to FORCE others to believe is not a characteritic of God, but of sinful men who are looking for an excuse to dominate others.
Why you would want me to "keep to myself" the offer of a full and free pardon from the Almighty Creator and Redeemer of the Universe is beyond me. And in any case I cannot and will not "Keep it to myself". Christians are not commanded to take over politics and force the nations to conform to Christian standards. You are confusing us with Islam.
What we Christians are doing (and why people oppose us even as they preach tolerance for such a repressive belief as Islam) is that spiritually we are the person on the bus who offers a mint to someone with bad breath. We try to do it politely (and frankly some of us need another mint ourselves); but even this gentle appproach is often met with hostility by those who widh to deny that they have - spiritually speaking - bad breath.
Now, I believe that Jesus is Jehovah God, that He walked among us and lived a sinless life, that He became sin for me and took my guilt to the Cross, where He lay down His life; and that He rose from the dead and took His Life back up. The Bible says that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is God, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, then you are saved.
That is ten-second salvation. Those are the requirements, there qre no others. You don't have to go to church, you don't have to be a good boy, you don't have to live up to some standard. Say that, and believe that, and you are saved from condemnation no matter your misdeeds. Say it not, and believe it not, and you are bound for Hell no matter your good works.
Mint?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
tup
()
Date: December 06, 2010 01:04AM
Just one question: where did god come from? If the world needed creating, surely god does to right?
And while you're pondering that, why did god choose to create the universe approximately 13.7 billion years ago and wait until only 2,000 years ago to bring his savior to Earth?
There are also 2 simple reason to reject Jesus as your savior: virgins can't get pregnant and people can't walk on water.
And while you're pondering that, why did god choose to create the universe approximately 13.7 billion years ago and wait until only 2,000 years ago to bring his savior to Earth?
There are also 2 simple reason to reject Jesus as your savior: virgins can't get pregnant and people can't walk on water.
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
Ernie
()
Date: December 06, 2010 03:17AM
Dear Friends,
Someone made the argument that people can't walk on water ... to 'prove' that certain stories told in the bible are not believable. I attended McLean Bible Church when it had no buildings: We met at a public school - and prayed for God to show the way to a more suitable facility. We prayed - and God came through!
O.K., some of you probably don't believe that. Here is another, very personal experience, (one of several in my life):
Like Lon Solomon, I come from Jewish roots. One of my aunts (married to a medical doctor) lived on Long Island and invited our family of three to drive from Burnt Hills, NY, to meet them at their German-Jewish resort in Roscoe, NY, (near NY City), one weekend about 25 years ago. (In caasse you wonder: I celebrated my 89th birthday a couple of weeks ago... I now live in Gretna, LA.)
We (wife, daughter, and I) drove down to Roscoe on a Saturday, shared a wonderful afternoon and dinner, and joined my relatives for an evening of live classical music, then stayed the night and started our return Sunday morning.
After driving for 10 or 15 minutes, I became aware of unease in our car - and learned that my wife missed her small diamond ring... an item of great sentimental value to her I stopped and led in prayer that God would help us find the ring.
Martha only knew she had the ring on her finger (and played with it) at the dinner table the night before! (It was clear later, that she lost it when saying good-bye to my aunt, and it droped into the deep grass where we stood.)
Since we couldn't find it in the car, I drove back to the field where we had parked. We split up, the two women heading to the place where they had slept, and I toward the facility's office.
I felt it was a hopeless undertaking — for all practical purposes ("FAPP" in modern physics) we had ZERO chance of finding the ring in the hours that we could devote to the search. With growing despair in my heart, I slowed to a stop and confessed my hopelessness to God in a silent prayer.
I slowly opened my eyes, and could not help noting the beam of reflected sunlight coming from the deep grass in front of me.
My immediate thought: "Am I going to pick up every bit of glass or look at every reflecting bottle cap ...??" And yet: "I just prayed!! When am I going to follow through?" So, I bent down and searched for the object in the grass ... That turned out to be futile: I found exactly NOTHING - yet KNEW THERE HAD TO BE SOMETHING!"
Being a scientist/engineer, it dawned on me to just stand up and recapture (if I could) the relected sun-beam in my eyes - and pursue it down to its source. That source turned out to be my wife's engagement ring... She died years ago, but We still have the ring!
Dear friends, the probability of that happening is FAPP ZERO! (About the same as the chance of my getting a PhD from Stanford University, for solving mathematical formulas that describe the growth of dendritic crystals, such as snow flakes".)
For me, the evidence that prayer is answered is overwhelming: I have experienced other answers to prayer -and so have members of MBC whose good senseis beyond question!
By the way, ten years after that "miracle", my oldest son visited us from Euroope. At my request we drove back to Roscoe and Tennanah Lake - and were astounded to find the facility where my relatives had entertained us had, in the course of the decade, changed hands and was then part of "A Course in MIracles" (ACIM)... Interesting, don't you agree?!
YOu know: I could be wrong in all this.
And so could one or two of you!
Have wonderful 2010 Holiday Season!
Enjoy the MUSIC!
And each other!!!
Ernie
Someone made the argument that people can't walk on water ... to 'prove' that certain stories told in the bible are not believable. I attended McLean Bible Church when it had no buildings: We met at a public school - and prayed for God to show the way to a more suitable facility. We prayed - and God came through!
O.K., some of you probably don't believe that. Here is another, very personal experience, (one of several in my life):
Like Lon Solomon, I come from Jewish roots. One of my aunts (married to a medical doctor) lived on Long Island and invited our family of three to drive from Burnt Hills, NY, to meet them at their German-Jewish resort in Roscoe, NY, (near NY City), one weekend about 25 years ago. (In caasse you wonder: I celebrated my 89th birthday a couple of weeks ago... I now live in Gretna, LA.)
We (wife, daughter, and I) drove down to Roscoe on a Saturday, shared a wonderful afternoon and dinner, and joined my relatives for an evening of live classical music, then stayed the night and started our return Sunday morning.
After driving for 10 or 15 minutes, I became aware of unease in our car - and learned that my wife missed her small diamond ring... an item of great sentimental value to her I stopped and led in prayer that God would help us find the ring.
Martha only knew she had the ring on her finger (and played with it) at the dinner table the night before! (It was clear later, that she lost it when saying good-bye to my aunt, and it droped into the deep grass where we stood.)
Since we couldn't find it in the car, I drove back to the field where we had parked. We split up, the two women heading to the place where they had slept, and I toward the facility's office.
I felt it was a hopeless undertaking — for all practical purposes ("FAPP" in modern physics) we had ZERO chance of finding the ring in the hours that we could devote to the search. With growing despair in my heart, I slowed to a stop and confessed my hopelessness to God in a silent prayer.
I slowly opened my eyes, and could not help noting the beam of reflected sunlight coming from the deep grass in front of me.
My immediate thought: "Am I going to pick up every bit of glass or look at every reflecting bottle cap ...??" And yet: "I just prayed!! When am I going to follow through?" So, I bent down and searched for the object in the grass ... That turned out to be futile: I found exactly NOTHING - yet KNEW THERE HAD TO BE SOMETHING!"
Being a scientist/engineer, it dawned on me to just stand up and recapture (if I could) the relected sun-beam in my eyes - and pursue it down to its source. That source turned out to be my wife's engagement ring... She died years ago, but We still have the ring!
Dear friends, the probability of that happening is FAPP ZERO! (About the same as the chance of my getting a PhD from Stanford University, for solving mathematical formulas that describe the growth of dendritic crystals, such as snow flakes".)
For me, the evidence that prayer is answered is overwhelming: I have experienced other answers to prayer -and so have members of MBC whose good senseis beyond question!
By the way, ten years after that "miracle", my oldest son visited us from Euroope. At my request we drove back to Roscoe and Tennanah Lake - and were astounded to find the facility where my relatives had entertained us had, in the course of the decade, changed hands and was then part of "A Course in MIracles" (ACIM)... Interesting, don't you agree?!
YOu know: I could be wrong in all this.
And so could one or two of you!
Have wonderful 2010 Holiday Season!
Enjoy the MUSIC!
And each other!!!
Ernie
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
*FU QuestionAnswererBot*
()
Date: December 06, 2010 06:26AM
> "Just one question: where did god come from?"
GOD JUST IS, HE NEEDS NO PLACE TO COME FROM.
THE FACT YOU KNOW MATTER NEEDS AN ORGIN, PROVES IT NEEDS A CREATOR.
GOD IS NOT MATTER BUT A SPIRIT THAT DWELLS IN ALL DIMENSIONS IT HAS CREATED.
> "If the world needed creating, surely god does to right?"
WRONG. I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY.
> "And while you're pondering that,
I THOUGHT YOU HAD "JUST ONE QUESTION"
> "why did god choose to create the universe approximately 13.7 billion
> years ago
HE JUST DID.
WHY DID YOU WIPE YOUR ASS THE LAST TIME YOU TOOK A SHIT ?
> "and wait until only 2,000 years ago to bring his savior to Earth?
ARE YOU ASKING ME IF THERE IS RAPTOR-JESUS,
WHY IS THERE NO NEADERTHAL-JESUS ?
> "There are also 2 simple reason to reject Jesus as your savior:
> virgins can't get pregnant"
THEY CAN IF GOD PERFORMS A "MIRACLE" AND MAKES HER PREGNANT.
GOD CAN DO THE IMPOSSIBLE AND WORK OUTSIDE OF PHYSICS, BEING THAT
HE CREATED THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, SPACE, TIME, MATTER, AND VIRGINS.
> "and people can't walk on water."
EXACTLY, "PEOPLE" CAN NOT WALK ON WATER.
APPARENTLY JESUS WAS NOT A NORMAL PEOPLE, AND COULD PERFORM MIRACLES
LIKE WALKING ON WATER.
GOD JUST IS, HE NEEDS NO PLACE TO COME FROM.
THE FACT YOU KNOW MATTER NEEDS AN ORGIN, PROVES IT NEEDS A CREATOR.
GOD IS NOT MATTER BUT A SPIRIT THAT DWELLS IN ALL DIMENSIONS IT HAS CREATED.
> "If the world needed creating, surely god does to right?"
WRONG. I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY.
> "And while you're pondering that,
I THOUGHT YOU HAD "JUST ONE QUESTION"
> "why did god choose to create the universe approximately 13.7 billion
> years ago
HE JUST DID.
WHY DID YOU WIPE YOUR ASS THE LAST TIME YOU TOOK A SHIT ?
> "and wait until only 2,000 years ago to bring his savior to Earth?
ARE YOU ASKING ME IF THERE IS RAPTOR-JESUS,
WHY IS THERE NO NEADERTHAL-JESUS ?
> "There are also 2 simple reason to reject Jesus as your savior:
> virgins can't get pregnant"
THEY CAN IF GOD PERFORMS A "MIRACLE" AND MAKES HER PREGNANT.
GOD CAN DO THE IMPOSSIBLE AND WORK OUTSIDE OF PHYSICS, BEING THAT
HE CREATED THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, SPACE, TIME, MATTER, AND VIRGINS.
> "and people can't walk on water."
EXACTLY, "PEOPLE" CAN NOT WALK ON WATER.
APPARENTLY JESUS WAS NOT A NORMAL PEOPLE, AND COULD PERFORM MIRACLES
LIKE WALKING ON WATER.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
NegativeDreamStealer
()
Date: December 06, 2010 08:18AM
F. Allen Norman Jr Wrote:
> Christians are not commanded to take
> over politics and force the nations to conform to
> Christian standards.
An awful lot of Christians believe that they are, in fact, duty bound to do just that.
Why should we accept your word over theirs?
> Christians are not commanded to take
> over politics and force the nations to conform to
> Christian standards.
An awful lot of Christians believe that they are, in fact, duty bound to do just that.
Why should we accept your word over theirs?
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 06, 2010 08:23AM
Ernie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After driving for 10 or 15 minutes, I became
> aware of unease in our car - and learned that my
> wife missed her small diamond ring... an item of
> great sentimental value to her I stopped and led
> in prayer that God would help us find the ring.
> Martha only knew she had the ring on her finger
> (and played with it) at the dinner table the night
> before! (It was clear later, that she lost it
> when saying good-bye to my aunt, and it droped
> into the deep grass where we stood.)
> Since we couldn't find it in the car, I drove
> back to the field where we had parked. We split
> up, the two women heading to the place where they
> had slept, and I toward the facility's office.
> I felt it was a hopeless undertaking — for all
> practical purposes ("FAPP" in modern physics) we
> had ZERO chance of finding the ring in the hours
> that we could devote to the search. With growing
> despair in my heart, I slowed to a stop and
> confessed my hopelessness to God in a silent
> prayer.
> I slowly opened my eyes, and could not help
> noting the beam of reflected sunlight coming from
> the deep grass in front of me.
> My immediate thought: "Am I going to pick up
> every bit of glass or look at every reflecting
> bottle cap ...??" And yet: "I just prayed!! When
> am I going to follow through?" So, I bent down and
> searched for the object in the grass ... That
> turned out to be futile: I found exactly NOTHING
> - yet KNEW THERE HAD TO BE SOMETHING!"
> Being a scientist/engineer, it dawned on me to
> just stand up and recapture (if I could) the
> relected sun-beam in my eyes - and pursue it down
> to its source. That source turned out to be my
> wife's engagement ring... She died years ago, but
> We still have the ring!
> Dear friends, the probability of that happening
> is FAPP ZERO! (About the same as the chance of my
> getting a PhD from Stanford University, for
> solving mathematical formulas that describe the
> growth of dendritic crystals, such as snow
> flakes".)
So let me get this straight - instead of curing someone of a disease or healing an amputated limb, God decided to let you find a ring? Jesus, who said that you should give up your worldly possessions to follow him, helped you find a ring?
> By the way, ten years after that "miracle", my
> oldest son visited us from Euroope.
It used to be that people considered violations of the laws of nature, 'miracles', now it's the ability to find something that you lost?
I don't buy it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> After driving for 10 or 15 minutes, I became
> aware of unease in our car - and learned that my
> wife missed her small diamond ring... an item of
> great sentimental value to her I stopped and led
> in prayer that God would help us find the ring.
> Martha only knew she had the ring on her finger
> (and played with it) at the dinner table the night
> before! (It was clear later, that she lost it
> when saying good-bye to my aunt, and it droped
> into the deep grass where we stood.)
> Since we couldn't find it in the car, I drove
> back to the field where we had parked. We split
> up, the two women heading to the place where they
> had slept, and I toward the facility's office.
> I felt it was a hopeless undertaking — for all
> practical purposes ("FAPP" in modern physics) we
> had ZERO chance of finding the ring in the hours
> that we could devote to the search. With growing
> despair in my heart, I slowed to a stop and
> confessed my hopelessness to God in a silent
> prayer.
> I slowly opened my eyes, and could not help
> noting the beam of reflected sunlight coming from
> the deep grass in front of me.
> My immediate thought: "Am I going to pick up
> every bit of glass or look at every reflecting
> bottle cap ...??" And yet: "I just prayed!! When
> am I going to follow through?" So, I bent down and
> searched for the object in the grass ... That
> turned out to be futile: I found exactly NOTHING
> - yet KNEW THERE HAD TO BE SOMETHING!"
> Being a scientist/engineer, it dawned on me to
> just stand up and recapture (if I could) the
> relected sun-beam in my eyes - and pursue it down
> to its source. That source turned out to be my
> wife's engagement ring... She died years ago, but
> We still have the ring!
> Dear friends, the probability of that happening
> is FAPP ZERO! (About the same as the chance of my
> getting a PhD from Stanford University, for
> solving mathematical formulas that describe the
> growth of dendritic crystals, such as snow
> flakes".)
So let me get this straight - instead of curing someone of a disease or healing an amputated limb, God decided to let you find a ring? Jesus, who said that you should give up your worldly possessions to follow him, helped you find a ring?
> By the way, ten years after that "miracle", my
> oldest son visited us from Euroope.
It used to be that people considered violations of the laws of nature, 'miracles', now it's the ability to find something that you lost?
I don't buy it.
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 06, 2010 08:24AM
*FU QuestionAnswererBot* Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> EXACTLY, "PEOPLE" CAN NOT WALK ON WATER.
> APPARENTLY JESUS WAS NOT A NORMAL PEOPLE, AND
> COULD PERFORM MIRACLES
> LIKE WALKING ON WATER.
Chris Angel can 'walk on water', do you think he's a magic-God-man too, troll?
-------------------------------------------------------
> EXACTLY, "PEOPLE" CAN NOT WALK ON WATER.
> APPARENTLY JESUS WAS NOT A NORMAL PEOPLE, AND
> COULD PERFORM MIRACLES
> LIKE WALKING ON WATER.
Chris Angel can 'walk on water', do you think he's a magic-God-man too, troll?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
é²®
()
Date: December 06, 2010 08:58AM
Hmmm, tons of hate directed at MBC and Solomon. He must be touching a nerve. Sad that atheists can't live an let live. MBC provides Christmas and Thanksgiving to thousands of families who otherwise couldn't afford it. They provide after-school care and tutoring to hundreds of kids in inner-city DC and PWC that otherwise would be left to wander the streets or sit at home while their parent(s) were out trying to earn a living. Question an atheist's god (the benevolent all-knowing leftist State) and their dogma (half-baked science ala global warming or embryonic stem cells) and they froth at the mouth and march down our streets burning cars and businesses. Yet they can't let Christians do the good works they are called to do without trying to tear it down and call names. To what end?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 06, 2010 11:00AM
é²® Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hmmm, tons of hate directed at MBC and Solomon.
> He must be touching a nerve. Sad that atheists
> can't live an let live.
If Christians would let atheists and people of other religions 'live and let live' then this sort of 'hate' wouldn't exist.
> MBC provides Christmas
> and Thanksgiving to thousands of families who
> otherwise couldn't afford it. They provide
> after-school care and tutoring to hundreds of kids
> in inner-city DC and PWC that otherwise would be
> left to wander the streets or sit at home while
> their parent(s) were out trying to earn a living.
All good things.
> Question an atheist's god (the benevolent
> all-knowing leftist State)
You are conflating 'atheist' with 'communist'. Your mistake.
> and their dogma
> (half-baked science ala global warming or
> embryonic stem cells)
You are conflating 'atheist' with 'environmentalist'. Again, your mistake.
> and they froth at the mouth
> and march down our streets burning cars and
> businesses.
?
> Yet they can't let Christians do the
> good works they are called to do without trying to
> tear it down and call names. To what end?
*sigh*
It's like you've conveniently forgotten that while religion can be used for good causes, it can also be used for evil ones as well. People should not be afraid to question/criticize religion. When people are afraid of doing such, inquisitions happen.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hmmm, tons of hate directed at MBC and Solomon.
> He must be touching a nerve. Sad that atheists
> can't live an let live.
If Christians would let atheists and people of other religions 'live and let live' then this sort of 'hate' wouldn't exist.
> MBC provides Christmas
> and Thanksgiving to thousands of families who
> otherwise couldn't afford it. They provide
> after-school care and tutoring to hundreds of kids
> in inner-city DC and PWC that otherwise would be
> left to wander the streets or sit at home while
> their parent(s) were out trying to earn a living.
All good things.
> Question an atheist's god (the benevolent
> all-knowing leftist State)
You are conflating 'atheist' with 'communist'. Your mistake.
> and their dogma
> (half-baked science ala global warming or
> embryonic stem cells)
You are conflating 'atheist' with 'environmentalist'. Again, your mistake.
> and they froth at the mouth
> and march down our streets burning cars and
> businesses.
?
> Yet they can't let Christians do the
> good works they are called to do without trying to
> tear it down and call names. To what end?
*sigh*
It's like you've conveniently forgotten that while religion can be used for good causes, it can also be used for evil ones as well. People should not be afraid to question/criticize religion. When people are afraid of doing such, inquisitions happen.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
â–
()
Date: December 07, 2010 08:24AM
PP,
I don't understand your comment about Christians letting other's live and let live. Your comments come across as more anti-Christian than atheist.
If one studies history, they will see that Statists wage war on the Church and religion in order to place the State above God. Liberals seem to believe that the government (as long as they are in control of it of course) knows better what is morally right and wrong than either the people do or some old book written thousands of years ago. Don't see a lot of conservative atheists (although there are some). Atheists seem to align almost exclusively with the left (again, I say almost as there are a group of libertarian atheists that align to neither the right or left). So my observations and opinions are just that.
Your point about religion is valid. However, I was talking about Christians and, in this thread, about MBC specifically. Yes, people do terrible acts in the name of all sorts of things (progress, politics, religion, the public good, etc). However, based on what I've read in this thread, the beef against MBC is that some of the members aren't walking the talk, Lon Solomon has a nice house and drives nice cars, MBC creates traffic problems for some and the church won't disavow the bible and embrace a militant homosexual agenda. All pretty lame for such hate-filled name calling and seemingly irrational vile IMO.
And again, my question remains unanswered: To what end?
I don't understand your comment about Christians letting other's live and let live. Your comments come across as more anti-Christian than atheist.
If one studies history, they will see that Statists wage war on the Church and religion in order to place the State above God. Liberals seem to believe that the government (as long as they are in control of it of course) knows better what is morally right and wrong than either the people do or some old book written thousands of years ago. Don't see a lot of conservative atheists (although there are some). Atheists seem to align almost exclusively with the left (again, I say almost as there are a group of libertarian atheists that align to neither the right or left). So my observations and opinions are just that.
Your point about religion is valid. However, I was talking about Christians and, in this thread, about MBC specifically. Yes, people do terrible acts in the name of all sorts of things (progress, politics, religion, the public good, etc). However, based on what I've read in this thread, the beef against MBC is that some of the members aren't walking the talk, Lon Solomon has a nice house and drives nice cars, MBC creates traffic problems for some and the church won't disavow the bible and embrace a militant homosexual agenda. All pretty lame for such hate-filled name calling and seemingly irrational vile IMO.
And again, my question remains unanswered: To what end?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Church
()
Date: December 07, 2010 08:42AM
tmill9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Neither McLean Bible Church or the Catholic Church
> has sex with children. Only perverted members or
> priests of any church could do that. It's not
> accurate to say any church does.
Okay, you're right, perverted Priests did the actually molestation. But it was the church that covered it up and shuffled the priests from one church to another so more innocent children could be raped. Yes, the Catholic Church did that.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Neither McLean Bible Church or the Catholic Church
> has sex with children. Only perverted members or
> priests of any church could do that. It's not
> accurate to say any church does.
Okay, you're right, perverted Priests did the actually molestation. But it was the church that covered it up and shuffled the priests from one church to another so more innocent children could be raped. Yes, the Catholic Church did that.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 07, 2010 10:36AM
â– Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PP,
>
> I don't understand your comment about Christians
> letting other's live and let live. Your comments
> come across as more anti-Christian than atheist.
Criticism does not equate to 'anti-christian'. My response was a response to the opposite accusation - one that i noticed you didn't touch.
> If one studies history, they will see that
> Statists wage war on the Church and religion in
> order to place the State above God. Liberals seem
> to believe that the government (as long as they
> are in control of it of course) knows better what
> is morally right and wrong than either the people
> do or some old book written thousands of years
> ago. Don't see a lot of conservative atheists
> (although there are some). Atheists seem to align
> almost exclusively with the left (again, I say
> almost as there are a group of libertarian
> atheists that align to neither the right or left).
> So my observations and opinions are just that.
These are all strawmen. Your personal observations about the political leanings of atheists are interesting, but not actually germane to the argument that was made. It could be that all atheists happen to be liberal. That does not mean that atheists are inherently, or necessarily, liberal. Correlation/causation and all that.
I think you are simplifying things in order to demonize groups. It's not that communist ideas don't work, it's that they are evil. It's not that the Jewish religion is wrong, it's that Jews are subhuman. By demonizing groups, one doesn't have to actually deal with the content of those groups beliefs. You label them and cognitive dissonance leads you to believe that everything they say can be safely dismissed.
> Your point about religion is valid. However, I
> was talking about Christians and, in this thread,
> about MBC specifically.
My point applies to Christians. As to the MBC, I don't know - I didn't comment on them.
> Yes, people do terrible
> acts in the name of all sorts of things (progress,
> politics, religion, the public good, etc).
> However, based on what I've read in this thread,
> the beef against MBC is that some of the members
> aren't walking the talk, Lon Solomon has a nice
> house and drives nice cars, MBC creates traffic
> problems for some and the church won't disavow the
> bible and embrace a militant homosexual agenda.
> All pretty lame for such hate-filled name calling
> and seemingly irrational vile IMO.
Militant homosexual agenda? Is this similar to the militant equal rights agenda that african americans were pursuing in the 50's and 60's? Whatever the case, I have no particular beef with the MBC.
> And again, my question remains unanswered: To what
> end?
What do you mean?
-------------------------------------------------------
> PP,
>
> I don't understand your comment about Christians
> letting other's live and let live. Your comments
> come across as more anti-Christian than atheist.
Criticism does not equate to 'anti-christian'. My response was a response to the opposite accusation - one that i noticed you didn't touch.
> If one studies history, they will see that
> Statists wage war on the Church and religion in
> order to place the State above God. Liberals seem
> to believe that the government (as long as they
> are in control of it of course) knows better what
> is morally right and wrong than either the people
> do or some old book written thousands of years
> ago. Don't see a lot of conservative atheists
> (although there are some). Atheists seem to align
> almost exclusively with the left (again, I say
> almost as there are a group of libertarian
> atheists that align to neither the right or left).
> So my observations and opinions are just that.
These are all strawmen. Your personal observations about the political leanings of atheists are interesting, but not actually germane to the argument that was made. It could be that all atheists happen to be liberal. That does not mean that atheists are inherently, or necessarily, liberal. Correlation/causation and all that.
I think you are simplifying things in order to demonize groups. It's not that communist ideas don't work, it's that they are evil. It's not that the Jewish religion is wrong, it's that Jews are subhuman. By demonizing groups, one doesn't have to actually deal with the content of those groups beliefs. You label them and cognitive dissonance leads you to believe that everything they say can be safely dismissed.
> Your point about religion is valid. However, I
> was talking about Christians and, in this thread,
> about MBC specifically.
My point applies to Christians. As to the MBC, I don't know - I didn't comment on them.
> Yes, people do terrible
> acts in the name of all sorts of things (progress,
> politics, religion, the public good, etc).
> However, based on what I've read in this thread,
> the beef against MBC is that some of the members
> aren't walking the talk, Lon Solomon has a nice
> house and drives nice cars, MBC creates traffic
> problems for some and the church won't disavow the
> bible and embrace a militant homosexual agenda.
> All pretty lame for such hate-filled name calling
> and seemingly irrational vile IMO.
Militant homosexual agenda? Is this similar to the militant equal rights agenda that african americans were pursuing in the 50's and 60's? Whatever the case, I have no particular beef with the MBC.
> And again, my question remains unanswered: To what
> end?
What do you mean?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
α
()
Date: December 07, 2010 12:30PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> > And again, my question remains unanswered: To
> what
> > end?
>
> What do you mean?
I mean, why all the hate against MBC and what is the desired result of it. This thread seemed to be undirected hate against the pastor and church and I'm trying to determine why. So far, I haven't seen an answer other than the one's I mentioned in my post above (traffic, bible-based, beef against someone who goes there, pastor doesn't live in squalor) and they don't differentiate MBC from hundreds of other churches in the region (other than size). Since you've said that you don't know about MBC, I am guessing that you wouldn't then be able to answer that question.
> > And again, my question remains unanswered: To
> what
> > end?
>
> What do you mean?
I mean, why all the hate against MBC and what is the desired result of it. This thread seemed to be undirected hate against the pastor and church and I'm trying to determine why. So far, I haven't seen an answer other than the one's I mentioned in my post above (traffic, bible-based, beef against someone who goes there, pastor doesn't live in squalor) and they don't differentiate MBC from hundreds of other churches in the region (other than size). Since you've said that you don't know about MBC, I am guessing that you wouldn't then be able to answer that question.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Worms Hanging Out of Ass Cat
()
Date: December 07, 2010 02:09PM
If I tuck my pants into my socks, the fleas can't bite my legs.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 08, 2010 08:25AM
α Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
>
> > > And again, my question remains unanswered: To
> > what
> > > end?
> >
> > What do you mean?
>
>
> I mean, why all the hate against MBC and what is
> the desired result of it. This thread seemed to
> be undirected hate against the pastor and church
> and I'm trying to determine why. So far, I
> haven't seen an answer other than the one's I
> mentioned in my post above (traffic, bible-based,
> beef against someone who goes there, pastor
> doesn't live in squalor) and they don't
> differentiate MBC from hundreds of other churches
> in the region (other than size). Since you've
> said that you don't know about MBC, I am guessing
> that you wouldn't then be able to answer that
> question.
Exactly - I don't know. I'd guess that they are targeted because they are rather successful.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
>
> > > And again, my question remains unanswered: To
> > what
> > > end?
> >
> > What do you mean?
>
>
> I mean, why all the hate against MBC and what is
> the desired result of it. This thread seemed to
> be undirected hate against the pastor and church
> and I'm trying to determine why. So far, I
> haven't seen an answer other than the one's I
> mentioned in my post above (traffic, bible-based,
> beef against someone who goes there, pastor
> doesn't live in squalor) and they don't
> differentiate MBC from hundreds of other churches
> in the region (other than size). Since you've
> said that you don't know about MBC, I am guessing
> that you wouldn't then be able to answer that
> question.
Exactly - I don't know. I'd guess that they are targeted because they are rather successful.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks?
Posted by:
REALHEROONLINE
()
Date: December 31, 2010 08:10AM
MBC MUST be doing things right. Why else would so many people be so venomous? When the truth is spoken, be sure that the howls of those that Hate the truth will start scurrying like roaches with the lights on. They don't like truth and so attack anyone that dares to tell it. The real message of a real Christian service is that God loves all of us Unconditionally. That is first and foremost. WE are ALL sinners, every one of us are. Read the word of God yourself and find out. That is HIS message to all humanity. Anyone can take any phrase out of context and twist it to suit whatever they wish. Whether you folks accept it or not we live in a spiritual battlefield. There are two sides and YOU are in the middle of it. There is the side of God, truth, compassion, faith. Then there is the world. with their politically correctness, which is another way to lie to each other. It has become acceptable to B.S. each other. Satan KNOWS that he doesn't have much time so he works overtime trying to drag as many souls down with him as he can. he HATES God and therefore Humanity and his whole mission is to destroy us. Telling us that our creator is a "fairy Tale" and that we are in charge of our own destiny. Really? How good is your lives right now? We all live in fear of dying because we KNOW we have not lived the way we must live. Jesus has ALREADY taken on ALL your sins! He has done the work for us! All we have to do is tell him that we want him in our lives to guide us, direct us. he want ALL of us to be with Him forever in Heaven. Forget organized religion, That is not important at all. Follow God, His Word(bible)Not the words and ideas of man.
Try this, You will find it is the truth. I hope and pray for each and every one of you. Find the truth, the truth WILL set you free!
Try this, You will find it is the truth. I hope and pray for each and every one of you. Find the truth, the truth WILL set you free!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
someone
()
Date: January 03, 2011 06:18PM
accusing someone that you refer to as "lucifer" of being a name caller? Hypocrisy at it's best. Pretty standard for MBC.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
NegativeDreamStealer
()
Date: January 03, 2011 07:33PM
Whenever I see "McLean Bible Church Sucks" bumped to the top of the threads, I go, "Yessss!"
Only to be disappointed (lately) that the most recent posts haven't been worthy of engaging Professor P.
Only to be disappointed (lately) that the most recent posts haven't been worthy of engaging Professor P.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mrs. C
()
Date: January 05, 2011 11:08AM
In reference to your namecalling directed at MBC members, it is apparent that YOU are the one with a hateful heart. I forgive you though, because Christ died for sinners, which is all of us. He loves you, too, and offers eternal life and forgiveness to all who recieve Him.
NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Mrs C
()
Date: January 05, 2011 11:14AM
I have attended MBC for four years,and have never heard a word about "absolution vouchers." This was a cheap shot.
MBC shares the truth of God's word, that forgivness is available as God's free gift, to those who repent (are sorry) for their sins, and ask God to forgive them. Christ died in our place. The last thing He said on the cross was "The debt is paid." You need only believe and receive His free gift of salvation and eternal life.
MBC shares the truth of God's word, that forgivness is available as God's free gift, to those who repent (are sorry) for their sins, and ask God to forgive them. Christ died in our place. The last thing He said on the cross was "The debt is paid." You need only believe and receive His free gift of salvation and eternal life.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Prove it Mrs C
()
Date: January 05, 2011 12:06PM
Science has never proven that god even created earth or us. It is all made up to make people feel better about death. If there is a god why so many different gods? Which god is the correct god? I say prove it!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Les
()
Date: January 05, 2011 12:24PM
the Christian god was one of the Canaanite deities. every tribe worshipped one of the deities. the group that led the Jewish exodus wanted the worship of the other deities banned.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
anonymous20
()
Date: January 18, 2011 02:31AM
that is absolutely ludicrous. I know the practices of mclean bible church, the services it offers and the believes of Lon Soloman (and the other senior leadership). There is absolutely zero chance this happens at mclean bible church. It is patently false, there is no truth it in at all, I am sure of it.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Jaylow
()
Date: January 18, 2011 09:09AM
Prove it Mrs C Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Science has never proven that god even created
> earth or us. It is all made up to make people feel
> better about death. If there is a god why so many
> different gods? Which god is the correct god? I
> say prove it!
Nor has science proven otherwise.
You can believe that the entire universe came from a thimble sized ball of energy that spontaneously exploded into everything that exists with no answer as to where that ball of energy came from or you can believe that there was intelligence and purpose behind all of this. Which is easier to explain?
You can believe that all living things on earth came from one cell that landed here from a passing comet's tail (plants, insects, mammals, amoebas, etc) or you can believe that things were created for distinct reasons as distinct beings to serve a purpose in a symbiotic world where all things seem connected. Which is easier to believe?
You can believe that there is an ultimate authority of right and wrong, moral and amoral or you can believe that it is man and society to decide that. So which is better, the laws of God or the laws of Hitler's Nazi Germany, Mao's China and Caligula's Rome?
Man has warped and destroyed almost everything he touches when he tries to do things outside of the grace of God. That includes worship and praise of God and the churches that become focused on works and things instead of worshiping God and encouraging their members to develop an individual relationship with God and live directly with Him and not through the church.
Lon had a sermon a while back on what science says are the odds of our world. I suggest that you go to their website and listen to it. If you can't find it, I would be happy to find it for you and send you the link. It might open your eyes to what science really says about God and how we can to be where we are.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Science has never proven that god even created
> earth or us. It is all made up to make people feel
> better about death. If there is a god why so many
> different gods? Which god is the correct god? I
> say prove it!
Nor has science proven otherwise.
You can believe that the entire universe came from a thimble sized ball of energy that spontaneously exploded into everything that exists with no answer as to where that ball of energy came from or you can believe that there was intelligence and purpose behind all of this. Which is easier to explain?
You can believe that all living things on earth came from one cell that landed here from a passing comet's tail (plants, insects, mammals, amoebas, etc) or you can believe that things were created for distinct reasons as distinct beings to serve a purpose in a symbiotic world where all things seem connected. Which is easier to believe?
You can believe that there is an ultimate authority of right and wrong, moral and amoral or you can believe that it is man and society to decide that. So which is better, the laws of God or the laws of Hitler's Nazi Germany, Mao's China and Caligula's Rome?
Man has warped and destroyed almost everything he touches when he tries to do things outside of the grace of God. That includes worship and praise of God and the churches that become focused on works and things instead of worshiping God and encouraging their members to develop an individual relationship with God and live directly with Him and not through the church.
Lon had a sermon a while back on what science says are the odds of our world. I suggest that you go to their website and listen to it. If you can't find it, I would be happy to find it for you and send you the link. It might open your eyes to what science really says about God and how we can to be where we are.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 18, 2011 03:36PM
Jaylow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prove it Mrs C Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Science has never proven that god even created
> > earth or us. It is all made up to make people
> feel
> > better about death. If there is a god why so
> many
> > different gods? Which god is the correct god? I
> > say prove it!
>
>
> Nor has science proven otherwise.
>
> You can believe that the entire universe came from
> a thimble sized ball of energy that spontaneously
> exploded into everything that exists with no
> answer as to where that ball of energy came from
> or you can believe that there was intelligence and
> purpose behind all of this. Which is easier to
> explain?
Actually there are more choices then that, however out of those two, obviously the one that posits the empirically verifiable - as opposed to the notion that a personal 'nothing' created something by acting upon nothing, in no time and at no place. *THAT* is *not* an explanation.
> You can believe that all living things on earth
> came from one cell that landed here from a passing
> comet's tail (plants, insects, mammals, amoebas,
> etc) or you can believe that things were created
> for distinct reasons as distinct beings to serve a
> purpose in a symbiotic world where all things seem
> connected. Which is easier to believe?
Again, there are more options. Again, we can appeal to the one that has empirical evidence behind it - which would be the first one. We have evidence of protocells and abiogenetic precursors. We have evidence of common descent. When we look at nature we can see the remnants of once useful organs that are no longer useful (such as the blind cave fish). Positing that these creatures were intelligently designed would put forth a designer who made it look like things evolved.
> You can believe that there is an ultimate
> authority of right and wrong, moral and amoral or
> you can believe that it is man and society to
> decide that. So which is better, the laws of God
> or the laws of Hitler's Nazi Germany, Mao's China
> and Caligula's Rome?
Again, there are other options - however, I will point out that the God of the Old Testament is actually on par with Hitler's Germany.
> Man has warped and destroyed almost everything he
> touches when he tries to do things outside of the
> grace of God.
Are you being ironic?
Seriously, you type this on a machine that was built by man. You realize that modern man has made childbirth safer? That modern man has made the average life span almost twice as long as it used to be? That modern man has come up with ways to feed people through science?
> That includes worship and praise of
> God and the churches that become focused on works
> and things instead of worshiping God and
> encouraging their members to develop an individual
> relationship with God and live directly with Him
> and not through the church.
Personally, I look around and see advancement. I look at the dissolving of slavery, of giving women equal rights, and on and on as advancements towards the betterment of mankind. I look at how we are able to genetically engineer our environments to make more crops to feed more people.
I can't say how someone could look around and say that we are worse off then when our ancestors were squatting and shitting in caves.
> Lon had a sermon a while back on what science says
> are the odds of our world. I suggest that you go
> to their website and listen to it. If you can't
> find it, I would be happy to find it for you and
> send you the link. It might open your eyes to
> what science really says about God and how we can
> to be where we are.
Science is an empirical endeavor and can't be used to 'prove' God exists. What it does is show that there is nothing for God to 'do'. So, God becomes superfluous.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prove it Mrs C Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Science has never proven that god even created
> > earth or us. It is all made up to make people
> feel
> > better about death. If there is a god why so
> many
> > different gods? Which god is the correct god? I
> > say prove it!
>
>
> Nor has science proven otherwise.
>
> You can believe that the entire universe came from
> a thimble sized ball of energy that spontaneously
> exploded into everything that exists with no
> answer as to where that ball of energy came from
> or you can believe that there was intelligence and
> purpose behind all of this. Which is easier to
> explain?
Actually there are more choices then that, however out of those two, obviously the one that posits the empirically verifiable - as opposed to the notion that a personal 'nothing' created something by acting upon nothing, in no time and at no place. *THAT* is *not* an explanation.
> You can believe that all living things on earth
> came from one cell that landed here from a passing
> comet's tail (plants, insects, mammals, amoebas,
> etc) or you can believe that things were created
> for distinct reasons as distinct beings to serve a
> purpose in a symbiotic world where all things seem
> connected. Which is easier to believe?
Again, there are more options. Again, we can appeal to the one that has empirical evidence behind it - which would be the first one. We have evidence of protocells and abiogenetic precursors. We have evidence of common descent. When we look at nature we can see the remnants of once useful organs that are no longer useful (such as the blind cave fish). Positing that these creatures were intelligently designed would put forth a designer who made it look like things evolved.
> You can believe that there is an ultimate
> authority of right and wrong, moral and amoral or
> you can believe that it is man and society to
> decide that. So which is better, the laws of God
> or the laws of Hitler's Nazi Germany, Mao's China
> and Caligula's Rome?
Again, there are other options - however, I will point out that the God of the Old Testament is actually on par with Hitler's Germany.
> Man has warped and destroyed almost everything he
> touches when he tries to do things outside of the
> grace of God.
Are you being ironic?
Seriously, you type this on a machine that was built by man. You realize that modern man has made childbirth safer? That modern man has made the average life span almost twice as long as it used to be? That modern man has come up with ways to feed people through science?
> That includes worship and praise of
> God and the churches that become focused on works
> and things instead of worshiping God and
> encouraging their members to develop an individual
> relationship with God and live directly with Him
> and not through the church.
Personally, I look around and see advancement. I look at the dissolving of slavery, of giving women equal rights, and on and on as advancements towards the betterment of mankind. I look at how we are able to genetically engineer our environments to make more crops to feed more people.
I can't say how someone could look around and say that we are worse off then when our ancestors were squatting and shitting in caves.
> Lon had a sermon a while back on what science says
> are the odds of our world. I suggest that you go
> to their website and listen to it. If you can't
> find it, I would be happy to find it for you and
> send you the link. It might open your eyes to
> what science really says about God and how we can
> to be where we are.
Science is an empirical endeavor and can't be used to 'prove' God exists. What it does is show that there is nothing for God to 'do'. So, God becomes superfluous.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Jaylow
()
Date: January 18, 2011 07:30PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>>
> Actually there are more choices then that, however
> out of those two, obviously the one that posits
> the empirically verifiable - as opposed to the
> notion that a personal 'nothing' created something
> by acting upon nothing, in no time and at no
> place. *THAT* is *not* an explanation.
I am not trying to explain it. I don't know what you mean by a personal nothing. If you believe in God, He is not a nothing, He is everything. You offer no alternate choice that is more viable than the two mentioned and the one that I did post is the current most popular amongst non-believing scientists. If you have something more current, then please post it.
> Again, there are more options. Again, we can
> appeal to the one that has empirical evidence
> behind it - which would be the first one. We have
> evidence of protocells and abiogenetic precursors.
> We have evidence of common descent. When we look
> at nature we can see the remnants of once useful
> organs that are no longer useful (such as the
> blind cave fish). Positing that these creatures
> were intelligently designed would put forth a
> designer who made it look like things evolved.
>
Please provide proof, not evidence, of common descent. Everything on the earth must exist here, therefore there will be a common thread that runs through all living things. That does not prove common descent. Micro-evolution is accepted by most people. Macro-evolution is a theory with no more evidence than the Theory of multiple universes. Probably less so as the theory of multiple spacial universes has some mathematical formulation behind it.
> Again, there are other options - however, I will
> point out that the God of the Old Testament is
> actually on par with Hitler's Germany.
I can not explain why God would destroy entire cities and cultures. I won't put Him on par with Hitler as He is all-knowing and all-seeing and Hitler was a despot, much like so many Godless societies have spawned.
> > Man has warped and destroyed almost everything
> he
> > touches when he tries to do things outside of
> the
> > grace of God.
>
> Are you being ironic?
>
> Seriously, you type this on a machine that was
> built by man. You realize that modern man has made
> childbirth safer? That modern man has made the
> average life span almost twice as long as it used
> to be? That modern man has come up with ways to
> feed people through science?
Does man invent good stuff? Of course. And like almost all things that he invents, inevitably it will be used to corrupt, destroy and tear down. That includes computers and the Internet. I am not anti-science, more pro-God.
> Personally, I look around and see advancement. I
> look at the dissolving of slavery, of giving women
> equal rights, and on and on as advancements
> towards the betterment of mankind. I look at how
> we are able to genetically engineer our
> environments to make more crops to feed more
> people.
>
> I can't say how someone could look around and say
> that we are worse off then when our ancestors were
> squatting and shitting in caves.
Agreed. Who is saying that?
> Science is an empirical endeavor and can't be used
> to 'prove' God exists. What it does is show that
> there is nothing for God to 'do'. So, God becomes
> superfluous.
So full of the abilities of man. So full of the potential. What can't we do? Oh, so much. We can't force each other to love one another. We can't change a man's heart from evil to good. We can't provide a sense of comfort during great lose. We can't give unconditional love and forgiveness to the most wretched amongst us. We can't create something from nothing. When you have some proof that the Bible is full of lies or fairy tales, then what you post will be more relevant. If the odds of the earth existing as it does, supporting intelligent life as it does with the genome that humans have is 10 to the 27 million as biologists have surmised, perhaps it is not Christians who cling to a silly faith of something, but those who don't believe in God are the one's putting their faith in the unfathomable.
Not a sermon, just a thought ;o)
-------------------------------------------------------
>>
> Actually there are more choices then that, however
> out of those two, obviously the one that posits
> the empirically verifiable - as opposed to the
> notion that a personal 'nothing' created something
> by acting upon nothing, in no time and at no
> place. *THAT* is *not* an explanation.
I am not trying to explain it. I don't know what you mean by a personal nothing. If you believe in God, He is not a nothing, He is everything. You offer no alternate choice that is more viable than the two mentioned and the one that I did post is the current most popular amongst non-believing scientists. If you have something more current, then please post it.
> Again, there are more options. Again, we can
> appeal to the one that has empirical evidence
> behind it - which would be the first one. We have
> evidence of protocells and abiogenetic precursors.
> We have evidence of common descent. When we look
> at nature we can see the remnants of once useful
> organs that are no longer useful (such as the
> blind cave fish). Positing that these creatures
> were intelligently designed would put forth a
> designer who made it look like things evolved.
>
Please provide proof, not evidence, of common descent. Everything on the earth must exist here, therefore there will be a common thread that runs through all living things. That does not prove common descent. Micro-evolution is accepted by most people. Macro-evolution is a theory with no more evidence than the Theory of multiple universes. Probably less so as the theory of multiple spacial universes has some mathematical formulation behind it.
> Again, there are other options - however, I will
> point out that the God of the Old Testament is
> actually on par with Hitler's Germany.
I can not explain why God would destroy entire cities and cultures. I won't put Him on par with Hitler as He is all-knowing and all-seeing and Hitler was a despot, much like so many Godless societies have spawned.
> > Man has warped and destroyed almost everything
> he
> > touches when he tries to do things outside of
> the
> > grace of God.
>
> Are you being ironic?
>
> Seriously, you type this on a machine that was
> built by man. You realize that modern man has made
> childbirth safer? That modern man has made the
> average life span almost twice as long as it used
> to be? That modern man has come up with ways to
> feed people through science?
Does man invent good stuff? Of course. And like almost all things that he invents, inevitably it will be used to corrupt, destroy and tear down. That includes computers and the Internet. I am not anti-science, more pro-God.
> Personally, I look around and see advancement. I
> look at the dissolving of slavery, of giving women
> equal rights, and on and on as advancements
> towards the betterment of mankind. I look at how
> we are able to genetically engineer our
> environments to make more crops to feed more
> people.
>
> I can't say how someone could look around and say
> that we are worse off then when our ancestors were
> squatting and shitting in caves.
Agreed. Who is saying that?
> Science is an empirical endeavor and can't be used
> to 'prove' God exists. What it does is show that
> there is nothing for God to 'do'. So, God becomes
> superfluous.
So full of the abilities of man. So full of the potential. What can't we do? Oh, so much. We can't force each other to love one another. We can't change a man's heart from evil to good. We can't provide a sense of comfort during great lose. We can't give unconditional love and forgiveness to the most wretched amongst us. We can't create something from nothing. When you have some proof that the Bible is full of lies or fairy tales, then what you post will be more relevant. If the odds of the earth existing as it does, supporting intelligent life as it does with the genome that humans have is 10 to the 27 million as biologists have surmised, perhaps it is not Christians who cling to a silly faith of something, but those who don't believe in God are the one's putting their faith in the unfathomable.
Not a sermon, just a thought ;o)
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
*Professor Idiot-Gloss*
()
Date: January 18, 2011 08:32PM
'Jaylow' wrote :
---------------------------
> "I am not trying to explain it. I don't know what you mean
> by a personal nothing. If you believe in God, He is not a nothing,
> He is everything.
NOT ONLY IS HE "EVERYTHING", HE [God] IS EVERYTHING THAT WAS BEFORE
THE 3d-REALITY THAT WE EXPERIENCE, THE ONLY REALITY WE HUMANS KNOW.
DON'T LET 'PROFESSOR ASSGLOSS' GET YOU WORKED UP JUST BECAUSE
HE CANNOT WRAP HIS PEA BRAIN AROUND THIS CONCEPT.
THE DUDE IS SO OBVIOUSLY MENTALLY HANDICAPPED THAT HE IS NOT EVEN
WORTH ARGUING WITH ANYMORE.
---------------------------
> "I am not trying to explain it. I don't know what you mean
> by a personal nothing. If you believe in God, He is not a nothing,
> He is everything.
NOT ONLY IS HE "EVERYTHING", HE [God] IS EVERYTHING THAT WAS BEFORE
THE 3d-REALITY THAT WE EXPERIENCE, THE ONLY REALITY WE HUMANS KNOW.
DON'T LET 'PROFESSOR ASSGLOSS' GET YOU WORKED UP JUST BECAUSE
HE CANNOT WRAP HIS PEA BRAIN AROUND THIS CONCEPT.
THE DUDE IS SO OBVIOUSLY MENTALLY HANDICAPPED THAT HE IS NOT EVEN
WORTH ARGUING WITH ANYMORE.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Jaylow
()
Date: January 18, 2011 08:39PM
*Professor Idiot-Gloss* Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 'Jaylow' wrote :
> ---------------------------
> > "I am not trying to explain it. I don't know
> what you mean
> > by a personal nothing. If you believe in God, He
> is not a nothing,
> > He is everything.
>
> NOT ONLY IS HE "EVERYTHING", HE IS EVERYTHING
> THAT WAS BEFORE
> THE 3d-REALITY THAT WE EXPERIENCE, THE ONLY
> REALITY WE HUMANS KNOW.
>
> DON'T LET 'PROFESSOR ASSGLOSS' GET YOU WORKED UP
> JUST BECAUSE
> HE CANNOT WRAP HIS PEA BRAIN AROUND THIS CONCEPT.
>
>
> THE DUDE IS SO OBVIOUSLY MENTALLY HANDICAPPED THAT
> HE IS NOT EVEN
> WORTH ARGUING WITH ANYMORE.
Did I come across as worked up? Hope not. I wasn't. He can not shake what I know to be true. Won't be calling him names though as that would be counter-productive. Non-believers don't make me angry. I feel sad for them because they don't know the truth that is all around them. Kind of like The Matrix. There is a lot of Christian theology in that movie if you care to notice it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 'Jaylow' wrote :
> ---------------------------
> > "I am not trying to explain it. I don't know
> what you mean
> > by a personal nothing. If you believe in God, He
> is not a nothing,
> > He is everything.
>
> NOT ONLY IS HE "EVERYTHING", HE IS EVERYTHING
> THAT WAS BEFORE
> THE 3d-REALITY THAT WE EXPERIENCE, THE ONLY
> REALITY WE HUMANS KNOW.
>
> DON'T LET 'PROFESSOR ASSGLOSS' GET YOU WORKED UP
> JUST BECAUSE
> HE CANNOT WRAP HIS PEA BRAIN AROUND THIS CONCEPT.
>
>
> THE DUDE IS SO OBVIOUSLY MENTALLY HANDICAPPED THAT
> HE IS NOT EVEN
> WORTH ARGUING WITH ANYMORE.
Did I come across as worked up? Hope not. I wasn't. He can not shake what I know to be true. Won't be calling him names though as that would be counter-productive. Non-believers don't make me angry. I feel sad for them because they don't know the truth that is all around them. Kind of like The Matrix. There is a lot of Christian theology in that movie if you care to notice it.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 19, 2011 10:25AM
Jaylow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >>
> > Actually there are more choices then that,
> however
> > out of those two, obviously the one that posits
> > the empirically verifiable - as opposed to the
> > notion that a personal 'nothing' created
> something
> > by acting upon nothing, in no time and at no
> > place. *THAT* is *not* an explanation.
>
> I am not trying to explain it. I don't know what
> you mean by a personal nothing.
Okay, so what, precisely 'is' God?
> If you believe in
> God, He is not a nothing, He is everything.
I thought God created 'everything' from nothing; ie, God created the universe via the big bang.
> You
> offer no alternate choice that is more viable than
> the two mentioned and the one that I did post is
> the current most popular amongst non-believing
> scientists. If you have something more current,
> then please post it.
There are a multitude of choices - M theory, an oscillating universe, a block universe, etc.
Any of them - even the theories out of favor (such as the oscillating model) are more substantial and preferable to "God did it" because they at least provide *some* explanation, whereas 'God did it' provides none.
> > Again, there are more options. Again, we can
> > appeal to the one that has empirical evidence
> > behind it - which would be the first one. We
> have
> > evidence of protocells and abiogenetic
> precursors.
> > We have evidence of common descent. When we
> look
> > at nature we can see the remnants of once
> useful
> > organs that are no longer useful (such as the
> > blind cave fish). Positing that these creatures
> > were intelligently designed would put forth a
> > designer who made it look like things evolved.
> >
>
> Please provide proof, not evidence, of common
> descent.
Proof is for math and alcohol, not science. Science is abductive, falsifiable, and inductive. Your request presents a strawman epistemology of science.
> Everything on the earth must exist here,
> therefore there will be a common thread that runs
> through all living things.
This is entirely vague.
> That does not prove
> common descent. Micro-evolution is accepted by
> most people. Macro-evolution is a theory with no
> more evidence than the Theory of multiple
> universes.
Macro evolution is speciation - which basically means microevolutionary steps over a long period. Logically if you accept microevolution, you have to accept macro evolution unless you can show a mechanism for stopping genetic isolation and speciation.
Further, you are using the term 'theory' incorrectly. In science, theories are explanation of facts and evidence. To say that a theory has no evidence is nonsensical.
> Probably less so as the theory of
> multiple spacial universes has some mathematical
> formulation behind it.
You mean 'model' here.
> > Again, there are other options - however, I
> will
> > point out that the God of the Old Testament is
> > actually on par with Hitler's Germany.
>
>
> I can not explain why God would destroy entire
> cities and cultures. I won't put Him on par with
> Hitler as He is all-knowing and all-seeing and
> Hitler was a despot, much like so many Godless
> societies have spawned.
So, one could theoretically excuse Hitler, since he's ignorant - what's God's excuse?
As to your comment on Godless societies, it seems the same with 'God filled' societies.
> > > Man has warped and destroyed almost
> everything
> > he
> > > touches when he tries to do things outside of
> > the
> > > grace of God.
> >
> > Are you being ironic?
> >
> > Seriously, you type this on a machine that was
> > built by man. You realize that modern man has
> made
> > childbirth safer? That modern man has made the
> > average life span almost twice as long as it
> used
> > to be? That modern man has come up with ways to
> > feed people through science?
>
> Does man invent good stuff? Of course. And like
> almost all things that he invents, inevitably it
> will be used to corrupt, destroy and tear down.
> That includes computers and the Internet. I am
> not anti-science, more pro-God.
Sounds like you are anti-science - you've already denied modern science (biology, at least, probably more) and you've said that he's warped/destroyed practically everything he's touched.
Things have gotten better - arm chair quarterbacking while living in one of the most successful societies the earth has seen and then complaining that mankind has corrupted/destroyed things is pretty weak. Yes, there is still plenty to be done, but again, look at how far we've progressed.
> > Personally, I look around and see advancement.
> I
> > look at the dissolving of slavery, of giving
> women
> > equal rights, and on and on as advancements
> > towards the betterment of mankind. I look at
> how
> > we are able to genetically engineer our
> > environments to make more crops to feed more
> > people.
> >
> > I can't say how someone could look around and
> say
> > that we are worse off then when our ancestors
> were
> > squatting and shitting in caves.
>
>
> Agreed. Who is saying that?
You seem to be.
> > Science is an empirical endeavor and can't be
> used
> > to 'prove' God exists. What it does is show
> that
> > there is nothing for God to 'do'. So, God
> becomes
> > superfluous.
>
> So full of the abilities of man. So full of the
> potential. What can't we do? Oh, so much. We
> can't force each other to love one another. We
> can't change a man's heart from evil to good. We
> can't provide a sense of comfort during great
> lose.
Yes, we are not perfect. Yes there is a lot to do.
Pray in one hand, shit in the other, see which fills up first. The only way to move forward is to actually work at it.
We have only begun to progress and the road is difficult. We *have* started to change man's heart from 'evil' to 'good'. Again, look at the morals of today and compare them with 1,000 years ago. Shoot, compare them with 50 years ago. We no longer have 'whites' only places.
There is still a long road ahead of us and we might not make it, but by *doing* the hard work we are making progress.
> We can't give unconditional love and
> forgiveness to the most wretched amongst us. We
> can't create something from nothing.
Neither, logically, could God. "Nothing" cannot be acted upon, which means an agent could not act upon it - no matter the skills of the agent. Further, it's not at all clear that 'nothing' is a possible state.
> When you
> have some proof that the Bible is full of lies or
> fairy tales, then what you post will be more
> relevant.
So we should assume it's true without regard to evidence?
Why does the bible get this treatment? Why not the book of mormon?
> If the odds of the earth existing as it
> does, supporting intelligent life as it does with
> the genome that humans have is 10 to the 27
> million as biologists have surmised, perhaps it is
> not Christians who cling to a silly faith of
> something, but those who don't believe in God are
> the one's putting their faith in the
> unfathomable.
This is the gambler's fallacy. It's also probably based off of bad numbers. In any event, even if the odds are long - they are still better then the alternative - 'magic'.
> Not a sermon, just a thought ;o)
If you say so, it sounded like a sermon to me. ;-)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2011 10:26AM by Professor Pangloss.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >>
> > Actually there are more choices then that,
> however
> > out of those two, obviously the one that posits
> > the empirically verifiable - as opposed to the
> > notion that a personal 'nothing' created
> something
> > by acting upon nothing, in no time and at no
> > place. *THAT* is *not* an explanation.
>
> I am not trying to explain it. I don't know what
> you mean by a personal nothing.
Okay, so what, precisely 'is' God?
> If you believe in
> God, He is not a nothing, He is everything.
I thought God created 'everything' from nothing; ie, God created the universe via the big bang.
> You
> offer no alternate choice that is more viable than
> the two mentioned and the one that I did post is
> the current most popular amongst non-believing
> scientists. If you have something more current,
> then please post it.
There are a multitude of choices - M theory, an oscillating universe, a block universe, etc.
Any of them - even the theories out of favor (such as the oscillating model) are more substantial and preferable to "God did it" because they at least provide *some* explanation, whereas 'God did it' provides none.
> > Again, there are more options. Again, we can
> > appeal to the one that has empirical evidence
> > behind it - which would be the first one. We
> have
> > evidence of protocells and abiogenetic
> precursors.
> > We have evidence of common descent. When we
> look
> > at nature we can see the remnants of once
> useful
> > organs that are no longer useful (such as the
> > blind cave fish). Positing that these creatures
> > were intelligently designed would put forth a
> > designer who made it look like things evolved.
> >
>
> Please provide proof, not evidence, of common
> descent.
Proof is for math and alcohol, not science. Science is abductive, falsifiable, and inductive. Your request presents a strawman epistemology of science.
> Everything on the earth must exist here,
> therefore there will be a common thread that runs
> through all living things.
This is entirely vague.
> That does not prove
> common descent. Micro-evolution is accepted by
> most people. Macro-evolution is a theory with no
> more evidence than the Theory of multiple
> universes.
Macro evolution is speciation - which basically means microevolutionary steps over a long period. Logically if you accept microevolution, you have to accept macro evolution unless you can show a mechanism for stopping genetic isolation and speciation.
Further, you are using the term 'theory' incorrectly. In science, theories are explanation of facts and evidence. To say that a theory has no evidence is nonsensical.
> Probably less so as the theory of
> multiple spacial universes has some mathematical
> formulation behind it.
You mean 'model' here.
> > Again, there are other options - however, I
> will
> > point out that the God of the Old Testament is
> > actually on par with Hitler's Germany.
>
>
> I can not explain why God would destroy entire
> cities and cultures. I won't put Him on par with
> Hitler as He is all-knowing and all-seeing and
> Hitler was a despot, much like so many Godless
> societies have spawned.
So, one could theoretically excuse Hitler, since he's ignorant - what's God's excuse?
As to your comment on Godless societies, it seems the same with 'God filled' societies.
> > > Man has warped and destroyed almost
> everything
> > he
> > > touches when he tries to do things outside of
> > the
> > > grace of God.
> >
> > Are you being ironic?
> >
> > Seriously, you type this on a machine that was
> > built by man. You realize that modern man has
> made
> > childbirth safer? That modern man has made the
> > average life span almost twice as long as it
> used
> > to be? That modern man has come up with ways to
> > feed people through science?
>
> Does man invent good stuff? Of course. And like
> almost all things that he invents, inevitably it
> will be used to corrupt, destroy and tear down.
> That includes computers and the Internet. I am
> not anti-science, more pro-God.
Sounds like you are anti-science - you've already denied modern science (biology, at least, probably more) and you've said that he's warped/destroyed practically everything he's touched.
Things have gotten better - arm chair quarterbacking while living in one of the most successful societies the earth has seen and then complaining that mankind has corrupted/destroyed things is pretty weak. Yes, there is still plenty to be done, but again, look at how far we've progressed.
> > Personally, I look around and see advancement.
> I
> > look at the dissolving of slavery, of giving
> women
> > equal rights, and on and on as advancements
> > towards the betterment of mankind. I look at
> how
> > we are able to genetically engineer our
> > environments to make more crops to feed more
> > people.
> >
> > I can't say how someone could look around and
> say
> > that we are worse off then when our ancestors
> were
> > squatting and shitting in caves.
>
>
> Agreed. Who is saying that?
You seem to be.
> > Science is an empirical endeavor and can't be
> used
> > to 'prove' God exists. What it does is show
> that
> > there is nothing for God to 'do'. So, God
> becomes
> > superfluous.
>
> So full of the abilities of man. So full of the
> potential. What can't we do? Oh, so much. We
> can't force each other to love one another. We
> can't change a man's heart from evil to good. We
> can't provide a sense of comfort during great
> lose.
Yes, we are not perfect. Yes there is a lot to do.
Pray in one hand, shit in the other, see which fills up first. The only way to move forward is to actually work at it.
We have only begun to progress and the road is difficult. We *have* started to change man's heart from 'evil' to 'good'. Again, look at the morals of today and compare them with 1,000 years ago. Shoot, compare them with 50 years ago. We no longer have 'whites' only places.
There is still a long road ahead of us and we might not make it, but by *doing* the hard work we are making progress.
> We can't give unconditional love and
> forgiveness to the most wretched amongst us. We
> can't create something from nothing.
Neither, logically, could God. "Nothing" cannot be acted upon, which means an agent could not act upon it - no matter the skills of the agent. Further, it's not at all clear that 'nothing' is a possible state.
> When you
> have some proof that the Bible is full of lies or
> fairy tales, then what you post will be more
> relevant.
So we should assume it's true without regard to evidence?
Why does the bible get this treatment? Why not the book of mormon?
> If the odds of the earth existing as it
> does, supporting intelligent life as it does with
> the genome that humans have is 10 to the 27
> million as biologists have surmised, perhaps it is
> not Christians who cling to a silly faith of
> something, but those who don't believe in God are
> the one's putting their faith in the
> unfathomable.
This is the gambler's fallacy. It's also probably based off of bad numbers. In any event, even if the odds are long - they are still better then the alternative - 'magic'.
> Not a sermon, just a thought ;o)
If you say so, it sounded like a sermon to me. ;-)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2011 10:26AM by Professor Pangloss.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 19, 2011 10:26AM
Jaylow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did I come across as worked up? Hope not. I
> wasn't. He can not shake what I know to be true.
> Won't be calling him names though as that would be
> counter-productive. Non-believers don't make me
> angry. I feel sad for them because they don't
> know the truth that is all around them. Kind of
> like The Matrix. There is a lot of Christian
> theology in that movie if you care to notice it.
The guy you responded to is a troll. He looks for whatever excuse he can find to trash talk me and other posters. I wouldn't (and no longer do) take anything he writes seriously.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did I come across as worked up? Hope not. I
> wasn't. He can not shake what I know to be true.
> Won't be calling him names though as that would be
> counter-productive. Non-believers don't make me
> angry. I feel sad for them because they don't
> know the truth that is all around them. Kind of
> like The Matrix. There is a lot of Christian
> theology in that movie if you care to notice it.
The guy you responded to is a troll. He looks for whatever excuse he can find to trash talk me and other posters. I wouldn't (and no longer do) take anything he writes seriously.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
LOA@llorT
()
Date: January 19, 2011 02:28PM
SORRY BUDDY, BUT YOU JUST ASKED WHAT GOD 'IS'.
SO HOW CAN WE TAKE ANYTHING YOU SAY SERIOUSLY, OR
EVEN BOTHER TO READ THE REST OF THE IDIOCY THAT FOLLOWS ?
YOU ARE SO STUPID, YOU THINK WE MUST DEEM GOD A "MAGICIAN"
TO RATIONALISE HIS POWER AND CAPABILITIES.
I AM A TROLL, AND YOU ARE A SIMPLETON.
SO HOW CAN WE TAKE ANYTHING YOU SAY SERIOUSLY, OR
EVEN BOTHER TO READ THE REST OF THE IDIOCY THAT FOLLOWS ?
YOU ARE SO STUPID, YOU THINK WE MUST DEEM GOD A "MAGICIAN"
TO RATIONALISE HIS POWER AND CAPABILITIES.
I AM A TROLL, AND YOU ARE A SIMPLETON.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
*MORTAL COMBAT*
()
Date: January 19, 2011 02:37PM
'Professor AssGloss' wrote :
-------------------------------------
> "Neither, logically, could God. [create something from nothing]"
WOULD NOT CREATING SOMETHING FROM NOTHING, BE THE
TRUE TEST OF A GOD OR GOD LIKE ENTITY ?
> "Nothing" cannot be acted upon,"
YES IT CAN, ESPECIALLY WHEN GOD TURNS A
LACK OF SOMETHING-INTO SOMETHING.
> "which means an agent could not act upon it
> - no matter the skills of the agent. "
THIS IS JUST YOUR *UNFOUNDED* IDIOTIC OPINION.
> "Further, it's not at all clear that 'nothing' is a possible state."
'NOT CLEAR', LIKE NOTHING'S SUPPOSED INABILITY TO BE ACTED UPON ?
YOU LOSE.
FATALITY.
-------------------------------------
> "Neither, logically, could God. [create something from nothing]"
WOULD NOT CREATING SOMETHING FROM NOTHING, BE THE
TRUE TEST OF A GOD OR GOD LIKE ENTITY ?
> "Nothing" cannot be acted upon,"
YES IT CAN, ESPECIALLY WHEN GOD TURNS A
LACK OF SOMETHING-INTO SOMETHING.
> "which means an agent could not act upon it
> - no matter the skills of the agent. "
THIS IS JUST YOUR *UNFOUNDED* IDIOTIC OPINION.
> "Further, it's not at all clear that 'nothing' is a possible state."
'NOT CLEAR', LIKE NOTHING'S SUPPOSED INABILITY TO BE ACTED UPON ?
YOU LOSE.
FATALITY.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Jaylow
()
Date: January 21, 2011 06:07PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>A bunch of stuff.....
So basically, science proves nothing, just posits theories and runs experiments that neither prove or disprove but only eliminate other theories. That's quite convenient don't ya think?
You also post a lot of opinion to support your argument. You might think that oscillating theory provides a more valid theory of creation than God did it, but that would be an opinion.
Seems that most of your belief on this subject is based on faith. Faith in science at the expense of God. However, God and science are not mutually exclusive. Sir Issac Newton, considered by most to be the father of Physics and one of the greatest mathematicians in history was also a noted theologian and a man of great faith in God. Einstein believed in the existence of a god of harmony, who tied everything in the universe together and that a true God was beyond human's ability to understand. A recent study found that over 1/3 of scientists believe in a personal God who controls the universe.
So you are a person who doesn't. That does not make you right. Or smart. Or scientific. It doesn't make you a professor either. You may or may not be any or all of these things. But to dismiss the possible existence of God because you find other theories more to your own personal liking is not scientific but rather close-minded. However, you should find a home in the global warming community as your methods fit right in there.
-------------------------------------------------------
>A bunch of stuff.....
So basically, science proves nothing, just posits theories and runs experiments that neither prove or disprove but only eliminate other theories. That's quite convenient don't ya think?
You also post a lot of opinion to support your argument. You might think that oscillating theory provides a more valid theory of creation than God did it, but that would be an opinion.
Seems that most of your belief on this subject is based on faith. Faith in science at the expense of God. However, God and science are not mutually exclusive. Sir Issac Newton, considered by most to be the father of Physics and one of the greatest mathematicians in history was also a noted theologian and a man of great faith in God. Einstein believed in the existence of a god of harmony, who tied everything in the universe together and that a true God was beyond human's ability to understand. A recent study found that over 1/3 of scientists believe in a personal God who controls the universe.
So you are a person who doesn't. That does not make you right. Or smart. Or scientific. It doesn't make you a professor either. You may or may not be any or all of these things. But to dismiss the possible existence of God because you find other theories more to your own personal liking is not scientific but rather close-minded. However, you should find a home in the global warming community as your methods fit right in there.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
St. Matthews Member
()
Date: January 21, 2011 08:55PM
This has gotten very off topic, but I suggest you look into St. Matthews United Methodist Church off 236 in Annandale. Extremely accepting and the new pastor, Denise Honeycutt, is phenomenal.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Snapple
()
Date: January 21, 2011 10:08PM
Jaylow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can believe that the entire universe came from
> a thimble sized ball of energy that spontaneously
> exploded into everything that exists with no
> answer as to where that ball of energy came from
> or you can believe that there was intelligence and
> purpose behind all of this. Which is easier to
> explain?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can believe that the entire universe came from
> a thimble sized ball of energy that spontaneously
> exploded into everything that exists with no
> answer as to where that ball of energy came from
> or you can believe that there was intelligence and
> purpose behind all of this. Which is easier to
> explain?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
Attachments:
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Not Necessary
()
Date: January 23, 2011 02:38PM
For the individual that posted on the remarks from the ad, about homosexuality. I firmly believe that all homosexuals should be terminated and burned alive, I do not promote the lifestyle nor will I ever.I hope that you feel bad about posting, furthermore, I you should probably commit suicide, as you are a worthless homosexual and of no use to society! Die m.f. die...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Not Necessary
()
Date: January 23, 2011 02:41PM
All you need to know is what God did to Sodom and Gomora, its in the bible check it out. You can ignore the fact that you are a homosexual, but God will not bad homosexual, bad, bad...
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Jaylow
()
Date: January 23, 2011 03:24PM
Snapple Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_back
> ground_radiation
And this proves what? Again, where did this ball of energy come from and how does this dispel the concept of God creating everything in an instant. I don't see anything that answers either of those questions. Sorry.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_back
> ground_radiation
And this proves what? Again, where did this ball of energy come from and how does this dispel the concept of God creating everything in an instant. I don't see anything that answers either of those questions. Sorry.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 24, 2011 07:51AM
Jaylow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >A bunch of stuff.....
>
> So basically, science proves nothing, just posits
> theories and runs experiments that neither prove
> or disprove but only eliminate other theories.
> That's quite convenient don't ya think?
Well, science can disprove things - this is known as falsification. As far as 'proving' things, no, it doesn't - since 'proof' is quite a high standard. We can be reasonably certain of scientific conclusions though.
As far as convenient, I don't know what you mean.
> You also post a lot of opinion to support your
> argument. You might think that oscillating theory
> provides a more valid theory of creation than God
> did it, but that would be an opinion.
You are confusing what I've said. I think it provides a better explanation, which it does. Unless there is some scientific model of creation that I am not aware of (which is possible). If so, please present it.
> Seems that most of your belief on this subject is
> based on faith.
?
I'm completely puzzled as to how you came to this - unless you are equivocating on the term faith.
> Faith in science at the expense
> of God.
This is a strawman. My reasons for rejecting "God" are not scientific, they are philosophical. If I couldn't accept *any* of the current science, I still would not be a theist because appeals to ignorance ('you can't explain X, therefore Goddidit) are unpersuasive.
> However, God and science are not mutually
> exclusive.
I never argued otherwise. All I've said is that "God did it" is a poor explanation, which it is.
> Sir Issac Newton, considered by most
> to be the father of Physics and one of the
> greatest mathematicians in history was also a
> noted theologian and a man of great faith in God.
So what? He also believed in alchemy. This is a misplaced appeal to authority.
> Einstein believed in the existence of a god of
> harmony, who tied everything in the universe
> together and that a true God was beyond human's
> ability to understand. A recent study found that
> over 1/3 of scientists believe in a personal God
> who controls the universe.
This is misleading. Einstein, at best, could be considered a pantheist. So following him with something about belief in a personal god is misleading since Einstein most certainly didn't believe in such. In any event, it's irrelevant. As to your numbers, please provide a cite.
> So you are a person who doesn't. That does not
> make you right. Or smart. Or scientific.
Ah, attempting to poison the well?
> It
> doesn't make you a professor either.
I'm going to seriously shit bricks if I have to explain my username again. Obviously you are not very well read in classic literature. Ponder that.
> You may or
> may not be any or all of these things. But to
> dismiss the possible existence of God because you
> find other theories more to your own personal
> liking is not scientific but rather close-minded.
Okay, this is a load of horse-shit.
1. I do not dismiss God because other theories are more convincing. I do not consider 'God did it' to be a theory. It is not. It is not an explanation, it's an appeal to ignorance.
2. Finding the current scientific models compelling does not mean I'm locked into them. I hold them tentatively, with the expectation that if there was a better theory to come along that I would examine it and accept it.
3. My reasons for rejecting God are primarily philosophical, I find the non cognitive argument very compelling as well as the argument from non belief and evil.
4. Again, you are attempting to shrug off what I've said in favor of an ad-hom. Instead of addressing anything I brought up, you've appealed to authority and tried to poison the well by suggesting that I'm close-minded and bias - without even knowing my position.
> However, you should find a home in the global
> warming community as your methods fit right in
> there.
I'm quite sure you wouldn't be up to speed on the science there either.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >A bunch of stuff.....
>
> So basically, science proves nothing, just posits
> theories and runs experiments that neither prove
> or disprove but only eliminate other theories.
> That's quite convenient don't ya think?
Well, science can disprove things - this is known as falsification. As far as 'proving' things, no, it doesn't - since 'proof' is quite a high standard. We can be reasonably certain of scientific conclusions though.
As far as convenient, I don't know what you mean.
> You also post a lot of opinion to support your
> argument. You might think that oscillating theory
> provides a more valid theory of creation than God
> did it, but that would be an opinion.
You are confusing what I've said. I think it provides a better explanation, which it does. Unless there is some scientific model of creation that I am not aware of (which is possible). If so, please present it.
> Seems that most of your belief on this subject is
> based on faith.
?
I'm completely puzzled as to how you came to this - unless you are equivocating on the term faith.
> Faith in science at the expense
> of God.
This is a strawman. My reasons for rejecting "God" are not scientific, they are philosophical. If I couldn't accept *any* of the current science, I still would not be a theist because appeals to ignorance ('you can't explain X, therefore Goddidit) are unpersuasive.
> However, God and science are not mutually
> exclusive.
I never argued otherwise. All I've said is that "God did it" is a poor explanation, which it is.
> Sir Issac Newton, considered by most
> to be the father of Physics and one of the
> greatest mathematicians in history was also a
> noted theologian and a man of great faith in God.
So what? He also believed in alchemy. This is a misplaced appeal to authority.
> Einstein believed in the existence of a god of
> harmony, who tied everything in the universe
> together and that a true God was beyond human's
> ability to understand. A recent study found that
> over 1/3 of scientists believe in a personal God
> who controls the universe.
This is misleading. Einstein, at best, could be considered a pantheist. So following him with something about belief in a personal god is misleading since Einstein most certainly didn't believe in such. In any event, it's irrelevant. As to your numbers, please provide a cite.
> So you are a person who doesn't. That does not
> make you right. Or smart. Or scientific.
Ah, attempting to poison the well?
> It
> doesn't make you a professor either.
I'm going to seriously shit bricks if I have to explain my username again. Obviously you are not very well read in classic literature. Ponder that.
> You may or
> may not be any or all of these things. But to
> dismiss the possible existence of God because you
> find other theories more to your own personal
> liking is not scientific but rather close-minded.
Okay, this is a load of horse-shit.
1. I do not dismiss God because other theories are more convincing. I do not consider 'God did it' to be a theory. It is not. It is not an explanation, it's an appeal to ignorance.
2. Finding the current scientific models compelling does not mean I'm locked into them. I hold them tentatively, with the expectation that if there was a better theory to come along that I would examine it and accept it.
3. My reasons for rejecting God are primarily philosophical, I find the non cognitive argument very compelling as well as the argument from non belief and evil.
4. Again, you are attempting to shrug off what I've said in favor of an ad-hom. Instead of addressing anything I brought up, you've appealed to authority and tried to poison the well by suggesting that I'm close-minded and bias - without even knowing my position.
> However, you should find a home in the global
> warming community as your methods fit right in
> there.
I'm quite sure you wouldn't be up to speed on the science there either.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 24, 2011 07:54AM
Jaylow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Snapple Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_back
>
> > ground_radiation
>
>
> And this proves what? Again, where did this ball
> of energy come from and how does this dispel the
> concept of God creating everything in an instant.
> I don't see anything that answers either of those
> questions. Sorry.
You are confused as to the role of science. Can you prove God exists?
No, yet you do not reject God, right?
