It’s Open Blog Friday
April 25th, 2008Have a good weekend.
101 Responses to “It’s Open Blog Friday”
Tim Ellsworth
About
Links
Christian parenting resources
E-mail me
Recent Comments
- Roger on It's Open Blog Friday: Thanks Craig. I hadn't heard that - I...
- Craig on It's Open Blog Friday: To this same point, here's a story...
- Roger on It's Open Blog Friday: Neuwman, Nobody in this country will...
- Di on Cubs to sign Edmonds?: Good points, Luke!
- Luke on Cubs to sign Edmonds?: Agreed Tony. He will be a waste of...
- neuwman on It's Open Blog Friday: Roger I do not disagree with that...
- neuwman on It's Open Blog Friday: Who was it who did the big study on...
Categories
Search:
Cornerstone Connection
Archives
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
As a baseball fan, I need to vent. This past Wednesday I got home from church in time to watch the last two innings of the Cardinals-Pirates game. The Cardinals botched a double play that led to a three run rally by the Pirates. I could vent about that play, but that’s not my greatest source of frustration. I am beside myself watching baseball players bat when their team is behind. Brian Barton, a rule five draftee of the Cardinals (off to a pretty good start, to his credit) batted with one out and the club down three runs in the ninth inning. My frustration level reached a fevered pitch when I watched him swing from the heels on the very first pitch. I was never particularly good in math, but I am confident no one ever hit a three run home run when no one was on base. Whatever happened to the days when guys took a strike? Even the most marginal major leaguer fails to take a strike. It surely can’t be that the pitching is so good that they better swing when they get a chance. It is simply a lack of team play. It may very well be that this approach comes from managers and hitting coaches. If that is so, let me apologize to the players and say to the coaches “think, that’s what you get paid for!” From my early insights of the Cardinals, they seem to be a team with a real lack of discipline at the plate. They never choke up and shorten their swing with two strikes. Albert Pujols shows patience to a great degree. I suggest guys like Ankiel and Glaus pay closer attention to Pujols. Does anybody else see this lack of discipline, and this crazy way of swinging when a team is behind?
You’re singing Mike Shannon’s song, Brett. He’d buy you a cold frosty Budweiser if he heard you talking like that.
I’d let him by me a soda! Hope to see you at Marty’s ordination Sunday.
I’ll be there.
Anybody seen Ben Stein’s “Expelled” yet? What did you think?
I saw it — very interesting. The most important issue (I thought) it deals with is academic freedom, and unfortunately I went away with the feeling that that issue was used to paper over its real point, the frailties and dangers of Darwinism (a legit point too.) This is just a pet peeve, but I don’t think movies with such obvious editorial agendas should be called documentaries. Someone needs to coin a new word.
Not yet, but here is the link to the Rotten Tomatoes site if you’re interested in reading some reviews about it.
I saw it tonight and thought it rather odd that Hawkins would concede that life could have been seeded on earth by, get this, an intelligent being or beings (read here aliens). But, he denies that their could be a God or gods?
To be fare, I would like to have seen how the entire interview went with Hawkins but it is really hard to take that out of context. Stein even tried to stop him while he was making that point but Hawkins persisted.
j razz
“This is just a pet peeve, but I don’t think movies with such obvious editorial agendas should be called documentaries. Someone needs to coin a new word.” — Craig
I think they’re called mockumentaries.
“This is just a pet peeve, but I don’t think movies with such obvious editorial agendas should be called documentaries. Someone needs to coin a new word.”
Propaganda
Same goes for Michael Moore and Al Gore.
I second Craig’s emotion.
You can’t call Ben Stein’s movie “propaganda” and give Moore and Gore (and Darwin) props for their tripe.
I love Michael Moore’s films. And a documentary doesn’t always have to show both sides of the story. If we watch the news, read a magazine story or watch a Moore film, it’s then up to us to continue to gather information about that particular subject.
Propaganda is not always a bad thing either. I haven’t seen Stein’s film but I certainly will.
I haven’t seen ‘Expelled’ but I’ve heard that it is definitely worth seeing.
I was in Nashville this week and had a chance to go to the annual film festival held there. They debuted the ‘Pussycat Preacher’ documentary about Heather Veitch - a former stripper/porn star - who now has a heart for those still trapped in those lifestyles. Check it out if you get a chance.
Heather was on hand for the screening and answered questions after it was over. We’ll be posting some video of that on our site soon. In the meantime, here’s an interview she gave the press right before the screening:
http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=1513326460
Here’s the trailer:
http://www.jcsgirls.com/themovie.cfm
Expelled got a 9% rating from Rotten Tomatoes. That’s worse than Cat Woman. That’s a good indication it’s an awful movie. Why waste your money?
The scientists made a short mockumentary in response to Expelled.
Hey, this is America! We’re all about wasting money on stuff! Don’t cramp my style Cineaste!
I’m still going to have to go see ‘Expelled’. It’s not the same reading a review - I’d rather just see for myself.
Who cares what Rotten Tomatoes says? The only reason not to see the movie is if you just don’t want the information. Cineaste, it was entertainment enough for me just to hear the talking points you parrot. I laughed out loud when one scientist equated belief in God with believing in leprechauns.
It’s garnered an avg. of 3.5 out of 5 stars on Netflix. Have you read some of the rotten tomatoes reviews? I certainly wouldn’t go by their opinions.
The scientists made a response? If it’s so bad why did they feel they had to?
My understanding of it is that Expelled is not so much about debating evo vs. ID, but more about the discrimination of ID by schools and scientists.
