Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
CP HOME
> Opinion > Columns
Myths about 'Expelled'
Don't Believe Everything You Hear
By
Chuck Colson
Christian Post Guest Columnist
Sat, Apr. 12 2008 12:13 PM EDT
[-] Text [+]
Comments
Check out Caroline Crocker's slides:
http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/ode-to-caroline-crocker/
Her speaking fees range from $1000-$5000 (from her own website: http://www.intellectualhonesty.info/index_files/Contact.htm). These fees "do not include travel expenses" in case you are interested.
So it looks like she is doing just fine, enriching herself off of the ignorant. Ben Stein has joined her at the trough.
Seed,
"While that has been proven to be true in minor changes and variations, it has not been proven in the universal scope of life."
Well you have to ask yourself how all the evidence can be explained but by such large scale 'macro' evolutionary changes. Surely DNA evidence like ERV's and Human Chromosome 2 fusion and others can't be explained by infering no macro evolutionary changes.
What indications/evidnece are there, especially given the lengths of time we're talking about, that varitation within a species can occur, but anything above that cannot? Speciation, or evolution at the macro level (aka ORIGIN of NEW SPECIES) has and continues to be observed (go ahead and ask for my sources, I think you know I am good for it), so what indication is there that a new species can arise, but this stops and somehow couldn't form yet a higher organism taxonomy like genus, family or order? Why do you think it makes sense for evolution to simply stop at the species level and no further?
As soon as speciation has occured, you have 2 unique populations of organisms and they will essentially be genetically isolated, which over time means they will evolve accordingly in different, but somewhat perhaps similar trajectories.
Agent I am not sure when I’ll have the chance to give your comments a thorough response. Let me just say that there are non-Christian historians who would disagree with your assessment.
“Evolution (as a process of change over time) is a fact…”
While that has been proven to be true in minor changes and variations, it has not been proven in the universal scope of life. Furthermore, it not only opens up more questions, but it also has yet to be demonstrated in the first place. While statistics may help prove the historical function of evolution, statistics also reveal that Neo-Darwinism is incapable of explaining the origin of species.
Thumbs up for Star
Would that more Christians would engage the world NOW instead of waiting for "graduation" from some ethereal training before "walking in those works that God has ordained"
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
If the knowledge of the Gospel of Christ has been made plain to you and you have responded, you now know all that you need to know in order to spread the message. Christianity IS an on-the-job-training pursuit. Evangelism is not just the purview of theologically trained pastors.
You learn as you go.
Sanctification is a life-long process, not an event.
Star: I know exactly what you mean! Our chuch, for all of the good in it, well, it just simply stinks at discipleship. So, we've taken matters into our own hands. As a small group, myself, my wife, and two other couples have been working through some terrific discipleship materials produced by Campus Crusade for Christ. I think that, ultimately, the message here is that even though we "belong" to a church, we must still ultimately "work out [our] own salvation with fear and trembling" and sometimes, this calls for us to take responsibility for our own training in righteousness.
Again, just my $.02.
Quecat and Emmaus
In Jan 1, 1981 I told God that I wanted to be a woman of prayer, grow in the knowledge and wisdom of God and His Word, know what my spiritual gift was and to use it, and to be a soul winner. Even though the Church I was going to was going to do a year long teaching on these topics, God didn't have me attend those training classes. Instead He sent me out into the world to serve Him so He could answered my prayer requests. My Singles Minister called that on-the-job training.
Emmaus-
The problem stems from the parents being luke-warm Christians. A hallmark of these folks is that they think that "going to church" is all that is required of them to "please God".
They fail to embrace the fact that daily fervent prayer and personal study and application of of the scriptures is how one grows in Christ. The Word of God is what feeds us, but for some reason these folks think that their soul can survive on a once a week meal delivered via a Sunday sermon! Some diet.
So they apply this same logic to their children's lives. They've delegated the spiritual training of their children to the Sunday school teacher for one hour, once a week - and then are mystified that their children behave no differently than the rest of the world!
A child is a blank slate. Parents, do you honestly believe that if that child receives only 1 hour per week of spiritual training and 100 hours of secular schooling, playing video games, and hanging out with non-Christian friends, in between the few "quality moments" that they might get from you, that you're going to somehow raise up a child who loves the Lord?
Seed,
“which have ironically only lead to more questions”
Sorry, but science isn't a silver bullet like theology that proclaims to answer all things in an instant. Science uses reductionism, so it's not in the overnight business, it's in the slow and steady and accurate business. Yes, with science we will always find new questions in wake of answering other ones, but that is how it works and more importantly that doesn't mean there is nothing geniuenly gained from examination. If you can think science hasn't been a great help to humanity or hasn't answered relavant questions for us, then how do you sleep at night? The very thing you're using right now is directly from science.
Science works by reductionism and so over time you get a clearer and truer sense of how the universe works. IE, in netwons day gravity was instan forcet, but this was the best one could do with the afforded technology, however a young jew from germany changed all that with his idea of relativity and b/c he was able to support his idea with evidence and b/c it produced further testable results, it was accepted.
Relativity as you recall wasn’t accepted immediately, it took a while. So now we have a more clearer, truer understanding on how the universe works and it couldn’t have been done by using ‘god did it’ or made it that way in certain parts of the equation.
“However to completely base a scientific theory, calling it fact,
Uh, uh, hu back it up a bit. Gravity (why/how things fall or move in relation to mass) is a fact. Gravitational theory, is the model which explains the facts of gravity.