You hypocritically reject science, which yields reasonable conclusions, when it has more evidence behind it. My guess is that the moment you need science, you accept it. Like, say, when you attempt to rebut someone's argument on the internet. Or maybe when you go to the doctors. Then you can trust science. When it posits something you find unpalatable, that's when you cry and whine that 'science doesn't prove anything'.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Snapple Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_back
>
> > ground_radiation
>
>
> And this proves what? Again, where did this ball
> of energy come from and how does this dispel the
> concept of God creating everything in an instant.
> I don't see anything that answers either of those
> questions. Sorry.
You are confused as to the role of science. Can you prove God exists?
No, yet you do not reject God, right?
You hypocritically reject science, which yields reasonable conclusions, when it has more evidence behind it. My guess is that the moment you need science, you accept it. Like, say, when you attempt to rebut someone's argument on the internet. Or maybe when you go to the doctors. Then you can trust science. When it posits something you find unpalatable, that's when you cry and whine that 'science doesn't prove anything'.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Jaylow
()
Date: January 24, 2011 03:39PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are confused as to the role of science. Can
> you prove God exists?
>
> No, yet you do not reject God, right?
>
> You hypocritically reject science, which yields
> reasonable conclusions, when it has more evidence
> behind it. My guess is that the moment you need
> science, you accept it. Like, say, when you
> attempt to rebut someone's argument on the
> internet. Or maybe when you go to the doctors.
> Then you can trust science. When it posits
> something you find unpalatable, that's when you
> cry and whine that 'science doesn't prove
> anything'.
Why do you keep thinking I am rejecting science. I'm not even sure that you know what that means. I don't blindly accept something because a scientist says it, or even if most scientists say it. I reject that God doesn't exist because "science" can not prove it, as you seem to put forth.
This is a circular discussion at this point. We keep coming back to the same thing. You "believe" one thing, I believe something else. Since neither of us is able to provide anything that the other will consider proof, this can only lead to more of the same. In the end, I believe I'm right and lose nothing if I'm not, while you believe you are right and lose everything if you are not.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are confused as to the role of science. Can
> you prove God exists?
>
> No, yet you do not reject God, right?
>
> You hypocritically reject science, which yields
> reasonable conclusions, when it has more evidence
> behind it. My guess is that the moment you need
> science, you accept it. Like, say, when you
> attempt to rebut someone's argument on the
> internet. Or maybe when you go to the doctors.
> Then you can trust science. When it posits
> something you find unpalatable, that's when you
> cry and whine that 'science doesn't prove
> anything'.
Why do you keep thinking I am rejecting science. I'm not even sure that you know what that means. I don't blindly accept something because a scientist says it, or even if most scientists say it. I reject that God doesn't exist because "science" can not prove it, as you seem to put forth.
This is a circular discussion at this point. We keep coming back to the same thing. You "believe" one thing, I believe something else. Since neither of us is able to provide anything that the other will consider proof, this can only lead to more of the same. In the end, I believe I'm right and lose nothing if I'm not, while you believe you are right and lose everything if you are not.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 24, 2011 03:55PM
Jaylow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do you keep thinking I am rejecting science.
You say that science proves nothing (as though it's supposed to), you seemingly disagree with evolution and the big bang.
> I'm not even sure that you know what that means.
> I don't blindly accept something because a
> scientist says it, or even if most scientists say
> it. I reject that God doesn't exist because
> "science" can not prove it, as you seem to put
> forth.
That is not what I'm putting forth and I've said this a few times. At best, science can show that God is superfluous. That's *it*.
> This is a circular discussion at this point. We
> keep coming back to the same thing. You "believe"
> one thing, I believe something else.
Well, I would agree that we keep coming back to the same thing. The fact is, you are misconstruing my position.
> Since
> neither of us is able to provide anything that the
> other will consider proof, this can only lead to
> more of the same. In the end, I believe I'm right
> and lose nothing if I'm not, while you believe you
> are right and lose everything if you are not.
*sigh*, Pascal's wager.
Let's suppose we are both wrong, and the God's of the Egyptians are the proper gods. Then we are both screwed, right? Perhaps you are screwed worse for having the temerity for worshiping the wrong god.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do you keep thinking I am rejecting science.
You say that science proves nothing (as though it's supposed to), you seemingly disagree with evolution and the big bang.
> I'm not even sure that you know what that means.
> I don't blindly accept something because a
> scientist says it, or even if most scientists say
> it. I reject that God doesn't exist because
> "science" can not prove it, as you seem to put
> forth.
That is not what I'm putting forth and I've said this a few times. At best, science can show that God is superfluous. That's *it*.
> This is a circular discussion at this point. We
> keep coming back to the same thing. You "believe"
> one thing, I believe something else.
Well, I would agree that we keep coming back to the same thing. The fact is, you are misconstruing my position.
> Since
> neither of us is able to provide anything that the
> other will consider proof, this can only lead to
> more of the same. In the end, I believe I'm right
> and lose nothing if I'm not, while you believe you
> are right and lose everything if you are not.
*sigh*, Pascal's wager.
Let's suppose we are both wrong, and the God's of the Egyptians are the proper gods. Then we are both screwed, right? Perhaps you are screwed worse for having the temerity for worshiping the wrong god.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Jaylow
()
Date: January 24, 2011 06:40PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jaylow Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why do you keep thinking I am rejecting
> science.
>
> You say that science proves nothing (as though
> it's supposed to), you seemingly disagree with
> evolution and the big bang.
>
> > I'm not even sure that you know what that means.
>
> > I don't blindly accept something because a
> > scientist says it, or even if most scientists
> say
> > it. I reject that God doesn't exist because
> > "science" can not prove it, as you seem to put
> > forth.
>
> That is not what I'm putting forth and I've said
> this a few times. At best, science can show that
> God is superfluous. That's *it*.
>
> > This is a circular discussion at this point.
> We
> > keep coming back to the same thing. You
> "believe"
> > one thing, I believe something else.
>
> Well, I would agree that we keep coming back to
> the same thing. The fact is, you are misconstruing
> my position.
>
> > Since
> > neither of us is able to provide anything that
> the
> > other will consider proof, this can only lead
> to
> > more of the same. In the end, I believe I'm
> right
> > and lose nothing if I'm not, while you believe
> you
> > are right and lose everything if you are not.
>
> *sigh*, Pascal's wager.
>
> Let's suppose we are both wrong, and the God's of
> the Egyptians are the proper gods. Then we are
> both screwed, right? Perhaps you are screwed worse
> for having the temerity for worshiping the wrong
> god.
God is superfluous? That is hard to reconcile. Do you believe in the existence of God or not? Perhaps I have misconstrued what you were saying, but it seems to me that you are arguing that there is no God. If you aren't arguing that and instead just saying science does a lot of cool and interesting stuff, then we agree.
Just because the argument has been around for a while (Pascal's wager) doesn't make it less relevant. Sighing, while indicated snobbish dismissal of something, isn't much of an argument.
When someone worshiping Amun starts posting why their religion and god is relevant to this discussion, I will consider that in replying. Until then, that is a strawman. I was discussing God vs. no-God.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jaylow Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why do you keep thinking I am rejecting
> science.
>
> You say that science proves nothing (as though
> it's supposed to), you seemingly disagree with
> evolution and the big bang.
>
> > I'm not even sure that you know what that means.
>
> > I don't blindly accept something because a
> > scientist says it, or even if most scientists
> say
> > it. I reject that God doesn't exist because
> > "science" can not prove it, as you seem to put
> > forth.
>
> That is not what I'm putting forth and I've said
> this a few times. At best, science can show that
> God is superfluous. That's *it*.
>
> > This is a circular discussion at this point.
> We
> > keep coming back to the same thing. You
> "believe"
> > one thing, I believe something else.
>
> Well, I would agree that we keep coming back to
> the same thing. The fact is, you are misconstruing
> my position.
>
> > Since
> > neither of us is able to provide anything that
> the
> > other will consider proof, this can only lead
> to
> > more of the same. In the end, I believe I'm
> right
> > and lose nothing if I'm not, while you believe
> you
> > are right and lose everything if you are not.
>
> *sigh*, Pascal's wager.
>
> Let's suppose we are both wrong, and the God's of
> the Egyptians are the proper gods. Then we are
> both screwed, right? Perhaps you are screwed worse
> for having the temerity for worshiping the wrong
> god.
God is superfluous? That is hard to reconcile. Do you believe in the existence of God or not? Perhaps I have misconstrued what you were saying, but it seems to me that you are arguing that there is no God. If you aren't arguing that and instead just saying science does a lot of cool and interesting stuff, then we agree.
Just because the argument has been around for a while (Pascal's wager) doesn't make it less relevant. Sighing, while indicated snobbish dismissal of something, isn't much of an argument.
When someone worshiping Amun starts posting why their religion and god is relevant to this discussion, I will consider that in replying. Until then, that is a strawman. I was discussing God vs. no-God.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
I believe in nothing.
()
Date: January 24, 2011 08:25PM
God accepts everyone so I will still be loved and brought into the light, right?
God made me who I am so I must be a mistake in your eyes. Only god knows. Good luck with that. I also have some swamp land in Florida for a great price.
God made me who I am so I must be a mistake in your eyes. Only god knows. Good luck with that. I also have some swamp land in Florida for a great price.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
EARLY MBC
()
Date: January 24, 2011 09:56PM
OK, so the REAL scoop is, did anyone go to MBC when it was still held in the basements of some of the founders (who I might add, are all very well off, not from the Church but before that)? Because if you DIDN'T then it might surprise you that they believe in speaking in tongues and pretty much all of that old snake-oil-vendor crap. I am totally serious when I say these rich and supposedly educated people would like, sit around and babble incoherently, and then someone would say "Oh my! I think that was Aramaic!" or some such nonsense. I got the hell outta there before anyone started passing snakes or Kool Aid around! WEIRDOS!
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2011 07:50AM
Jaylow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> God is superfluous? That is hard to reconcile.
Maybe so, but that's not my problem.
> Do you believe in the existence of God or not?
I'm not sure how you can have any questions on this. No, I do not believe 'God' exists, whatever that is supposed to mean.
> Perhaps I have misconstrued what you were saying,
> but it seems to me that you are arguing that there
> is no God. If you aren't arguing that and instead
> just saying science does a lot of cool and
> interesting stuff, then we agree.
I'm saying both things - that science says a lot of interesting things and that I do not believe in God.
My reasons for not believing in god are mainly philosophical, *NOT* scientific.
> Just because the argument has been around for a
> while (Pascal's wager) doesn't make it less
> relevant. Sighing, while indicated snobbish
> dismissal of something, isn't much of an
> argument.
Sighing wasn't my rebuttal, pointing out that there was a multitude of religions BESIDES Christianity was my rebuttal. Pascal's wager is the poorest argument for God because after a moments thought two objections should come to mind:
1. It's not a simple 50-50 wager. There are other religions out there beside Christianity.
2. If God exists it's entirely insulting to believe that such a god would be fooled by someone 'just playing the odds'.
> When someone worshiping Amun starts posting why
> their religion and god is relevant to this
> discussion, I will consider that in replying.
So, because people don't believing in it, it's therefore false?
Seriously?
> Until then, that is a strawman. I was discussing
> God vs. no-God.
It's not a strawman to point out that there are something like 5,000 religions out there and many are mutually exclusive. Tell me, if you are a Muslim, will you get into heaven? How about a Zoroastrian?
If the answer is 'no', then it's not simply 'God vs. No-God'.
-------------------------------------------------------
> God is superfluous? That is hard to reconcile.
Maybe so, but that's not my problem.
> Do you believe in the existence of God or not?
I'm not sure how you can have any questions on this. No, I do not believe 'God' exists, whatever that is supposed to mean.
> Perhaps I have misconstrued what you were saying,
> but it seems to me that you are arguing that there
> is no God. If you aren't arguing that and instead
> just saying science does a lot of cool and
> interesting stuff, then we agree.
I'm saying both things - that science says a lot of interesting things and that I do not believe in God.
My reasons for not believing in god are mainly philosophical, *NOT* scientific.
> Just because the argument has been around for a
> while (Pascal's wager) doesn't make it less
> relevant. Sighing, while indicated snobbish
> dismissal of something, isn't much of an
> argument.
Sighing wasn't my rebuttal, pointing out that there was a multitude of religions BESIDES Christianity was my rebuttal. Pascal's wager is the poorest argument for God because after a moments thought two objections should come to mind:
1. It's not a simple 50-50 wager. There are other religions out there beside Christianity.
2. If God exists it's entirely insulting to believe that such a god would be fooled by someone 'just playing the odds'.
> When someone worshiping Amun starts posting why
> their religion and god is relevant to this
> discussion, I will consider that in replying.
So, because people don't believing in it, it's therefore false?
Seriously?
> Until then, that is a strawman. I was discussing
> God vs. no-God.
It's not a strawman to point out that there are something like 5,000 religions out there and many are mutually exclusive. Tell me, if you are a Muslim, will you get into heaven? How about a Zoroastrian?
If the answer is 'no', then it's not simply 'God vs. No-God'.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Jaylow
()
Date: January 25, 2011 11:45AM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> My reasons for not believing in god are mainly
> philosophical, *NOT* scientific.
>
I would be interested in hearing your philosophical reasons then instead of me trying to parse those out of your posts.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> My reasons for not believing in god are mainly
> philosophical, *NOT* scientific.
>
I would be interested in hearing your philosophical reasons then instead of me trying to parse those out of your posts.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2011 02:32PM
Jaylow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would be interested in hearing your
> philosophical reasons then instead of me trying to
> parse those out of your posts.
I've mentioned two, but there are others. Let's start with the argument from non-cognitivism, which also gets meshed in with incompatible attributes.
--------
I wrote this up over four years ago and I think I need to expand on it a little.
What follows is a critical examination. It’s fairly long and probably not suitable for everyone. I’ve incorporated cites where appropriate and in some cases I’ve quoted a sizable amount of text because I feel the author has done a far more admirable job of explaining the concept then I would have been able to. So I hope you’ll bear through the quotes.
Okay, I want to state up front that I’m by no means an expert on atheism or atheistic argumentation. If you want what I consider the best tomb on atheistic argumentation, then I suggest you pick up the book “Atheism: The Case Against God†by George H. Smith. Additionally, I’m not seeking to convert or sway anyone towards atheism. I do not denigrate religious belief nor do I find it ‘wrong’ in any sense. What I’m attempting to do is provide a reasonable justification for atheism.
I think this is a particularly relevant and interesting issue, no matter which side of the ‘pew’ you line yourself up with. Religiosity and church attendance are at an all time high, in fact, belief has never been so common place in America-this is why the topic of God belief is an important issue. According to Michael Shermer:
“For the past two centuries American church membership rates have risen from a paltry 17 percent at the time of the Revolution, to 34 percent by the middle of the nineteenth century, to over 60 percent today.†[1]
With that said, I will introduce some of the arguments either against specific arguments in favor of God or in favor of the non-existence of God. I will be addressing the arguments one at a time, and with proper reference links/cites when appropriate. I’m not going to rattle off a litany of arguments because I feel that more will be gained if we explore them one at a time and in greater detail.
Before I begin, I’m going to define some terms for the purpose of this discussion. These are by no means concrete and we can define them further if need be.
Atheist: Someone without the belief in God. It is not necessarily a position where the person says affirmatively that God does not exist. Atheist is a general statement about a non belief in any God concept.
Hard Atheist: This is the person who says that God does not exist, affirmatively.
Weak Atheist: This is a person who does not feel that there is any quality evidence for the existence of God. They do not rule the concept of God out definitely, but they see no reason to believe in any of the Gods they know of.
Agnostic: Agnosticism is not a position on whether one believes in God or not, it is a position on whether one believes that it is possible to know positively whether God exists or not. Additionally it’s a position on whether God can be known through experience.
I’m fairly certain that everyone will agree with the above-at least to some extent. The next definition, that of God, begins the discussion and the first argument for the non-existence of God.
Before I begin examining the concept of God, I feel justified in asking the following question: Does God require faith? From what I’ve read, most incarnations of God want their believers to believe based off of faith, instead of based off of empirical evidence. If this is true, then atheism is justified-because without doubt there is no faith-only certainty. Now then, onto a bigger problem.
Defining God and the problems therein.
The very first question that should be asked before we can either affirm or deny the belief in an entity is what is the entity in question?
I think we can all agree that if the entity in question is ill defined to the point of utter arbitrariness that it doesn’t make much sense to affirm a belief in the entity; after all, what would we be actually affirming a belief in? A mystery? An abstract concept that has no basis in reality?
In order to be clear on this point, I’ll rely on the words of W.T. Blackstone:
“Until the content of a belief is made clear, the appeal to accept the belief on faith is beside the point, for one would not know what one has accepted. The request for the meaning of a religious belief is logically prior to the question of accepting that belief on faith or to the question of whether that belief constitutes knowledge.â€[2]
So without a foundation on which to rest a belief, that belief is by definition nonsensical. I think we can all agree on this. The problem with relating to commonly accepted definitions of what God is, is that since the dawn of time there have been many different definitions of God. Some included the more traditional anthropomorphic God, such as Zeus, Mithra, El, Isis, Horus, etc. These Gods were basically big magical ‘men’, so to speak, in that they were aggrandized versions of humanity. They had human form, emotions, and other characteristics. For the most part Gods of these sorts can be dismissed for the purpose of this discussion as they are not believed in by anyone here, and have been, for the most part, relegated to the dustbin of history.
The other versions of God that are often brought up are the Gods without physical substance, these Gods include, but are not limited to, the God of Abraham (includes Hebrew/Christian/Islamic religions) and Ahura Mazda (granted even these can be argued against). These Gods are often described as omnimax Gods; i.e., all powerful, all benevolent, all knowing, and omnipresent (in most cases). These Gods are the type of God I am concentrating on. They are not defined outside of abstraction, which means they do not have a valid, workable, definition.
It is sometimes argued that God is ‘being itself’. I do not think this is a rational statement however, because it blurs the definition of what we already know with what we do not know in an effort to sustain a belief in something for which none is warranted. If we say that existence or ‘being’ is God, then what is existence? What does ‘being’ mean? These terms become nonsensical when they are relegated to the attributes of God.
As George Smith puts it:
“To divorce the idea of a supernatural being from the concept of god is to obliterate the basic distinction between theism and atheism. If the so-called “theist†or “Christian†is willing to admit that a supernatural being does not exist, then he has capitulated to traditional atheism, and his continued use of the word “god†carries no metaphysical significance.†[3]
So God can not be redefined to mean existence or being, because it confuses the concept and destroys the concept of what it means to have a supernatural God. In short, there is nothing to believe in, other then existence, which is a fundamental axiom already.
To continue on, the other position a theist takes is that God is part of the supernatural. This too has the appearance of definition, but when inspected closely falls apart. When something is claimed to be supernatural, it means that it doesn’t follow the natural laws of the universe. It is somehow outside of the natural world, it is outside of any possible understanding that we, as natural and physical beings, can be privy to-logically/rationally speaking.
Once again, George H. Smith sums it up:
“The first problem with the designation of supernatural (or any equivalent term) is that it tells us nothing positive about a God. “Supernatural†tells us what a god is not-that it is not part of the natural universe-but it does not tell us what a god is. What identifiable characteristics does a god possess? In other words, how will we recognize a god if we run across one? To state that a god is supernatural does not provide us with an answer….the entire notion of a supernatural being is incomprehensible. The theist wishes us to conceive of a being exempt from natural law-a being that does not fall within the domain of scientific explanation-but no theist has ever explained how we can conceive of existence other than “natural†existence. “Natural existence†is a redundancy; we have no familiarity with “unnatural†existence, or even a vague notion of what such existence would be like.“[4]
To claim that god is subject to natural law is to unmake god and to apply limitations to god. Additional claims of omnipotence then entail a logical contradiction and do not hold. Furthermore, since god has to be supernatural, that means that it can not possess determinant characteristics, these characteristics would automatically limit god to the natural (and obviously out of the omnipotent).
So what is god? Well, in order to exist, an entity has to exist as something. Existence can not exist without something to exist, and similarly anything that exists must necessarily be something. The trouble is, god can have no defining determinant characteristics and necessarily must be in the realm of the supernatural. As such, to claim that god exists is to claim that something with no characteristics exists, which is nonsensical.
Ludwig Feuerbach said:
“To deny all the qualities of a being is equivalent to denying the being himself. A being without qualities is one which can not become an object to the mind, and such a being is virtually non-existent“[5]
What is there to believe in? What qualities does the believer believe that God possesses? The standard reply is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, etc. Unfortunately this is not a proper answer, as this tells us what the God is not. These are not positive attributes. Omnipotence tells us that God is without limits in power. It does not tell us how this omnipotence manifests itself, nor how it can be achieved in the knowable world. It in effect, an empty statement, an aggrandizement of what human beings perceive. It is similar to the concept of ‘perfection’, in that it’s an ill-defined subjective term and not part of objective reality. The other ‘omni’s fall because of similar objections. God is without ignorance and there is no place where God isn’t.
Francois Tremblay states:
“To understand how the god-concept is meaningless, I need first to explain what negative defining, and substance, mean.
Something is negatively defined when the identification critically lacks specificity because it tells us what something is not, instead of what something is. For instance, the following identification lacks specificity
“I am not Arthur Daniels Jr.â€
While it is true that I am not Arthur Daniels Jr., the identification tells you almost nothing about me. All it tells you is that I am not one particular person. It still leaves the possibility of me being any other person on Earth, or even any other sentient entity in the universe. As such, it critically lacks specificity.
Some categories of attributes interest us specifically, such as : substance, secondary attributes, and relational attributes. The substance of an existant is the basic nature of the material it is composed of. Secondary and relational attributes can only be meaningful insofar as the substance is meaningful and pertains to those specific attributes.
The following propositions can express this clearly.
1. The ball is red.
2. The sound is red.
3. The soul is red.
Proposition 1 is perfectly possible, since we know that balls are made of material which can have colour, such as plastic. Proposition 2 is not possible, as sound arrives to us in the form of sound waves, which cannot have colour. Proposition 3 is meaningless, since souls are “supernatural", which means non-material. All we know is that the soul is not made of matter, but we do not know what it is made of. If we do not know what it is made of, we cannot say what attributes it can take and what attributes it cannot take. Consequently, proposition 3 is meaningless.
If we look at the attributes given to the word “god", we find the same problems. All of its attributes are either negatively defined, secondary or relational. If a god is Creator, then it must be immaterial, as nothing can cause itself. But as we have seen, “immaterial†is a negatively defined term. Therefore a god’s substance is undefined.
This lack of definition is fatal to the meaningfulness of the god-concept, as secondary or relational attributes can no longer apply either. It makes no sense to apply attributes like “unicity†or “loving", or even “personal being", to a being when we do not know the substance of that being.
The other core attributes of the god-concept suffer from the same problems. Gods are Creator, but this is a relational attribute, as it concerns a god’s relationship with the universe. Gods have infinite powers, but the word “infinite†is negatively defined, and therefore ontologically meaningless. Gods are personal beings, but personality is meaningless without knowing whether the substance of a god is capable of intelligence or personality.†[6]
All of this is to say that the god concept is incoherent. If this indeed turns out to be the case, then positive belief in such a concept is not possible. I realize that what you’ve probably just read can be seen as the same argument, drawn out in aggonizing detail. I’ve tried to keep it short-believe me (I’m rather long winded and could go on and on)-and I’ve tried to keep it coherent and on point as much as possible.
With that said, in order to validate a belief in an entity (God) the theist must first define the entity. The definition must include whether the entity is material or immaterial, supernatural or non-supernatural, etc etc. Unfortunately an entity that is material and non-supernatural is not a new entity at all, it’s just a new term for the universe-which is why the pantheistic argument fails. An entity that is supernatural and non-material can not exist because that entity lacks specificity and is empty. A supernatural materialistic entity is a contradiction in terms.
Works Cited:
1. Michael Shermer, How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God (New York: Owl Books, 2000), p. 25.
2. William T. Blackstone, The Problem of Religious Knowledge (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963), p. 2.
3. George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (New York: Prometheus Books, 1979), p. 35-36.
4. George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (New York: Prometheus Books, 1979), p. 39-40.
5. Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, translated by George Eliot (New York, 1957), p. 14.
6. Francois Tremblay, http://www.objectivethought.com/debates/daniels1.html
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would be interested in hearing your
> philosophical reasons then instead of me trying to
> parse those out of your posts.
I've mentioned two, but there are others. Let's start with the argument from non-cognitivism, which also gets meshed in with incompatible attributes.
--------
I wrote this up over four years ago and I think I need to expand on it a little.
What follows is a critical examination. It’s fairly long and probably not suitable for everyone. I’ve incorporated cites where appropriate and in some cases I’ve quoted a sizable amount of text because I feel the author has done a far more admirable job of explaining the concept then I would have been able to. So I hope you’ll bear through the quotes.
Okay, I want to state up front that I’m by no means an expert on atheism or atheistic argumentation. If you want what I consider the best tomb on atheistic argumentation, then I suggest you pick up the book “Atheism: The Case Against God†by George H. Smith. Additionally, I’m not seeking to convert or sway anyone towards atheism. I do not denigrate religious belief nor do I find it ‘wrong’ in any sense. What I’m attempting to do is provide a reasonable justification for atheism.
I think this is a particularly relevant and interesting issue, no matter which side of the ‘pew’ you line yourself up with. Religiosity and church attendance are at an all time high, in fact, belief has never been so common place in America-this is why the topic of God belief is an important issue. According to Michael Shermer:
“For the past two centuries American church membership rates have risen from a paltry 17 percent at the time of the Revolution, to 34 percent by the middle of the nineteenth century, to over 60 percent today.†[1]
With that said, I will introduce some of the arguments either against specific arguments in favor of God or in favor of the non-existence of God. I will be addressing the arguments one at a time, and with proper reference links/cites when appropriate. I’m not going to rattle off a litany of arguments because I feel that more will be gained if we explore them one at a time and in greater detail.
Before I begin, I’m going to define some terms for the purpose of this discussion. These are by no means concrete and we can define them further if need be.
Atheist: Someone without the belief in God. It is not necessarily a position where the person says affirmatively that God does not exist. Atheist is a general statement about a non belief in any God concept.
Hard Atheist: This is the person who says that God does not exist, affirmatively.
Weak Atheist: This is a person who does not feel that there is any quality evidence for the existence of God. They do not rule the concept of God out definitely, but they see no reason to believe in any of the Gods they know of.
Agnostic: Agnosticism is not a position on whether one believes in God or not, it is a position on whether one believes that it is possible to know positively whether God exists or not. Additionally it’s a position on whether God can be known through experience.
I’m fairly certain that everyone will agree with the above-at least to some extent. The next definition, that of God, begins the discussion and the first argument for the non-existence of God.
Before I begin examining the concept of God, I feel justified in asking the following question: Does God require faith? From what I’ve read, most incarnations of God want their believers to believe based off of faith, instead of based off of empirical evidence. If this is true, then atheism is justified-because without doubt there is no faith-only certainty. Now then, onto a bigger problem.
Defining God and the problems therein.
The very first question that should be asked before we can either affirm or deny the belief in an entity is what is the entity in question?
I think we can all agree that if the entity in question is ill defined to the point of utter arbitrariness that it doesn’t make much sense to affirm a belief in the entity; after all, what would we be actually affirming a belief in? A mystery? An abstract concept that has no basis in reality?
In order to be clear on this point, I’ll rely on the words of W.T. Blackstone:
“Until the content of a belief is made clear, the appeal to accept the belief on faith is beside the point, for one would not know what one has accepted. The request for the meaning of a religious belief is logically prior to the question of accepting that belief on faith or to the question of whether that belief constitutes knowledge.â€[2]
So without a foundation on which to rest a belief, that belief is by definition nonsensical. I think we can all agree on this. The problem with relating to commonly accepted definitions of what God is, is that since the dawn of time there have been many different definitions of God. Some included the more traditional anthropomorphic God, such as Zeus, Mithra, El, Isis, Horus, etc. These Gods were basically big magical ‘men’, so to speak, in that they were aggrandized versions of humanity. They had human form, emotions, and other characteristics. For the most part Gods of these sorts can be dismissed for the purpose of this discussion as they are not believed in by anyone here, and have been, for the most part, relegated to the dustbin of history.
The other versions of God that are often brought up are the Gods without physical substance, these Gods include, but are not limited to, the God of Abraham (includes Hebrew/Christian/Islamic religions) and Ahura Mazda (granted even these can be argued against). These Gods are often described as omnimax Gods; i.e., all powerful, all benevolent, all knowing, and omnipresent (in most cases). These Gods are the type of God I am concentrating on. They are not defined outside of abstraction, which means they do not have a valid, workable, definition.
It is sometimes argued that God is ‘being itself’. I do not think this is a rational statement however, because it blurs the definition of what we already know with what we do not know in an effort to sustain a belief in something for which none is warranted. If we say that existence or ‘being’ is God, then what is existence? What does ‘being’ mean? These terms become nonsensical when they are relegated to the attributes of God.
As George Smith puts it:
“To divorce the idea of a supernatural being from the concept of god is to obliterate the basic distinction between theism and atheism. If the so-called “theist†or “Christian†is willing to admit that a supernatural being does not exist, then he has capitulated to traditional atheism, and his continued use of the word “god†carries no metaphysical significance.†[3]
So God can not be redefined to mean existence or being, because it confuses the concept and destroys the concept of what it means to have a supernatural God. In short, there is nothing to believe in, other then existence, which is a fundamental axiom already.
To continue on, the other position a theist takes is that God is part of the supernatural. This too has the appearance of definition, but when inspected closely falls apart. When something is claimed to be supernatural, it means that it doesn’t follow the natural laws of the universe. It is somehow outside of the natural world, it is outside of any possible understanding that we, as natural and physical beings, can be privy to-logically/rationally speaking.
Once again, George H. Smith sums it up:
“The first problem with the designation of supernatural (or any equivalent term) is that it tells us nothing positive about a God. “Supernatural†tells us what a god is not-that it is not part of the natural universe-but it does not tell us what a god is. What identifiable characteristics does a god possess? In other words, how will we recognize a god if we run across one? To state that a god is supernatural does not provide us with an answer….the entire notion of a supernatural being is incomprehensible. The theist wishes us to conceive of a being exempt from natural law-a being that does not fall within the domain of scientific explanation-but no theist has ever explained how we can conceive of existence other than “natural†existence. “Natural existence†is a redundancy; we have no familiarity with “unnatural†existence, or even a vague notion of what such existence would be like.“[4]
To claim that god is subject to natural law is to unmake god and to apply limitations to god. Additional claims of omnipotence then entail a logical contradiction and do not hold. Furthermore, since god has to be supernatural, that means that it can not possess determinant characteristics, these characteristics would automatically limit god to the natural (and obviously out of the omnipotent).
So what is god? Well, in order to exist, an entity has to exist as something. Existence can not exist without something to exist, and similarly anything that exists must necessarily be something. The trouble is, god can have no defining determinant characteristics and necessarily must be in the realm of the supernatural. As such, to claim that god exists is to claim that something with no characteristics exists, which is nonsensical.
Ludwig Feuerbach said:
“To deny all the qualities of a being is equivalent to denying the being himself. A being without qualities is one which can not become an object to the mind, and such a being is virtually non-existent“[5]
What is there to believe in? What qualities does the believer believe that God possesses? The standard reply is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, etc. Unfortunately this is not a proper answer, as this tells us what the God is not. These are not positive attributes. Omnipotence tells us that God is without limits in power. It does not tell us how this omnipotence manifests itself, nor how it can be achieved in the knowable world. It in effect, an empty statement, an aggrandizement of what human beings perceive. It is similar to the concept of ‘perfection’, in that it’s an ill-defined subjective term and not part of objective reality. The other ‘omni’s fall because of similar objections. God is without ignorance and there is no place where God isn’t.
Francois Tremblay states:
“To understand how the god-concept is meaningless, I need first to explain what negative defining, and substance, mean.
Something is negatively defined when the identification critically lacks specificity because it tells us what something is not, instead of what something is. For instance, the following identification lacks specificity
“I am not Arthur Daniels Jr.â€
While it is true that I am not Arthur Daniels Jr., the identification tells you almost nothing about me. All it tells you is that I am not one particular person. It still leaves the possibility of me being any other person on Earth, or even any other sentient entity in the universe. As such, it critically lacks specificity.
Some categories of attributes interest us specifically, such as : substance, secondary attributes, and relational attributes. The substance of an existant is the basic nature of the material it is composed of. Secondary and relational attributes can only be meaningful insofar as the substance is meaningful and pertains to those specific attributes.
The following propositions can express this clearly.
1. The ball is red.
2. The sound is red.
3. The soul is red.
Proposition 1 is perfectly possible, since we know that balls are made of material which can have colour, such as plastic. Proposition 2 is not possible, as sound arrives to us in the form of sound waves, which cannot have colour. Proposition 3 is meaningless, since souls are “supernatural", which means non-material. All we know is that the soul is not made of matter, but we do not know what it is made of. If we do not know what it is made of, we cannot say what attributes it can take and what attributes it cannot take. Consequently, proposition 3 is meaningless.
If we look at the attributes given to the word “god", we find the same problems. All of its attributes are either negatively defined, secondary or relational. If a god is Creator, then it must be immaterial, as nothing can cause itself. But as we have seen, “immaterial†is a negatively defined term. Therefore a god’s substance is undefined.
This lack of definition is fatal to the meaningfulness of the god-concept, as secondary or relational attributes can no longer apply either. It makes no sense to apply attributes like “unicity†or “loving", or even “personal being", to a being when we do not know the substance of that being.
The other core attributes of the god-concept suffer from the same problems. Gods are Creator, but this is a relational attribute, as it concerns a god’s relationship with the universe. Gods have infinite powers, but the word “infinite†is negatively defined, and therefore ontologically meaningless. Gods are personal beings, but personality is meaningless without knowing whether the substance of a god is capable of intelligence or personality.†[6]
All of this is to say that the god concept is incoherent. If this indeed turns out to be the case, then positive belief in such a concept is not possible. I realize that what you’ve probably just read can be seen as the same argument, drawn out in aggonizing detail. I’ve tried to keep it short-believe me (I’m rather long winded and could go on and on)-and I’ve tried to keep it coherent and on point as much as possible.
With that said, in order to validate a belief in an entity (God) the theist must first define the entity. The definition must include whether the entity is material or immaterial, supernatural or non-supernatural, etc etc. Unfortunately an entity that is material and non-supernatural is not a new entity at all, it’s just a new term for the universe-which is why the pantheistic argument fails. An entity that is supernatural and non-material can not exist because that entity lacks specificity and is empty. A supernatural materialistic entity is a contradiction in terms.
Works Cited:
1. Michael Shermer, How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God (New York: Owl Books, 2000), p. 25.
2. William T. Blackstone, The Problem of Religious Knowledge (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963), p. 2.
3. George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (New York: Prometheus Books, 1979), p. 35-36.
4. George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (New York: Prometheus Books, 1979), p. 39-40.
5. Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, translated by George Eliot (New York, 1957), p. 14.
6. Francois Tremblay, http://www.objectivethought.com/debates/daniels1.html
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Jaylow
()
Date: January 25, 2011 07:29PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
much stuff.....
Hmmmm, not sure how much of this is philosophical. But, that being said: your argument seems to come down to the belief (perhaps fact) that God and His existence is beyond the comprehension of man and therefore, you can not believe in him and that, with all the other theories out there, you can not settle on Creation and God as the right answer or even on to really consider.
I recommend that you go to MBC for a few weeks and see for yourself whether it "sucks" and whether faith in God is more than just overcoming the over-analyzation of logic problems. It seems to me that your belief that there is nothing but us for no real reason other than to propagate the species is kinda sad.
-------------------------------------------------------
much stuff.....
Hmmmm, not sure how much of this is philosophical. But, that being said: your argument seems to come down to the belief (perhaps fact) that God and His existence is beyond the comprehension of man and therefore, you can not believe in him and that, with all the other theories out there, you can not settle on Creation and God as the right answer or even on to really consider.
I recommend that you go to MBC for a few weeks and see for yourself whether it "sucks" and whether faith in God is more than just overcoming the over-analyzation of logic problems. It seems to me that your belief that there is nothing but us for no real reason other than to propagate the species is kinda sad.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Professor Plagiarizegloss
()
Date: January 25, 2011 08:15PM
'Jaylow' Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I would be interested in hearing your
> philosophical reasons then instead of me trying to
> parse those out of your posts. "
'Professor Pangloss' wrote :
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I've mentioned two, but there are others.
> Let's start with the argument from non-cognitivism,
> which also gets meshed in with incompatible attributes."
--------
> "I wrote this up over four years ago and I think
> I need to expand on it a little."
> "What follows is a critical examination. It’s fairly long
> and probably not suitable for everyone. I’ve incorporated
> cites where appropriate and in some cases I’ve quoted a
> sizable amount of text because I feel the author has done a
> far more admirable job of explaining the concept then I would
> have been able to. So I hope you’ll bear through the quotes."
THIS SOUNDS BETTER THAN YOUR NORMAL PLAGARIST REGURGITATION YOU
ARE KNOWN FOR HERE ON FFXU !
> "Okay, I want to state up front that I’m by no means an expert
> on atheism or atheistic argumentation. If you want what I consider
> the best tomb on atheistic argumentation, then I suggest you pick
> up the book "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith.
> Additionally, I’m not seeking to convert or sway anyone towards atheism."
YEAH RIGHT ASSHOLE.
> "I do not denigrate religious belief"
YEAH RIGHT ASSHOLE.
> "nor do I find it "wrong" in any sense. What I’m attempting
> to do is provide a reasonable justification for atheism."
THERE IS NO REASOABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR ATHEISM.
YOU KNOW IT, JUST AS WELL AS THAT FAT FAGGOT
"Theamazingathiest" KNOWS IT ON YouTube.
> "I think this is a particularly relevant and interesting issue,
> no matter which side of the ‘pew’ you line yourself up with.
> Religiosity and church attendance are at an all time high,
> in fact, belief has never been so common place in America-this
> is why the topic of God belief is an important issue.
> According to Michael Shermer:"
> "For the past two centuries American church membership rates have
> risen from a paltry 17 percent at the time of the Revolution, to
> 34 percent by the middle of the nineteenth century, to over 60
> percent today." [1]
WHO THE FUCK CARES FAGGOT ?
THIS OBVIOUSLY BOTHERS YOU GREATLY ?
> "With that said, I will introduce some of the arguments either
> against specific arguments in favor of God or in favor of the
> non-existence of God. I will be addressing the arguments one
> at a time, and with proper reference links/cites when appropriate.
> I’m not going to rattle off a litany of arguments because I feel
> that more will be gained if we explore them one at a time and
> in greater detail."
THANK YOU, OH GREAT PROFESSOR !
> "Before I begin, I’m going to define some terms for the
> purpose of this discussion. These are by no means concrete
> and we can define them further if need be."
>-"Atheist: Someone without the belief in God. It is not necessarily
> a position where the person says affirmatively that God does not exist.
> Atheist is a general statement about a non belief in any God concept."
>-"Hard Atheist: This is the person who says that God does not exist,
> affirmatively."
>-"Weak Atheist: This is a person who does not feel that there is any
> quality evidence for the existence of God. They do not rule the concept
> of God out definitely, but they see no reason to believe in any of
> the Gods they know of."
*ALL* ATHEIST ARE RETARDED DOUCHE BAGS
DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS WOULD HAVE SUFFICED, YA DUMBASS.
>-"Agnostic: Agnosticism is not a position on whether one believes
> in God or not, it is a position on whether one believes that it
> is possible to know positively whether God exists or not."
SO AGNOSTIC = OXYMORON ?
> "Additionally it’s a position on whether God can be known
> through experience."
> "I’m fairly certain that everyone will agree with the above-
> at least to some extent. The next definition, that of God,
> begins the discussion and the first argument for the
> non-existence of God."
> "Before I begin examining the concept of God, I feel
> justified in asking the following question:
> Does God require faith?
GOD REQUIRES FAITH NOW, BUT ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, HE CAME HERE ABOUT TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO AND PERFORMED MIRACLES. SO HE DID NOT ALWAYS REQUIRE FAITH.
> "From what I’ve read, most incarnations of God want their
> believers to believe based off of faith, instead of based
> off of empirical evidence. If this is true, then atheism is
> justified-because without doubt there is no faith-only certainty.
NOBODY EVER SAID YOU NEEDED CERTAINTY TO HAVE FAITH
OR THAT CERTANTY WAS A PRERQUISITE OF FAITH.
THEREFORE; CERTANTY IS A PERSONAL PREREQUISITE OF ATHIESTS
AND ATHEISM IS *UN-JUSTIFIED* BEING THAT THERE IS NO CERTANTY
IN THE BELIEF OF THE NON-EXISTANCE OF GOD.
GET IT NOW BOZO ?
> Now then, onto a bigger problem.
BETTER YET YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT WAS JUST FLUSHED
DOWN THE TOILET. AND YOU ARE HARLDY WORTH ME PRESSING
ON, BUT I WILL BECAUSE I LIKE LAUGHING AT YOU SO MUCH. :~)
> "Defining God and the problems therein.
> "The very first question that should be asked before we
> can either affirm or deny the belief in an entity is what
> is the entity in question?"
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT AN "ENTITY"
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT GOD -THE CREATOR OF EVERYRHING
TRY TO STAY ON TOPIC
> "I think we can all agree that if the entity in question
> is ill defined to the point of utter arbitrariness that it
> doesn’t make much sense to affirm a belief in the entity;
> after all, what would we be actually affirming a belief in?
BELIEF IN EVERYTHING AROUND YOU *NOT* BEING A FACT OF OR
BY-PRODUCT OF SOME IMPROBABLE IMPOSIBILITY.
> "A mystery?"
THE ONLY MYSTERY HERE IS;
WHY DUMBASS ATHIEST LIKE YOURSELF THINK
YOU ARE SOME KIND OF INTELLECTS.
> "An abstract concept that has no basis in reality?"
YOUR ATHEISTIC CONCEPT IS THE ABSTRACT ONE,
ONE WITH NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS OR BASIS IN REALITY FOR THAT MATTER.
> In order to be clear on this point, I’ll rely on the words
>of W.T. Blackstone:
> "Until the content of a belief is made clear, the appeal to
> accept the belief on faith is beside the point, for one would
> not know what one has accepted. The request for the meaning of
> a religious belief is logically prior to the question of accepting
> that belief on faith or to the question of whether that belief
> constitutes knowledge.â€[2]
SOUNDS LIKE THE DUMBASS THINKS MUCH ALIKE YOURSELF.
> "So without a foundation on which to rest a belief,
(IN YOUR OPINION, DUMBASS)
> "that belief is by definition nonsensical."
THIS IS YOUR *UN-FOUNDED* OPINION !
> "I think we can all agree on this."
THINK AGAIN, DUMBASS.
> "The problem with relating to commonly accepted definitions of
> what God is, is that since the dawn of time there have been
> many different definitions of God.
*ALL* RELIGIONS THAT BELIEVE IN *ONE* GOD, BELIEVE HE IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME THING;
CREATING EVERYTHING YOU SEE AROUND YOU.
I ALWAYS ASSUMED THIS WAS A SIMPLE CONCEPT, BUT APPARENTY YOU
ARE HAVING A HARD TIME WRAPPING YOUR HEAS AROUND IT.
NOT SURPRISING, TO SAY THE LEAST.
> "Some included the more traditional anthropomorphic God,
> such as Zeus, Mithra, El, Isis, Horus, etc. These Gods were
> basically big magical "men", so to speak, in that they were
> aggrandized versions of humanity. They had human form, emotions,
> and other characteristics.
KEY WORD : "GODS"
TRY TO STAY ON TOPIC, YOU SIMPLETON.
> "For the most part Gods of these sorts can be dismissed for
> the purpose of this discussion as they are not believed in by
> anyone here,
SPEAK FOR YOURSELF IDIOT.
I BELIEVE IN THE FACT THEY ARE ANCIENT ACCOUNTS OF
OTHER-WORLDLY VISITATIONS TO EARTH.
> "and have been, for the most part, relegated to
> the dustbin of history."
MOST LIKELY, YOUR BRAIN IS IN THIS SAME DUSTBIN.
> "The other versions of God that are often brought up are
> the Gods without physical substance, these Gods include, but
> are not limited to, the God of Abraham (includes Hebrew/Christian
> /Islamic religions) and Ahura Mazda (granted even these can
> be argued against). These Gods are often described as omnimax
> Gods; i.e., all powerful, all benevolent, all knowing, and
> omnipresent (in most cases). These Gods are the type of God
> I am concentrating on. They are not defined outside of abstraction,
> which means they do not have a valid, workable, definition.
GOOD GOD, YOU ARE ONE SIMPLE-MINDED DUMBFUCK PANGLOSS.
> "It is sometimes argued that God is "being itself". I do not
> think this is a rational statement however, because it blurs
> the definition of what we already know with what we do not know
> in an effort to sustain a belief in something for which none
> is warranted. If we say that existence or "being" is God,
> then what is existence? What does "being" mean?
WHY ASK WHY, DUMBASS ?
I KNEW YOUR IDIOCY WOULD NOT FAIL TO DISAPPOINT !
> "These terms become nonsensical when they are relegated to
> the attributes of God."
SPEAKING OF NONSENSE, YOU ARE STARTING TO BORE ME.
> "As George Smith puts it:
> "To divorce the idea of a supernatural being from the concept
> of god is to obliterate the basic distinction between theism
> and atheism.
KINDA LIKE BRINGING UP "gods" WHEN WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE DISCUSSING "GOD" ?
> "If the so-called "theist" or "Christian" is willing to admit
> that a supernatural being does not exist, then he has capitulated
> to traditional atheism, and his continued use of the word “godâ€
> carries no metaphysical significance.†[3]
THIS DOESN'T EVEN REMOTELY BACK UP THE DUMBASS POINT
YOU WERE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE.
> "So God can not be redefined to mean existence or being,
> because it confuses the concept and destroys the concept of what
> it means to have a supernatural God. In short, there is nothing
> to believe in, other then existence, which is a fundamental
> axiom already. "
TO BELIEVE IN FAITH IS ANTI-BELIEF!
SEE, I CAN SAY STUPID NON-SENSICAL CRAP ALSO.
> "To continue on, the other position a theist takes is that God
> is part of the supernatural. This too has the appearance of definition,
> but when inspected closely falls apart. When something is claimed
> to be supernatural, it means that it doesn’t follow the natural
> laws of the universe. It is somehow outside of the natural world,
> it is outside of any possible understanding that we, as natural
> and physical beings, can be privy to-logically/rationally speaking.
WRONG.
YOUR DEFINITION OF "SUPERNATURAL", CLEARLY
INDICATES WE UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT.
> "Once again, George H. Smith sums it up:
> "The first problem with the designation of supernatural
> (or any equivalent term) is that it tells us nothing positive
> about a God. "Supernatural" tells us what a god is
NO I DOES NOT TELL US WHAT HE "IS"
JUST TELLS US WHAT HE IS CAPABLE OF.
> "not-that it is not part of the natural universe-but it does
> not tell us what a god is.
SO ?
> "What identifiable characteristics does a god possess? "
BIBLE SAYS JESUS COULD MAKE FOOD WHERE THERE WAS NONE BEFORE
AND TRANSMUTATE MATTER OR ELEMENTS LIKE WATER INTO WINE.
> In other words, how will we recognize a god if we run across one?
PREVIOUSLY STATED, SEE ABOVE POST.
> "To state that a god is supernatural does not provide us with
> an answer….
UH DUUUUUUHHHHHHH
> "the entire notion of a supernatural being is incomprehensible."
I HAVE ALREADY CALLED YOU OUT ON THIS POINT, NOW YOU'RE JUST A LIAR.
> "The theist wishes us to conceive of a being exempt from natural
> law"
CORRECT
> -a being that does not fall within the domain of scientific
> explanation
SCIENCE EXPLAINS HIM WHEN IT ADMITS GOD IS OUTSIDE OF SCIENTIFIC CONSTRAINTS.
> "-but no theist has ever explained how we can conceive of existence
> other than "natural" existence.
WE DON'T NEED TO EXPLAIN BECAUSE THE CONCEPT IS SELF EVIDENT.
> "Natural existence" is a redundancy;
WRONG. PROFESSOR PANGLOSS = REDUNDANCY
(IDIOTIC REDUNDANCY TO BE EXACT)
> "we have no familiarity with "unnatural" existence,
REALLY ?
HOW ABOUT SYNTHETIC MATERIALS, OR SYNTHETIC ANTIBIOTICS
THESE ARE FAMILIAR TERMS OUTSIDE THE NATURAL WORLD.
> "or even a vague notion of what such existence would be like."[4]
THIS GUY IS AN IDIOT JUST LIKE YOU.
> "To claim that god is subject to natural law is to unmake god
> and to apply limitations to god.
REDUNDANT INCORRECT MOOT POINT.
> "Additional claims of omnipotence then entail a logical
> contradiction and do not hold."
THIS IS JUST UN-FOUNDES UN-SCIENTIFIC OPINION.
> "Furthermore, since god has to be supernatural, that means
> that it can not possess determinant characteristics,
THIS IS A CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT.
> these characteristics would automatically limit god to
> the natural (and obviously out of the omnipotent).
UNLESS HE SEPERATES A PIECE OF HIMSELF (JESUS)
TO CARRY OUT THE JOB. DUUHHHHHHHH.
> "So what is god? Well, in order to exist, an entity has to exist
> as something. Existence can not exist without something to exist,
WRONG.
JUST LIKE THE PIXELS ON YOUR TV SCREEN WERE THERE BEFORE THEY LIT UP TO BE THE PICTURE ON THE SCREEN, BOZO.
> "and similarly anything that exists must necessarily be something."
MY A-SPHYNCTER IS ROUND, THEREFORE IT EXISTS AMD MUST BE BROWN !
> "The trouble is, god can have no defining determinant characteristics
> and necessarily must be in the realm of the supernatural.
> As such, to claim that god exists is to claim that something with
> no characteristics exists, which is nonsensical.
SPEAKING OF NONSENSE.
> "Ludwig Feuerbach said:
> To deny all the qualities of a being is equivalent to denying
> the being himself. A being without qualities is one which can
> not become an object to the mind, and such a being is virtually
> non-existent“[5]
YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE HERE IN DENIAL.
> "What is there to believe in?"
EVERYTHING YOU SEE AROUND YOU.
> "What qualities does the believer believe that God possesses?"
THE MOST IMPORTANT WOULD BE THE GIFT OF SALVATION.
> "The standard reply is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, etc.
GUESS MY REPLY DOESN'T FALL UNDER "STANDARD"
> "Unfortunately this is not a proper answer,
MUCH LIKE MOST OF YOUR ASSUMPTIONS AND OPINIONS.
> "as this tells us what the God is not."
IT ONLY TELLS ME YOU ARE AN ASSWIPE.
> "These are not positive attributes."
TO BE RETARDED LIKE YOURSELF WOULD CERTAINLY BE
NON-POSITIVE ATTRIBUTES !
> "Omnipotence tells us that God is without limits in power."
WRONG.
IT JUST TELLS US THAT HE IS ALL POWERFUL
-NOT THAT THERE ARE NO LIMITATIONS TO HIS POWER IN *THESE* THREE DIMENSIONS.
> "It does not tell us how this omnipotence manifests itself,
> nor how it can be achieved in the knowable world.
YOU ASK ALOT OF A SIMPLE WORD !
> "It in effect, an empty statement, an aggrandizement of what
> human beings perceive.
YOU ARE FULL OF EMPTY STATEMENTS.
> "It is similar to the concept of "perfection", in that it's an
> ill-defined subjective term and not part of objective reality."
PERFECTION IS A PART OF REALITY, JUST LIKE YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE PERFECT RATIO FOR COMBUSTION, -OTHERWISE NO BANG OR FIRE !
"The other ‘omni’s fall because of similar objections."
NOTHING FALLS EXCEPT YOUR IQ, YOU MORON.
> "God is without ignorance and there is no place where God isn't."
CORRECT.
+1 internetz for you
> "Francois Tremblay states:
>"To understand how the god-concept is meaningless, I need first
> to explain what negative defining, and substance, mean."
> "Something is negatively defined when the identification critically
> lacks specificity because it tells us what something is not,
> instead of what something is. For instance, the following
> identification lacks specificity
I'M SORRY BUT YOU HAVE ONCE AGAIN BORED ME SO I DOUBT THE PROBABILITY OF YOU SAYING ANYTHING MORE RELEVANT THAN THE CRAP-FEST YOU HAVE WRITTEN PREVIOUSLY
SO I WILL QUICKLY READ THROUGH THE REST OF THIS GARBAGE.
> “I am not Arthur Daniels Jr.â€
> While it is true that I am not Arthur Daniels Jr., the identification
> tells you almost nothing about me. All it tells you is that I am
> not one particular person. It still leaves the possibility of me
> being any other person on Earth, or even any other sentient
> entity in the universe. As such, it critically lacks specificity.
> Some categories of attributes interest us specifically, such as
> : substance, secondary attributes, and relational attributes.
> The substance of an existant is the basic nature of the material
> it is composed of. Secondary and relational attributes can only
> be meaningful insofar as the substance is meaningful and pertains
> to those specific attributes."
> The following propositions can express this clearly.
>1. The ball is red.
>2. The sound is red.
>3. The soul is red.
> Proposition 1 is perfectly possible, since we know that balls are
> made of material which can have colour, such as plastic.
> Proposition 2 is not possible, as sound arrives to us in the
>form of sound waves, which cannot have colour. Proposition 3 is
> meaningless, since souls are "supernatural", which means non-material.
> All we know is that the soul is not made of matter
INCORRECT.
THIS IS JUST YOUR UN-FOUNDED NON-SCIENTIFIC OPINION. AGAIN.
YOU DO NOT KNOW IF SOULS ARE HERE AS MATTER OR NOT, BECAUSE IF THEY
ARE MATTER, THEY COULD BE SO PHYSICALLY SMALL AS TO SEEM NONEXISTANT
OR NOT BE ABLE TO BE SEEN IN THIS THREE DIMENSIONAL REALM JUST LIKE ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT.
SO STFU, IDIOT.
> but we do not know what it is made of.
EXACTLY.
> "If we do not know what it is made of, we cannot say what
> attributes it can take and what attributes it cannot take.
JUST LIKE A DUMB ATHIEST CAN *NOT* KNOW WHAT ATTRIBUTES GOD
HAS *BY DEFINITION*
YA DUMMY.
> "Consequently, proposition 3 is meaningless."
YOUR LIFE SEEMS PRETTY MEANINGLESS.
> "If we look at the attributes given to the word "god", we find
> the same problems. All of its attributes are either negatively
> defined, secondary or relational. If a god is Creator, then it
> must be immaterial, as nothing can cause itself.
BUT IF YOU ARE *OMNIPOTENT* AND DON'T ABIDE BY THE NATURAL LAWS OF
PHYSICS IN THIS DIMENSION, THEN WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS FALSE.
> "But as we have seen, "immaterial" is a negatively defined term.
> Therefore a god’s substance is undefined.
NO THERFORE THERE YOU IDIOT.
NOTHING IS "NEGATIVELY DEFINED" -EXCEPT THE FACT THAT YOUR
FATHER WAS TOO POOR TO AFFORD A CONDOM.
> "This lack of definition is fatal to the meaningfulness of the
> god-concept, as secondary or relational attributes can no longer
> apply either."
YOUR ATTITUDE MIGHT PROVE TO BE FATAL WHEN IT COMES TO THE
LONGEVITY OR EXISTENCE OF YOUR SOUL.
> "It makes no sense to apply attributes like "unicity" or "loving",
> or even "personal being", to a being when we do not know the substance
> of that being."
WE KNOW THE SUBSTANCE OF YOUR BRAIN, SHIT !
> "The other core attributes of the god-concept suffer from the
> same problems. Gods are Creator, but this is a relational attribute,
> as it concerns a god’s relationship with the universe.
> Gods have infinite powers, but the word "infinite" is negatively
> defined, and therefore ontologically meaningless. Gods are personal
> beings, but personality is meaningless without knowing whether
> the substance of a god is capable of intelligence or personality." [6]
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT "Gods" AGAIN, DUMBASS.
> "All of this is to say that the god concept is incoherent."
YOU ARE THE ONLY INCOHERENT ONE HERE, NOT THE GOD CONCEPT OR BELIEVERS.
> "If this indeed turns out to be the case, then positive belief
> in such a concept is not possible. I realize that what you’ve
> probably just read can be seen as the same argument, drawn out
> in aggonizing detail. I’ve tried to keep it short-believe me
> (I’m rather long winded and could go on and on)-and I’ve tried
> to keep it coherent and on point as much as possible.
TELL THAT TO THE GODS !
> "With that said, in order to validate a belief in an entity
> (God) the theist must first define the entity.
> The definition must include whether the entity is material
> or immaterial, supernatural or non-supernatural, etc etc.
> Unfortunately an entity that is material and non-supernatural
> is not a new entity at all, it’s just a new term for the
> universe-which is why the pantheistic argument fails.
SO FAR, *YOU* ARE THE ONLY ONE HERE WITH AN ARGUMENT THAT HAS FAILED.
> "An entity that is supernatural and non-material can not exist
> because that entity lacks specificity and is empty."
KEEP TELLING YOURSELF THIS.
SOMEDAY YOU MIGHT BELIEVE IT.
> "A supernatural materialistic entity is a contradiction in terms."
NO IT IS NOT,
AS YOU HAVE PAINSTAKENLY SHOWN US THROUGH YOUR IRRATIONAL-RATIONALISATIONS.
> "Works Cited:"
YOU MUST BE FEELING GUILTY ABOUT ALL THE OTHER TIMES
YOU PLAGIARIZED OTHER PEOPLES WORKS ON YOUR COPY AND PASTE WARS.
THERE ISN'T ONE ORIGINAL THOUGHT IN THAT PEA-BRAIN OF YOURS
THAT IS NOT REGURGITATED NONSENSE.
LOAL !
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I would be interested in hearing your
> philosophical reasons then instead of me trying to
> parse those out of your posts. "
'Professor Pangloss' wrote :
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I've mentioned two, but there are others.
> Let's start with the argument from non-cognitivism,
> which also gets meshed in with incompatible attributes."
--------
> "I wrote this up over four years ago and I think
> I need to expand on it a little."
> "What follows is a critical examination. It’s fairly long
> and probably not suitable for everyone. I’ve incorporated
> cites where appropriate and in some cases I’ve quoted a
> sizable amount of text because I feel the author has done a
> far more admirable job of explaining the concept then I would
> have been able to. So I hope you’ll bear through the quotes."
THIS SOUNDS BETTER THAN YOUR NORMAL PLAGARIST REGURGITATION YOU
ARE KNOWN FOR HERE ON FFXU !
> "Okay, I want to state up front that I’m by no means an expert
> on atheism or atheistic argumentation. If you want what I consider
> the best tomb on atheistic argumentation, then I suggest you pick
> up the book "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith.
> Additionally, I’m not seeking to convert or sway anyone towards atheism."
YEAH RIGHT ASSHOLE.
> "I do not denigrate religious belief"
YEAH RIGHT ASSHOLE.
> "nor do I find it "wrong" in any sense. What I’m attempting
> to do is provide a reasonable justification for atheism."
THERE IS NO REASOABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR ATHEISM.
YOU KNOW IT, JUST AS WELL AS THAT FAT FAGGOT
"Theamazingathiest" KNOWS IT ON YouTube.
> "I think this is a particularly relevant and interesting issue,
> no matter which side of the ‘pew’ you line yourself up with.
> Religiosity and church attendance are at an all time high,
> in fact, belief has never been so common place in America-this
> is why the topic of God belief is an important issue.
> According to Michael Shermer:"
> "For the past two centuries American church membership rates have
> risen from a paltry 17 percent at the time of the Revolution, to
> 34 percent by the middle of the nineteenth century, to over 60
> percent today." [1]
WHO THE FUCK CARES FAGGOT ?
THIS OBVIOUSLY BOTHERS YOU GREATLY ?
> "With that said, I will introduce some of the arguments either
> against specific arguments in favor of God or in favor of the
> non-existence of God. I will be addressing the arguments one
> at a time, and with proper reference links/cites when appropriate.
> I’m not going to rattle off a litany of arguments because I feel
> that more will be gained if we explore them one at a time and
> in greater detail."
THANK YOU, OH GREAT PROFESSOR !
> "Before I begin, I’m going to define some terms for the
> purpose of this discussion. These are by no means concrete
> and we can define them further if need be."
>-"Atheist: Someone without the belief in God. It is not necessarily
> a position where the person says affirmatively that God does not exist.
> Atheist is a general statement about a non belief in any God concept."
>-"Hard Atheist: This is the person who says that God does not exist,
> affirmatively."
>-"Weak Atheist: This is a person who does not feel that there is any
> quality evidence for the existence of God. They do not rule the concept
> of God out definitely, but they see no reason to believe in any of
> the Gods they know of."
*ALL* ATHEIST ARE RETARDED DOUCHE BAGS
DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS WOULD HAVE SUFFICED, YA DUMBASS.
>-"Agnostic: Agnosticism is not a position on whether one believes
> in God or not, it is a position on whether one believes that it
> is possible to know positively whether God exists or not."
SO AGNOSTIC = OXYMORON ?
> "Additionally it’s a position on whether God can be known
> through experience."
> "I’m fairly certain that everyone will agree with the above-
> at least to some extent. The next definition, that of God,
> begins the discussion and the first argument for the
> non-existence of God."
> "Before I begin examining the concept of God, I feel
> justified in asking the following question:
> Does God require faith?
GOD REQUIRES FAITH NOW, BUT ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, HE CAME HERE ABOUT TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO AND PERFORMED MIRACLES. SO HE DID NOT ALWAYS REQUIRE FAITH.
> "From what I’ve read, most incarnations of God want their
> believers to believe based off of faith, instead of based
> off of empirical evidence. If this is true, then atheism is
> justified-because without doubt there is no faith-only certainty.
NOBODY EVER SAID YOU NEEDED CERTAINTY TO HAVE FAITH
OR THAT CERTANTY WAS A PRERQUISITE OF FAITH.
THEREFORE; CERTANTY IS A PERSONAL PREREQUISITE OF ATHIESTS
AND ATHEISM IS *UN-JUSTIFIED* BEING THAT THERE IS NO CERTANTY
IN THE BELIEF OF THE NON-EXISTANCE OF GOD.
GET IT NOW BOZO ?
> Now then, onto a bigger problem.
BETTER YET YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT WAS JUST FLUSHED
DOWN THE TOILET. AND YOU ARE HARLDY WORTH ME PRESSING
ON, BUT I WILL BECAUSE I LIKE LAUGHING AT YOU SO MUCH. :~)
> "Defining God and the problems therein.
> "The very first question that should be asked before we
> can either affirm or deny the belief in an entity is what
> is the entity in question?"
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT AN "ENTITY"
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT GOD -THE CREATOR OF EVERYRHING
TRY TO STAY ON TOPIC
> "I think we can all agree that if the entity in question
> is ill defined to the point of utter arbitrariness that it
> doesn’t make much sense to affirm a belief in the entity;
> after all, what would we be actually affirming a belief in?
BELIEF IN EVERYTHING AROUND YOU *NOT* BEING A FACT OF OR
BY-PRODUCT OF SOME IMPROBABLE IMPOSIBILITY.
> "A mystery?"
THE ONLY MYSTERY HERE IS;
WHY DUMBASS ATHIEST LIKE YOURSELF THINK
YOU ARE SOME KIND OF INTELLECTS.
> "An abstract concept that has no basis in reality?"
YOUR ATHEISTIC CONCEPT IS THE ABSTRACT ONE,
ONE WITH NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS OR BASIS IN REALITY FOR THAT MATTER.
> In order to be clear on this point, I’ll rely on the words
>of W.T. Blackstone:
> "Until the content of a belief is made clear, the appeal to
> accept the belief on faith is beside the point, for one would
> not know what one has accepted. The request for the meaning of
> a religious belief is logically prior to the question of accepting
> that belief on faith or to the question of whether that belief
> constitutes knowledge.â€[2]
SOUNDS LIKE THE DUMBASS THINKS MUCH ALIKE YOURSELF.
> "So without a foundation on which to rest a belief,
(IN YOUR OPINION, DUMBASS)
> "that belief is by definition nonsensical."
THIS IS YOUR *UN-FOUNDED* OPINION !
> "I think we can all agree on this."
THINK AGAIN, DUMBASS.
> "The problem with relating to commonly accepted definitions of
> what God is, is that since the dawn of time there have been
> many different definitions of God.
*ALL* RELIGIONS THAT BELIEVE IN *ONE* GOD, BELIEVE HE IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME THING;
CREATING EVERYTHING YOU SEE AROUND YOU.
I ALWAYS ASSUMED THIS WAS A SIMPLE CONCEPT, BUT APPARENTY YOU
ARE HAVING A HARD TIME WRAPPING YOUR HEAS AROUND IT.
NOT SURPRISING, TO SAY THE LEAST.
> "Some included the more traditional anthropomorphic God,
> such as Zeus, Mithra, El, Isis, Horus, etc. These Gods were
> basically big magical "men", so to speak, in that they were
> aggrandized versions of humanity. They had human form, emotions,
> and other characteristics.
KEY WORD : "GODS"
TRY TO STAY ON TOPIC, YOU SIMPLETON.
> "For the most part Gods of these sorts can be dismissed for
> the purpose of this discussion as they are not believed in by
> anyone here,
SPEAK FOR YOURSELF IDIOT.
I BELIEVE IN THE FACT THEY ARE ANCIENT ACCOUNTS OF
OTHER-WORLDLY VISITATIONS TO EARTH.
> "and have been, for the most part, relegated to
> the dustbin of history."
MOST LIKELY, YOUR BRAIN IS IN THIS SAME DUSTBIN.
> "The other versions of God that are often brought up are
> the Gods without physical substance, these Gods include, but
> are not limited to, the God of Abraham (includes Hebrew/Christian
> /Islamic religions) and Ahura Mazda (granted even these can
> be argued against). These Gods are often described as omnimax
> Gods; i.e., all powerful, all benevolent, all knowing, and
> omnipresent (in most cases). These Gods are the type of God
> I am concentrating on. They are not defined outside of abstraction,
> which means they do not have a valid, workable, definition.
GOOD GOD, YOU ARE ONE SIMPLE-MINDED DUMBFUCK PANGLOSS.
> "It is sometimes argued that God is "being itself". I do not
> think this is a rational statement however, because it blurs
> the definition of what we already know with what we do not know
> in an effort to sustain a belief in something for which none
> is warranted. If we say that existence or "being" is God,
> then what is existence? What does "being" mean?
WHY ASK WHY, DUMBASS ?
I KNEW YOUR IDIOCY WOULD NOT FAIL TO DISAPPOINT !
> "These terms become nonsensical when they are relegated to
> the attributes of God."
SPEAKING OF NONSENSE, YOU ARE STARTING TO BORE ME.
> "As George Smith puts it:
> "To divorce the idea of a supernatural being from the concept
> of god is to obliterate the basic distinction between theism
> and atheism.
KINDA LIKE BRINGING UP "gods" WHEN WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE DISCUSSING "GOD" ?
> "If the so-called "theist" or "Christian" is willing to admit
> that a supernatural being does not exist, then he has capitulated
> to traditional atheism, and his continued use of the word “godâ€
> carries no metaphysical significance.†[3]
THIS DOESN'T EVEN REMOTELY BACK UP THE DUMBASS POINT
YOU WERE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE.
> "So God can not be redefined to mean existence or being,
> because it confuses the concept and destroys the concept of what
> it means to have a supernatural God. In short, there is nothing
> to believe in, other then existence, which is a fundamental
> axiom already. "
TO BELIEVE IN FAITH IS ANTI-BELIEF!
SEE, I CAN SAY STUPID NON-SENSICAL CRAP ALSO.
> "To continue on, the other position a theist takes is that God
> is part of the supernatural. This too has the appearance of definition,
> but when inspected closely falls apart. When something is claimed
> to be supernatural, it means that it doesn’t follow the natural
> laws of the universe. It is somehow outside of the natural world,
> it is outside of any possible understanding that we, as natural
> and physical beings, can be privy to-logically/rationally speaking.
WRONG.
YOUR DEFINITION OF "SUPERNATURAL", CLEARLY
INDICATES WE UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT.
> "Once again, George H. Smith sums it up:
> "The first problem with the designation of supernatural
> (or any equivalent term) is that it tells us nothing positive
> about a God. "Supernatural" tells us what a god is
NO I DOES NOT TELL US WHAT HE "IS"
JUST TELLS US WHAT HE IS CAPABLE OF.
> "not-that it is not part of the natural universe-but it does
> not tell us what a god is.
SO ?
> "What identifiable characteristics does a god possess? "
BIBLE SAYS JESUS COULD MAKE FOOD WHERE THERE WAS NONE BEFORE
AND TRANSMUTATE MATTER OR ELEMENTS LIKE WATER INTO WINE.
> In other words, how will we recognize a god if we run across one?
PREVIOUSLY STATED, SEE ABOVE POST.
> "To state that a god is supernatural does not provide us with
> an answer….
UH DUUUUUUHHHHHHH
> "the entire notion of a supernatural being is incomprehensible."
I HAVE ALREADY CALLED YOU OUT ON THIS POINT, NOW YOU'RE JUST A LIAR.
> "The theist wishes us to conceive of a being exempt from natural
> law"
CORRECT
> -a being that does not fall within the domain of scientific
> explanation
SCIENCE EXPLAINS HIM WHEN IT ADMITS GOD IS OUTSIDE OF SCIENTIFIC CONSTRAINTS.
> "-but no theist has ever explained how we can conceive of existence
> other than "natural" existence.
WE DON'T NEED TO EXPLAIN BECAUSE THE CONCEPT IS SELF EVIDENT.
> "Natural existence" is a redundancy;
WRONG. PROFESSOR PANGLOSS = REDUNDANCY
(IDIOTIC REDUNDANCY TO BE EXACT)
> "we have no familiarity with "unnatural" existence,
REALLY ?
HOW ABOUT SYNTHETIC MATERIALS, OR SYNTHETIC ANTIBIOTICS
THESE ARE FAMILIAR TERMS OUTSIDE THE NATURAL WORLD.
> "or even a vague notion of what such existence would be like."[4]
THIS GUY IS AN IDIOT JUST LIKE YOU.
> "To claim that god is subject to natural law is to unmake god
> and to apply limitations to god.
REDUNDANT INCORRECT MOOT POINT.
> "Additional claims of omnipotence then entail a logical
> contradiction and do not hold."
THIS IS JUST UN-FOUNDES UN-SCIENTIFIC OPINION.
> "Furthermore, since god has to be supernatural, that means
> that it can not possess determinant characteristics,
THIS IS A CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT.
> these characteristics would automatically limit god to
> the natural (and obviously out of the omnipotent).
UNLESS HE SEPERATES A PIECE OF HIMSELF (JESUS)
TO CARRY OUT THE JOB. DUUHHHHHHHH.
> "So what is god? Well, in order to exist, an entity has to exist
> as something. Existence can not exist without something to exist,
WRONG.
JUST LIKE THE PIXELS ON YOUR TV SCREEN WERE THERE BEFORE THEY LIT UP TO BE THE PICTURE ON THE SCREEN, BOZO.
> "and similarly anything that exists must necessarily be something."
MY A-SPHYNCTER IS ROUND, THEREFORE IT EXISTS AMD MUST BE BROWN !
> "The trouble is, god can have no defining determinant characteristics
> and necessarily must be in the realm of the supernatural.
> As such, to claim that god exists is to claim that something with
> no characteristics exists, which is nonsensical.
SPEAKING OF NONSENSE.
> "Ludwig Feuerbach said:
> To deny all the qualities of a being is equivalent to denying
> the being himself. A being without qualities is one which can
> not become an object to the mind, and such a being is virtually
> non-existent“[5]
YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE HERE IN DENIAL.
> "What is there to believe in?"
EVERYTHING YOU SEE AROUND YOU.
> "What qualities does the believer believe that God possesses?"
THE MOST IMPORTANT WOULD BE THE GIFT OF SALVATION.
> "The standard reply is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, etc.
GUESS MY REPLY DOESN'T FALL UNDER "STANDARD"
> "Unfortunately this is not a proper answer,
MUCH LIKE MOST OF YOUR ASSUMPTIONS AND OPINIONS.
> "as this tells us what the God is not."
IT ONLY TELLS ME YOU ARE AN ASSWIPE.
> "These are not positive attributes."
TO BE RETARDED LIKE YOURSELF WOULD CERTAINLY BE
NON-POSITIVE ATTRIBUTES !
> "Omnipotence tells us that God is without limits in power."
WRONG.
IT JUST TELLS US THAT HE IS ALL POWERFUL
-NOT THAT THERE ARE NO LIMITATIONS TO HIS POWER IN *THESE* THREE DIMENSIONS.
> "It does not tell us how this omnipotence manifests itself,
> nor how it can be achieved in the knowable world.
YOU ASK ALOT OF A SIMPLE WORD !
> "It in effect, an empty statement, an aggrandizement of what
> human beings perceive.
YOU ARE FULL OF EMPTY STATEMENTS.
> "It is similar to the concept of "perfection", in that it's an
> ill-defined subjective term and not part of objective reality."
PERFECTION IS A PART OF REALITY, JUST LIKE YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE PERFECT RATIO FOR COMBUSTION, -OTHERWISE NO BANG OR FIRE !
"The other ‘omni’s fall because of similar objections."
NOTHING FALLS EXCEPT YOUR IQ, YOU MORON.
> "God is without ignorance and there is no place where God isn't."
CORRECT.
+1 internetz for you
> "Francois Tremblay states:
>"To understand how the god-concept is meaningless, I need first
> to explain what negative defining, and substance, mean."
> "Something is negatively defined when the identification critically
> lacks specificity because it tells us what something is not,
> instead of what something is. For instance, the following
> identification lacks specificity
I'M SORRY BUT YOU HAVE ONCE AGAIN BORED ME SO I DOUBT THE PROBABILITY OF YOU SAYING ANYTHING MORE RELEVANT THAN THE CRAP-FEST YOU HAVE WRITTEN PREVIOUSLY
SO I WILL QUICKLY READ THROUGH THE REST OF THIS GARBAGE.
> “I am not Arthur Daniels Jr.â€
> While it is true that I am not Arthur Daniels Jr., the identification
> tells you almost nothing about me. All it tells you is that I am
> not one particular person. It still leaves the possibility of me
> being any other person on Earth, or even any other sentient
> entity in the universe. As such, it critically lacks specificity.
> Some categories of attributes interest us specifically, such as
> : substance, secondary attributes, and relational attributes.
> The substance of an existant is the basic nature of the material
> it is composed of. Secondary and relational attributes can only
> be meaningful insofar as the substance is meaningful and pertains
> to those specific attributes."
> The following propositions can express this clearly.
>1. The ball is red.
>2. The sound is red.
>3. The soul is red.
> Proposition 1 is perfectly possible, since we know that balls are
> made of material which can have colour, such as plastic.
> Proposition 2 is not possible, as sound arrives to us in the
>form of sound waves, which cannot have colour. Proposition 3 is
> meaningless, since souls are "supernatural", which means non-material.
> All we know is that the soul is not made of matter
INCORRECT.
THIS IS JUST YOUR UN-FOUNDED NON-SCIENTIFIC OPINION. AGAIN.
YOU DO NOT KNOW IF SOULS ARE HERE AS MATTER OR NOT, BECAUSE IF THEY
ARE MATTER, THEY COULD BE SO PHYSICALLY SMALL AS TO SEEM NONEXISTANT
OR NOT BE ABLE TO BE SEEN IN THIS THREE DIMENSIONAL REALM JUST LIKE ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT.
SO STFU, IDIOT.
> but we do not know what it is made of.
EXACTLY.
> "If we do not know what it is made of, we cannot say what
> attributes it can take and what attributes it cannot take.
JUST LIKE A DUMB ATHIEST CAN *NOT* KNOW WHAT ATTRIBUTES GOD
HAS *BY DEFINITION*
YA DUMMY.
> "Consequently, proposition 3 is meaningless."
YOUR LIFE SEEMS PRETTY MEANINGLESS.
> "If we look at the attributes given to the word "god", we find
> the same problems. All of its attributes are either negatively
> defined, secondary or relational. If a god is Creator, then it
> must be immaterial, as nothing can cause itself.
BUT IF YOU ARE *OMNIPOTENT* AND DON'T ABIDE BY THE NATURAL LAWS OF
PHYSICS IN THIS DIMENSION, THEN WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS FALSE.
> "But as we have seen, "immaterial" is a negatively defined term.
> Therefore a god’s substance is undefined.
NO THERFORE THERE YOU IDIOT.
NOTHING IS "NEGATIVELY DEFINED" -EXCEPT THE FACT THAT YOUR
FATHER WAS TOO POOR TO AFFORD A CONDOM.
> "This lack of definition is fatal to the meaningfulness of the
> god-concept, as secondary or relational attributes can no longer
> apply either."
YOUR ATTITUDE MIGHT PROVE TO BE FATAL WHEN IT COMES TO THE
LONGEVITY OR EXISTENCE OF YOUR SOUL.
> "It makes no sense to apply attributes like "unicity" or "loving",
> or even "personal being", to a being when we do not know the substance
> of that being."
WE KNOW THE SUBSTANCE OF YOUR BRAIN, SHIT !
> "The other core attributes of the god-concept suffer from the
> same problems. Gods are Creator, but this is a relational attribute,
> as it concerns a god’s relationship with the universe.
> Gods have infinite powers, but the word "infinite" is negatively
> defined, and therefore ontologically meaningless. Gods are personal
> beings, but personality is meaningless without knowing whether
> the substance of a god is capable of intelligence or personality." [6]
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT "Gods" AGAIN, DUMBASS.
> "All of this is to say that the god concept is incoherent."
YOU ARE THE ONLY INCOHERENT ONE HERE, NOT THE GOD CONCEPT OR BELIEVERS.