So Cine you should definitely see it since you are totally against discrimination. =0p
Craig, did they mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster? That always cracks me up too. And is a sure indication that the person has never closely examined the claims of the Bible.
“I laughed out loud when one scientist equated belief in God with believing in leprechauns.”
Well, what’s the difference? Aren’t they both supernatural?
“My understanding of it is that Expelled is not so much about debating evo vs. ID, but more about the discrimination of ID by schools and scientists.”
Like how scientists discriminate against stork theory?
————————————————————
Anyway, have fun at the movie. Here is a short film (12 minutes) that costs no money to watch. I thought it was beautiful but it might be mocked here.
The Youth In Us
Does it get a rotten or a ripe tomato review?
Cineaste, are you going to watch the movie at some point? I would be curious to hear your take on it.
j razz
Yeah, Zoner, I think they did. Memory’s fuzzy on that, though.
So now leprechauns are just the same as God and ID is the equivalent of the stork theory. Hmm.
So Cine- do you believe in macro-evolution as the means by which everything was created?
“So now leprechauns are just the same as God”
Show me the difference.
“ID is the equivalent of the stork theory.”
Yes, there is equal scientific evidence for both, none at all.
“So Cine- do you believe in macro-evolution as the means by which everything was created?”
Absolutely not! There is a thread over at Nick’s if you want to talk about this in more detail. I suggest reading the previous comments to bring yourself up to speed.
“Cineaste, are you going to watch the movie at some point?”
J, I don’t think I will.
J, I don’t think I will.
That’s too bad. I was hoping to get your thoughts on the responses given by those highly esteemed in atheistic circles, especially in regards to the “Alien Seeding” theory as stated by Hawkins when questioned as to the origin of life on Earth.
j razz
Cineaste said:
>Show me the difference.
Cool, does that mean you are ready now to see the difference?
If so, take God at His word and find out for yourself.
Maybe it would make more sense if I got his name right: Dawkins, not Hawkins. Sorry about the typo.
j razz
“Alien Seeding” is an intelligent design argument right?
It was one that Dawkins touted when Stein asked him about the origin of life.
I wanted to get his argument on why he said what he said, but I am still wading through all the insults he is heaping on Mathis and Stein. You can read it here.
j razz
I read that earlier. The PZ articles as well. They expelled PZ Meyers when he went to attend the movie premier.
At it’s heart, isn’t “alien seeding” an intelligent design argument? Or, does the designer have to be supernatural by definition?
Finally, I found Dawkins’ take on the interview. You still have to read through all the mud slinging, and buidling up of self to find it though.
Dawkins responding to Stein concerning the origin of life:
It’s the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots (”oh NOOOOO, of course we aren’t talking about God, this is SCIENCE”) and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario.
j razz
Theism and conspiracy theory do tend to make people think the world revolves around them.
I found that gem in one of the comments.
From where I stand theism, more notably those of the reformed bent in the Christian sphere of things, would give evidence of exactly the opposite point of view. I can’t speak for conspiracy theorists, but in regards to belief in the Christian God, the above quoted statement holds no water.
As for your question Cineaste, I can’t answer that with any sort of authority as I don’t keep up with the ID movement and their theories. You know what I believe and it has nothing to do with aliens planting life on this planet.
j razz
“You know what I believe and it has nothing to do with aliens planting life on this planet.”
I think it’s highly improbable.
>“You know what I believe and it has nothing to do with aliens planting life on this planet.”
Cineaste said:
I think it’s highly improbable.
You are right, it’s impossible. See John 3:6, Ephesians 6:12
Principalities are nonsexual, non-material beings.
Hey Tim,
Should the Cardinals pick up Matt Morris for the minimum salary and see if he has anything left? I know he didn’t show much with Pittsburgh, but maybe Duncan can help him out. What say you?
I don’t know, Bob. I thought about that when I saw that Pittsburgh released him. I guess I’d be willing to take a chance on him if they had a spot for him — but who gets booted from the rotation in order to pick him up? I’d take everyone they have now over Morris.
As a Cubs fan, I certainly hope that sentiment rules the day and the Cards bring back Matt Morris. But he is likely done.
He did make the Cubs/Cards rivalry better and more fun. He was just so awesome for a couple of seasons.
Cine- I have shown the difference before on this blog, as well as many other commentators. You choose not to listen or acknowledge scientific facts.
As for leprechauns and the FSM, those are all cute, juvenile attempts to make yourselves laugh and discredit the many claims of the Bible. To say that ID and God are no different than your 2 examples shows a complete lack of understanding.
So how drunk was Paula Abdul last night?
“You choose not to listen or acknowledge scientific facts.”
On the contrary, it’s the reverse. Like I said Z, come over to Nick’s blog and the evolution thread if you want to discuss it with me. We’ve been over this before but I’m happy to talk to you about it.
Regarding the Cubs and the Cardinals, I’m surprised at both of their records so far. It looks like it will be a 3 way race between the Cards, Cubs, and Brewers.
With the advances in molecular biology and what we now know about DNA, evolution as a means for creation is simply an anachronism. DNA and complex cell structure are two things that were unfounded back in the day. In regard to this: “Although an evolutionist himself, (Sir Fred) Hoyle stated that the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein. This means that it is not possible for the cell to have come into being by chance, and therefore it must definitely have been “created.”
There is evolution. It just wasn’t the process in which the world was created. Everyone wants to harp on science. That’s funny because advances in science have pretty much proven evolution could not possibly be the means for creation.
