HomeFairfax General ForumArrest/Ticket SearchWiki newPictures/VideosChatArticlesLinksAbout
Fairfax County General :  Fairfax Underground fairfax underground logo
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.
Pages: Previous1234567891011All...LastNext
Current Page: 6 of 15
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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).

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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

Options: ReplyQuote
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?

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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?)

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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).

Options: ReplyQuote
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.'

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

No one repents of his wickedness, saying, "What have I done?" Each pursues his own course like a horse charging into battle.

From the least to the greatest, all are greedy for gain; prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit.

Are they ashamed of their loathsome conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush. So they will fall among the fallen; they will be brought down when they are punished, says the LORD.

I will take away their harvest, declares the LORD. There will be no grapes on the vine. There will be no figs on the tree, and their leaves will wither. What I have given them will be taken from them.

The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved ... I mourn and horror grips me.


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

The “natural man” assumes that there is a “principle of rationality,” including the laws of logic, i.e. the law of identity, the law of excluded middle and the law of contradiction which is, like the “facts,” just there. The facts he speaks of he assumes to be non-created facts. There is no “curse” that rests upon nature because of man’s sin. The “natural man” assumes that he himself, being “just there,” can relate the space-time facts which are “just there” by means of a “principle of rationality” that is “just there” to one another or that if he cannot do this, no one can. It does not occur to him to think of God as the one whose thoughts are higher than his thoughts.

All the schools of modern science and philosophy agree that to say God is there, in the sense of the traditional Confessions of the Church, is to speak nonsense. Many of the typical modern scientists and philosophers may believe in a god. They even defend their belief in their god against naturalists, mechanists, and sceptics and materialists. They may believe in a personal god. They may want to give a spiritual, teleological interpretation to the course of history. For all that their gods are nothing more than projections of would-be autonomous moral consciousness of man. They agree with Kant that man himself is autonomous in the final point of reference in predication. In the eyes of all the major schools of modern thought, the god who is there is dead. “When it comes to metaphysics,” says Neuath, a member of the Vienna Circle, “one must indeed be silent, but not about anything.” Or, as the Cambridge philosopher, F. P. Ramsey, an enthusiastic follower of Wittgenstein, puts it: “What we can’t say we can’t say, and we can’t whistle it either.”
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

With one accord, modern theologians contend that even though, as over against naturalism, we must speak of God -- we must not speak of a God who is self-sufficient and whose revelation of himself is directly and clearly given in history, more particularly in Jesus.

Suppose that Jesus did think he was the Son of God. Suppose that in his own words we could hear him say that he is one with the eternal Father.

Our principle of inwardness [rebels] at this. [Because we posit that] Man is not truly a personal being if he must listen to extraneous voices.

Robert Collingwood expresses the view of modern theology on the question of revelation well when he says that the modern historian must take such claims as Jesus makes -- when he says he has absolute authority -- as [just] so much evidence into his own philosophy of history.
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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."

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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?
translation of Hitler Youth manual

"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.

By 1935, the virulently anti-Christian leader of the Hitler Youth, Baldur von Shirach issued a regulation that prohibited any child from belonging simultaneously to a church youth group and the Hitler Youth, and gradually membership in the Hitler Youth became almost obligatory – parents were told that their children would not get jobs in the civil service unless they belonged to the Hitler Youth and employers were told not to hire children who did not belong to the Hitler Youth. Christian schoolchildren who did not belong to the Hitler Youth or its female counterpart were routinely beaten up by young Nazi thugs.

Boys inducted into the Hitler Youth were required to explicitly reject Christianity by oaths like this: “German blood and Christian baptismal water are completely incompatible.” At Hitler Youth center at Halle, was the following prominent statement: “The Faith fanatics, who still to-day slide down on their knees with faces uplifted to heaven, waste their time in churchgoing and prayers, and have not yet understood that they are living on the earth and that therefore their task is of a thoroughly earthly kind. All we Hitler people can still only look with the greatest contempt on those young people who still run to their silly Evangelical or Catholic Churches in order to vent their quite superstitious religious feelings.

Or consider these quotations out of Hitler Youth training manuals: “Christianity is a religion of slaves and fools.” “How did Christ die? Whining at the Cross!” “The Ten Commandments represent the lowest instincts of man.” and “Christianity is merely a cloak for Judaism.

As William Harman Black, one of the most outspoken American opponents of Nazi anti-Semitism wrote in 1938: “The initial battle is for control of the youth of the country. The Christian Church, on the one hand, desires to maintain its parochial schools, where the young people may grow up with an education based on the morals and the manners of the Christian religion; on the other hand, the German State wants to divorce all religion from the education of its youth. As Hitler himself announced ‘The State must control all attitude, shaping influences finally, completely and irrevocably.

Parents who resisted Nazi anti-Christian indoctrination too strongly simply had their children taken away from them. The Nazis even forbade parents to give their children Christian names and ordered babies instead to be given names like Dietrich, Otto or Siegfried. The home teaching of Christianity by parents in the home was forbidden. Not content with simply driving Christianity out of public schools, Himmler banned all Confessing Church seminaries and instruction in 1937 and he closed all private religious schools two years later.




Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2009 05:17PM by Eliot Ness.

Options: ReplyQuote
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?

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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?

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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)

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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".

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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!

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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."
There's a straw-man aspect to this complaint. It's really the 'New Agers' who leap off a cliff with 'faith' and believe in magical Tarot cards and channeled spirits guides. Sometimes in such stores, I have sincerely asked the clerks what they would do if two books about angels-or-whatever disagree. They are perplexed because their is no fall-back single authority. Everybody with any experience is an authority in their world of "faith.".
Christians are limited to faith in what is written in the Old and New Testaments, which are full of historical and archaeological assertions -- in addition to statements about the pre-historic past and the post-historic future (and assertions about what historical men were thinking in their own minds) which, if true, could only be known to a God who is outside of space-time.
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:" "What may be known about God is plain to [men] 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.
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. 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.)




Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2009 04:18PM by Eliot Ness.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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!

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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

Options: ReplyQuote
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!

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.
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."

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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:
QuoteMiningposter62686524.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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).

Options: ReplyQuote
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 :)

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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).

Options: ReplyQuote
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?

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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).

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
Date: February 16, 2009 03:29PM

BTW - Bede's reasoning is contradicted by the bible.

Options: ReplyQuote
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/

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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).

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: McLean Bible Church sucks
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Pages: Previous1234567891011All...LastNext
Current Page: 6 of 15


Your Name: 
Your Email (Optional): 
Subject: 
Attach a file
  • No file can be larger than 75 MB
  • All files together cannot be larger than 300 MB
  • 30 more file(s) can be attached to this message
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
  ******    *******   ********   **      **        ** 
 **    **  **     **  **     **  **  **  **        ** 
 **        **     **  **     **  **  **  **        ** 
 **         ********  ********   **  **  **        ** 
 **               **  **         **  **  **  **    ** 
 **    **  **     **  **         **  **  **  **    ** 
  ******    *******   **          ***  ***    ******  
This forum powered by Phorum.