> "If this indeed turns out to be the case, then positive belief
> in such a concept is not possible. I realize that what you’ve
> probably just read can be seen as the same argument, drawn out
> in aggonizing detail. I’ve tried to keep it short-believe me
> (I’m rather long winded and could go on and on)-and I’ve tried
> to keep it coherent and on point as much as possible.
TELL THAT TO THE GODS !
> "With that said, in order to validate a belief in an entity
> (God) the theist must first define the entity.
> The definition must include whether the entity is material
> or immaterial, supernatural or non-supernatural, etc etc.
> Unfortunately an entity that is material and non-supernatural
> is not a new entity at all, it’s just a new term for the
> universe-which is why the pantheistic argument fails.
SO FAR, *YOU* ARE THE ONLY ONE HERE WITH AN ARGUMENT THAT HAS FAILED.
> "An entity that is supernatural and non-material can not exist
> because that entity lacks specificity and is empty."
KEEP TELLING YOURSELF THIS.
SOMEDAY YOU MIGHT BELIEVE IT.
> "A supernatural materialistic entity is a contradiction in terms."
NO IT IS NOT,
AS YOU HAVE PAINSTAKENLY SHOWN US THROUGH YOUR IRRATIONAL-RATIONALISATIONS.
> "Works Cited:"
YOU MUST BE FEELING GUILTY ABOUT ALL THE OTHER TIMES
YOU PLAGIARIZED OTHER PEOPLES WORKS ON YOUR COPY AND PASTE WARS.
THERE ISN'T ONE ORIGINAL THOUGHT IN THAT PEA-BRAIN OF YOURS
THAT IS NOT REGURGITATED NONSENSE.
LOAL !
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2011 08:58PM
Jaylow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> much stuff.....
>
> Hmmmm, not sure how much of this is philosophical.
It's a atheological semantic argument. An argument about language, which is part and parcel for philosophy.
> But, that being said: your argument seems to
> come down to the belief (perhaps fact) that God
> and His existence is beyond the comprehension of
> man and therefore, you can not believe in him and
> that, with all the other theories out there, you
> can not settle on Creation and God as the right
> answer or even on to really consider.
Kind of. It's more like how can you believe in something which is incoherent.
> I recommend that you go to MBC for a few weeks and
> see for yourself whether it "sucks" and whether
> faith in God is more than just overcoming the
> over-analyzation of logic problems. It seems to
> me that your belief that there is nothing but us
> for no real reason other than to propagate the
> species is kinda sad.
I know practically nothing about the MBC and I have not said that it sucks.
Also, as to my reason for living, which seems to be what you are getting at, it has little to do with my theological beliefs.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> much stuff.....
>
> Hmmmm, not sure how much of this is philosophical.
It's a atheological semantic argument. An argument about language, which is part and parcel for philosophy.
> But, that being said: your argument seems to
> come down to the belief (perhaps fact) that God
> and His existence is beyond the comprehension of
> man and therefore, you can not believe in him and
> that, with all the other theories out there, you
> can not settle on Creation and God as the right
> answer or even on to really consider.
Kind of. It's more like how can you believe in something which is incoherent.
> I recommend that you go to MBC for a few weeks and
> see for yourself whether it "sucks" and whether
> faith in God is more than just overcoming the
> over-analyzation of logic problems. It seems to
> me that your belief that there is nothing but us
> for no real reason other than to propagate the
> species is kinda sad.
I know practically nothing about the MBC and I have not said that it sucks.
Also, as to my reason for living, which seems to be what you are getting at, it has little to do with my theological beliefs.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2011 09:02PM
Troll, I didn't read your big mess of crap, but I did notice that you are attempting to say I am plagiarizing. Now, this could be for two reasons:
1. You are simply ignorant of what it means to cite your sources. The fact that I've placed material in quotations and then provided a citation at the end of the work is lost on you.
2. You are under the mistaken notion that I'm not the original author of this material simply because it's found on other places on the web. Perhaps you believe I don't have a yahoo account or was never a member of another forum. Maybe you believe that I magically appeared on FFX underground and that this is the only place I frequent.
In either case, you are mistaken.
1. You are simply ignorant of what it means to cite your sources. The fact that I've placed material in quotations and then provided a citation at the end of the work is lost on you.
2. You are under the mistaken notion that I'm not the original author of this material simply because it's found on other places on the web. Perhaps you believe I don't have a yahoo account or was never a member of another forum. Maybe you believe that I magically appeared on FFX underground and that this is the only place I frequent.
In either case, you are mistaken.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
to: the professor
()
Date: January 25, 2011 09:16PM
You hit the nail right on the head. I have many feelings about MBC but if I state my view many get upset. Just like our political views. It is either black or white. (no pun)
MBC is in our area a mega church. I feel it more a SOCIAL outlet. If those who give money like that who I am to stop them.
I am so polite I would never say to another "prove your god". I would love to ask everyone to state why their one god is the ONLY one. Prove to me your "god" is the correct god.
Please tell me how if I pick the WRONG god I may rot in hell?
You cannot.
I believe in many things but your "gods" I do not.
Prove it to me.
MBC is in our area a mega church. I feel it more a SOCIAL outlet. If those who give money like that who I am to stop them.
I am so polite I would never say to another "prove your god". I would love to ask everyone to state why their one god is the ONLY one. Prove to me your "god" is the correct god.
Please tell me how if I pick the WRONG god I may rot in hell?
You cannot.
I believe in many things but your "gods" I do not.
Prove it to me.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2011 09:25PM
to: the professor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You hit the nail right on the head. I have many
> feelings about MBC but if I state my view many get
> upset. Just like our political views. It is either
> black or white. (no pun)
>
> MBC is in our area a mega church. I feel it more a
> SOCIAL outlet. If those who give money like that
> who I am to stop them.
I have no problem with mega churches or with going to church as a social outlet. I don't have any knowledge about MBC so I can't really comment other then to make vague statements that could apply to them.
That said, if you are a Christian and your only reason for going to MBC is because of the social aspect then I think that you should probably find a better church. One that can satisfy *that* need as well as your religious needs.
> I am so polite I would never say to another "prove
> your god". I would love to ask everyone to state
> why their one god is the ONLY one. Prove to me
> your "god" is the correct god.
Which is why the internet is a great thing, IMO. I like these 'questions' and while I have brought them up to my friends, there's only so far you can go in those situations. The internet is different in this regard.
> Please tell me how if I pick the WRONG god I may
> rot in hell?
>
> You cannot.
>
> I believe in many things but your "gods" I do
> not.
>
> Prove it to me.
I hear this and I agree. I don't ask for proof - but if someone has a reason or evidence that they feel is compelling then I would like to know what it is.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You hit the nail right on the head. I have many
> feelings about MBC but if I state my view many get
> upset. Just like our political views. It is either
> black or white. (no pun)
>
> MBC is in our area a mega church. I feel it more a
> SOCIAL outlet. If those who give money like that
> who I am to stop them.
I have no problem with mega churches or with going to church as a social outlet. I don't have any knowledge about MBC so I can't really comment other then to make vague statements that could apply to them.
That said, if you are a Christian and your only reason for going to MBC is because of the social aspect then I think that you should probably find a better church. One that can satisfy *that* need as well as your religious needs.
> I am so polite I would never say to another "prove
> your god". I would love to ask everyone to state
> why their one god is the ONLY one. Prove to me
> your "god" is the correct god.
Which is why the internet is a great thing, IMO. I like these 'questions' and while I have brought them up to my friends, there's only so far you can go in those situations. The internet is different in this regard.
> Please tell me how if I pick the WRONG god I may
> rot in hell?
>
> You cannot.
>
> I believe in many things but your "gods" I do
> not.
>
> Prove it to me.
I hear this and I agree. I don't ask for proof - but if someone has a reason or evidence that they feel is compelling then I would like to know what it is.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Gordon Blvd
()
Date: January 25, 2011 09:37PM
ROFLMAO@ I am a troll you are a simpleton 8^)
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: January 25, 2011 09:41PM
Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ROFLMAO@ I am a troll you are a simpleton 8^)
And?
So you can be reasonable in one post and not so in another. Do you honestly expect me to try to analyze every post to see whether or not it's 'the troll' posting? I don't care enough to and I have better things to do.
That said, it's completely sad that you are making up identities - one seemingly rational and the other irrational in an attempt to 'fool me'. Am I that special to you?
Seriously, why do you care?
-------------------------------------------------------
> ROFLMAO@ I am a troll you are a simpleton 8^)
And?
So you can be reasonable in one post and not so in another. Do you honestly expect me to try to analyze every post to see whether or not it's 'the troll' posting? I don't care enough to and I have better things to do.
That said, it's completely sad that you are making up identities - one seemingly rational and the other irrational in an attempt to 'fool me'. Am I that special to you?
Seriously, why do you care?
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
Angel
()
Date: February 06, 2011 05:56PM
Wow - first time I came across this site and the subject. I am sure that everyone has an opinion on every Church or place of worship to criticize. Not every Church that I have attended has met my needs but to go on line and be so critical is wrong - at least they are going to a Church - all of you who are on this blog are you actually going to Church or a place of worship? When the end is near I hope God forgives you.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Judy Abdul
()
Date: April 02, 2011 01:37PM
Let's stop blaming Lon for sharing his views (right or wrong) that don't agree with your personal views. If you believe your good works or whatever will get you to heaven, go ahead. But please share with me how much 'good works' I need to make it? Is it like a "No Child Left Behind" system where every decent person gets in or is it like getting into an Ivy League University or being drafted by the NFL? Is there a minimum score for entry into heaven or is the grading system relative?
I'd rather believe Lon's message that entry into heaven in only through the acceptance of Jesus Christ's grace. If that concept proves wrong, we both will make it to heaven via the good works philosophy. But if it proves to be right...I'll be there! It is a win-win for me either way!
I'd rather believe Lon's message that entry into heaven in only through the acceptance of Jesus Christ's grace. If that concept proves wrong, we both will make it to heaven via the good works philosophy. But if it proves to be right...I'll be there! It is a win-win for me either way!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Atom
()
Date: April 02, 2011 05:31PM
I once attended a funeral at McLean Bible for a 6 year old girl who was tragically killed in a recreational accident (I'm keeping out details to protect the family.)
Lon used the the packed house to preach intolerance of other religions and damnation for all but his sect. It was a pretty awful display.
Though you have to hand it to him. He's made a killing of his parishioners.
NASJAT
Lon used the the packed house to preach intolerance of other religions and damnation for all but his sect. It was a pretty awful display.
Though you have to hand it to him. He's made a killing of his parishioners.
NASJAT
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Gordon Blvd
()
Date: April 02, 2011 08:28PM
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks new
Posted by: Judy Abdul ()
Date: April 02, 2011 01:37PM
I'd rather believe Lon's message that entry into heaven in only through the acceptance of Jesus Christ's grace. If that concept proves wrong, we both will make it to heaven via the good works philosophy. But if it proves to be right...I'll be there! It is a win-win for me either way!
--------------------------------------------------
HOLY SHIT!!! My jaw is on the FRIGGIN' GROUND!!
Just please, all you doubters and non-believers - PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT!!! THE TRUE CHRISTIANITY SPEAKING up there!!!!
It is so scary to think that viewpoint given by that poster is truly believed by them to be what Christ feels is right.
Jesus aint like that at all......................
Posted by: Judy Abdul ()
Date: April 02, 2011 01:37PM
I'd rather believe Lon's message that entry into heaven in only through the acceptance of Jesus Christ's grace. If that concept proves wrong, we both will make it to heaven via the good works philosophy. But if it proves to be right...I'll be there! It is a win-win for me either way!
--------------------------------------------------
HOLY SHIT!!! My jaw is on the FRIGGIN' GROUND!!
Just please, all you doubters and non-believers - PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT!!! THE TRUE CHRISTIANITY SPEAKING up there!!!!
It is so scary to think that viewpoint given by that poster is truly believed by them to be what Christ feels is right.
Jesus aint like that at all......................
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: April 05, 2011 09:39AM
Angel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When the end is near I hope God forgives you.
That's the good thing with Islam, eventually Allah does forgive you and you get to go to heaven.
-------------------------------------------------------
> When the end is near I hope God forgives you.
That's the good thing with Islam, eventually Allah does forgive you and you get to go to heaven.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: April 05, 2011 09:40AM
Judy Abdul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If that concept proves wrong, we
> both will make it to heaven via the good works
> philosophy. But if it proves to be right...I'll
> be there! It is a win-win for me either way!
Um, so what if the Zoroastrians are correct and you've just committed to working with Ahriman? That means that you are slated for destruction at the end of time.
Not such a win-win, is it?
-------------------------------------------------------
> If that concept proves wrong, we
> both will make it to heaven via the good works
> philosophy. But if it proves to be right...I'll
> be there! It is a win-win for me either way!
Um, so what if the Zoroastrians are correct and you've just committed to working with Ahriman? That means that you are slated for destruction at the end of time.
Not such a win-win, is it?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Judy Abdul
()
Date: April 05, 2011 09:16PM
So...tell me, what exactly is Christianity all about? I'm all ears!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Judy Abdul
()
Date: April 05, 2011 09:22PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Judy Abdul Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If that concept proves wrong, we
> > both will make it to heaven via the good works
> > philosophy. But if it proves to be
> right...I'll
> > be there! It is a win-win for me either way!
>
>
> Um, so what if the Zoroastrians are correct and
> you've just committed to working with Ahriman?
> That means that you are slated for destruction at
> the end of time.
>
> Not such a win-win, is it?
I wasn't talking about Zoroastrians or Ahriman! I'm just comparing the Christian approach to getting to heaven with someone else who believes he can get there via good works.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Judy Abdul Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If that concept proves wrong, we
> > both will make it to heaven via the good works
> > philosophy. But if it proves to be
> right...I'll
> > be there! It is a win-win for me either way!
>
>
> Um, so what if the Zoroastrians are correct and
> you've just committed to working with Ahriman?
> That means that you are slated for destruction at
> the end of time.
>
> Not such a win-win, is it?
I wasn't talking about Zoroastrians or Ahriman! I'm just comparing the Christian approach to getting to heaven with someone else who believes he can get there via good works.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Josh youareblind
()
Date: April 05, 2011 11:55PM
I'm not going to fight with you to prove God's existence because you are free to believe whatever. Science simply reflects what God has done and made available. Science can't create life. In all the exploration and advancements, science can't travel outside of our little sliver of the universe. Would be nice if you'd open your eyes but whatever.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: April 06, 2011 09:33AM
Judy Abdul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Judy Abdul Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > If that concept proves wrong, we
> > > both will make it to heaven via the good
> works
> > > philosophy. But if it proves to be
> > right...I'll
> > > be there! It is a win-win for me either way!
> >
> >
> > Um, so what if the Zoroastrians are correct and
> > you've just committed to working with Ahriman?
> > That means that you are slated for destruction
> at
> > the end of time.
> >
> > Not such a win-win, is it?
>
> I wasn't talking about Zoroastrians or Ahriman!
> I'm just comparing the Christian approach to
> getting to heaven with someone else who believes
> he can get there via good works.
I know you weren't, that's the point. You are presupposing your views are true, therefore your premise follows. The point is that you are begging the question.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Judy Abdul Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > If that concept proves wrong, we
> > > both will make it to heaven via the good
> works
> > > philosophy. But if it proves to be
> > right...I'll
> > > be there! It is a win-win for me either way!
> >
> >
> > Um, so what if the Zoroastrians are correct and
> > you've just committed to working with Ahriman?
> > That means that you are slated for destruction
> at
> > the end of time.
> >
> > Not such a win-win, is it?
>
> I wasn't talking about Zoroastrians or Ahriman!
> I'm just comparing the Christian approach to
> getting to heaven with someone else who believes
> he can get there via good works.
I know you weren't, that's the point. You are presupposing your views are true, therefore your premise follows. The point is that you are begging the question.
Re: NO Absolution vouchers at MBC!
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: April 06, 2011 09:36AM
Josh youareblind Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not going to fight with you to prove God's
> existence because you are free to believe
> whatever. Science simply reflects what God has
> done and made available.
I don't even know what you are trying to say here. Please explain.
> Science can't create
> life.
So what? Science can't create storms on Jupiter, that doesn't meant that they are supernatural phenomenon. 500 years ago, science couldn't create a cell phone - does that mean they are miracles from God?
> In all the exploration and advancements,
> science can't travel outside of our little sliver
> of the universe.
Again, so what? 100 years ago, science couldn't get us to the moon. Let's suppose that science can never get us to Mars, how does it follow that God exists?
> Would be nice if you'd open your
> eyes but whatever.
It would be nice if you applied a bit of scrutiny to your beliefs, but whatever.
A reformulation of a common saying: It's one thing to have an open mind, it's another to have it so open that your brains fall out.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not going to fight with you to prove God's
> existence because you are free to believe
> whatever. Science simply reflects what God has
> done and made available.
I don't even know what you are trying to say here. Please explain.
> Science can't create
> life.
So what? Science can't create storms on Jupiter, that doesn't meant that they are supernatural phenomenon. 500 years ago, science couldn't create a cell phone - does that mean they are miracles from God?
> In all the exploration and advancements,
> science can't travel outside of our little sliver
> of the universe.
Again, so what? 100 years ago, science couldn't get us to the moon. Let's suppose that science can never get us to Mars, how does it follow that God exists?
> Would be nice if you'd open your
> eyes but whatever.
It would be nice if you applied a bit of scrutiny to your beliefs, but whatever.
A reformulation of a common saying: It's one thing to have an open mind, it's another to have it so open that your brains fall out.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Judy Abdul
()
Date: April 07, 2011 12:19AM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Judy Abdul Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Judy Abdul Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > If that concept proves wrong, we
> > > > both will make it to heaven via the good
> > works
> > > > philosophy. But if it proves to be
> > > right...I'll
> > > > be there! It is a win-win for me either
> way!
> > >
> > >
> > > Um, so what if the Zoroastrians are correct
> and
> > > you've just committed to working with
> Ahriman?
> > > That means that you are slated for
> destruction
> > at
> > > the end of time.
> > >
> > > Not such a win-win, is it?
> >
> > I wasn't talking about Zoroastrians or Ahriman!
> > I'm just comparing the Christian approach to
> > getting to heaven with someone else who
> believes
> > he can get there via good works.
>
> I know you weren't, that's the point. You are
> presupposing your views are true, therefore your
> premise follows. The point is that you are begging
> the question.
You have to assume something is true (or false) before you can debate on it - if it is black and white, there is no discussion.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Judy Abdul Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Judy Abdul Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > If that concept proves wrong, we
> > > > both will make it to heaven via the good
> > works
> > > > philosophy. But if it proves to be
> > > right...I'll
> > > > be there! It is a win-win for me either
> way!
> > >
> > >
> > > Um, so what if the Zoroastrians are correct
> and
> > > you've just committed to working with
> Ahriman?
> > > That means that you are slated for
> destruction
> > at
> > > the end of time.
> > >
> > > Not such a win-win, is it?
> >
> > I wasn't talking about Zoroastrians or Ahriman!
> > I'm just comparing the Christian approach to
> > getting to heaven with someone else who
> believes
> > he can get there via good works.
>
> I know you weren't, that's the point. You are
> presupposing your views are true, therefore your
> premise follows. The point is that you are begging
> the question.
You have to assume something is true (or false) before you can debate on it - if it is black and white, there is no discussion.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: April 07, 2011 07:23AM
Judy Abdul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have to assume something is true (or false)
> before you can debate on it - if it is black and
> white, there is no discussion.
In some sense yes (in the sense of basic axioms), however in this sense, no, since none of the premises are axiomatic - as I pointed out with my appeal to Ahura Mazda.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have to assume something is true (or false)
> before you can debate on it - if it is black and
> white, there is no discussion.
In some sense yes (in the sense of basic axioms), however in this sense, no, since none of the premises are axiomatic - as I pointed out with my appeal to Ahura Mazda.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Judy Abdul
()
Date: April 07, 2011 08:38AM
At least he's not preaching hatred and inciting violence, like some other leaders in the DC area!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: April 07, 2011 08:58AM
Judy Abdul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At least he's not preaching hatred and inciting
> violence, like some other leaders in the DC area!
I couldn't say - I don't know anything about his Church, which is why I haven't really commented on it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> At least he's not preaching hatred and inciting
> violence, like some other leaders in the DC area!
I couldn't say - I don't know anything about his Church, which is why I haven't really commented on it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks property value info
Posted by:
Isobel
()
Date: April 24, 2011 03:27PM
Hey cool.Could you do that for the property of my tax preparer...
who works from his home in Mclean Va. Briar Ridge Rd. 1700 block
.Business name Estate Administration 22101 (think)
who works from his home in Mclean Va. Briar Ridge Rd. 1700 block
.Business name Estate Administration 22101 (think)
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks property value info
Posted by:
Which God is the REAL god?
()
Date: April 24, 2011 03:45PM
Funny thing is everyone likes to assume they are praying to their one and only God. Everyone else is wrong.
I am Agnostic. I like to keep my bases covered. Kidding aside I just believe in a higher being then myself. Plus you never hear of an Agnostic starting a war. We are the peaceful people.
I am Agnostic. I like to keep my bases covered. Kidding aside I just believe in a higher being then myself. Plus you never hear of an Agnostic starting a war. We are the peaceful people.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks property value info
Posted by:
Gordon Blvd
()
Date: April 24, 2011 03:51PM
Which God is the REAL god? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny thing is everyone likes to assume they are
> praying to their one and only God. Everyone else
> is wrong.
>
> I am Agnostic. I like to keep my bases covered.
> Kidding aside I just believe in a higher being
> then myself. Plus you never hear of an Agnostic
> starting a war. We are the peaceful people.
yeah, whatever
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBPLeKMt1bw
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny thing is everyone likes to assume they are
> praying to their one and only God. Everyone else
> is wrong.
>
> I am Agnostic. I like to keep my bases covered.
> Kidding aside I just believe in a higher being
> then myself. Plus you never hear of an Agnostic
> starting a war. We are the peaceful people.
yeah, whatever
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBPLeKMt1bw
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Sue
()
Date: April 27, 2011 11:22PM
For one thing, I think you have the street wrong. Also, I grew up in Mantua, and I don't think any of the houses there are worth $2,000,000.
I just want to put in my two cents--I think McLean Bible ROCKS! My child has grown up in the Access Ministry, and my family loves McLean Bible!
I just want to put in my two cents--I think McLean Bible ROCKS! My child has grown up in the Access Ministry, and my family loves McLean Bible!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mark
()
Date: May 01, 2011 01:16PM
That rumor was debunked years ago. He lives in an average house in Fairfax and makes an average executive salary. And only part of his study break is vacation.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
God's Favorite Sinner
()
Date: May 01, 2011 02:00PM
BibleChurch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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
I used to like the radio show they did on Sunday mornings. I thought those were useful and inspirational.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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
I used to like the radio show they did on Sunday mornings. I thought those were useful and inspirational.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Casey5555555
()
Date: May 15, 2011 08:12AM
All you people are stupid and mean spirited besides jealous, this is the dumbest thread i have ever seen.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Just pray in your head
()
Date: May 15, 2011 08:49AM
It cheaper(no gas or collection plate money) and you can do it while still in your PJ's drinking a Bloody Mary.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Jew
()
Date: June 04, 2011 01:42PM
Please do not actively proselytize me. I live in a multicultural world with Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and Aethiests. If a person has a religion it is VERY INSULTING to try to prosletize them.
How many of you Christians have accepted to offer from Mormoms to visit their church and evaluate their religion to see if it is better than your own?
And by the way which religion is correct? No really, absolute logic and reason dictates that two mutually exclusive ideas cannot be correct. How many people are simultaneously both muslim and Hindu and Christian and Jewish and aethiest.
So really, please answer which one is correct and which one's are wrong?
Is a quote from a text written 150 years ago or 2000 years ago or 5000 years ago or 10000 years ago proof? Is the Koran false? Is the Book of Mormon false? And what is God? Is it Zeus, or Vishnu, or G-d,or is there no god.
And who gets to state this "Truth"??? A pastor? An Imam? An Elder? Someone with an amazing persuasive personality.
Is questioning immoral? Is asking whether a latin translation of an Ancient Hebrew text translated into Engish is literal truth? Are these allegories or literal?
Is the answer that man is psychologically driven by the scientists interpretation that we were a pack animal and are biologically driven to be followers or leaders? Hmmmm... are there any countries that lack some form of a hierarchical leadership structure. Where is the pope and cardinals and priests and pastors and imams defined?
If your rebuttal is to find one or two innacuracies in the above as form of a proof then you have missed the concepts of logic, mathmatics, and reason. An argument is not proven by the exceptions. And guess what not all answers currently have answers. There was a time when people believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. There was a time when electricity was not understood. To take the dramatic leap that these now everyday scientific understandings were from a Diety is a leap to the extreme end of the spectrum.
Unfortunately, people are not comfortable with not knowing why? Please read any anthropology text. Were the Chinese dynasties that were building civilizations 10,000 years ago supposed to know of a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Greek, Roman, Saxon, or any other Gods that would not even be thought of for thousands of years?
Also, the Easter rabbit is a Saxon Goddess, the eggs are a fertility symbol in that religion. The Christmas tree is Pagan fertility ritual, the tree is a male phallic symbol and the balls hung on it were representative of the female mamary organ.
A Jew with an open mind morals and believer of the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"
How many of you Christians have accepted to offer from Mormoms to visit their church and evaluate their religion to see if it is better than your own?
And by the way which religion is correct? No really, absolute logic and reason dictates that two mutually exclusive ideas cannot be correct. How many people are simultaneously both muslim and Hindu and Christian and Jewish and aethiest.
So really, please answer which one is correct and which one's are wrong?
Is a quote from a text written 150 years ago or 2000 years ago or 5000 years ago or 10000 years ago proof? Is the Koran false? Is the Book of Mormon false? And what is God? Is it Zeus, or Vishnu, or G-d,or is there no god.
And who gets to state this "Truth"??? A pastor? An Imam? An Elder? Someone with an amazing persuasive personality.
Is questioning immoral? Is asking whether a latin translation of an Ancient Hebrew text translated into Engish is literal truth? Are these allegories or literal?
Is the answer that man is psychologically driven by the scientists interpretation that we were a pack animal and are biologically driven to be followers or leaders? Hmmmm... are there any countries that lack some form of a hierarchical leadership structure. Where is the pope and cardinals and priests and pastors and imams defined?
If your rebuttal is to find one or two innacuracies in the above as form of a proof then you have missed the concepts of logic, mathmatics, and reason. An argument is not proven by the exceptions. And guess what not all answers currently have answers. There was a time when people believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. There was a time when electricity was not understood. To take the dramatic leap that these now everyday scientific understandings were from a Diety is a leap to the extreme end of the spectrum.
Unfortunately, people are not comfortable with not knowing why? Please read any anthropology text. Were the Chinese dynasties that were building civilizations 10,000 years ago supposed to know of a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Greek, Roman, Saxon, or any other Gods that would not even be thought of for thousands of years?
Also, the Easter rabbit is a Saxon Goddess, the eggs are a fertility symbol in that religion. The Christmas tree is Pagan fertility ritual, the tree is a male phallic symbol and the balls hung on it were representative of the female mamary organ.
A Jew with an open mind morals and believer of the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
deb walsh
()
Date: July 03, 2011 12:07PM
Well,we are headed there right now and this will be our 3 rd time leaving our fellowship locally to go be with our daughter and son-in-law and grandchildren. I was amazed that at this mega church our grandchildren were nurtured happy to go,our family who has NO money to speak of was very well received. Here is the ONLY important thing, the son-in-law, he is now a child of the Most High King, Jesus. He is recognized by Pastor Lon by name,(who lead him to the Lord) which does amaze me but it is true. The truth
is preached and people respond to Gods word and are blessed I don't really care if he has a nice house, mega millions,as he says (I heard him on the radio for years before my daughter ever went) So what? I see a difference in the life of my child and her family because they have found Christ has changed the man they call husband and father . When we worry about money someone makes or cars they drive or where they live we are looking for an excuse to take our eyes off the only thing that matters, Christ the sacrifice made and freely given to us if we will only allow our hearts to open. I am crying, this applies to me too, and that is the Holy Spirit who loves us you too. Maranatha come Lord Jesus.
is preached and people respond to Gods word and are blessed I don't really care if he has a nice house, mega millions,as he says (I heard him on the radio for years before my daughter ever went) So what? I see a difference in the life of my child and her family because they have found Christ has changed the man they call husband and father . When we worry about money someone makes or cars they drive or where they live we are looking for an excuse to take our eyes off the only thing that matters, Christ the sacrifice made and freely given to us if we will only allow our hearts to open. I am crying, this applies to me too, and that is the Holy Spirit who loves us you too. Maranatha come Lord Jesus.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Someone
()
Date: July 06, 2011 01:03PM
Prof. Pangloss,
I just now stumbled upon this thread and read a little of the ensuing debate, and I don't know if you're following it this long after the fact. I have to say, even though I'm a Christian and therefore disagree with your overall conclusion, I am incredibly impressed by your intellect, grasp of logic and apparently IMMENSE breadth of knowledge and background. I'm not dumb, but I would never want to face you in any kind of debate, it would not be pretty for me! You've managed to maintain a civil and intelligent debate in the face of a lot of stupidity in some cases.
Anyhow, for my ironic sign-off, "God Bless You" - ha
I just now stumbled upon this thread and read a little of the ensuing debate, and I don't know if you're following it this long after the fact. I have to say, even though I'm a Christian and therefore disagree with your overall conclusion, I am incredibly impressed by your intellect, grasp of logic and apparently IMMENSE breadth of knowledge and background. I'm not dumb, but I would never want to face you in any kind of debate, it would not be pretty for me! You've managed to maintain a civil and intelligent debate in the face of a lot of stupidity in some cases.
Anyhow, for my ironic sign-off, "God Bless You" - ha
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
C.Evans
()
Date: July 07, 2011 08:27AM
The McLean Bible Church is a wonderful church. It does not matter how big it is it matters if they preach from the Word of God (the Bible). The preachers have to preach and let people know what the Bible states. It is their responsibility and duty to let people know what it states. You go to the church for your own blessing and not to judge others. I use to be that way until I thought that my concentration should be on my Lord and Savior. That I wanted to get something out of the service instead of looking and judging others. I go to church now expecting the Lord to talk to me and to feel His wonderful presense.
Things changed in my life when I decided to go to church to get my own blessing and to concentrate on what the Lord has to tell me. When you go there you go to praise Him and hear the testimonies of others of what the Lord has done for them (miracles). Just remember that the Lord loves you and He will help you to see the Light. All good comes for the Lord and all Evil comes from the Devil. The Lord holds all power and the Devil comes to seek and destroy.
As for the McLean Bible Church's financial situation..the preachers are paid based on how many members pay their tithes and offerings...The preachers get a percentage of this amount. Is it so wrong for the preachers to have a nice place to live? Why can't christians have nice things? Are they to be poor? This is how the Lord blesses preachers...they are obediant in preaching from the Word of God. If you give your tithes and offerings to a church...then you will be blessed too because that is what His Word says. It is not that the Lord needs the money ...it is because of your obedience of the Word of God of what is require of us. I am sure that the preachers give their 10 percent tithes and give offerings to the Lord as well as everyone else. If they don't then they will not prosper or succeed.
Try to go to this church with a different attitude and you can feel His Love and His presence on you. You will get more out of the service if you do this. Praise Him and He inhabits the praise of His people. Sing the songs of praise and you can feel His presense. Your day will go much better for you and you can see and feel His presense and healing power if you would put Him first in your life and have a personal relationship with Him. The Lord is wonderful and He is my All.
I have been sick for 3 1/2 years fighting ovarian cancer which after a hysterectomy spread to other areas of my body (stomach, colon and 8 tumors in my pelvis, and also spread to my kidneys, lungs and chest cavity, etc!) I am only here by the grace of the Lord. The Lord has been with me every step of the way. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. He does not change. He does not Lie. What He has done for others He will do for me or you. That is what His Word says. You just have to have Faith in the Lord and just try to believe that He is closer than your breath...That He Loves You. He will help you in all areas of your life. You do not have to feel sorry for christians we know where we are going. If you accept the Lord as your Savior then you will know too. He will direct your paths. You will be so happy. God Bless you and I will be praying for you and your salvation and to have a personal relationship with the my Lord. I Love YOU.
Things changed in my life when I decided to go to church to get my own blessing and to concentrate on what the Lord has to tell me. When you go there you go to praise Him and hear the testimonies of others of what the Lord has done for them (miracles). Just remember that the Lord loves you and He will help you to see the Light. All good comes for the Lord and all Evil comes from the Devil. The Lord holds all power and the Devil comes to seek and destroy.
As for the McLean Bible Church's financial situation..the preachers are paid based on how many members pay their tithes and offerings...The preachers get a percentage of this amount. Is it so wrong for the preachers to have a nice place to live? Why can't christians have nice things? Are they to be poor? This is how the Lord blesses preachers...they are obediant in preaching from the Word of God. If you give your tithes and offerings to a church...then you will be blessed too because that is what His Word says. It is not that the Lord needs the money ...it is because of your obedience of the Word of God of what is require of us. I am sure that the preachers give their 10 percent tithes and give offerings to the Lord as well as everyone else. If they don't then they will not prosper or succeed.
Try to go to this church with a different attitude and you can feel His Love and His presence on you. You will get more out of the service if you do this. Praise Him and He inhabits the praise of His people. Sing the songs of praise and you can feel His presense. Your day will go much better for you and you can see and feel His presense and healing power if you would put Him first in your life and have a personal relationship with Him. The Lord is wonderful and He is my All.
I have been sick for 3 1/2 years fighting ovarian cancer which after a hysterectomy spread to other areas of my body (stomach, colon and 8 tumors in my pelvis, and also spread to my kidneys, lungs and chest cavity, etc!) I am only here by the grace of the Lord. The Lord has been with me every step of the way. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. He does not change. He does not Lie. What He has done for others He will do for me or you. That is what His Word says. You just have to have Faith in the Lord and just try to believe that He is closer than your breath...That He Loves You. He will help you in all areas of your life. You do not have to feel sorry for christians we know where we are going. If you accept the Lord as your Savior then you will know too. He will direct your paths. You will be so happy. God Bless you and I will be praying for you and your salvation and to have a personal relationship with the my Lord. I Love YOU.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
ProVallone
()
Date: July 07, 2011 08:32AM
You've got cancer in all your major organs and 8 tumors , and you consider THAT the "grace of the Lord"?
If thats God's love you can have it.
And I don't feel sorry for you, you delusional freak.
Keep your blessings and your cancer to yourself.
If thats God's love you can have it.
And I don't feel sorry for you, you delusional freak.
Keep your blessings and your cancer to yourself.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Kat1257
()
Date: September 11, 2011 12:09PM
Why would anyone believe anything on a forum like this? It sounds like a bunch of judgmental people with absolutely no proof for the absurd accusations. I used to have similar assumptions about mbc until looking into the matter myself. Everything couldn't be farther from the truth. Some people would rather make up their own truth though ... So sad.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
I Don't Believe Dangerous Rubbish
()
Date: September 11, 2011 01:23PM
Disclaimer that should be on every copy:
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Robin
()
Date: October 31, 2011 10:09AM
I've been to McLean Bible Church and have read it's mission statement. You may have misunderstood. The Bible clearly and simply put, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and though shalt be saved (Acts16:31).regardless of race, color or ethnicity. In John 3:16' the Bible says that (God loved us so much, that he sent his only Son to die for our sins, past, present and future. If you confess your sins, and believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, then you become a child of God. Therefore, when you die an earthly death, you can be assured of an eternity spent in heaven with God and a family of believers. When pastor Lon Lon Solomon spoke of "we" being the only one going to heaven. He was speaking assuming that everyone listening was a believer already. There is complete freedom in true Christianity. Very simply put God loves EVERYONE, and desires them to know Him as their Savior.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Brian
()
Date: October 31, 2011 10:58PM
Isn't that what Jesus said? Like... stop nickel and diming each other, just be neighborly and humble and kind, and do you? Loosely translated...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
boyah kasha
()
Date: November 01, 2011 12:49AM
Do you want hot submissive chicks that will act all womanly and know their place and be a great wife or dumb liberal cunts like rachel maddow who will fuck you in the ass? I hope everyone says #1,
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Jack Ryan
()
Date: November 05, 2011 11:13AM
What kind of pastor takes the churches money and spends it laviashly. Example..he was in DC at a restaurant and spent 2K on dinner for 4 people...1K for a bottle of wine. Im pretty sure Jesus would be appalled. Why do those people stand for that. Cant someone alert the Post and spread the news on this guy
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Poppa don't preach
()
Date: November 05, 2011 12:28PM
Jack Ryan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What kind of pastor takes the churches money and
> spends it laviashly. Example..he was in DC at a
> restaurant and spent 2K on dinner for 4
> people...1K for a bottle of wine. Im pretty sure
> Jesus would be appalled. Why do those people
> stand for that. Cant someone alert the Post and
> spread the news on this guy
Proof please?
-------------------------------------------------------
> What kind of pastor takes the churches money and
> spends it laviashly. Example..he was in DC at a
> restaurant and spent 2K on dinner for 4
> people...1K for a bottle of wine. Im pretty sure
> Jesus would be appalled. Why do those people
> stand for that. Cant someone alert the Post and
> spread the news on this guy
Proof please?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Jack Ryan
()
Date: November 06, 2011 07:17AM
The wait staff are friends and one is a member of MBC.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
That's what I thought
()
Date: November 06, 2011 07:41AM
Jack Ryan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The wait staff are friends and one is a member of
> MBC.
That's what I thought. More hearsay and innuendo. Like the posting on his house that ending up being a lie. You got nothing.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The wait staff are friends and one is a member of
> MBC.
That's what I thought. More hearsay and innuendo. Like the posting on his house that ending up being a lie. You got nothing.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Jack Ryan
()
Date: November 06, 2011 07:50AM
So you want names, receipts etc? Not sure about the house but its easy to find out the value of anyone's property on line as well as whast the church is paying him such as the 800K figure quoted earlier. No crime was committed just outlandish behavior by someone who represents the Church. I dont fault the man we all make choices and in the end he will have to be the one to justify it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Lemon Meringue
()
Date: November 06, 2011 08:04AM
What I'm saying is that you're just an anonymous nobody posting on an open forum where anyone can write anything they want. Post away. But don't expect to be believed by anyone except those who already believe Lon is evil. The rest of us see through it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
jack ryan
()
Date: November 06, 2011 09:11AM
My only motivation is to expose this hypocrisy. I got this first hand from the waiter...he has no agenda either..just shock at the opulence. Im a Christian...I believe in God..before he told I knew nothing of this man or MBC. What are you truly afraid of..? Either you already know this and accept that a leader of church takes members donation designed for charitable works in Gods name for his personal extravagant use or your loyalty has blinded you. Its true Im just part of the faceless masses...another sinner doing the best I can.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
jack ryan's mom
()
Date: November 06, 2011 09:20AM
Jack,
You friend, the waiter told me that he is trying to get you to spread lies about Lon Solomon because your friend, the waiter, really hates you.
See how dumb it is to think anyone is going to believe a post on an open forum. And then you call names and judge me because I question an anonymous post on an open forum and don't blindly believe it.
We have one man, Lon Solomon, who stands up every Sunday preaching to secular Washington DC and reaches tens of thousands a week in his services and ten times more than that with his radio broadcasts. Someone who has demonstrable works of his devotion. And then we have an anonymous poster who tells us his friend, the waiter, saw Lon Solomon spend too much on dinner.
You friend, the waiter told me that he is trying to get you to spread lies about Lon Solomon because your friend, the waiter, really hates you.
See how dumb it is to think anyone is going to believe a post on an open forum. And then you call names and judge me because I question an anonymous post on an open forum and don't blindly believe it.
We have one man, Lon Solomon, who stands up every Sunday preaching to secular Washington DC and reaches tens of thousands a week in his services and ten times more than that with his radio broadcasts. Someone who has demonstrable works of his devotion. And then we have an anonymous poster who tells us his friend, the waiter, saw Lon Solomon spend too much on dinner.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
jack
()
Date: November 06, 2011 09:49AM
I appear to have struck a nerve...my apologies. So why are there so many stories ref this man. And just for a moment assume my friend and 4 others were right. Do you think this is OK?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Peter's B Dad
()
Date: November 06, 2011 12:29PM
Dont be so naive...of course the man lives this life style..he has the wealth on Mclean behind him.....just like Jimmy Swaggert and cultish sects.....wake up people are hurting
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
snowdenscold
()
Date: November 07, 2011 09:49AM
Jack Ryan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you want names, receipts etc?
Yes, or you're full of crap.
The salary figure cited is completely bogus, he does not drive a luxury car, and furthermore, the unpaid Board of Elders determines his compensation, not himself. He doesn't have access to the church's finances to just take what he wants.
Also, MBC is anti-prosperity-gospel, so the rich televangelist comparisons are also invalid.
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you want names, receipts etc?
Yes, or you're full of crap.
The salary figure cited is completely bogus, he does not drive a luxury car, and furthermore, the unpaid Board of Elders determines his compensation, not himself. He doesn't have access to the church's finances to just take what he wants.
Also, MBC is anti-prosperity-gospel, so the rich televangelist comparisons are also invalid.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
I got access u only dream of
()
Date: November 07, 2011 03:09PM
Jack Ryan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you want names, receipts etc? Not sure about
> the house but its easy to find out the value of
> anyone's property on line as well as whast the
> church is paying him such as the 800K figure
> quoted earlier. No crime was committed just
> outlandish behavior by someone who represents the
> Church. I dont fault the man we all make choices
> and in the end he will have to be the one to
> justify it.
Give me the day and time. I can check against his calendar and find out if he had a dinner planned.
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you want names, receipts etc? Not sure about
> the house but its easy to find out the value of
> anyone's property on line as well as whast the
> church is paying him such as the 800K figure
> quoted earlier. No crime was committed just
> outlandish behavior by someone who represents the
> Church. I dont fault the man we all make choices
> and in the end he will have to be the one to
> justify it.
Give me the day and time. I can check against his calendar and find out if he had a dinner planned.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mrs. R
()
Date: November 14, 2011 02:06PM
Yes, the Bible says that when all men speak well of you "beware." When Jesus Christ comes back to rule this planet, He won't ask how many people are politically correct, he'll ask if we spread the word that He loved us and he died so that we might have eternal life. It appears that people in this metropolis can worship who they want, say what they want, and believe what they want, but the first person who fixes their mouth to say that the Bible is inerrant and infallible, they are labeled as a "hater." Satan and witches can get respect, but Jesus Christ can't. What did he ever do to anybody? He loved them.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
seriously?
()
Date: November 14, 2011 02:12PM
Im not going to get into a religious debate, but seriously its pretty sickening how all these anti religious people thinks its okay to just come and attack anyone who is religious. If you dont like religion fine, that is your personal choice, but keep it to yourself. You dont have to go out and attack people for having a belief in a higher power.
Religion when not manipulated by evil is a very positive influence on peoples lives that helps guide them through hard times and gives a good guide on how to live your life. Theres no need to go and attack people for believing in something.
Religion when not manipulated by evil is a very positive influence on peoples lives that helps guide them through hard times and gives a good guide on how to live your life. Theres no need to go and attack people for believing in something.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
JBass
()
Date: November 14, 2011 03:07PM
seriously? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Im not going to get into a religious debate, but
> seriously its pretty sickening how all these anti
> religious people thinks its okay to just come and
> attack anyone who is religious. If you dont like
> religion fine, that is your personal choice, but
> keep it to yourself. You dont have to go out and
> attack people for having a belief in a higher
> power.
>
> Religion when not manipulated by evil is a very
> positive influence on peoples lives that helps
> guide them through hard times and gives a good
> guide on how to live your life. Theres no need to
> go and attack people for believing in something.
RIGHT, because religious folks NEVER push their views upon the rest of us. Our entire society is dominated by religious views. Religion can teach good messages but it is simply a moral code, the thought of a higher power having control on human life is a human construction with no proof whatsoever. Religion was started to and to this day does control the minds and money of the masses.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Im not going to get into a religious debate, but
> seriously its pretty sickening how all these anti
> religious people thinks its okay to just come and
> attack anyone who is religious. If you dont like
> religion fine, that is your personal choice, but
> keep it to yourself. You dont have to go out and
> attack people for having a belief in a higher
> power.
>
> Religion when not manipulated by evil is a very
> positive influence on peoples lives that helps
> guide them through hard times and gives a good
> guide on how to live your life. Theres no need to
> go and attack people for believing in something.
RIGHT, because religious folks NEVER push their views upon the rest of us. Our entire society is dominated by religious views. Religion can teach good messages but it is simply a moral code, the thought of a higher power having control on human life is a human construction with no proof whatsoever. Religion was started to and to this day does control the minds and money of the masses.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Morning Star
()
Date: November 14, 2011 03:12PM
Religion is dumb. Religious people are tools. Science rules!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
seriously?
()
Date: November 14, 2011 03:21PM
JBass Wrote:
> RIGHT, because religious folks NEVER push their
> views upon the rest of us. Our entire society is
> dominated by religious views. Religion can teach
> good messages but it is simply a moral code, the
> thought of a higher power having control on human
> life is a human construction with no proof
> whatsoever. Religion was started to and to this
> day does control the minds and money of the
> masses.
Our law system is based on religious beliefs get over it. You proved exactly what I was saying you cant just make a point without having to attack religion saying its just a money making scam. Only scientology is, their founder was quoted as saying he needed to start a religion cus thats were the money is before he started it.
And there is proof of a higher power. Things dont materialize out of a vacuum of space. Science can explain evolution and the big bang but it cannot ever explain how the material to cause all of that can to be in the first place. Theres no reason religion and science cannot coexist other than the fact that most science people refuse to allow religion too. If you dont want to believe thats fine, but religion has influenced everything in society and that will never change.
> RIGHT, because religious folks NEVER push their
> views upon the rest of us. Our entire society is
> dominated by religious views. Religion can teach
> good messages but it is simply a moral code, the
> thought of a higher power having control on human
> life is a human construction with no proof
> whatsoever. Religion was started to and to this
> day does control the minds and money of the
> masses.
Our law system is based on religious beliefs get over it. You proved exactly what I was saying you cant just make a point without having to attack religion saying its just a money making scam. Only scientology is, their founder was quoted as saying he needed to start a religion cus thats were the money is before he started it.
And there is proof of a higher power. Things dont materialize out of a vacuum of space. Science can explain evolution and the big bang but it cannot ever explain how the material to cause all of that can to be in the first place. Theres no reason religion and science cannot coexist other than the fact that most science people refuse to allow religion too. If you dont want to believe thats fine, but religion has influenced everything in society and that will never change.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Morning Star
()
Date: November 14, 2011 03:23PM
seriously? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you dont want to believe thats
> fine, but religion has influenced everything in
> society and that will never change.
Maybe that's why society is so screwed up.
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you dont want to believe thats
> fine, but religion has influenced everything in
> society and that will never change.
Maybe that's why society is so screwed up.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Morning Star
()
Date: November 14, 2011 03:25PM
seriously? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And there is proof of a higher power. Things dont
> materialize out of a vacuum of space.
What's your proof? Just because who can't explain what happened before the big bang doesn't prove there is a God.
-------------------------------------------------------
> And there is proof of a higher power. Things dont
> materialize out of a vacuum of space.
What's your proof? Just because who can't explain what happened before the big bang doesn't prove there is a God.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
seriously?
()
Date: November 14, 2011 03:32PM
Morning Star Wrote:
>
> What's your proof? Just because who can't explain
> what happened before the big bang doesn't prove
> there is a God.
Things dont appear out of nothing. At some point a higher power had to put the materials there. If there wasnt there would still be nothing everywhere. Whatever higher power you think did it is up to you.
>
> What's your proof? Just because who can't explain
> what happened before the big bang doesn't prove
> there is a God.
Things dont appear out of nothing. At some point a higher power had to put the materials there. If there wasnt there would still be nothing everywhere. Whatever higher power you think did it is up to you.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
JBass
()
Date: November 14, 2011 03:34PM
Morning Star Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> seriously? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > And there is proof of a higher power. Things
> dont
> > materialize out of a vacuum of space.
>
> What's your proof? Just because who can't explain
> what happened before the big bang doesn't prove
> there is a God.
Exactly. Moreover, Im not saying that there is no "higher power". Truth be told, I dont have a clue. What I do know is that it does not control life on earth. A virgin cant get pregnant. Moses didnt part the red sea and there was no Arc. All religious text is nothing more than ancient fairy tales.
-------------------------------------------------------
> seriously? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > And there is proof of a higher power. Things
> dont
> > materialize out of a vacuum of space.
>
> What's your proof? Just because who can't explain
> what happened before the big bang doesn't prove
> there is a God.
Exactly. Moreover, Im not saying that there is no "higher power". Truth be told, I dont have a clue. What I do know is that it does not control life on earth. A virgin cant get pregnant. Moses didnt part the red sea and there was no Arc. All religious text is nothing more than ancient fairy tales.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Morning Star
()
Date: November 14, 2011 03:40PM
seriously? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Things dont appear out of nothing. At some point
> a higher power had to put the materials there. If
> there wasnt there would still be nothing
> everywhere. Whatever higher power you think did
> it is up to you.
Still explains nothing. Not having an answer to a question, especially one like that, doesn't prove any answer. What you are doing is known as the God of gaps fallacy. You are relying on a fallacy to argue the existence of God. God isn't the answer to questions that science has yet to explain.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Things dont appear out of nothing. At some point
> a higher power had to put the materials there. If
> there wasnt there would still be nothing
> everywhere. Whatever higher power you think did
> it is up to you.
Still explains nothing. Not having an answer to a question, especially one like that, doesn't prove any answer. What you are doing is known as the God of gaps fallacy. You are relying on a fallacy to argue the existence of God. God isn't the answer to questions that science has yet to explain.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
seriously?
()
Date: November 14, 2011 03:44PM
JBass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Exactly. Moreover, Im not saying that there is no
> "higher power". Truth be told, I dont have a
> clue. What I do know is that it does not control
> life on earth. A virgin cant get pregnant. Moses
> didnt part the red sea and there was no Arc. All
> religious text is nothing more than ancient fairy
> tales.
Allowing life on earth to progress with minimal intervention is just part of free will. Youre free to believe that didnt happen. Not everything is a fairly tale though. Some things are stories to get moral points across not everything is literal.
If someone believes it is all literal thats their right too. The point is people shouldnt be attacked for believing it. Religious freedom doesnt just mean people are free not to believe, it means people shouldnt be persecuted for their beliefs
-------------------------------------------------------
> Exactly. Moreover, Im not saying that there is no
> "higher power". Truth be told, I dont have a
> clue. What I do know is that it does not control
> life on earth. A virgin cant get pregnant. Moses
> didnt part the red sea and there was no Arc. All
> religious text is nothing more than ancient fairy
> tales.
Allowing life on earth to progress with minimal intervention is just part of free will. Youre free to believe that didnt happen. Not everything is a fairly tale though. Some things are stories to get moral points across not everything is literal.
If someone believes it is all literal thats their right too. The point is people shouldnt be attacked for believing it. Religious freedom doesnt just mean people are free not to believe, it means people shouldnt be persecuted for their beliefs
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
seriously?
()
Date: November 14, 2011 03:46PM
Morning Star Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Still explains nothing. Not having an answer to a
> question, especially one like that, doesn't prove
> any answer. What you are doing is known as the
> God of gaps fallacy. You are relying on a fallacy
> to argue the existence of God. God isn't the
> answer to questions that science has yet to
> explain.
Science cant explain it and never will. Things cannot form out of nothing ever period. Its really quite simple.
The same argument youre using can be used right back at you that you cant prove there isnt a god.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Still explains nothing. Not having an answer to a
> question, especially one like that, doesn't prove
> any answer. What you are doing is known as the
> God of gaps fallacy. You are relying on a fallacy
> to argue the existence of God. God isn't the
> answer to questions that science has yet to
> explain.
Science cant explain it and never will. Things cannot form out of nothing ever period. Its really quite simple.
The same argument youre using can be used right back at you that you cant prove there isnt a god.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Morning Star
()
Date: November 14, 2011 04:12PM
seriously? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Morning Star Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Still explains nothing. Not having an answer to
> a
> > question, especially one like that, doesn't
> prove
> > any answer. What you are doing is known as the
> > God of gaps fallacy. You are relying on a
> fallacy
> > to argue the existence of God. God isn't the
> > answer to questions that science has yet to
> > explain.
>
>
> Science cant explain it and never will. Things
> cannot form out of nothing ever period. Its
> really quite simple.
>
> The same argument youre using can be used right
> back at you that you cant prove there isnt a god.
I never said there wasn't. You claimed to have PROOF and you were wrong, you have no proof. Just an argument based on fallacy. Don't try to turn this on me. I never said I had PROOF that there was no God, all I was arguing was that your argument is weak.
But since you want to go there.....you say "Things cannot form out of nothing ever period." Ok, then what about God? Wouldn't God be something out of nothing? I am relying on your logic for this particular argument, as silly as it may be.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Morning Star Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Still explains nothing. Not having an answer to
> a
> > question, especially one like that, doesn't
> prove
> > any answer. What you are doing is known as the
> > God of gaps fallacy. You are relying on a
> fallacy
> > to argue the existence of God. God isn't the
> > answer to questions that science has yet to
> > explain.
>
>
> Science cant explain it and never will. Things
> cannot form out of nothing ever period. Its
> really quite simple.
>
> The same argument youre using can be used right
> back at you that you cant prove there isnt a god.
I never said there wasn't. You claimed to have PROOF and you were wrong, you have no proof. Just an argument based on fallacy. Don't try to turn this on me. I never said I had PROOF that there was no God, all I was arguing was that your argument is weak.
But since you want to go there.....you say "Things cannot form out of nothing ever period." Ok, then what about God? Wouldn't God be something out of nothing? I am relying on your logic for this particular argument, as silly as it may be.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Morning Star
()
Date: November 14, 2011 04:16PM
Relying on God to explain things we do not understand is a shortcut to thinking.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
seriously?
()
Date: November 14, 2011 04:34PM
Morning Star Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Relying on God to explain things we do not
> understand is a shortcut to thinking.
Not at all. Thats not saying god made me sick cus you dont understand why you got sick that is a very legitimate point. As such a science man you should understand that science has proven time and time again things cant appear from nothing.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Relying on God to explain things we do not
> understand is a shortcut to thinking.
Not at all. Thats not saying god made me sick cus you dont understand why you got sick that is a very legitimate point. As such a science man you should understand that science has proven time and time again things cant appear from nothing.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Morning Star
()
Date: November 14, 2011 04:51PM
seriously? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Morning Star Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Relying on God to explain things we do not
> > understand is a shortcut to thinking.
>
>
> Not at all. Thats not saying god made me sick cus
> you dont understand why you got sick that is a
> very legitimate point. As such a science man you
> should understand that science has proven time and
> time again things cant appear from nothing.
Did you not read my post above the short cut to thinking post? I already addressed that argument but I guess you were just too lazy to read it. But I will entertain this argument further, but please read my all responses to you.
Quantum mechanics tells us that there is no such thing as nothing, the vacuum is full of virtual particles popping into and out of existence. This has measurable effects, such as the Casimir effect, and is implicated in many areas of physics.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Morning Star Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Relying on God to explain things we do not
> > understand is a shortcut to thinking.
>
>
> Not at all. Thats not saying god made me sick cus
> you dont understand why you got sick that is a
> very legitimate point. As such a science man you
> should understand that science has proven time and
> time again things cant appear from nothing.
Did you not read my post above the short cut to thinking post? I already addressed that argument but I guess you were just too lazy to read it. But I will entertain this argument further, but please read my all responses to you.
Quantum mechanics tells us that there is no such thing as nothing, the vacuum is full of virtual particles popping into and out of existence. This has measurable effects, such as the Casimir effect, and is implicated in many areas of physics.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
seriously?
()
Date: November 14, 2011 05:17PM
Morning Star Wrote:
>
> Quantum mechanics tells us that there is no such
> thing as nothing, the vacuum is full of virtual
> particles popping into and out of existence. This
> has measurable effects, such as the Casimir
> effect, and is implicated in many areas of
> physics.
The casimir effect is based on reactions of things that exist within the vacuum creating a new thing from the lack of forces interacting. Things appearing out of nothing is by definition not a true vacuum if there is enough material there for that to happen.
Believing that things are really just appearing out of nothing is more far fetched then believing that a higher power created it. Science even admits they cant see those particals but they "know" theyre there. Im all for science but that is getting far fetched at at best is an effort to be a stop gap for a religion argument
>
> Quantum mechanics tells us that there is no such
> thing as nothing, the vacuum is full of virtual
> particles popping into and out of existence. This
> has measurable effects, such as the Casimir
> effect, and is implicated in many areas of
> physics.
The casimir effect is based on reactions of things that exist within the vacuum creating a new thing from the lack of forces interacting. Things appearing out of nothing is by definition not a true vacuum if there is enough material there for that to happen.
Believing that things are really just appearing out of nothing is more far fetched then believing that a higher power created it. Science even admits they cant see those particals but they "know" theyre there. Im all for science but that is getting far fetched at at best is an effort to be a stop gap for a religion argument
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Russian
()
Date: November 14, 2011 05:39PM
Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
>
> >
> > Talk about a non sequitur. Who said anything
> > about religion? Not I. Religion is only an
> issue
> > because we have government-run schools. Take
> > government out of the equation and the issue of
> > religion is rendered moot. Those of you who
> like
> > the idea of the government indoctrinating our
> > children through "public" schools are
> responsible
> > for the fact that religion in the classroom
> even
> > has to be debated. Fucking morons.
>
> I call BS on that
>
> The vocal majority of people destroy public
> education in the US have always been, and will
> always be religious right wingers
>
> Who else is scared that other people's kids get a
> wide education which is not dominated by
> religion?
>
> By your argument the only reason why we have
> religion in the public classroom is because we
> have public classrooms
>
> If you don't like public education don't use it
I am right AND McLean Bible Church is still a scam that sucks money from weak minded people.
Conservatives believe in a bit of sacrifice and suffrage on their way to redemption. They don't subscribe to drive-through religion. The United Way (the charity) represents more religion (in practice) than the musical theatre of this pathetic version of a church.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
>
> >
> > Talk about a non sequitur. Who said anything
> > about religion? Not I. Religion is only an
> issue
> > because we have government-run schools. Take
> > government out of the equation and the issue of
> > religion is rendered moot. Those of you who
> like
> > the idea of the government indoctrinating our
> > children through "public" schools are
> responsible
> > for the fact that religion in the classroom
> even
> > has to be debated. Fucking morons.
>
> I call BS on that
>
> The vocal majority of people destroy public
> education in the US have always been, and will
> always be religious right wingers
>
> Who else is scared that other people's kids get a
> wide education which is not dominated by
> religion?
>
> By your argument the only reason why we have
> religion in the public classroom is because we
> have public classrooms
>
> If you don't like public education don't use it
I am right AND McLean Bible Church is still a scam that sucks money from weak minded people.
Conservatives believe in a bit of sacrifice and suffrage on their way to redemption. They don't subscribe to drive-through religion. The United Way (the charity) represents more religion (in practice) than the musical theatre of this pathetic version of a church.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Trooth
()
Date: November 14, 2011 07:38PM
Russian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I am right AND McLean Bible Church is still a scam
> that sucks money from weak minded people.
>
> Conservatives believe in a bit of sacrifice and
> suffrage on their way to redemption. They don't
> subscribe to drive-through religion. The United
> Way (the charity) represents more religion (in
> practice) than the musical theatre of this
> pathetic version of a church.
Number of minds changed by your anti-MBC ranting....still ZERO. No one has changed any one else's opinion on this thread. MBC is a mega-church that is growing. It is opening campuses throughout the region. Of the tens of thousands who go there, no one agrees with you. Sorry, but your screaming at yourself.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I am right AND McLean Bible Church is still a scam
> that sucks money from weak minded people.
>
> Conservatives believe in a bit of sacrifice and
> suffrage on their way to redemption. They don't
> subscribe to drive-through religion. The United
> Way (the charity) represents more religion (in
> practice) than the musical theatre of this
> pathetic version of a church.
Number of minds changed by your anti-MBC ranting....still ZERO. No one has changed any one else's opinion on this thread. MBC is a mega-church that is growing. It is opening campuses throughout the region. Of the tens of thousands who go there, no one agrees with you. Sorry, but your screaming at yourself.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
TOUCHED BY GOD
()
Date: November 15, 2011 06:36PM
Everyone is touched by God and his Words stated in the Bible, in different and individualistic ways. Each experience is unique and different. None is the same.
REMEMBER...people see these post but, GOD knows exactly what you are going to post, type before you EVEN post. God knows your thoughts, motives, purposes, missions...okay?
PSALM 139
REMEMBER...people see these post but, GOD knows exactly what you are going to post, type before you EVEN post. God knows your thoughts, motives, purposes, missions...okay?
PSALM 139
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Russian
()
Date: November 15, 2011 10:22PM
Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Russian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > I am right AND McLean Bible Church is still a
> scam
> > that sucks money from weak minded people.
> >
> > Conservatives believe in a bit of sacrifice and
> > suffrage on their way to redemption. They
> don't
> > subscribe to drive-through religion. The
> United
> > Way (the charity) represents more religion (in
> > practice) than the musical theatre of this
> > pathetic version of a church.
>
>
> Number of minds changed by your anti-MBC
> ranting....still ZERO. No one has changed any one
> else's opinion on this thread. MBC is a
> mega-church that is growing. It is opening
> campuses throughout the region. Of the tens of
> thousands who go there, no one agrees with you.
> Sorry, but your screaming at yourself.
Scumbag,
May the Lord halt your preying upon and consuming the weaker goy population with your more meaningless version of invented Christianity. Yes you are correct that today's world is full of the new enlightened demoralized and more compromising suspects. You have been successful by dispelling the notion that Satan does not exist so few suspect your tactics and question your motives.
To hell Satan, Lon or whatever your name is.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Russian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > I am right AND McLean Bible Church is still a
> scam
> > that sucks money from weak minded people.
> >
> > Conservatives believe in a bit of sacrifice and
> > suffrage on their way to redemption. They
> don't
> > subscribe to drive-through religion. The
> United
> > Way (the charity) represents more religion (in
> > practice) than the musical theatre of this
> > pathetic version of a church.
>
>
> Number of minds changed by your anti-MBC
> ranting....still ZERO. No one has changed any one
> else's opinion on this thread. MBC is a
> mega-church that is growing. It is opening
> campuses throughout the region. Of the tens of
> thousands who go there, no one agrees with you.
> Sorry, but your screaming at yourself.
Scumbag,
May the Lord halt your preying upon and consuming the weaker goy population with your more meaningless version of invented Christianity. Yes you are correct that today's world is full of the new enlightened demoralized and more compromising suspects. You have been successful by dispelling the notion that Satan does not exist so few suspect your tactics and question your motives.
To hell Satan, Lon or whatever your name is.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: November 16, 2011 10:21AM
seriously? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Our law system is based on religious beliefs get
> over it. You proved exactly what I was saying you
> cant just make a point without having to attack
> religion saying its just a money making scam.
> Only scientology is, their founder was quoted as
> saying he needed to start a religion cus thats
> were the money is before he started it.
Ah, so that's why it took so long for women to have equal rights and for slavery to be abolished, because it was going against Biblical teachings.
> And there is proof of a higher power. Things dont
> materialize out of a vacuum of space.
Actually they do, quantum fluctuations, however the bigger problem with this statement is that, at bottom, you are appealing to ignorance. We don't know X, therefore God did it.
> Science can
> explain evolution and the big bang but it cannot
> ever explain how the material to cause all of that
> can to be in the first place.
If there was a 'material', and if presentism is true. These are two big assumptions which need to be shown, not asserted.
> Theres no reason
> religion and science cannot coexist other than the
> fact that most science people refuse to allow
> religion too.
I agree with this, loosely.
> If you dont want to believe thats
> fine, but religion has influenced everything in
> society and that will never change.
Astrology has influenced quite a bit too, you know.
seriously? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Things dont appear out of nothing. At some point
> a higher power had to put the materials there. If
> there wasnt there would still be nothing
> everywhere. Whatever higher power you think did
> it is up to you.
You say that things don't appear out of nothing. Fine, so what did God use to create the universe?
seriously? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Science cant explain it and never will. Things
> cannot form out of nothing ever period. Its
> really quite simple.
>
> The same argument youre using can be used right
> back at you that you cant prove there isnt a god.
Right, science cannot explain some stuff, that doesn't mean we can just make up magic as a cause.
Further, again you are saying that things cannot form out of nothing - so what did God use?
seriously? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The casimir effect is based on reactions of things
> that exist within the vacuum creating a new thing
> from the lack of forces interacting. Things
> appearing out of nothing is by definition not a
> true vacuum if there is enough material there for
> that to happen.
Perhaps the initial state was similar to a vacuum then? Further, all this tells us is that when it comes to something coming into existence, the evidence we have points to such an event being *causeless*. We have no evidence of something being caused to come into existence from nothing.
> Believing that things are really just appearing
> out of nothing is more far fetched then believing
> that a higher power created it.
Why?
> Science even
> admits they cant see those particals but they
> "know" theyre there. Im all for science but that
> is getting far fetched at at best is an effort to
> be a stop gap for a religion argument
This is incorrect - they have indirect tests for these things. They don't just 'know' they are there.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Our law system is based on religious beliefs get
> over it. You proved exactly what I was saying you
> cant just make a point without having to attack
> religion saying its just a money making scam.
> Only scientology is, their founder was quoted as
> saying he needed to start a religion cus thats
> were the money is before he started it.
Ah, so that's why it took so long for women to have equal rights and for slavery to be abolished, because it was going against Biblical teachings.
> And there is proof of a higher power. Things dont
> materialize out of a vacuum of space.
Actually they do, quantum fluctuations, however the bigger problem with this statement is that, at bottom, you are appealing to ignorance. We don't know X, therefore God did it.
> Science can
> explain evolution and the big bang but it cannot
> ever explain how the material to cause all of that
> can to be in the first place.
If there was a 'material', and if presentism is true. These are two big assumptions which need to be shown, not asserted.
> Theres no reason
> religion and science cannot coexist other than the
> fact that most science people refuse to allow
> religion too.
I agree with this, loosely.
> If you dont want to believe thats
> fine, but religion has influenced everything in
> society and that will never change.
Astrology has influenced quite a bit too, you know.
seriously? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Things dont appear out of nothing. At some point
> a higher power had to put the materials there. If
> there wasnt there would still be nothing
> everywhere. Whatever higher power you think did
> it is up to you.
You say that things don't appear out of nothing. Fine, so what did God use to create the universe?
seriously? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Science cant explain it and never will. Things
> cannot form out of nothing ever period. Its
> really quite simple.
>
> The same argument youre using can be used right
> back at you that you cant prove there isnt a god.
Right, science cannot explain some stuff, that doesn't mean we can just make up magic as a cause.
Further, again you are saying that things cannot form out of nothing - so what did God use?
seriously? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The casimir effect is based on reactions of things
> that exist within the vacuum creating a new thing
> from the lack of forces interacting. Things
> appearing out of nothing is by definition not a
> true vacuum if there is enough material there for
> that to happen.
Perhaps the initial state was similar to a vacuum then? Further, all this tells us is that when it comes to something coming into existence, the evidence we have points to such an event being *causeless*. We have no evidence of something being caused to come into existence from nothing.
> Believing that things are really just appearing
> out of nothing is more far fetched then believing
> that a higher power created it.
Why?
> Science even
> admits they cant see those particals but they
> "know" theyre there. Im all for science but that
> is getting far fetched at at best is an effort to
> be a stop gap for a religion argument
This is incorrect - they have indirect tests for these things. They don't just 'know' they are there.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Trooth
()
Date: November 16, 2011 11:39AM
Pangloss,
In the end, it just keeps coming down to what YOU want to believe vs. what someone else wants to believe. You search the Interweb looking for some nutty scientific explanation for whatever conundrum you face and throw it out like it has any more credibility than what is in the Bible because it came from "a scientist". Your faith is scientific theories is understandable but it requires no more and no less faith to believe in a higher intelligence than some of the disjointed theories you post. It is no more silly to think you don't know something therefore God didn't do it than the reverse. Just so ya know
In the end, it just keeps coming down to what YOU want to believe vs. what someone else wants to believe. You search the Interweb looking for some nutty scientific explanation for whatever conundrum you face and throw it out like it has any more credibility than what is in the Bible because it came from "a scientist". Your faith is scientific theories is understandable but it requires no more and no less faith to believe in a higher intelligence than some of the disjointed theories you post. It is no more silly to think you don't know something therefore God didn't do it than the reverse. Just so ya know
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
snowdenscold
()
Date: November 16, 2011 06:37PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You say that things don't appear out of nothing.
> Fine, so what did God use to create the universe?
>
I don't get this objection. Isn't it baked into the definition of God in the first place - an uncreated being that by definition answers issues of causality, priority, creation, first movement, etc.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You say that things don't appear out of nothing.
> Fine, so what did God use to create the universe?
>
I don't get this objection. Isn't it baked into the definition of God in the first place - an uncreated being that by definition answers issues of causality, priority, creation, first movement, etc.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: November 18, 2011 11:21AM
Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss,
>
> In the end, it just keeps coming down to what YOU
> want to believe vs. what someone else wants to
> believe.
I don't hold beliefs because they comport to my wishes.
> You search the Interweb looking for some
> nutty scientific explanation for whatever
> conundrum you face and throw it out like it has
> any more credibility than what is in the Bible
> because it came from "a scientist".
Specific examples would be nice.
> Your faith is
> scientific theories is understandable but it
> requires no more and no less faith to believe in a
> higher intelligence than some of the disjointed
> theories you post. It is no more silly to think
> you don't know something therefore God didn't do
> it than the reverse. Just so ya know
This is asserted without evidence and can be dismissed without evidence.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss,
>
> In the end, it just keeps coming down to what YOU
> want to believe vs. what someone else wants to
> believe.
I don't hold beliefs because they comport to my wishes.
> You search the Interweb looking for some
> nutty scientific explanation for whatever
> conundrum you face and throw it out like it has
> any more credibility than what is in the Bible
> because it came from "a scientist".
Specific examples would be nice.
> Your faith is
> scientific theories is understandable but it
> requires no more and no less faith to believe in a
> higher intelligence than some of the disjointed
> theories you post. It is no more silly to think
> you don't know something therefore God didn't do
> it than the reverse. Just so ya know
This is asserted without evidence and can be dismissed without evidence.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: November 18, 2011 11:23AM
snowdenscold Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > You say that things don't appear out of nothing.
>
> > Fine, so what did God use to create the
> universe?
> >
>
> I don't get this objection. Isn't it baked into
> the definition of God in the first place - an
> uncreated being that by definition answers issues
> of causality, priority, creation, first movement,
> etc.
It's generally assumed, but I don't think it's thought through - you seem to be targeting 'what created god', which isn't what I was talking about.
The argument is that out of nothing, nothing comes, right?
Well, okay, so let's say God exists - what did he use to create the universe? Himself? but he's immaterial, non spatial, non temporal.
So what did he use? Nothing...
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > You say that things don't appear out of nothing.
>
> > Fine, so what did God use to create the
> universe?
> >
>
> I don't get this objection. Isn't it baked into
> the definition of God in the first place - an
> uncreated being that by definition answers issues
> of causality, priority, creation, first movement,
> etc.
It's generally assumed, but I don't think it's thought through - you seem to be targeting 'what created god', which isn't what I was talking about.
The argument is that out of nothing, nothing comes, right?
Well, okay, so let's say God exists - what did he use to create the universe? Himself? but he's immaterial, non spatial, non temporal.
So what did he use? Nothing...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
snowdenscold
()
Date: November 18, 2011 11:49AM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> It's generally assumed, but I don't think it's
> thought through - you seem to be targeting 'what
> created god', which isn't what I was talking
> about.
>
> The argument is that out of nothing, nothing
> comes, right?
>
> Well, okay, so let's say God exists - what did he
> use to create the universe? Himself? but he's
> immaterial, non spatial, non temporal.
>
> So what did he use? Nothing...
Right, nothing. I don't see how that's a problem either, the one "exception to the rule" of something can't come out of nothing based again on definitions of God in the first place.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> It's generally assumed, but I don't think it's
> thought through - you seem to be targeting 'what
> created god', which isn't what I was talking
> about.
>
> The argument is that out of nothing, nothing
> comes, right?
>
> Well, okay, so let's say God exists - what did he
> use to create the universe? Himself? but he's
> immaterial, non spatial, non temporal.
>
> So what did he use? Nothing...
Right, nothing. I don't see how that's a problem either, the one "exception to the rule" of something can't come out of nothing based again on definitions of God in the first place.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Believe
()
Date: November 18, 2011 11:57AM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> snowdenscold Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > >
> > > You say that things don't appear out of
> nothing.
> >
> > > Fine, so what did God use to create the
> > universe?
> > >
> >
> > I don't get this objection. Isn't it baked into
> > the definition of God in the first place - an
> > uncreated being that by definition answers
> issues
> > of causality, priority, creation, first
> movement,
> > etc.
>
>
> It's generally assumed, but I don't think it's
> thought through - you seem to be targeting 'what
> created god', which isn't what I was talking
> about.
>
> The argument is that out of nothing, nothing
> comes, right?
>
> Well, okay, so let's say God exists - what did he
> use to create the universe? Himself? but he's
> immaterial, non spatial, non temporal.
>
> So what did he use? Nothing...
Isn't this the point? We (humans) have no idea how everything (matter, space, etc.) came to be, it is beyond explanation. The whole notion of causality and the "beginning" of the universe defies our understanding. The idea that God created everything is no less viable than any other explanation. Of course, this, in itself, is not proof there is a God. It is not scientifically testable, at least in no way anyone has thought of to date. And yes, people could create any number of magical explanations for where everything came from, as they have throughout human existence.
I think the point is, the view that God created everything is a highly credible metaphysical worldview, as credible as any other metaphysical worldview, including leading current theories by cosmologists. If you think about it, it almost seems that there can be no other explanation than that there is something that defies our notion of time/space/causality to explain where everything came from. In the Bible God called himself "I am", the being that always is, always was, defies explanation, etc. How could it be otherwise, where did it all come from?
-------------------------------------------------------
> snowdenscold Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > >
> > > You say that things don't appear out of
> nothing.
> >
> > > Fine, so what did God use to create the
> > universe?
> > >
> >
> > I don't get this objection. Isn't it baked into
> > the definition of God in the first place - an
> > uncreated being that by definition answers
> issues
> > of causality, priority, creation, first
> movement,
> > etc.
>
>
> It's generally assumed, but I don't think it's
> thought through - you seem to be targeting 'what
> created god', which isn't what I was talking
> about.
>
> The argument is that out of nothing, nothing
> comes, right?
>
> Well, okay, so let's say God exists - what did he
> use to create the universe? Himself? but he's
> immaterial, non spatial, non temporal.
>
> So what did he use? Nothing...
Isn't this the point? We (humans) have no idea how everything (matter, space, etc.) came to be, it is beyond explanation. The whole notion of causality and the "beginning" of the universe defies our understanding. The idea that God created everything is no less viable than any other explanation. Of course, this, in itself, is not proof there is a God. It is not scientifically testable, at least in no way anyone has thought of to date. And yes, people could create any number of magical explanations for where everything came from, as they have throughout human existence.
I think the point is, the view that God created everything is a highly credible metaphysical worldview, as credible as any other metaphysical worldview, including leading current theories by cosmologists. If you think about it, it almost seems that there can be no other explanation than that there is something that defies our notion of time/space/causality to explain where everything came from. In the Bible God called himself "I am", the being that always is, always was, defies explanation, etc. How could it be otherwise, where did it all come from?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Trooth
()
Date: November 19, 2011 01:58PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is asserted without evidence and can be
> dismissed without evidence.
Prof, you must remember your multidimensional string theory nonsense or your hidden quantum universe theory nonsense or any other number of silly nonsensical theories that you've posted to try and explain stuff. Sure, there's theories that explain just about everything. And most of the ones you cite take more faith to believe and stretch credulity for more than what is in the Bible. Dismiss as you will, but that's the truth.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is asserted without evidence and can be
> dismissed without evidence.
Prof, you must remember your multidimensional string theory nonsense or your hidden quantum universe theory nonsense or any other number of silly nonsensical theories that you've posted to try and explain stuff. Sure, there's theories that explain just about everything. And most of the ones you cite take more faith to believe and stretch credulity for more than what is in the Bible. Dismiss as you will, but that's the truth.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: November 22, 2011 08:23AM
snowdenscold Wrote:
> Right, nothing. I don't see how that's a problem
> either, the one "exception to the rule" of
> something can't come out of nothing based again on
> definitions of God in the first place.
It's special pleading, it also invalidates the 'from nothing, nothing comes'.
Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isn't this the point? We (humans) have no idea how
> everything (matter, space, etc.) came to be, it is
> beyond explanation.
That is not the point - the point of cosmological arguments is to go from the universe needing a cause to it needing a creator. If you say 'I don't know how it all came about', then I applaud you for your honesty - but you can't then say 'therefore God did it'.
> The whole notion of causality
> and the "beginning" of the universe defies our
> understanding.
I would agree here.
> The idea that God created
> everything is no less viable than any other
> explanation.
For what you are trying to say, I agree. I qualify this because I think there are some interesting arguments that do make God less viable - but I get what you are saying here.
> Of course, this, in itself, is not
> proof there is a God. It is not scientifically
> testable, at least in no way anyone has thought of
> to date. And yes, people could create any number
> of magical explanations for where everything came
> from, as they have throughout human existence.
Yes, it's not proof of God - that is what I was trying to show. I wasn't trying to show that God couldn't have done it.
> I think the point is, the view that God created
> everything is a highly credible metaphysical
> worldview, as credible as any other metaphysical
> worldview, including leading current theories by
> cosmologists.