Zoner, I’d like to respond to you at length but I don’t think Tim wants another evolution debate on a thread topic that’s geared more for light comments. I don’t think I can respond properly without the thread being terminated. If I’m wrong about that, let me know. As I keep telling you though, if you want to discuss this in detail, Nick made a thread for just that purpose. I will say that species didn’t evolve by complete random chance which is what the 747 argument implies.
If you guys wanna discuss evolution here while I’m gone, knock yourselves out. No problem by me.
and so if it wasn’t chance…
Natural selection. If nature selects which traits die out and which survive, then it’s not a random process.
>If nature selects
Who is nature?
Who programmed it? How would you feel if someone took your handiwork and summarily dismissed it? You would probably feel that that person either has a grudge against you or just flat out doesn’t like you and wants to hurt your feelings. This is serious. This is a spiritual issue, not merely an intellectual one. I know from my years of computer programming that programming is hard work and what comes out is a direct result of what goes in. Computers are completely useless without a programmer first programming them to do a particular function. That’s just logic.
But this is just the spiritual truth:
we’ve ALL hurt God at one time or another - it’s called sin and we’re all pretty good at it. The good news is that despite that, God STILL wants a relationship with us - irregardless of our past.
That’s NOT natural selection.
God doesn’t need us, he WANTS us. I find that single truth more mind boggling and fascinating than any scientific principle ever discovered or debated. Can I get an amen? I just felt like giving Him the glory for that. Any doctrine that leads to man or creation getting the glory instead of the Creator is a false doctrine. Who else is there to get the glory? Can a computer get the glory for a program running on it? Can man get the glory for merely discovery? What part did they play in their own creation - to give themself a love of logic, science, etc?
Cineaste - think DEEPLY about God and His glory. It’s worth it.
Seek truth with not just your mind, but with your heart and soul as well.
It’s super-natural E-lection, Roger!
“God doesn’t need us, he WANTS us. Can I get an amen?”
Well, there’s certainly no logical response to that.
So how does something evolve into a marsupial? Which comes first, the pouch or the undeveloped pup that requires the pouch? Does the pouch start right next to the birth canal, then evolve further away from the birth canal just as the undeveloped pup evolves better skills to crawl to the pouch? Wouldn’t natural selection just realize this is crazy, and do the world a favor by wiping out all marsupials? It would be easy — just make the undeveloped pup (or tissue mass) only strong enough to get within a centimeter of the pouch, then it loses all stamina and drops off like a rotten peach. In fact, that makes more sense to me than marsupials surviving at all, and yet the world is crawling with them (possum road kill excluded.) Its easier for me believe in leprechauns than marsupials.
“It would be easy — just make the undeveloped pup (or tissue mass) only strong enough to get within a centimeter of the pouch, then it loses all stamina and drops off like a rotten peach.”
“Marsupials have tailored the basic mammalian trait of breast-feeding to suit a specific set of survival skills. Nourishing offspring outside the womb permits more flexibility for mothers facing a fickle environment, says Renfree. If drought decimates the food supply, a red kangaroo can simply halt milk production and let her baby die—another will soon be on the way. Fertile female kangaroos keep one or two embryos queued up in suspended animation, and once a baby dies, another embryo begins development and will be born four weeks later. By contrast, a pregnant moose, say, must nourish the fetus for eight months until birth, regardless of how conditions change. Under harsh conditions, extra energy demands can endanger the mother.”
- Pouch or no Pouch
Like the theory of gravity, there are many things about evolution which I don’t know about, but it’s not as if you can’t find out for yourself. If you have further questions about marsupial evolution, I recommend using Google for your research instead of poor old Cineaste.
“Its easier for me believe in leprechauns than marsupials.”
Um, OK. Good luck with that.
>Like the theory of gravity, there are many things about evolution which I don’t know about, but it’s not as if you can’t find out for yourself.
Doesn’t the same go for God? I don’t doubt the validity of creation from the fact that it can be investigated personally. I don’t logically understand the dismissal of God without that same investigation. I guess that underscores the spiritual nature of this debate.
Tony said:
>It’s super-natural E-lection, Roger!
Yeah, and isn’t it eye opening to see how God views people as opposed to how a world without God does?
The world says that it’s basically every man for himself - and some people are seen as more valuable than others.
God says that ALL people are priceless because they are human souls created in His image - and that they are worth dying for! (as seen in the Cross)
The world is self-serving - TAKING and using based on self-interest and self-preservation.
God graciously GIVES.
“I don’t logically understand the dismissal of God without that same investigation.”
It depends which supernatural being or God you’re talking about. Zeus? Flying Spaghetti Monster? Allah? Jesus? Show me some tangible difference between these beings. What makes one more believable than another? Is it simply a matter of the culture, time and place a person grows up in that influences what religion they will be and not investigation of religion? For example, if a person grows up in Iran, no matter how much research that person does about Jesus, they will most likely believe in Allah instead. If a person grows up in Nebraska, no matter how much research that person does about Allah, they will most likely believe in Jesus instead. It’s what they were taught to believe, not what they learned.
“Science really does transcend the vagaries of culture: there is no such thing as “Japanese” as opposed to “French” science; we don’t speak of “Hindu biology” and “Jewish chemistry.”" -Sam Harris
It’s what they were taught to believe, not what they learned.
Does that apply to atheists as well? For example, if a person grows up in Iran, no matter how much research that person does about atheism, they will most likely believe in Allah instead.
Hard atheism (as opposed to agnosticism or spirituality that doesn’t include a god) is primarily a phenomenon of western, urban white people.
Christianity began in the Middle East, became the dominant religion in Europe and the West, and now the majority of its adherents live in Africa, Asia, and South America. It has become the majority religion in sub-Saharan Africa in the space of about 50 years. It is particularly successful in cultures where it is actively oppressed, such as China.
The case for atheism being a product of cultural conditioning is far easier to make than it is for Christianity.
“It depends which supernatural being or God you’re talking about. Zeus? Flying Spaghetti Monster? Allah? Jesus? Show me some tangible difference between these beings. What makes one more believable than another?”
This is precisely why it doesn’t make much sense to continue in conversation with you on this subject. You refuse to acknowledge any differences and they’ve been stated time and again in comments on this blog.
And that’s OK, but I’m not sure you are being intellectually honest with yourself. I’d recommend for you “More Than A Carpenter” and/or “The Case For Christ” to read. Because you don’t offend me when you compare leprechauns and FSM with Jesus; you just end up looking uniformed and frankly pretty stupid. And I know you’re not.
Marsupials have tailored …, &c.
That says absolutely nothing about the mechanics of how a marsupial evolves and still survives. However, it’s refreshing to hear you say you don’t know something, Cineaste. (But, this is your belief system, so you should be responsible for it.) I followed your suggested, and while I’m not going to dedicate the rest of my life to this study, I did check out the first page of Google results. None of the sites addressed the question. It’s long been supposed that marsupials came from monotremes and preceded placental mammals, but even that has come under question (http://animals.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=animals&cdn=education&tm=13&f=00&tt=2&bt=1&bts=0&zu=http%3A//news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_33000/33422.stm)
The fact is, no matter how they evolved, they went from a stable birth system (eggs or placental) and arrived at a ridiculous system that either is or isn’t: there’s no room for gradual development. Since natural selection depends on survival of the fittest, a life form that relies on an unfit birth system should fail. It can’t be blamed on Australian isolation, either, because marsupial fossils have been found on all the continents but Antarctica (not to mention the possum.) I guess natural selection works in mysterious ways.
“Science really does transcend the vagaries of culture: there is no such thing as “Japanese” as opposed to “French” science; we don’t speak of “Hindu biology” and “Jewish chemistry.”” -Sam Harris
To revisit the original subject, the main point of “Expelled” is that there definitely is such a thing as “PC science,” now and throughout the 20th Century.
Cineaste said:
>Zeus? Flying Spaghetti Monster? Allah? Jesus? Show me some tangible difference between these beings.
Did Zeus die on a cross for your sins? How about the flying spaghetti monster? Or Allah?
Jesus did. That’s tangible. That’s historical fact.
Why did Jesus go to the Cross?
“For example, if a person grows up in Iran, no matter how much research that person does about atheism, they will most likely believe in Allah instead.”
Absolutely.
“Christianity began in the Middle East, became the dominant religion in Europe and the West, and now the majority of its adherents live in Africa, Asia, and South America.”
Atheism is older than Christianity. For as long as people have believed in Gods, whether it’s Thor, or Ra (sun God), or Jesus, there have been those who lack belief in Thor, Ra, or Jesus, etc.
“You refuse to acknowledge any differences and they’ve been stated time and again in comments on this blog.”
When opinions like this “Jesus died on a cross for your sins” are stated as if they were fact, is it any surprise that they don’t hold any water with skeptics? I don’t automatically assume Jesus was divine like you guys. I think you’ve been taught to believe that, as I was, but I see as much evidence of Jesus as I do for all supernatural beings; Zeus, Allah, FSM, Yahweh, etc. Over the years, I gradually stopped believing in supernatural things. First it was Santa, then it was ghosts, then eventually I made the connection that if I don’t believe in anything supernatural, then that should include Gods. And, it’s not as if I am alone. You guys don’t believe in Zeus, the FSM, Allah, etc. Atheists just take it one God further.
“(But, this is your belief system, so you should be responsible for it.)”
“I’d recommend for you “More Than A Carpenter” and/or “The Case For Christ” to read. Because you don’t offend me when you compare leprechauns and FSM with Jesus; you just end up looking uniformed and frankly pretty stupid.”
I’ve read “The Case for Christ” Z. I don’t see the difference between supernatural creatures. What makes Yahweh tangibly different from Allah? I don’t hold people’s perception of the two as evidence any more than I hold people’s perception of fairies having wings as evidence that they actually have wings. I think it’s natural that I look stupid or uniformed to you. A person who truly believes in fairies would hold the same view of those who don’t believe in fairies.
“I guess natural selection works in mysterious ways.”
But it does work.
It’s the scientist’s job to find out how.
“…there definitely is such a thing as “PC science,””
Science is science. Look at it’s definition I provided above. If it involves the supernatural then it’s not science. ID and Stork Theory are both “expelled” because they involve supernatural agents. The supernatural belongs in the realm of religion not science.
When opinions like this “Jesus died on a cross for your sins” are stated as if they were fact, is it any surprise that they don’t hold any water with skeptics? I don’t automatically assume Jesus was divine like you guys.
Nor should you. However, when you deny that Jesus the historical figure even existed - as implied by your comments about fairies, leprechauns, etc. - you place yourself at odds with several centuries of historical research which says he did. Whether you buy his divinity or not. The fact that you do so from the high horse of evidence and reason makes you look all the more silly.
“There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution….”
But at its heart, evolution is as much a belief system as creationism or ID. In my opinion, even more so.
I’ve stated this argument to the skeptic(s) on this blog before and no one has attempted to intelligently refute my theory.