I do not feel that God is on par with our current cosmological theories, even if our current theories are wrong, since our current theories posit models. In short, they give us more than 'God did it', more to explore, so to speak. You seem to be speaking strictly from a metaphysical point of view though, so perhaps what I bring up is not pertinent, but I do think it makes a difference.
> If you think about it, it almost
> seems that there can be no other explanation than
> that there is something that defies our notion of
> time/space/causality to explain where everything
> came from. In the Bible God called himself "I am",
> the being that always is, always was, defies
> explanation, etc. How could it be otherwise, where
> did it all come from?
Perhaps. It's true that something that defies everything we know seems likely - but I do not think that means that a personal God is that something.
Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof, you must remember your multidimensional
> string theory nonsense or your hidden quantum
> universe theory nonsense or any other number of
> silly nonsensical theories that you've posted to
> try and explain stuff. Sure, there's theories
> that explain just about everything. And most of
> the ones you cite take more faith to believe and
> stretch credulity for more than what is in the
> Bible. Dismiss as you will, but that's the truth.
*My* multidimensional string theory? Frankly speaking, I my metaphysics does not require string theory. I think it's interesting, but irrelevant to my view of the universe.
All you've done here is blown fluff up our butts. You say that most of these cosmological models require more faith than the Bible - and by that I suspect you mean God speaking existence into existence. I simply disagree.
> Right, nothing. I don't see how that's a problem
> either, the one "exception to the rule" of
> something can't come out of nothing based again on
> definitions of God in the first place.
It's special pleading, it also invalidates the 'from nothing, nothing comes'.
Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isn't this the point? We (humans) have no idea how
> everything (matter, space, etc.) came to be, it is
> beyond explanation.
That is not the point - the point of cosmological arguments is to go from the universe needing a cause to it needing a creator. If you say 'I don't know how it all came about', then I applaud you for your honesty - but you can't then say 'therefore God did it'.
> The whole notion of causality
> and the "beginning" of the universe defies our
> understanding.
I would agree here.
> The idea that God created
> everything is no less viable than any other
> explanation.
For what you are trying to say, I agree. I qualify this because I think there are some interesting arguments that do make God less viable - but I get what you are saying here.
> Of course, this, in itself, is not
> proof there is a God. It is not scientifically
> testable, at least in no way anyone has thought of
> to date. And yes, people could create any number
> of magical explanations for where everything came
> from, as they have throughout human existence.
Yes, it's not proof of God - that is what I was trying to show. I wasn't trying to show that God couldn't have done it.
> I think the point is, the view that God created
> everything is a highly credible metaphysical
> worldview, as credible as any other metaphysical
> worldview, including leading current theories by
> cosmologists.
I do not feel that God is on par with our current cosmological theories, even if our current theories are wrong, since our current theories posit models. In short, they give us more than 'God did it', more to explore, so to speak. You seem to be speaking strictly from a metaphysical point of view though, so perhaps what I bring up is not pertinent, but I do think it makes a difference.
> If you think about it, it almost
> seems that there can be no other explanation than
> that there is something that defies our notion of
> time/space/causality to explain where everything
> came from. In the Bible God called himself "I am",
> the being that always is, always was, defies
> explanation, etc. How could it be otherwise, where
> did it all come from?
Perhaps. It's true that something that defies everything we know seems likely - but I do not think that means that a personal God is that something.
Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof, you must remember your multidimensional
> string theory nonsense or your hidden quantum
> universe theory nonsense or any other number of
> silly nonsensical theories that you've posted to
> try and explain stuff. Sure, there's theories
> that explain just about everything. And most of
> the ones you cite take more faith to believe and
> stretch credulity for more than what is in the
> Bible. Dismiss as you will, but that's the truth.
*My* multidimensional string theory? Frankly speaking, I my metaphysics does not require string theory. I think it's interesting, but irrelevant to my view of the universe.
All you've done here is blown fluff up our butts. You say that most of these cosmological models require more faith than the Bible - and by that I suspect you mean God speaking existence into existence. I simply disagree.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Trooth
()
Date: November 22, 2011 08:43AM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
>
> All you've done here is blown fluff up our butts.
How so?
*************************************************
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> You say that most of these cosmological models
> require more faith than the Bible - and by that I
> suspect you mean God speaking existence into
> existence.
What I say is that the Bible has never been proven wrong. Not archaeologically, not historically and not scientifically. Science is wrong often. More often than it is right. That is the nature of science. To put faith only in science or what one can see, feel and touch is myopic IMO. And, in the end, sad.
******************************
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> I simply disagree.
Of course. That is why we're engaged in this debate. If we agreed, we'd be over disagreeing on something else in another thread.
>
> All you've done here is blown fluff up our butts.
How so?
*************************************************
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> You say that most of these cosmological models
> require more faith than the Bible - and by that I
> suspect you mean God speaking existence into
> existence.
What I say is that the Bible has never been proven wrong. Not archaeologically, not historically and not scientifically. Science is wrong often. More often than it is right. That is the nature of science. To put faith only in science or what one can see, feel and touch is myopic IMO. And, in the end, sad.
******************************
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> I simply disagree.
Of course. That is why we're engaged in this debate. If we agreed, we'd be over disagreeing on something else in another thread.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: November 22, 2011 09:37AM
Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
>
> >
> > All you've done here is blown fluff up our
> butts.
>
>
> How so?
> *************************************************
Because all you did was handwave away scientific models. This is blowing fluff.
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
>
> > You say that most of these cosmological models
> > require more faith than the Bible - and by that
> I
> > suspect you mean God speaking existence into
> > existence.
>
> What I say is that the Bible has never been proven
> wrong. Not archaeologically, not historically and
> not scientifically. Science is wrong often. More
> often than it is right. That is the nature of
> science. To put faith only in science or what one
> can see, feel and touch is myopic IMO. And, in
> the end, sad.
> ******************************
This is a statement of faith - and hey good for you. I'm sure that any error I brought up you would find *some* justification, no matter how convoluted, to make it right. It wouldn't be rational, it would be 'faith' and as such, it would be a waste of time to engage you in it.
As for science, you dismiss it while typing up on it's fruits. Not a very strong argument.
You should read Asimov's relativity of wrong.
In any event, my reasons for rejecting God are mainly philosophical, not scientific, so your approach here is wrong-headed to begin with.
>
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
>
> > I simply disagree.
>
> Of course. That is why we're engaged in this
> debate. If we agreed, we'd be over disagreeing on
> something else in another thread.
When you dismiss cosmological models in favor of contradictory magic, there's not much to discuss.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
>
> >
> > All you've done here is blown fluff up our
> butts.
>
>
> How so?
> *************************************************
Because all you did was handwave away scientific models. This is blowing fluff.
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
>
> > You say that most of these cosmological models
> > require more faith than the Bible - and by that
> I
> > suspect you mean God speaking existence into
> > existence.
>
> What I say is that the Bible has never been proven
> wrong. Not archaeologically, not historically and
> not scientifically. Science is wrong often. More
> often than it is right. That is the nature of
> science. To put faith only in science or what one
> can see, feel and touch is myopic IMO. And, in
> the end, sad.
> ******************************
This is a statement of faith - and hey good for you. I'm sure that any error I brought up you would find *some* justification, no matter how convoluted, to make it right. It wouldn't be rational, it would be 'faith' and as such, it would be a waste of time to engage you in it.
As for science, you dismiss it while typing up on it's fruits. Not a very strong argument.
You should read Asimov's relativity of wrong.
In any event, my reasons for rejecting God are mainly philosophical, not scientific, so your approach here is wrong-headed to begin with.
>
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
>
> > I simply disagree.
>
> Of course. That is why we're engaged in this
> debate. If we agreed, we'd be over disagreeing on
> something else in another thread.
When you dismiss cosmological models in favor of contradictory magic, there's not much to discuss.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: November 22, 2011 02:37PM
Trooth Wrote:
>
> What I say is that the Bible has never been proven
> wrong. Not archaeologically, not historically and
> not scientifically.
Tosh! By the same argument, Homer's never been proved wrong.
The bible has been categorically proved wrong - the genesis story is a prime example which doesn't stand up to archeology (those pesky dino bones and homo habibili), cosmology (earth is nothing special), geology (its all very old) and genetics (earth-based is very closely related and you can track it the dna).
The rest is just the mythology and pre-literate history of a particularly unlucky tribe and has no more validity than Homer, Beowolf or the Koran.
Complaiming that the current state of science doesn't explain everything in perfect detail doesn't get you off the hook of explaining why your favorite book of fairy tales should have any more credence than the vikings or the hindus
>Science is wrong often. More
> often than it is right. That is the nature of
> science. To put faith only in science or what one
> can see, feel and touch is myopic IMO. And, in
> the end, sad.
> ******************************
>
>
By its very nature science is not 'wrong' in the same way as religion
Science tries to produce the best possible explanation of observations at any given time and proposes experiments to explore gaps in our understanding. Religion ignores inconvenient observations and explain everything by magic emmanating from a shrinking corner of the darkness - avoiding examination and evidence like an old spiriualist
To deliberatly ignore the observations of the universe around you is deliberatly and unforgivably ignorant
Start with the recent measurements of the Hubble and the Planck e.g. on continuous and current star and planet foundation - after that genesis looks a bit wimpy as an explanation http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8571418.stm
70 sextillion stars (17 followed by 22 zeros)
...spread amongst 170 billion galaxies
...some containing upto a trillion stars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy
and god has time for a personal relationship with members of ffxu?
That's even without thinking about the complex dynamics of a system containing ...10 to the power 80 atoms,
...operating at dramatically varying temperatures
...over 13.7 billion years
...and a current diameter of about 16 Billion light years
don't forget, every atom heavier than hydrogen has been through the middle of at least one star (that's the only way they get made - well if you ignore the elves chipping away at them in santa's grotto)
so lets really think about this...
if you think that god or gods are still behind all of this - god presses the button 16.7 Billion years ago, massive quantum mechanical ferment, star formation blah blah blah - all so he can chat to you over breakfast one thursday? Everything we know about physics and complex systems tells us that you are delusional - unless maxwell's little daemons are busy herding those high energy particles into place
I forgot to mention that in the middle of all of this god took time to bury fake dino bones to test the unwary - that old joker :)
>
> What I say is that the Bible has never been proven
> wrong. Not archaeologically, not historically and
> not scientifically.
Tosh! By the same argument, Homer's never been proved wrong.
The bible has been categorically proved wrong - the genesis story is a prime example which doesn't stand up to archeology (those pesky dino bones and homo habibili), cosmology (earth is nothing special), geology (its all very old) and genetics (earth-based is very closely related and you can track it the dna).
The rest is just the mythology and pre-literate history of a particularly unlucky tribe and has no more validity than Homer, Beowolf or the Koran.
Complaiming that the current state of science doesn't explain everything in perfect detail doesn't get you off the hook of explaining why your favorite book of fairy tales should have any more credence than the vikings or the hindus
>Science is wrong often. More
> often than it is right. That is the nature of
> science. To put faith only in science or what one
> can see, feel and touch is myopic IMO. And, in
> the end, sad.
> ******************************
>
>
By its very nature science is not 'wrong' in the same way as religion
Science tries to produce the best possible explanation of observations at any given time and proposes experiments to explore gaps in our understanding. Religion ignores inconvenient observations and explain everything by magic emmanating from a shrinking corner of the darkness - avoiding examination and evidence like an old spiriualist
To deliberatly ignore the observations of the universe around you is deliberatly and unforgivably ignorant
Start with the recent measurements of the Hubble and the Planck e.g. on continuous and current star and planet foundation - after that genesis looks a bit wimpy as an explanation http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8571418.stm
70 sextillion stars (17 followed by 22 zeros)
...spread amongst 170 billion galaxies
...some containing upto a trillion stars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy
and god has time for a personal relationship with members of ffxu?
That's even without thinking about the complex dynamics of a system containing ...10 to the power 80 atoms,
...operating at dramatically varying temperatures
...over 13.7 billion years
...and a current diameter of about 16 Billion light years
don't forget, every atom heavier than hydrogen has been through the middle of at least one star (that's the only way they get made - well if you ignore the elves chipping away at them in santa's grotto)
so lets really think about this...
if you think that god or gods are still behind all of this - god presses the button 16.7 Billion years ago, massive quantum mechanical ferment, star formation blah blah blah - all so he can chat to you over breakfast one thursday? Everything we know about physics and complex systems tells us that you are delusional - unless maxwell's little daemons are busy herding those high energy particles into place
I forgot to mention that in the middle of all of this god took time to bury fake dino bones to test the unwary - that old joker :)
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Trooth
()
Date: November 22, 2011 08:36PM
finito benito,
Dinosaurs, hee hee. This has all been discussed a couple of pages back. Please catch up before rehashing old ideas and arguments that have already been sent packing.
Dinosaurs, hee hee. This has all been discussed a couple of pages back. Please catch up before rehashing old ideas and arguments that have already been sent packing.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: November 23, 2011 09:40AM
Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito,
>
> Dinosaurs, hee hee. This has all been discussed a
> couple of pages back. Please catch up before
> rehashing old ideas and arguments that have
> already been sent packing.
I haven't seen anything on this thread (or elsewhere) that convincingly argues againat the fossil record (including dinosaurs) as one of a number of very good sources of evidence for evolution rather than creationism - or against the observation that the scale, diversity and complexity (in its technical and popular senses) of the cosmos, and what we know about its mechanisms (at all lengths scales from the quantum to the cosmic, energy levels from the electron to ths stellar and complexity from the physics to the ecological), precludes intelligent design as an explanation for the world we see around us
Religion, especally but not exclusively christianity, fail entirely to provide explanations which fit our observations, They are based on the concepts of human and earth exceptionalism and the idea that you can either create something like the earth in its current state in isolation from the rest of the universe, or that you can set up the starting conditions at the start of the universe to end up with precisely the lifeform you want to talk to. We know that these are childish ideas entirely at odds with our observations
if "Dinosaurs, hee hee" (the Beavis and Butthead of arguments) is your best shot then, yet again, the religious argument has lost, as it always does and will
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito,
>
> Dinosaurs, hee hee. This has all been discussed a
> couple of pages back. Please catch up before
> rehashing old ideas and arguments that have
> already been sent packing.
I haven't seen anything on this thread (or elsewhere) that convincingly argues againat the fossil record (including dinosaurs) as one of a number of very good sources of evidence for evolution rather than creationism - or against the observation that the scale, diversity and complexity (in its technical and popular senses) of the cosmos, and what we know about its mechanisms (at all lengths scales from the quantum to the cosmic, energy levels from the electron to ths stellar and complexity from the physics to the ecological), precludes intelligent design as an explanation for the world we see around us
Religion, especally but not exclusively christianity, fail entirely to provide explanations which fit our observations, They are based on the concepts of human and earth exceptionalism and the idea that you can either create something like the earth in its current state in isolation from the rest of the universe, or that you can set up the starting conditions at the start of the universe to end up with precisely the lifeform you want to talk to. We know that these are childish ideas entirely at odds with our observations
if "Dinosaurs, hee hee" (the Beavis and Butthead of arguments) is your best shot then, yet again, the religious argument has lost, as it always does and will
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Believe
()
Date: November 23, 2011 10:05AM
finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
...precludes intelligent design as an explanation for the world we see around us
How is that? Other than the complete silliness of "new earth creationists" or whatever the people are called who ridiculously believe in a 6000-year old earth, how are science and Christianity incompatible? How has science precluded the notion of a God who set that creation in motion, or of a man who died on a cross and rose from the dead?
-------------------------------------------------------
>
...precludes intelligent design as an explanation for the world we see around us
How is that? Other than the complete silliness of "new earth creationists" or whatever the people are called who ridiculously believe in a 6000-year old earth, how are science and Christianity incompatible? How has science precluded the notion of a God who set that creation in motion, or of a man who died on a cross and rose from the dead?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Believe
()
Date: November 23, 2011 10:11AM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Pangloss, thanks as always for your thoughtful comments. Even though we've disagreed on the fundamental question at hand (now and in the past on this thread), I've always enjoyed your thoughtful commentary and treating the subject with respect.
-------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Pangloss, thanks as always for your thoughtful comments. Even though we've disagreed on the fundamental question at hand (now and in the past on this thread), I've always enjoyed your thoughtful commentary and treating the subject with respect.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: November 23, 2011 11:16AM
Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> ...precludes intelligent design as an explanation
> for the world we see around us
>
> How is that? Other than the complete silliness of
> "new earth creationists" or whatever the people
> are called who ridiculously believe in a 6000-year
> old earth, how are science and Christianity
> incompatible? How has science precluded the notion
> of a God who set that creation in motion, or of a
> man who died on a cross and rose from the dead?
Absolutely
Science shows us the scale and complexity of what has happened since the big bang,
Since you disavow the young earthers, I assume that you would accept that the present and local are connected to the past and the distant in a continuous fashion e.g. the same physics and math applies over time and space
For a period after the big bang, the energy levels were so high that particles as we know them did not exist - only as the expanding universe cooled did the fundamental sub-atomic particles that we see around us stabilise.
Since that time, every atom around us has passed through the dying supernova of at least one, and probably many stars. That's the only point at which heavy elements are formed from lighter components.
Each of those stages is a fundamentally complex (in the science/math sense not the emotional sense) and characterised by emergent outcomes. This complexity propogates through the entire universe as we see it.
It is impossible to predict the state of such a large complex, largely quantum system without another quantum system with the same degrees of freedom over the same period of time - e.g. you would need a quantum computer the size of the universe to predict the state of your desired universe. For example, given a set of physical constants, its would be impossible to predict the precise shape of the coast of maine, let alone the genome of an elephant from initial state.
At the quantum level, the universe, depending on whether you think that there reallyis a degree of randomness/underlying statistical behaviours or not, at or below the quantum level, is either
- deterministic but unpredictable (e.g. from a given start point, you'll always get to the same point, but its fundamentally computationally impossible to predict very far ahead)
- non-deterministic and unpredictable (e.g. from a given start point, you may get to different points, and still not be able to look ahead)
This complexity, plays out at the scale of life - DNA provides an effective method for generating and propogating diversity within and between species. Its the random mating, random coding errors and random demises of individuals and pairs within species that determines the survival and evolution of those species. Coupled with the huge changes we've seen in the surface of the earth since its first cooling - oceans come and go, mountains grow and erode, continents move and change shape, it would have been impossible (in the technical, not comparative sense) to predict which particular pre-dinosaurs would go on to become sparrows.
The current state of science gives us a rich and pretty convincing, although not yet complete, picture of how the complexity around us - including our bodies, minds and societies came about - no divine intervention required
This is one of the arguments that precludes the idea of a creationist and interventionist god
This is not a failure of scope and vision, rather a result of the math and the observations around us
On the issue of dying and coming back to life - this is typical of a whole range of mythology and superstition which has pervaded human history. There is no more proof for any of it than there is for orpheus's trip to save euridice, grendel's assault on the mead-hall or rama's excusrsions with the monkeys. christianity is just another one of the thousands of religions, cults and movements that have propogated through human life. Its had moderatly interesting historical impacts but that's about it - its not even the largest or most interesting of current religions, although papal infallibility is a great job if you can get it
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> ...precludes intelligent design as an explanation
> for the world we see around us
>
> How is that? Other than the complete silliness of
> "new earth creationists" or whatever the people
> are called who ridiculously believe in a 6000-year
> old earth, how are science and Christianity
> incompatible? How has science precluded the notion
> of a God who set that creation in motion, or of a
> man who died on a cross and rose from the dead?
Absolutely
Science shows us the scale and complexity of what has happened since the big bang,
Since you disavow the young earthers, I assume that you would accept that the present and local are connected to the past and the distant in a continuous fashion e.g. the same physics and math applies over time and space
For a period after the big bang, the energy levels were so high that particles as we know them did not exist - only as the expanding universe cooled did the fundamental sub-atomic particles that we see around us stabilise.
Since that time, every atom around us has passed through the dying supernova of at least one, and probably many stars. That's the only point at which heavy elements are formed from lighter components.
Each of those stages is a fundamentally complex (in the science/math sense not the emotional sense) and characterised by emergent outcomes. This complexity propogates through the entire universe as we see it.
It is impossible to predict the state of such a large complex, largely quantum system without another quantum system with the same degrees of freedom over the same period of time - e.g. you would need a quantum computer the size of the universe to predict the state of your desired universe. For example, given a set of physical constants, its would be impossible to predict the precise shape of the coast of maine, let alone the genome of an elephant from initial state.
At the quantum level, the universe, depending on whether you think that there reallyis a degree of randomness/underlying statistical behaviours or not, at or below the quantum level, is either
- deterministic but unpredictable (e.g. from a given start point, you'll always get to the same point, but its fundamentally computationally impossible to predict very far ahead)
- non-deterministic and unpredictable (e.g. from a given start point, you may get to different points, and still not be able to look ahead)
This complexity, plays out at the scale of life - DNA provides an effective method for generating and propogating diversity within and between species. Its the random mating, random coding errors and random demises of individuals and pairs within species that determines the survival and evolution of those species. Coupled with the huge changes we've seen in the surface of the earth since its first cooling - oceans come and go, mountains grow and erode, continents move and change shape, it would have been impossible (in the technical, not comparative sense) to predict which particular pre-dinosaurs would go on to become sparrows.
The current state of science gives us a rich and pretty convincing, although not yet complete, picture of how the complexity around us - including our bodies, minds and societies came about - no divine intervention required
This is one of the arguments that precludes the idea of a creationist and interventionist god
This is not a failure of scope and vision, rather a result of the math and the observations around us
On the issue of dying and coming back to life - this is typical of a whole range of mythology and superstition which has pervaded human history. There is no more proof for any of it than there is for orpheus's trip to save euridice, grendel's assault on the mead-hall or rama's excusrsions with the monkeys. christianity is just another one of the thousands of religions, cults and movements that have propogated through human life. Its had moderatly interesting historical impacts but that's about it - its not even the largest or most interesting of current religions, although papal infallibility is a great job if you can get it
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Trooth
()
Date: November 23, 2011 02:59PM
finito benito Wrote:
>
> Religion, especally but not exclusively
> christianity, fail entirely to provide
> explanations which fit our observations, They are
> based on the concepts of human and earth
> exceptionalism and the idea that you can either
> create something like the earth in its current
> state in isolation from the rest of the universe,
> or that you can set up the starting conditions at
> the start of the universe to end up with precisely
> the lifeform you want to talk to. We know that
> these are childish ideas entirely at odds with our
> observations
>
> if "Dinosaurs, hee hee" (the Beavis and Butthead
> of arguments) is your best shot then, yet again,
> the religious argument has lost, as it always does
> and will
You don't understand Christian doctrine. Nowhere does the Bible tell us how old the earth was or when it was created. For all we know, Adam and Eve hung around for 1 billion years with God before falling.
Nowhere does the Bible say that the earth has not or will not change. Species go extinct all the time. Why are dinosaurs the proof of anything other than that a mass extinction occurred (a giant flood perhaps?)?
You don't seem to have taken the time to go back and read what was previously posted on this and thus, you restate points that have already been made and countered.
As for comparing a religion that has been around in one form (Judaism) or another (Christianity) for thousands of years to Nordic tales whose sole purpose is to entertain, not teach, is kind of nonsensical.
You base everything on what you can understand or choose to believe. You are no different than believing Christians. What's the DNA of a rock? Where did it all come from? Why do thousands of people who experience clinical death and come back to life swear they saw something on the other side? Scientists couldn't even get the theory of global warming correct and that was with 95% of them and hundreds of billions of dollars behind it trying very hard to prove it over just a couple dozen decades.
Do you know who came up with the theory of intelligent design? It was scientists who could not reconcile the ridiculous odds that would be required to have random chance create the world we live in. You have better odds of winning every lottery drawing that has ever been than of this world and the universe evolving naturally into what it is. So scientists developed a theory that allowed for a creator and designer.
When Darwin postulated his theory of macro-evolution, one of the most troubling things he could not reconcile is the millions and millions of years that would be required to account for the time needed to create the present state of the world. He died never resolving this. But lo and behold, after secular science embraced evolution, they had to address it. So they came up with a method of dating objects that "proved" the earth was billions of years old. Recently, radiation dating has proven problematic as it is not as stable as originally thought. Nor can science prove that an global event (asteroid or perhaps a flood?) would not totally skew the decomposition of elements.
Finally, your silly condensing tone does not help your argument. In fact, it hurts it. Agree or not with the Professor, and while he might be dismissive when stumped, he keeps it civil. Perhaps you can take a lesson from him.
>
> Religion, especally but not exclusively
> christianity, fail entirely to provide
> explanations which fit our observations, They are
> based on the concepts of human and earth
> exceptionalism and the idea that you can either
> create something like the earth in its current
> state in isolation from the rest of the universe,
> or that you can set up the starting conditions at
> the start of the universe to end up with precisely
> the lifeform you want to talk to. We know that
> these are childish ideas entirely at odds with our
> observations
>
> if "Dinosaurs, hee hee" (the Beavis and Butthead
> of arguments) is your best shot then, yet again,
> the religious argument has lost, as it always does
> and will
You don't understand Christian doctrine. Nowhere does the Bible tell us how old the earth was or when it was created. For all we know, Adam and Eve hung around for 1 billion years with God before falling.
Nowhere does the Bible say that the earth has not or will not change. Species go extinct all the time. Why are dinosaurs the proof of anything other than that a mass extinction occurred (a giant flood perhaps?)?
You don't seem to have taken the time to go back and read what was previously posted on this and thus, you restate points that have already been made and countered.
As for comparing a religion that has been around in one form (Judaism) or another (Christianity) for thousands of years to Nordic tales whose sole purpose is to entertain, not teach, is kind of nonsensical.
You base everything on what you can understand or choose to believe. You are no different than believing Christians. What's the DNA of a rock? Where did it all come from? Why do thousands of people who experience clinical death and come back to life swear they saw something on the other side? Scientists couldn't even get the theory of global warming correct and that was with 95% of them and hundreds of billions of dollars behind it trying very hard to prove it over just a couple dozen decades.
Do you know who came up with the theory of intelligent design? It was scientists who could not reconcile the ridiculous odds that would be required to have random chance create the world we live in. You have better odds of winning every lottery drawing that has ever been than of this world and the universe evolving naturally into what it is. So scientists developed a theory that allowed for a creator and designer.
When Darwin postulated his theory of macro-evolution, one of the most troubling things he could not reconcile is the millions and millions of years that would be required to account for the time needed to create the present state of the world. He died never resolving this. But lo and behold, after secular science embraced evolution, they had to address it. So they came up with a method of dating objects that "proved" the earth was billions of years old. Recently, radiation dating has proven problematic as it is not as stable as originally thought. Nor can science prove that an global event (asteroid or perhaps a flood?) would not totally skew the decomposition of elements.
Finally, your silly condensing tone does not help your argument. In fact, it hurts it. Agree or not with the Professor, and while he might be dismissive when stumped, he keeps it civil. Perhaps you can take a lesson from him.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: November 23, 2011 06:18PM
Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
Which rock have you been hiding under?
>
> You don't understand Christian doctrine. Nowhere
> does the Bible tell us how old the earth was or
> when it was created.
well apart from all that 'on the next day' stuff etc - leaving aside all the evidence that shows how the earth, along with the other planets in our solar system developed rather than being created
For hundreds of years, christian doctrine was based explicitly on the descent of biblical and contemporay figures from adam from 'documented' decent - drawing mostly on old testament sources. Many a ruler claimed direct line of descent from adam and co
Its only in the face the scientific evidence that the world is substantially more than 6,000 years old that newer varients of christianity have sought to finesse the glaring fairy story
> For all we know, Adam and
> Eve hung around for 1 billion years with God
> before falling.
>
This is what I love - you really have to jump though hoops to make this story hang together at all
We have very good fossil evidence for the evolution of hominids and their migration - but that's not good enough for you, you have adam hanging out in a bar for a billion years just waiting to take over from the locals
> Nowhere does the Bible say that the earth has not
> or will not change. Species go extinct all the
> time. Why are dinosaurs the proof of anything
> other than that a mass extinction occurred (a
> giant flood perhaps?)?
>
Dinosaurs - like other fossils form a very detailed record of the gradual evolution of life on earth. They serve no other purpose other than they flumoxed victorian christians and brought about the intellectal death of creationism. You're right species have died out throughout much of the earth's history - but they have also evolved into new species at an impressive rate
Are you agreeing with evolution (presumably excluding people in your model )or are you suggesting that all species co-existed with some dead ending as we went? That doesn't really line up with the fossil record. Or are you suggesting that god tops up the gene pool when ever the number of species gets a bit sparse?
> You don't seem to have taken the time to go back
> and read what was previously posted on this and
> thus, you restate points that have already been
> made and countered.
>
As you'll be aware, I've been involved in the thread for quite a while. I only reiterate points that you clearly chose to ignore
> As for comparing a religion that has been around
> in one form (Judaism) or another (Christianity)
> for thousands of years to Nordic tales whose sole
> purpose is to entertain, not teach, is kind of
> nonsensical.
>
So why do you think that every other religion is or was meant solely to entertain? Have you tried suggesting that to your Hindu or Buddhist friends?
I think its fair to assume that the vikings, ancient greeks and romans and asian animists believed in their gods just as much as you do in yours. They had their saints, mystics and prophets just as you have yours. Why should anyone believe your myths any more than Homer's?
You assume some exceptionalism purely on the basis that you assert it - sorry that doesn't fly
> You base everything on what you can understand or
> choose to believe. You are no different than
> believing Christians.
That's a complete mistatement of the difference in the basis of science and the basis of christianity. Science takes observations of gravity on earth and uses them to make models of the movement of planets - and then actively searches for the unexpected allowing it to predict and then find new planets. Religion clings to bronze age superstitions until forced to abandon them in the face of science - flat earth, young earth, sun orbiting around the earth etc et
> What's the DNA of a rock?
What?
That's like saying what's the DNA of a star - its a nonsensical question.
> Where did it all come from? Why do thousands of
> people who experience clinical death and come back
> to life swear they saw something on the other
> side?
Those experiences can be replicated my simple manipulation of the brain with chemicals such as ketamine. As Minsky points out 'mind is what the brain does', no more, no less
>Scientists couldn't even get the theory of
> global warming correct and that was with 95% of
> them and hundreds of billions of dollars behind it
> trying very hard to prove it over just a couple
> dozen decades.
I'm not sure what your point is here. The science of climate change is pretty well accepted everywhere except in the American Right funded by the energy lobby and supported by the doctrine of 'dominion' sects of conservative christianity. Modelling is always a tricky business - but the core science has been confirmed, compared and reviewed by many independent governmental review worldwide. I can't help it if you don't like the message
I'd like to see your evidence for hundreds of billions being spent on climate change research by the way
Do you really believe that the oil companies doubt climate change? Have you ever spoken to their scientists or the independent researchers involved? Opposition to climate science is political, religious and economic, not scientific.
>
> Do you know who came up with the theory of
> intelligent design? It was scientists who could
> not reconcile the ridiculous odds that would be
> required to have random chance create the world we
> live in. You have better odds of winning every
> lottery drawing that has ever been than of this
> world and the universe evolving naturally into
> what it is. So scientists developed a theory that
> allowed for a creator and designer.
I call BS on this one - intelligent design is, and never has been part of mainstream or peer reviewed science. Its origins are solely as a way of bringing religion and creationism into schools despite the constitutional ban - hece why the courts have repeatedly refused to allow it in schools.
>
> When Darwin postulated his theory of
> macro-evolution, one of the most troubling things
> he could not reconcile is the millions and
> millions of years that would be required to
> account for the time needed to create the present
> state of the world. He died never resolving this.
Why so hung up on darwin? He had some of the breakthough ideas but is by no means the only scientist involved in evolutionary biology - and he did not have access to much of the information that we now have about physics, chemistry and biology.
> But lo and behold, after secular science embraced
> evolution, they had to address it. So they came
> up with a method of dating objects that "proved"
> the earth was billions of years old. Recently,
> radiation dating has proven problematic as it is
> not as stable as originally thought.
Are you mad or just stupid? So let me get this right - the dangerous left wing athiest conspiracy at the turn of the 20th century was so scared that they invented quantum mechanics and all of modern physics just to confuse the righteous?
OHHH - stop - my sides are hurting
Dating of geological samples isn't done just by measuring one element - there are a whole set of overlapping and error checking measurements. Even ignoring the radio-chemistry - you can start by counting the strata and looking at their make up. Layers of sandstones, limestones, igneous and metamorphic rocks show that the earth is much more than 6,000 years old. Let alone the fossil record. IS it perfect, no, Is it damned good, yes.
Unless you have a better theory? Oh yes, santa did it.
>Nor can
> science prove that an global event (asteroid or
> perhaps a flood?) would not totally skew the
> decomposition of elements.
>
Of course it does!
Let me get this right - you're suggesting that an asteroid large enough to affect every fossil and rock strata worldwide would be able to distribute itself evenly through the earth without disturbing any of the layers or remains? To get a full merging, you have to melt eveything and that wouldn't half mess everything up
do you see any evidence of that? do you have a proposed mechanism?
Floods - that's an even better suggestion - you seem to have forgotten that most of the world is covered in water at the present time and that large areas of land (including anywhere with limestone) were covered in the past. Do you see any evidence of the radio-chemical tampering you suggest? We know how water moves through the shallow crust - we can see it doing it
Typical of religious nuts trying to jump through their own a*sses - you just have to resort to making things up
I'll have a go - maybe it was magic unicorn farts
> Finally, your silly condensing tone does not help
> your argument. In fact, it hurts it. Agree or
> not with the Professor, and while he might be
> dismissive when stumped, he keeps it civil.
> Perhaps you can take a lesson from him.
I never set out to be as clever, witty or patient as Pangloss, and his kids are probably cleaner and better at baseball than mine. I certainly have never seen you stump him - he's just seems very restrained in sticking to the point.
Personally, I find civility over-rated when deaing with fools and frauds.
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
Which rock have you been hiding under?
>
> You don't understand Christian doctrine. Nowhere
> does the Bible tell us how old the earth was or
> when it was created.
well apart from all that 'on the next day' stuff etc - leaving aside all the evidence that shows how the earth, along with the other planets in our solar system developed rather than being created
For hundreds of years, christian doctrine was based explicitly on the descent of biblical and contemporay figures from adam from 'documented' decent - drawing mostly on old testament sources. Many a ruler claimed direct line of descent from adam and co
Its only in the face the scientific evidence that the world is substantially more than 6,000 years old that newer varients of christianity have sought to finesse the glaring fairy story
> For all we know, Adam and
> Eve hung around for 1 billion years with God
> before falling.
>
This is what I love - you really have to jump though hoops to make this story hang together at all
We have very good fossil evidence for the evolution of hominids and their migration - but that's not good enough for you, you have adam hanging out in a bar for a billion years just waiting to take over from the locals
> Nowhere does the Bible say that the earth has not
> or will not change. Species go extinct all the
> time. Why are dinosaurs the proof of anything
> other than that a mass extinction occurred (a
> giant flood perhaps?)?
>
Dinosaurs - like other fossils form a very detailed record of the gradual evolution of life on earth. They serve no other purpose other than they flumoxed victorian christians and brought about the intellectal death of creationism. You're right species have died out throughout much of the earth's history - but they have also evolved into new species at an impressive rate
Are you agreeing with evolution (presumably excluding people in your model )or are you suggesting that all species co-existed with some dead ending as we went? That doesn't really line up with the fossil record. Or are you suggesting that god tops up the gene pool when ever the number of species gets a bit sparse?
> You don't seem to have taken the time to go back
> and read what was previously posted on this and
> thus, you restate points that have already been
> made and countered.
>
As you'll be aware, I've been involved in the thread for quite a while. I only reiterate points that you clearly chose to ignore
> As for comparing a religion that has been around
> in one form (Judaism) or another (Christianity)
> for thousands of years to Nordic tales whose sole
> purpose is to entertain, not teach, is kind of
> nonsensical.
>
So why do you think that every other religion is or was meant solely to entertain? Have you tried suggesting that to your Hindu or Buddhist friends?
I think its fair to assume that the vikings, ancient greeks and romans and asian animists believed in their gods just as much as you do in yours. They had their saints, mystics and prophets just as you have yours. Why should anyone believe your myths any more than Homer's?
You assume some exceptionalism purely on the basis that you assert it - sorry that doesn't fly
> You base everything on what you can understand or
> choose to believe. You are no different than
> believing Christians.
That's a complete mistatement of the difference in the basis of science and the basis of christianity. Science takes observations of gravity on earth and uses them to make models of the movement of planets - and then actively searches for the unexpected allowing it to predict and then find new planets. Religion clings to bronze age superstitions until forced to abandon them in the face of science - flat earth, young earth, sun orbiting around the earth etc et
> What's the DNA of a rock?
What?
That's like saying what's the DNA of a star - its a nonsensical question.
> Where did it all come from? Why do thousands of
> people who experience clinical death and come back
> to life swear they saw something on the other
> side?
Those experiences can be replicated my simple manipulation of the brain with chemicals such as ketamine. As Minsky points out 'mind is what the brain does', no more, no less
>Scientists couldn't even get the theory of
> global warming correct and that was with 95% of
> them and hundreds of billions of dollars behind it
> trying very hard to prove it over just a couple
> dozen decades.
I'm not sure what your point is here. The science of climate change is pretty well accepted everywhere except in the American Right funded by the energy lobby and supported by the doctrine of 'dominion' sects of conservative christianity. Modelling is always a tricky business - but the core science has been confirmed, compared and reviewed by many independent governmental review worldwide. I can't help it if you don't like the message
I'd like to see your evidence for hundreds of billions being spent on climate change research by the way
Do you really believe that the oil companies doubt climate change? Have you ever spoken to their scientists or the independent researchers involved? Opposition to climate science is political, religious and economic, not scientific.
>
> Do you know who came up with the theory of
> intelligent design? It was scientists who could
> not reconcile the ridiculous odds that would be
> required to have random chance create the world we
> live in. You have better odds of winning every
> lottery drawing that has ever been than of this
> world and the universe evolving naturally into
> what it is. So scientists developed a theory that
> allowed for a creator and designer.
I call BS on this one - intelligent design is, and never has been part of mainstream or peer reviewed science. Its origins are solely as a way of bringing religion and creationism into schools despite the constitutional ban - hece why the courts have repeatedly refused to allow it in schools.
>
> When Darwin postulated his theory of
> macro-evolution, one of the most troubling things
> he could not reconcile is the millions and
> millions of years that would be required to
> account for the time needed to create the present
> state of the world. He died never resolving this.
Why so hung up on darwin? He had some of the breakthough ideas but is by no means the only scientist involved in evolutionary biology - and he did not have access to much of the information that we now have about physics, chemistry and biology.
> But lo and behold, after secular science embraced
> evolution, they had to address it. So they came
> up with a method of dating objects that "proved"
> the earth was billions of years old. Recently,
> radiation dating has proven problematic as it is
> not as stable as originally thought.
Are you mad or just stupid? So let me get this right - the dangerous left wing athiest conspiracy at the turn of the 20th century was so scared that they invented quantum mechanics and all of modern physics just to confuse the righteous?
OHHH - stop - my sides are hurting
Dating of geological samples isn't done just by measuring one element - there are a whole set of overlapping and error checking measurements. Even ignoring the radio-chemistry - you can start by counting the strata and looking at their make up. Layers of sandstones, limestones, igneous and metamorphic rocks show that the earth is much more than 6,000 years old. Let alone the fossil record. IS it perfect, no, Is it damned good, yes.
Unless you have a better theory? Oh yes, santa did it.
>Nor can
> science prove that an global event (asteroid or
> perhaps a flood?) would not totally skew the
> decomposition of elements.
>
Of course it does!
Let me get this right - you're suggesting that an asteroid large enough to affect every fossil and rock strata worldwide would be able to distribute itself evenly through the earth without disturbing any of the layers or remains? To get a full merging, you have to melt eveything and that wouldn't half mess everything up
do you see any evidence of that? do you have a proposed mechanism?
Floods - that's an even better suggestion - you seem to have forgotten that most of the world is covered in water at the present time and that large areas of land (including anywhere with limestone) were covered in the past. Do you see any evidence of the radio-chemical tampering you suggest? We know how water moves through the shallow crust - we can see it doing it
Typical of religious nuts trying to jump through their own a*sses - you just have to resort to making things up
I'll have a go - maybe it was magic unicorn farts
> Finally, your silly condensing tone does not help
> your argument. In fact, it hurts it. Agree or
> not with the Professor, and while he might be
> dismissive when stumped, he keeps it civil.
> Perhaps you can take a lesson from him.
I never set out to be as clever, witty or patient as Pangloss, and his kids are probably cleaner and better at baseball than mine. I certainly have never seen you stump him - he's just seems very restrained in sticking to the point.
Personally, I find civility over-rated when deaing with fools and frauds.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
sotruetruetrue
()
Date: November 23, 2011 06:48PM
Mclean has so many church whores they almost made me go gay.
Instead I just stopped going there.
THe girls there are nasty!!!
Instead I just stopped going there.
THe girls there are nasty!!!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Trooth
()
Date: November 23, 2011 08:04PM
More name calling finito benito. I have to say, you name is pretty apropos. I can see you there with your arms crossed like benito mussonlini pronouncing your opinion as fact then glaring wide eyed like you've just won WWII while your troops are in full retreat. Sorry, FAIL.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: November 24, 2011 08:33AM
Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> More name calling finito benito. I have to say,
> you name is pretty apropos. I can see you there
> with your arms crossed like benito mussonlini
> pronouncing your opinion as fact then glaring wide
> eyed like you've just won WWII while your troops
> are in full retreat. Sorry, FAIL.
Really? science in full retreat - HaHa, that's a good one - tell that to the NSF, DARPA and the whole of US industry - they'll be suprised when their steel and plastic stop working, or the elderly when their pharmaceuticals no longer work or wall street when their computers don't compute
At some point you just have to call them as you see them.
Its impossible for someone to believe the things that you claim to believe and not be either a delusional fool or a fraud. The intellectual gymnastics and willful disregard for evidence are truly amazing.
One thing I've noticed is that the last resort of creationists in discussions is always either "atheists/scientists/red-heads/,,, hate america" or "atheists/scientists/red-heads/,,, are so mean to us"
Get over it, religion and creationism are outdated and intellectually bankrupt ways of explaining the world and rely solely on ofbuscation and fear. They entirely fail to provide a satisactory self-consistent model and continuously back themselves into smaller and smaller corners as science explains more and more about the universe around us - only attempting to occasionally sally forth from their shrinking shadows by ignoring whole swaths of human knowledge
Faith in the face of reason is intellectually bankrupt and advocating it is morally corrupt
-------------------------------------------------------
> More name calling finito benito. I have to say,
> you name is pretty apropos. I can see you there
> with your arms crossed like benito mussonlini
> pronouncing your opinion as fact then glaring wide
> eyed like you've just won WWII while your troops
> are in full retreat. Sorry, FAIL.
Really? science in full retreat - HaHa, that's a good one - tell that to the NSF, DARPA and the whole of US industry - they'll be suprised when their steel and plastic stop working, or the elderly when their pharmaceuticals no longer work or wall street when their computers don't compute
At some point you just have to call them as you see them.
Its impossible for someone to believe the things that you claim to believe and not be either a delusional fool or a fraud. The intellectual gymnastics and willful disregard for evidence are truly amazing.
One thing I've noticed is that the last resort of creationists in discussions is always either "atheists/scientists/red-heads/,,, hate america" or "atheists/scientists/red-heads/,,, are so mean to us"
Get over it, religion and creationism are outdated and intellectually bankrupt ways of explaining the world and rely solely on ofbuscation and fear. They entirely fail to provide a satisactory self-consistent model and continuously back themselves into smaller and smaller corners as science explains more and more about the universe around us - only attempting to occasionally sally forth from their shrinking shadows by ignoring whole swaths of human knowledge
Faith in the face of reason is intellectually bankrupt and advocating it is morally corrupt
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Trooth
()
Date: November 24, 2011 05:39PM
You're still condescending and your postings are without merit. So when I point out that your coming across as a condescending bore, it's not that I'm saying you're mean, just that you're coming across as a condescending bore. For all I know, your just a peachy fellow, but you come across as a condescending bore.
And just for the record, MBC doesn't suck.
And just for the record, MBC doesn't suck.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: November 24, 2011 08:53PM
Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're still condescending and your postings are
> without merit. So when I point out that your
> coming across as a condescending bore, it's not
> that I'm saying you're mean, just that you're
> coming across as a condescending bore. For all I
> know, your just a peachy fellow, but you come
> across as a condescending bore.
>
> And just for the record, MBC doesn't suck.
I see that your feeble justifications for creationism and religious BS have dried up
That's merit enough for me - I'm a simple person
And, as you say. 'just for the record', all churches suck (whilst still used for the propogation of religion, rather than the more useful post-religious purposes that many of them have been put in more mature countries)- its just that some of them get some credit for decent old architecture and a suitably bloodsoaked, internecine and exploitative history - MBC has neither.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're still condescending and your postings are
> without merit. So when I point out that your
> coming across as a condescending bore, it's not
> that I'm saying you're mean, just that you're
> coming across as a condescending bore. For all I
> know, your just a peachy fellow, but you come
> across as a condescending bore.
>
> And just for the record, MBC doesn't suck.
I see that your feeble justifications for creationism and religious BS have dried up
That's merit enough for me - I'm a simple person
And, as you say. 'just for the record', all churches suck (whilst still used for the propogation of religion, rather than the more useful post-religious purposes that many of them have been put in more mature countries)- its just that some of them get some credit for decent old architecture and a suitably bloodsoaked, internecine and exploitative history - MBC has neither.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Trooth
()
Date: November 25, 2011 07:01AM
No finito, you see only what you want to see. It is of no use to try and discuss things with someone who can't go more than one sentence without calling names or coming across as a pompous punk. Sure, the professor sometimes falls into this as well, but it is the rare occasion, not constant like you. There is no benefit to me to engage with someone who thinks they're smart because what they believe. Not what they know, but what they believe. Stating that civility is overrated kinda says it all.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: November 25, 2011 09:44AM
Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No finito, you see only what you want to see. It
> is of no use to try and discuss things with
> someone who can't go more than one sentence
> without calling names or coming across as a
> pompous punk. Sure, the professor sometimes falls
> into this as well, but it is the rare occasion,
> not constant like you. There is no benefit to me
> to engage with someone who thinks they're smart
> because what they believe. Not what they know,
> but what they believe. Stating that civility is
> overrated kinda says it all.
You have no evidence, no rational argument, no sensible model of how everything (or even anything) fits together - you expect people to jump through bizarre intellectual hoops in the face of observable evidence - just to keep alive some weird obsession with trying to explain things that are already well understood with supernatural clap-trap. You leap from irrational talking point to irrational talking point throwing out 'facts' that are easily and instantly refuted
When that fails, like most fools, frauds and charletons, you run away and resort to the time tested argument of petulant 5 years olds and religous extremists - "they're all being mean to me"
Frankly, when you spout such errant and inconsistent tosh so deliiberatly and consistently, you can't expect to be treated civilly
The big difference between science and religion is that you can test science, you can replicate it, you can identify and reconcile ambiguities and inconsistencies, you can follow a trail of evidence and explanation - but religion relies on people being dumb enough not to look at the evidence or the math but to accept self appointed witch-doctor's views just because the claim them with no evidence. Any glaring inconsistencies that the witch-doctor can't explain away are simply filed under 'god moves in mysterious ways'. I stand by my previous assertion - religion is intellectually bankrupt and its deliverate propogation morally corrupt
-------------------------------------------------------
> No finito, you see only what you want to see. It
> is of no use to try and discuss things with
> someone who can't go more than one sentence
> without calling names or coming across as a
> pompous punk. Sure, the professor sometimes falls
> into this as well, but it is the rare occasion,
> not constant like you. There is no benefit to me
> to engage with someone who thinks they're smart
> because what they believe. Not what they know,
> but what they believe. Stating that civility is
> overrated kinda says it all.
You have no evidence, no rational argument, no sensible model of how everything (or even anything) fits together - you expect people to jump through bizarre intellectual hoops in the face of observable evidence - just to keep alive some weird obsession with trying to explain things that are already well understood with supernatural clap-trap. You leap from irrational talking point to irrational talking point throwing out 'facts' that are easily and instantly refuted
When that fails, like most fools, frauds and charletons, you run away and resort to the time tested argument of petulant 5 years olds and religous extremists - "they're all being mean to me"
Frankly, when you spout such errant and inconsistent tosh so deliiberatly and consistently, you can't expect to be treated civilly
The big difference between science and religion is that you can test science, you can replicate it, you can identify and reconcile ambiguities and inconsistencies, you can follow a trail of evidence and explanation - but religion relies on people being dumb enough not to look at the evidence or the math but to accept self appointed witch-doctor's views just because the claim them with no evidence. Any glaring inconsistencies that the witch-doctor can't explain away are simply filed under 'god moves in mysterious ways'. I stand by my previous assertion - religion is intellectually bankrupt and its deliverate propogation morally corrupt
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Trooth
()
Date: November 25, 2011 02:08PM
benito, it must be a horrible strain to be such a intellectual giant living with all the rest of us. You disdain of civil discourse continues to be on prominent display with every post. Yes, we all get it, you hate religion in general and apparently evangelical Christians in particular.
Why not use science to disprove the Bible? Folks much smarter than anyone you or I will ever know believe what is in the Bible. And no matter how hard the humanists have tried, no one has disproved any of it. Weird huh?
Why not use science to disprove the Bible? Folks much smarter than anyone you or I will ever know believe what is in the Bible. And no matter how hard the humanists have tried, no one has disproved any of it. Weird huh?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: November 25, 2011 03:29PM
Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> benito, it must be a horrible strain to be such a
> intellectual giant living with all the rest of us.
> You disdain of civil discourse continues to be on
> prominent display with every post. Yes, we all
> get it, you hate religion in general and
> apparently evangelical Christians in particular.
>
>
> Why not use science to disprove the Bible? Folks
> much smarter than anyone you or I will ever know
> believe what is in the Bible. And no matter how
> hard the humanists have tried, no one has
> disproved any of it. Weird huh?
You have this the wrong way round
Science proves itself through observation and prediction - and has shown itself to be extremely damned good at doing so
Science doesn't have to prove that any given religion is wrong. By exclusion if you have two explanations one of which is shown to be right based on the evidence, then the other is wrong - especially when it provides no counter evidence, evidence for which fills a gap not well explained or deliberatly ignores evidence.
Proving the bible wrong is like proving shakespeare, beowolf, the maharabaratar, robin hood, the brothers grimm or the epic of gilgamesh wrong - unnecessary - they're just cultural artifacts, expressions of their time. They're mutually exclusive and, apart from vague historic references, collections of embroidery, campfire tales. Even Homer was right when he talked about troy - was he also right when he talked about apollo and achilles?
You have never explained why we should accept your christian book of folk tales rather than those of other religions which also build myths around elements of a cultures history, Why christianity, rather than zoroastrism, janism, voodoo, druidism, scientology, greek mythology, mesopotamian panthesism, aztec, mayan, pastafarianism or mithrism? Just because you say so?
Any religion or supernatural cult faces two questions
- Does it stand up against scientific explanations which do not rely on supernatural fudges?
- Does it provide any evidence which distinguishes it from other religions and cults?
Christianity (not just evangelical) continues to fail on both of those questions - relying on appeals to faith in the face of evidence
Its a failed doctrine - it needs to prove its validity and it has been unable to do so since the enlightenment began to give us tools to examine our surroundings in a detailed and rigorous way
Until the enlightenment, people spend 40-70,000 years worshipping a vast range of deities from snakes onwards. There really is no excuse any more
Are you flying your anti-science flag just for your particular strain of christianity (with blood soaked history of schism, massacre, torture and invasion) or for mithrism and voodo as well? if not, why not?
Frankly, religion needs to put up or shut up
-------------------------------------------------------
> benito, it must be a horrible strain to be such a
> intellectual giant living with all the rest of us.
> You disdain of civil discourse continues to be on
> prominent display with every post. Yes, we all
> get it, you hate religion in general and
> apparently evangelical Christians in particular.
>
>
> Why not use science to disprove the Bible? Folks
> much smarter than anyone you or I will ever know
> believe what is in the Bible. And no matter how
> hard the humanists have tried, no one has
> disproved any of it. Weird huh?
You have this the wrong way round
Science proves itself through observation and prediction - and has shown itself to be extremely damned good at doing so
Science doesn't have to prove that any given religion is wrong. By exclusion if you have two explanations one of which is shown to be right based on the evidence, then the other is wrong - especially when it provides no counter evidence, evidence for which fills a gap not well explained or deliberatly ignores evidence.
Proving the bible wrong is like proving shakespeare, beowolf, the maharabaratar, robin hood, the brothers grimm or the epic of gilgamesh wrong - unnecessary - they're just cultural artifacts, expressions of their time. They're mutually exclusive and, apart from vague historic references, collections of embroidery, campfire tales. Even Homer was right when he talked about troy - was he also right when he talked about apollo and achilles?
You have never explained why we should accept your christian book of folk tales rather than those of other religions which also build myths around elements of a cultures history, Why christianity, rather than zoroastrism, janism, voodoo, druidism, scientology, greek mythology, mesopotamian panthesism, aztec, mayan, pastafarianism or mithrism? Just because you say so?
Any religion or supernatural cult faces two questions
- Does it stand up against scientific explanations which do not rely on supernatural fudges?
- Does it provide any evidence which distinguishes it from other religions and cults?
Christianity (not just evangelical) continues to fail on both of those questions - relying on appeals to faith in the face of evidence
Its a failed doctrine - it needs to prove its validity and it has been unable to do so since the enlightenment began to give us tools to examine our surroundings in a detailed and rigorous way
Until the enlightenment, people spend 40-70,000 years worshipping a vast range of deities from snakes onwards. There really is no excuse any more
Are you flying your anti-science flag just for your particular strain of christianity (with blood soaked history of schism, massacre, torture and invasion) or for mithrism and voodo as well? if not, why not?
Frankly, religion needs to put up or shut up
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Trooth
()
Date: November 26, 2011 04:40PM
finito
You don't have to accept anything. Frankly, I don't really care. That is between you and God. You continue to state your opinions as though they are facts. If the Bible were so full of glaring and ridiculous things, then they should be easily proven wrong. Yet, with the OT being two to three thousand years old and the NT being close to that, science has no been able to disprove any of yet. It's a free country. Believe as you wish. However, your incivility speaks of deeper issues than simple disagreement with another's opinion. Are you always so hostile and unreasonable when it comes to anything that doesn't agree with your opinion?
You don't have to accept anything. Frankly, I don't really care. That is between you and God. You continue to state your opinions as though they are facts. If the Bible were so full of glaring and ridiculous things, then they should be easily proven wrong. Yet, with the OT being two to three thousand years old and the NT being close to that, science has no been able to disprove any of yet. It's a free country. Believe as you wish. However, your incivility speaks of deeper issues than simple disagreement with another's opinion. Are you always so hostile and unreasonable when it comes to anything that doesn't agree with your opinion?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: November 26, 2011 09:03PM
The burden of proof doesn't lie with science but with any given religion. Science and the scientific method prove themselves by their ability to explain and predict.
Take Bose-Einstein condensates as an example - a form of matter which had never existed in the universe because it has always been too hot (even in the deep vacuum of space). Predicted in the 1920's - produced and directly observed by scientists in recent years (ketterle and colleagues). Just one of the predictions of science that lead to the development of new instruments to observe the predictions and new tools for engineering. No magic or incantations required, just good math, good science, good engineering and thoroughness,
There's a nobel prize waiting for any religion that can do something similar - or if you prefer a lower bar, James Randi still has a million unclaimed dollars in cash for anyone who can demonstrate ANY supernatural phenemomena
Okay, I'll humour you for a second.
Take two simple religions and related stories
Example 1:
homer + vigil
= fall of troy, founding of rome, trashing of carthage, battles, lots of sex (some of it very naughty), loads of drinking, a tiny bit of regret, cute nymphs
= some real historical context (definitly a city of troy) + a lot of embrodiery
= variety of work - not clear who the real authors were
= no evidence for a pantheon of gods and assorted hangers on (titans, mymphs, cantaurs, harpies etc)
Example 2:
old + new testaments
= fall of jericho, founding of jerusalem, trashing of sodom and gomorrah, a bit of sex (some pretty naughty), a fair bit of drinking, a huge amount of regret, not enough nymphs
= some real historical context (definitly a city of jerusalem) + a lot of embrodiery
= variety of work - not clear who the real authors were
= no evidence for a unitary god and assorted hangers on (angels, demons)
Could you explain why one should be given more credence than the other? just because you say so?
Take Bose-Einstein condensates as an example - a form of matter which had never existed in the universe because it has always been too hot (even in the deep vacuum of space). Predicted in the 1920's - produced and directly observed by scientists in recent years (ketterle and colleagues). Just one of the predictions of science that lead to the development of new instruments to observe the predictions and new tools for engineering. No magic or incantations required, just good math, good science, good engineering and thoroughness,
There's a nobel prize waiting for any religion that can do something similar - or if you prefer a lower bar, James Randi still has a million unclaimed dollars in cash for anyone who can demonstrate ANY supernatural phenemomena
Okay, I'll humour you for a second.
Take two simple religions and related stories
Example 1:
homer + vigil
= fall of troy, founding of rome, trashing of carthage, battles, lots of sex (some of it very naughty), loads of drinking, a tiny bit of regret, cute nymphs
= some real historical context (definitly a city of troy) + a lot of embrodiery
= variety of work - not clear who the real authors were
= no evidence for a pantheon of gods and assorted hangers on (titans, mymphs, cantaurs, harpies etc)
Example 2:
old + new testaments
= fall of jericho, founding of jerusalem, trashing of sodom and gomorrah, a bit of sex (some pretty naughty), a fair bit of drinking, a huge amount of regret, not enough nymphs
= some real historical context (definitly a city of jerusalem) + a lot of embrodiery
= variety of work - not clear who the real authors were
= no evidence for a unitary god and assorted hangers on (angels, demons)
Could you explain why one should be given more credence than the other? just because you say so?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
snowdenscold
()
Date: November 27, 2011 02:20AM
finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Take two simple religions and related stories
>
> Example 1:
> homer + vigil
> = fall of troy, founding of rome, trashing of
> carthage, battles, lots of sex (some of it very
> naughty), loads of drinking, a tiny bit of regret,
> cute nymphs
> = some real historical context (definitly a city
> of troy) + a lot of embrodiery
> = variety of work - not clear who the real authors
> were
> = no evidence for a pantheon of gods and assorted
> hangers on (titans, mymphs, cantaurs, harpies
> etc)
>
> Example 2:
> old + new testaments
> = fall of jericho, founding of jerusalem, trashing
> of sodom and gomorrah, a bit of sex (some pretty
> naughty), a fair bit of drinking, a huge amount of
> regret, not enough nymphs
> = some real historical context (definitly a city
> of jerusalem) + a lot of embrodiery
> = variety of work - not clear who the real authors
> were
> = no evidence for a unitary god and assorted
> hangers on (angels, demons)
The fact that you go out of your way to pass these two off as comparable is laughable at best. I don't even know where to begin with the false equivalence here...
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Take two simple religions and related stories
>
> Example 1:
> homer + vigil
> = fall of troy, founding of rome, trashing of
> carthage, battles, lots of sex (some of it very
> naughty), loads of drinking, a tiny bit of regret,
> cute nymphs
> = some real historical context (definitly a city
> of troy) + a lot of embrodiery
> = variety of work - not clear who the real authors
> were
> = no evidence for a pantheon of gods and assorted
> hangers on (titans, mymphs, cantaurs, harpies
> etc)
>
> Example 2:
> old + new testaments
> = fall of jericho, founding of jerusalem, trashing
> of sodom and gomorrah, a bit of sex (some pretty
> naughty), a fair bit of drinking, a huge amount of
> regret, not enough nymphs
> = some real historical context (definitly a city
> of jerusalem) + a lot of embrodiery
> = variety of work - not clear who the real authors
> were
> = no evidence for a unitary god and assorted
> hangers on (angels, demons)
The fact that you go out of your way to pass these two off as comparable is laughable at best. I don't even know where to begin with the false equivalence here...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: November 27, 2011 07:29AM
snowdenscold Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Take two simple religions and related stories
> >
> > Example 1:
> > homer + vigil
> > = fall of troy, founding of rome, trashing of
> > carthage, battles, lots of sex (some of it very
> > naughty), loads of drinking, a tiny bit of
> regret,
> > cute nymphs
> > = some real historical context (definitly a
> city
> > of troy) + a lot of embrodiery
> > = variety of work - not clear who the real
> authors
> > were
> > = no evidence for a pantheon of gods and
> assorted
> > hangers on (titans, mymphs, cantaurs, harpies
> > etc)
> >
> > Example 2:
> > old + new testaments
> > = fall of jericho, founding of jerusalem,
> trashing
> > of sodom and gomorrah, a bit of sex (some
> pretty
> > naughty), a fair bit of drinking, a huge amount
> of
> > regret, not enough nymphs
> > = some real historical context (definitly a
> city
> > of jerusalem) + a lot of embrodiery
> > = variety of work - not clear who the real
> authors
> > were
> > = no evidence for a unitary god and assorted
> > hangers on (angels, demons)
>
> The fact that you go out of your way to pass these
> two off as comparable is laughable at best. I
> don't even know where to begin with the false
> equivalence here...
Okay - so this really isn't hard
If they are so clearly not equivilant, explain the basis on which they are fundamentally different - a real basis, not just your comparative 'faith' in one rather than the other
If you don't like that pair, try christianity vs hindusim, christianity vs buddhism
You don't because you can't,
That's because religions live in their own self-contained self referential-bubbles of fairy tales. At one point they may have been the best explanation we had - that's just no longer true
That's why I said that religion has to either put up or shut up
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Take two simple religions and related stories
> >
> > Example 1:
> > homer + vigil
> > = fall of troy, founding of rome, trashing of
> > carthage, battles, lots of sex (some of it very
> > naughty), loads of drinking, a tiny bit of
> regret,
> > cute nymphs
> > = some real historical context (definitly a
> city
> > of troy) + a lot of embrodiery
> > = variety of work - not clear who the real
> authors
> > were
> > = no evidence for a pantheon of gods and
> assorted
> > hangers on (titans, mymphs, cantaurs, harpies
> > etc)
> >
> > Example 2:
> > old + new testaments
> > = fall of jericho, founding of jerusalem,
> trashing
> > of sodom and gomorrah, a bit of sex (some
> pretty
> > naughty), a fair bit of drinking, a huge amount
> of
> > regret, not enough nymphs
> > = some real historical context (definitly a
> city
> > of jerusalem) + a lot of embrodiery
> > = variety of work - not clear who the real
> authors
> > were
> > = no evidence for a unitary god and assorted
> > hangers on (angels, demons)
>
> The fact that you go out of your way to pass these
> two off as comparable is laughable at best. I
> don't even know where to begin with the false
> equivalence here...
Okay - so this really isn't hard
If they are so clearly not equivilant, explain the basis on which they are fundamentally different - a real basis, not just your comparative 'faith' in one rather than the other
If you don't like that pair, try christianity vs hindusim, christianity vs buddhism
You don't because you can't,
That's because religions live in their own self-contained self referential-bubbles of fairy tales. At one point they may have been the best explanation we had - that's just no longer true
That's why I said that religion has to either put up or shut up
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Trooth
()
Date: November 27, 2011 01:02PM
finito,
It is your OPINION that a religion must provide proof. You are entitled to that opinion. If proof is what you require to believe something, then anything that requires faith isn't going to cut it. But you seem to put faith in nonsensical scientific theories because of the thousands of thousands of them, SOME theories are proven correct. You irrational hatred of religion doesn't seem to be because it requires faith, so it must be something else. I could hazard to guess, but I think that would be counter productive.
To try and correlate Jewish and Christian faith with the work of two poets is a stretch not worthy of consideration. The Bible was written by dozens of different authors over the course of several thousand years. Homer and Virgil wrote their poems in a period of their adult lifetime. And the Greeks had a King of the gods (Zeus) and Hades and other beliefs that parallel some aspects of the Bible. Other than their gods who were represented in constellations and planets, the Romans worshiped themselves, their state and their leaders, much like today's human secularists.
Of course you are free to adopt the belief system of your choosing. What is interesting isn't the convoluted pretzel logic you post to defend your position, but rather it is the disdain and apparent hatred with which your posts are dripping with. Wonder why.
It is your OPINION that a religion must provide proof. You are entitled to that opinion. If proof is what you require to believe something, then anything that requires faith isn't going to cut it. But you seem to put faith in nonsensical scientific theories because of the thousands of thousands of them, SOME theories are proven correct. You irrational hatred of religion doesn't seem to be because it requires faith, so it must be something else. I could hazard to guess, but I think that would be counter productive.
To try and correlate Jewish and Christian faith with the work of two poets is a stretch not worthy of consideration. The Bible was written by dozens of different authors over the course of several thousand years. Homer and Virgil wrote their poems in a period of their adult lifetime. And the Greeks had a King of the gods (Zeus) and Hades and other beliefs that parallel some aspects of the Bible. Other than their gods who were represented in constellations and planets, the Romans worshiped themselves, their state and their leaders, much like today's human secularists.
Of course you are free to adopt the belief system of your choosing. What is interesting isn't the convoluted pretzel logic you post to defend your position, but rather it is the disdain and apparent hatred with which your posts are dripping with. Wonder why.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: November 27, 2011 02:49PM
Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito,
>
> It is your OPINION that a religion must provide
> proof. You are entitled to that opinion. If
> proof is what you require to believe something,
> then anything that requires faith isn't going to
> cut it.
You see - this is errent BS of an argument
If you assert things and expect to be taken seriously you have to offer proof or predictive power
If you don't offer proof and assert that faith is adequate, then you have at least to give some indication of why your faith is more relevent than someone else's faith
You do neither - you just align yourself with one of hundreds of assorted imcompatible religions, cults and mystics and expect people to take you seriously
Exactly how do you expect that to work?
>But you seem to put faith in nonsensical
> scientific theories because of the thousands of
> thousands of them, SOME theories are proven
> correct.
This makes no sense - science has an vast and extremely strong core of theories (in th scientific rather than miss marpel sense), math, models and laws which correlate extrenely well with observations - and which make extremely good predictions (from previously unobserved planets to forms of mateter which have never been observed before to the science that underpins material and biollgical engineering). Sciemce always has a more exploratory edge as it expands outwards - but that has certainly passed beyond anything that might have been contested effectively by religion
>You irrational hatred of religion
> doesn't seem to be because it requires faith, so
> it must be something else. I could hazard to
> guess, but I think that would be counter
> productive.
Its a rational dislike of religions, it may well be an irratinal dislike of people who proposgate and abuse it - I'm not a huge fan of fools and frauds
>
> To try and correlate Jewish and Christian faith
> with the work of two poets is a stretch not worthy
> of consideration. The Bible was written by dozens
> of different authors over the course of several
> thousand years. Homer and Virgil wrote their
> poems in a period of their adult lifetime. And the
> Greeks had a King of the gods (Zeus) and Hades and
> other beliefs that parallel some aspects of the
> Bible. Other than their gods who were represented
> in constellations and planets, the Romans
> worshiped themselves, their state and their
> leaders, much like today's human secularists.
>
I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting that the faith of teh greeks and romans was any less strong than your own? certainly the rate of sacrifices. the pervasive nature of domestic alters and cost of temple building seems to throw some doubt on your assertion.
To suggest that romans and greeks were secularists is one of the most bizarre suggestions I've ever seen.
Are you saying that concepts of hierachy and good/bad make religions interchangeable? Were the greeks secret christians? Or unwitting Jews? Did they have some kings and emporers who claimed divinity or a more direct line to their pantheon? Sure - but christianity hasn't exactly been short of would be messiah's, popes, amtipopes, female popes, heretics, schisms, bloodbaths etc
Are you suggesting that buddhist, hindu, animist or druid faith is any less valid than yours?
You are still failing to give any kind of line which seperates any onf of the many christian sects, cults and heresies from their peers in other religions
0/10 - must try harder
> Of course you are free to adopt the belief system
> of your choosing. What is interesting isn't the
> convoluted pretzel logic you post to defend your
> position, but rather it is the disdain and
> apparent hatred with which your posts are dripping
> with. Wonder why.
There's no pretzel - its very simple
science has shown that it can provide an extremely good explanation of natiral phenomena aithout recourse to the supernatural - and one which has substantial predictive powers, so much that our modern world depends upon it
Religion, on the other hand, avoids evidence and proof and claims recourse to unjustified faith. When asked to compare one religion's faith to anothers, it completely folds.
When it is restricted to academic discussion, religion is mildly amusing, when its used to drive public behaviour and policy its dangerous. It has no place in the modern world, its intellectually bankrupt and its proposagtion morally corrupt.
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito,
>
> It is your OPINION that a religion must provide
> proof. You are entitled to that opinion. If
> proof is what you require to believe something,
> then anything that requires faith isn't going to
> cut it.
You see - this is errent BS of an argument
If you assert things and expect to be taken seriously you have to offer proof or predictive power
If you don't offer proof and assert that faith is adequate, then you have at least to give some indication of why your faith is more relevent than someone else's faith
You do neither - you just align yourself with one of hundreds of assorted imcompatible religions, cults and mystics and expect people to take you seriously
Exactly how do you expect that to work?
>But you seem to put faith in nonsensical
> scientific theories because of the thousands of
> thousands of them, SOME theories are proven
> correct.
This makes no sense - science has an vast and extremely strong core of theories (in th scientific rather than miss marpel sense), math, models and laws which correlate extrenely well with observations - and which make extremely good predictions (from previously unobserved planets to forms of mateter which have never been observed before to the science that underpins material and biollgical engineering). Sciemce always has a more exploratory edge as it expands outwards - but that has certainly passed beyond anything that might have been contested effectively by religion
>You irrational hatred of religion
> doesn't seem to be because it requires faith, so
> it must be something else. I could hazard to
> guess, but I think that would be counter
> productive.
Its a rational dislike of religions, it may well be an irratinal dislike of people who proposgate and abuse it - I'm not a huge fan of fools and frauds
>
> To try and correlate Jewish and Christian faith
> with the work of two poets is a stretch not worthy
> of consideration. The Bible was written by dozens
> of different authors over the course of several
> thousand years. Homer and Virgil wrote their
> poems in a period of their adult lifetime. And the
> Greeks had a King of the gods (Zeus) and Hades and
> other beliefs that parallel some aspects of the
> Bible. Other than their gods who were represented
> in constellations and planets, the Romans
> worshiped themselves, their state and their
> leaders, much like today's human secularists.
>
I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting that the faith of teh greeks and romans was any less strong than your own? certainly the rate of sacrifices. the pervasive nature of domestic alters and cost of temple building seems to throw some doubt on your assertion.
To suggest that romans and greeks were secularists is one of the most bizarre suggestions I've ever seen.
Are you saying that concepts of hierachy and good/bad make religions interchangeable? Were the greeks secret christians? Or unwitting Jews? Did they have some kings and emporers who claimed divinity or a more direct line to their pantheon? Sure - but christianity hasn't exactly been short of would be messiah's, popes, amtipopes, female popes, heretics, schisms, bloodbaths etc
Are you suggesting that buddhist, hindu, animist or druid faith is any less valid than yours?
You are still failing to give any kind of line which seperates any onf of the many christian sects, cults and heresies from their peers in other religions
0/10 - must try harder
> Of course you are free to adopt the belief system
> of your choosing. What is interesting isn't the
> convoluted pretzel logic you post to defend your
> position, but rather it is the disdain and
> apparent hatred with which your posts are dripping
> with. Wonder why.
There's no pretzel - its very simple
science has shown that it can provide an extremely good explanation of natiral phenomena aithout recourse to the supernatural - and one which has substantial predictive powers, so much that our modern world depends upon it
Religion, on the other hand, avoids evidence and proof and claims recourse to unjustified faith. When asked to compare one religion's faith to anothers, it completely folds.
When it is restricted to academic discussion, religion is mildly amusing, when its used to drive public behaviour and policy its dangerous. It has no place in the modern world, its intellectually bankrupt and its proposagtion morally corrupt.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: November 28, 2011 08:31AM
Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof. Pangloss, thanks as always for your
> thoughtful comments. Even though we've disagreed
> on the fundamental question at hand (now and in
> the past on this thread), I've always enjoyed your
> thoughtful commentary and treating the subject
> with respect.
Thanks, I enjoy these conversations.
Trooth Wrote:
>
> Do you know who came up with the theory of
> intelligent design? It was scientists who could
> not reconcile the ridiculous odds that would be
> required to have random chance create the world we
> live in. You have better odds of winning every
> lottery drawing that has ever been than of this
> world and the universe evolving naturally into
> what it is. So scientists developed a theory that
> allowed for a creator and designer.
This isn't true. The intelligent design movement started with biblical creationists altering text books in the 80's in order to get their material into schools. This was then spear headed by a lawyer named Philip Johnson, in the early 1990's with his 'Darwin on Trial'.
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory - it's an idea that has support by creationists. A theory in science is an over-arching explanation of facts, laws, and phenomenon. Intelligent design does not actually explain any of the diverse facts. It might *appear* to, in one sense (what did all this?), but it does not do this from a scientific point of view (how has this all occurred).
Compare natural selection with intelligent design. Natural selection would purport to explain how traits get selected and how speciation occurs. Intelligent design does none of this because *anything* is compatible with intelligent design. Why do we have blind spots? Because the Intelligent Designer wished us to have them. This is not an explanation - natural selection would say something to the effect that the eye has evolved from simpler structures and as a result, it essentially jury-rigged an eye from what was available. So if the structure of the eye is adequate, but has a defect (say a blindspot), then it gets passed on because some sight is better than no sight.
Trooth Wrote:>
> When Darwin postulated his theory of
> macro-evolution, one of the most troubling things
> he could not reconcile is the millions and
> millions of years that would be required to
> account for the time needed to create the present
> state of the world. He died never resolving this.
Stop - Darwin didn't postulate a theory of 'macro-evolution'. Darwin postulated a theory of change, natural selection, which accounts for speciation. Darwin was not aware of Mendel's heritability and as a result had to rely on a semi-lamarkian conception of genetic change.
Further, during Darwin's time the earth was thought to be millions of years old already.
> But lo and behold, after secular science embraced
> evolution, they had to address it. So they came
> up with a method of dating objects that "proved"
> the earth was billions of years old. Recently,
> radiation dating has proven problematic as it is
> not as stable as originally thought. Nor can
> science prove that an global event (asteroid or
> perhaps a flood?) would not totally skew the
> decomposition of elements.
This, of course, is not true. As I said, prior to Darwin the earth was already thought to be millions of years old. Baron Kelvin, a devout Christian, calculated the earth to be between 20 and 400 *million* years old. He based this on his calculations of the energy lost by the Sun (erroneously, since he was not aware of nuclear fusion).
Also, it's radiometric dating, not 'radiation dating'. It is not problematic and there is not *one* type of radiometric dating, but several. As to your remarks about an asteroid skewing the decomposition of elements, is there any reason to believe this? Further, the accumulation of meteors that have hit the earth actual demonstrate quite conclusively that the earth cannot be anywhere near 10k years old. It *has* to be a great deal older.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof. Pangloss, thanks as always for your
> thoughtful comments. Even though we've disagreed
> on the fundamental question at hand (now and in
> the past on this thread), I've always enjoyed your
> thoughtful commentary and treating the subject
> with respect.
Thanks, I enjoy these conversations.
Trooth Wrote:
>
> Do you know who came up with the theory of
> intelligent design? It was scientists who could
> not reconcile the ridiculous odds that would be
> required to have random chance create the world we
> live in. You have better odds of winning every
> lottery drawing that has ever been than of this
> world and the universe evolving naturally into
> what it is. So scientists developed a theory that
> allowed for a creator and designer.
This isn't true. The intelligent design movement started with biblical creationists altering text books in the 80's in order to get their material into schools. This was then spear headed by a lawyer named Philip Johnson, in the early 1990's with his 'Darwin on Trial'.
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory - it's an idea that has support by creationists. A theory in science is an over-arching explanation of facts, laws, and phenomenon. Intelligent design does not actually explain any of the diverse facts. It might *appear* to, in one sense (what did all this?), but it does not do this from a scientific point of view (how has this all occurred).
Compare natural selection with intelligent design. Natural selection would purport to explain how traits get selected and how speciation occurs. Intelligent design does none of this because *anything* is compatible with intelligent design. Why do we have blind spots? Because the Intelligent Designer wished us to have them. This is not an explanation - natural selection would say something to the effect that the eye has evolved from simpler structures and as a result, it essentially jury-rigged an eye from what was available. So if the structure of the eye is adequate, but has a defect (say a blindspot), then it gets passed on because some sight is better than no sight.
Trooth Wrote:>
> When Darwin postulated his theory of
> macro-evolution, one of the most troubling things
> he could not reconcile is the millions and
> millions of years that would be required to
> account for the time needed to create the present
> state of the world. He died never resolving this.
Stop - Darwin didn't postulate a theory of 'macro-evolution'. Darwin postulated a theory of change, natural selection, which accounts for speciation. Darwin was not aware of Mendel's heritability and as a result had to rely on a semi-lamarkian conception of genetic change.
Further, during Darwin's time the earth was thought to be millions of years old already.
> But lo and behold, after secular science embraced
> evolution, they had to address it. So they came
> up with a method of dating objects that "proved"
> the earth was billions of years old. Recently,
> radiation dating has proven problematic as it is
> not as stable as originally thought. Nor can
> science prove that an global event (asteroid or
> perhaps a flood?) would not totally skew the
> decomposition of elements.
This, of course, is not true. As I said, prior to Darwin the earth was already thought to be millions of years old. Baron Kelvin, a devout Christian, calculated the earth to be between 20 and 400 *million* years old. He based this on his calculations of the energy lost by the Sun (erroneously, since he was not aware of nuclear fusion).