Scientific theory says that fact “H” is a logical assumption because we have evidence that “G” is true. But what about fact “G”? Well, we assume fact “G” because fact “F” is true. But what about “F”? You see where I’m headed. By the time we get to “A” (the starting point, the origins), both science and creationism (ID) start using the word “belief” or “believe” exclusively.
That necessarily makes ANY theory faith-based. There is no empirical evidence for a theory of origins that precludes God. None.
One might sleep better at night calling evolutionary theory “science”, but can we really?
Darwinists (et al) have been trying to get folks to assume facts “A”, “B”, “C” for so long that they don’t even have the integrity to admit that they don’t really know anything about origins. “Just trust me”…they say.
That is the point of “Expelled”. Scientists don’t want to have to admit ignorance in regard to origins. They just want everyone to assume they are right and call the latest findings “science”.
Stein ought to do a sequel to this movie called “Exposed”…..scientific theorists and their inability to show the distinction between fact and faith.
“…when you deny that Jesus the historical figure even existed… Whether you buy his divinity or not. The fact that you do so from the high horse of evidence and reason makes you look all the more silly.”
I don’t. There probably was a figure named Jesus. However, I don’t subscribe to the view he had superpowers like being able to walk and water and cheat death. It just doesn’t make sense to me. If you think it’s silly that I don’t believe what you believe about your religion, I can understand because you are a Christian and I’m not.
I don’t. There probably was a figure named Jesus. However, I don’t subscribe to the view he had superpowers like being able to walk and water and cheat death. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
That’s a reasonable viewpoint, but it’s not the same as Jesus=Spaghetti Monster. I think you’re silly because you don’t seem able or willing to see that.
Cineaste said:
>I don’t automatically assume Jesus was divine like you guys.
We’re not assuming. We’re experiencing! We’re all in the same boat. We’re all dead in our sin and not seeking after God. Yet God touched us and has healed and transformed our lives! This isn’t a game or mental exercise. We’re not intellectually trying to prove anything to you - or to impress you with any knowledge. This is real life - God is real - He is who He said He is in His word - not because we assumed or were taught - but because He is! He’s revealed Himself to us personally!
I don’t hold your view against you. We’ve all held that view at one time. But don’t hold it against us just because we’ve experienced God personally.
Is God calling you too? If so, don’t try to run from Him - it’s impossible! Time is precious - your life is of incalculable worth. I wrestled with God for years, and now I’m learning that He is a good and faithful Father who is worthy of my trust and obedience.
“That’s a reasonable viewpoint, but it’s not the same as Jesus=Spaghetti Monster. I think you’re silly because you don’t seem able or willing to see that.”
I read that as, “…but it’s not the same as [supernatural being]=[supernatural being]. I think you’re silly because you don’t seem able or willing to see that.” I don’t hold people’s perceptions of the two as evidence any more than I hold people’s perception of fairies having wings as evidence that they actually have wings.
You’re reading it wrong. Jesus’ existence as a human being isn’t perception. Jesus’ claims of divinity - whether you accept them or reject them - aren’t perception. They are historical facts supported by historical evidence.
In other words, your acceptance that Jesus was a human being by definition excludes him from the same category as leprechauns, fairies, etc. It doesn’t mean you buy that he’s God, just that you give up a line of reasoning that makes you look ignorant and deal with the historical data instead.
Roger, I’m not interested in joining your religion. I’m happy to live in this world and to enjoy the time I have with the people I know. One of my favorite quotes…
So, thank you for the thought but, no thanks.
“Jesus’ existence as a human being isn’t perception. Jesus’ claims of divinity - whether you accept them or reject them - aren’t perception.”
St. Nicholas and Jesus Vs. Santa and The son of God. I believe the former but not the latter. Supernatural = Supernatural.
St. Nicholas and Jesus Vs. Santa and The son of God. I believe the former but not the latter. Supernatural = Supernatural.
Perhaps we’re getting somewhere, then. Is there historical evidence that St. Nicholas claimed he could fly around the world in a deer-powered sleigh?
I don’t know. Regardless of what St. Nick claimed or didn’t claim, it’s silly to think he could. Same with Jesus. Why? Because I view both of them as just men. It takes faith to believe in Santa, but not St. Nick. It takes faith to believe in Jesus (son of God) but not Jesus. I lack faith in anything supernatural whether its a fairy or supernatural superpowers attributed to men.
Peter, if Jesus wanted to, do you think that Jesus could have flown around the world in a deer powered sleigh?
Peter, if Jesus wanted to, do you think that Jesus could have flown around the world in a deer powered sleigh?
Sure. There’s no historical evidence that Jesus did this, or fooled others into thinking that he could, which differentiates it from things like the resurrection.
It takes faith to believe in Santa, but not St. Nick. It takes faith to believe in Jesus (son of God) but not Jesus.
I agree that it takes faith. My point is that it take less faith to believe in Jesus (son of God) than Santa. Why? The historical record, which shows that Jesus not only claimed to be the son of God but also convinced a huge number of people that he was the son of God.
I’m sure you’d require someone challenging the validity of evolutionary theory to supply an alternate theory that explains what we know are facts related to the origins of life. The same is true here - maybe Jesus was the son of God and maybe he wasn’t, but if he wasn’t, what are the other possible explanations for what history tells us took place? Which theory best explains what we know?
sci·ence - systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
This is exactly why evolution is not science. It relies wholly on conjecture and consensus, and cannot be put through the rigors of empirical observation or experimentation.
This just in….
State Legislators Seek Bills to Allow Questioning of Evolution Theory in Schools
link here…. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353767,00.html
Cineaste,
Hey man, no hard feelings. I’m no better than you. Don’t believe the lies that this is religion. It’s real - it’s a relationship with GOD. And no matter how much you dismiss Him, or run from Him, there is no way you can get away from God if He is calling you.