Also, it's radiometric dating, not 'radiation dating'. It is not problematic and there is not *one* type of radiometric dating, but several. As to your remarks about an asteroid skewing the decomposition of elements, is there any reason to believe this? Further, the accumulation of meteors that have hit the earth actual demonstrate quite conclusively that the earth cannot be anywhere near 10k years old. It *has* to be a great deal older.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Believe
()
Date: November 28, 2011 02:05PM
finito benito:
Aren't we all agreeing that Science and Religion are not things to prove or disprove one-another?
As you have already noted, scientific "proof" is not available to show Christianity to be infallibly true. It cannot be demonstrated as a scientific theory or law (with repeatable, testable propositions, etc.). Christianity and science can support each other, though. As an example pointed out by Trooth, some see the absolute wonder of existence as evidence of an omnipotent God, not as the result of gazillions of random events that fell out of billions of years of chance. Science is not going to (and never could) prove or disprove Christianity, and it cannot answer the "Why?" or "Where did it all come from?" questions, just as Christianity is not likely to disprove many, or any, scientific principles.
It has been noted that modern scientists seem to hold the authors of the Bible to some very (unfairly) strict and literal interpretations of things they wrote, though they were using terms, language, and concepts appropriate for 2000- 3000 years ago. For example, if someone wrote in the Old Testament about the earth being "immovable" or having "four corners", then some modern folks will want to yell, "See! The bible says the earth is flat, so it's all untrue!" But of course the person who wrote that account in the Old Testament was not saying anything about astrophysics, they were making a different point entirely.
The evidence (not all scientific) for Christianity is there, though: archaeological, historical, testimonial, prophetical, etc. It does require faith as a component, which in itself makes it non-provable, by definition. As I've said before, if it was as in-your-face-obvious and scientifically provable as 1+1=2, there would probably be a lot more Christians around. God/Christ did work many miracles witnessed first-hand by ancient people, and still many refused to believe in him or the people fell away, over time. It is those that believe without witnessing first-hand nowadays that are blessed with salvation.
What you see as Christians jumping through ever-contrived hoops to defend against evolving scientific understanding, many Christians see as a "So what?" view that the Bible was never written as a scientific tome to be scrutinized as such. As an example, you mentioned how the sheer complexity of the universe precludes predetermination -- Christians would shrug and say that nothing is beyond the power of God that had the ability to create existence in the first place. Yes, it's "convenient" I guess you could say, but that doesn't make it any less true.
I would also say that of the comparative religions you listed, Christianity is alone in putting itself out there for critical examination and yet standing the test of time. They are not just stories. Things were written in the Bible that were contradictory, knowing that it would invite criticism, but included nonetheless for the sake of truthfulness and completeness. Some religions don't even attempt it (Buddhism, for example), while others have been demonstrated to be (provably) false accounts (failed prophecies or false historical claims, as an example).
Aren't we all agreeing that Science and Religion are not things to prove or disprove one-another?
As you have already noted, scientific "proof" is not available to show Christianity to be infallibly true. It cannot be demonstrated as a scientific theory or law (with repeatable, testable propositions, etc.). Christianity and science can support each other, though. As an example pointed out by Trooth, some see the absolute wonder of existence as evidence of an omnipotent God, not as the result of gazillions of random events that fell out of billions of years of chance. Science is not going to (and never could) prove or disprove Christianity, and it cannot answer the "Why?" or "Where did it all come from?" questions, just as Christianity is not likely to disprove many, or any, scientific principles.
It has been noted that modern scientists seem to hold the authors of the Bible to some very (unfairly) strict and literal interpretations of things they wrote, though they were using terms, language, and concepts appropriate for 2000- 3000 years ago. For example, if someone wrote in the Old Testament about the earth being "immovable" or having "four corners", then some modern folks will want to yell, "See! The bible says the earth is flat, so it's all untrue!" But of course the person who wrote that account in the Old Testament was not saying anything about astrophysics, they were making a different point entirely.
The evidence (not all scientific) for Christianity is there, though: archaeological, historical, testimonial, prophetical, etc. It does require faith as a component, which in itself makes it non-provable, by definition. As I've said before, if it was as in-your-face-obvious and scientifically provable as 1+1=2, there would probably be a lot more Christians around. God/Christ did work many miracles witnessed first-hand by ancient people, and still many refused to believe in him or the people fell away, over time. It is those that believe without witnessing first-hand nowadays that are blessed with salvation.
What you see as Christians jumping through ever-contrived hoops to defend against evolving scientific understanding, many Christians see as a "So what?" view that the Bible was never written as a scientific tome to be scrutinized as such. As an example, you mentioned how the sheer complexity of the universe precludes predetermination -- Christians would shrug and say that nothing is beyond the power of God that had the ability to create existence in the first place. Yes, it's "convenient" I guess you could say, but that doesn't make it any less true.
I would also say that of the comparative religions you listed, Christianity is alone in putting itself out there for critical examination and yet standing the test of time. They are not just stories. Things were written in the Bible that were contradictory, knowing that it would invite criticism, but included nonetheless for the sake of truthfulness and completeness. Some religions don't even attempt it (Buddhism, for example), while others have been demonstrated to be (provably) false accounts (failed prophecies or false historical claims, as an example).
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: November 28, 2011 07:10PM
Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito:
>
> Aren't we all agreeing that Science and Religion
> are not things to prove or disprove one-another?
>
I don't think we are - the two are entirely mutually exclusive
Science posits an entirely natural universe. It starts with what can be observed, develops theories and laws that consistently explain what's been observed - and then looks at the predictions which the revised models make and looks for evidence of them, in parallel it continuously looks for new obsevations that are not well explained and grows the models
From those base level observations and analysis it has provided a highy coherent, detailed and predictive set of tools which
- have no earth or human exceptionalism.
- explain the emergence of the human race through geology, archeology, biology and genetic
That approach has left no realistic gaps which can only be explained by a supernatural force, hence it does not accept the existence of unobserved supernatural entities, forces or places
On the other hand, Christianity posits an interventionist creator and is extremely earth/human centric, Its explanations for the emergence of the human race are based entirely on the divine intentions of a deity. It has a strong emphasis on souls, angels, heaven etc but declines to provide any evidence
If christianity were true, we would see its implications in the real world and we do not
The two are just not compatible - they clash in too maany important regards
> As you have already noted, scientific "proof" is
> not available to show Christianity to be
> infallibly true. It cannot be demonstrated as a
> scientific theory or law (with repeatable,
> testable propositions, etc.). Christianity and
> science can support each other, though. As an
> example pointed out by Trooth, some see the
> absolute wonder of existence as evidence of an
> omnipotent God, not as the result of gazillions of
> random events that fell out of billions of years
> of chance. Science is not going to (and never
> could) prove or disprove Christianity, and it
> cannot answer the "Why?" or "Where did it all come
> from?" questions, just as Christianity is not
> likely to disprove many, or any, scientific
> principles.
>
Science does provide very good explanations of 'where does it all come from questions".
It starts from the basis that, unless there is good evidence, the mechanisms of the past are the same as the mechanisms of today - for example it doesn't like explanations which on "then some magic occurs". This has been pretty well validated by atronomical and geophysical observations.
What science has shown us is that "gazillions of random events that fell out of billions of years of chance" (within the rules of physics and following laws of causality e.g. planets don't just pop into existence fully formed, so random isn't really random - you could argue that random only really exists at the quantum mechanical level, all other kids of randomness are actually a result of complexity, so determinsitic) is a very good explanation indeed. You have to be very careful with the meaning of 'chance' and 'random' when you start talking about biological systems with codes and error correction.
In addition, as we've previously discussed, our understanding of quantum mechanics, the energy/scale of the early universe and computational nature of complexity show that just setting the starting conditions, pressing the button and waiting a few billion years until a catholic pops out is not a practical explanation
Occam's razor would suggest that if you have something that explains what you can see now, what you can see of the past shows that the past was like the present, and the mechanisms you understand pretty much explain the path to where you are, then you don't need to invent another actor and any insertion of an 'intelligence' should be treated with great suspicion - even Maxwell's little daemons were just part of a thought experiment.
Given this, science asserts that 'why' (in the religous sense of purpose) is not a valid question.
Christianity (well at least many of the posters here) ignores the fact that things have already been explained well as an excuse for keeping the bronze age concept of a deity.
For example, its pretty hard to dismiss the fossil record as showing progressive (and initially slow) increases in biological complexity and a path through many extinct species to the flora and fauna we see around us - including modern humans
>
It has been noted that modern scientists seem to
> hold the authors of the Bible to some very
> (unfairly) strict and literal interpretations of
> things they wrote, though they were using terms,
> language, and concepts appropriate for 2000- 3000
> years ago. For example, if someone wrote in the
> Old Testament about the earth being "immovable" or
> having "four corners", then some modern folks will
> want to yell, "See! The bible says the earth is
> flat, so it's all untrue!" But of course the
> person who wrote that account in the Old Testament
> was not saying anything about astrophysics, they
> were making a different point entirely.
>
The problem with this line of argument is that (ignoring the biblical lieratists, who are frankly delusional), Christians refuse to sort the wheat from the chaff and explain which bits they feel are 'true' and which are 'embroidery'.
Given how much is clearly embroidery, there needs to be some sort of test which says "here's a reason why this isn't embroidery" - which boils down to evidence
Just saying, "we know a lot of this is tosh, but some of its true - we're not going to tell you which bits and we're not going to give you any evidence" really doesn't cut it.
You still have to explain why your claimed 'not-tosh' is more credible than anyone else's claimed 'not-tosh'
> The evidence (not all scientific) for Christianity
> is there, though: archaeological, historical,
> testimonial, prophetical, etc. It does require
> faith as a component, which in itself makes it
> non-provable, by definition. As I've said before,
> if it was as in-your-face-obvious and
> scientifically provable as 1+1=2, there would
> probably be a lot more Christians around.
> God/Christ did work many miracles witnessed
> first-hand by ancient people, and still many
> refused to believe in him or the people fell away,
> over time. It is those that believe without
> witnessing first-hand nowadays that are blessed
> with salvation.
>
Reporting miracles in the ancient and modern worlds is just not rare. From vikings explaining volcanos to philipino spirit healers and the Angels of Mons - its just not unusual. None of them turn out to be miracles. Every religion claims aincient miracles or revelations - are you saying their's are all true as well or were you going to provide some kind of mirac-litmus test to weed out the pagans?
The ancient world is full of prophesy - its all very run of the mill. Biblical prophesy is all very post hoc, very editorial - feels like Homer or Nostradamus. Just not credible
You say stuff like "It is those that believe without witnessing first-hand nowadays that are blessed with salvation " but all religions spout this kind of stuff. To be taken seriously, you have to be able to distingiosh yourself with some kind of evidence
> What you see as Christians jumping through
> ever-contrived hoops to defend against evolving
> scientific understanding, many Christians see as a
> "So what?" view that the Bible was never written
> as a scientific tome to be scrutinized as such. As
> an example, you mentioned how the sheer complexity
> of the universe precludes predetermination --
> Christians would shrug and say that nothing is
> beyond the power of God that had the ability to
> create existence in the first place. Yes, it's
> "convenient" I guess you could say, but that
> doesn't make it any less true.
Things are not just true because you say they are - you have to show evidence or mechanism, especially in the face of strong counter evidence and demonstrated mechanisms. Otherwise, you're with the pink unicorn, alien probing, millenialists, hindhu/buddhist/mormon/adventist/shintoists and suicidal cults
If you could carve out a space and say 'science doesn't and can never explain this, and I can show ou why this space is distinct and why my faith is better than Bob's' then you might have chance - but you have failed to do this.
>
> I would also say that of the comparative religions
> you listed, Christianity is alone in putting
> itself out there for critical examination and yet
> standing the test of time. They are not just
> stories. Things were written in the Bible that
> were contradictory, knowing that it would invite
> criticism, but included nonetheless for the sake
> of truthfulness and completeness. Some religions
> don't even attempt it (Buddhism, for example),
> while others have been demonstrated to be
> (provably) false accounts (failed prophecies or
> false historical claims, as an example).
Christianity has never 'put itself out there for critical examination' - the enlightenment came as a very nasty shock to the church(s). Christianity has a rich and bloody history of supresssing dissent including much early science
Try telling copernicus that the religion put itself out there for critical examination.
As science grew in strength and reach, christianity and other religions have been backing progressively back into smaller and smaller corners and stronger and stronger denial.
There's just no wriggle room left - science and religion are just not compatible. If you want religion, then you can't have science - and engineering is a pretty good proof point for virtually every branch of science
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito:
>
> Aren't we all agreeing that Science and Religion
> are not things to prove or disprove one-another?
>
I don't think we are - the two are entirely mutually exclusive
Science posits an entirely natural universe. It starts with what can be observed, develops theories and laws that consistently explain what's been observed - and then looks at the predictions which the revised models make and looks for evidence of them, in parallel it continuously looks for new obsevations that are not well explained and grows the models
From those base level observations and analysis it has provided a highy coherent, detailed and predictive set of tools which
- have no earth or human exceptionalism.
- explain the emergence of the human race through geology, archeology, biology and genetic
That approach has left no realistic gaps which can only be explained by a supernatural force, hence it does not accept the existence of unobserved supernatural entities, forces or places
On the other hand, Christianity posits an interventionist creator and is extremely earth/human centric, Its explanations for the emergence of the human race are based entirely on the divine intentions of a deity. It has a strong emphasis on souls, angels, heaven etc but declines to provide any evidence
If christianity were true, we would see its implications in the real world and we do not
The two are just not compatible - they clash in too maany important regards
> As you have already noted, scientific "proof" is
> not available to show Christianity to be
> infallibly true. It cannot be demonstrated as a
> scientific theory or law (with repeatable,
> testable propositions, etc.). Christianity and
> science can support each other, though. As an
> example pointed out by Trooth, some see the
> absolute wonder of existence as evidence of an
> omnipotent God, not as the result of gazillions of
> random events that fell out of billions of years
> of chance. Science is not going to (and never
> could) prove or disprove Christianity, and it
> cannot answer the "Why?" or "Where did it all come
> from?" questions, just as Christianity is not
> likely to disprove many, or any, scientific
> principles.
>
Science does provide very good explanations of 'where does it all come from questions".
It starts from the basis that, unless there is good evidence, the mechanisms of the past are the same as the mechanisms of today - for example it doesn't like explanations which on "then some magic occurs". This has been pretty well validated by atronomical and geophysical observations.
What science has shown us is that "gazillions of random events that fell out of billions of years of chance" (within the rules of physics and following laws of causality e.g. planets don't just pop into existence fully formed, so random isn't really random - you could argue that random only really exists at the quantum mechanical level, all other kids of randomness are actually a result of complexity, so determinsitic) is a very good explanation indeed. You have to be very careful with the meaning of 'chance' and 'random' when you start talking about biological systems with codes and error correction.
In addition, as we've previously discussed, our understanding of quantum mechanics, the energy/scale of the early universe and computational nature of complexity show that just setting the starting conditions, pressing the button and waiting a few billion years until a catholic pops out is not a practical explanation
Occam's razor would suggest that if you have something that explains what you can see now, what you can see of the past shows that the past was like the present, and the mechanisms you understand pretty much explain the path to where you are, then you don't need to invent another actor and any insertion of an 'intelligence' should be treated with great suspicion - even Maxwell's little daemons were just part of a thought experiment.
Given this, science asserts that 'why' (in the religous sense of purpose) is not a valid question.
Christianity (well at least many of the posters here) ignores the fact that things have already been explained well as an excuse for keeping the bronze age concept of a deity.
For example, its pretty hard to dismiss the fossil record as showing progressive (and initially slow) increases in biological complexity and a path through many extinct species to the flora and fauna we see around us - including modern humans
>
It has been noted that modern scientists seem to
> hold the authors of the Bible to some very
> (unfairly) strict and literal interpretations of
> things they wrote, though they were using terms,
> language, and concepts appropriate for 2000- 3000
> years ago. For example, if someone wrote in the
> Old Testament about the earth being "immovable" or
> having "four corners", then some modern folks will
> want to yell, "See! The bible says the earth is
> flat, so it's all untrue!" But of course the
> person who wrote that account in the Old Testament
> was not saying anything about astrophysics, they
> were making a different point entirely.
>
The problem with this line of argument is that (ignoring the biblical lieratists, who are frankly delusional), Christians refuse to sort the wheat from the chaff and explain which bits they feel are 'true' and which are 'embroidery'.
Given how much is clearly embroidery, there needs to be some sort of test which says "here's a reason why this isn't embroidery" - which boils down to evidence
Just saying, "we know a lot of this is tosh, but some of its true - we're not going to tell you which bits and we're not going to give you any evidence" really doesn't cut it.
You still have to explain why your claimed 'not-tosh' is more credible than anyone else's claimed 'not-tosh'
> The evidence (not all scientific) for Christianity
> is there, though: archaeological, historical,
> testimonial, prophetical, etc. It does require
> faith as a component, which in itself makes it
> non-provable, by definition. As I've said before,
> if it was as in-your-face-obvious and
> scientifically provable as 1+1=2, there would
> probably be a lot more Christians around.
> God/Christ did work many miracles witnessed
> first-hand by ancient people, and still many
> refused to believe in him or the people fell away,
> over time. It is those that believe without
> witnessing first-hand nowadays that are blessed
> with salvation.
>
Reporting miracles in the ancient and modern worlds is just not rare. From vikings explaining volcanos to philipino spirit healers and the Angels of Mons - its just not unusual. None of them turn out to be miracles. Every religion claims aincient miracles or revelations - are you saying their's are all true as well or were you going to provide some kind of mirac-litmus test to weed out the pagans?
The ancient world is full of prophesy - its all very run of the mill. Biblical prophesy is all very post hoc, very editorial - feels like Homer or Nostradamus. Just not credible
You say stuff like "It is those that believe without witnessing first-hand nowadays that are blessed with salvation " but all religions spout this kind of stuff. To be taken seriously, you have to be able to distingiosh yourself with some kind of evidence
> What you see as Christians jumping through
> ever-contrived hoops to defend against evolving
> scientific understanding, many Christians see as a
> "So what?" view that the Bible was never written
> as a scientific tome to be scrutinized as such. As
> an example, you mentioned how the sheer complexity
> of the universe precludes predetermination --
> Christians would shrug and say that nothing is
> beyond the power of God that had the ability to
> create existence in the first place. Yes, it's
> "convenient" I guess you could say, but that
> doesn't make it any less true.
Things are not just true because you say they are - you have to show evidence or mechanism, especially in the face of strong counter evidence and demonstrated mechanisms. Otherwise, you're with the pink unicorn, alien probing, millenialists, hindhu/buddhist/mormon/adventist/shintoists and suicidal cults
If you could carve out a space and say 'science doesn't and can never explain this, and I can show ou why this space is distinct and why my faith is better than Bob's' then you might have chance - but you have failed to do this.
>
> I would also say that of the comparative religions
> you listed, Christianity is alone in putting
> itself out there for critical examination and yet
> standing the test of time. They are not just
> stories. Things were written in the Bible that
> were contradictory, knowing that it would invite
> criticism, but included nonetheless for the sake
> of truthfulness and completeness. Some religions
> don't even attempt it (Buddhism, for example),
> while others have been demonstrated to be
> (provably) false accounts (failed prophecies or
> false historical claims, as an example).
Christianity has never 'put itself out there for critical examination' - the enlightenment came as a very nasty shock to the church(s). Christianity has a rich and bloody history of supresssing dissent including much early science
Try telling copernicus that the religion put itself out there for critical examination.
As science grew in strength and reach, christianity and other religions have been backing progressively back into smaller and smaller corners and stronger and stronger denial.
There's just no wriggle room left - science and religion are just not compatible. If you want religion, then you can't have science - and engineering is a pretty good proof point for virtually every branch of science
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Trooth
()
Date: November 29, 2011 02:56PM
finito,
So, as I wrote, if Christianity is so devoid of any reason, why can the contents of the Bible stand the test of time? I don't assert science is wrong. Science is based on theory and observation. Theories can be right, theories can be wrong. I assert that some theories are wrong IMO. You assert that the entire faith of Christianity is wrong. Yet can not disprove any of Bible, the foundational element of the faith. And somehow it is now incumbent on Christians to prove they are right in your view. That is pretzel logic.
Basic tenets of Christianity:
Love one another and treat each other as you would like to be treated
Judge not, lest you be judged
Help those who need help
Hold yourself accountable for your actions
Serve God
Now which of these tenets are dangerous or corrupting? Is the world better off with human secularists telling us what is morally right and wrong? Not by a long shot.
So, as I wrote, if Christianity is so devoid of any reason, why can the contents of the Bible stand the test of time? I don't assert science is wrong. Science is based on theory and observation. Theories can be right, theories can be wrong. I assert that some theories are wrong IMO. You assert that the entire faith of Christianity is wrong. Yet can not disprove any of Bible, the foundational element of the faith. And somehow it is now incumbent on Christians to prove they are right in your view. That is pretzel logic.
Basic tenets of Christianity:
Love one another and treat each other as you would like to be treated
Judge not, lest you be judged
Help those who need help
Hold yourself accountable for your actions
Serve God
Now which of these tenets are dangerous or corrupting? Is the world better off with human secularists telling us what is morally right and wrong? Not by a long shot.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
lovenda
()
Date: November 29, 2011 03:01PM
You are having this argument in the 21st Century? Nice.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Trooth
()
Date: November 29, 2011 03:14PM
Professor P.,
The theory of Intelligent Design was developed by scientists who could not reconcile the astronomical odds required to believe random chance created all that is. You confuse those who adopted the theory to try and get creationism taught in school with those who developed the theory.
I don't believe the earth is only 10,000 years old. Why do you think that I would? I have no idea how old the earth is. My point was that current methods of dating the earth all have problems and there are variables that can skew any of them to provide incorrect information leading to incorrect conclusions. No one knows how old the earth is. But evolutionist must have the earth be billions of years old to support their theory. Science has therefore decreed it so. Maybe they're right. But, like the recent global warming scam, main stream science decides which theories they will accept and which they won't and then close ranks to stomp out any dissent. I have no problems with the theory of evolution being taught in school. Of course, it is no longer taught as a theory, but now as a scientific fact. And any other theory is completely shut out. Close minded humanists who replace God with scientists show their true colors. They can not stand to be challenged. And with humanist, there is no absolute morality. Dangerous indeed.
The theory of Intelligent Design was developed by scientists who could not reconcile the astronomical odds required to believe random chance created all that is. You confuse those who adopted the theory to try and get creationism taught in school with those who developed the theory.
I don't believe the earth is only 10,000 years old. Why do you think that I would? I have no idea how old the earth is. My point was that current methods of dating the earth all have problems and there are variables that can skew any of them to provide incorrect information leading to incorrect conclusions. No one knows how old the earth is. But evolutionist must have the earth be billions of years old to support their theory. Science has therefore decreed it so. Maybe they're right. But, like the recent global warming scam, main stream science decides which theories they will accept and which they won't and then close ranks to stomp out any dissent. I have no problems with the theory of evolution being taught in school. Of course, it is no longer taught as a theory, but now as a scientific fact. And any other theory is completely shut out. Close minded humanists who replace God with scientists show their true colors. They can not stand to be challenged. And with humanist, there is no absolute morality. Dangerous indeed.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: November 29, 2011 03:42PM
Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito,
>
> So, as I wrote, if Christianity is so devoid of
> any reason, why can the contents of the Bible
> stand the test of time? I don't assert science is
> wrong. Science is based on theory and
> observation. Theories can be right, theories can
> be wrong. I assert that some theories are wrong
> IMO. You assert that the entire faith of
> Christianity is wrong. Yet can not disprove any
> of Bible, the foundational element of the faith.
> And somehow it is now incumbent on Christians to
> prove they are right in your view. That is
> pretzel logic.
>
> Basic tenets of Christianity:
>
> Love one another and treat each other as you would
> like to be treated
> Judge not, lest you be judged
> Help those who need help
> Hold yourself accountable for your actions
> Serve God
>
> Now which of these tenets are dangerous or
> corrupting? Is the world better off with human
> secularists telling us what is morally right and
> wrong? Not by a long shot.
Firstly, you have chosen a very humanistic subset of tenets which do not represent the core beliefs of many christians (and mainstream doctrine).
For example, you have missed out core tenets around creationism, sin, souls, afterlife, supernatural beings, prayer, social behaviours, miracles etc - as well as many of the common practices such as the power and privileged role of priests and who's power comes a claimed special relationship with God.
The first 4 sound pretty much like marxism to me and are pretty much norms in most stable societies (although different societies draw their edges in different places - Christianity has not always been that generous in its treatment of anyone else - for example the role of the church in the colonalisation of latin america, africa and the pacific islands, or widespread church covered-up sexual abuse)
I certainly don't think that these 4 sum up the most visible proclamations of many of the US's christian right - just a quick example
"(T)he feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." –Pat Robertson
"the ACLU has to take a lot of blame for this" ... "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays, and the lesbians [who have] helped [the terror attacks of September 11th] happen." Jerry Falwell
The poison creeps in with your no 5 - 'serve god'. In most sub-cults of christianity this means deference to the power of the church, its ministers and hierarchy - which is where private ideas begin to corrupt the public square. Scaring people into submisison with threats of a non-existent hell and promises of a non-existent heaven is corrupt
Christianity and its adherents constantly demand special treatment in civil society - from tax and planning breaks to the christian right who demand that America is a christian nation DAMMIT and anyone who doesn't submit clearly hates america.
You see it in the creationists who try to force religion into schools and the (unconstitutional) inclusion of god in the pledge our chldren recite everyday. It comes out strongly in our foreign policy, particularly regarding the middle east, where biblical literalists and lobbyists have skewed our approach to the whole region and the palestinians in particular
The US cannot be trusted with religion - its not a neutral doctrine, particularly as implemented here.
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito,
>
> So, as I wrote, if Christianity is so devoid of
> any reason, why can the contents of the Bible
> stand the test of time? I don't assert science is
> wrong. Science is based on theory and
> observation. Theories can be right, theories can
> be wrong. I assert that some theories are wrong
> IMO. You assert that the entire faith of
> Christianity is wrong. Yet can not disprove any
> of Bible, the foundational element of the faith.
> And somehow it is now incumbent on Christians to
> prove they are right in your view. That is
> pretzel logic.
>
> Basic tenets of Christianity:
>
> Love one another and treat each other as you would
> like to be treated
> Judge not, lest you be judged
> Help those who need help
> Hold yourself accountable for your actions
> Serve God
>
> Now which of these tenets are dangerous or
> corrupting? Is the world better off with human
> secularists telling us what is morally right and
> wrong? Not by a long shot.
Firstly, you have chosen a very humanistic subset of tenets which do not represent the core beliefs of many christians (and mainstream doctrine).
For example, you have missed out core tenets around creationism, sin, souls, afterlife, supernatural beings, prayer, social behaviours, miracles etc - as well as many of the common practices such as the power and privileged role of priests and who's power comes a claimed special relationship with God.
The first 4 sound pretty much like marxism to me and are pretty much norms in most stable societies (although different societies draw their edges in different places - Christianity has not always been that generous in its treatment of anyone else - for example the role of the church in the colonalisation of latin america, africa and the pacific islands, or widespread church covered-up sexual abuse)
I certainly don't think that these 4 sum up the most visible proclamations of many of the US's christian right - just a quick example
"(T)he feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." –Pat Robertson
"the ACLU has to take a lot of blame for this" ... "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays, and the lesbians [who have] helped [the terror attacks of September 11th] happen." Jerry Falwell
The poison creeps in with your no 5 - 'serve god'. In most sub-cults of christianity this means deference to the power of the church, its ministers and hierarchy - which is where private ideas begin to corrupt the public square. Scaring people into submisison with threats of a non-existent hell and promises of a non-existent heaven is corrupt
Christianity and its adherents constantly demand special treatment in civil society - from tax and planning breaks to the christian right who demand that America is a christian nation DAMMIT and anyone who doesn't submit clearly hates america.
You see it in the creationists who try to force religion into schools and the (unconstitutional) inclusion of god in the pledge our chldren recite everyday. It comes out strongly in our foreign policy, particularly regarding the middle east, where biblical literalists and lobbyists have skewed our approach to the whole region and the palestinians in particular
The US cannot be trusted with religion - its not a neutral doctrine, particularly as implemented here.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: November 30, 2011 08:35AM
Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor P.,
>
> The theory of Intelligent Design was developed by
> scientists who could not reconcile the
> astronomical odds required to believe random
> chance created all that is. You confuse those who
> adopted the theory to try and get creationism
> taught in school with those who developed the
> theory.
You seem to be referring to the anthropic argument - which is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. This is not what is known as 'intelligent design' and it's also not a scientific theory.
> I don't believe the earth is only 10,000 years
> old. Why do you think that I would?
In fairness, you seem to have been pointing this way with your references towards radiometric dating and the age of the earth comments (regarding evolution).
> I have no
> idea how old the earth is. My point was that
> current methods of dating the earth all have
> problems and there are variables that can skew any
> of them to provide incorrect information leading
> to incorrect conclusions.
These aren't 'problems'. If you input improper data into something you are not going to get good results. So, if you are wearing a lead vest while you are getting your chest X-Rayed the inability for the machine to function properly is not indicative of it's inaccuracy.
We can trust radiometric dating because various types of radiometric dating converge on the same date for items. Further, they are consistent with other types of dating we have. The probability of them all being false is astronomical.
> No one knows how old
> the earth is. But evolutionist must have the
> earth be billions of years old to support their
> theory.
Not necessarily - all it supports is the rate of change, not the change itself.
> Science has therefore decreed it so.
I'm sorry but this is deceptive - science has not 'decreed it so'. The evidence for the age of the earth is independent of the theory of evolution. Science does not work off of 'decrees'.
> Maybe they're right. But, like the recent global
> warming scam, main stream science decides which
> theories they will accept and which they won't and
> then close ranks to stomp out any dissent.
This seems to beg the question - it's an appeal to motive, not an appeal to any evidence or argument, so there's not much to comment on here.
> I have
> no problems with the theory of evolution being
> taught in school. Of course, it is no longer
> taught as a theory, but now as a scientific fact.
That's because evolution refers to two different things. One is common descent, which is a scientific fact. The other is the explanation of how organisms diverge - this is the *theory* of evolution.
Theories connotate explanations, not uncertainties, in science. You seem to be confusing the layman's use of the term theory (akin to a 'guess') with how scientists use the term theory (an overarching explanation of facts, laws, and phenomenon).
You wouldn't quibble with gravity being taught as a fact, yet it's still a scientific theory (general theory of relativity).
> And any other theory is completely shut out.
There are no other non falsified scientific theories that compete with evolutionary theory. In the past there was Lamarkianism and Lysenkoism, but both of those have been firmly disproven.
> Close minded humanists who replace God with
> scientists show their true colors.
This is another appeal to motive.
> They can not
> stand to be challenged. And with humanist, there
> is no absolute morality. Dangerous indeed.
This begs the question and appeals to motive.
Nothing to respond to there since there's no arguments.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor P.,
>
> The theory of Intelligent Design was developed by
> scientists who could not reconcile the
> astronomical odds required to believe random
> chance created all that is. You confuse those who
> adopted the theory to try and get creationism
> taught in school with those who developed the
> theory.
You seem to be referring to the anthropic argument - which is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. This is not what is known as 'intelligent design' and it's also not a scientific theory.
> I don't believe the earth is only 10,000 years
> old. Why do you think that I would?
In fairness, you seem to have been pointing this way with your references towards radiometric dating and the age of the earth comments (regarding evolution).
> I have no
> idea how old the earth is. My point was that
> current methods of dating the earth all have
> problems and there are variables that can skew any
> of them to provide incorrect information leading
> to incorrect conclusions.
These aren't 'problems'. If you input improper data into something you are not going to get good results. So, if you are wearing a lead vest while you are getting your chest X-Rayed the inability for the machine to function properly is not indicative of it's inaccuracy.
We can trust radiometric dating because various types of radiometric dating converge on the same date for items. Further, they are consistent with other types of dating we have. The probability of them all being false is astronomical.
> No one knows how old
> the earth is. But evolutionist must have the
> earth be billions of years old to support their
> theory.
Not necessarily - all it supports is the rate of change, not the change itself.
> Science has therefore decreed it so.
I'm sorry but this is deceptive - science has not 'decreed it so'. The evidence for the age of the earth is independent of the theory of evolution. Science does not work off of 'decrees'.
> Maybe they're right. But, like the recent global
> warming scam, main stream science decides which
> theories they will accept and which they won't and
> then close ranks to stomp out any dissent.
This seems to beg the question - it's an appeal to motive, not an appeal to any evidence or argument, so there's not much to comment on here.
> I have
> no problems with the theory of evolution being
> taught in school. Of course, it is no longer
> taught as a theory, but now as a scientific fact.
That's because evolution refers to two different things. One is common descent, which is a scientific fact. The other is the explanation of how organisms diverge - this is the *theory* of evolution.
Theories connotate explanations, not uncertainties, in science. You seem to be confusing the layman's use of the term theory (akin to a 'guess') with how scientists use the term theory (an overarching explanation of facts, laws, and phenomenon).
You wouldn't quibble with gravity being taught as a fact, yet it's still a scientific theory (general theory of relativity).
> And any other theory is completely shut out.
There are no other non falsified scientific theories that compete with evolutionary theory. In the past there was Lamarkianism and Lysenkoism, but both of those have been firmly disproven.
> Close minded humanists who replace God with
> scientists show their true colors.
This is another appeal to motive.
> They can not
> stand to be challenged. And with humanist, there
> is no absolute morality. Dangerous indeed.
This begs the question and appeals to motive.
Nothing to respond to there since there's no arguments.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Believe
()
Date: November 30, 2011 12:00PM
finito benito:
Hmmm, I can understand and even appreciate how you see science and Christinity as mutually exclusive, but I'm just not there with you. I don't see the two at odds, I see them as living harmoniously together.
You've raised a lot of good points about "picking and choosing" the pieces from Christianity and the Bible that seem to support that faith, but I have yet to see any scientific observation to date that has shown God and Christ to be myths. Just as scientific theories are refined over time (and sometimes entirely discarded), we refine our understanding of what the Bible says over time, particularly in relation to creation or historical and archaeological findings. I don't see that as convenient picking and choosing, any more than I do when it happens in the scientific context.
Newton's laws worked very well for our every-day existence for a couple of hundred years, then we found it to be incomplete and had to refine things. Einstein's relativity theory expanded our understanding for situations beyond our normal experience (for velocities approaching the speed of light, etc.), but left some problems that are yet to be worked out. Quantum theory threw a wrench in many things, and we continue to work those problems out to attempt to harmonize the various fields. Those refinements I do not consider picking and choosing, and neither is it in the theological context.
There are many things we still do not understand, and possibly (probably?) may never. Is light made of particles or waves, or both? Can anything exceed the speed of light? That question is being worked out right now, and it could turn many things/theories upside down. How does an electron get from once position to another without ever being observed in between?
You seek a "natural" explanation for everything, and I appreciate that. I am not a Christian from birth or upbringing, and I was educated in scientific fields and appreciate that discipline. We are all left, though, with the natural question of "where did it come from?" Did it come from nothing? How will science ever rectify that question?
You asked for evidence of why Christianity is true or any more true than other religions. Here's what I can offer, though it is not "proof" like dropping a ball from a tower and observing its rate of descent:
1) Many people died testifying to the truth of what they witnessed, including Jesus himself. Not for a cause, mind you, like blowing themselves up because they were told to do so by a religious leader, but because they firmly believed in what they witnessed and would not recant their story, even under torture/death. Christianity spread like wildfire in the face of a very repressive environment.
2) The separate accounts, by different authors, of Christ's life all converge in the same fundamental way. We don't know with 100% certainty how many distinct authors there were, but safe to say it is more than one.
3) There is a mountain of archaeological and historical evidence that firmly supports the existence of Jesus Christ and his time on Earth, as well as the other Biblical histories. Even if people do not accept that Jesus was the Christ, anyone would be very hard pressed to deny his existence or the veracity of so many other historical claims made in the Bible.
4) There are so many Biblical prophecies that were made before the fact, and later were proven true (often hundreds or thousands of years later). These were not the claims of whack-job religious nuts who make a bunch of claims and eventually get something right, or eventually just go away because they are shown to be frauds. They are well-documented, specific, prophetic claims that have held true. The arrival and importance of Jesus himself was prophesied in the Old Testament.
5) The life of Jesus Christ had a profound impact on the world, arguably the most profound impact any person has ever made in the history of mankind. How did that happen? Was he just a smooth, charismatic person that was also able to do magic tricks? Was he able to fake bringing people back to life, bringing himself back to life, healing people known in their communities to be infirm or diseased for years, providing prophecies that were later proved true (including his own crucifixion and the destruction of the temple, for example), working miracles, speaking some of the most profound and revolutionary teachings ever known, successfully arguing/debating deeply held religious teachings against the leading theologians of his day? Who can fake all that?
6) Humans have a natural curiosity, and one of those curiosities that seems to be very prevalent in just about everyone is a feeling or hope that there is "something" else out there beyond life-death-worm food. Where does that curiosity or desire come from? Are our brains just big enough to contemplate these metaphysical questions, but not big enough to answer them with certainty? Or is that curiosity/desire a strictly human trait put there by a creator?
7) Not much for you to hold on to since it's just my word, but I've seen God work in my life in countless, observable ways. If I was doing a scientific experiment, I could have put forth the testable proposition, prayed about it, and then observed the results, and compared that against the non-praying propositions and outcomes. The result would be somewhere in the 90% range, far beyond "chance" or the power of positive thinking. The other missing 10% I expect will be answered in time, just as some that I thought went unanswered for a while later occurred in outcomes I had not even considered and with far better results. There will probably be a few percent that will seemingly go unanswered forever, for reasons I may never understand.
There have been many charlatans and abuses and distortions in the history of Christianity; I hope you won't commit the fallacy of throwing out the fundamental message or truth because of those things, even though I completely get how people draw that conclusion. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, the Pope, etc. do not speak for me or millions of other Christians.
Hmmm, I can understand and even appreciate how you see science and Christinity as mutually exclusive, but I'm just not there with you. I don't see the two at odds, I see them as living harmoniously together.
You've raised a lot of good points about "picking and choosing" the pieces from Christianity and the Bible that seem to support that faith, but I have yet to see any scientific observation to date that has shown God and Christ to be myths. Just as scientific theories are refined over time (and sometimes entirely discarded), we refine our understanding of what the Bible says over time, particularly in relation to creation or historical and archaeological findings. I don't see that as convenient picking and choosing, any more than I do when it happens in the scientific context.
Newton's laws worked very well for our every-day existence for a couple of hundred years, then we found it to be incomplete and had to refine things. Einstein's relativity theory expanded our understanding for situations beyond our normal experience (for velocities approaching the speed of light, etc.), but left some problems that are yet to be worked out. Quantum theory threw a wrench in many things, and we continue to work those problems out to attempt to harmonize the various fields. Those refinements I do not consider picking and choosing, and neither is it in the theological context.
There are many things we still do not understand, and possibly (probably?) may never. Is light made of particles or waves, or both? Can anything exceed the speed of light? That question is being worked out right now, and it could turn many things/theories upside down. How does an electron get from once position to another without ever being observed in between?
You seek a "natural" explanation for everything, and I appreciate that. I am not a Christian from birth or upbringing, and I was educated in scientific fields and appreciate that discipline. We are all left, though, with the natural question of "where did it come from?" Did it come from nothing? How will science ever rectify that question?
You asked for evidence of why Christianity is true or any more true than other religions. Here's what I can offer, though it is not "proof" like dropping a ball from a tower and observing its rate of descent:
1) Many people died testifying to the truth of what they witnessed, including Jesus himself. Not for a cause, mind you, like blowing themselves up because they were told to do so by a religious leader, but because they firmly believed in what they witnessed and would not recant their story, even under torture/death. Christianity spread like wildfire in the face of a very repressive environment.
2) The separate accounts, by different authors, of Christ's life all converge in the same fundamental way. We don't know with 100% certainty how many distinct authors there were, but safe to say it is more than one.
3) There is a mountain of archaeological and historical evidence that firmly supports the existence of Jesus Christ and his time on Earth, as well as the other Biblical histories. Even if people do not accept that Jesus was the Christ, anyone would be very hard pressed to deny his existence or the veracity of so many other historical claims made in the Bible.
4) There are so many Biblical prophecies that were made before the fact, and later were proven true (often hundreds or thousands of years later). These were not the claims of whack-job religious nuts who make a bunch of claims and eventually get something right, or eventually just go away because they are shown to be frauds. They are well-documented, specific, prophetic claims that have held true. The arrival and importance of Jesus himself was prophesied in the Old Testament.
5) The life of Jesus Christ had a profound impact on the world, arguably the most profound impact any person has ever made in the history of mankind. How did that happen? Was he just a smooth, charismatic person that was also able to do magic tricks? Was he able to fake bringing people back to life, bringing himself back to life, healing people known in their communities to be infirm or diseased for years, providing prophecies that were later proved true (including his own crucifixion and the destruction of the temple, for example), working miracles, speaking some of the most profound and revolutionary teachings ever known, successfully arguing/debating deeply held religious teachings against the leading theologians of his day? Who can fake all that?
6) Humans have a natural curiosity, and one of those curiosities that seems to be very prevalent in just about everyone is a feeling or hope that there is "something" else out there beyond life-death-worm food. Where does that curiosity or desire come from? Are our brains just big enough to contemplate these metaphysical questions, but not big enough to answer them with certainty? Or is that curiosity/desire a strictly human trait put there by a creator?
7) Not much for you to hold on to since it's just my word, but I've seen God work in my life in countless, observable ways. If I was doing a scientific experiment, I could have put forth the testable proposition, prayed about it, and then observed the results, and compared that against the non-praying propositions and outcomes. The result would be somewhere in the 90% range, far beyond "chance" or the power of positive thinking. The other missing 10% I expect will be answered in time, just as some that I thought went unanswered for a while later occurred in outcomes I had not even considered and with far better results. There will probably be a few percent that will seemingly go unanswered forever, for reasons I may never understand.
There have been many charlatans and abuses and distortions in the history of Christianity; I hope you won't commit the fallacy of throwing out the fundamental message or truth because of those things, even though I completely get how people draw that conclusion. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, the Pope, etc. do not speak for me or millions of other Christians.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Believe
()
Date: November 30, 2011 12:25PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You seem to be referring to the anthropic argument
> - which is a philosophical argument, not a
> scientific one. This is not what is known as
> 'intelligent design' and it's also not a
> scientific theory.
>
This hits the nail on the head. I suspect a lot of people would not have a problem with teaching 'Intelligent Design' in a religion or non-science class with the requisite "this is not science" warning -- if those kinds of classes were taught at all. But to teach it as a scientific theory alongside evolutionary theory does not seem appropriate. Where are the testable propositions?
Schools could stick to the evolutionary and natural selection mechanics that are well known and not in (reasonable) dispute, and they could leave the "How did it all start?" question as a thought exercise for the students.
At the same time, schools ought to make plain the difference between the high certainty we have about evolution theory and natural selection, and the much less certainty we have with the question of whether humans evolved from apes.
These things all get lumped together in the sloppy language of the "evolution vs. intelligent design" debate to the detriment of us all.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You seem to be referring to the anthropic argument
> - which is a philosophical argument, not a
> scientific one. This is not what is known as
> 'intelligent design' and it's also not a
> scientific theory.
>
This hits the nail on the head. I suspect a lot of people would not have a problem with teaching 'Intelligent Design' in a religion or non-science class with the requisite "this is not science" warning -- if those kinds of classes were taught at all. But to teach it as a scientific theory alongside evolutionary theory does not seem appropriate. Where are the testable propositions?
Schools could stick to the evolutionary and natural selection mechanics that are well known and not in (reasonable) dispute, and they could leave the "How did it all start?" question as a thought exercise for the students.
At the same time, schools ought to make plain the difference between the high certainty we have about evolution theory and natural selection, and the much less certainty we have with the question of whether humans evolved from apes.
These things all get lumped together in the sloppy language of the "evolution vs. intelligent design" debate to the detriment of us all.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: November 30, 2011 12:26PM
Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito:
>
> Hmmm, I can understand and even appreciate how you
> see science and Christinity as mutually exclusive,
> but I'm just not there with you. I don't see the
> two at odds, I see them as living harmoniously
> together.
>
> You've raised a lot of good points about "picking
> and choosing" the pieces from Christianity and the
> Bible that seem to support that faith, but I have
> yet to see any scientific observation to date that
> has shown God and Christ to be myths. Just as
> scientific theories are refined over time (and
> sometimes entirely discarded), we refine our
> understanding of what the Bible says over time,
> particularly in relation to creation or historical
> and archaeological findings. I don't see that as
> convenient picking and choosing, any more than I
> do when it happens in the scientific context.
>
> Newton's laws worked very well for our every-day
> existence for a couple of hundred years, then we
> found it to be incomplete and had to refine
> things. Einstein's relativity theory expanded our
> understanding for situations beyond our normal
> experience (for velocities approaching the speed
> of light, etc.), but left some problems that are
> yet to be worked out. Quantum theory threw a
> wrench in many things, and we continue to work
> those problems out to attempt to harmonize the
> various fields. Those refinements I do not
> consider picking and choosing, and neither is it
> in the theological context.
>
> There are many things we still do not understand,
> and possibly (probably?) may never. Is light made
> of particles or waves, or both? Can anything
> exceed the speed of light? That question is being
> worked out right now, and it could turn many
> things/theories upside down. How does an electron
> get from once position to another without ever
> being observed in between?
>
> You seek a "natural" explanation for everything,
> and I appreciate that. I am not a Christian from
> birth or upbringing, and I was educated in
> scientific fields and appreciate that discipline.
> We are all left, though, with the natural question
> of "where did it come from?" Did it come from
> nothing? How will science ever rectify that
> question?
I appreciate your point of view and it's interesting. I don't fault you for attempting to harmonize your beliefs with science. Certainly millions of Christians attempt to do just that. I would contend that, at the end, it's faith and I'm fine with that.
To be sure, there are some rational arguments that could favor religion - if you accept their premises. So religion can be rational. I don't accept the premises (obviously) and therefore I do not feel that to be religious is rational - but am I correct? It's possible that I'm wrong with regard to these premises, which is why I say religion can be rational.
In any event, I think that if something can come from nothing that the only way this could happen would be without a cause. I'm not sure that we actually have warrant for this though, as I favor the view of a block universe, so in my estimation, the universe never came into existence from nothing.
> You asked for evidence of why Christianity is true
> or any more true than other religions. Here's what
> I can offer, though it is not "proof" like
> dropping a ball from a tower and observing its
> rate of descent:
>
> 1) Many people died testifying to the truth of
> what they witnessed, including Jesus himself. Not
> for a cause, mind you, like blowing themselves up
> because they were told to do so by a religious
> leader, but because they firmly believed in what
> they witnessed and would not recant their story,
> even under torture/death. Christianity spread like
> wildfire in the face of a very repressive
> environment.
The problem with this argument is two fold:
1. We don't have any solid basis to believe the disciples were killed for their beliefs - it's Church tradition. This is outside of Paul - who did not witness Jesus's life. Jesus did not die for the truth, even according to the Gospels, he died because of the mob. His death, as a matter of fact, goes against our historical records - people were not crucified for pretending to be the messiah (nor were they crucified for being thieves).
2. We have no evidence that if the 'true believers' did recant that this recantation would have alleviated their sentence. It's possible that they all admitted that they were lying and they died anyway.
So their beliefs are not relevant to their torturous deaths.
> 2) The separate accounts, by different authors, of
> Christ's life all converge in the same fundamental
> way. We don't know with 100% certainty how many
> distinct authors there were, but safe to say it is
> more than one.
Actually most scholars accept the two source hypothesis: Q (early sayings of Jesus) and Mark (which the other Gospels rely on). Mark was not an eye witness and came decades after the fact.
So what we have is anonymous, not eye witness accounts, and came years after the fact.
> 3) There is a mountain of archaeological and
> historical evidence that firmly supports the
> existence of Jesus Christ and his time on Earth,
> as well as the other Biblical histories. Even if
> people do not accept that Jesus was the Christ,
> anyone would be very hard pressed to deny his
> existence or the veracity of so many other
> historical claims made in the Bible.
I think Jesus, most likely, existed. I do not think the evidence 'firmly supports' his existence though. I think his existence is the most parsimonious explanation of the early Church. As to the veracity of the historical claims of the Bible - I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. Just because the Bible mentions historical figures does not lend any credence to the miracle claims within. Stephen Kings new book mentions JFK, but that doesn't mean that time travel is occurring.
> 4) There are so many Biblical prophecies that were
> made before the fact, and later were proven true
> (often hundreds or thousands of years later).
> These were not the claims of whack-job religious
> nuts who make a bunch of claims and eventually get
> something right, or eventually just go away
> because they are shown to be frauds. They are
> well-documented, specific, prophetic claims that
> have held true. The arrival and importance of
> Jesus himself was prophesied in the Old
> Testament.
The prophecies are no more convincing than Nostradamus's prophecies. They are not all specific nor are they all well documented. As to Jesus, I'd say most of those prophecies are retrofitted - in fact, the bit about the virgin and the riding of two donkeys are a result of mistranslations in the Septuagint. The early Christians (Justin Martyr in particular) had to answer to these criticisms. So this issue has been around for a LONG time.
> 5) The life of Jesus Christ had a profound impact
> on the world, arguably the most profound impact
> any person has ever made in the history of
> mankind. How did that happen? Was he just a
> smooth, charismatic person that was also able to
> do magic tricks? Was he able to fake bringing
> people back to life, bringing himself back to
> life, healing people known in their communities to
> be infirm or diseased for years, providing
> prophecies that were later proved true (including
> his own crucifixion and the destruction of the
> temple, for example), working miracles, speaking
> some of the most profound and revolutionary
> teachings ever known, successfully
> arguing/debating deeply held religious teachings
> against the leading theologians of his day? Who
> can fake all that?
The impact of Jesus is remarkable, but not supernatural. I don't see much of a difference between him and other religious founders. Further, some of the claims you make presuppose the accounts are genuine.
As a matter of fact, there were other Messiah's running around during the time of Jesus and there were other miracle workers who did the exact same miracles that Jesus did. Vespasian, for instance, cured blind people with spit - just like Jesus did.
Jesus was not well known during his day. In fact, none of the contemporary historians mention him at all. His first mention comes decades after the influence of his early church.
> 6) Humans have a natural curiosity, and one of
> those curiosities that seems to be very prevalent
> in just about everyone is a feeling or hope that
> there is "something" else out there beyond
> life-death-worm food. Where does that curiosity or
> desire come from? Are our brains just big enough
> to contemplate these metaphysical questions, but
> not big enough to answer them with certainty? Or
> is that curiosity/desire a strictly human trait
> put there by a creator?
This inclination is because we are pattern seeking creatures. We see patterns and infer design. We see faces in the clouds, we believe that celestial bodies influence our behaviors.
> 7) Not much for you to hold on to since it's just
> my word, but I've seen God work in my life in
> countless, observable ways. If I was doing a
> scientific experiment, I could have put forth the
> testable proposition, prayed about it, and then
> observed the results, and compared that against
> the non-praying propositions and outcomes. The
> result would be somewhere in the 90% range, far
> beyond "chance" or the power of positive thinking.
> The other missing 10% I expect will be answered in
> time, just as some that I thought went unanswered
> for a while later occurred in outcomes I had not
> even considered and with far better results. There
> will probably be a few percent that will seemingly
> go unanswered forever, for reasons I may never
> understand.
I can't really argue with this, but I do not find it very persuasive. I've met Muslims and people of other faiths with similar claims.
> There have been many charlatans and abuses and
> distortions in the history of Christianity; I hope
> you won't commit the fallacy of throwing out the
> fundamental message or truth because of those
> things, even though I completely get how people
> draw that conclusion. Pat Robertson, Jerry
> Falwell, the Pope, etc. do not speak for me or
> millions of other Christians.
I don't find the fundamental message of Christianity all that different from other religious leaders. Rabbi Himmel distilled the Old Testament laws down to the golden rule, for instance.
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito:
>
> Hmmm, I can understand and even appreciate how you
> see science and Christinity as mutually exclusive,
> but I'm just not there with you. I don't see the
> two at odds, I see them as living harmoniously
> together.
>
> You've raised a lot of good points about "picking
> and choosing" the pieces from Christianity and the
> Bible that seem to support that faith, but I have
> yet to see any scientific observation to date that
> has shown God and Christ to be myths. Just as
> scientific theories are refined over time (and
> sometimes entirely discarded), we refine our
> understanding of what the Bible says over time,
> particularly in relation to creation or historical
> and archaeological findings. I don't see that as
> convenient picking and choosing, any more than I
> do when it happens in the scientific context.
>
> Newton's laws worked very well for our every-day
> existence for a couple of hundred years, then we
> found it to be incomplete and had to refine
> things. Einstein's relativity theory expanded our
> understanding for situations beyond our normal
> experience (for velocities approaching the speed
> of light, etc.), but left some problems that are
> yet to be worked out. Quantum theory threw a
> wrench in many things, and we continue to work
> those problems out to attempt to harmonize the
> various fields. Those refinements I do not
> consider picking and choosing, and neither is it
> in the theological context.
>
> There are many things we still do not understand,
> and possibly (probably?) may never. Is light made
> of particles or waves, or both? Can anything
> exceed the speed of light? That question is being
> worked out right now, and it could turn many
> things/theories upside down. How does an electron
> get from once position to another without ever
> being observed in between?
>
> You seek a "natural" explanation for everything,
> and I appreciate that. I am not a Christian from
> birth or upbringing, and I was educated in
> scientific fields and appreciate that discipline.
> We are all left, though, with the natural question
> of "where did it come from?" Did it come from
> nothing? How will science ever rectify that
> question?
I appreciate your point of view and it's interesting. I don't fault you for attempting to harmonize your beliefs with science. Certainly millions of Christians attempt to do just that. I would contend that, at the end, it's faith and I'm fine with that.
To be sure, there are some rational arguments that could favor religion - if you accept their premises. So religion can be rational. I don't accept the premises (obviously) and therefore I do not feel that to be religious is rational - but am I correct? It's possible that I'm wrong with regard to these premises, which is why I say religion can be rational.
In any event, I think that if something can come from nothing that the only way this could happen would be without a cause. I'm not sure that we actually have warrant for this though, as I favor the view of a block universe, so in my estimation, the universe never came into existence from nothing.
> You asked for evidence of why Christianity is true
> or any more true than other religions. Here's what
> I can offer, though it is not "proof" like
> dropping a ball from a tower and observing its
> rate of descent:
>
> 1) Many people died testifying to the truth of
> what they witnessed, including Jesus himself. Not
> for a cause, mind you, like blowing themselves up
> because they were told to do so by a religious
> leader, but because they firmly believed in what
> they witnessed and would not recant their story,
> even under torture/death. Christianity spread like
> wildfire in the face of a very repressive
> environment.
The problem with this argument is two fold:
1. We don't have any solid basis to believe the disciples were killed for their beliefs - it's Church tradition. This is outside of Paul - who did not witness Jesus's life. Jesus did not die for the truth, even according to the Gospels, he died because of the mob. His death, as a matter of fact, goes against our historical records - people were not crucified for pretending to be the messiah (nor were they crucified for being thieves).
2. We have no evidence that if the 'true believers' did recant that this recantation would have alleviated their sentence. It's possible that they all admitted that they were lying and they died anyway.
So their beliefs are not relevant to their torturous deaths.
> 2) The separate accounts, by different authors, of
> Christ's life all converge in the same fundamental
> way. We don't know with 100% certainty how many
> distinct authors there were, but safe to say it is
> more than one.
Actually most scholars accept the two source hypothesis: Q (early sayings of Jesus) and Mark (which the other Gospels rely on). Mark was not an eye witness and came decades after the fact.
So what we have is anonymous, not eye witness accounts, and came years after the fact.
> 3) There is a mountain of archaeological and
> historical evidence that firmly supports the
> existence of Jesus Christ and his time on Earth,
> as well as the other Biblical histories. Even if
> people do not accept that Jesus was the Christ,
> anyone would be very hard pressed to deny his
> existence or the veracity of so many other
> historical claims made in the Bible.
I think Jesus, most likely, existed. I do not think the evidence 'firmly supports' his existence though. I think his existence is the most parsimonious explanation of the early Church. As to the veracity of the historical claims of the Bible - I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. Just because the Bible mentions historical figures does not lend any credence to the miracle claims within. Stephen Kings new book mentions JFK, but that doesn't mean that time travel is occurring.
> 4) There are so many Biblical prophecies that were
> made before the fact, and later were proven true
> (often hundreds or thousands of years later).
> These were not the claims of whack-job religious
> nuts who make a bunch of claims and eventually get
> something right, or eventually just go away
> because they are shown to be frauds. They are
> well-documented, specific, prophetic claims that
> have held true. The arrival and importance of
> Jesus himself was prophesied in the Old
> Testament.
The prophecies are no more convincing than Nostradamus's prophecies. They are not all specific nor are they all well documented. As to Jesus, I'd say most of those prophecies are retrofitted - in fact, the bit about the virgin and the riding of two donkeys are a result of mistranslations in the Septuagint. The early Christians (Justin Martyr in particular) had to answer to these criticisms. So this issue has been around for a LONG time.
> 5) The life of Jesus Christ had a profound impact
> on the world, arguably the most profound impact
> any person has ever made in the history of
> mankind. How did that happen? Was he just a
> smooth, charismatic person that was also able to
> do magic tricks? Was he able to fake bringing
> people back to life, bringing himself back to
> life, healing people known in their communities to
> be infirm or diseased for years, providing
> prophecies that were later proved true (including
> his own crucifixion and the destruction of the
> temple, for example), working miracles, speaking
> some of the most profound and revolutionary
> teachings ever known, successfully
> arguing/debating deeply held religious teachings
> against the leading theologians of his day? Who
> can fake all that?
The impact of Jesus is remarkable, but not supernatural. I don't see much of a difference between him and other religious founders. Further, some of the claims you make presuppose the accounts are genuine.
As a matter of fact, there were other Messiah's running around during the time of Jesus and there were other miracle workers who did the exact same miracles that Jesus did. Vespasian, for instance, cured blind people with spit - just like Jesus did.
Jesus was not well known during his day. In fact, none of the contemporary historians mention him at all. His first mention comes decades after the influence of his early church.
> 6) Humans have a natural curiosity, and one of
> those curiosities that seems to be very prevalent
> in just about everyone is a feeling or hope that
> there is "something" else out there beyond
> life-death-worm food. Where does that curiosity or
> desire come from? Are our brains just big enough
> to contemplate these metaphysical questions, but
> not big enough to answer them with certainty? Or
> is that curiosity/desire a strictly human trait
> put there by a creator?
This inclination is because we are pattern seeking creatures. We see patterns and infer design. We see faces in the clouds, we believe that celestial bodies influence our behaviors.
> 7) Not much for you to hold on to since it's just
> my word, but I've seen God work in my life in
> countless, observable ways. If I was doing a
> scientific experiment, I could have put forth the
> testable proposition, prayed about it, and then
> observed the results, and compared that against
> the non-praying propositions and outcomes. The
> result would be somewhere in the 90% range, far
> beyond "chance" or the power of positive thinking.
> The other missing 10% I expect will be answered in
> time, just as some that I thought went unanswered
> for a while later occurred in outcomes I had not
> even considered and with far better results. There
> will probably be a few percent that will seemingly
> go unanswered forever, for reasons I may never
> understand.
I can't really argue with this, but I do not find it very persuasive. I've met Muslims and people of other faiths with similar claims.
> There have been many charlatans and abuses and
> distortions in the history of Christianity; I hope
> you won't commit the fallacy of throwing out the
> fundamental message or truth because of those
> things, even though I completely get how people
> draw that conclusion. Pat Robertson, Jerry
> Falwell, the Pope, etc. do not speak for me or
> millions of other Christians.
I don't find the fundamental message of Christianity all that different from other religious leaders. Rabbi Himmel distilled the Old Testament laws down to the golden rule, for instance.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: November 30, 2011 12:29PM
Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This hits the nail on the head. I suspect a lot of
> people would not have a problem with teaching
> 'Intelligent Design' in a religion or non-science
> class with the requisite "this is not science"
> warning -- if those kinds of classes were taught
> at all. But to teach it as a scientific theory
> alongside evolutionary theory does not seem
> appropriate. Where are the testable propositions?
Exactly.
To go further, I have no problem with religion being taught in schools - I support religious education and education in philosophy - I just don't want it to be mistaught as science.
> Schools could stick to the evolutionary and
> natural selection mechanics that are well known
> and not in (reasonable) dispute, and they could
> leave the "How did it all start?" question as a
> thought exercise for the students.
>
> At the same time, schools ought to make plain the
> difference between the high certainty we have
> about evolution theory and natural selection, and
> the much less certainty we have with the question
> of whether humans evolved from apes.
?
What's the difference in certainty? According to some definitions, *humans are apes*.
-------------------------------------------------------
> This hits the nail on the head. I suspect a lot of
> people would not have a problem with teaching
> 'Intelligent Design' in a religion or non-science
> class with the requisite "this is not science"
> warning -- if those kinds of classes were taught
> at all. But to teach it as a scientific theory
> alongside evolutionary theory does not seem
> appropriate. Where are the testable propositions?
Exactly.
To go further, I have no problem with religion being taught in schools - I support religious education and education in philosophy - I just don't want it to be mistaught as science.
> Schools could stick to the evolutionary and
> natural selection mechanics that are well known
> and not in (reasonable) dispute, and they could
> leave the "How did it all start?" question as a
> thought exercise for the students.
>
> At the same time, schools ought to make plain the
> difference between the high certainty we have
> about evolution theory and natural selection, and
> the much less certainty we have with the question
> of whether humans evolved from apes.
?
What's the difference in certainty? According to some definitions, *humans are apes*.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: November 30, 2011 02:57PM
Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> Schools could stick to the evolutionary and
> natural selection mechanics that are well known
> and not in (reasonable) dispute, and they could
> leave the "How did it all start?" question as a
> thought exercise for the students.
>
> At the same time, schools ought to make plain the
> difference between the high certainty we have
> about evolution theory and natural selection, and
> the much less certainty we have with the question
> of whether humans evolved from apes.
At the risk of being acused of being rude...
This is a great example of magical thinking. Exactly the same evidence applies to people, whales, birds and horses. In each of these you have an excellent (but, by definition, incomplete) fossil record as well as the exceptional evidence in the DNA.
In the case of humans and other apes, you have both a strong fossil record of homonids (and their precursors) and you can also map the relative genetic differences wihin and between modern apes and amongst other related species.
What you are suggesting is intellectually dishonest (or more charitably, intellectually lazy)- especially if you accept that the mechanisms of 'evolutionary and natural selection mechanics that are well known and not in (reasonable) dispute', Do you have any evidence to suggest that evolution applies to every living thing apart from homo sapiens? Or is this a faith thing again?
So are you suggesting that the homonid line evolved through to the neanderthal's and then the angels turned up and wiped them out to make space for modern humans? Are you suggesting that we're not mammals? That we were build to look sneakily like mammals at the genetic level to confuse the unwary?
Or did you have some other specific historical point of divine intervention in the evolutionary record?
You insist on hanging on to some unjustified homo-centralist or homo-exceptionalist ideas, presumably to sustain the concept of man in god's image and a god of personal chats.
To make this work, you have to jump through so many hoops with out evidence that Occam's razor has to come into play. You have two explanations - one simple and lines up with evidence - the other has all of this baroque frippery added sans evidence
This is typical of religion backing itself into a corner and then having to make something up which makes no sense - that's not even self consistent
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> Schools could stick to the evolutionary and
> natural selection mechanics that are well known
> and not in (reasonable) dispute, and they could
> leave the "How did it all start?" question as a
> thought exercise for the students.
>
> At the same time, schools ought to make plain the
> difference between the high certainty we have
> about evolution theory and natural selection, and
> the much less certainty we have with the question
> of whether humans evolved from apes.
At the risk of being acused of being rude...
This is a great example of magical thinking. Exactly the same evidence applies to people, whales, birds and horses. In each of these you have an excellent (but, by definition, incomplete) fossil record as well as the exceptional evidence in the DNA.
In the case of humans and other apes, you have both a strong fossil record of homonids (and their precursors) and you can also map the relative genetic differences wihin and between modern apes and amongst other related species.
What you are suggesting is intellectually dishonest (or more charitably, intellectually lazy)- especially if you accept that the mechanisms of 'evolutionary and natural selection mechanics that are well known and not in (reasonable) dispute', Do you have any evidence to suggest that evolution applies to every living thing apart from homo sapiens? Or is this a faith thing again?
So are you suggesting that the homonid line evolved through to the neanderthal's and then the angels turned up and wiped them out to make space for modern humans? Are you suggesting that we're not mammals? That we were build to look sneakily like mammals at the genetic level to confuse the unwary?
Or did you have some other specific historical point of divine intervention in the evolutionary record?
You insist on hanging on to some unjustified homo-centralist or homo-exceptionalist ideas, presumably to sustain the concept of man in god's image and a god of personal chats.
To make this work, you have to jump through so many hoops with out evidence that Occam's razor has to come into play. You have two explanations - one simple and lines up with evidence - the other has all of this baroque frippery added sans evidence
This is typical of religion backing itself into a corner and then having to make something up which makes no sense - that's not even self consistent
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: November 30, 2011 03:16PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Believe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This hits the nail on the head. I suspect a lot
> of
> > people would not have a problem with teaching
> > 'Intelligent Design' in a religion or
> non-science
> > class with the requisite "this is not science"
> > warning -- if those kinds of classes were
> taught
> > at all. But to teach it as a scientific theory
> > alongside evolutionary theory does not seem
> > appropriate. Where are the testable
> propositions?
>
> Exactly.
>
> To go further, I have no problem with religion
> being taught in schools - I support religious
> education and education in philosophy - I just
> don't want it to be mistaught as science.
This is one place where the prof and I disagree
I am strongly opposed to religious education in our schools on a number of grounds.
The main one being that it has no basis in fact and makes assertions that are demonstrably misleading.
A second is that all religions are equally valid yet make completely different claims. Why should we teach christianity when other people's faith in Bahai, Shintoism, animism, driudism or satanism is equally strong - just because of believe's particular faith?
Yet another is that, especially but not exclusively in this country. religion comes with a lot of very nasty pre-dispositions - subservience, homopobia, xenophobia, sectarianism, misogeny, racial exceptionalism. Which bits are you going to teach? Would you teach a red in tooth and claw fundamentalist jerry falwall christainity or an usama bin laden rejectionist variant of islam - or would you pick a nice cuddly version of both? Are we teaching papal infallability or speaking in tongues?
Local kids already do a short elementary school session on comparative religions and mythologies - I suspect that's mostly about helping them to deal with diversity in the classroom. That seems about enough.
Religion is a blood soaked left over from an earlier age of conquests, crusades and colonisations - it has no place in the modern world
-------------------------------------------------------
> Believe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This hits the nail on the head. I suspect a lot
> of
> > people would not have a problem with teaching
> > 'Intelligent Design' in a religion or
> non-science
> > class with the requisite "this is not science"
> > warning -- if those kinds of classes were
> taught
> > at all. But to teach it as a scientific theory
> > alongside evolutionary theory does not seem
> > appropriate. Where are the testable
> propositions?
>
> Exactly.
>
> To go further, I have no problem with religion
> being taught in schools - I support religious
> education and education in philosophy - I just
> don't want it to be mistaught as science.
This is one place where the prof and I disagree
I am strongly opposed to religious education in our schools on a number of grounds.
The main one being that it has no basis in fact and makes assertions that are demonstrably misleading.
A second is that all religions are equally valid yet make completely different claims. Why should we teach christianity when other people's faith in Bahai, Shintoism, animism, driudism or satanism is equally strong - just because of believe's particular faith?
Yet another is that, especially but not exclusively in this country. religion comes with a lot of very nasty pre-dispositions - subservience, homopobia, xenophobia, sectarianism, misogeny, racial exceptionalism. Which bits are you going to teach? Would you teach a red in tooth and claw fundamentalist jerry falwall christainity or an usama bin laden rejectionist variant of islam - or would you pick a nice cuddly version of both? Are we teaching papal infallability or speaking in tongues?
Local kids already do a short elementary school session on comparative religions and mythologies - I suspect that's mostly about helping them to deal with diversity in the classroom. That seems about enough.
Religion is a blood soaked left over from an earlier age of conquests, crusades and colonisations - it has no place in the modern world
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Trooth
()
Date: November 30, 2011 03:34PM
finito,
As usual, you confuse what Christianity is (read the NT and get it straight from the Source), with the actions that people who call themselves Christians. What preachers and churches do in the name of Christ is (sadly) often different than the teachings of Christ. Jesus never tried to get special tax breaks or planning (whatever that means) or set Himself above anyone. In fact, He died for everyone, including you. You have shaped your warped view based on prejudices and those things that support your prejudice. So be it. As I've said before, it really makes no nevermind to me. But you have never set foot into MBC, so anything you have to say about that church is irrelevant.
I think what you really mean is that the US (and all humans) can not be trusted with power. Especially the power to decide what is morally right and wrong. History is replete with examples, even those who do it in the name of their religion, including Christianity.
As usual, you confuse what Christianity is (read the NT and get it straight from the Source), with the actions that people who call themselves Christians. What preachers and churches do in the name of Christ is (sadly) often different than the teachings of Christ. Jesus never tried to get special tax breaks or planning (whatever that means) or set Himself above anyone. In fact, He died for everyone, including you. You have shaped your warped view based on prejudices and those things that support your prejudice. So be it. As I've said before, it really makes no nevermind to me. But you have never set foot into MBC, so anything you have to say about that church is irrelevant.
I think what you really mean is that the US (and all humans) can not be trusted with power. Especially the power to decide what is morally right and wrong. History is replete with examples, even those who do it in the name of their religion, including Christianity.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: November 30, 2011 03:45PM
finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is one place where the prof and I disagree
>
> I am strongly opposed to religious education in
> our schools on a number of grounds.
>
> The main one being that it has no basis in fact
> and makes assertions that are demonstrably
> misleading.
This is going to sound strange, but I'm not sure how this is relevant. I'd like religion, as in a comparative religion course, taught in schools to basically inform students of what other people believe. I'm not sure how it would be misleading, although, certainly, there is the ability to corrupt it.
> A second is that all religions are equally valid
> yet make completely different claims. Why should
> we teach christianity when other people's faith in
> Bahai, Shintoism, animism, driudism or satanism is
> equally strong - just because of believe's
> particular faith?
I'm not in favor of just teaching one religion. I'm in favor of teaching the most popular ones: Abrahamic faiths, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc, etc. Ideally I'd also have the most popular ones historically, taught as well (greek, egyptian, etc).
> Yet another is that, especially but not
> exclusively in this country. religion comes with a
> lot of very nasty pre-dispositions - subservience,
> homopobia, xenophobia, sectarianism, misogeny,
> racial exceptionalism. Which bits are you going to
> teach? Would you teach a red in tooth and claw
> fundamentalist jerry falwall christainity or an
> usama bin laden rejectionist variant of islam - or
> would you pick a nice cuddly version of both? Are
> we teaching papal infallability or speaking in
> tongues?
I would teach the basics as a start. I would not shy away from the controversial bits, as they often differentiate various religions. I wouldn't be teaching any of the religions as right, merely as what people believe.
> Local kids already do a short elementary school
> session on comparative religions and mythologies -
> I suspect that's mostly about helping them to deal
> with diversity in the classroom. That seems about
> enough.
Yes, 10+ years ago when I was in school I took an elective comparative religion course. I'm in favor of something like that taught as one of the general courses.
> Religion is a blood soaked left over from an
> earlier age of conquests, crusades and
> colonisations - it has no place in the modern
> world
Maybe so, but people need to be aware of what other people believe.
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is one place where the prof and I disagree
>
> I am strongly opposed to religious education in
> our schools on a number of grounds.
>
> The main one being that it has no basis in fact
> and makes assertions that are demonstrably
> misleading.
This is going to sound strange, but I'm not sure how this is relevant. I'd like religion, as in a comparative religion course, taught in schools to basically inform students of what other people believe. I'm not sure how it would be misleading, although, certainly, there is the ability to corrupt it.
> A second is that all religions are equally valid
> yet make completely different claims. Why should
> we teach christianity when other people's faith in
> Bahai, Shintoism, animism, driudism or satanism is
> equally strong - just because of believe's
> particular faith?
I'm not in favor of just teaching one religion. I'm in favor of teaching the most popular ones: Abrahamic faiths, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc, etc. Ideally I'd also have the most popular ones historically, taught as well (greek, egyptian, etc).
> Yet another is that, especially but not
> exclusively in this country. religion comes with a
> lot of very nasty pre-dispositions - subservience,
> homopobia, xenophobia, sectarianism, misogeny,
> racial exceptionalism. Which bits are you going to
> teach? Would you teach a red in tooth and claw
> fundamentalist jerry falwall christainity or an
> usama bin laden rejectionist variant of islam - or
> would you pick a nice cuddly version of both? Are
> we teaching papal infallability or speaking in
> tongues?
I would teach the basics as a start. I would not shy away from the controversial bits, as they often differentiate various religions. I wouldn't be teaching any of the religions as right, merely as what people believe.
> Local kids already do a short elementary school
> session on comparative religions and mythologies -
> I suspect that's mostly about helping them to deal
> with diversity in the classroom. That seems about
> enough.
Yes, 10+ years ago when I was in school I took an elective comparative religion course. I'm in favor of something like that taught as one of the general courses.
> Religion is a blood soaked left over from an
> earlier age of conquests, crusades and
> colonisations - it has no place in the modern
> world
Maybe so, but people need to be aware of what other people believe.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: November 30, 2011 03:50PM
Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito,
>
> As usual, you confuse what Christianity is (read
> the NT and get it straight from the Source), with
> the actions that people who call themselves
> Christians. What preachers and churches do in the
> name of Christ is (sadly) often different than the
> teachings of Christ. Jesus never tried to get
> special tax breaks or planning (whatever that
> means) or set Himself above anyone. In fact, He
> died for everyone, including you. You have shaped
> your warped view based on prejudices and those
> things that support your prejudice. So be it. As
> I've said before, it really makes no nevermind to
> me. But you have never set foot into MBC, so
> anything you have to say about that church is
> irrelevant.
>
> I think what you really mean is that the US (and
> all humans) can not be trusted with power.
> Especially the power to decide what is morally
> right and wrong. History is replete with
> examples, even those who do it in the name of
> their religion, including Christianity.
I would agree that you can't always make generalizations of a philosophy (religion) based on what the adherents practice. As to what the religion actually teaches, there could be some discussion there.
In any event, I'm curious, Jesus died for everyone, including me, correct?
What do you think this means, exactly?
The reason I ask is, do you think it matters whether we accept him or reject him? After all, our sins are all forgiven regardless, right?
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito,
>
> As usual, you confuse what Christianity is (read
> the NT and get it straight from the Source), with
> the actions that people who call themselves
> Christians. What preachers and churches do in the
> name of Christ is (sadly) often different than the
> teachings of Christ. Jesus never tried to get
> special tax breaks or planning (whatever that
> means) or set Himself above anyone. In fact, He
> died for everyone, including you. You have shaped
> your warped view based on prejudices and those
> things that support your prejudice. So be it. As
> I've said before, it really makes no nevermind to
> me. But you have never set foot into MBC, so
> anything you have to say about that church is
> irrelevant.
>
> I think what you really mean is that the US (and
> all humans) can not be trusted with power.
> Especially the power to decide what is morally
> right and wrong. History is replete with
> examples, even those who do it in the name of
> their religion, including Christianity.
I would agree that you can't always make generalizations of a philosophy (religion) based on what the adherents practice. As to what the religion actually teaches, there could be some discussion there.
In any event, I'm curious, Jesus died for everyone, including me, correct?
What do you think this means, exactly?
The reason I ask is, do you think it matters whether we accept him or reject him? After all, our sins are all forgiven regardless, right?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Trooth
()
Date: November 30, 2011 03:59PM
Prof. P,
I know what I am referring to and it is the theory of Intelligent Design. Perhaps you should research it a little more than the apparent Google/Wikipedia search you've done. I recommend that you read some of the dozens of books on the subject from scholars, scientists, researchers and theologians. In fact, you're embrace of scientific theory as "scientific fact" makes me think you should read more on many of the theories you've embraced, especially those articles and books that challenge your notions and presumptions.
You seem to have a naive view of modern science as some pristine and pure quest for knowledge without any agendas or prejudices and immune to human frailties that effect every other area of human existence, including the church and religions. Of course, as has been demonstrated time and time again, this is nonsense. But your conclusions assume that theories exist in stovepipes and that scientific hypotheses are distinct and discreet instances of thought that aren't related to those of another theory. I don't think you believe that, but you deflect using this tactic when challenged.
You've admitted that, in the end, your POV is based on those assumptions you accept and those assumptions you reject. So, your conclusions are skewed thus. This is true of all of us of course. Unfortunately for some, in the end, either the Bible is right or it is not. If it is not, then the Judeo-Christian faith is built on a fairy tale. It it is the word of God, then it is ALL the word of God and those who pick and choose what they wish to believe or follow are as lost as those who reject it all.
Why don't you go to MCB and sit through a few services. Better yet, watch it live on the Internet (not as good as being there IMO, but less hassle for the hassle-averse). You have nothing to lose and much to gain.
I know what I am referring to and it is the theory of Intelligent Design. Perhaps you should research it a little more than the apparent Google/Wikipedia search you've done. I recommend that you read some of the dozens of books on the subject from scholars, scientists, researchers and theologians. In fact, you're embrace of scientific theory as "scientific fact" makes me think you should read more on many of the theories you've embraced, especially those articles and books that challenge your notions and presumptions.
You seem to have a naive view of modern science as some pristine and pure quest for knowledge without any agendas or prejudices and immune to human frailties that effect every other area of human existence, including the church and religions. Of course, as has been demonstrated time and time again, this is nonsense. But your conclusions assume that theories exist in stovepipes and that scientific hypotheses are distinct and discreet instances of thought that aren't related to those of another theory. I don't think you believe that, but you deflect using this tactic when challenged.
You've admitted that, in the end, your POV is based on those assumptions you accept and those assumptions you reject. So, your conclusions are skewed thus. This is true of all of us of course. Unfortunately for some, in the end, either the Bible is right or it is not. If it is not, then the Judeo-Christian faith is built on a fairy tale. It it is the word of God, then it is ALL the word of God and those who pick and choose what they wish to believe or follow are as lost as those who reject it all.
Why don't you go to MCB and sit through a few services. Better yet, watch it live on the Internet (not as good as being there IMO, but less hassle for the hassle-averse). You have nothing to lose and much to gain.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: November 30, 2011 04:13PM
Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof. P,
>
> I know what I am referring to and it is the theory
> of Intelligent Design. Perhaps you should
> research it a little more than the apparent
> Google/Wikipedia search you've done. I recommend
> that you read some of the dozens of books on the
> subject from scholars, scientists, researchers and
> theologians. In fact, you're embrace of
> scientific theory as "scientific fact" makes me
> think you should read more on many of the theories
> you've embraced, especially those articles and
> books that challenge your notions and
> presumptions.
Apparently not - as I stated, you are referring to the anthropic argument, the universe is 'finely tuned'. It is not a scientific theory. You have not presented the 'scientific theory' of intelligent design, despite saying that ID is a proper theory. Please present it.
I've also done more than a 'google/wiki' search. I've read a few books on the topic, from both ID proponents and science proponents.
As to scientific theory/fact - you seem to be confusing 'fact' with certainty, which I do not do.
It's hypocritical that you chide me for my presumptions when your post is filled with them.
> You seem to have a naive view of modern science as
> some pristine and pure quest for knowledge without
> any agendas or prejudices and immune to human
> frailties that effect every other area of human
> existence, including the church and religions.
More presumptions.
Science is a method, scientific 'truth' is tentative based on the data we have, as a result it's conclusions are not certain.
> Of
> course, as has been demonstrated time and time
> again, this is nonsense. But your conclusions
> assume that theories exist in stovepipes and that
> scientific hypotheses are distinct and discreet
> instances of thought that aren't related to those
> of another theory. I don't think you believe
> that, but you deflect using this tactic when
> challenged.
Even more presumptions. How is burning those strawmen going?
I noticed that you ignored vast swaths of my posts in order to lampoon views I do not hold. Do you think this strategy is effective?
> You've admitted that, in the end, your POV is
> based on those assumptions you accept and those
> assumptions you reject. So, your conclusions are
> skewed thus. This is true of all of us of course.
This is fluff - it makes sweeping claims with no specifics.
> Unfortunately for some, in the end, either the
> Bible is right or it is not.
Wrong, it can be mostly right, 1/2 right, etc, etc. It can contain true facts about historic figures AND falsehoods about historic figures. It's not black and white as you presuppose.
> If it is not, then
> the Judeo-Christian faith is built on a fairy
> tale. It it is the word of God, then it is ALL
> the word of God and those who pick and choose what
> they wish to believe or follow are as lost as
> those who reject it all.
This is your opinion.
> Why don't you go to MCB and sit through a few
> services. Better yet, watch it live on the
> Internet (not as good as being there IMO, but less
> hassle for the hassle-averse). You have nothing
> to lose and much to gain.
I have no need to do this, despite your assertion, I have nothing to gain and I do have something to lose - my time, which is better spent elsewhere.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof. P,
>
> I know what I am referring to and it is the theory
> of Intelligent Design. Perhaps you should
> research it a little more than the apparent
> Google/Wikipedia search you've done. I recommend
> that you read some of the dozens of books on the
> subject from scholars, scientists, researchers and
> theologians. In fact, you're embrace of
> scientific theory as "scientific fact" makes me
> think you should read more on many of the theories
> you've embraced, especially those articles and
> books that challenge your notions and
> presumptions.
Apparently not - as I stated, you are referring to the anthropic argument, the universe is 'finely tuned'. It is not a scientific theory. You have not presented the 'scientific theory' of intelligent design, despite saying that ID is a proper theory. Please present it.
I've also done more than a 'google/wiki' search. I've read a few books on the topic, from both ID proponents and science proponents.
As to scientific theory/fact - you seem to be confusing 'fact' with certainty, which I do not do.
It's hypocritical that you chide me for my presumptions when your post is filled with them.
> You seem to have a naive view of modern science as
> some pristine and pure quest for knowledge without
> any agendas or prejudices and immune to human
> frailties that effect every other area of human
> existence, including the church and religions.
More presumptions.
Science is a method, scientific 'truth' is tentative based on the data we have, as a result it's conclusions are not certain.
> Of
> course, as has been demonstrated time and time
> again, this is nonsense. But your conclusions
> assume that theories exist in stovepipes and that
> scientific hypotheses are distinct and discreet
> instances of thought that aren't related to those
> of another theory. I don't think you believe
> that, but you deflect using this tactic when
> challenged.
Even more presumptions. How is burning those strawmen going?
I noticed that you ignored vast swaths of my posts in order to lampoon views I do not hold. Do you think this strategy is effective?
> You've admitted that, in the end, your POV is
> based on those assumptions you accept and those
> assumptions you reject. So, your conclusions are
> skewed thus. This is true of all of us of course.
This is fluff - it makes sweeping claims with no specifics.
> Unfortunately for some, in the end, either the
> Bible is right or it is not.
Wrong, it can be mostly right, 1/2 right, etc, etc. It can contain true facts about historic figures AND falsehoods about historic figures. It's not black and white as you presuppose.
> If it is not, then
> the Judeo-Christian faith is built on a fairy
> tale. It it is the word of God, then it is ALL
> the word of God and those who pick and choose what
> they wish to believe or follow are as lost as
> those who reject it all.
This is your opinion.
> Why don't you go to MCB and sit through a few
> services. Better yet, watch it live on the
> Internet (not as good as being there IMO, but less
> hassle for the hassle-averse). You have nothing
> to lose and much to gain.
I have no need to do this, despite your assertion, I have nothing to gain and I do have something to lose - my time, which is better spent elsewhere.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Believe
()
Date: November 30, 2011 04:33PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ?
>
> What's the difference in certainty? According to
> some definitions, *humans are apes*.
Ha, good point, I suppose it does depend on your definition not to mention your every-day experience. I guess I was referring to the loose idea that the Theory of Natural Selection, for example, is pretty well proven and not really in dispute. It deserves its Capital T "Theory" status and has a rightful place in science class. But, the general proposition that humans descended from a common ancestor shared by modern apes is not proven, and certainly provokes creationists to want to throw out the whole "evolution" baby with the bath water. It could be presented to students, but not as scientific fact or Theory with a capital T. Maybe give it the same "intelligent design" treatment in the classroom -- it's an unproven idea that some believe.
I'm not saying we should shy away from teaching controversial scientific ideas, I'm just saying that we do not have irrefutable evidence that the DNA of humans descended directly from the DNA of a common ancestor shared by modern apes. That idea does not enjoy Capital T Theory distinction, and is currently an untested proposition. It could very well prove true, but the evidence isn't there yet. Either way, personally it would not threaten my religious convictions, so I don't care if it eventually deserves "Proven Theory of How Man Descended From Apes" status one day.
Honestly I don't know why creationists get so threatened by evolution being taught in schools in the first place, unless they are clinging to some pretty ignorant ideas.
-------------------------------------------------------
> ?
>
> What's the difference in certainty? According to
> some definitions, *humans are apes*.
Ha, good point, I suppose it does depend on your definition not to mention your every-day experience. I guess I was referring to the loose idea that the Theory of Natural Selection, for example, is pretty well proven and not really in dispute. It deserves its Capital T "Theory" status and has a rightful place in science class. But, the general proposition that humans descended from a common ancestor shared by modern apes is not proven, and certainly provokes creationists to want to throw out the whole "evolution" baby with the bath water. It could be presented to students, but not as scientific fact or Theory with a capital T. Maybe give it the same "intelligent design" treatment in the classroom -- it's an unproven idea that some believe.
I'm not saying we should shy away from teaching controversial scientific ideas, I'm just saying that we do not have irrefutable evidence that the DNA of humans descended directly from the DNA of a common ancestor shared by modern apes. That idea does not enjoy Capital T Theory distinction, and is currently an untested proposition. It could very well prove true, but the evidence isn't there yet. Either way, personally it would not threaten my religious convictions, so I don't care if it eventually deserves "Proven Theory of How Man Descended From Apes" status one day.
Honestly I don't know why creationists get so threatened by evolution being taught in schools in the first place, unless they are clinging to some pretty ignorant ideas.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Believe
()
Date: November 30, 2011 04:51PM
finito benito Wrote:
>
> So are you suggesting that the homonid line
> evolved through to the neanderthal's and then the
> angels turned up and wiped them out to make space
> for modern humans? Are you suggesting that we're
> not mammals? That we were build to look sneakily
> like mammals at the genetic level to confuse the
> unwary?
>
> Or did you have some other specific historical
> point of divine intervention in the evolutionary
> record?
>
Yes, I am saying it is entirely possible that God created a man right there in the middle of ancient hominids, and that homo sapiens shared some of the same DNA as its contemporary hominids, but he had enough different DNA to make it a modern man. I don't know the mechanism God used -- maybe the mechanism was what we call natural selection creating/descending a man (Adam) out of an ancient ape-like ancestor. Maybe it was angels as you said. Maybe God plopped Adam and Eve right there out of nothing into the Garden of Eden, alongside ape-like ancestors living nearby, and they flourished because of their superior intellect and opposable thumbs and other God-given abilities, while neanderthals, etc. eventually died off because they could not compete. None of these scenarios would be beyond the power of a God who created the universe, and I wasn't around to witness it to say how it happened. We only have the archaeological evidence left behind, and it can't tell us definitively.
Just like the discussion of where did the universe come from, I am not threatened by the idea that God put it all in motion, or that he put natural selection in motion as a means for creating a species called Man. This seems to be a simple explanation that satisfies Occam's Razor, even if it is not an explanation for which I can provide definitive proof.
>
> So are you suggesting that the homonid line
> evolved through to the neanderthal's and then the
> angels turned up and wiped them out to make space
> for modern humans? Are you suggesting that we're
> not mammals? That we were build to look sneakily
> like mammals at the genetic level to confuse the
> unwary?
>
> Or did you have some other specific historical
> point of divine intervention in the evolutionary
> record?
>
Yes, I am saying it is entirely possible that God created a man right there in the middle of ancient hominids, and that homo sapiens shared some of the same DNA as its contemporary hominids, but he had enough different DNA to make it a modern man. I don't know the mechanism God used -- maybe the mechanism was what we call natural selection creating/descending a man (Adam) out of an ancient ape-like ancestor. Maybe it was angels as you said. Maybe God plopped Adam and Eve right there out of nothing into the Garden of Eden, alongside ape-like ancestors living nearby, and they flourished because of their superior intellect and opposable thumbs and other God-given abilities, while neanderthals, etc. eventually died off because they could not compete. None of these scenarios would be beyond the power of a God who created the universe, and I wasn't around to witness it to say how it happened. We only have the archaeological evidence left behind, and it can't tell us definitively.
Just like the discussion of where did the universe come from, I am not threatened by the idea that God put it all in motion, or that he put natural selection in motion as a means for creating a species called Man. This seems to be a simple explanation that satisfies Occam's Razor, even if it is not an explanation for which I can provide definitive proof.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Believe
()
Date: November 30, 2011 04:59PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In any event, I'm curious, Jesus died for
> everyone, including me, correct?
>
> What do you think this means, exactly?
>
> The reason I ask is, do you think it matters
> whether we accept him or reject him? After all,
> our sins are all forgiven regardless, right?
You didn't ask me, but I will attempt an answer: Yes, Jesus died for everyone. It DOES matter, gravely, whether we accept or reject him. Our sins are forgiven only for those that choose to accept that forgiveness by accepting Christ as their savior. Those that reject Christ are not forgiven, they are not given eternal life (or their eternal life is unpleasant). Christ is the "last chance" God gave people to reconcile themselves to him.
-------------------------------------------------------
> In any event, I'm curious, Jesus died for
> everyone, including me, correct?
>
> What do you think this means, exactly?
>
> The reason I ask is, do you think it matters
> whether we accept him or reject him? After all,
> our sins are all forgiven regardless, right?
You didn't ask me, but I will attempt an answer: Yes, Jesus died for everyone. It DOES matter, gravely, whether we accept or reject him. Our sins are forgiven only for those that choose to accept that forgiveness by accepting Christ as their savior. Those that reject Christ are not forgiven, they are not given eternal life (or their eternal life is unpleasant). Christ is the "last chance" God gave people to reconcile themselves to him.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
snowdenscold
()
Date: November 30, 2011 06:13PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
>
> In any event, I'm curious, Jesus died for
> everyone, including me, correct?
>
> What do you think this means, exactly?
>
> The reason I ask is, do you think it matters
> whether we accept him or reject him? After all,
> our sins are all forgiven regardless, right?
Yes it matters.
But to answer your first/second question, it depends on your view of the scope of the atonement. Calvinists will say he didn't die for you as a non-believer (assuming you do not come to faith in Christ before you die). Arminians (or 4-point Calvinists) will argue he died for all, but his saving work is not applied until you profess faith. They would also say his death opens the door to make your response possible in the first place.
Either way, neither group believes in universal salvation (i.e. since Christ died for all, all are saved regardless of their faith). That much is clear. The rest is just a debate of the mechanics.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/2011 06:15PM by snowdenscold.
>
> In any event, I'm curious, Jesus died for
> everyone, including me, correct?
>
> What do you think this means, exactly?
>
> The reason I ask is, do you think it matters
> whether we accept him or reject him? After all,
> our sins are all forgiven regardless, right?
Yes it matters.
But to answer your first/second question, it depends on your view of the scope of the atonement. Calvinists will say he didn't die for you as a non-believer (assuming you do not come to faith in Christ before you die). Arminians (or 4-point Calvinists) will argue he died for all, but his saving work is not applied until you profess faith. They would also say his death opens the door to make your response possible in the first place.
Either way, neither group believes in universal salvation (i.e. since Christ died for all, all are saved regardless of their faith). That much is clear. The rest is just a debate of the mechanics.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/2011 06:15PM by snowdenscold.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Trooth
()
Date: November 30, 2011 06:37PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Apparently not - as I stated, you are referring to
> the anthropic argument, the universe is 'finely
> tuned'. It is not a scientific theory. You have
> not presented the 'scientific theory' of
> intelligent design, despite saying that ID is a
> proper theory. Please present it.
>
> I've also done more than a 'google/wiki' search.
> I've read a few books on the topic, from both ID
> proponents and science proponents.
If you're too hung up on the term theory vs. some other term such as hypothesis or principle, I can change the term. It does not matter regarding the point I was making, which was the the concept of ID was developed within the scientific community because it was a more plausible (numerically speaking) answer to how things are than evolution.
I'll tell you what, when you start presenting the theories you cite rather than one sentence summaries of what they are void of any empirical data or actual research, I'll consider it. Let's start with this one:
You stated, "We can trust radiometric dating because various types of radiometric dating converge on the same date for items. Further, they are consistent with other types of dating we have. The probability of them all being false is astronomical." So, please provide us with all the various types of radiometric dating and peer reviewed research that shows they all converge on the same date and how they can not be influenced by outside events. Also, please provide us with what the odds are that they could be wrong. Please cite an authoritative source that has had their conclusions peer reviewed. Up until 25 years ago, we thought the universe was expanding at a constant rate and therefore, the method of dating the age of stars and the universe itself could be derived by how far they were from the origin. Now we've learned that the universe's expansion is NOT constant and that parts of the universe are contracting.
Regarding your assertion that you've read a few books on ID: If you say so. IMO, you posts don't reflect that, but since you are either purposefully or unintentionally missing the whole point of why I brought up ID, it really doesn't matter anyway.
>
> As to scientific theory/fact - you seem to be
> confusing 'fact' with certainty, which I do not
> do.
>
> It's hypocritical that you chide me for my
> presumptions when your post is filled with them.
Perhaps. But I don't profess that science proves my point. That is what you are doing. My entire "theory" that there is a God and that He created the universe and that the Bible is the Word of God is based on faith and what I know personally. Good science is unpresuming, allowing the observations and data to go where they will. Presumption is bad science. When I start relying on science in my arguments, I would expect that you will hold me to the same level of scrutiny.
> More presumptions.
>
> Science is a method, scientific 'truth' is
> tentative based on the data we have, as a result
> it's conclusions are not certain.
Not so much a presumption as an observation. But I concede that you would find my observation presumptive from your perspective
.
>
> Even more presumptions. How is burning those
> strawmen going?
>
> I noticed that you ignored vast swaths of my posts
> in order to lampoon views I do not hold. Do you
> think this strategy is effective?
That was not my intent. I don't ignore the swaths. I respond to what interests me and what I feel like responding to. I personally don't like the method you use to respond (the one I am currently using where you go line by line making long winded and usually repetitive posts). I don't feel it my responsibility to answer you point by point.
The views I think you hold are based on how I interpret your posts. Since I have no idea what views you actually hold, everything I think about you is distilled from what you post on this thread. If it isn't true, so be it.
>
>
> This is fluff - it makes sweeping claims with no
> specifics.
Fluff? LOL, now that is the tried and true Prof P. deflection. You stated in a post above that you don't accept the premise and therefore, can not arrive a that conclusion and then acknowledge that you could be wrong. How then is it fluff to call you out that your conclusions are based on what you choose to accept? You do this all the time. Go back a read the times you've written that something is fluff because you're called out on what you post.
>
> Wrong, it can be mostly right, 1/2 right, etc,
> etc. It can contain true facts about historic
> figures AND falsehoods about historic figures.
> It's not black and white as you presuppose.
I should have been more clear. Either the Bible is the Word of God or it is not. That was what I meant. I was not referring to the hundreds of places in the Bible that are supported by historical artifacts and archeological finds.
>
> > If it is not, then
> > the Judeo-Christian faith is built on a fairy
> > tale. It it is the word of God, then it is ALL
> > the word of God and those who pick and choose
> what
> > they wish to believe or follow are as lost as
> > those who reject it all.
>
> This is your opinion.
No, this is what the Bible says. And either this is right or it is wrong, true or false. Your inability to see that clearly is puzzling. This is logic, not science.
>
> I have no need to do this, despite your assertion,
> I have nothing to gain and I do have something to
> lose - my time, which is better spent elsewhere.
I don't assert you have a need. You don't have a need to invest $1 in a $1,000.000 lottery with 2 to 1 odds either. Your statement comes across as irrational. Whether you do it or not is up to you. If was a suggestion, not an assertion. You're seem to be getting a little prickly Prof.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Apparently not - as I stated, you are referring to
> the anthropic argument, the universe is 'finely
> tuned'. It is not a scientific theory. You have
> not presented the 'scientific theory' of
> intelligent design, despite saying that ID is a
> proper theory. Please present it.
>
> I've also done more than a 'google/wiki' search.
> I've read a few books on the topic, from both ID
> proponents and science proponents.
If you're too hung up on the term theory vs. some other term such as hypothesis or principle, I can change the term. It does not matter regarding the point I was making, which was the the concept of ID was developed within the scientific community because it was a more plausible (numerically speaking) answer to how things are than evolution.
I'll tell you what, when you start presenting the theories you cite rather than one sentence summaries of what they are void of any empirical data or actual research, I'll consider it. Let's start with this one:
You stated, "We can trust radiometric dating because various types of radiometric dating converge on the same date for items. Further, they are consistent with other types of dating we have. The probability of them all being false is astronomical." So, please provide us with all the various types of radiometric dating and peer reviewed research that shows they all converge on the same date and how they can not be influenced by outside events. Also, please provide us with what the odds are that they could be wrong. Please cite an authoritative source that has had their conclusions peer reviewed. Up until 25 years ago, we thought the universe was expanding at a constant rate and therefore, the method of dating the age of stars and the universe itself could be derived by how far they were from the origin. Now we've learned that the universe's expansion is NOT constant and that parts of the universe are contracting.
Regarding your assertion that you've read a few books on ID: If you say so. IMO, you posts don't reflect that, but since you are either purposefully or unintentionally missing the whole point of why I brought up ID, it really doesn't matter anyway.
>
> As to scientific theory/fact - you seem to be
> confusing 'fact' with certainty, which I do not
> do.
>
> It's hypocritical that you chide me for my
> presumptions when your post is filled with them.
Perhaps. But I don't profess that science proves my point. That is what you are doing. My entire "theory" that there is a God and that He created the universe and that the Bible is the Word of God is based on faith and what I know personally. Good science is unpresuming, allowing the observations and data to go where they will. Presumption is bad science. When I start relying on science in my arguments, I would expect that you will hold me to the same level of scrutiny.
> More presumptions.
>
> Science is a method, scientific 'truth' is
> tentative based on the data we have, as a result
> it's conclusions are not certain.
Not so much a presumption as an observation. But I concede that you would find my observation presumptive from your perspective
.
>
> Even more presumptions. How is burning those
> strawmen going?
>
> I noticed that you ignored vast swaths of my posts
> in order to lampoon views I do not hold. Do you
> think this strategy is effective?
That was not my intent. I don't ignore the swaths. I respond to what interests me and what I feel like responding to. I personally don't like the method you use to respond (the one I am currently using where you go line by line making long winded and usually repetitive posts). I don't feel it my responsibility to answer you point by point.
The views I think you hold are based on how I interpret your posts. Since I have no idea what views you actually hold, everything I think about you is distilled from what you post on this thread. If it isn't true, so be it.
>
>
> This is fluff - it makes sweeping claims with no
> specifics.
Fluff? LOL, now that is the tried and true Prof P. deflection. You stated in a post above that you don't accept the premise and therefore, can not arrive a that conclusion and then acknowledge that you could be wrong. How then is it fluff to call you out that your conclusions are based on what you choose to accept? You do this all the time. Go back a read the times you've written that something is fluff because you're called out on what you post.
>
> Wrong, it can be mostly right, 1/2 right, etc,
> etc. It can contain true facts about historic
> figures AND falsehoods about historic figures.
> It's not black and white as you presuppose.
I should have been more clear. Either the Bible is the Word of God or it is not. That was what I meant. I was not referring to the hundreds of places in the Bible that are supported by historical artifacts and archeological finds.
>
> > If it is not, then
> > the Judeo-Christian faith is built on a fairy
> > tale. It it is the word of God, then it is ALL
> > the word of God and those who pick and choose
> what
> > they wish to believe or follow are as lost as
> > those who reject it all.
>
> This is your opinion.
No, this is what the Bible says. And either this is right or it is wrong, true or false. Your inability to see that clearly is puzzling. This is logic, not science.
>
> I have no need to do this, despite your assertion,
> I have nothing to gain and I do have something to
> lose - my time, which is better spent elsewhere.
I don't assert you have a need. You don't have a need to invest $1 in a $1,000.000 lottery with 2 to 1 odds either. Your statement comes across as irrational. Whether you do it or not is up to you. If was a suggestion, not an assertion. You're seem to be getting a little prickly Prof.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: November 30, 2011 07:51PM
Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> >
>
> Yes, I am saying it is entirely possible that God
> created a man right there in the middle of ancient
> hominids, and that homo sapiens shared some of the
> same DNA as its contemporary hominids, but he had
> enough different DNA to make it a modern man. I
> don't know the mechanism God used -- maybe the
> mechanism was what we call natural selection
> creating/descending a man (Adam) out of an ancient
> ape-like ancestor. Maybe it was angels as you
> said. Maybe God plopped Adam and Eve right there
> out of nothing into the Garden of Eden, alongside
> ape-like ancestors living nearby, and they
> flourished because of their superior intellect and
> opposable thumbs and other God-given abilities,
> while neanderthals, etc. eventually died off
> because they could not compete. None of these
> scenarios would be beyond the power of a God who
> created the universe, and I wasn't around to
> witness it to say how it happened. We only have
> the archaeological evidence left behind, and it
> can't tell us definitively.
This is a really dumb argument - it sounds like the death gasps of the victorian church in Britain after Darwin, its just that religion in the US has been locked in its bubble for an extra century. It's the 'what's the most ridiculous thing we can make up with no evidence' strategy?
What you're saying is "well its clear that the universe works this way - well apart from this bit over here that stops me feeling special, so I'll just make up some magic unicorn farts - in fact I'll tell you what colour my unicorn was because that's what my faith says, and anyone who says its a different color hates america"
Why do you think that opposable thumbs required divine intervention - would that be why they are so common amongst primates - and why we can see the variations of the genes responsible through the primate family?
What you're saying makes no sense, you have no evidence, no mechanism, nothing.
Its like saying "gravity works everywhere except, one time I think it worked differently in my kitchen, I know there's no egg on the ceiling and I wasn't there but, you know, nothings beyond god"
Sorry, but frankly that's retarded.
>
> Just like the discussion of where did the universe
> come from, I am not threatened by the idea that
> God put it all in motion, or that he put natural
> selection in motion as a means for creating a
> species called Man. This seems to be a simple
> explanation that satisfies Occam's Razor, even if
> it is not an explanation for which I can provide
> definitive proof.
It clearly doesn't satisfy anything. As you we've discussed before, to predict the state of a complex quantum system, you need another quantum system with at least the same number of degrees of freedom over at least the same length of time. To do that at the scale of the universe over the age of the universe
Specifically, it doesn't satisfy occam's razor as you're now asserting at least two similar systems, and realistically the infinite number needed to get the starting conditions right. Its a silly argument.
Claiming that god set up the big bang so that every quantum of energy that we see embodied in heavy elements went through the vast energies of the post-big bang and the cores and supernovae of stars (which is where they are formed) in exactly the right way to end up with a pope to chat with over dinner is just ridiculous - and its just not necessary
We've moved beyond the idea that the universe is a small place which rotates around christians and christendom and is subject to arbitrary fiddling and miracles- we now know how huge the universe is, the kinds of timescales involved and conditions that have existed and still exist, the processes that underly complex emergent systems, the way physics computes, the way chemistry builds and the way biology develops and uses information
Our understanding of physics, chemistry and biology shows that a divine hand is not necessary to explain the complexity of the universe - time, energy, scale and complexity are enough - at least in the case of our universe
At some point you have to face up to the fact that human's are just not that special, and in the scale of things, the earth is not that special either. We're just blips - both in space and time.
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> >
>
> Yes, I am saying it is entirely possible that God
> created a man right there in the middle of ancient
> hominids, and that homo sapiens shared some of the
> same DNA as its contemporary hominids, but he had
> enough different DNA to make it a modern man. I
> don't know the mechanism God used -- maybe the
> mechanism was what we call natural selection
> creating/descending a man (Adam) out of an ancient
> ape-like ancestor. Maybe it was angels as you
> said. Maybe God plopped Adam and Eve right there
> out of nothing into the Garden of Eden, alongside
> ape-like ancestors living nearby, and they
> flourished because of their superior intellect and
> opposable thumbs and other God-given abilities,
> while neanderthals, etc. eventually died off
> because they could not compete. None of these
> scenarios would be beyond the power of a God who
> created the universe, and I wasn't around to
> witness it to say how it happened. We only have
> the archaeological evidence left behind, and it
> can't tell us definitively.
This is a really dumb argument - it sounds like the death gasps of the victorian church in Britain after Darwin, its just that religion in the US has been locked in its bubble for an extra century. It's the 'what's the most ridiculous thing we can make up with no evidence' strategy?
What you're saying is "well its clear that the universe works this way - well apart from this bit over here that stops me feeling special, so I'll just make up some magic unicorn farts - in fact I'll tell you what colour my unicorn was because that's what my faith says, and anyone who says its a different color hates america"
Why do you think that opposable thumbs required divine intervention - would that be why they are so common amongst primates - and why we can see the variations of the genes responsible through the primate family?
What you're saying makes no sense, you have no evidence, no mechanism, nothing.
Its like saying "gravity works everywhere except, one time I think it worked differently in my kitchen, I know there's no egg on the ceiling and I wasn't there but, you know, nothings beyond god"
Sorry, but frankly that's retarded.
>
> Just like the discussion of where did the universe
> come from, I am not threatened by the idea that
> God put it all in motion, or that he put natural
> selection in motion as a means for creating a
> species called Man. This seems to be a simple
> explanation that satisfies Occam's Razor, even if
> it is not an explanation for which I can provide
> definitive proof.
It clearly doesn't satisfy anything. As you we've discussed before, to predict the state of a complex quantum system, you need another quantum system with at least the same number of degrees of freedom over at least the same length of time. To do that at the scale of the universe over the age of the universe
Specifically, it doesn't satisfy occam's razor as you're now asserting at least two similar systems, and realistically the infinite number needed to get the starting conditions right. Its a silly argument.
Claiming that god set up the big bang so that every quantum of energy that we see embodied in heavy elements went through the vast energies of the post-big bang and the cores and supernovae of stars (which is where they are formed) in exactly the right way to end up with a pope to chat with over dinner is just ridiculous - and its just not necessary
We've moved beyond the idea that the universe is a small place which rotates around christians and christendom and is subject to arbitrary fiddling and miracles- we now know how huge the universe is, the kinds of timescales involved and conditions that have existed and still exist, the processes that underly complex emergent systems, the way physics computes, the way chemistry builds and the way biology develops and uses information
Our understanding of physics, chemistry and biology shows that a divine hand is not necessary to explain the complexity of the universe - time, energy, scale and complexity are enough - at least in the case of our universe
At some point you have to face up to the fact that human's are just not that special, and in the scale of things, the earth is not that special either. We're just blips - both in space and time.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: November 30, 2011 07:57PM
Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > If it is not, then
> > > the Judeo-Christian faith is built on a fairy
> > > tale. It it is the word of God, then it is
> ALL
> > > the word of God and those who pick and choose
> > what
> > > they wish to believe or follow are as lost as
> > > those who reject it all.
> >
> > This is your opinion.
>
> No, this is what the Bible says. And either this
> is right or it is wrong, true or false. Your
> inability to see that clearly is puzzling. This
> is logic, not science.
>
Trooth - meet Believe. Believe - meet Trooth
You both claim to be the true christians but there seems to be a mismatch
'Take it or leave it all creationist literalism' vs 'pick and choose based selective choice of evidence'
They don't seem to be particularly compatible
Just sayin
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > If it is not, then
> > > the Judeo-Christian faith is built on a fairy
> > > tale. It it is the word of God, then it is
> ALL
> > > the word of God and those who pick and choose
> > what
> > > they wish to believe or follow are as lost as
> > > those who reject it all.
> >
> > This is your opinion.
>
> No, this is what the Bible says. And either this
> is right or it is wrong, true or false. Your
> inability to see that clearly is puzzling. This
> is logic, not science.
>
Trooth - meet Believe. Believe - meet Trooth
You both claim to be the true christians but there seems to be a mismatch
'Take it or leave it all creationist literalism' vs 'pick and choose based selective choice of evidence'
They don't seem to be particularly compatible
Just sayin
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 01, 2011 08:37AM
Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ha, good point, I suppose it does depend on your
> definition not to mention your every-day
> experience. I guess I was referring to the loose
> idea that the Theory of Natural Selection, for
> example, is pretty well proven and not really in
> dispute. It deserves its Capital T "Theory" status
> and has a rightful place in science class. But,
> the general proposition that humans descended from
> a common ancestor shared by modern apes is not
> proven, and certainly provokes creationists to
> want to throw out the whole "evolution" baby with
> the bath water. It could be presented to students,
> but not as scientific fact or Theory with a
> capital T. Maybe give it the same "intelligent
> design" treatment in the classroom -- it's an
> unproven idea that some believe.
Humans and modern apes show a common ancestor - this is 'proven' as far as science goes. That is to say that scientists have a high degree of certainty about this. Our closest living relative is the chimp.
> I'm not saying we should shy away from teaching
> controversial scientific ideas, I'm just saying
> that we do not have irrefutable evidence that the
> DNA of humans descended directly from the DNA of a
> common ancestor shared by modern apes.
That depends on what you mean by 'irrefutable'. We have strong evidence, in many forms, that we share a common ancestor with modern apes. This includes DNA evidence. We are 99% genetically similar with chimps, for instance.
> That idea
> does not enjoy Capital T Theory distinction, and
> is currently an untested proposition. It could
> very well prove true, but the evidence isn't there
> yet. Either way, personally it would not threaten
> my religious convictions, so I don't care if it
> eventually deserves "Proven Theory of How Man
> Descended From Apes" status one day.
There are tests we have regarding our common ancestors - one is a broken gene that, if it worked, would enable us to produce our own vitamin C. We share this broken gene, in the same fashion, with chimps and other apes.
> Honestly I don't know why creationists get so
> threatened by evolution being taught in schools in
> the first place, unless they are clinging to some
> pretty ignorant ideas.
Some creationists believe in biblical literalism and to them that means a certain thing. Common descent and being a glorified ape (as opposed to glorified mud) is somehow an insult.
Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You didn't ask me, but I will attempt an answer:
> Yes, Jesus died for everyone. It DOES matter,
> gravely, whether we accept or reject him. Our sins
> are forgiven only for those that choose to accept
> that forgiveness by accepting Christ as their
> savior. Those that reject Christ are not forgiven,
> they are not given eternal life (or their eternal
> life is unpleasant). Christ is the "last chance"
> God gave people to reconcile themselves to him.
So his forgiveness has conditions?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ha, good point, I suppose it does depend on your
> definition not to mention your every-day
> experience. I guess I was referring to the loose
> idea that the Theory of Natural Selection, for
> example, is pretty well proven and not really in
> dispute. It deserves its Capital T "Theory" status
> and has a rightful place in science class. But,
> the general proposition that humans descended from
> a common ancestor shared by modern apes is not
> proven, and certainly provokes creationists to
> want to throw out the whole "evolution" baby with
> the bath water. It could be presented to students,
> but not as scientific fact or Theory with a
> capital T. Maybe give it the same "intelligent
> design" treatment in the classroom -- it's an
> unproven idea that some believe.
Humans and modern apes show a common ancestor - this is 'proven' as far as science goes. That is to say that scientists have a high degree of certainty about this. Our closest living relative is the chimp.
> I'm not saying we should shy away from teaching
> controversial scientific ideas, I'm just saying
> that we do not have irrefutable evidence that the
> DNA of humans descended directly from the DNA of a
> common ancestor shared by modern apes.
That depends on what you mean by 'irrefutable'. We have strong evidence, in many forms, that we share a common ancestor with modern apes. This includes DNA evidence. We are 99% genetically similar with chimps, for instance.
> That idea
> does not enjoy Capital T Theory distinction, and
> is currently an untested proposition. It could
> very well prove true, but the evidence isn't there
> yet. Either way, personally it would not threaten
> my religious convictions, so I don't care if it
> eventually deserves "Proven Theory of How Man
> Descended From Apes" status one day.
There are tests we have regarding our common ancestors - one is a broken gene that, if it worked, would enable us to produce our own vitamin C. We share this broken gene, in the same fashion, with chimps and other apes.
> Honestly I don't know why creationists get so
> threatened by evolution being taught in schools in
> the first place, unless they are clinging to some
> pretty ignorant ideas.
Some creationists believe in biblical literalism and to them that means a certain thing. Common descent and being a glorified ape (as opposed to glorified mud) is somehow an insult.
Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You didn't ask me, but I will attempt an answer:
> Yes, Jesus died for everyone. It DOES matter,
> gravely, whether we accept or reject him. Our sins
> are forgiven only for those that choose to accept
> that forgiveness by accepting Christ as their
> savior. Those that reject Christ are not forgiven,
> they are not given eternal life (or their eternal
> life is unpleasant). Christ is the "last chance"
> God gave people to reconcile themselves to him.
So his forgiveness has conditions?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 01, 2011 08:39AM
snowdenscold Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes it matters.
>
> But to answer your first/second question, it
> depends on your view of the scope of the
> atonement. Calvinists will say he didn't die for
> you as a non-believer (assuming you do not come to
> faith in Christ before you die). Arminians (or
> 4-point Calvinists) will argue he died for all,
> but his saving work is not applied until you
> profess faith. They would also say his death opens
> the door to make your response possible in the
> first place.
I can understand the view that Jesus only died to redeem a select few's sins. It doesn't strike me as very merciful, but I can understand that idea.
The idea that he died to redeem all sins, yet some people still go to hell, doesn't make sense to me.
> Either way, neither group believes in universal
> salvation (i.e. since Christ died for all, all are
> saved regardless of their faith). That much is
> clear. The rest is just a debate of the
> mechanics.
Yes, I realize that. I just don't have a clear understanding as to *why*.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes it matters.
>
> But to answer your first/second question, it
> depends on your view of the scope of the
> atonement. Calvinists will say he didn't die for
> you as a non-believer (assuming you do not come to
> faith in Christ before you die). Arminians (or
> 4-point Calvinists) will argue he died for all,
> but his saving work is not applied until you
> profess faith. They would also say his death opens
> the door to make your response possible in the
> first place.
I can understand the view that Jesus only died to redeem a select few's sins. It doesn't strike me as very merciful, but I can understand that idea.
The idea that he died to redeem all sins, yet some people still go to hell, doesn't make sense to me.
> Either way, neither group believes in universal
> salvation (i.e. since Christ died for all, all are
> saved regardless of their faith). That much is
> clear. The rest is just a debate of the
> mechanics.
Yes, I realize that. I just don't have a clear understanding as to *why*.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 01, 2011 09:14AM
Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you're too hung up on the term theory vs. some
> other term such as hypothesis or principle, I can
> change the term. It does not matter regarding the
> point I was making, which was the the concept of
> ID was developed within the scientific community
> because it was a more plausible (numerically
> speaking) answer to how things are than
> evolution.
Words have meanings and it's easy to switch back and forth between how layman use a term and how scientists use a term. There is a dismissive 'it's just a theory' as though it had no credence to it that creationists often use as an argument against accepting modern science. This is why I make a distinction.
Plus, if you say that intelligent design is a theory and you mean 'guess', then that's fine, but it gets conflated with the scientific usage. Many creationists want intelligent design taught in science class as though it were an actual scientific theory - this is wrong, since it's conflating the term. It misleads people into thinking that intelligent design is scientifically credible, which it is not. It might be philosophically credible, but that's a whole different ball of wax.
As to ID, I am specifically referring to intelligent design held by creationists - I frankly do not know what you are talking about. As I have said, it seems that you are talking about a philosophical argument - the fine tuning argument - which is not a scientific theory.
This is the timeline of intelligent design - you'll notice that creationists began using the term AFTER losing a influential law case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_intelligent_design#Pandas_revised.2C_DI_meets_ID
> I'll tell you what, when you start presenting the
> theories you cite rather than one sentence
> summaries of what they are void of any empirical
> data or actual research, I'll consider it. Let's
> start with this one:
The 'theories' I cite?
Fine, here's an article I wrote a long time ago - I cite from text books and leading authorities on evolutionary science: http://www.allyourfaitharebelongtous.com/content.php?page=view_article.php%3FarticleID%3D13
I'm not asking for citations for a theory of intelligent design - I'm asking you for the actual theory. You won't be able to give me one though, since the ID proponents don't have one. They have no models, no testable data, no explanation. In short, no theory.
> You stated, "We can trust radiometric dating
> because various types of radiometric dating
> converge on the same date for items. Further, they
> are consistent with other types of dating we have.
> The probability of them all being false is
> astronomical." So, please provide us with all the
> various types of radiometric dating and peer
> reviewed research that shows they all converge on
> the same date and how they can not be influenced
> by outside events.
Gee, I thought you were trying to say you were well versed in this stuff! IN any event, I'll provide you with *a* source and then you can do your own homework:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html
> Also, please provide us with
> what the odds are that they could be wrong.
Do your own math on it.
> Please cite an authoritative source that has had
> their conclusions peer reviewed.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html
Check the references.
This references peer reviewed journals:
http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html
More:
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm
> Up until 25
> years ago, we thought the universe was expanding
> at a constant rate and therefore, the method of
> dating the age of stars and the universe itself
> could be derived by how far they were from the
> origin. Now we've learned that the universe's
> expansion is NOT constant and that parts of the
> universe are contracting.
You realize this is completely irrelevant to radiometric dating, don't you?
> Regarding your assertion that you've read a few
> books on ID: If you say so. IMO, you posts don't
> reflect that, but since you are either
> purposefully or unintentionally missing the whole
> point of why I brought up ID, it really doesn't
> matter anyway.
Your opinion is noted and discarded - I could claim the exact same thing to you. The only difference is that I've actually backed up what I've said with citations and arguments and you've ignored vast swaths of arguments and all you seem to be able to do is 'speculate' on what I've put forward.
> Perhaps. But I don't profess that science proves
> my point. That is what you are doing.
More assumptions - Science is not in the game of 'proving' things - I've stated this before in this thread. Scientific facts, theories, laws, etc are all based on current data and the conclusions are reasonable, yet tentatively held.
Read Asimov's relativity of wrong before you go assuming things about what I 'profess':
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
> My entire
> "theory" that there is a God and that He created
> the universe and that the Bible is the Word of God
> is based on faith and what I know personally.
That's not a scientific theory - that is your opinion.
> Good science is unpresuming, allowing the
> observations and data to go where they will.
> Presumption is bad science. When I start relying
> on science in my arguments, I would expect that
> you will hold me to the same level of scrutiny.
I hold you to the same level of scrutiny because of your claims - most of which you have not brought up. You say that God created the universe, but where's your evidence/arguments for this? You say you have faith - good. You say you base it on things you know personally - again, good.
If you mean to influence anyone else's opinion then you are going to need arguments and evidence, not assertions.
> Not so much a presumption as an observation. But
> I concede that you would find my observation
> presumptive from your perspective
Then your observation about my perspective is flawed in some way, since you clearly have my perspective wrong.
> That was not my intent. I don't ignore the
> swaths. I respond to what interests me and what I
> feel like responding to.
In other words, you ignore the difficult bits and hope no one notices.
> I personally don't like
> the method you use to respond (the one I am
> currently using where you go line by line making
> long winded and usually repetitive posts). I
> don't feel it my responsibility to answer you
> point by point.
You can favor many different styles in debates/discussions, you do not have to hold to mine, but the way you are (or were) currently going about it is very ineffective, IMO, since it leaves a litany of unanswered points.
> The views I think you hold are based on how I
> interpret your posts. Since I have no idea what
> views you actually hold, everything I think about
> you is distilled from what you post on this
> thread. If it isn't true, so be it.
I've listed my views many times throughout this thread - now, i don't expect you to go reading all the way through it, but I do expect you to ask as opposed to simply assume things about my views - especially when I've told you before that I do not hold certain views (such as epistemic certainty in science).
> Fluff? LOL, now that is the tried and true Prof
> P. deflection.
If you say so - you made general sweeping claims - what, specifically, is there to respond to?
That my position is 'skewed' simply because you say it is?
> You stated in a post above that
> you don't accept the premise and therefore, can
> not arrive a that conclusion and then acknowledge
> that you could be wrong. How then is it fluff to
> call you out that your conclusions are based on
> what you choose to accept? You do this all the
> time. Go back a read the times you've written
> that something is fluff because you're called out
> on what you post.
It is fluff because you are suggesting my viewpoint is skewed without demonstrating that it is. In short, it's handwaving - as though admitting that I could be fallible is a *bad* thing.
Positions cannot be reasonably avoided simply because there is a chance they could be wrong - they have to be dealt with. This is why your statement is fluff, it seeks to avoid rather than dealing with my position.
> I should have been more clear. Either the Bible
> is the Word of God or it is not. That was what I
> meant. I was not referring to the hundreds of
> places in the Bible that are supported by
> historical artifacts and archeological finds.
Well, it's clearly not the word of God since it doesn't claim to be - it's, at best, a transcribed account of God's words that have since been copied and recopied.
We do not have the originals.
> No, this is what the Bible says. And either this
> is right or it is wrong, true or false. Your
> inability to see that clearly is puzzling. This
> is logic, not science.
Where does it say this? I realize that Paul says that if you don't believe that Jesus was raised from the dead then the faith is in vain, but this is not the same thing that you are suggesting here.
> I don't assert you have a need. You don't have a
> need to invest $1 in a $1,000.000 lottery with 2
> to 1 odds either. Your statement comes across as
> irrational. Whether you do it or not is up to
> you. If was a suggestion, not an assertion.
> You're seem to be getting a little prickly Prof.
The odds of your religion being correct are not 2 to 1. Further, the odds that I would get something from MBC that is not available elsewhere has not been established.
I've suggested that it would not be worth my time - you have provided nothing to counter that. So the rational thing to do would be to not waste my time.
As to being a little 'prickly', perhaps earlier when you were making sweeping claims of positions I do not hold - but not in regards to what you are saying here. What you are saying here is very close, in feeling, to Pascal's Wager and it's simply wrong that I have nothing to lose.
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you're too hung up on the term theory vs. some
> other term such as hypothesis or principle, I can
> change the term. It does not matter regarding the
> point I was making, which was the the concept of
> ID was developed within the scientific community
> because it was a more plausible (numerically
> speaking) answer to how things are than
> evolution.
Words have meanings and it's easy to switch back and forth between how layman use a term and how scientists use a term. There is a dismissive 'it's just a theory' as though it had no credence to it that creationists often use as an argument against accepting modern science. This is why I make a distinction.
Plus, if you say that intelligent design is a theory and you mean 'guess', then that's fine, but it gets conflated with the scientific usage. Many creationists want intelligent design taught in science class as though it were an actual scientific theory - this is wrong, since it's conflating the term. It misleads people into thinking that intelligent design is scientifically credible, which it is not. It might be philosophically credible, but that's a whole different ball of wax.
As to ID, I am specifically referring to intelligent design held by creationists - I frankly do not know what you are talking about. As I have said, it seems that you are talking about a philosophical argument - the fine tuning argument - which is not a scientific theory.
This is the timeline of intelligent design - you'll notice that creationists began using the term AFTER losing a influential law case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_intelligent_design#Pandas_revised.2C_DI_meets_ID
> I'll tell you what, when you start presenting the
> theories you cite rather than one sentence
> summaries of what they are void of any empirical
> data or actual research, I'll consider it. Let's
> start with this one:
The 'theories' I cite?
Fine, here's an article I wrote a long time ago - I cite from text books and leading authorities on evolutionary science: http://www.allyourfaitharebelongtous.com/content.php?page=view_article.php%3FarticleID%3D13
I'm not asking for citations for a theory of intelligent design - I'm asking you for the actual theory. You won't be able to give me one though, since the ID proponents don't have one. They have no models, no testable data, no explanation. In short, no theory.
> You stated, "We can trust radiometric dating
> because various types of radiometric dating
> converge on the same date for items. Further, they
> are consistent with other types of dating we have.
> The probability of them all being false is
> astronomical." So, please provide us with all the
> various types of radiometric dating and peer
> reviewed research that shows they all converge on
> the same date and how they can not be influenced
> by outside events.
Gee, I thought you were trying to say you were well versed in this stuff! IN any event, I'll provide you with *a* source and then you can do your own homework:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html
> Also, please provide us with
> what the odds are that they could be wrong.
Do your own math on it.
> Please cite an authoritative source that has had
> their conclusions peer reviewed.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html
Check the references.
This references peer reviewed journals:
http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html
More:
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm
> Up until 25
> years ago, we thought the universe was expanding
> at a constant rate and therefore, the method of
> dating the age of stars and the universe itself
> could be derived by how far they were from the
> origin. Now we've learned that the universe's
> expansion is NOT constant and that parts of the
> universe are contracting.
You realize this is completely irrelevant to radiometric dating, don't you?
> Regarding your assertion that you've read a few
> books on ID: If you say so. IMO, you posts don't
> reflect that, but since you are either
> purposefully or unintentionally missing the whole
> point of why I brought up ID, it really doesn't
> matter anyway.
Your opinion is noted and discarded - I could claim the exact same thing to you. The only difference is that I've actually backed up what I've said with citations and arguments and you've ignored vast swaths of arguments and all you seem to be able to do is 'speculate' on what I've put forward.
> Perhaps. But I don't profess that science proves
> my point. That is what you are doing.
More assumptions - Science is not in the game of 'proving' things - I've stated this before in this thread. Scientific facts, theories, laws, etc are all based on current data and the conclusions are reasonable, yet tentatively held.
Read Asimov's relativity of wrong before you go assuming things about what I 'profess':
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
> My entire
> "theory" that there is a God and that He created
> the universe and that the Bible is the Word of God
> is based on faith and what I know personally.
That's not a scientific theory - that is your opinion.
> Good science is unpresuming, allowing the
> observations and data to go where they will.
> Presumption is bad science. When I start relying
> on science in my arguments, I would expect that
> you will hold me to the same level of scrutiny.
I hold you to the same level of scrutiny because of your claims - most of which you have not brought up. You say that God created the universe, but where's your evidence/arguments for this? You say you have faith - good. You say you base it on things you know personally - again, good.
If you mean to influence anyone else's opinion then you are going to need arguments and evidence, not assertions.
> Not so much a presumption as an observation. But
> I concede that you would find my observation
> presumptive from your perspective
Then your observation about my perspective is flawed in some way, since you clearly have my perspective wrong.
> That was not my intent. I don't ignore the
> swaths. I respond to what interests me and what I
> feel like responding to.
In other words, you ignore the difficult bits and hope no one notices.
> I personally don't like
> the method you use to respond (the one I am
> currently using where you go line by line making
> long winded and usually repetitive posts). I
> don't feel it my responsibility to answer you
> point by point.
You can favor many different styles in debates/discussions, you do not have to hold to mine, but the way you are (or were) currently going about it is very ineffective, IMO, since it leaves a litany of unanswered points.
> The views I think you hold are based on how I
> interpret your posts. Since I have no idea what
> views you actually hold, everything I think about
> you is distilled from what you post on this
> thread. If it isn't true, so be it.
I've listed my views many times throughout this thread - now, i don't expect you to go reading all the way through it, but I do expect you to ask as opposed to simply assume things about my views - especially when I've told you before that I do not hold certain views (such as epistemic certainty in science).
> Fluff? LOL, now that is the tried and true Prof
> P. deflection.
If you say so - you made general sweeping claims - what, specifically, is there to respond to?
That my position is 'skewed' simply because you say it is?
> You stated in a post above that
> you don't accept the premise and therefore, can
> not arrive a that conclusion and then acknowledge
> that you could be wrong. How then is it fluff to
> call you out that your conclusions are based on
> what you choose to accept? You do this all the
> time. Go back a read the times you've written
> that something is fluff because you're called out
> on what you post.
It is fluff because you are suggesting my viewpoint is skewed without demonstrating that it is. In short, it's handwaving - as though admitting that I could be fallible is a *bad* thing.
Positions cannot be reasonably avoided simply because there is a chance they could be wrong - they have to be dealt with. This is why your statement is fluff, it seeks to avoid rather than dealing with my position.
> I should have been more clear. Either the Bible
> is the Word of God or it is not. That was what I
> meant. I was not referring to the hundreds of
> places in the Bible that are supported by
> historical artifacts and archeological finds.
Well, it's clearly not the word of God since it doesn't claim to be - it's, at best, a transcribed account of God's words that have since been copied and recopied.
We do not have the originals.
> No, this is what the Bible says. And either this
> is right or it is wrong, true or false. Your
> inability to see that clearly is puzzling. This
> is logic, not science.
Where does it say this? I realize that Paul says that if you don't believe that Jesus was raised from the dead then the faith is in vain, but this is not the same thing that you are suggesting here.
> I don't assert you have a need. You don't have a
> need to invest $1 in a $1,000.000 lottery with 2
> to 1 odds either. Your statement comes across as
> irrational. Whether you do it or not is up to
> you. If was a suggestion, not an assertion.
> You're seem to be getting a little prickly Prof.
The odds of your religion being correct are not 2 to 1. Further, the odds that I would get something from MBC that is not available elsewhere has not been established.
I've suggested that it would not be worth my time - you have provided nothing to counter that. So the rational thing to do would be to not waste my time.
As to being a little 'prickly', perhaps earlier when you were making sweeping claims of positions I do not hold - but not in regards to what you are saying here. What you are saying here is very close, in feeling, to Pascal's Wager and it's simply wrong that I have nothing to lose.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Believe
()
Date: December 01, 2011 12:09PM
finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is a really dumb argument...
You can call these arguments dumb that God created the universe, set things in motion, and created humans either directly or through natural selection, but I find them no less compelling or believable than, say, the proposition that the universe sprung out of nothing/nowhere and that everything we experience today -- the complexities of life, biology, birth, physics, gravity, etc. -- are all just the result of random sequences with no meaning. And to say the least, I would not be alone in believing these things. There are billions of people who believe it, probably many tens of millions of those people highly educated, with doctorates in science, etc.
>
> Claiming that god set up the big bang so that
> every quantum of energy that we see embodied in
> heavy elements went through the vast energies of
> the post-big bang and the cores and supernovae of
> stars (which is where they are formed) in exactly
> the right way to end up with a pope to chat with
> over dinner is just ridiculous - and its just not
> necessary
This proposition you've repeated several times is simply not supported, and obviously does not rule out the "magic" of a God capable of creating it.
> At some point you have to face up to the fact that
> human's are just not that special, and in the
> scale of things, the earth is not that special
> either. We're just blips - both in space and time.
I disagree with this conclusion -- whether or not you believe in God, I'm sure you are aware that, in fact, there are apparently very, very few (relatively speaking) solar systems with planets capable of supporting life, and certainly life as we know it. The earth is, in fact, quite special in this regard. Perhaps not unique, but certainly special. What is the current estimate, that there could be maybe a few dozen planets out of billions in nearby galaxies even capable of supporting life (and capability does not mean they do)? And humans do seem to hold a "special" place on the earth, for better or worse depending on your view.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is a really dumb argument...
You can call these arguments dumb that God created the universe, set things in motion, and created humans either directly or through natural selection, but I find them no less compelling or believable than, say, the proposition that the universe sprung out of nothing/nowhere and that everything we experience today -- the complexities of life, biology, birth, physics, gravity, etc. -- are all just the result of random sequences with no meaning. And to say the least, I would not be alone in believing these things. There are billions of people who believe it, probably many tens of millions of those people highly educated, with doctorates in science, etc.
>
> Claiming that god set up the big bang so that
> every quantum of energy that we see embodied in
> heavy elements went through the vast energies of
> the post-big bang and the cores and supernovae of
> stars (which is where they are formed) in exactly
> the right way to end up with a pope to chat with
> over dinner is just ridiculous - and its just not
> necessary
This proposition you've repeated several times is simply not supported, and obviously does not rule out the "magic" of a God capable of creating it.
> At some point you have to face up to the fact that
> human's are just not that special, and in the
> scale of things, the earth is not that special
> either. We're just blips - both in space and time.
I disagree with this conclusion -- whether or not you believe in God, I'm sure you are aware that, in fact, there are apparently very, very few (relatively speaking) solar systems with planets capable of supporting life, and certainly life as we know it. The earth is, in fact, quite special in this regard. Perhaps not unique, but certainly special. What is the current estimate, that there could be maybe a few dozen planets out of billions in nearby galaxies even capable of supporting life (and capability does not mean they do)? And humans do seem to hold a "special" place on the earth, for better or worse depending on your view.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Believe
()
Date: December 01, 2011 12:14PM
finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trooth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > >
> > > > If it is not, then
> > > > the Judeo-Christian faith is built on a
> fairy
> > > > tale. It it is the word of God, then it is
> > ALL
> > > > the word of God and those who pick and
> choose
> > > what
> > > > they wish to believe or follow are as lost
> as
> > > > those who reject it all.
> > >
> > > This is your opinion.
> >
> > No, this is what the Bible says. And either
> this
> > is right or it is wrong, true or false. Your
> > inability to see that clearly is puzzling.
> This
> > is logic, not science.
> >
>
> Trooth - meet Believe. Believe - meet Trooth
>
> You both claim to be the true christians but there
> seems to be a mismatch
>
> 'Take it or leave it all creationist literalism'
> vs 'pick and choose based selective choice of
> evidence'
>
> They don't seem to be particularly compatible
>
> Just sayin
Probably like many things in life, there are shades of gray, it is not a take-it-or-leave-it choice between strict, literal creationsm and 'selectively picking and choosing'. Even if Trooth and I do not see eye to eye on every small detail, his fundamental message is probably pretty close to mine. In fact, we seem to share the same desire to focus on the bigger question at hand (what about my eternal life?), rather than the smaller details.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trooth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > >
> > > > If it is not, then
> > > > the Judeo-Christian faith is built on a
> fairy
> > > > tale. It it is the word of God, then it is
> > ALL
> > > > the word of God and those who pick and
> choose
> > > what
> > > > they wish to believe or follow are as lost
> as
> > > > those who reject it all.
> > >
> > > This is your opinion.
> >
> > No, this is what the Bible says. And either
> this
> > is right or it is wrong, true or false. Your
> > inability to see that clearly is puzzling.
> This
> > is logic, not science.
> >
>
> Trooth - meet Believe. Believe - meet Trooth
>
> You both claim to be the true christians but there
> seems to be a mismatch
>
> 'Take it or leave it all creationist literalism'
> vs 'pick and choose based selective choice of
> evidence'
>
> They don't seem to be particularly compatible
>
> Just sayin
Probably like many things in life, there are shades of gray, it is not a take-it-or-leave-it choice between strict, literal creationsm and 'selectively picking and choosing'. Even if Trooth and I do not see eye to eye on every small detail, his fundamental message is probably pretty close to mine. In fact, we seem to share the same desire to focus on the bigger question at hand (what about my eternal life?), rather than the smaller details.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 01, 2011 12:17PM
Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > This is a really dumb argument...
>
> You can call these arguments dumb that God created
> the universe, set things in motion, and created
> humans either directly or through natural
> selection, but I find them no less compelling or
> believable than, say, the proposition that the
> universe sprung out of nothing/nowhere and that
> everything we experience today -- the complexities
> of life, biology, birth, physics, gravity, etc. --
> are all just the result of random sequences with
> no meaning. And to say the least, I would not be
> alone in believing these things. There are
> billions of people who believe it, probably many
> tens of millions of those people highly educated,
> with doctorates in science, etc.
>
> >
> > Claiming that god set up the big bang so that
> > every quantum of energy that we see embodied in
> > heavy elements went through the vast energies
> of
> > the post-big bang and the cores and supernovae
> of
> > stars (which is where they are formed) in
> exactly
> > the right way to end up with a pope to chat
> with
> > over dinner is just ridiculous - and its just
> not
> > necessary
>
> This proposition you've repeated several times is
> simply not supported, and obviously does not rule
> out the "magic" of a God capable of creating it.
>
> > At some point you have to face up to the fact
> that
> > human's are just not that special, and in the
> > scale of things, the earth is not that special
> > either. We're just blips - both in space and
> time.
>
> I disagree with this conclusion -- whether or not
> you believe in God, I'm sure you are aware that,
> in fact, there are apparently very, very few
> (relatively speaking) solar systems with planets
> capable of supporting life, and certainly life as
> we know it. The earth is, in fact, quite special
> in this regard. Perhaps not unique, but certainly
> special. What is the current estimate, that there
> could be maybe a few dozen planets out of billions
> in nearby galaxies even capable of supporting life
> (and capability does not mean they do)? And humans
> do seem to hold a "special" place on the earth,
> for better or worse depending on your view.
This didn't involve me, but I did want to say a few things:
1. I do not think cosmological arguments for God's existence are dumb. I think they are wrong. I do not accept their premises, HOWEVER, they do appear to be logical and rational if you do (well, I'm speaking primarily of the KCA here, some cosmological arguments are simply invalid).
2. The argument from scale seems compelling to me, perhaps it's not as deductively certain as other atheological arguments seem to try to be, but nevertheless I think it does present a question that theists need to grapple with, if not come up with an adequate answer to.
3. Personally I do not agree with the notion that something really did come from nothing. I hold to the notion of block time. That said, it seems to me that the more rational position is that if something can come from nothing then it would seem to be causeless as there would be nothing for an agent to act upon. That's not to say that the alternative is impossible, it's just it doesn't seem as rational to me because there seems to be a problem with it (agent acting upon nothing).
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > This is a really dumb argument...
>
> You can call these arguments dumb that God created
> the universe, set things in motion, and created
> humans either directly or through natural
> selection, but I find them no less compelling or
> believable than, say, the proposition that the
> universe sprung out of nothing/nowhere and that
> everything we experience today -- the complexities
> of life, biology, birth, physics, gravity, etc. --
> are all just the result of random sequences with
> no meaning. And to say the least, I would not be
> alone in believing these things. There are
> billions of people who believe it, probably many
> tens of millions of those people highly educated,
> with doctorates in science, etc.
>
> >
> > Claiming that god set up the big bang so that
> > every quantum of energy that we see embodied in
> > heavy elements went through the vast energies
> of
> > the post-big bang and the cores and supernovae
> of
> > stars (which is where they are formed) in
> exactly
> > the right way to end up with a pope to chat
> with
> > over dinner is just ridiculous - and its just
> not
> > necessary
>
> This proposition you've repeated several times is
> simply not supported, and obviously does not rule
> out the "magic" of a God capable of creating it.
>
> > At some point you have to face up to the fact
> that
> > human's are just not that special, and in the
> > scale of things, the earth is not that special
> > either. We're just blips - both in space and
> time.
>
> I disagree with this conclusion -- whether or not
> you believe in God, I'm sure you are aware that,
> in fact, there are apparently very, very few
> (relatively speaking) solar systems with planets
> capable of supporting life, and certainly life as
> we know it. The earth is, in fact, quite special
> in this regard. Perhaps not unique, but certainly
> special. What is the current estimate, that there
> could be maybe a few dozen planets out of billions
> in nearby galaxies even capable of supporting life
> (and capability does not mean they do)? And humans
> do seem to hold a "special" place on the earth,
> for better or worse depending on your view.
This didn't involve me, but I did want to say a few things:
1. I do not think cosmological arguments for God's existence are dumb. I think they are wrong. I do not accept their premises, HOWEVER, they do appear to be logical and rational if you do (well, I'm speaking primarily of the KCA here, some cosmological arguments are simply invalid).
2. The argument from scale seems compelling to me, perhaps it's not as deductively certain as other atheological arguments seem to try to be, but nevertheless I think it does present a question that theists need to grapple with, if not come up with an adequate answer to.
3. Personally I do not agree with the notion that something really did come from nothing. I hold to the notion of block time. That said, it seems to me that the more rational position is that if something can come from nothing then it would seem to be causeless as there would be nothing for an agent to act upon. That's not to say that the alternative is impossible, it's just it doesn't seem as rational to me because there seems to be a problem with it (agent acting upon nothing).
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Believe
()
Date: December 01, 2011 12:38PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Humans and modern apes show a common ancestor -
> this is 'proven' as far as science goes. That is
> to say that scientists have a high degree of
> certainty about this. Our closest living relative
> is the chimp.
Agree our closest living relative from a DNA perspective is the chimp. I'd say whether this is because we descended from a common ancestor is less clear, but certainly could be the case.
>
>
> That depends on what you mean by 'irrefutable'. We
> have strong evidence, in many forms, that we share
> a common ancestor with modern apes. This includes
> DNA evidence. We are 99% genetically similar with
> chimps, for instance.
>
Yes, but we cannot say whether or not that is by design or from a common ancestor. I could make a cake, then make another cake that is 99% similar to the first one using almost all the same ingredients, but then add 1% different ingredients. It would not mean the second cake descended from the first cake. I realize this is a pretty fast and loose analogy here since biological processes are not like making cakes, but just trying to make a point about design/creation.
>
> There are tests we have regarding our common
> ancestors - one is a broken gene that, if it
> worked, would enable us to produce our own vitamin
> C. We share this broken gene, in the same fashion,
> with chimps and other apes.
Yes, I agree this is one piece of evidence suggesting we could share a common ancestor. But as above, who can say whether that gene was broken, for a purpose, by a designer, or broken in both species separately? I'm not trying to jump through hoops, and I acknowledge some of these scenarios are less credible than others. Again, it could absolutely be the case that we descended from a common ancestor.
>
> > Honestly I don't know why creationists get so
> > threatened by evolution being taught in schools
> in
> > the first place, unless they are clinging to
> some
> > pretty ignorant ideas.
>
> Some creationists believe in biblical literalism
> and to them that means a certain thing. Common
> descent and being a glorified ape (as opposed to
> glorified mud) is somehow an insult.
>
Yes, sadly you are probably right
>So his forgiveness has conditions?
I think the only "condition," if you want to call it that, is that you have to accept/acknowledge it. Forgiveness/salvation is offered to all, only some will choose to accept it. As though if my father offered me a gift for christmas, I can choose to accept it or refuse it (and probably hurt and disappoint him in the process).
-------------------------------------------------------
> Humans and modern apes show a common ancestor -
> this is 'proven' as far as science goes. That is
> to say that scientists have a high degree of
> certainty about this. Our closest living relative
> is the chimp.
Agree our closest living relative from a DNA perspective is the chimp. I'd say whether this is because we descended from a common ancestor is less clear, but certainly could be the case.
>
>
> That depends on what you mean by 'irrefutable'. We
> have strong evidence, in many forms, that we share
> a common ancestor with modern apes. This includes
> DNA evidence. We are 99% genetically similar with
> chimps, for instance.
>
Yes, but we cannot say whether or not that is by design or from a common ancestor. I could make a cake, then make another cake that is 99% similar to the first one using almost all the same ingredients, but then add 1% different ingredients. It would not mean the second cake descended from the first cake. I realize this is a pretty fast and loose analogy here since biological processes are not like making cakes, but just trying to make a point about design/creation.
>
> There are tests we have regarding our common
> ancestors - one is a broken gene that, if it
> worked, would enable us to produce our own vitamin
> C. We share this broken gene, in the same fashion,
> with chimps and other apes.
Yes, I agree this is one piece of evidence suggesting we could share a common ancestor. But as above, who can say whether that gene was broken, for a purpose, by a designer, or broken in both species separately? I'm not trying to jump through hoops, and I acknowledge some of these scenarios are less credible than others. Again, it could absolutely be the case that we descended from a common ancestor.
>
> > Honestly I don't know why creationists get so
> > threatened by evolution being taught in schools
> in
> > the first place, unless they are clinging to
> some
> > pretty ignorant ideas.
>
> Some creationists believe in biblical literalism
> and to them that means a certain thing. Common
> descent and being a glorified ape (as opposed to
> glorified mud) is somehow an insult.
>
Yes, sadly you are probably right
>So his forgiveness has conditions?
I think the only "condition," if you want to call it that, is that you have to accept/acknowledge it. Forgiveness/salvation is offered to all, only some will choose to accept it. As though if my father offered me a gift for christmas, I can choose to accept it or refuse it (and probably hurt and disappoint him in the process).
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Believe
()
Date: December 01, 2011 12:55PM
Yes, no doubt we can find reasons to be skeptical of the claims of the Christian faith, and you have raised many or most of the primary reasons (whether or not I agree with them). I understand and can respect the conclusion you've reached -- it's a natural and highly reasonable humanist conclusion -- even if one day you discover you are wrong and are forgoing the most important gift ever offered. I could be wrong too. People will look at the evidence in totality and must decide what to make of it.
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Believe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > finito benito:
> >
> > Hmmm, I can understand and even appreciate how
> you
> > see science and Christinity as mutually
> exclusive,
> > but I'm just not there with you. I don't see
> the
> > two at odds, I see them as living harmoniously
> > together.
> >
> > You've raised a lot of good points about
> "picking
> > and choosing" the pieces from Christianity and
> the
> > Bible that seem to support that faith, but I
> have
> > yet to see any scientific observation to date
> that
> > has shown God and Christ to be myths. Just as
> > scientific theories are refined over time (and
> > sometimes entirely discarded), we refine our
> > understanding of what the Bible says over time,
> > particularly in relation to creation or
> historical
> > and archaeological findings. I don't see that
> as
> > convenient picking and choosing, any more than
> I
> > do when it happens in the scientific context.
> >
> > Newton's laws worked very well for our
> every-day
> > existence for a couple of hundred years, then
> we
> > found it to be incomplete and had to refine
> > things. Einstein's relativity theory expanded
> our
> > understanding for situations beyond our normal
> > experience (for velocities approaching the
> speed
> > of light, etc.), but left some problems that
> are
> > yet to be worked out. Quantum theory threw a
> > wrench in many things, and we continue to work
> > those problems out to attempt to harmonize the
> > various fields. Those refinements I do not
> > consider picking and choosing, and neither is
> it
> > in the theological context.
> >
> > There are many things we still do not
> understand,
> > and possibly (probably?) may never. Is light
> made
> > of particles or waves, or both? Can anything
> > exceed the speed of light? That question is
> being
> > worked out right now, and it could turn many
> > things/theories upside down. How does an
> electron
> > get from once position to another without ever
> > being observed in between?
> >
> > You seek a "natural" explanation for
> everything,
> > and I appreciate that. I am not a Christian
> from
> > birth or upbringing, and I was educated in
> > scientific fields and appreciate that
> discipline.
> > We are all left, though, with the natural
> question
> > of "where did it come from?" Did it come from
> > nothing? How will science ever rectify that
> > question?
>
> I appreciate your point of view and it's
> interesting. I don't fault you for attempting to
> harmonize your beliefs with science. Certainly
> millions of Christians attempt to do just that. I
> would contend that, at the end, it's faith and I'm
> fine with that.
>
> To be sure, there are some rational arguments that
> could favor religion - if you accept their
> premises. So religion can be rational. I don't
> accept the premises (obviously) and therefore I do
> not feel that to be religious is rational - but am
> I correct? It's possible that I'm wrong with
> regard to these premises, which is why I say
> religion can be rational.
>
> In any event, I think that if something can come
> from nothing that the only way this could happen
> would be without a cause. I'm not sure that we
> actually have warrant for this though, as I favor
> the view of a block universe, so in my estimation,
> the universe never came into existence from
> nothing.
>
>
> > You asked for evidence of why Christianity is
> true
> > or any more true than other religions. Here's
> what
> > I can offer, though it is not "proof" like
> > dropping a ball from a tower and observing its
> > rate of descent:
> >
> > 1) Many people died testifying to the truth of
> > what they witnessed, including Jesus himself.
> Not
> > for a cause, mind you, like blowing themselves
> up
> > because they were told to do so by a religious
> > leader, but because they firmly believed in
> what
> > they witnessed and would not recant their
> story,
> > even under torture/death. Christianity spread
> like
> > wildfire in the face of a very repressive
> > environment.
>
> The problem with this argument is two fold:
> 1. We don't have any solid basis to believe the
> disciples were killed for their beliefs - it's
> Church tradition. This is outside of Paul - who
> did not witness Jesus's life. Jesus did not die
> for the truth, even according to the Gospels, he
> died because of the mob. His death, as a matter of
> fact, goes against our historical records - people
> were not crucified for pretending to be the
> messiah (nor were they crucified for being
> thieves).
> 2. We have no evidence that if the 'true
> believers' did recant that this recantation would
> have alleviated their sentence. It's possible that
> they all admitted that they were lying and they
> died anyway.
>
> So their beliefs are not relevant to their
> torturous deaths.
>
> > 2) The separate accounts, by different authors,
> of
> > Christ's life all converge in the same
> fundamental
> > way. We don't know with 100% certainty how many
> > distinct authors there were, but safe to say it
> is
> > more than one.
>
> Actually most scholars accept the two source
> hypothesis: Q (early sayings of Jesus) and Mark
> (which the other Gospels rely on). Mark was not
> an eye witness and came decades after the fact.
>
> So what we have is anonymous, not eye witness
> accounts, and came years after the fact.
>
> > 3) There is a mountain of archaeological and
> > historical evidence that firmly supports the
> > existence of Jesus Christ and his time on
> Earth,
> > as well as the other Biblical histories. Even
> if
> > people do not accept that Jesus was the Christ,
> > anyone would be very hard pressed to deny his
> > existence or the veracity of so many other
> > historical claims made in the Bible.
>
> I think Jesus, most likely, existed. I do not
> think the evidence 'firmly supports' his existence
> though. I think his existence is the most
> parsimonious explanation of the early Church. As
> to the veracity of the historical claims of the
> Bible - I'm not quite sure what you are referring
> to. Just because the Bible mentions historical
> figures does not lend any credence to the miracle
> claims within. Stephen Kings new book mentions
> JFK, but that doesn't mean that time travel is
> occurring.
>
> > 4) There are so many Biblical prophecies that
> were
> > made before the fact, and later were proven
> true
> > (often hundreds or thousands of years later).
> > These were not the claims of whack-job
> religious
> > nuts who make a bunch of claims and eventually
> get
> > something right, or eventually just go away
> > because they are shown to be frauds. They are
> > well-documented, specific, prophetic claims
> that
> > have held true. The arrival and importance of
> > Jesus himself was prophesied in the Old
> > Testament.
>
> The prophecies are no more convincing than
> Nostradamus's prophecies. They are not all
> specific nor are they all well documented. As to
> Jesus, I'd say most of those prophecies are
> retrofitted - in fact, the bit about the virgin
> and the riding of two donkeys are a result of
> mistranslations in the Septuagint. The early
> Christians (Justin Martyr in particular) had to
> answer to these criticisms. So this issue has
> been around for a LONG time.
>
> > 5) The life of Jesus Christ had a profound
> impact
> > on the world, arguably the most profound impact
> > any person has ever made in the history of
> > mankind. How did that happen? Was he just a
> > smooth, charismatic person that was also able
> to
> > do magic tricks? Was he able to fake bringing
> > people back to life, bringing himself back to
> > life, healing people known in their communities
> to
> > be infirm or diseased for years, providing
> > prophecies that were later proved true
> (including
> > his own crucifixion and the destruction of the
> > temple, for example), working miracles,
> speaking
> > some of the most profound and revolutionary
> > teachings ever known, successfully
> > arguing/debating deeply held religious
> teachings
> > against the leading theologians of his day? Who
> > can fake all that?
>
> The impact of Jesus is remarkable, but not
> supernatural. I don't see much of a difference
> between him and other religious founders. Further,
> some of the claims you make presuppose the
> accounts are genuine.
>
> As a matter of fact, there were other Messiah's
> running around during the time of Jesus and there
> were other miracle workers who did the exact same
> miracles that Jesus did. Vespasian, for instance,
> cured blind people with spit - just like Jesus
> did.
>
> Jesus was not well known during his day. In fact,
> none of the contemporary historians mention him at
> all. His first mention comes decades after the
> influence of his early church.
>
> > 6) Humans have a natural curiosity, and one of
> > those curiosities that seems to be very
> prevalent
> > in just about everyone is a feeling or hope
> that
> > there is "something" else out there beyond
> > life-death-worm food. Where does that curiosity
> or
> > desire come from? Are our brains just big
> enough
> > to contemplate these metaphysical questions,
> but
> > not big enough to answer them with certainty?
> Or
> > is that curiosity/desire a strictly human trait
> > put there by a creator?
>
> This inclination is because we are pattern seeking
> creatures. We see patterns and infer design. We
> see faces in the clouds, we believe that celestial
> bodies influence our behaviors.
>
> > 7) Not much for you to hold on to since it's
> just
> > my word, but I've seen God work in my life in
> > countless, observable ways. If I was doing a
> > scientific experiment, I could have put forth
> the
> > testable proposition, prayed about it, and then
> > observed the results, and compared that against
> > the non-praying propositions and outcomes. The
> > result would be somewhere in the 90% range, far
> > beyond "chance" or the power of positive
> thinking.
> > The other missing 10% I expect will be answered
> in
> > time, just as some that I thought went
> unanswered
> > for a while later occurred in outcomes I had
> not
> > even considered and with far better results.
> There
> > will probably be a few percent that will
> seemingly
> > go unanswered forever, for reasons I may never
> > understand.
>
> I can't really argue with this, but I do not find
> it very persuasive. I've met Muslims and people of
> other faiths with similar claims.
>
> > There have been many charlatans and abuses and
> > distortions in the history of Christianity; I
> hope
> > you won't commit the fallacy of throwing out
> the
> > fundamental message or truth because of those
> > things, even though I completely get how people
> > draw that conclusion. Pat Robertson, Jerry
> > Falwell, the Pope, etc. do not speak for me or
> > millions of other Christians.
>
> I don't find the fundamental message of
> Christianity all that different from other
> religious leaders. Rabbi Himmel distilled the Old
> Testament laws down to the golden rule, for
> instance.
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Believe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > finito benito:
> >
> > Hmmm, I can understand and even appreciate how
> you
> > see science and Christinity as mutually
> exclusive,
> > but I'm just not there with you. I don't see
> the
> > two at odds, I see them as living harmoniously
> > together.
> >
> > You've raised a lot of good points about
> "picking
> > and choosing" the pieces from Christianity and
> the
> > Bible that seem to support that faith, but I
> have
> > yet to see any scientific observation to date
> that
> > has shown God and Christ to be myths. Just as
> > scientific theories are refined over time (and
> > sometimes entirely discarded), we refine our
> > understanding of what the Bible says over time,
> > particularly in relation to creation or
> historical
> > and archaeological findings. I don't see that
> as
> > convenient picking and choosing, any more than
> I
> > do when it happens in the scientific context.
> >
> > Newton's laws worked very well for our
> every-day
> > existence for a couple of hundred years, then
> we
> > found it to be incomplete and had to refine
> > things. Einstein's relativity theory expanded
> our
> > understanding for situations beyond our normal
> > experience (for velocities approaching the
> speed
> > of light, etc.), but left some problems that
> are
> > yet to be worked out. Quantum theory threw a
> > wrench in many things, and we continue to work
> > those problems out to attempt to harmonize the
> > various fields. Those refinements I do not
> > consider picking and choosing, and neither is
> it
> > in the theological context.