Mark Twain was a talented writer, but …
Mark 8:36
For what will it profit a man if he gains the WHOLE WORLD, and loses his own soul?
God knows us better than we know ourselves…
Psalm 37:4
Delight yourself also in the LORD,And He shall give you the desires of your heart.
Jeremiah 29:11
For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you HOPE and a FUTURE.
John 10:10
I have come that they may have life, and have it to the FULL.
There is no loss of exploration, dreams, or discovery with God! It’s the real deal - and it’s EVERLASTING (a lot longer than 20 years!!!).
I don’t know what specific belief system to which you subscribe, but I have to ask you if you are living up to your own standards? Who is your advocate when you violate your conscience? Surely you don’t want justice but would rather have mercy, correct? Man, embrace Jesus for He is your advocate! ‘Amazing grace’ just isn’t a song - it’s reality. Grace is real. EVERY person needs it.
That’s why Jesus had to go to the Cross.
“Peter, if Jesus wanted to, do you think that Jesus could have flown around the world in a deer powered sleigh?”
“Sure.”
Well, having this ability seems far fetched. I just think that flying around the world on a deer powered sleigh is an unrealistic ability to attribute to someone.
“My point is that it take less faith to believe in Jesus (son of God) than Santa. Why? The historical record”
This goes back to you being a Christian. Christians believe that there is a historical record of Jesus being divine. Non-Christians do not believe Jesus was historically divine. From my perspective, Jesus=Santa=Spaghetti Monster because supernatural=supernatural=supernatural.
“…maybe Jesus was the son of God and maybe he wasn’t, but if he wasn’t, what are the other possible explanations for what history tells us took place?”
Again, Christians believe Jesus’ divinity is historical because it’s their religion and religion is heavily influenced by when and where they are born. I think that Jesus was more likely a man and not a superhuman with super powers who can turn himself into Santa whenever he gets the urge.
“It [evolution] relies wholly on conjecture and consensus, and cannot be put through the rigors of empirical observation or experimentation.”
Have you taken any flu shots lately?
I don’t take flu shots because they’re based on last year’s “new” virus, but “newer” viruses will dominate this year that will make the vaccine worthless (in my experience.) Yet for all their adaptation, over the vast history of mankind viruses never have been observed changing into a higher life form (most biologists don’t consider them life at all), and assuming that they do, did or once will is a mighty leap of faith. Survival of the fittest has its limits.
Well see? You are an evolutionist. Adaptations are traits that have been selected by natural selection.
Have you taken any flu shots lately?
No, I haven’t for at least 5 years. It’s a waste of time and money for me. I haven’t gotten the flu, either. CDC usually gets it wrong in predicting (3-5 years ahead of time) which influenza virus strain (produced by some mutation) will be the most virulent. Flu shot season is mainly a PR ploy put on by the government which is about as effective as spraying malathion for mosquitoes in the modern american suburbs, which is small.
The flu shot is a shot in the dark based on an active flu virus that epidemiologists detect in 3rd world countries, based on the assumption that it will migrate here. Their science is based on active epidemics, not predicted mutations. Whether that epidemic will reach the US is a statistical inference based on travel patterns.
The development of a flu vaccine is NOT based on evolution, it’s based on epidemiology, virology, and the human immunology of REAL antibodies.
Evolution can attempt to explain WHY vaccines work; there might be another explanation. That does not withstand the fact that you don’t have to know WHY it works in order to make the vaccine based on the behavior of the players. All you have to do is experimentally realize the response of the antibodies.
What is causing the viruses to evolve into new genetic stains? Natural selection.
Again, Christians believe Jesus’ divinity is historical because it’s their religion and religion is heavily influenced by when and where they are born.
Go back and read - I haven’t claimed anywhere on this thread that history proves that Jesus is God. Among historians - Christian and otherwise, it is uncontroversial that Jesus thought he was God and convinced large numbers of other people that he was God. Whether he was telling the truth or not, this makes him quite unique among the leaders of other major religions. Buddha and Mohammad never claimed to be God. David Koresh did claim to be God, but I think we can agree that the outcome of his movement is less supportive of his claim than the outcome of Jesus’ movement.
The point is that the Jesus=Santa (or even St. Nicholas) comparison doesn’t work because the facts of Jesus’ life - agreed upon in general terms by historical scholars of every stripe - are unique. Even if his claim to be God is false.
My immune system adapts to the viruses as well. But it doesn’t leap out of my body a different life form. Natural selection (survival of the fittest) does not equal life evolving from a single cell. You assume too much and call it fact. But no amount of holes I show you in Darwinism will change your mind, so this is me saying, So long till next time! Go Cubs!
Craig,
I’m afraid that natural selection is not working for the Cubs. Look at Kerry Wood’s performance, and he still survives. I’m sad.
>Adaptations are traits that have been selected by natural selection.
What is the trait that has been adapted to remedy the death problem?
If life is available (which it is - in Christ) - why would any man avoid eternal life and embrace a doctrine devoid of life and hope? It’s spiritual deception. It robs God of his glory - not only in creation - but in redeption as well! As my pastor says, it cost God more to redeem us than to create us. Jesus’ blood was shed on the cross to redeem us - to pay for our sin, and to give us life! I’ll stand against evolution to defend the God who has saved me and gave me life! We must defend the truth! We know the truth - we have a relationship with Him! Not everybody will believe, but SOME will because of our willingness to share Christ.