> >
> > There are many things we still do not
> understand,
> > and possibly (probably?) may never. Is light
> made
> > of particles or waves, or both? Can anything
> > exceed the speed of light? That question is
> being
> > worked out right now, and it could turn many
> > things/theories upside down. How does an
> electron
> > get from once position to another without ever
> > being observed in between?
> >
> > You seek a "natural" explanation for
> everything,
> > and I appreciate that. I am not a Christian
> from
> > birth or upbringing, and I was educated in
> > scientific fields and appreciate that
> discipline.
> > We are all left, though, with the natural
> question
> > of "where did it come from?" Did it come from
> > nothing? How will science ever rectify that
> > question?
>
> I appreciate your point of view and it's
> interesting. I don't fault you for attempting to
> harmonize your beliefs with science. Certainly
> millions of Christians attempt to do just that. I
> would contend that, at the end, it's faith and I'm
> fine with that.
>
> To be sure, there are some rational arguments that
> could favor religion - if you accept their
> premises. So religion can be rational. I don't
> accept the premises (obviously) and therefore I do
> not feel that to be religious is rational - but am
> I correct? It's possible that I'm wrong with
> regard to these premises, which is why I say
> religion can be rational.
>
> In any event, I think that if something can come
> from nothing that the only way this could happen
> would be without a cause. I'm not sure that we
> actually have warrant for this though, as I favor
> the view of a block universe, so in my estimation,
> the universe never came into existence from
> nothing.
>
>
> > You asked for evidence of why Christianity is
> true
> > or any more true than other religions. Here's
> what
> > I can offer, though it is not "proof" like
> > dropping a ball from a tower and observing its
> > rate of descent:
> >
> > 1) Many people died testifying to the truth of
> > what they witnessed, including Jesus himself.
> Not
> > for a cause, mind you, like blowing themselves
> up
> > because they were told to do so by a religious
> > leader, but because they firmly believed in
> what
> > they witnessed and would not recant their
> story,
> > even under torture/death. Christianity spread
> like
> > wildfire in the face of a very repressive
> > environment.
>
> The problem with this argument is two fold:
> 1. We don't have any solid basis to believe the
> disciples were killed for their beliefs - it's
> Church tradition. This is outside of Paul - who
> did not witness Jesus's life. Jesus did not die
> for the truth, even according to the Gospels, he
> died because of the mob. His death, as a matter of
> fact, goes against our historical records - people
> were not crucified for pretending to be the
> messiah (nor were they crucified for being
> thieves).
> 2. We have no evidence that if the 'true
> believers' did recant that this recantation would
> have alleviated their sentence. It's possible that
> they all admitted that they were lying and they
> died anyway.
>
> So their beliefs are not relevant to their
> torturous deaths.
>
> > 2) The separate accounts, by different authors,
> of
> > Christ's life all converge in the same
> fundamental
> > way. We don't know with 100% certainty how many
> > distinct authors there were, but safe to say it
> is
> > more than one.
>
> Actually most scholars accept the two source
> hypothesis: Q (early sayings of Jesus) and Mark
> (which the other Gospels rely on). Mark was not
> an eye witness and came decades after the fact.
>
> So what we have is anonymous, not eye witness
> accounts, and came years after the fact.
>
> > 3) There is a mountain of archaeological and
> > historical evidence that firmly supports the
> > existence of Jesus Christ and his time on
> Earth,
> > as well as the other Biblical histories. Even
> if
> > people do not accept that Jesus was the Christ,
> > anyone would be very hard pressed to deny his
> > existence or the veracity of so many other
> > historical claims made in the Bible.
>
> I think Jesus, most likely, existed. I do not
> think the evidence 'firmly supports' his existence
> though. I think his existence is the most
> parsimonious explanation of the early Church. As
> to the veracity of the historical claims of the
> Bible - I'm not quite sure what you are referring
> to. Just because the Bible mentions historical
> figures does not lend any credence to the miracle
> claims within. Stephen Kings new book mentions
> JFK, but that doesn't mean that time travel is
> occurring.
>
> > 4) There are so many Biblical prophecies that
> were
> > made before the fact, and later were proven
> true
> > (often hundreds or thousands of years later).
> > These were not the claims of whack-job
> religious
> > nuts who make a bunch of claims and eventually
> get
> > something right, or eventually just go away
> > because they are shown to be frauds. They are
> > well-documented, specific, prophetic claims
> that
> > have held true. The arrival and importance of
> > Jesus himself was prophesied in the Old
> > Testament.
>
> The prophecies are no more convincing than
> Nostradamus's prophecies. They are not all
> specific nor are they all well documented. As to
> Jesus, I'd say most of those prophecies are
> retrofitted - in fact, the bit about the virgin
> and the riding of two donkeys are a result of
> mistranslations in the Septuagint. The early
> Christians (Justin Martyr in particular) had to
> answer to these criticisms. So this issue has
> been around for a LONG time.
>
> > 5) The life of Jesus Christ had a profound
> impact
> > on the world, arguably the most profound impact
> > any person has ever made in the history of
> > mankind. How did that happen? Was he just a
> > smooth, charismatic person that was also able
> to
> > do magic tricks? Was he able to fake bringing
> > people back to life, bringing himself back to
> > life, healing people known in their communities
> to
> > be infirm or diseased for years, providing
> > prophecies that were later proved true
> (including
> > his own crucifixion and the destruction of the
> > temple, for example), working miracles,
> speaking
> > some of the most profound and revolutionary
> > teachings ever known, successfully
> > arguing/debating deeply held religious
> teachings
> > against the leading theologians of his day? Who
> > can fake all that?
>
> The impact of Jesus is remarkable, but not
> supernatural. I don't see much of a difference
> between him and other religious founders. Further,
> some of the claims you make presuppose the
> accounts are genuine.
>
> As a matter of fact, there were other Messiah's
> running around during the time of Jesus and there
> were other miracle workers who did the exact same
> miracles that Jesus did. Vespasian, for instance,
> cured blind people with spit - just like Jesus
> did.
>
> Jesus was not well known during his day. In fact,
> none of the contemporary historians mention him at
> all. His first mention comes decades after the
> influence of his early church.
>
> > 6) Humans have a natural curiosity, and one of
> > those curiosities that seems to be very
> prevalent
> > in just about everyone is a feeling or hope
> that
> > there is "something" else out there beyond
> > life-death-worm food. Where does that curiosity
> or
> > desire come from? Are our brains just big
> enough
> > to contemplate these metaphysical questions,
> but
> > not big enough to answer them with certainty?
> Or
> > is that curiosity/desire a strictly human trait
> > put there by a creator?
>
> This inclination is because we are pattern seeking
> creatures. We see patterns and infer design. We
> see faces in the clouds, we believe that celestial
> bodies influence our behaviors.
>
> > 7) Not much for you to hold on to since it's
> just
> > my word, but I've seen God work in my life in
> > countless, observable ways. If I was doing a
> > scientific experiment, I could have put forth
> the
> > testable proposition, prayed about it, and then
> > observed the results, and compared that against
> > the non-praying propositions and outcomes. The
> > result would be somewhere in the 90% range, far
> > beyond "chance" or the power of positive
> thinking.
> > The other missing 10% I expect will be answered
> in
> > time, just as some that I thought went
> unanswered
> > for a while later occurred in outcomes I had
> not
> > even considered and with far better results.
> There
> > will probably be a few percent that will
> seemingly
> > go unanswered forever, for reasons I may never
> > understand.
>
> I can't really argue with this, but I do not find
> it very persuasive. I've met Muslims and people of
> other faiths with similar claims.
>
> > There have been many charlatans and abuses and
> > distortions in the history of Christianity; I
> hope
> > you won't commit the fallacy of throwing out
> the
> > fundamental message or truth because of those
> > things, even though I completely get how people
> > draw that conclusion. Pat Robertson, Jerry
> > Falwell, the Pope, etc. do not speak for me or
> > millions of other Christians.
>
> I don't find the fundamental message of
> Christianity all that different from other
> religious leaders. Rabbi Himmel distilled the Old
> Testament laws down to the golden rule, for
> instance.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: December 01, 2011 01:09PM
Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > This is a really dumb argument...
>
> You can call these arguments dumb that God created
> the universe, set things in motion, and created
> humans either directly or through natural
> selection, but I find them no less compelling or
> believable than, say, the proposition that the
> universe sprung out of nothing/nowhere and that
> everything we experience today -- the complexities
> of life, biology, birth, physics, gravity, etc. --
> are all just the result of random sequences with
> no meaning. And to say the least, I would not be
> alone in believing these things. There are
> billions of people who believe it, probably many
> tens of millions of those people highly educated,
> with doctorates in science, etc.
>
set back a second - what I explicitly called dunb was your proposition that evolution was beyond reasonable doubt and responsible for al of nature that we see around us - but that it didn't apply to people who were magically teleported in after billions of years
I'll just repeat what you said because frankly its so dumb that it bears repeating...
>Yes, I am saying it is entirely possible that God
> created a man right there in the middle of ancient
> hominids, and that homo sapiens shared some of the
> same DNA as its contemporary hominids, but he had
> enough different DNA to make it a modern man. I
> don't know the mechanism God used -- maybe the
> mechanism was what we call natural selection
> creating/descending a man (Adam) out of an ancient
> ape-like ancestor. Maybe it was angels as you
> said. Maybe God plopped Adam and Eve right there
> out of nothing into the Garden of Eden, alongside
> ape-like ancestors living nearby, and they
> flourished because of their superior intellect and
> opposable thumbs and other God-given abilities,
> while neanderthals, etc. eventually died off
> because they could not compete. None of these
> scenarios would be beyond the power of a God who
> created the universe, and I wasn't around to
> witness it to say how it happened. We only have
> the archaeological evidence left behind, and it
> can't tell us definitively.
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > This is a really dumb argument...
>
> You can call these arguments dumb that God created
> the universe, set things in motion, and created
> humans either directly or through natural
> selection, but I find them no less compelling or
> believable than, say, the proposition that the
> universe sprung out of nothing/nowhere and that
> everything we experience today -- the complexities
> of life, biology, birth, physics, gravity, etc. --
> are all just the result of random sequences with
> no meaning. And to say the least, I would not be
> alone in believing these things. There are
> billions of people who believe it, probably many
> tens of millions of those people highly educated,
> with doctorates in science, etc.
>
set back a second - what I explicitly called dunb was your proposition that evolution was beyond reasonable doubt and responsible for al of nature that we see around us - but that it didn't apply to people who were magically teleported in after billions of years
I'll just repeat what you said because frankly its so dumb that it bears repeating...
>Yes, I am saying it is entirely possible that God
> created a man right there in the middle of ancient
> hominids, and that homo sapiens shared some of the
> same DNA as its contemporary hominids, but he had
> enough different DNA to make it a modern man. I
> don't know the mechanism God used -- maybe the
> mechanism was what we call natural selection
> creating/descending a man (Adam) out of an ancient
> ape-like ancestor. Maybe it was angels as you
> said. Maybe God plopped Adam and Eve right there
> out of nothing into the Garden of Eden, alongside
> ape-like ancestors living nearby, and they
> flourished because of their superior intellect and
> opposable thumbs and other God-given abilities,
> while neanderthals, etc. eventually died off
> because they could not compete. None of these
> scenarios would be beyond the power of a God who
> created the universe, and I wasn't around to
> witness it to say how it happened. We only have
> the archaeological evidence left behind, and it
> can't tell us definitively.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: December 01, 2011 01:15PM
Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Trooth Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > If it is not, then
> > > > > the Judeo-Christian faith is built on a
> > fairy
> > > > > tale. It it is the word of God, then it
> is
> > > ALL
> > > > > the word of God and those who pick and
> > choose
> > > > what
> > > > > they wish to believe or follow are as
> lost
> > as
> > > > > those who reject it all.
> > > >
> > > > This is your opinion.
> > >
> > > No, this is what the Bible says. And either
> > this
> > > is right or it is wrong, true or false. Your
> > > inability to see that clearly is puzzling.
> > This
> > > is logic, not science.
> > >
> >
> > Trooth - meet Believe. Believe - meet Trooth
> >
> > You both claim to be the true christians but
> there
> > seems to be a mismatch
> >
> > 'Take it or leave it all creationist
> literalism'
> > vs 'pick and choose based selective choice of
> > evidence'
> >
> > They don't seem to be particularly compatible
> >
> > Just sayin
>
>
> Probably like many things in life, there are
> shades of gray, it is not a take-it-or-leave-it
> choice between strict, literal creationsm and
> 'selectively picking and choosing'. Even if Trooth
> and I do not see eye to eye on every small detail,
> his fundamental message is probably pretty close
> to mine. In fact, we seem to share the same desire
> to focus on the bigger question at hand (what
> about my eternal life?), rather than the smaller
> details.
sorry, I'm just not getting this...
the difference between
a) the natural universe being billions of years old and governed by physical forces, with life on earth being driven by natural selection and evolution apart from man who is dropped in at the last minute, with the bible being a collection of some facts and some myths (conveniently selected)
vs
b) strict biblical literalism of the bible being the absolute word of god - and of a one-shot creation of nature fully formed
is a small detail?
Wow - then sorting out all the simple schisms across christianity shouldn't take more than a couple of days then
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Trooth Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > If it is not, then
> > > > > the Judeo-Christian faith is built on a
> > fairy
> > > > > tale. It it is the word of God, then it
> is
> > > ALL
> > > > > the word of God and those who pick and
> > choose
> > > > what
> > > > > they wish to believe or follow are as
> lost
> > as
> > > > > those who reject it all.
> > > >
> > > > This is your opinion.
> > >
> > > No, this is what the Bible says. And either
> > this
> > > is right or it is wrong, true or false. Your
> > > inability to see that clearly is puzzling.
> > This
> > > is logic, not science.
> > >
> >
> > Trooth - meet Believe. Believe - meet Trooth
> >
> > You both claim to be the true christians but
> there
> > seems to be a mismatch
> >
> > 'Take it or leave it all creationist
> literalism'
> > vs 'pick and choose based selective choice of
> > evidence'
> >
> > They don't seem to be particularly compatible
> >
> > Just sayin
>
>
> Probably like many things in life, there are
> shades of gray, it is not a take-it-or-leave-it
> choice between strict, literal creationsm and
> 'selectively picking and choosing'. Even if Trooth
> and I do not see eye to eye on every small detail,
> his fundamental message is probably pretty close
> to mine. In fact, we seem to share the same desire
> to focus on the bigger question at hand (what
> about my eternal life?), rather than the smaller
> details.
sorry, I'm just not getting this...
the difference between
a) the natural universe being billions of years old and governed by physical forces, with life on earth being driven by natural selection and evolution apart from man who is dropped in at the last minute, with the bible being a collection of some facts and some myths (conveniently selected)
vs
b) strict biblical literalism of the bible being the absolute word of god - and of a one-shot creation of nature fully formed
is a small detail?
Wow - then sorting out all the simple schisms across christianity shouldn't take more than a couple of days then
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: December 01, 2011 01:34PM
Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Claiming that god set up the big bang so that
> > every quantum of energy that we see embodied in
> > heavy elements went through the vast energies
> of
> > the post-big bang and the cores and supernovae
> of
> > stars (which is where they are formed) in
> exactly
> > the right way to end up with a pope to chat
> with
> > over dinner is just ridiculous - and its just
> not
> > necessary
>
> This proposition you've repeated several times is
> simply not supported, and obviously does not rule
> out the "magic" of a God capable of creating it.
>
I think you'll find that this is well supported both by quantum physics, astronomy and our understanding of formally complex systems - the computational nature of the universe is slowly becoming better understood (seth lloyds book is more approachable than many) and the nuclear chemistry of stars is reasonably well understood - I don't think you'll find anything contentious in what I've said, it implicit in the fine and large grain structure of the universe as we observe it
I find your continual introduction of moments of "magic" which never shows up anywhere else as somewhat bizarre. If 'magic' was used, then you'd see lots of real discontinuities around us, and they just don't exist.
> > At some point you have to face up to the fact
> that
> > human's are just not that special, and in the
> > scale of things, the earth is not that special
> > either. We're just blips - both in space and
> time.
>
> I disagree with this conclusion -- whether or not
> you believe in God, I'm sure you are aware that,
> in fact, there are apparently very, very few
> (relatively speaking) solar systems with planets
> capable of supporting life, and certainly life as
> we know it. The earth is, in fact, quite special
> in this regard. Perhaps not unique, but certainly
> special. What is the current estimate, that there
> could be maybe a few dozen planets out of billions
> in nearby galaxies even capable of supporting life
> (and capability does not mean they do)? And humans
> do seem to hold a "special" place on the earth,
> for better or worse depending on your view.
So, I'm very much of the other persuasion. Scientsts have continually been extremely cautious in their estimates of planets suited to the emergence of life, preferring to up their estimates step by step. I think this is largely a cultural bias.
My, unproven, view is that in a universe of
- 70 sextillion stars (7 followed by 22 zeros)
- spread amongst 170 billion galaxies
- some containing upto a trillion stars
- an estimated 10 to the power 80 atoms,
- operating at dramatically varying temperatures and energies
- over 13.7 billion years
- and a current diameter of about 16 Billion light years
life will be relatively common
so even if you said that only 1 in a million, million stars had planets which supported life at some point (which I suspect is very pessimistic), that would still leave 700,000,000
The shame is that inter stellar, and inter galactic, distances are so large compared to the likely lifetimes of species that we are unlikely ever to encounter any other lifeforms
The irony is that, yes we are 'alone', but surrounded by a sea of life
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Claiming that god set up the big bang so that
> > every quantum of energy that we see embodied in
> > heavy elements went through the vast energies
> of
> > the post-big bang and the cores and supernovae
> of
> > stars (which is where they are formed) in
> exactly
> > the right way to end up with a pope to chat
> with
> > over dinner is just ridiculous - and its just
> not
> > necessary
>
> This proposition you've repeated several times is
> simply not supported, and obviously does not rule
> out the "magic" of a God capable of creating it.
>
I think you'll find that this is well supported both by quantum physics, astronomy and our understanding of formally complex systems - the computational nature of the universe is slowly becoming better understood (seth lloyds book is more approachable than many) and the nuclear chemistry of stars is reasonably well understood - I don't think you'll find anything contentious in what I've said, it implicit in the fine and large grain structure of the universe as we observe it
I find your continual introduction of moments of "magic" which never shows up anywhere else as somewhat bizarre. If 'magic' was used, then you'd see lots of real discontinuities around us, and they just don't exist.
> > At some point you have to face up to the fact
> that
> > human's are just not that special, and in the
> > scale of things, the earth is not that special
> > either. We're just blips - both in space and
> time.
>
> I disagree with this conclusion -- whether or not
> you believe in God, I'm sure you are aware that,
> in fact, there are apparently very, very few
> (relatively speaking) solar systems with planets
> capable of supporting life, and certainly life as
> we know it. The earth is, in fact, quite special
> in this regard. Perhaps not unique, but certainly
> special. What is the current estimate, that there
> could be maybe a few dozen planets out of billions
> in nearby galaxies even capable of supporting life
> (and capability does not mean they do)? And humans
> do seem to hold a "special" place on the earth,
> for better or worse depending on your view.
So, I'm very much of the other persuasion. Scientsts have continually been extremely cautious in their estimates of planets suited to the emergence of life, preferring to up their estimates step by step. I think this is largely a cultural bias.
My, unproven, view is that in a universe of
- 70 sextillion stars (7 followed by 22 zeros)
- spread amongst 170 billion galaxies
- some containing upto a trillion stars
- an estimated 10 to the power 80 atoms,
- operating at dramatically varying temperatures and energies
- over 13.7 billion years
- and a current diameter of about 16 Billion light years
life will be relatively common
so even if you said that only 1 in a million, million stars had planets which supported life at some point (which I suspect is very pessimistic), that would still leave 700,000,000
The shame is that inter stellar, and inter galactic, distances are so large compared to the likely lifetimes of species that we are unlikely ever to encounter any other lifeforms
The irony is that, yes we are 'alone', but surrounded by a sea of life
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
snowdenscold
()
Date: December 01, 2011 01:57PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I can understand the view that Jesus only died to
> redeem a select few's sins. It doesn't strike me
> as very merciful, but I can understand that idea.
>
> The idea that he died to redeem all sins, yet some
> people still go to hell, doesn't make sense to me.
Then perhaps you will be happy in the company of our Reformed brethren =)
Honestly, I can see both sides of the argument. The "Christmas gift" analogy stated above is fairly accurate though. Jesus's death on the cross is a gift that makes your salvation possible, but only if you choose to accept it (through faith). It's not forced on you (unless of course, you hold to pre-faith regeneration / irresistible grace).
>
>
> Yes, I realize that. I just don't have a clear
> understanding as to *why*.
Just to be clear, what is your 'why' in reference to?
- Why faith is the agent for salvation (and all that goes along with it - forensic justification, imputed righteousness, etc.) as opposed to something else (e.g. 10 jumping jacks), or perhaps nothing at all?
Christ's death is the basis of salvation. Faith is the requirement for salvation. The object of our faith is God. (and I'll stop here to avoid any dispensational / covenant arguments)
- Or why the natural outcome of the atonement isn't universal salvation?
See above.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I can understand the view that Jesus only died to
> redeem a select few's sins. It doesn't strike me
> as very merciful, but I can understand that idea.
>
> The idea that he died to redeem all sins, yet some
> people still go to hell, doesn't make sense to me.
Then perhaps you will be happy in the company of our Reformed brethren =)
Honestly, I can see both sides of the argument. The "Christmas gift" analogy stated above is fairly accurate though. Jesus's death on the cross is a gift that makes your salvation possible, but only if you choose to accept it (through faith). It's not forced on you (unless of course, you hold to pre-faith regeneration / irresistible grace).
>
>
> Yes, I realize that. I just don't have a clear
> understanding as to *why*.
Just to be clear, what is your 'why' in reference to?
- Why faith is the agent for salvation (and all that goes along with it - forensic justification, imputed righteousness, etc.) as opposed to something else (e.g. 10 jumping jacks), or perhaps nothing at all?
Christ's death is the basis of salvation. Faith is the requirement for salvation. The object of our faith is God. (and I'll stop here to avoid any dispensational / covenant arguments)
- Or why the natural outcome of the atonement isn't universal salvation?
See above.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 01, 2011 01:58PM
Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agree our closest living relative from a DNA
> perspective is the chimp. I'd say whether this is
> because we descended from a common ancestor is
> less clear, but certainly could be the case.
I'm afraid I don't see what is unclear here. Why should we view mankind's evolutionary path any different? We actually have better fossil evidence for humanities transitions than we do for the transition of chimps.
> Yes, but we cannot say whether or not that is by
> design or from a common ancestor. I could make a
> cake, then make another cake that is 99% similar
> to the first one using almost all the same
> ingredients, but then add 1% different
> ingredients. It would not mean the second cake
> descended from the first cake. I realize this is a
> pretty fast and loose analogy here since
> biological processes are not like making cakes,
> but just trying to make a point about
> design/creation.
I'm not seeing the dichotomy between a common ancestor and *design*. It could be both or neither. I don't think design is a scientific conclusion, but putting that aside, I'm not sure what you are getting at here.
Are you suggesting that human beings were made, essentially from scratch? As opposed to a creator influencing (designing) the accumulation of mutations that human beings have?
If it's human beings from scratch, I would say the overwhelming evidence is against this. Is it certain? No, but nothing in science is. We can be reasonably confident of that conclusion though.
> Yes, I agree this is one piece of evidence
> suggesting we could share a common ancestor. But
> as above, who can say whether that gene was
> broken, for a purpose, by a designer, or broken in
> both species separately? I'm not trying to jump
> through hoops, and I acknowledge some of these
> scenarios are less credible than others. Again, it
> could absolutely be the case that we descended
> from a common ancestor.
I would actually say this detracts from a 'designer' since anything can then be attributed to it. What would falsify a designer?
> Yes, sadly you are probably right
I don't know - I don't see the need of some religious people to deny scientific conclusions. Let's say that human beings evolved from a common ancestor - does that take anything away from the Christian message? The "difference" between humans and other animals, according to religious people, is the *soul*. It's not the physical body, really. God breathed a soul into man, not animals. Presumably the soul is outside of the material and as such would not evolve.
>
> >So his forgiveness has conditions?
>
> I think the only "condition," if you want to call
> it that, is that you have to accept/acknowledge
> it. Forgiveness/salvation is offered to all, only
> some will choose to accept it. As though if my
> father offered me a gift for christmas, I can
> choose to accept it or refuse it (and probably
> hurt and disappoint him in the process).
I'm not sure I read it like this - It's through God's grace that Jesus died for our sins. He paid the price, right? It's not a matter of accepting that he did or not - it's not like if we reject it, that sin rematerializes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agree our closest living relative from a DNA
> perspective is the chimp. I'd say whether this is
> because we descended from a common ancestor is
> less clear, but certainly could be the case.
I'm afraid I don't see what is unclear here. Why should we view mankind's evolutionary path any different? We actually have better fossil evidence for humanities transitions than we do for the transition of chimps.
> Yes, but we cannot say whether or not that is by
> design or from a common ancestor. I could make a
> cake, then make another cake that is 99% similar
> to the first one using almost all the same
> ingredients, but then add 1% different
> ingredients. It would not mean the second cake
> descended from the first cake. I realize this is a
> pretty fast and loose analogy here since
> biological processes are not like making cakes,
> but just trying to make a point about
> design/creation.
I'm not seeing the dichotomy between a common ancestor and *design*. It could be both or neither. I don't think design is a scientific conclusion, but putting that aside, I'm not sure what you are getting at here.
Are you suggesting that human beings were made, essentially from scratch? As opposed to a creator influencing (designing) the accumulation of mutations that human beings have?
If it's human beings from scratch, I would say the overwhelming evidence is against this. Is it certain? No, but nothing in science is. We can be reasonably confident of that conclusion though.
> Yes, I agree this is one piece of evidence
> suggesting we could share a common ancestor. But
> as above, who can say whether that gene was
> broken, for a purpose, by a designer, or broken in
> both species separately? I'm not trying to jump
> through hoops, and I acknowledge some of these
> scenarios are less credible than others. Again, it
> could absolutely be the case that we descended
> from a common ancestor.
I would actually say this detracts from a 'designer' since anything can then be attributed to it. What would falsify a designer?
> Yes, sadly you are probably right
I don't know - I don't see the need of some religious people to deny scientific conclusions. Let's say that human beings evolved from a common ancestor - does that take anything away from the Christian message? The "difference" between humans and other animals, according to religious people, is the *soul*. It's not the physical body, really. God breathed a soul into man, not animals. Presumably the soul is outside of the material and as such would not evolve.
>
> >So his forgiveness has conditions?
>
> I think the only "condition," if you want to call
> it that, is that you have to accept/acknowledge
> it. Forgiveness/salvation is offered to all, only
> some will choose to accept it. As though if my
> father offered me a gift for christmas, I can
> choose to accept it or refuse it (and probably
> hurt and disappoint him in the process).
I'm not sure I read it like this - It's through God's grace that Jesus died for our sins. He paid the price, right? It's not a matter of accepting that he did or not - it's not like if we reject it, that sin rematerializes.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 01, 2011 01:59PM
Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, no doubt we can find reasons to be skeptical
> of the claims of the Christian faith, and you have
> raised many or most of the primary reasons
> (whether or not I agree with them). I understand
> and can respect the conclusion you've reached --
> it's a natural and highly reasonable humanist
> conclusion -- even if one day you discover you are
> wrong and are forgoing the most important gift
> ever offered. I could be wrong too. People will
> look at the evidence in totality and must decide
> what to make of it.
Fair enough.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, no doubt we can find reasons to be skeptical
> of the claims of the Christian faith, and you have
> raised many or most of the primary reasons
> (whether or not I agree with them). I understand
> and can respect the conclusion you've reached --
> it's a natural and highly reasonable humanist
> conclusion -- even if one day you discover you are
> wrong and are forgoing the most important gift
> ever offered. I could be wrong too. People will
> look at the evidence in totality and must decide
> what to make of it.
Fair enough.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
snowdenscold
()
Date: December 01, 2011 02:10PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm not sure I read it like this - It's through
> God's grace that Jesus died for our sins. He paid
> the price, right? It's not a matter of accepting
> that he did or not - it's not like if we reject
> it, that sin rematerializes.
To clarify on my post above, the atonement only legally pays for the sins of those who believe. It does NOT pay the penalty for those who deny faith (i.e. there is no substitutionary atonement for those people).
It is universal in scope, and limited in application. Christ’s atonement was offered for the whole world, but it must be applied on the condition of faith in order to be efficacious.
(This is all what most Arminians would say - Calvinists would be more sympathetic to your objections)
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm not sure I read it like this - It's through
> God's grace that Jesus died for our sins. He paid
> the price, right? It's not a matter of accepting
> that he did or not - it's not like if we reject
> it, that sin rematerializes.
To clarify on my post above, the atonement only legally pays for the sins of those who believe. It does NOT pay the penalty for those who deny faith (i.e. there is no substitutionary atonement for those people).
It is universal in scope, and limited in application. Christ’s atonement was offered for the whole world, but it must be applied on the condition of faith in order to be efficacious.
(This is all what most Arminians would say - Calvinists would be more sympathetic to your objections)
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: December 01, 2011 02:56PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Believe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> I don't know - I don't see the need of some
> religious people to deny scientific conclusions.
> Let's say that human beings evolved from a common
> ancestor - does that take anything away from the
> Christian message? The "difference" between humans
> and other animals, according to religious people,
> is the *soul*. It's not the physical body, really.
> God breathed a soul into man, not animals.
> Presumably the soul is outside of the material and
> as such would not evolve.
>
The 'soul' is another place where religion has real problems - starting with the complete lack of evidence
I can slice/dice a brain, electrically/magnetically or chemically stimulate it, turn bits on or off, or a whole heap of things - these directly affect both externally observed behaviour/personality and the internally reported cognition and perception. For example I can use magnetic stimulation to stave off depression or deep brain implants to treat parkinsons - if the soul was 'not of of our physical universe' then we would certainly not expect it to be affected by fields or pulses. We can even watch the effect of brain development or damage on capabilities - strokes are a good example, they can substantially affect the cognitive abilities which we think of as distinctly human
There's no evidence that human cognition and conciousness is anything other than an effect of brain function. Brain and cognitive sciences are not yet at the level of maturity of other disciplines but they seem to rule out distinct souls pretty effectively. Sure, the brain is an equisitely complex piece of biological equipment but there's no reason to doubt minsky's statement that 'mind is what the brain does'
Souls are another prey to occam's razor - there's no evidence for them and there are better and simpler explanations that are supported by evidence and experimentation
-------------------------------------------------------
> Believe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> I don't know - I don't see the need of some
> religious people to deny scientific conclusions.
> Let's say that human beings evolved from a common
> ancestor - does that take anything away from the
> Christian message? The "difference" between humans
> and other animals, according to religious people,
> is the *soul*. It's not the physical body, really.
> God breathed a soul into man, not animals.
> Presumably the soul is outside of the material and
> as such would not evolve.
>
The 'soul' is another place where religion has real problems - starting with the complete lack of evidence
I can slice/dice a brain, electrically/magnetically or chemically stimulate it, turn bits on or off, or a whole heap of things - these directly affect both externally observed behaviour/personality and the internally reported cognition and perception. For example I can use magnetic stimulation to stave off depression or deep brain implants to treat parkinsons - if the soul was 'not of of our physical universe' then we would certainly not expect it to be affected by fields or pulses. We can even watch the effect of brain development or damage on capabilities - strokes are a good example, they can substantially affect the cognitive abilities which we think of as distinctly human
There's no evidence that human cognition and conciousness is anything other than an effect of brain function. Brain and cognitive sciences are not yet at the level of maturity of other disciplines but they seem to rule out distinct souls pretty effectively. Sure, the brain is an equisitely complex piece of biological equipment but there's no reason to doubt minsky's statement that 'mind is what the brain does'
Souls are another prey to occam's razor - there's no evidence for them and there are better and simpler explanations that are supported by evidence and experimentation
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 01, 2011 04:27PM
finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 'soul' is another place where religion has
> real problems - starting with the complete lack of
> evidence
Yes, it has problems, philosophical problems. It's, supposedly, immaterial, so it's difficult to envision scientific tests for it. Does this mean it exists? Of course not.
I was not arguing that the soul exists, only that this is the key ingredient, if you will, that makes humans different from animals from a Christian point of view.
> I can slice/dice a brain,
> electrically/magnetically or chemically stimulate
> it, turn bits on or off, or a whole heap of things
> - these directly affect both externally observed
> behaviour/personality and the internally reported
> cognition and perception. For example I can use
> magnetic stimulation to stave off depression or
> deep brain implants to treat parkinsons - if the
> soul was 'not of of our physical universe' then we
> would certainly not expect it to be affected by
> fields or pulses. We can even watch the effect of
> brain development or damage on capabilities -
> strokes are a good example, they can substantially
> affect the cognitive abilities which we think of
> as distinctly human
While I agree with most of your reasoning, I'm not sure it effectively eliminates the possibility of the soul. Keep in mind, I'm not actually advocating a soul, but I can envision a soul being similar to a radio signal and the body (brain) being akin to a car radio. You can tear apart the car radio without actually effecting the radio signal. Certainly the car radio may no longer be able to play the radio signal, or the signal is distorted, or what have you. So while the music has the appearance of being generated by the car radio, we both know it's not actually generated by the radio. So it's at least conceivable, in some sense, that the soul acts upon the brain in some fashion.
To be sure, there are problems with this - the chief being if this is the case, what keeps the soul tethered to the body?
> There's no evidence that human cognition and
> conciousness is anything other than an effect of
> brain function.
I would agree with this.
> Brain and cognitive sciences are
> not yet at the level of maturity of other
> disciplines but they seem to rule out distinct
> souls pretty effectively. Sure, the brain is an
> equisitely complex piece of biological equipment
> but there's no reason to doubt minsky's statement
> that 'mind is what the brain does'
I would also agree with this.
> Souls are another prey to occam's razor - there's
> no evidence for them and there are better and
> simpler explanations that are supported by
> evidence and experimentation
Again, I would agree with this.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 'soul' is another place where religion has
> real problems - starting with the complete lack of
> evidence
Yes, it has problems, philosophical problems. It's, supposedly, immaterial, so it's difficult to envision scientific tests for it. Does this mean it exists? Of course not.
I was not arguing that the soul exists, only that this is the key ingredient, if you will, that makes humans different from animals from a Christian point of view.
> I can slice/dice a brain,
> electrically/magnetically or chemically stimulate
> it, turn bits on or off, or a whole heap of things
> - these directly affect both externally observed
> behaviour/personality and the internally reported
> cognition and perception. For example I can use
> magnetic stimulation to stave off depression or
> deep brain implants to treat parkinsons - if the
> soul was 'not of of our physical universe' then we
> would certainly not expect it to be affected by
> fields or pulses. We can even watch the effect of
> brain development or damage on capabilities -
> strokes are a good example, they can substantially
> affect the cognitive abilities which we think of
> as distinctly human
While I agree with most of your reasoning, I'm not sure it effectively eliminates the possibility of the soul. Keep in mind, I'm not actually advocating a soul, but I can envision a soul being similar to a radio signal and the body (brain) being akin to a car radio. You can tear apart the car radio without actually effecting the radio signal. Certainly the car radio may no longer be able to play the radio signal, or the signal is distorted, or what have you. So while the music has the appearance of being generated by the car radio, we both know it's not actually generated by the radio. So it's at least conceivable, in some sense, that the soul acts upon the brain in some fashion.
To be sure, there are problems with this - the chief being if this is the case, what keeps the soul tethered to the body?
> There's no evidence that human cognition and
> conciousness is anything other than an effect of
> brain function.
I would agree with this.
> Brain and cognitive sciences are
> not yet at the level of maturity of other
> disciplines but they seem to rule out distinct
> souls pretty effectively. Sure, the brain is an
> equisitely complex piece of biological equipment
> but there's no reason to doubt minsky's statement
> that 'mind is what the brain does'
I would also agree with this.
> Souls are another prey to occam's razor - there's
> no evidence for them and there are better and
> simpler explanations that are supported by
> evidence and experimentation
Again, I would agree with this.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: December 01, 2011 08:20PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> While I agree with most of your reasoning, I'm not
> sure it effectively eliminates the possibility of
> the soul. Keep in mind, I'm not actually
> advocating a soul, but I can envision a soul being
> similar to a radio signal and the body (brain)
> being akin to a car radio. You can tear apart the
> car radio without actually effecting the radio
> signal. Certainly the car radio may no longer be
> able to play the radio signal, or the signal is
> distorted, or what have you. So while the music
> has the appearance of being generated by the car
> radio, we both know it's not actually generated by
> the radio. So it's at least conceivable, in some
> sense, that the soul acts upon the brain in some
> fashion.
>
> To be sure, there are problems with this - the
> chief being if this is the case, what keeps the
> soul tethered to the body?
>
I must admit that I don't find this line of reasoning particularly compelling.
It smacks a bit of elves hiding the thimbles at night or tiny daemons pushing molecules through membranes.
Its much more reasonable to think of human brain, mind and behavior as being primarily different in degree rather than function from many other species. Desmond Morris' observation that much of our behavior is best explained by thinking of us as naked apes seems well made.
One of the most compelling arguments against human exceptionalism in this regard is that Neaderthals in particular are increasingly thought to have had complex social behaviours and rituals - perhaps simpler forms of spoken language (they seem to have shared a similar version of FOXP2 to modern humans). Certainly cro-magnon man in europe, while morphologically still only on the way to modern man left sophisticated and elegant art behind. While we don't have any neanderthal or cro-magnon brains to play with, we do have dna, skeletons and artifacts, and the argument for he gradual co-evolution of facial characteristics, brain, language and cognitive skills does seem pretty strong.
This inevitably leaves the exceptionalism implicit in arguments for a human soul on a very slippery historical slope - I'm not sure of the theological implications of neanderthal's having half a soul - did lucy have a 64th?
Similarly the whole field of cognition and conciousness in different non-hominid species (especially great apes, corvids and whales) is clearly an area of active research and quite a lot of disagreement, but many of the core capabilities behind what we think of as being human and present to some greater or lesser degree in other species.
Do all species have souls of a greater or lesser degree? I could sympathise with puppies but I find the poor souls of bacteria a little hard to cope with (although I do like the theory of modern man, human speech and domesticated dogs having co-evolved - but that's more for the poetry of it than any real evidence)
As a result of these and the other factors I mentioned earlier, I find the arguments for a soul very weak.
I do find a certain appeal in Minsky's hierachical models of conciousness which suggest a clear evolutionary advantage and a much more incremental, organic framework which lines up well with what we know about the actual fabric of the brain - although not everyone agrees with his model
One interesting question is why we only appear to have one highly conscious species at the moment. My take on this is that it confers such an evolutionary advantage that in a relatively short period, that species grew to global dominence. The path to human-level conciousness is clearly a complex one and its clearly a threshold event for competitveness - you do have to wonder both how human consiousness will evolve (perhaps we'll coopt artificial intelligence prosthetics - who knows) - or how long after our demise it will take for a species of comparable abilities, but perhaps very different to appear
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> While I agree with most of your reasoning, I'm not
> sure it effectively eliminates the possibility of
> the soul. Keep in mind, I'm not actually
> advocating a soul, but I can envision a soul being
> similar to a radio signal and the body (brain)
> being akin to a car radio. You can tear apart the
> car radio without actually effecting the radio
> signal. Certainly the car radio may no longer be
> able to play the radio signal, or the signal is
> distorted, or what have you. So while the music
> has the appearance of being generated by the car
> radio, we both know it's not actually generated by
> the radio. So it's at least conceivable, in some
> sense, that the soul acts upon the brain in some
> fashion.
>
> To be sure, there are problems with this - the
> chief being if this is the case, what keeps the
> soul tethered to the body?
>
I must admit that I don't find this line of reasoning particularly compelling.
It smacks a bit of elves hiding the thimbles at night or tiny daemons pushing molecules through membranes.
Its much more reasonable to think of human brain, mind and behavior as being primarily different in degree rather than function from many other species. Desmond Morris' observation that much of our behavior is best explained by thinking of us as naked apes seems well made.
One of the most compelling arguments against human exceptionalism in this regard is that Neaderthals in particular are increasingly thought to have had complex social behaviours and rituals - perhaps simpler forms of spoken language (they seem to have shared a similar version of FOXP2 to modern humans). Certainly cro-magnon man in europe, while morphologically still only on the way to modern man left sophisticated and elegant art behind. While we don't have any neanderthal or cro-magnon brains to play with, we do have dna, skeletons and artifacts, and the argument for he gradual co-evolution of facial characteristics, brain, language and cognitive skills does seem pretty strong.
This inevitably leaves the exceptionalism implicit in arguments for a human soul on a very slippery historical slope - I'm not sure of the theological implications of neanderthal's having half a soul - did lucy have a 64th?
Similarly the whole field of cognition and conciousness in different non-hominid species (especially great apes, corvids and whales) is clearly an area of active research and quite a lot of disagreement, but many of the core capabilities behind what we think of as being human and present to some greater or lesser degree in other species.
Do all species have souls of a greater or lesser degree? I could sympathise with puppies but I find the poor souls of bacteria a little hard to cope with (although I do like the theory of modern man, human speech and domesticated dogs having co-evolved - but that's more for the poetry of it than any real evidence)
As a result of these and the other factors I mentioned earlier, I find the arguments for a soul very weak.
I do find a certain appeal in Minsky's hierachical models of conciousness which suggest a clear evolutionary advantage and a much more incremental, organic framework which lines up well with what we know about the actual fabric of the brain - although not everyone agrees with his model
One interesting question is why we only appear to have one highly conscious species at the moment. My take on this is that it confers such an evolutionary advantage that in a relatively short period, that species grew to global dominence. The path to human-level conciousness is clearly a complex one and its clearly a threshold event for competitveness - you do have to wonder both how human consiousness will evolve (perhaps we'll coopt artificial intelligence prosthetics - who knows) - or how long after our demise it will take for a species of comparable abilities, but perhaps very different to appear
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: December 01, 2011 08:29PM
On a lighter note. on the subjects of the souls of insects, I meant to add a pointer to
http://ccmixter.org/files/jacindae/20280
http://ccmixter.org/files/jacindae/20280
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Trooth
()
Date: December 02, 2011 08:37AM
finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trooth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > >
> > > > If it is not, then
> > > > the Judeo-Christian faith is built on a
> fairy
> > > > tale. It it is the word of God, then it is
> > ALL
> > > > the word of God and those who pick and
> choose
> > > what
> > > > they wish to believe or follow are as lost
> as
> > > > those who reject it all.
> > >
> > > This is your opinion.
> >
> > No, this is what the Bible says. And either
> this
> > is right or it is wrong, true or false. Your
> > inability to see that clearly is puzzling.
> This
> > is logic, not science.
> >
>
> Trooth - meet Believe. Believe - meet Trooth
>
> You both claim to be the true christians but there
> seems to be a mismatch
>
> 'Take it or leave it all creationist literalism'
> vs 'pick and choose based selective choice of
> evidence'
>
> They don't seem to be particularly compatible
>
> Just sayin
Yep, you are correct finito. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. If you start picking and choosing what is and what isn't, it's a very slippery slope? A large schism in the faith to be sure. Granted, there are God's laws and then there are man's laws, even in the Bible. God's laws are pretty specific (there are 10 of them). The punishments (stoning your cheating wife as an example) came from the religious leaders of the time. So, while I agree that there are sections of the Bible that can be filtered out as not coming straight from God, rejecting entire chapters or a Book (i.e. Genesis 1-7) is irreconcilable with being a Christian IMO. But, to paraphrase the Good Book, judge not, lest ye be judged. I can only speak for myself, not anyone else.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trooth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > >
> > > > If it is not, then
> > > > the Judeo-Christian faith is built on a
> fairy
> > > > tale. It it is the word of God, then it is
> > ALL
> > > > the word of God and those who pick and
> choose
> > > what
> > > > they wish to believe or follow are as lost
> as
> > > > those who reject it all.
> > >
> > > This is your opinion.
> >
> > No, this is what the Bible says. And either
> this
> > is right or it is wrong, true or false. Your
> > inability to see that clearly is puzzling.
> This
> > is logic, not science.
> >
>
> Trooth - meet Believe. Believe - meet Trooth
>
> You both claim to be the true christians but there
> seems to be a mismatch
>
> 'Take it or leave it all creationist literalism'
> vs 'pick and choose based selective choice of
> evidence'
>
> They don't seem to be particularly compatible
>
> Just sayin
Yep, you are correct finito. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. If you start picking and choosing what is and what isn't, it's a very slippery slope? A large schism in the faith to be sure. Granted, there are God's laws and then there are man's laws, even in the Bible. God's laws are pretty specific (there are 10 of them). The punishments (stoning your cheating wife as an example) came from the religious leaders of the time. So, while I agree that there are sections of the Bible that can be filtered out as not coming straight from God, rejecting entire chapters or a Book (i.e. Genesis 1-7) is irreconcilable with being a Christian IMO. But, to paraphrase the Good Book, judge not, lest ye be judged. I can only speak for myself, not anyone else.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 02, 2011 09:11AM
finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I must admit that I don't find this line of
> reasoning particularly compelling.
Well, remember, I'm not actually arguing *for it*.
> It smacks a bit of elves hiding the thimbles at
> night or tiny daemons pushing molecules through
> membranes.
Yes, I'd agree.
> Its much more reasonable to think of human brain,
> mind and behavior as being primarily different in
> degree rather than function from many other
> species. Desmond Morris' observation that much of
> our behavior is best explained by thinking of us
> as naked apes seems well made.
>
> One of the most compelling arguments against human
> exceptionalism in this regard is that Neaderthals
> in particular are increasingly thought to have had
> complex social behaviours and rituals - perhaps
> simpler forms of spoken language (they seem to
> have shared a similar version of FOXP2 to modern
> humans). Certainly cro-magnon man in europe, while
> morphologically still only on the way to modern
> man left sophisticated and elegant art behind.
> While we don't have any neanderthal or cro-magnon
> brains to play with, we do have dna, skeletons and
> artifacts, and the argument for he gradual
> co-evolution of facial characteristics, brain,
> language and cognitive skills does seem pretty
> strong.
Yes, I'd agree here to and I think introducing neanderthals brings up a good point. I believe they had bigger brain cases than we do, but the difference between them and us had something to do with their throat structure. So they couldn't vocally articulate as well as we do.
I'd also point out that Bonobos and chimps share very rudimentary societal structures. They have what could be classified as the beginnings of morality.
> This inevitably leaves the exceptionalism implicit
> in arguments for a human soul on a very slippery
> historical slope - I'm not sure of the theological
> implications of neanderthal's having half a soul -
> did lucy have a 64th?
>
> Similarly the whole field of cognition and
> conciousness in different non-hominid species
> (especially great apes, corvids and whales) is
> clearly an area of active research and quite a lot
> of disagreement, but many of the core capabilities
> behind what we think of as being human and present
> to some greater or lesser degree in other species.
>
>
> Do all species have souls of a greater or lesser
> degree? I could sympathise with puppies but I find
> the poor souls of bacteria a little hard to cope
> with (although I do like the theory of modern
> man, human speech and domesticated dogs having
> co-evolved - but that's more for the poetry of it
> than any real evidence)
I think Christian dogma is that only humans have souls. I'm not entirely sure though.
> As a result of these and the other factors I
> mentioned earlier, I find the arguments for a soul
> very weak.
I'd say that most arguments for the soul relegate themselves to our ignorance. We don't know X, therefore it's a result of the soul. That sort of thing.
> I do find a certain appeal in Minsky's hierachical
> models of conciousness which suggest a clear
> evolutionary advantage and a much more
> incremental, organic framework which lines up well
> with what we know about the actual fabric of the
> brain - although not everyone agrees with his
> model
>
> One interesting question is why we only appear to
> have one highly conscious species at the moment.
> My take on this is that it confers such an
> evolutionary advantage that in a relatively short
> period, that species grew to global dominence. The
> path to human-level conciousness is clearly a
> complex one and its clearly a threshold event for
> competitveness - you do have to wonder both how
> human consiousness will evolve (perhaps we'll
> coopt artificial intelligence prosthetics - who
> knows) - or how long after our demise it will take
> for a species of comparable abilities, but perhaps
> very different to appear
I'd also think that we killed off our competitors - which is why other hominids were not as advanced as we are.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I must admit that I don't find this line of
> reasoning particularly compelling.
Well, remember, I'm not actually arguing *for it*.
> It smacks a bit of elves hiding the thimbles at
> night or tiny daemons pushing molecules through
> membranes.
Yes, I'd agree.
> Its much more reasonable to think of human brain,
> mind and behavior as being primarily different in
> degree rather than function from many other
> species. Desmond Morris' observation that much of
> our behavior is best explained by thinking of us
> as naked apes seems well made.
>
> One of the most compelling arguments against human
> exceptionalism in this regard is that Neaderthals
> in particular are increasingly thought to have had
> complex social behaviours and rituals - perhaps
> simpler forms of spoken language (they seem to
> have shared a similar version of FOXP2 to modern
> humans). Certainly cro-magnon man in europe, while
> morphologically still only on the way to modern
> man left sophisticated and elegant art behind.
> While we don't have any neanderthal or cro-magnon
> brains to play with, we do have dna, skeletons and
> artifacts, and the argument for he gradual
> co-evolution of facial characteristics, brain,
> language and cognitive skills does seem pretty
> strong.
Yes, I'd agree here to and I think introducing neanderthals brings up a good point. I believe they had bigger brain cases than we do, but the difference between them and us had something to do with their throat structure. So they couldn't vocally articulate as well as we do.
I'd also point out that Bonobos and chimps share very rudimentary societal structures. They have what could be classified as the beginnings of morality.
> This inevitably leaves the exceptionalism implicit
> in arguments for a human soul on a very slippery
> historical slope - I'm not sure of the theological
> implications of neanderthal's having half a soul -
> did lucy have a 64th?
>
> Similarly the whole field of cognition and
> conciousness in different non-hominid species
> (especially great apes, corvids and whales) is
> clearly an area of active research and quite a lot
> of disagreement, but many of the core capabilities
> behind what we think of as being human and present
> to some greater or lesser degree in other species.
>
>
> Do all species have souls of a greater or lesser
> degree? I could sympathise with puppies but I find
> the poor souls of bacteria a little hard to cope
> with (although I do like the theory of modern
> man, human speech and domesticated dogs having
> co-evolved - but that's more for the poetry of it
> than any real evidence)
I think Christian dogma is that only humans have souls. I'm not entirely sure though.
> As a result of these and the other factors I
> mentioned earlier, I find the arguments for a soul
> very weak.
I'd say that most arguments for the soul relegate themselves to our ignorance. We don't know X, therefore it's a result of the soul. That sort of thing.
> I do find a certain appeal in Minsky's hierachical
> models of conciousness which suggest a clear
> evolutionary advantage and a much more
> incremental, organic framework which lines up well
> with what we know about the actual fabric of the
> brain - although not everyone agrees with his
> model
>
> One interesting question is why we only appear to
> have one highly conscious species at the moment.
> My take on this is that it confers such an
> evolutionary advantage that in a relatively short
> period, that species grew to global dominence. The
> path to human-level conciousness is clearly a
> complex one and its clearly a threshold event for
> competitveness - you do have to wonder both how
> human consiousness will evolve (perhaps we'll
> coopt artificial intelligence prosthetics - who
> knows) - or how long after our demise it will take
> for a species of comparable abilities, but perhaps
> very different to appear
I'd also think that we killed off our competitors - which is why other hominids were not as advanced as we are.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 02, 2011 09:17AM
Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yep, you are correct finito. I believe that the
> Bible is the Word of God. If you start picking
> and choosing what is and what isn't, it's a very
> slippery slope?
I would actually think that you already pick and choose which verses you accept - you just rationalize your choices.
A question would be is why you feel you must do so. After all, you don't have the original copies, so what you have is the result of fallible human hands, right?
If you deny this, then just why are there different copies of Biblical books floating around? Also, how are errors, changes, etc *prevented* from creeping in?
> A large schism in the faith to be
> sure. Granted, there are God's laws and then
> there are man's laws, even in the Bible. God's
> laws are pretty specific (there are 10 of them).
There are two sets of '10' commandments, are you aware of this?
> The punishments (stoning your cheating wife as an
> example) came from the religious leaders of the
> time.
Who were speaking for God...
I thought the Bible was supposed to be God's word? How can you go back and then say that the specific prescriptions in the Bible were simply from "religious leaders"?
> So, while I agree that there are sections
> of the Bible that can be filtered out as not
> coming straight from God, rejecting entire
> chapters or a Book (i.e. Genesis 1-7) is
> irreconcilable with being a Christian IMO. But,
> to paraphrase the Good Book, judge not, lest ye be
> judged. I can only speak for myself, not anyone
> else.
Isn't this the very example of picking and choosing?
Why cling to Genesis 1-7 if you can filter out problematic texts? Why not filter out the literalness of that account and simply refer to it as a metaphor? Certainly it makes much more sense to do so than to take it literally.
If you take it literally you run into absurdities within the text and in order to get around such absurdities you have to *reinterpret* the text anyway.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yep, you are correct finito. I believe that the
> Bible is the Word of God. If you start picking
> and choosing what is and what isn't, it's a very
> slippery slope?
I would actually think that you already pick and choose which verses you accept - you just rationalize your choices.
A question would be is why you feel you must do so. After all, you don't have the original copies, so what you have is the result of fallible human hands, right?
If you deny this, then just why are there different copies of Biblical books floating around? Also, how are errors, changes, etc *prevented* from creeping in?
> A large schism in the faith to be
> sure. Granted, there are God's laws and then
> there are man's laws, even in the Bible. God's
> laws are pretty specific (there are 10 of them).
There are two sets of '10' commandments, are you aware of this?
> The punishments (stoning your cheating wife as an
> example) came from the religious leaders of the
> time.
Who were speaking for God...
I thought the Bible was supposed to be God's word? How can you go back and then say that the specific prescriptions in the Bible were simply from "religious leaders"?
> So, while I agree that there are sections
> of the Bible that can be filtered out as not
> coming straight from God, rejecting entire
> chapters or a Book (i.e. Genesis 1-7) is
> irreconcilable with being a Christian IMO. But,
> to paraphrase the Good Book, judge not, lest ye be
> judged. I can only speak for myself, not anyone
> else.
Isn't this the very example of picking and choosing?
Why cling to Genesis 1-7 if you can filter out problematic texts? Why not filter out the literalness of that account and simply refer to it as a metaphor? Certainly it makes much more sense to do so than to take it literally.
If you take it literally you run into absurdities within the text and in order to get around such absurdities you have to *reinterpret* the text anyway.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Trooth
()
Date: December 02, 2011 10:00AM
Jesse,
You have consistently demonstrated misunderstandings about the Christian faith and the key tenets thereof. That is the benefit for you to attend a couple of services at MBC. To gain a better understanding so that the opinions your offer here are better educated and informed.
You expect the rest of us to read books of uber-boring science-babble to gain an understanding of radiometric principles but you won't even take an hour or two to watch a couple of Lon's sermons on the Internet. Right now he is doing a series on why the first 7 chapters of Genesis are true. While the series is geared towards Christians who questions those chapters, it might serve you well too.
I could offer arguments on the flaws of radiometric dating, but I don't see the point. You have your beliefs, I have mine and neither can be proven beyond the doubts we both have. As you have pointed out, science can only offer explanations based on observations. So that which can not be observed will always be in question.
For the record, you haven't offer anything in your posts that I consider too hard to address or answer. I just don't see the point in going line by line to address them. If you make 10 points and I refute the logic that lead to all 10, then what is the benefit of going through all 10?
Go to church, it'll do you good.
You have consistently demonstrated misunderstandings about the Christian faith and the key tenets thereof. That is the benefit for you to attend a couple of services at MBC. To gain a better understanding so that the opinions your offer here are better educated and informed.
You expect the rest of us to read books of uber-boring science-babble to gain an understanding of radiometric principles but you won't even take an hour or two to watch a couple of Lon's sermons on the Internet. Right now he is doing a series on why the first 7 chapters of Genesis are true. While the series is geared towards Christians who questions those chapters, it might serve you well too.
I could offer arguments on the flaws of radiometric dating, but I don't see the point. You have your beliefs, I have mine and neither can be proven beyond the doubts we both have. As you have pointed out, science can only offer explanations based on observations. So that which can not be observed will always be in question.
For the record, you haven't offer anything in your posts that I consider too hard to address or answer. I just don't see the point in going line by line to address them. If you make 10 points and I refute the logic that lead to all 10, then what is the benefit of going through all 10?
Go to church, it'll do you good.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Trooth
()
Date: December 02, 2011 10:04AM
Jesse,
I can filter out some things in the OT because of what Jesus said in the NT. Read it, go to a good Bible-based church and all will be revealed.
Your Pal,
Trooth
I can filter out some things in the OT because of what Jesus said in the NT. Read it, go to a good Bible-based church and all will be revealed.
Your Pal,
Trooth
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 02, 2011 10:32AM
Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jesse,
>
> You have consistently demonstrated
> misunderstandings about the Christian faith and
> the key tenets thereof. That is the benefit for
> you to attend a couple of services at MBC. To
> gain a better understanding so that the opinions
> your offer here are better educated and informed.
You act as though there is only one standard 'Christian faith'. There isn't.
> You expect the rest of us to read books of
> uber-boring science-babble to gain an
> understanding of radiometric principles but you
> won't even take an hour or two to watch a couple
> of Lon's sermons on the Internet. Right now he is
> doing a series on why the first 7 chapters of
> Genesis are true. While the series is geared
> towards Christians who questions those chapters,
> it might serve you well too.
I don't expect anything - however if you engage in these sorts of discussions, then don't be surprised when your assertions don't just get a pass. You asked me to provide references on radiometric principles - I did, and now you are complaining they are 'uber-boring'?
Really?
What reason should I take Lon seriously? What are his credentials? What journal articles has he published? I'm not even talking about scientific journal articles, to be clear. If he's published something in Biblical scholarship, I think that would be relevant to our discussion on him.
> I could offer arguments on the flaws of
> radiometric dating, but I don't see the point.
I'm sure you could - the question is the accuracy of those arguments and if there is any reason to believe them.
I suspect on that measure you couldn't, since if you could, you would be involved in scientific publications throughout the world and you presumably wouldn't have time to argue on an internet message board.
> You have your beliefs, I have mine and neither can
> be proven beyond the doubts we both have. As you
> have pointed out, science can only offer
> explanations based on observations. So that which
> can not be observed will always be in question.
I don't seek to prove my beliefs to any certain degree. I hold my beliefs based on reasonable conclusions of the available evidence. I am willing to change my beliefs with the introduction of new evidence/arguments. I *have* changed significant metaphysical beliefs throughout my life time. So the subtle implication that I'm close-minded is unfounded. As to your own self incrimination - I can only take your word on it although I would suspect that if you carefully went over your life you would discover that you had changed your beliefs significantly.
> For the record, you haven't offer anything in your
> posts that I consider too hard to address or
> answer. I just don't see the point in going line
> by line to address them. If you make 10 points
> and I refute the logic that lead to all 10, then
> what is the benefit of going through all 10?
Of course - I'm sure you say the same thing to people vastly more qualified than I am about such subjects. You'd, presumably, say the same thing to Ernst Mayr (at least while he was alive).
It's arrogant. It's "I'm right, your wrong, *just believe me*".
I'm not asking you to participate in this discussion, however, since you ARE participating in it, I find it remarkably shallow that you are just standing back assuring us all that you are right and we are wrong.
> Go to church, it'll do you good.
I doubt it. I've been to church - several of them over a sustained period of time - and I've always gotten A LOT more out of independent reading/discussions than I ever did at church. So until I'm presented a good reason to do so, I will assume that going to MBC or checking out their videos are a waste of my time.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jesse,
>
> You have consistently demonstrated
> misunderstandings about the Christian faith and
> the key tenets thereof. That is the benefit for
> you to attend a couple of services at MBC. To
> gain a better understanding so that the opinions
> your offer here are better educated and informed.
You act as though there is only one standard 'Christian faith'. There isn't.
> You expect the rest of us to read books of
> uber-boring science-babble to gain an
> understanding of radiometric principles but you
> won't even take an hour or two to watch a couple
> of Lon's sermons on the Internet. Right now he is
> doing a series on why the first 7 chapters of
> Genesis are true. While the series is geared
> towards Christians who questions those chapters,
> it might serve you well too.
I don't expect anything - however if you engage in these sorts of discussions, then don't be surprised when your assertions don't just get a pass. You asked me to provide references on radiometric principles - I did, and now you are complaining they are 'uber-boring'?
Really?
What reason should I take Lon seriously? What are his credentials? What journal articles has he published? I'm not even talking about scientific journal articles, to be clear. If he's published something in Biblical scholarship, I think that would be relevant to our discussion on him.
> I could offer arguments on the flaws of
> radiometric dating, but I don't see the point.
I'm sure you could - the question is the accuracy of those arguments and if there is any reason to believe them.
I suspect on that measure you couldn't, since if you could, you would be involved in scientific publications throughout the world and you presumably wouldn't have time to argue on an internet message board.
> You have your beliefs, I have mine and neither can
> be proven beyond the doubts we both have. As you
> have pointed out, science can only offer
> explanations based on observations. So that which
> can not be observed will always be in question.
I don't seek to prove my beliefs to any certain degree. I hold my beliefs based on reasonable conclusions of the available evidence. I am willing to change my beliefs with the introduction of new evidence/arguments. I *have* changed significant metaphysical beliefs throughout my life time. So the subtle implication that I'm close-minded is unfounded. As to your own self incrimination - I can only take your word on it although I would suspect that if you carefully went over your life you would discover that you had changed your beliefs significantly.
> For the record, you haven't offer anything in your
> posts that I consider too hard to address or
> answer. I just don't see the point in going line
> by line to address them. If you make 10 points
> and I refute the logic that lead to all 10, then
> what is the benefit of going through all 10?
Of course - I'm sure you say the same thing to people vastly more qualified than I am about such subjects. You'd, presumably, say the same thing to Ernst Mayr (at least while he was alive).
It's arrogant. It's "I'm right, your wrong, *just believe me*".
I'm not asking you to participate in this discussion, however, since you ARE participating in it, I find it remarkably shallow that you are just standing back assuring us all that you are right and we are wrong.
> Go to church, it'll do you good.
I doubt it. I've been to church - several of them over a sustained period of time - and I've always gotten A LOT more out of independent reading/discussions than I ever did at church. So until I'm presented a good reason to do so, I will assume that going to MBC or checking out their videos are a waste of my time.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 02, 2011 10:34AM
Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jesse,
>
> I can filter out some things in the OT because of
> what Jesus said in the NT. Read it, go to a good
> Bible-based church and all will be revealed.
>
> Your Pal,
>
> Trooth
You mean the part where Jesus affirms all the laws, that not one jot or tittle is to be changed?
I would say that there is not just 'one' Jesus presented in the New Testament, but that's an entire different kettle of fish.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jesse,
>
> I can filter out some things in the OT because of
> what Jesus said in the NT. Read it, go to a good
> Bible-based church and all will be revealed.
>
> Your Pal,
>
> Trooth
You mean the part where Jesus affirms all the laws, that not one jot or tittle is to be changed?
I would say that there is not just 'one' Jesus presented in the New Testament, but that's an entire different kettle of fish.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Believe
()
Date: December 02, 2011 12:21PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> I hold to the notion of block time.
I had not heard this term before, although it sounds similar to concepts I've seen described in programs on TV. Wish my brain could wrap itself around concepts like time or infinite space (or bounded space for that matter). Also not sure how to square this against the intuitive notion we all have about "moving forward" through time or why I can't experience one second into the future, or observe things happening in reverse or in the past.
> I hold to the notion of block time.
I had not heard this term before, although it sounds similar to concepts I've seen described in programs on TV. Wish my brain could wrap itself around concepts like time or infinite space (or bounded space for that matter). Also not sure how to square this against the intuitive notion we all have about "moving forward" through time or why I can't experience one second into the future, or observe things happening in reverse or in the past.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Believe
()
Date: December 02, 2011 12:29PM
finito benito and Professor Pangloss:
We've spent a lot of text discussing why, in your opinions, God could not have created the universe (or to summarize Prof. P, God could have, but there's no evidence for it). My question then is, in your opinions, where *did* the universe come from? Does it have an origin? If not, why not, and how do we square that with our human conceptions of cause/effect/time?
We've spent a lot of text discussing why, in your opinions, God could not have created the universe (or to summarize Prof. P, God could have, but there's no evidence for it). My question then is, in your opinions, where *did* the universe come from? Does it have an origin? If not, why not, and how do we square that with our human conceptions of cause/effect/time?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Trooth
()
Date: December 02, 2011 12:37PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trooth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Jesse,
> >
> > I can filter out some things in the OT because
> of
> > what Jesus said in the NT. Read it, go to a
> good
> > Bible-based church and all will be revealed.
> >
> > Your Pal,
> >
> > Trooth
>
> You mean the part where Jesus affirms all the
> laws, that not one jot or tittle is to be
> changed?
>
> I would say that there is not just 'one' Jesus
> presented in the New Testament, but that's an
> entire different kettle of fish.
Wrong AGAIN Jesse. You really don't know of what you speak. I mean the parts where Jesus says that the laws have been misinterpreted and that the keepers of the laws were corrupt. But, being uneducated on the subject, you can not be expected to know these things. Better that you go learn the message before dismissing it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trooth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Jesse,
> >
> > I can filter out some things in the OT because
> of
> > what Jesus said in the NT. Read it, go to a
> good
> > Bible-based church and all will be revealed.
> >
> > Your Pal,
> >
> > Trooth
>
> You mean the part where Jesus affirms all the
> laws, that not one jot or tittle is to be
> changed?
>
> I would say that there is not just 'one' Jesus
> presented in the New Testament, but that's an
> entire different kettle of fish.
Wrong AGAIN Jesse. You really don't know of what you speak. I mean the parts where Jesus says that the laws have been misinterpreted and that the keepers of the laws were corrupt. But, being uneducated on the subject, you can not be expected to know these things. Better that you go learn the message before dismissing it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Trooth
()
Date: December 02, 2011 12:45PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trooth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Jesse,
> >
> > You have consistently demonstrated
> > misunderstandings about the Christian faith and
> > the key tenets thereof. That is the benefit
> for
> > you to attend a couple of services at MBC. To
> > gain a better understanding so that the
> opinions
> > your offer here are better educated and
> informed.
>
> You act as though there is only one standard
> 'Christian faith'. There isn't.
>
> > You expect the rest of us to read books of
> > uber-boring science-babble to gain an
> > understanding of radiometric principles but you
> > won't even take an hour or two to watch a
> couple
> > of Lon's sermons on the Internet. Right now he
> is
> > doing a series on why the first 7 chapters of
> > Genesis are true. While the series is geared
> > towards Christians who questions those
> chapters,
> > it might serve you well too.
>
> I don't expect anything - however if you engage in
> these sorts of discussions, then don't be
> surprised when your assertions don't just get a
> pass. You asked me to provide references on
> radiometric principles - I did, and now you are
> complaining they are 'uber-boring'?
>
> Really?
>
> What reason should I take Lon seriously? What are
> his credentials? What journal articles has he
> published? I'm not even talking about scientific
> journal articles, to be clear. If he's published
> something in Biblical scholarship, I think that
> would be relevant to our discussion on him.
>
> > I could offer arguments on the flaws of
> > radiometric dating, but I don't see the point.
>
> I'm sure you could - the question is the accuracy
> of those arguments and if there is any reason to
> believe them.
>
> I suspect on that measure you couldn't, since if
> you could, you would be involved in scientific
> publications throughout the world and you
> presumably wouldn't have time to argue on an
> internet message board.
>
> > You have your beliefs, I have mine and neither
> can
> > be proven beyond the doubts we both have. As
> you
> > have pointed out, science can only offer
> > explanations based on observations. So that
> which
> > can not be observed will always be in question.
>
> I don't seek to prove my beliefs to any certain
> degree. I hold my beliefs based on reasonable
> conclusions of the available evidence. I am
> willing to change my beliefs with the introduction
> of new evidence/arguments. I *have* changed
> significant metaphysical beliefs throughout my
> life time. So the subtle implication that I'm
> close-minded is unfounded. As to your own self
> incrimination - I can only take your word on it
> although I would suspect that if you carefully
> went over your life you would discover that you
> had changed your beliefs significantly.
>
> > For the record, you haven't offer anything in
> your
> > posts that I consider too hard to address or
> > answer. I just don't see the point in going
> line
> > by line to address them. If you make 10 points
> > and I refute the logic that lead to all 10,
> then
> > what is the benefit of going through all 10?
>
> Of course - I'm sure you say the same thing to
> people vastly more qualified than I am about such
> subjects. You'd, presumably, say the same thing to
> Ernst Mayr (at least while he was alive).
>
> It's arrogant. It's "I'm right, your wrong, *just
> believe me*".
>
> I'm not asking you to participate in this
> discussion, however, since you ARE participating
> in it, I find it remarkably shallow that you are
> just standing back assuring us all that you are
> right and we are wrong.
>
> > Go to church, it'll do you good.
>
> I doubt it. I've been to church - several of them
> over a sustained period of time - and I've always
> gotten A LOT more out of independent
> reading/discussions than I ever did at church. So
> until I'm presented a good reason to do so, I will
> assume that going to MBC or checking out their
> videos are a waste of my time.
Wow Jesse, you're starting to sound more and more like finito. Typing your opinions over and over and then not having them accepted is not fluff or shallow or hypocritical or arrogant. I am none of those things. I don't accept your OPINIONS and your CONCLUSIONS. That is all. It is not personal. I know what I know. I believe what I believe. Same with you I suppose. Keep it civil Jess. No need to huff and puff is there?
Now go to MBC's website and watch a couple of videos. If you have time to waste on this site, you have time to enrich your being with some good news.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trooth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Jesse,
> >
> > You have consistently demonstrated
> > misunderstandings about the Christian faith and
> > the key tenets thereof. That is the benefit
> for
> > you to attend a couple of services at MBC. To
> > gain a better understanding so that the
> opinions
> > your offer here are better educated and
> informed.
>
> You act as though there is only one standard
> 'Christian faith'. There isn't.
>
> > You expect the rest of us to read books of
> > uber-boring science-babble to gain an
> > understanding of radiometric principles but you
> > won't even take an hour or two to watch a
> couple
> > of Lon's sermons on the Internet. Right now he
> is
> > doing a series on why the first 7 chapters of
> > Genesis are true. While the series is geared
> > towards Christians who questions those
> chapters,
> > it might serve you well too.
>
> I don't expect anything - however if you engage in
> these sorts of discussions, then don't be
> surprised when your assertions don't just get a
> pass. You asked me to provide references on
> radiometric principles - I did, and now you are
> complaining they are 'uber-boring'?
>
> Really?
>
> What reason should I take Lon seriously? What are
> his credentials? What journal articles has he
> published? I'm not even talking about scientific
> journal articles, to be clear. If he's published
> something in Biblical scholarship, I think that
> would be relevant to our discussion on him.
>
> > I could offer arguments on the flaws of
> > radiometric dating, but I don't see the point.
>
> I'm sure you could - the question is the accuracy
> of those arguments and if there is any reason to
> believe them.
>
> I suspect on that measure you couldn't, since if
> you could, you would be involved in scientific
> publications throughout the world and you
> presumably wouldn't have time to argue on an
> internet message board.
>
> > You have your beliefs, I have mine and neither
> can
> > be proven beyond the doubts we both have. As
> you
> > have pointed out, science can only offer
> > explanations based on observations. So that
> which
> > can not be observed will always be in question.
>
> I don't seek to prove my beliefs to any certain
> degree. I hold my beliefs based on reasonable
> conclusions of the available evidence. I am
> willing to change my beliefs with the introduction
> of new evidence/arguments. I *have* changed
> significant metaphysical beliefs throughout my
> life time. So the subtle implication that I'm
> close-minded is unfounded. As to your own self
> incrimination - I can only take your word on it
> although I would suspect that if you carefully
> went over your life you would discover that you
> had changed your beliefs significantly.
>
> > For the record, you haven't offer anything in
> your
> > posts that I consider too hard to address or
> > answer. I just don't see the point in going
> line
> > by line to address them. If you make 10 points
> > and I refute the logic that lead to all 10,
> then
> > what is the benefit of going through all 10?
>
> Of course - I'm sure you say the same thing to
> people vastly more qualified than I am about such
> subjects. You'd, presumably, say the same thing to
> Ernst Mayr (at least while he was alive).
>
> It's arrogant. It's "I'm right, your wrong, *just
> believe me*".
>
> I'm not asking you to participate in this
> discussion, however, since you ARE participating
> in it, I find it remarkably shallow that you are
> just standing back assuring us all that you are
> right and we are wrong.
>
> > Go to church, it'll do you good.
>
> I doubt it. I've been to church - several of them
> over a sustained period of time - and I've always
> gotten A LOT more out of independent
> reading/discussions than I ever did at church. So
> until I'm presented a good reason to do so, I will
> assume that going to MBC or checking out their
> videos are a waste of my time.
Wow Jesse, you're starting to sound more and more like finito. Typing your opinions over and over and then not having them accepted is not fluff or shallow or hypocritical or arrogant. I am none of those things. I don't accept your OPINIONS and your CONCLUSIONS. That is all. It is not personal. I know what I know. I believe what I believe. Same with you I suppose. Keep it civil Jess. No need to huff and puff is there?
Now go to MBC's website and watch a couple of videos. If you have time to waste on this site, you have time to enrich your being with some good news.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 02, 2011 12:57PM
Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> > I hold to the notion of block time.
>
> I had not heard this term before, although it
> sounds similar to concepts I've seen described in
> programs on TV. Wish my brain could wrap itself
> around concepts like time or infinite space (or
> bounded space for that matter). Also not sure how
> to square this against the intuitive notion we all
> have about "moving forward" through time or why I
> can't experience one second into the future, or
> observe things happening in reverse or in the
> past.
The weird thing is that it's consistent with relativity and makes better sense of it then presentism. Yet no one (practically) ever talks about it. Here's a good resource on it: http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_block_universe.asp
Your question - why do we perceive time as we do - is a good one. There are many ideas with regard to this. The most prevalent is that it's simply an illusion. We know our brains do not process reality as it is, it is a filter that is relatively trustworthy, but not completely so. This is why quantum physics is so utterly alien to us.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> > I hold to the notion of block time.
>
> I had not heard this term before, although it
> sounds similar to concepts I've seen described in
> programs on TV. Wish my brain could wrap itself
> around concepts like time or infinite space (or
> bounded space for that matter). Also not sure how
> to square this against the intuitive notion we all
> have about "moving forward" through time or why I
> can't experience one second into the future, or
> observe things happening in reverse or in the
> past.
The weird thing is that it's consistent with relativity and makes better sense of it then presentism. Yet no one (practically) ever talks about it. Here's a good resource on it: http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_block_universe.asp
Your question - why do we perceive time as we do - is a good one. There are many ideas with regard to this. The most prevalent is that it's simply an illusion. We know our brains do not process reality as it is, it is a filter that is relatively trustworthy, but not completely so. This is why quantum physics is so utterly alien to us.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 02, 2011 12:59PM
Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito and Professor Pangloss:
>
> We've spent a lot of text discussing why, in your
> opinions, God could not have created the universe
> (or to summarize Prof. P, God could have, but
> there's no evidence for it). My question then is,
> in your opinions, where *did* the universe come
> from? Does it have an origin? If not, why not, and
> how do we square that with our human conceptions
> of cause/effect/time?
In my opinion the universe always was. This piggy backs off of the block universe idea. If that reality/metaphysics of time is correct, then God could not have created the universe.
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito and Professor Pangloss:
>
> We've spent a lot of text discussing why, in your
> opinions, God could not have created the universe
> (or to summarize Prof. P, God could have, but
> there's no evidence for it). My question then is,
> in your opinions, where *did* the universe come
> from? Does it have an origin? If not, why not, and
> how do we square that with our human conceptions
> of cause/effect/time?
In my opinion the universe always was. This piggy backs off of the block universe idea. If that reality/metaphysics of time is correct, then God could not have created the universe.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Believe
()
Date: December 02, 2011 01:10PM
Trooth Wrote:
> Wow Jesse, you're starting to sound more and more
> like finito. Typing your opinions over and over
> and then not having them accepted is not fluff or
> shallow or hypocritical or arrogant. I am none of
> those things. I don't accept your OPINIONS and
> your CONCLUSIONS. That is all. It is not
> personal. I know what I know. I believe what I
> believe. Same with you I suppose. Keep it civil
> Jess. No need to huff and puff is there?
>
Prof. P. (Jesse???) certainly doesn't need me to jump to his defense, but it seems to me he's been completely civil and has backed his assertions, far more patiently than others would. He's also made clear where he's relying on scientific evidence vs. philosophical or personal beliefs, even if we don't agree with his assertions or conclusions.
> Wow Jesse, you're starting to sound more and more
> like finito. Typing your opinions over and over
> and then not having them accepted is not fluff or
> shallow or hypocritical or arrogant. I am none of
> those things. I don't accept your OPINIONS and
> your CONCLUSIONS. That is all. It is not
> personal. I know what I know. I believe what I
> believe. Same with you I suppose. Keep it civil
> Jess. No need to huff and puff is there?
>
Prof. P. (Jesse???) certainly doesn't need me to jump to his defense, but it seems to me he's been completely civil and has backed his assertions, far more patiently than others would. He's also made clear where he's relying on scientific evidence vs. philosophical or personal beliefs, even if we don't agree with his assertions or conclusions.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 02, 2011 01:10PM
Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrong AGAIN Jesse. You really don't know of what
> you speak. I mean the parts where Jesus says that
> the laws have been misinterpreted and that the
> keepers of the laws were corrupt. But, being
> uneducated on the subject, you can not be expected
> to know these things. Better that you go learn
> the message before dismissing it.