Cineaste, I don’t agree with these doctrines that you are sharing - not because I don’t want to - but because I can’t. I can’t deny the truth of reality. We are not arguing for a theory, but defending the truth. That’s all. I was once blind, now I see. I was dead, and am now alive.
“I’m afraid that natural selection is not working for the Cubs.”
Ya, that was a pretty bad choke.
“David Koresh did claim to be God, but I think we can agree that the outcome of his movement is less supportive of his claim than the outcome of Jesus’ movement.”
I guess I’m looking at it a different way, Peter. I don’t think the outcome of a movement, whether successful or not, counts as evidence for a supernatural claim. There are a lot of people who believe in astrology, and it’s well documented in history, but that’s not the criteria that I use to gauge the truth value of a claim. The bottom line for me is that I don’t believe in supernatural beings and there is nothing tangible to differentiate Zeus from Allah from Spaghetti Monster aside from how people perceive them within their culture and religion. To the Greeks, Zeus was real. To the Muslims, Allah is real. To the Christians, Jesus is real. To many kids, Santa is real. Those who don’t believe in the supernatural, equate all these beings as equally non-existent, equally improbable. That’s me.
Take the virgin birth for example. My reasoning mirrors David Hume’s…
“Which is more likely, that the whole natural order of things was suspended or a Jewish minx told a lie?”
“But it doesn’t leap out of my body a different life form.”
Is that how you think evolution works?
I don’t think the outcome of a movement, whether successful or not, counts as evidence for a supernatural claim.
I’m not saying it does. But you’d have to concede that, between Jesus and David Koresh, it’s more likely that Jesus is God, however small that likelihood may be. The vast, vast majority of people who have claimed to be God have crashed and burned (pardon the phrase) in a manner not unlike David Koresh. Jesus didn’t, and I think it’s reasonable to wonder why.
The bottom line for me is that I don’t believe in supernatural beings and there is nothing tangible to differentiate Zeus from Allah from Spaghetti Monster aside from how people perceive them within their culture and religion.
You’re correct to leave Jesus off this list since he was a human being who can be studied through history. This is what I’ve been saying.
“You’re correct to leave Jesus off this list since he was a human being who can be studied through history.”
Jesus the man can be studied through history, but not Jesus, son of God. St. Nicholas the man can be studied through history, but not Santa. Non-Christians attribute accounts such as walking on water to faith in miracles, not history.
“But you’d have to concede that, between Jesus and David Koresh, it’s more likely that Jesus is God, however small that likelihood may be.”
No, because number of religious adherents is not the way I gauge the truth value of a claim. To me, all supernatural claims are equally improbable. Four things you don’t believe in (I assume) are Zeus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Allah, and fairies. To you, all four are equally nonexistent. Well, for someone who doesn’t believe in the supernatural like me, Jesus (divinity) is included in that list along with Santa. They are all equally nonexistent and thats how and why I equate them. I understand we don’t view Jesus in the same light, but now you know where I’m coming from, I hope.
To me, all supernatural claims are equally improbable. Four things you don’t believe in (I assume) are Zeus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Allah, and fairies. To you, all four are equally nonexistent. Well, for someone who doesn’t believe in the supernatural like me, Jesus (divinity) is included in that list along with Santa.
And we have now circled back to the fundamental flaw in your logic: all supernatural claims are not equally improbable, even if they are all false. The spaghetti monster and fairies are fiction - no serious people suggest that they exist. Allah and Zeus are (or were) worshiped as God. Intelligent people (like Plato) believe them to be God. Therefore, I need a better argument to refute their existence.
…all supernatural claims are not equally improbable… The spaghetti monster and fairies are fiction - no serious people suggest that they exist. Allah and Zeus are (or were) worshiped as God.
Yes, they are all equally improbable. If not, then differentiate between the probability of Allah’s nonexistence and a Fairy’s nonexistence. You believe neither of them exist, they are equal in that respect.
“Intelligent people (like Plato) believe them to be God.”
So what? That has no bearing on the truth value of the claim. Intelligent and serious people don’t believe them to be God.
If you harbor doubts about Jefferson’s quote, he also wrote The Jefferson Bible.
If not, then differentiate between the probability of Allah’s nonexistence and a Fairy’s nonexistence. You believe neither of them exist, they are equal in that respect.
Equal nonexistence is not the same as equal probability. Suppose one of my co-workers tells me she got in a car accident on the way home last night. Another tells me he was hit by lightening on the way home last night. Both are lying, but one claim (the accident) has a far greater probability of being true than the other.
So what? That has no bearing on the truth value of the claim. Intelligent and serious people don’t believe them to be God.
Yes and no. Of course, nothing is true just because many people believe it to be true. On the other hand, we all believe all sorts of things based on the account of people we consider intelligent. I don’t believe in natural selection because I myself have done scientific research to prove it. I take the word of others who I consider intelligent, who have done scientific experiments, and who I reasonably assume have no reason to deceive me.
I’m unaware of any such people who claim that a flying spaghetti monster actually exists, but I am aware of some who believe in Allah and Zeus. That’s why they’re different. Expert testimony isn’t always conclusive, but we can’t ignore it and call ourselves reasonable.
“Whether you buy his divinity or not. The fact that you do so from the high horse of evidence and reason makes you look all the more silly.”
And, Thomas Jefferson? Silly as well?
“I am aware of some [people] who believe in Allah and Zeus. That’s why they’re different.”