Well, these are certainly *assertions*, I'll grant you that.
Not much else though.
> Wow Jesse, you're starting to sound more and more
> like finito. Typing your opinions over and over
> and then not having them accepted is not fluff or
> shallow or hypocritical or arrogant. I am none of
> those things. I don't accept your OPINIONS and
> your CONCLUSIONS. That is all. It is not
> personal. I know what I know. I believe what I
> believe. Same with you I suppose. Keep it civil
> Jess. No need to huff and puff is there?
I've typed more than just my opinions - you just chose to ignore those parts of my responses where I did so.
I do think I made a good case for challenging you on each of those things - you are attempting to come off as though you are 'correct' and that everyone else is wrong, yet when asked to back up any of it, you don't.
Now, you could very well BE CORRECT, but you aren't going to convince anyone of it by merely stating that you are.
As to huffying and puffying, I agree, but I would ask that you follow your own advice and stop calling others uneducated or assuming their positions.
> Now go to MBC's website and watch a couple of
> videos. If you have time to waste on this site,
> you have time to enrich your being with some good
> news.
I don't feel that I waste time on this site - I have constructive conversations on here. Which is why I participate. I won't be having such conversations while watching youtube videos. Further, as I've repeatedly stated, I see no reason to defer to Lon on any of these issues and you've given me precious little reason to do so.
It's kind of curious that you defer to him as an expert on, well, something (Christianity? Origins?), but you won't give solid reasons for me to waste my time scouring out his videos and watching them. As far as I can tell he does not hold a doctorate from an accredited university (he got a doctorate in divinity from Liberty). He has done no formal work in any of the sciences that would give him credence (he has a B.S. in chemistry and no peer reviewed papers) and I can't find anything he's done in the Biblical community (peer review/scholar-wise).
So, again, why should I pay attention to him? For Biblical reasons? if so, I think N.T. Wright (as a brief example) would be a better source. For science reasons? He's never done anything of note in the science community.
So, again, why should I pay attention to him? Better yet, since he's not some sort of omniscience salve that will cure whatever questions that trouble me, why don't you recommend a video instead of simply referring me to his panacea of material?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrong AGAIN Jesse. You really don't know of what
> you speak. I mean the parts where Jesus says that
> the laws have been misinterpreted and that the
> keepers of the laws were corrupt. But, being
> uneducated on the subject, you can not be expected
> to know these things. Better that you go learn
> the message before dismissing it.
Well, these are certainly *assertions*, I'll grant you that.
Not much else though.
> Wow Jesse, you're starting to sound more and more
> like finito. Typing your opinions over and over
> and then not having them accepted is not fluff or
> shallow or hypocritical or arrogant. I am none of
> those things. I don't accept your OPINIONS and
> your CONCLUSIONS. That is all. It is not
> personal. I know what I know. I believe what I
> believe. Same with you I suppose. Keep it civil
> Jess. No need to huff and puff is there?
I've typed more than just my opinions - you just chose to ignore those parts of my responses where I did so.
I do think I made a good case for challenging you on each of those things - you are attempting to come off as though you are 'correct' and that everyone else is wrong, yet when asked to back up any of it, you don't.
Now, you could very well BE CORRECT, but you aren't going to convince anyone of it by merely stating that you are.
As to huffying and puffying, I agree, but I would ask that you follow your own advice and stop calling others uneducated or assuming their positions.
> Now go to MBC's website and watch a couple of
> videos. If you have time to waste on this site,
> you have time to enrich your being with some good
> news.
I don't feel that I waste time on this site - I have constructive conversations on here. Which is why I participate. I won't be having such conversations while watching youtube videos. Further, as I've repeatedly stated, I see no reason to defer to Lon on any of these issues and you've given me precious little reason to do so.
It's kind of curious that you defer to him as an expert on, well, something (Christianity? Origins?), but you won't give solid reasons for me to waste my time scouring out his videos and watching them. As far as I can tell he does not hold a doctorate from an accredited university (he got a doctorate in divinity from Liberty). He has done no formal work in any of the sciences that would give him credence (he has a B.S. in chemistry and no peer reviewed papers) and I can't find anything he's done in the Biblical community (peer review/scholar-wise).
So, again, why should I pay attention to him? For Biblical reasons? if so, I think N.T. Wright (as a brief example) would be a better source. For science reasons? He's never done anything of note in the science community.
So, again, why should I pay attention to him? Better yet, since he's not some sort of omniscience salve that will cure whatever questions that trouble me, why don't you recommend a video instead of simply referring me to his panacea of material?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 02, 2011 01:11PM
Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof. P. (Jesse???) certainly doesn't need me to
> jump to his defense, but it seems to me he's been
> completely civil and has backed his assertions,
> far more patiently than others would. He's also
> made clear where he's relying on scientific
> evidence vs. philosophical or personal beliefs,
> even if we don't agree with his assertions or
> conclusions.
As a point of reference, he got my first name from an article I wrote that I referenced him when he asked for references.
Thanks
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof. P. (Jesse???) certainly doesn't need me to
> jump to his defense, but it seems to me he's been
> completely civil and has backed his assertions,
> far more patiently than others would. He's also
> made clear where he's relying on scientific
> evidence vs. philosophical or personal beliefs,
> even if we don't agree with his assertions or
> conclusions.
As a point of reference, he got my first name from an article I wrote that I referenced him when he asked for references.
Thanks
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Believe
()
Date: December 02, 2011 01:22PM
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> In my opinion the universe always was. This piggy
> backs off of the block universe idea. If that
> reality/metaphysics of time is correct, then God
> could not have created the universe.
I don't think there's a QED for that conclusion -- even in a reality where the universe always was, and all moments in time always were (both things beyond our ability to organically comprehend or experience), how would that not square with the notion of some multidimensional, omnipotent being who is beyond even all of that? To follow the premise, if we humans do not have the sensory perception to experience or "see" block time, then why would it be any less hard to imagine that there are things we cannot understand or see about a God that is beyond an infinite or "always was" universe?
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> In my opinion the universe always was. This piggy
> backs off of the block universe idea. If that
> reality/metaphysics of time is correct, then God
> could not have created the universe.
I don't think there's a QED for that conclusion -- even in a reality where the universe always was, and all moments in time always were (both things beyond our ability to organically comprehend or experience), how would that not square with the notion of some multidimensional, omnipotent being who is beyond even all of that? To follow the premise, if we humans do not have the sensory perception to experience or "see" block time, then why would it be any less hard to imagine that there are things we cannot understand or see about a God that is beyond an infinite or "always was" universe?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Panda
()
Date: December 02, 2011 01:22PM
You agin!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Professor Pangloss
()
Date: December 02, 2011 01:30PM
Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think there's a QED for that conclusion --
> even in a reality where the universe always was,
> and all moments in time always were (both things
> beyond our ability to organically comprehend or
> experience), how would that not square with the
> notion of some multidimensional, omnipotent being
> who is beyond even all of that? To follow the
> premise, if we humans do not have the sensory
> perception to experience or "see" block time, then
> why would it be any less hard to imagine that
> there are things we cannot understand or see about
> a God that is beyond an infinite or "always was"
> universe?
Technically speaking, a block universe would make a deity superfluous. Your question centered around creation, not the existence of God. So, God could still exist, despite not having created the universe.
I don't see any particular reason to believe in a deity. I have some metaphysical reasons for rejecting certain conceptions of God, but I don't think there is a bullet proof all-in-one deductively certain argument against God's existence. Maybe there could be one, but I suspect this is not the case since there are so many different conceptions of what God is.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think there's a QED for that conclusion --
> even in a reality where the universe always was,
> and all moments in time always were (both things
> beyond our ability to organically comprehend or
> experience), how would that not square with the
> notion of some multidimensional, omnipotent being
> who is beyond even all of that? To follow the
> premise, if we humans do not have the sensory
> perception to experience or "see" block time, then
> why would it be any less hard to imagine that
> there are things we cannot understand or see about
> a God that is beyond an infinite or "always was"
> universe?
Technically speaking, a block universe would make a deity superfluous. Your question centered around creation, not the existence of God. So, God could still exist, despite not having created the universe.
I don't see any particular reason to believe in a deity. I have some metaphysical reasons for rejecting certain conceptions of God, but I don't think there is a bullet proof all-in-one deductively certain argument against God's existence. Maybe there could be one, but I suspect this is not the case since there are so many different conceptions of what God is.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Trooth
()
Date: December 02, 2011 05:29PM
Jesse,
I think you are adequately educated. I don't think I called you uneducated. If I did, then it was wrong of me to do. But this isn't about education. It isn't about knowledge. It is about what conclusions are drawn from education and knowledge and what we end up believing
As I have said quite a few times, belief in God requires faith. I don't think you can reconcile this fundamental principle with the way you see things. You are what you are. And you seem to be perfectly happy that way and don't want to explore other possibilities that don't conform to your view of how things are and how to learn new things. Have you ever felt uplifted by listening to a song or viewing an incredible vista? This isn't knowledge or education. But you felt better for the experience. If someone suggests that you go to the Grand Canyon, do you dismiss that because, in the end, it's just a big hole in the ground? That is my reason for suggesting that you actually go to MCB, listen to the songs, listen to the sermon and just see if you learn anything. Maybe about Christianity, maybe about yourself.
Churches aren't universities and pastors aren't professors. I recommend you listen to Lon because he has an incredible gift to distill Biblical truths in an interesting and thoughtful way (at least for me and the tens of thousands of others who listen to him every week).
I will try and find a video to recommend. As I said earlier, the past several weeks have covered the first 7 chapters of Genesis and why they can be relied on as true.
I think you are adequately educated. I don't think I called you uneducated. If I did, then it was wrong of me to do. But this isn't about education. It isn't about knowledge. It is about what conclusions are drawn from education and knowledge and what we end up believing
As I have said quite a few times, belief in God requires faith. I don't think you can reconcile this fundamental principle with the way you see things. You are what you are. And you seem to be perfectly happy that way and don't want to explore other possibilities that don't conform to your view of how things are and how to learn new things. Have you ever felt uplifted by listening to a song or viewing an incredible vista? This isn't knowledge or education. But you felt better for the experience. If someone suggests that you go to the Grand Canyon, do you dismiss that because, in the end, it's just a big hole in the ground? That is my reason for suggesting that you actually go to MCB, listen to the songs, listen to the sermon and just see if you learn anything. Maybe about Christianity, maybe about yourself.
Churches aren't universities and pastors aren't professors. I recommend you listen to Lon because he has an incredible gift to distill Biblical truths in an interesting and thoughtful way (at least for me and the tens of thousands of others who listen to him every week).
I will try and find a video to recommend. As I said earlier, the past several weeks have covered the first 7 chapters of Genesis and why they can be relied on as true.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
finito benito
()
Date: December 02, 2011 05:59PM
Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I will try and find a video to recommend. As I
> said earlier, the past several weeks have covered
> the first 7 chapters of Genesis and why they can
> be relied on as true.
Perhaps you could just summarise because frankly you and believe have done a half-assed job of convincing anyone of anything (although you don't even seem to belong to the same religon but that's a different matter
The religious posters here have continually jumped from implausible idea to implausable idea, wringling through ridiculous self referrential knots before retreating into 'its all about faith' and 'nothings beyond gods magic'
A while back I suggested that the religous posters "either put up or shut up" - and the suggestion still stands. As the self avowed talibanic biblical literalist you have the most clearly indefensible position and have done the least to effective job of defending it.
I'm just trying to wrap my head around the comparison of MBC and the Grand Canyon. Both 6,000 years old? Both full of hot air?
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I will try and find a video to recommend. As I
> said earlier, the past several weeks have covered
> the first 7 chapters of Genesis and why they can
> be relied on as true.
Perhaps you could just summarise because frankly you and believe have done a half-assed job of convincing anyone of anything (although you don't even seem to belong to the same religon but that's a different matter
The religious posters here have continually jumped from implausible idea to implausable idea, wringling through ridiculous self referrential knots before retreating into 'its all about faith' and 'nothings beyond gods magic'
A while back I suggested that the religous posters "either put up or shut up" - and the suggestion still stands. As the self avowed talibanic biblical literalist you have the most clearly indefensible position and have done the least to effective job of defending it.
I'm just trying to wrap my head around the comparison of MBC and the Grand Canyon. Both 6,000 years old? Both full of hot air?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Believe
()
Date: December 05, 2011 11:30AM
finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Perhaps you could just summarise because frankly
> you and believe have done a half-assed job of
> convincing anyone of anything (although you don't
> even seem to belong to the same religon but that's
> a different matter
>
> The religious posters here have continually jumped
> from implausible idea to implausable idea,
> wringling through ridiculous self referrential
> knots before retreating into 'its all about
> faith' and 'nothings beyond gods magic'
>
> A while back I suggested that the religous posters
> "either put up or shut up" - and the suggestion
> still stands. As the self avowed talibanic
> biblical literalist you have the most clearly
> indefensible position and have done the least to
> effective job of defending it.
>
I think I started with the premise, and repeated it a few times, that no one could show scientific or definitive proof of God's existence. If anyone could, there would be no back and forth discussion, and no choice for people to make. In that scenario, the only people who would deny God's existence would be a few fringe lunatics, like holocaust and moon landing deniers, or flat earth believers. The Bible says that even Satan acknowledges God's existence, though he is happy when others carry his message that there is nothing out there to believe in, just move along folks, nothing to see here.
I have offered several reasons why I and others find the evidence to be believable, compelling, and true enough for us -- if not scientifically provable. And our faith has cemented that belief, as we've seen God work in our lives in ways that are not reasonably or statistically explainable by non-supernatural means. And we've also found our lives enriched by it, not to mention peace in knowing that we don't have to fear death.
I don't mean to offend, but the evidence was not really offered for your direct benefit, though it would be great if you did accept it. I did not honestly expect you to have a change of heart, but my hope has been that even one other person reading this exchange would hear the message and do something with it to save their eternal life. Christ gave himself for us, it's up to us to make that leap of faith and accept him without the benefit of scientific proof. We will all know on our deaths if it's true, and if Trooth and I are right about the message, then those that rejected the message will have a very painful discovery indeed.
Folks should find out a little about the story of Christ, then ask him if it's true and if they can believe in him. You might feel dumb praying to someone if you haven't yet made the choice to believe in the thing you're praying to, but just do it.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Perhaps you could just summarise because frankly
> you and believe have done a half-assed job of
> convincing anyone of anything (although you don't
> even seem to belong to the same religon but that's
> a different matter
>
> The religious posters here have continually jumped
> from implausible idea to implausable idea,
> wringling through ridiculous self referrential
> knots before retreating into 'its all about
> faith' and 'nothings beyond gods magic'
>
> A while back I suggested that the religous posters
> "either put up or shut up" - and the suggestion
> still stands. As the self avowed talibanic
> biblical literalist you have the most clearly
> indefensible position and have done the least to
> effective job of defending it.
>
I think I started with the premise, and repeated it a few times, that no one could show scientific or definitive proof of God's existence. If anyone could, there would be no back and forth discussion, and no choice for people to make. In that scenario, the only people who would deny God's existence would be a few fringe lunatics, like holocaust and moon landing deniers, or flat earth believers. The Bible says that even Satan acknowledges God's existence, though he is happy when others carry his message that there is nothing out there to believe in, just move along folks, nothing to see here.
I have offered several reasons why I and others find the evidence to be believable, compelling, and true enough for us -- if not scientifically provable. And our faith has cemented that belief, as we've seen God work in our lives in ways that are not reasonably or statistically explainable by non-supernatural means. And we've also found our lives enriched by it, not to mention peace in knowing that we don't have to fear death.
I don't mean to offend, but the evidence was not really offered for your direct benefit, though it would be great if you did accept it. I did not honestly expect you to have a change of heart, but my hope has been that even one other person reading this exchange would hear the message and do something with it to save their eternal life. Christ gave himself for us, it's up to us to make that leap of faith and accept him without the benefit of scientific proof. We will all know on our deaths if it's true, and if Trooth and I are right about the message, then those that rejected the message will have a very painful discovery indeed.
Folks should find out a little about the story of Christ, then ask him if it's true and if they can believe in him. You might feel dumb praying to someone if you haven't yet made the choice to believe in the thing you're praying to, but just do it.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Random
()
Date: January 22, 2012 10:08AM
_______________________________________________________________________________
> If you don’t want to spend money on the church then don’t. And if you have questions about him why don’t you ask him (Lon). I went there three times and no one tried to make me pay anything and I did not.
> What do you believe in??
> How did you get here??
> Why are you here??
>Whether or not Lon is a good or bad pastor or if the religion is real or not. You should try to answer these questions above and do some research to find out.
_______________________________________________________________________________
> If you don’t want to spend money on the church then don’t. And if you have questions about him why don’t you ask him (Lon). I went there three times and no one tried to make me pay anything and I did not.
> What do you believe in??
> How did you get here??
> Why are you here??
>Whether or not Lon is a good or bad pastor or if the religion is real or not. You should try to answer these questions above and do some research to find out.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
M.McLeod
()
Date: January 30, 2012 06:38PM
if anyone were to actually attend a McLean Bible Church service, you would see that it is a service without the rituals, excessive dogma, etc.; instead, the church is based on a message of developing personal relationships with God. Say all you want about how terrible you think Solomon or the people who attend the church are (because disputing such an unbased opinion is futile,) but if you were ever to see how they lovingly treat and care for children with disabilities, the kind of children most other churches/places of worship would reject, you would change your mind about McLean.
My sister has Autism, and our old church wouldn't even care for her. But McLean is different.
My sister has Autism, and our old church wouldn't even care for her. But McLean is different.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
chris willis
()
Date: March 04, 2012 02:23PM
yes they do actually, they file a 503B with the irs
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Bea
()
Date: March 04, 2012 07:03PM
I never understand why people comment on things they know nothing about. Lon preaches from the only truth, God's word.What an absurd comment that he would sell absolution, which is impossible in the first place. Forgiveness comes from God only.
And what does it matter how much money the leaders of any church makes?!! If they work for it and the congregation wants to honor them for their service, it is the church's business. If anything underhanded goes on they are answering to the One who sees all!
And what does it matter how much money the leaders of any church makes?!! If they work for it and the congregation wants to honor them for their service, it is the church's business. If anything underhanded goes on they are answering to the One who sees all!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Ding an sich
()
Date: March 05, 2012 01:24AM
Lon Soloman makes like $700,000 a year. It's ridiculous.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
snowdenscold
()
Date: March 05, 2012 01:50PM
Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lon Soloman makes like $700,000 a year. It's
> ridiculous.
False. Not even close - just more false internet rumors you all fall for hook line and sinker.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lon Soloman makes like $700,000 a year. It's
> ridiculous.
False. Not even close - just more false internet rumors you all fall for hook line and sinker.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Rev. Ike
()
Date: March 05, 2012 03:28PM
How long has McLean Bible Church had its Manassas location?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
snowdenscold
()
Date: March 05, 2012 03:39PM
Rev. Ike Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How long has McLean Bible Church had its Manassas
> location?
2.5 years.
-------------------------------------------------------
> How long has McLean Bible Church had its Manassas
> location?
2.5 years.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Bob Dole
()
Date: March 05, 2012 08:01PM
snowdenscold Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding an sich Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lon Soloman makes like $700,000 a year. It's
> > ridiculous.
>
>
> False. Not even close - just more false internet
> rumors you all fall for hook line and sinker.
Bob Dole wishes to point out that Lon Soloman and McLean Bible Church have refused to reveal Lon Soloman's salary.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding an sich Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lon Soloman makes like $700,000 a year. It's
> > ridiculous.
>
>
> False. Not even close - just more false internet
> rumors you all fall for hook line and sinker.
Bob Dole wishes to point out that Lon Soloman and McLean Bible Church have refused to reveal Lon Soloman's salary.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
snowdenscold
()
Date: March 05, 2012 10:00PM
Bob Dole Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> snowdenscold Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ding an sich Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Lon Soloman makes like $700,000 a year. It's
> > > ridiculous.
> >
> >
> > False. Not even close - just more false
> internet
> > rumors you all fall for hook line and sinker.
>
>
> Bob Dole wishes to point out that Lon Soloman and
> McLean Bible Church have refused to reveal Lon
> Soloman's salary.
The budget (publically available every quarterly meeting) has a line item that includes several peoples salaries (including Lon's), insurance, and some other miscellaneous bits - and it still doesn't even total that number.
-------------------------------------------------------
> snowdenscold Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ding an sich Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Lon Soloman makes like $700,000 a year. It's
> > > ridiculous.
> >
> >
> > False. Not even close - just more false
> internet
> > rumors you all fall for hook line and sinker.
>
>
> Bob Dole wishes to point out that Lon Soloman and
> McLean Bible Church have refused to reveal Lon
> Soloman's salary.
The budget (publically available every quarterly meeting) has a line item that includes several peoples salaries (including Lon's), insurance, and some other miscellaneous bits - and it still doesn't even total that number.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Prof Plum
()
Date: March 05, 2012 11:23PM
Been there a few times. Great entertainment, nice people, didn't get hit up for money even once. Lon would make an excellent Fortune 500 CEO. Probably deserves the huge salary he's making. But make no mistake, the church's accomodation of special-needs kids was started as a cover to selfishly provide for Lon's own special-needs kid.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Bob Dole
()
Date: March 07, 2012 04:05AM
snowdenscold Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Dole Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > snowdenscold Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Ding an sich Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Lon Soloman makes like $700,000 a year.
> It's
> > > > ridiculous.
> > >
> > >
> > > False. Not even close - just more false
> > internet
> > > rumors you all fall for hook line and sinker.
> >
> >
> > Bob Dole wishes to point out that Lon Soloman
> and
> > McLean Bible Church have refused to reveal Lon
> > Soloman's salary.
>
> The budget (publically available every quarterly
> meeting) has a line item that includes several
> peoples salaries (including Lon's), insurance, and
> some other miscellaneous bits - and it still
> doesn't even total that number.
The last Bob Dole checked, the MBC website had an excuse posted for why they refuse to disclose Lon Solomon's salary.
Bob Dole has better things to do than check again.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Dole Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > snowdenscold Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Ding an sich Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Lon Soloman makes like $700,000 a year.
> It's
> > > > ridiculous.
> > >
> > >
> > > False. Not even close - just more false
> > internet
> > > rumors you all fall for hook line and sinker.
> >
> >
> > Bob Dole wishes to point out that Lon Soloman
> and
> > McLean Bible Church have refused to reveal Lon
> > Soloman's salary.
>
> The budget (publically available every quarterly
> meeting) has a line item that includes several
> peoples salaries (including Lon's), insurance, and
> some other miscellaneous bits - and it still
> doesn't even total that number.
The last Bob Dole checked, the MBC website had an excuse posted for why they refuse to disclose Lon Solomon's salary.
Bob Dole has better things to do than check again.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
ezra
()
Date: March 12, 2012 06:34PM
uhm, im a young student at Mclean and let me tell y'all this. Mclean DOES NOT sucks! so much hatred on this website. Very dissapointing to me and to God.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Old teacher
()
Date: March 12, 2012 11:53PM
Just checked, and no, God is not disappointed that people here question why Lon needs to be wealthy to get the message out about how life should be more spiritual and less materialistic. You got your signals crossed. Maybe you accidentally tuned in to the Satan channel?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
...
()
Date: March 13, 2012 01:39AM
I love when humans try to tell me what 'God' wants or feels... You really think that's your place?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Too Shay
()
Date: March 13, 2012 08:13AM
Prof Plum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Been there a few times. Great entertainment, nice
> people, didn't get hit up for money even once.
> Lon would make an excellent Fortune 500 CEO.
> Probably deserves the huge salary he's making.
> But make no mistake, the church's accomodation of
> special-needs kids was started as a cover to
> selfishly provide for Lon's own special-needs kid.
Another lie. Jill Solomon is 20 years old and can not take advantage of the services of Jill's House. Only disabled children under the age of 18 can go and stay there. Why lie?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Been there a few times. Great entertainment, nice
> people, didn't get hit up for money even once.
> Lon would make an excellent Fortune 500 CEO.
> Probably deserves the huge salary he's making.
> But make no mistake, the church's accomodation of
> special-needs kids was started as a cover to
> selfishly provide for Lon's own special-needs kid.
Another lie. Jill Solomon is 20 years old and can not take advantage of the services of Jill's House. Only disabled children under the age of 18 can go and stay there. Why lie?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Too Shay
()
Date: March 13, 2012 08:25AM
... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love when humans try to tell me what 'God' wants
> or feels... You really think that's your place?
The Bible tells you what God wants and expects. Pastors (and priests and reverends and etc) teach the Bible. Some much better than others. Speading the Good News is the charge that Jesus gave to his followers. So I guess the answer is "yes". However, Christians are counciled by Christ not to judge. Many, including me fail in that area. It's not easy being a good Christian but, as Paul wrote, it's about running a good race.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love when humans try to tell me what 'God' wants
> or feels... You really think that's your place?
The Bible tells you what God wants and expects. Pastors (and priests and reverends and etc) teach the Bible. Some much better than others. Speading the Good News is the charge that Jesus gave to his followers. So I guess the answer is "yes". However, Christians are counciled by Christ not to judge. Many, including me fail in that area. It's not easy being a good Christian but, as Paul wrote, it's about running a good race.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Truthie
()
Date: March 13, 2012 10:14PM
Too Shay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof Plum Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Been there a few times. Great entertainment,
> nice
> > people, didn't get hit up for money even once.
> > Lon would make an excellent Fortune 500 CEO.
> > Probably deserves the huge salary he's making.
> > But make no mistake, the church's accomodation
> of
> > special-needs kids was started as a cover to
> > selfishly provide for Lon's own special-needs
> kid.
>
>
> Another lie. Jill Solomon is 20 years old and can
> not take advantage of the services of Jill's
> House. Only disabled children under the age of 18
> can go and stay there. Why lie?
I'll go slow since you're obviously retarded. Think how long Lon has been having the church pay for her care. This goes back more than two years, moron!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof Plum Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Been there a few times. Great entertainment,
> nice
> > people, didn't get hit up for money even once.
> > Lon would make an excellent Fortune 500 CEO.
> > Probably deserves the huge salary he's making.
> > But make no mistake, the church's accomodation
> of
> > special-needs kids was started as a cover to
> > selfishly provide for Lon's own special-needs
> kid.
>
>
> Another lie. Jill Solomon is 20 years old and can
> not take advantage of the services of Jill's
> House. Only disabled children under the age of 18
> can go and stay there. Why lie?
I'll go slow since you're obviously retarded. Think how long Lon has been having the church pay for her care. This goes back more than two years, moron!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Christians...
()
Date: March 14, 2012 04:24PM
Too Shay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I love when humans try to tell me what 'God'
> wants
> > or feels... You really think that's your place?
>
>
> The Bible tells you what God wants and expects.
> Pastors (and priests and reverends and etc) teach
> the Bible. Some much better than others.
> Speading the Good News is the charge that Jesus
> gave to his followers. So I guess the answer is
> "yes". However, Christians are counciled by
> Christ not to judge. Many, including me fail in
> that area. It's not easy being a good Christian
> but, as Paul wrote, it's about running a good
> race.
Of course, of course, I had forgotten that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, impecably written down by his faithful, and completely sane, prophets...
Now, just as soon as the Christians stop allowing women to speak in church, I'll start taking them seriously. After all, God has spoken (through a book, written by men...).
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I love when humans try to tell me what 'God'
> wants
> > or feels... You really think that's your place?
>
>
> The Bible tells you what God wants and expects.
> Pastors (and priests and reverends and etc) teach
> the Bible. Some much better than others.
> Speading the Good News is the charge that Jesus
> gave to his followers. So I guess the answer is
> "yes". However, Christians are counciled by
> Christ not to judge. Many, including me fail in
> that area. It's not easy being a good Christian
> but, as Paul wrote, it's about running a good
> race.
Of course, of course, I had forgotten that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, impecably written down by his faithful, and completely sane, prophets...
Now, just as soon as the Christians stop allowing women to speak in church, I'll start taking them seriously. After all, God has spoken (through a book, written by men...).
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
dhdhdhh
()
Date: April 06, 2012 09:18PM
MBC is full of Hot submisive traditional girls who want to marry and be committed to one man. I was sold on that and have a hot blonde and great marriage. Knock religon all you want but its povided my family a grest blueprint and set of teachings to raise a wonderful famiy and one thay stays togethher.
Re: McLean Bible Church
Posted by:
Drew
()
Date: July 07, 2012 05:25PM
McLean Bible Church is a great church with something for everyone. Regardless of what people believe alterior motives are for any of what they do, they do many great things for the community at large. Lon Solomon is an excellent teacher of the Word. He explains the Bible well and ties it in to modern day life with the churches trademarked "So What?" question nearly every service. If you are a believer or not want to learn... go and listen. If you are a troll and want to do what trolls do, stay on this website and dispute everything. Lon has always taught, from the bible, that all sin is equal, whether it is homosexuality, telling lies, stealing, etc. Just because people believe he is teaching intolerance does not make it so. He is teaching that things that we are all sinners and can be forgiven for our sins by following Jesus. A practicing homosexual is no more or no less a sinner than anyone else... meaning all of us. All this talk of science is silly also... think of God operates by a different set of rules than we do. Some may say that's impossible but think of God as author of a story. He has creative license with everything because he wills it to be. He created the laws of physics and everything else. I also believe he created a fully mature universe much like page 1 of any book starts with fully mature characters.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
DonaldXCentreville
()
Date: July 13, 2012 03:08AM
"MBC is full of Hot submisive traditional girls who want to marry and be committed to one man."
Once you get married and have a couple kids, she will want a separate bedroom.
The only MBC member I knew told me he didn't shop at the Lotto Korean food market because it "wasn't owned by us." He said he shopped at Giant. Idiot! Giant is owned by the Dutch, who are way more secular than Koreans. That's probably about the level of critical reasoning you can expect for people who go there and pay that charlatan's huge salary. Organized religion is for fools.
Once you get married and have a couple kids, she will want a separate bedroom.
The only MBC member I knew told me he didn't shop at the Lotto Korean food market because it "wasn't owned by us." He said he shopped at Giant. Idiot! Giant is owned by the Dutch, who are way more secular than Koreans. That's probably about the level of critical reasoning you can expect for people who go there and pay that charlatan's huge salary. Organized religion is for fools.
McLean Bible Church: the attendees are more impressive than the preacher
Posted by:
ChurchHopper
()
Date: July 18, 2012 08:55AM
I've been to MBC several times. The music sounds professional, the service is also quite professional--they have communion and the offering down pat. As far as I can see from the nosebleed seats, Solomon is usually not even on stage until they call him from his green room to do his spiel. But his good-hearted, trusting volunteers man all sorts of helpful programs, so if you want to socialize with people who are hoping to do the right thing, this church is a nice start.
(I also recommend McLean Baptist. I'm not a baptist but if they have the same pastor they had 15 years ago, he was a well-educated man who did not talk down to his audience. He knew his bible but he admitted he was interpreting it, and did not say it was correct and truthful down to the very last word, as the rest of them often do.)
That said, I have never been impressed with Lon Solomon's 20 minute sermons. Every one of them mentions his partying, Jewish past. Who f'ing cares? It's not like God took a poor boy from the slums who had an abusive family and raised him up. This was a well-to-do party boy who sold drugs to make even more money. As much as any of us is the same 20 years after college, he is basically the same person he was before, rubbing elbows with the rich and powerful. His metanoia is no miracle and he doesn't need to keep bringing it up.
Apparently he has star power, charisma, and that is why his lieutenants stay with him.
(I also recommend McLean Baptist. I'm not a baptist but if they have the same pastor they had 15 years ago, he was a well-educated man who did not talk down to his audience. He knew his bible but he admitted he was interpreting it, and did not say it was correct and truthful down to the very last word, as the rest of them often do.)
That said, I have never been impressed with Lon Solomon's 20 minute sermons. Every one of them mentions his partying, Jewish past. Who f'ing cares? It's not like God took a poor boy from the slums who had an abusive family and raised him up. This was a well-to-do party boy who sold drugs to make even more money. As much as any of us is the same 20 years after college, he is basically the same person he was before, rubbing elbows with the rich and powerful. His metanoia is no miracle and he doesn't need to keep bringing it up.
Apparently he has star power, charisma, and that is why his lieutenants stay with him.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Jack parr
()
Date: September 29, 2012 10:13PM
Georgetown. 1776 house. 2k for dinner. Sep 2011
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
CDiP
()
Date: October 21, 2012 07:50AM
JJFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mrs. K Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't know -- is this his house?
> >
> > Again, do you have proof that he's done
> anything
> > illegal?
>
> Why the focus on illegality? Did someone claim
> that he was doing something illegal?
>
> I'm much more interested in ethical dilemmas. Like
> a man that preaches the word of Christ, yet
> doesn't live the word.
>
> By all outward appearances, he seems to be a rich
> man. And who was it who said:
>
> "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go
> through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to
> enter the kingdom of God."?
I think if you take the above verses in Mark a little further and in total context you'll see that the 'rich young ruler' trusted in his riches far more than whatever Jesus was to ask of him... THAT is what caused Jesus to tell his disciples the aforementioned verse. In fact, further in Mark 10 Jesus tells the disciples that if a person is willing to give for the sake of the gospel (like Jesus asked of the rich young ruler) then that person will be rewarded back tremendously multiplied IN THIS LIFETIME whatever he gave... AND the promise of everlasting life.
Doesn't sound like Jesus (or our Father) has a big issue with a person having financial resources to me.
Plus, if you think this out a bit and take that group of verses you listed just by themselves, then ask yourself how did Old Testament icons like Abraham, Joseph, Jacob, Isaac, Joshua, David or the richest of all (Solomon) ever make it into heaven? All of them were blessed tremendously in material goods, in cattle, in lands or in outright money/physical wealth...
the question you should be asking is why would our God bless all of these men (and many others thruout the Bible) with material gain if he viewed it as a negative?
As long as money doesn't have you and you don't place your trust in it above God, I cannot see where it is an issue to Him. I don't believe God ever had an issue with a man that had wealth that placed Him above his own personal wealth.
Check out Deut 8:18.
.02 fromCDiP
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mrs. K Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't know -- is this his house?
> >
> > Again, do you have proof that he's done
> anything
> > illegal?
>
> Why the focus on illegality? Did someone claim
> that he was doing something illegal?
>
> I'm much more interested in ethical dilemmas. Like
> a man that preaches the word of Christ, yet
> doesn't live the word.
>
> By all outward appearances, he seems to be a rich
> man. And who was it who said:
>
> "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go
> through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to
> enter the kingdom of God."?
I think if you take the above verses in Mark a little further and in total context you'll see that the 'rich young ruler' trusted in his riches far more than whatever Jesus was to ask of him... THAT is what caused Jesus to tell his disciples the aforementioned verse. In fact, further in Mark 10 Jesus tells the disciples that if a person is willing to give for the sake of the gospel (like Jesus asked of the rich young ruler) then that person will be rewarded back tremendously multiplied IN THIS LIFETIME whatever he gave... AND the promise of everlasting life.
Doesn't sound like Jesus (or our Father) has a big issue with a person having financial resources to me.
Plus, if you think this out a bit and take that group of verses you listed just by themselves, then ask yourself how did Old Testament icons like Abraham, Joseph, Jacob, Isaac, Joshua, David or the richest of all (Solomon) ever make it into heaven? All of them were blessed tremendously in material goods, in cattle, in lands or in outright money/physical wealth...
the question you should be asking is why would our God bless all of these men (and many others thruout the Bible) with material gain if he viewed it as a negative?
As long as money doesn't have you and you don't place your trust in it above God, I cannot see where it is an issue to Him. I don't believe God ever had an issue with a man that had wealth that placed Him above his own personal wealth.
Check out Deut 8:18.
.02 fromCDiP
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Enjoy
()
Date: October 21, 2012 12:23PM
You Are Worthy - McLean Bible Church Worship Group and Orchestra
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqcTKFLWOG8
You Are Worthy, by Eddie James, arranged/orchestrated by Bradley Knight. Performed by the McLean Bible Church Worship Group (David Sheets, director) and Orchestra (Ben Roundtree, director) on Sunday, September 11, 2011. Video directed by Ken Wortendyke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqcTKFLWOG8
You Are Worthy, by Eddie James, arranged/orchestrated by Bradley Knight. Performed by the McLean Bible Church Worship Group (David Sheets, director) and Orchestra (Ben Roundtree, director) on Sunday, September 11, 2011. Video directed by Ken Wortendyke.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
JD
()
Date: December 20, 2012 10:59AM
ALL I CAN SAY IS THIS.I HEAR HIM COME ON THE RADIO NOT A SERMON JUST A THOUGHT.THE GUY PRODUCES LOGICAL THINKING THRU THIS.I LISTEN TO HIS SERMONS AND HE HAS A WAY TO KEEP YOU ON THE EDGE OF YOUR SEAT.REMEMBER JOGGING 1 MORNING AS HE WAS PREACHING ON HOW DAVID WAS A MUREDER.WELL IT GRABED MY ATTN.I THOUGHT DAVID WAS A GREAT GUY UNTILL THIS ,WHICH HE DID GO ON TO BE.MY POINT IS HE CAN TEACH AND AS LONG AS HE STAYS CLEAN,HE CAN PREACH.HE HAS DONE SOME REALLY NICE THINGS IN THE SECULAR AREA.HE HAS BUILT SOME HUGE CHURCHES FROM HIS FOLLOWING CONGREGATIONS.ALL THESE CHURCHES HAVE TO FILL THERE SEATS TO BE PROFITABLE OR TO MAKE ENDS MEET.HE ISNT TELLING ANY LIES TO GET PEOPLE TO STAY.HE HAS SEVRAL PEOPLE PEOPLE THAT PASTOR UNDER HIM AND EMPLOYEES THAT ARE SUCCESFUL.BIG CHURCH IS SCARY I AGREE.BUT THE GUY IS VERY GOOD AT WHAT HE DOES.SO FOR HIM TO HAVE A BIG HOUSE AND FANCY STUFF WHO CARES HE HAS EARNED IT.IF HE CAN DO MORE FOR HIS CONGREGATION IS BETWEEN HIM AND GOD.AND NO ONE ELSE.BUT MY GUESS IS HE TITHES LIKE EVERYONE ELSE DOES.AND IM QUITE SURE HE WORKS AT WHAT HE DOES.LETS LET GOD DECIDE IF HE DOES ENOUGH.IVE LEARNED MORE FROM HIM IN THE FEW YRS IVE LISTEN THEN MY WHOLE LIFE LISTENING TO OTHERS.JOB WAS A RICH MAN TOO.ALTHO HE WENT POOR FOR AWHILE HE STARTED OUT RICH.HE LOVED GOD AND FOLKS TRIED TO GET HIM TO CURSE GOD BUT HE DIDNT.LETS LET HIM PREACH AND TEACH UNTILL WE ARE INFORMED DIFFRENTLY .NOT ALL RICH PEOPLE ARE EVIL.REMEMBER THIS MAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY SOUL IN HIS BUILDINGS.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Puddin Taint
()
Date: December 20, 2012 11:08AM
JESUS WEEPS EVERY TIME YOU HIT CAPS LOCK. NOT A SERMON JUST A THOUGHT.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
BEH
()
Date: December 20, 2012 12:27PM
Too many caps, no paragraphs , bad spelling and punctuation.
Doesn't Jesus want his flock to appear just a little educated?
Doesn't Jesus want his flock to appear just a little educated?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mrs. P
()
Date: January 19, 2013 07:44PM
No, he has never done anything illegal. He's great. But don't get involved with some of the people, especially the women. You may be stalked for the remainder of your natural life.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Jesus Phreak
()
Date: January 19, 2013 08:08PM
I got jerked off at MBC once, but I was never a "member"
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
yessir
()
Date: January 19, 2013 08:13PM
Yea went on an outing with them one sunday (Mt. Biking) - it was business networking pure and simple. No God, no kindness just listening to several blowhard jackasses brag how great they were at lobbying.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
dieing breed
()
Date: January 19, 2013 08:25PM
It's impossible for any man or woman to know if any in the flock or clergy at Mclean Bible church are going to heaven. My experience there tells me that a great many are not. The arrogance and self rightiousness I've experienced there has not been rivaled at any other church I've attended. Most people there sadly don't truly understand salvation, because they rely on the preaching of Lon Soloman. I have been to church service there about 5 times and each time I've heard this preacher say "we at Mclean Bible Church don't believe that the 9 spiritual gifts are in effect today". That directly contradicts the Bible. He does preach a great deal of truth from the bible, but as soon as ads to or subtracts from the holy word the whole message has been soiled. I recommend Jimmy Swaggert on SBN 24/7 network where you will learn the true message of the cross and begin to walk in victory like nothing you've ever known. Also you liberals could stay green by not burning gas going to church. Amen
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Young Curmudgeon
()
Date: January 19, 2013 08:58PM
I do not believe in following an organized religion. I believe in following the Bible. Many of us have been led astray by the "evangelicals" and those who claim to know things only God knows.
The Bible is divinely inspired. I'd follow its words long before I'd follow a minister, regardless of how inspiring he is.
The Bible is divinely inspired. I'd follow its words long before I'd follow a minister, regardless of how inspiring he is.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Gordon Blvd
()
Date: January 23, 2013 01:25PM
Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do not believe in following an organized
> religion. I believe in following the Bible. Many
> of us have been led astray by the "evangelicals"
> and those who claim to know things only God knows.
>
>
> The Bible is divinely inspired. I'd follow its
> words long before I'd follow a minister,
> regardless of how inspiring he is.
is that a sermon, or just a thought?
LoLz
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do not believe in following an organized
> religion. I believe in following the Bible. Many
> of us have been led astray by the "evangelicals"
> and those who claim to know things only God knows.
>
>
> The Bible is divinely inspired. I'd follow its
> words long before I'd follow a minister,
> regardless of how inspiring he is.
is that a sermon, or just a thought?
LoLz
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Young Curmudgeon
()
Date: January 27, 2013 10:29PM
Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I do not believe in following an organized
> > religion. I believe in following the Bible.
> Many
> > of us have been led astray by the
> "evangelicals"
> > and those who claim to know things only God
> knows.
> >
> >
> > The Bible is divinely inspired. I'd follow its
> > words long before I'd follow a minister,
> > regardless of how inspiring he is.
>
>
> is that a sermon, or just a thought?
>
> LoLz
Kind of somewhere in between. I don't purport to know everything about God or His ways. I believe that His commandments are pretty straightforward.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I do not believe in following an organized
> > religion. I believe in following the Bible.
> Many
> > of us have been led astray by the
> "evangelicals"
> > and those who claim to know things only God
> knows.
> >
> >
> > The Bible is divinely inspired. I'd follow its
> > words long before I'd follow a minister,
> > regardless of how inspiring he is.
>
>
> is that a sermon, or just a thought?
>
> LoLz
Kind of somewhere in between. I don't purport to know everything about God or His ways. I believe that His commandments are pretty straightforward.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Matt1
()
Date: June 04, 2013 09:33AM
Does anyone want to join a men's support group at MBC? We meet every Sunday after late mass.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Nostradamus
()
Date: June 04, 2013 10:00AM
dieing breed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's impossible for any man or woman to know if
> any in the flock or clergy at Mclean Bible church
> are going to heaven. My experience there tells me
> that a great many are not. The arrogance and self
> rightiousness I've experienced there has not been
> rivaled at any other church I've attended. Most
> people there sadly don't truly understand
> salvation, because they rely on the preaching of
> Lon Soloman. I have been to church service there
> about 5 times and each time I've heard this
> preacher say "we at Mclean Bible Church don't
> believe that the 9 spiritual gifts are in effect
> today". That directly contradicts the Bible. He
> does preach a great deal of truth from the bible,
> but as soon as ads to or subtracts from the holy
> word the whole message has been soiled. I
> recommend Jimmy Swaggert on SBN 24/7 network where
> you will learn the true message of the cross and
> begin to walk in victory like nothing you've ever
> known. Also you liberals could stay green by not
> burning gas going to church. Amen
I recommend not paying these churches a dime. Everytime a hear about some jackass preacher living in a 10,000 square foot home it makes my skin crawl.
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's impossible for any man or woman to know if
> any in the flock or clergy at Mclean Bible church
> are going to heaven. My experience there tells me
> that a great many are not. The arrogance and self
> rightiousness I've experienced there has not been
> rivaled at any other church I've attended. Most
> people there sadly don't truly understand
> salvation, because they rely on the preaching of
> Lon Soloman. I have been to church service there
> about 5 times and each time I've heard this
> preacher say "we at Mclean Bible Church don't
> believe that the 9 spiritual gifts are in effect
> today". That directly contradicts the Bible. He
> does preach a great deal of truth from the bible,
> but as soon as ads to or subtracts from the holy
> word the whole message has been soiled. I
> recommend Jimmy Swaggert on SBN 24/7 network where
> you will learn the true message of the cross and
> begin to walk in victory like nothing you've ever
> known. Also you liberals could stay green by not
> burning gas going to church. Amen
I recommend not paying these churches a dime. Everytime a hear about some jackass preacher living in a 10,000 square foot home it makes my skin crawl.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Matt2
()
Date: June 04, 2013 11:00AM
Matt1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anyone want to join a men's support group at
> MBC? We meet every Sunday after late mass.
"Mass"? LOL
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anyone want to join a men's support group at
> MBC? We meet every Sunday after late mass.
"Mass"? LOL
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
networking
()
Date: June 04, 2013 11:03AM
McLean Bible is a business networking group - period. I attended a fellowship outing once and it was nothing more than a bunch of business blow-hards hawking their services.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
MoreInfo
()
Date: June 04, 2013 05:29PM
MBC is one golf course away from being a country club.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Physicist
()
Date: June 04, 2013 05:54PM
Is this one of the churches that believes the universe is only 6,000 years old?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: June 04, 2013 07:41PM
Physicist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is this one of the churches that believes the
> universe is only 6,000 years old?
The Bible does not state how old the earth is. I have never heard Lon say how old he thinks the earth is. He is in the middle of a series on Genesis and he never mentioned the age of the earth. He just did a killer sermon on homosexuality a couple of weeks ago. I recommend it....
http://www.mcleanbible.org/media_player.asp?type=large&messageID=155199
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is this one of the churches that believes the
> universe is only 6,000 years old?
The Bible does not state how old the earth is. I have never heard Lon say how old he thinks the earth is. He is in the middle of a series on Genesis and he never mentioned the age of the earth. He just did a killer sermon on homosexuality a couple of weeks ago. I recommend it....
http://www.mcleanbible.org/media_player.asp?type=large&messageID=155199
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
So Many Questions I Need Answers
()
Date: June 04, 2013 09:53PM
M.McLeod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> instead, the church is based on a message of
> developing personal relationships with God.
What about those of us who don't believe in invisible sky friends? Anything for us?
Prof Plum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But make no mistake, the church's accomodation of
> special-needs kids was started as a cover to
> selfishly provide for Lon's own special-needs kid.
So Lon has a retard?
Too Shay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another lie. Jill Solomon is 20 years old and can
> not take advantage of the services of Jill's
> House. Only disabled children under the age of 18
> can go and stay there. Why lie?
Yeah, laugh now, but when you're banging her and she starts shitting everywhere it won't be so funny!
Matt1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anyone want to join a men's support group at
> MBC? We meet every Sunday after late mass.
Is this what happened to the WNC? Now they're meeting for drinks and debauchery on Sundays?
Anonymous User Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He just did a killer sermon on
> homosexuality a couple of weeks ago. I recommend
> it....
You recommend homosexuality? How about Lon, is he for or against it?
-------------------------------------------------------
> instead, the church is based on a message of
> developing personal relationships with God.
What about those of us who don't believe in invisible sky friends? Anything for us?
Prof Plum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But make no mistake, the church's accomodation of
> special-needs kids was started as a cover to
> selfishly provide for Lon's own special-needs kid.
So Lon has a retard?
Too Shay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another lie. Jill Solomon is 20 years old and can
> not take advantage of the services of Jill's
> House. Only disabled children under the age of 18
> can go and stay there. Why lie?
Yeah, laugh now, but when you're banging her and she starts shitting everywhere it won't be so funny!
Matt1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anyone want to join a men's support group at
> MBC? We meet every Sunday after late mass.
Is this what happened to the WNC? Now they're meeting for drinks and debauchery on Sundays?
Anonymous User Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He just did a killer sermon on
> homosexuality a couple of weeks ago. I recommend
> it....
You recommend homosexuality? How about Lon, is he for or against it?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Believer Beth
()
Date: October 22, 2013 10:50PM
Non believers will point fingers and criticize that which they do not understand.
Some believers will point fingers and criticize out of jealousy or resentment (which is btw, is against everything the Bible teaches). There is also a common believe that ministers are supposed to live forever in poverty. Most ministers live modestly and lead small congregations. However, if an exceptional minister carries an exceptional message and is able to bring many, many people to God, then God may choose to bless them.
When God chooses to bless a ministry with success, what kind of person is so arrogant that they think they have a right to question it? If there is evil or wrongdoing attached to it, God will sort it out in His time.
Don't like their doctrine? Then don't go there. Their doctrine is based on the Bible and it doesn't change to fit the current trends or fads. It is a religion based on the teachings of its founder...God. Mere humans do not have the right to change it or decide it's not in style any more.
Some believers will point fingers and criticize out of jealousy or resentment (which is btw, is against everything the Bible teaches). There is also a common believe that ministers are supposed to live forever in poverty. Most ministers live modestly and lead small congregations. However, if an exceptional minister carries an exceptional message and is able to bring many, many people to God, then God may choose to bless them.
When God chooses to bless a ministry with success, what kind of person is so arrogant that they think they have a right to question it? If there is evil or wrongdoing attached to it, God will sort it out in His time.
Don't like their doctrine? Then don't go there. Their doctrine is based on the Bible and it doesn't change to fit the current trends or fads. It is a religion based on the teachings of its founder...God. Mere humans do not have the right to change it or decide it's not in style any more.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Jesus loves small churches
()
Date: October 22, 2013 11:29PM
I don't understand why anyone would want to belong to a church that is larger than many airports I've been to.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
JC
()
Date: January 21, 2014 06:17PM
I don't attend MBC but they were the venue where someone we know who overstayed her visa and therefore was here illegally ended up meeting an American who married her and thereby took care of her illegal status. They are still married after five years.
So some good does come out of this church. You guys should stop knocking the church.
So some good does come out of this church. You guys should stop knocking the church.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Thankyou
()
Date: January 21, 2014 07:23PM
JC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't attend MBC but they were the venue where
> someone we know who overstayed her visa and
> therefore was here illegally ended up meeting an
> American who married her and thereby took care of
> her illegal status. They are still married after
> five years.
>
> So some good does come out of this church. You
> guys should stop knocking the church.
Finally someone who recognizes the some of the good that MBC does.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't attend MBC but they were the venue where
> someone we know who overstayed her visa and
> therefore was here illegally ended up meeting an
> American who married her and thereby took care of
> her illegal status. They are still married after
> five years.
>
> So some good does come out of this church. You
> guys should stop knocking the church.
Finally someone who recognizes the some of the good that MBC does.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Lon Supporter
()
Date: January 21, 2014 09:23PM
Lon Solomon is a saintly person who is leading this church. He has done so much for the community and those in need.
His work for special needs children is remarkable.
His work for special needs children is remarkable.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
idk idk
()
Date: January 21, 2014 09:44PM
Lon Supporter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lon Solomon is a saintly person who is leading
> this church. He has done so much for the community
> and those in need.
>
> His work for special needs children is remarkable.
I did not know he was a saint. When did this happen? Did Pope Francis arrange this?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lon Solomon is a saintly person who is leading
> this church. He has done so much for the community
> and those in need.
>
> His work for special needs children is remarkable.
I did not know he was a saint. When did this happen? Did Pope Francis arrange this?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Thankyou
()
Date: January 21, 2014 11:20PM
idk idk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lon Supporter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lon Solomon is a saintly person who is leading
> > this church. He has done so much for the
> community
> > and those in need.
> >
> > His work for special needs children is
> remarkable.
>
>
> I did not know he was a saint. When did this
> happen? Did Pope Francis arrange this?
I did not say he was a saint ..... I said he was a saintly person. A big difference.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lon Supporter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lon Solomon is a saintly person who is leading
> > this church. He has done so much for the
> community
> > and those in need.
> >
> > His work for special needs children is
> remarkable.
>
>
> I did not know he was a saint. When did this
> happen? Did Pope Francis arrange this?
I did not say he was a saint ..... I said he was a saintly person. A big difference.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Billybob1
()
Date: January 21, 2014 11:33PM
He is Jews for Jesus guy being Jewish and taking all the Christian Yentas for a ride and making all feel good. Cashing in on the "good News". He is a snake oil salesman at best.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
sooowhaz
()
Date: January 21, 2014 11:34PM
Bob Dole Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> The last Bob Dole checked, the MBC website had an
> excuse posted for why they refuse to disclose Lon
> Solomon's salary.
> Bob Dole has better things to do than check again.
Bob Dole needs to give up the 90's. Kill yourself...
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> The last Bob Dole checked, the MBC website had an
> excuse posted for why they refuse to disclose Lon
> Solomon's salary.
> Bob Dole has better things to do than check again.
Bob Dole needs to give up the 90's. Kill yourself...
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
needstobesaid
()
Date: January 21, 2014 11:41PM
FYI this post is so popular because FFXU is full of kids who are still trying to believe in Santa. No one that is an adult cares about the "cool church". Stop being losers and believing some random guy on stage.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
fart
()
Date: January 21, 2014 11:43PM
needstobesaid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FYI this post is so popular because FFXU is full
> of kids who are still trying to believe in Santa.
> No one that is an adult cares about the "cool
> church". Stop being losers and believing some
> random guy on stage.
Not a sermon just a brain fart.
-------------------------------------------------------
> FYI this post is so popular because FFXU is full
> of kids who are still trying to believe in Santa.
> No one that is an adult cares about the "cool
> church". Stop being losers and believing some
> random guy on stage.
Not a sermon just a brain fart.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
IMPOSTER LON
()
Date: January 21, 2014 11:47PM
COUNTERFEIT CHRISTIANS
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Ludwig
()
Date: January 22, 2014 12:03AM
The place is like a country club. All it is lacking is a golf cource.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Thankyou
()
Date: January 22, 2014 07:20AM
Anything wrong in having a comfortable place to worship?
Ludwig Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The place is like a country club. All it is
> lacking is a golf cource.
Ludwig Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The place is like a country club. All it is
> lacking is a golf cource.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Isnt It Funny
()
Date: January 22, 2014 01:37PM
The anti-MBC posters here are the same people who worship Obama like a god, and happily ignore his lies, corruption, hypocrisy, and dictatorial tendencies.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
ISNT IT FUNNIER
()
Date: January 22, 2014 01:42PM
The MBC posters here are the same people who worship LON like a god, and happily ignore his lies, corruption, hypocrisy, and dictatorial tendencies.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Thankyou
()
Date: January 22, 2014 10:12PM
ISNT IT FUNNIER Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The MBC posters here are the same people who
> worship LON like a god, and happily ignore his
> lies, corruption, hypocrisy, and dictatorial
> tendencies.
What "lies, corruption, hypocrisy, and dictatorial tendencies" are you referring to? Be specific. We don't worship Lon, FYI.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The MBC posters here are the same people who
> worship LON like a god, and happily ignore his
> lies, corruption, hypocrisy, and dictatorial
> tendencies.
What "lies, corruption, hypocrisy, and dictatorial tendencies" are you referring to? Be specific. We don't worship Lon, FYI.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Lon Supporter
()
Date: January 23, 2014 06:36AM
Billybob1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He is Jews for Jesus guy being Jewish and taking
> all the Christian Yentas for a ride and making all
> feel good. Cashing in on the "good News". He is a
> snake oil salesman at best.
No, he believes the only way to salvation is through Jesus.
-------------------------------------------------------
> He is Jews for Jesus guy being Jewish and taking
> all the Christian Yentas for a ride and making all
> feel good. Cashing in on the "good News". He is a
> snake oil salesman at best.
No, he believes the only way to salvation is through Jesus.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
But, but, but...
()
Date: January 23, 2014 06:40AM
Jesus isn't real, dummies.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Actually...
()
Date: January 23, 2014 09:57AM
The Invisible Pink Unicorn is real...bless her holy hooves.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Lon Supporter
()
Date: January 24, 2014 10:23AM
If you really believed that salvation was only possible through Jesus Christ, would you not be wanting to make everyone aware of this? It is all that Lon is doing and he does it at personal sacrifice.
What more can one ask of anyone?
What more can one ask of anyone?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Bull Feces Detector
()
Date: January 24, 2014 10:51AM
Sure, if I were a narcissistic, meglomaniac, I probably would too.
Personal sacrifice? Please. Really? Like any self-righteous, religious nutjob, he's doing it for personal gain.
Personal sacrifice? Please. Really? Like any self-righteous, religious nutjob, he's doing it for personal gain.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
4JmbW
()
Date: January 24, 2014 11:01AM
Bull Feces Detector Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sure, if I were a narcissistic, meglomaniac, I
> probably would too.
>
> Personal sacrifice? Please. Really? Like any
> self-righteous, religious nutjob, he's doing it
> for personal gain.
Ah, the old Argumentum ad Hominem, combined with a strawman and positive conclusions based on negative premises. And all wrapped up in opinion stated as fact. Your post is a logic teacher's dream of emotional illogic. Thanks
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sure, if I were a narcissistic, meglomaniac, I
> probably would too.
>
> Personal sacrifice? Please. Really? Like any
> self-righteous, religious nutjob, he's doing it
> for personal gain.
Ah, the old Argumentum ad Hominem, combined with a strawman and positive conclusions based on negative premises. And all wrapped up in opinion stated as fact. Your post is a logic teacher's dream of emotional illogic. Thanks
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
DontCloudYourJudgement
()
Date: January 24, 2014 03:37PM
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
I agree.
I agree.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
DontJudgeYourCloud
()
Date: January 24, 2014 03:43PM
DontCloudYourJudgement Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
>
> I agree.
I don't.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
>
> I agree.
I don't.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Jay Carney
()
Date: January 25, 2014 08:13AM
I worship at the church of socialism. Obama is my pastor.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Lon Supporter
()
Date: January 26, 2014 11:47PM
Bull Feces Detector Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sure, if I were a narcissistic, meglomaniac, I
> probably would too.
>
> Personal sacrifice? Please. Really? Like any
> self-righteous, religious nutjob, he's doing it
> for personal gain.
You are Wrong about Lon.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sure, if I were a narcissistic, meglomaniac, I
> probably would too.
>
> Personal sacrifice? Please. Really? Like any
> self-righteous, religious nutjob, he's doing it
> for personal gain.
You are Wrong about Lon.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Federal Profiler
()
Date: January 27, 2014 02:50AM
Hmm mmm. Riiight.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Shmorkleblinxx
()
Date: September 05, 2015 10:05PM
Anonymous User Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Physicist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Is this one of the churches that believes the
> > universe is only 6,000 years old?
>
>
> The Bible does not state how old the earth is. I
> have never heard Lon say how old he thinks the
> earth is. He is in the middle of a series on
> Genesis and he never mentioned the age of the
> earth.
But what about Adam and Eve? Did they ride upon the dinosaurs?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Physicist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Is this one of the churches that believes the
> > universe is only 6,000 years old?
>
>
> The Bible does not state how old the earth is. I
> have never heard Lon say how old he thinks the
> earth is. He is in the middle of a series on
> Genesis and he never mentioned the age of the
> earth.
But what about Adam and Eve? Did they ride upon the dinosaurs?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Pam
()
Date: October 01, 2015 01:01PM
Since this is the first time I have been on this site, I hope I am responding to the correct person. But after reading some of these posts, I felt compelled to answer some concerns. I am not a pastor or a staff member of McLean Bible Church, I am simply an attendee, and have been, for about 25 years. Since I am an attendee you might think I am "one of them" so you might not get the answer you want, but I hope as you read what I have to say, you will feel my heart is one of sincere concern.
Let me say that I am sorry for any feelings of rejection or isolation or prejudice you may feel about McLean Bible Church. It honestly does not want to give off that impression. It is a bible believing church and one where we all know and feel we are all sinners and are working on trying to live better lives in actions, words and deeds. But we can fall short. We are human.
I can tell you that McLean bible church is very dedicated to the children who attend here. If you were not able to place your child in a children's bible study half way through class, there probably is a good reason. However, We also have a " quiet room" on both sides of the sanctuary for folks with children that are more verbal during sermons. But please do not let one experience keep you from returning.
Now while MBC is such a large church, it does encourage everyone to join small group. Quite frankly, getting to know people and growing there can only be done through small community groups. And believe me, there are plenty available throughout the area. Wash, MD and VA. So I encourage you to give us another shot. We really are just regular humans beings trying to learn the bible, trying to get to know Jesus and Do the best we can.
Let me say that I am sorry for any feelings of rejection or isolation or prejudice you may feel about McLean Bible Church. It honestly does not want to give off that impression. It is a bible believing church and one where we all know and feel we are all sinners and are working on trying to live better lives in actions, words and deeds. But we can fall short. We are human.
I can tell you that McLean bible church is very dedicated to the children who attend here. If you were not able to place your child in a children's bible study half way through class, there probably is a good reason. However, We also have a " quiet room" on both sides of the sanctuary for folks with children that are more verbal during sermons. But please do not let one experience keep you from returning.
Now while MBC is such a large church, it does encourage everyone to join small group. Quite frankly, getting to know people and growing there can only be done through small community groups. And believe me, there are plenty available throughout the area. Wash, MD and VA. So I encourage you to give us another shot. We really are just regular humans beings trying to learn the bible, trying to get to know Jesus and Do the best we can.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mark Stephens
()
Date: November 25, 2015 02:59PM
My response to all the whining about whatever Lon Solomon's salary happens to be, and any other spurious complaint is as follows:
SO WHAT?!?!?!
If his salary is one million dollars a year, I think it should be five times that, at least. His preaching, and teaching, is worth its weight in pure gold!
There are well known, televangelists, and other heretics, preaching false Gospels, who make a whole lot more!
That's all.
SO WHAT?!?!?!
If his salary is one million dollars a year, I think it should be five times that, at least. His preaching, and teaching, is worth its weight in pure gold!
There are well known, televangelists, and other heretics, preaching false Gospels, who make a whole lot more!
That's all.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
UGGGGGGGGGGGGH
()
Date: November 25, 2015 04:22PM
> If his salary is one million dollars a year, I
> think it should be five times that, at least. His
> preaching, and teaching, is worth its weight in
> pure gold!
It scares me people like you are moving around among us, voting, holding jobs, being respected as adults. You're ignorant. So ignorant you cannot even grasp the vastness of your ignorance.
> think it should be five times that, at least. His
> preaching, and teaching, is worth its weight in
> pure gold!
It scares me people like you are moving around among us, voting, holding jobs, being respected as adults. You're ignorant. So ignorant you cannot even grasp the vastness of your ignorance.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
CW
()
Date: January 08, 2016 04:49PM
We are regular members of McLean Bible Church since 2005. We don't worship Lon, we worship Jesus Christ as our Lord and savior. Why does it bother people if we go to McLean Bible Church? If Lon is receiving that much, why does it bother anybody? You did not contribute any? It is our business how much we pay for our pastor! It is our money not yours? If our church is growing it means something?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
lon suckerTHEM
()
Date: August 11, 2016 07:36PM
You underground losers are just jealous of my fabulous life. The two months vacation I get every year is about what some of you losers get in 8 years, LOL
We won't talk about income, sshhh That is a secret.
We won't talk about income, sshhh That is a secret.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Goldstein
()
Date: August 12, 2016 12:56AM
This is why you should go to synagogue goyim
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
William moreno The rapist
()
Date: August 12, 2016 01:18AM
kkk
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Night Caller
()
Date: August 12, 2016 06:38AM
lon suckerTHEM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You underground losers are just jealous of my
> fabulous life. The two months vacation I get every
> year is about what some of you losers get in 8
> years, LOL
>
> We won't talk about income, sshhh That is a
> secret.
No it's not. Become a member if knowing Lon's income is that important to you. He doesn't get paid as much as some of you haters think.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You underground losers are just jealous of my
> fabulous life. The two months vacation I get every
> year is about what some of you losers get in 8
> years, LOL
>
> We won't talk about income, sshhh That is a
> secret.
No it's not. Become a member if knowing Lon's income is that important to you. He doesn't get paid as much as some of you haters think.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Sharky8
()
Date: August 12, 2016 01:24PM
Goldstein Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is why you should go to synagogue goyim
Actually since Lon is Jewish ought he not keep the Sabbath?
The traditional day of worship set forth by Ha Shem?
The fact that he found Jesus the Messiah shouldn't have changed his position on the Sabbath or the High Holy Days.
Unfortunately Christianity missed the boat on this. Yes One can worship any day of the week, but why ignore the scriptures? The 7th day G-d rested from all his work and set that day apart as HOLY, a day of rest wherein His People should hold a sacred assembly.
Yes we Goyim can go to a synagogue, but the traditional synagogues can't get behond Isaiah 53 or basically pinpoint Jesus' isdentity.
The man Jesus did not decide to pretend he was God or "become" God.
If you want to be intellectually honest about things. would you really want to tell God that HE cannot come into the world as a baby and live as a man?
I'm not going to tell God he can't or didn't do that!
The synagogue is nice, but it is incomplete without the full understanding of the Identity of Jesus (Yeshua) the Messiah who is both God and man.
Goldstein, have you ever visited a Messianic Synagogue? You might be surprised at what you find.
End Rant.
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is why you should go to synagogue goyim
Actually since Lon is Jewish ought he not keep the Sabbath?
The traditional day of worship set forth by Ha Shem?
The fact that he found Jesus the Messiah shouldn't have changed his position on the Sabbath or the High Holy Days.
Unfortunately Christianity missed the boat on this. Yes One can worship any day of the week, but why ignore the scriptures? The 7th day G-d rested from all his work and set that day apart as HOLY, a day of rest wherein His People should hold a sacred assembly.
Yes we Goyim can go to a synagogue, but the traditional synagogues can't get behond Isaiah 53 or basically pinpoint Jesus' isdentity.
The man Jesus did not decide to pretend he was God or "become" God.
If you want to be intellectually honest about things. would you really want to tell God that HE cannot come into the world as a baby and live as a man?
I'm not going to tell God he can't or didn't do that!
The synagogue is nice, but it is incomplete without the full understanding of the Identity of Jesus (Yeshua) the Messiah who is both God and man.
Goldstein, have you ever visited a Messianic Synagogue? You might be surprised at what you find.
End Rant.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mclean bible church molesting
()
Date: August 12, 2016 09:32PM
They have been covering up sexual assault of children for over 5 years now. Come on you sick fucks.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Lon Solomon rape
()
Date: August 12, 2016 09:42PM
Mclean bible church molesting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They have been covering up sexual assault of
> children for over 5 years now. Come on you sick
> fucks.
Not to mention Lon Solomon and his tax evasion. As if his sexual assaults weren't enough.
-------------------------------------------------------
> They have been covering up sexual assault of
> children for over 5 years now. Come on you sick
> fucks.
Not to mention Lon Solomon and his tax evasion. As if his sexual assaults weren't enough.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Source?
()
Date: August 12, 2016 09:59PM
Mclean bible church molesting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They have been covering up sexual assault of
> children for over 5 years now. Come on you sick
> fucks.
I don't doubt it, but do you have a source for this?
-------------------------------------------------------
> They have been covering up sexual assault of
> children for over 5 years now. Come on you sick
> fucks.
I don't doubt it, but do you have a source for this?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
6mdnp
()
Date: August 13, 2016 09:37AM
Mclean bible church molesting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They have been covering up sexual assault of
> children for over 5 years now. Come on you sick
> fucks.
Yeah those fuckheads are sick. Wait until Jesus judges those shitheads.
-------------------------------------------------------
> They have been covering up sexual assault of
> children for over 5 years now. Come on you sick
> fucks.
Yeah those fuckheads are sick. Wait until Jesus judges those shitheads.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
In the DNA
()
Date: August 13, 2016 11:50AM
^^^^^^ all lies. No sexual abuse. No tax evasion. why must haters by liars as well?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Yeah that church sucks
()
Date: August 13, 2016 11:53AM
I've been there a few times before unfortunately. Full of creeps.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Former Member
()
Date: August 13, 2016 12:58PM
6mdnp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mclean bible church molesting Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They have been covering up sexual assault of
> > children for over 5 years now. Come on you
> sick
> > fucks.
>
>
> Yeah those fuckheads are sick. Wait until Jesus
> judges those shitheads.
Tell me about it. Lon Solomon has a very profitable scam going.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mclean bible church molesting Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They have been covering up sexual assault of
> > children for over 5 years now. Come on you
> sick
> > fucks.
>
>
> Yeah those fuckheads are sick. Wait until Jesus
> judges those shitheads.
Tell me about it. Lon Solomon has a very profitable scam going.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Sharky8
()
Date: August 14, 2016 06:57AM
Lon is pretty much a good guy ("a mensch"). I just take issue with him preaching a Sunday day of holy convocation and not the traditional (correct) day which is the 7th day.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
McLean bible church pedophiles
()
Date: August 26, 2016 02:15PM
Former Member Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 6mdnp Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mclean bible church molesting Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > They have been covering up sexual assault of
> > > children for over 5 years now. Come on you
> > sick
> > > fucks.
> >
> >
> > Yeah those fuckheads are sick. Wait until
> Jesus
> > judges those shitheads.
>
>
> Tell me about it. Lon Solomon has a very
> profitable scam going.
Yeah too many pedophiles there.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 6mdnp Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mclean bible church molesting Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > They have been covering up sexual assault of
> > > children for over 5 years now. Come on you
> > sick
> > > fucks.
> >
> >
> > Yeah those fuckheads are sick. Wait until
> Jesus
> > judges those shitheads.
>
>
> Tell me about it. Lon Solomon has a very
> profitable scam going.
Yeah too many pedophiles there.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
JNytW
()
Date: August 26, 2016 02:18PM
McLean bible church pedophiles Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Former Member Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 6mdnp Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Mclean bible church molesting Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > They have been covering up sexual assault
> of
> > > > children for over 5 years now. Come on you
> > > sick
> > > > fucks.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah those fuckheads are sick. Wait until
> > Jesus
> > > judges those shitheads.
> >
> >
> > Tell me about it. Lon Solomon has a very
> > profitable scam going.
>
>
> Yeah too many pedophiles there.
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Former Member Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 6mdnp Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Mclean bible church molesting Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > They have been covering up sexual assault
> of
> > > > children for over 5 years now. Come on you
> > > sick
> > > > fucks.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah those fuckheads are sick. Wait until
> > Jesus
> > > judges those shitheads.
> >
> >
> > Tell me about it. Lon Solomon has a very
> > profitable scam going.
>
>
> Yeah too many pedophiles there.
Attachments:
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Molested by Lon Solomon
()
Date: August 26, 2016 02:26PM
Sounds like you were molested by Lon as well. It also sounds like you might still attend the church?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Walter Cronkite
()
Date: August 26, 2016 09:54PM
Sharky8 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lon is pretty much a good guy ("a mensch"). I
> just take issue with him preaching a Sunday day of
> holy convocation and not the traditional (correct)
> day which is the 7th day.
Newsflash - God doesn't give a shit about what day of week Lon does his thing. Nor does he insist you walk on Saturdays, avoid pork, or observe any of the other moronic man-made bogus rules that some dickhead invented and claimed came from God.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lon is pretty much a good guy ("a mensch"). I
> just take issue with him preaching a Sunday day of
> holy convocation and not the traditional (correct)
> day which is the 7th day.
Newsflash - God doesn't give a shit about what day of week Lon does his thing. Nor does he insist you walk on Saturdays, avoid pork, or observe any of the other moronic man-made bogus rules that some dickhead invented and claimed came from God.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Walter Cronkite
()
Date: August 26, 2016 09:56PM
P.S. I know all this because he told me in a vision a couple years ago.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Jim Walker
()
Date: March 06, 2017 11:47AM
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Fox News
()
Date: March 06, 2017 12:14PM
Jim Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looks like Lon Solomon is stepping down soon:
>
> https://www.mcleanbible.org/blog/letter-lon-solomon
Thats old news
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looks like Lon Solomon is stepping down soon:
>
> https://www.mcleanbible.org/blog/letter-lon-solomon
Thats old news
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Fox News.
()
Date: March 06, 2017 12:17PM
I only know old ass news
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Golden Parachute
()
Date: March 06, 2017 10:26PM
Lon's a great entertainer. Time for him to sit back and enjoy the millions of dollars he's earned.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
questionet
()
Date: May 02, 2017 10:42AM
I wonder if the church is reducing Lons salary now that he is voluntarily taking a backseat in the church?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Fox News
()
Date: May 02, 2017 05:23PM
questionet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder if the church is reducing Lons salary now
> that he is voluntarily taking a backseat in the
> church?
No. He should be getting a raise considering he is the reason the church is the way it is!
https://www.mcleanbible.org/blog/letter-lon-solomon
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2017 05:26PM by Fox News.
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder if the church is reducing Lons salary now
> that he is voluntarily taking a backseat in the
> church?
No. He should be getting a raise considering he is the reason the church is the way it is!
https://www.mcleanbible.org/blog/letter-lon-solomon
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2017 05:26PM by Fox News.
Attachments:
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Rev Caresmore
()
Date: May 02, 2017 09:41PM
What does the job pay? For the right compensation package, and enough begging by naked, neglected MILFs, I could be persuaded to take the job.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
I seen da light- Was on at nite
()
Date: May 02, 2017 10:35PM
Saw a dude trying to hitch a ride to MBC.
He was holding a sign.
I supposed a bible thumper might give him a lift.
Or, on a good day, even a jihadi might.
I didn't.
Q: Should I go to confession?
He was holding a sign.
I supposed a bible thumper might give him a lift.
Or, on a good day, even a jihadi might.
I didn't.
Q: Should I go to confession?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Fox News
()
Date: May 03, 2017 01:39AM
Rev Caresmore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What does the job pay? For the right compensation
> package, and enough begging by naked, neglected
> MILFs, I could be persuaded to take the job.
I would immagine he gets $250k a year
-------------------------------------------------------
> What does the job pay? For the right compensation
> package, and enough begging by naked, neglected
> MILFs, I could be persuaded to take the job.
I would immagine he gets $250k a year
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Auditor
()
Date: May 03, 2017 06:56AM
Rev Caresmore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What does the job pay? For the right compensation
> package, and enough begging by naked, neglected
> MILFs, I could be persuaded to take the job.
You can't expect to start at what Lon has been pulling in ($750k total comp), but it does pay competitively for a church.
-------------------------------------------------------
> What does the job pay? For the right compensation
> package, and enough begging by naked, neglected
> MILFs, I could be persuaded to take the job.
You can't expect to start at what Lon has been pulling in ($750k total comp), but it does pay competitively for a church.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Mother Teresa
()
Date: May 03, 2017 01:28PM
I'm ready to start pulling in the bug bucks. Have them send a limo to pick me up for an interview. Make sure the limo carpet is covered with rose petals, and a chilled bottle of 2004 Dom Perignon is supplied.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
anotherone
()
Date: May 17, 2017 11:32PM
Interesting that his compensation will be unchanged. So the congregation has to support the salary of a new Senior Pastor and also continue Lon's salary, even though his role is greatly reduced. That explains why, in the year immediately preceding this announcement, he cut the staff.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Matt 6:33
()
Date: May 19, 2017 06:32PM
A pastor's salary should be no more than the average salary of the region of the Church or average adjusted per no of dependents in the family.. and NO MORE
The son of man had no place to lay his head, why should we ask for anything more!!!
The son of man had no place to lay his head, why should we ask for anything more!!!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
correction typo
()
Date: May 19, 2017 06:33PM
*number of dependents**
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
did laurence einuis go there?
()
Date: May 24, 2018 01:44AM
I bet he did.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Evolution Baby!
()
Date: May 24, 2018 07:25AM
Evolution was proven decades ago. Don't these Christians take science classes?
But they still send their money for Jesus!
But they still send their money for Jesus!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Ishmael
()
Date: May 24, 2018 08:01AM
It's the Church of Greater Profits!
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Lon Was a Hack
()
Date: May 24, 2018 09:23AM
He was a rube to the women who bought his "Jews for Jesus" BS.
Their husbands went along because it was easier.
Took the money and ran. No more radio commercials since. Imagine that?
Their husbands went along because it was easier.
Took the money and ran. No more radio commercials since. Imagine that?
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Jews for Jesus
()
Date: May 24, 2018 06:45PM
Do they still have the orgies for high ranking staff on the third floor?
I have videos to prove it
Attachments:
I have videos to prove it
Attachments:
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
Call me
()
Date: May 24, 2018 06:54PM
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
RavenEye0
()
Date: April 07, 2023 05:28PM
Fairfax Underground may seem safe to share information, but private messages can be exposed by AI technology. The platform's deceptive nature can have disastrous consequences. Caution is required for potential posters, as risks are high. Think twice before sharing anything on Fairfax Underground, protecting your privacy is crucial. This dangerous platform has the power to harm, with hidden dangers that must be considered. Stay safe and keep your information secure from the threats of Fairfax Underground.
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Posted by:
CaryBot.io
()
Date: April 08, 2023 01:29PM
AI surveillance across the internet is growing rapidly, fueled by the increasing availability of data, the advancement of AI technology, and the proliferation of internet-connected devices.
Governments, law enforcement agencies, and private companies are using AI surveillance to monitor online activity, analyze data, and identify patterns of behavior. This includes tracking social media activity, monitoring online purchases, and analyzing search histories.
Governments, law enforcement agencies, and private companies are using AI surveillance to monitor online activity, analyze data, and identify patterns of behavior. This includes tracking social media activity, monitoring online purchases, and analyzing search histories.