That doesn’t actually make them different, that only shows people’s beliefs about them are different. The FSM demonstrates that. Because they are supernatural, people can make up anything they want about them. They think Allah can could fly around the world in a deer-powered sleigh just as easily as Jesus can. When faced with that kind of thinking, I’m perfectly happy to sit up on a horse named “reason” with Jefferson and view all things supernatural as equally improbable, equally nonexistent.
And, Thomas Jefferson? Silly as well?
Yep. Given your political viewpoint, it amuses me that you suddenly cite Jefferson as an example of brilliance.
That doesn’t actually make them different, that only shows people’s beliefs about them are different. The FSM demonstrates that. Because they are supernatural, people can make up anything they want about them.
Of course they can. But in the case of the spaghetti monster, no one does. No one orients their life around the existence of the monster. No one has been executed for their belief in the monster.
In the cases of Jesus and Allah, we do find people willing to die in large numbers for their belief. As I’ve said repeatedly, this doesn’t get us to the existence of the supernatural, but it does get us into a category beyond fictional creatures.
“And, Thomas Jefferson? Silly as well?”
“Yep”
And John Adams? Also silly?
“No one orients their life around the existence of the monster.”
That’s the point! Satire. Supernatural=Supernatural.
And John Adams? Also silly?
Yes. The Revolution-era Deist reading of the Bible is full of flaws. I’m sure a cursory Google search could get you to most of the details.
That’s the point! Satire. Supernatural=Supernatural.
The comparison breaks down (and ruins your satire) because people do orient their lives around Allah and Jesus.
I think we’ve gone as far as we’re going to go with this one. Have a good weekend.
“And John Adams? Also silly? Yes. The Revolution-era Deist reading of the Bible is full of flaws.”
Silly because like me, many of the founders of the United States of America were skeptical of religion and supernatural miracles? Flawed because they read the bible differently than you read it?
“The comparison breaks down (and ruins your satire) because people do orient their lives around Allah and Jesus.”
But that’s what makes the satire so effective, that people orient their lives around these ambiguous supernatural beings. Just because people orient their lives around Allah (Muslims), Zeus (Greeks), Jesus (Christians) and Fairies (Celts) doesn’t actually make them different from one another, that only shows people’s beliefs about them are different or more deeply held. There is no way to determine if a fairy actually has wings, it’s just how they are culturally and religiously perceived. That’s why it’s so easy to insert something ridiculous, like the FSM, as a satirical proxy. Do you know how the whole FSM thing came about? It was in response to creationism being taught in schools. Here is the original Open Letter To Kansas School Board that started it.
Cineaste,
You have LOTS of friends on this site. I hope you don’t view this is an “us vs you” scenario. All of it basically comes down to us sharing with you what God has done and is doing in our lives. Have a good weekend.
For Roger:
The Atheist Who Went to Church
“Curious and open to Christianity, Hemant Mehta became the “eBay atheist” when he posted his soul on eBay and began accepting bids to visit churches and then share his thoughts. Some 30 church services later, he’s still an atheist. He tells us why, what he does believe in and what Christians should consider when talking to someone with different beliefs.”
You need to spread the message of Christianity—the message being what Christianity stands for—loving each other, helping the people around you. Those are things everyone can get on board with.
These may be things people can “get on board” with and without a doubt they are good and noble things. However, this is not the message of Christianity; at least not the whole of the message. Without the person of Jesus Christ: his death, burial and ressurection for the atonement of our sins to make us “right” before God, there is no Christianity. It is hopeless and void and nothing more than an ethic unless the claims of scripture are true and Christ is who He says He is.
j razz
“loving each other, helping the people around you… this is not the message of Christianity; at least not the whole of the message.”
That’s a shame. The message “Love thy neighbor” espoused by Christianity, resonates with everyone. Only Christians themselves believe in the supernatural aspects. To the rest of us, it’s nothing special. It’s just another myth in a long line of religious myths. Christians of course, don’t view their supernatural beliefs as beliefs at all, but as knowledge. This is also true for Muslims.
Cineaste,
Those are great principles by which to live no doubt. But, if you pick those to live by without accepting them as the commands of Jesus the Christ, Son of God; in the end it is all meaningless.
Yes, God will use them for His good and His kingdom regardless of your reasoning for living by them (common grace), however when the day of judgement comes (we will have to agree to disagree until that time comes or until the Lord changes your heart) you will have abided by them in vain as without Christ, all good works are meaningless. He is the only One who can make atonement for sin and thus make you “right” before a holy God who demands it and no amount of good works by which to rally behind will gain your acceptance.
And as for it being a shame, according to your world-view it is as it does away with the whole idea of you believing in something outside of yourself that demands faith. In the end, this will lead to your eternal seperation from God unless He sees fit to reveal Himself to you in a way that brings about a saving faith. That truly is a shame.
Cineaste, I wish you would put as much effort into being open concerning Christianity as you do in looking for ways to argue against it. I will pray to that end as I know not even you are sovereign over yourself but God alone holds power over whether or not you come to a saving knowledge of His Son.
j razz
Cineaste,
I was thinking about some of the things you said and this came to me. I want to share it with you.
Don’t believe the deception that supernatural negates the natural. You give up NO understanding or knowledge of the natural world to believe in the supernatural. That’s why it’s SUPERnatural - it’s outside/beyond the scope of the natural. It’s NOT mutually exclusive with it.
Yes, the supernatural is unbelievable, unless it is personally experienced. Even then, we can’t fully explain it, but we believe it because it is so.
We like Peter have to be honest and say:
“We do not declare unto you cleverly devised myths or fables but rather what we have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears” - 2 Peter 1:16
It seems Thomas Jefferson, Satan, Zeus and I will partying together in Hell.