Evolution (as a process of change over time) is a fact, the Evolutionary Theory is a model which explains the facts of Evolution. See the difference? Now you know the difference. Theories in science are bigger than facts, theories explain the facts, facts support the theories. There is no ‘absolute certainty’ in science, as such theories are tentative, so in this view one could say they are more of a probabilistic function based on observations and tests. Thus, the more evidence one gathers that cumulatively points in the same direction, we can say that it's well supported, if not essentially a fact.
Quecat: I just read the article, and it just further confirms what we already know - parents, those who are primarily responsible to "raise their children in the faith" are failing at it. Add to that, in my opinion, failed youth ministry programs at the average chuch, and its no wonder why so many are falling away. They're never being convicted of that most important of all messages: Repent and be saved!
Just as an aside, this is precisely why we don't have our 9th grader involved in our youth ministry at our church. There's no challenge to the kids to take responsibility for their own salvation, even if their parents won't raise them in the faith. So, instead, our oldest serves as a room aide with the little kids, and she leans so much from serving than sitting around with a bunch of other kids who are complaining about their lives and how hard they have it. Instead, she serves, and then goes to "big church" with her parents. It's soooo much better!
Anyway, just my $.02. Thanks for the heads-up on the article, I would have missed it otherwise.
Emmaus -
as if right on que - this morning's Post story: "Saving Youth from Church Exodus Not Enough, Says Youth Leader"
Seed,
“If you are implying that naturalism is unscientific, then you may have my ear.”
No, think about it. We can only include natural things into Science as this is what we can hold constant, which is critical for testing in the scientific method. We can’t hold constant some god/ID, that is the crux and this is why supernatural doesn’t working at explaining anything more in detail than before.
“The natural materialistic exclusive truth claims cannot support themselves under the pressure of reality.”
Well, what has supernaturalism ever offered? Surely the Dark Ages and the fall of the Islamic science are reasons enough to know that invoking ‘god did it’ at every puzzling corner is not in our best interest.
“this mode of experimentation was in fact derived from within the Christian theistic worldview”
You’re on crack ol chap, the Classic Greeks (430 BC and prior) were using methods of the scientific method before jesus was even around. The Romans also used some of their techniques, until the Dark Ages took over leaving a 1000 scientific void in EU. In the mean time the Muslims were using science in many realms while Europe was floundering. No until the reformation and until some of the intel left behind from the Islamic conquests in Spain and France made there way into European societies did anything change in Europe. The real scientific method we use now, isn’t Christian in origin at all, but Islamic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Myself: “…you would admit that there is no empirical evidence that completely dispels the scientifically based pronouncements in ‘Expelled.’”
Agent says: “To be sure there are questions yet to be answered in evolutionary theory, as there are in gravity and every other theory, so in sake of knowing all things right now, you’re saying it makes more sense to appeal to god/supernaturalism?”
Agent, you’re chasing a rabbit’s trail that you think leads to the acquittal of naturalism and materialism from their predisposed biases, but it’s not so easily done. Nevertheless, to plow into your main point and skip the diatribe I confer not only with your assessment of gravity and every other theory that has been developed with the thought of having once and for all given us answers which have ironically only lead to more questions. However to completely base a scientific theory, calling it fact, when in reality it does not hold the verifiable empirical evidence that these other problematic theories did offer, leaves a bit to be desired of. Secondly, this only reveals the problem that evolution does not in fact offer the kind of falsifiability that Neo-Darwinists such as your self try to pin on I.D. proponents and creationists on a regular basis. The fact that even if it were possible for Neo-Darwinism to account for all living things, it does not seem likely that it could ever be proven or disproved as say other theories such as the one you made. This does not make creationism or I.D. the ‘scape goat’ from the rigorous scientific investigations, but neither should supernatural explanations be omitted from serious enquiry. The simple fact that Neo-Darwinism lacks explaining power which has given rise to Meta-Darwinism should be a clue that even if I.D. is selectively discriminated against over its inherent appeal to religious belief, it doesn’t follow that Darwinism should be let off the hook as the theory de jure.
“…you see how/why appealing to the supernatural isn’t scientific, right?”
Sorry Agent, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If you are implying that naturalism is unscientific, then you may have my ear. The natural materialistic exclusive truth claims cannot support themselves under the pressure of reality. Not only is there no basis for truth, neither is there a foundation for its development in a materialistic worldview. The mad hatter becomes just as sane as Einstein, no pun intended. There is no way to presume that the man excepting the Nobel Prize is any more worthy as its recipient than the man on the street corner begging for his next drink. It is all in fact meaningless and lacking the capability of distinguishing it.
“Appealing to ‘god made it that way’ is an intellectual dead end.”
I’m sorry Agent, but you are mistaken here. While it may be that for certain practicality sake that one needs to roll up his sleeves and investigate matters for him self without making certain supernatural and mystical explanations, this mode of experimentation was in fact derived from within the Christian theistic worldview. It was Platonic philosophy that held science at the dead end as you called it. It was Christians thinking out of his box that has lead to the disrespect and degradation so commonly held by Mother-Earth advocates and pantheists against Christianity.
w00t/Howard/George/oldguy/Dwen/yyyy/xxxx/first/danny2/danny/BobC/BobCu/Asdfg/zxcvb…
“ID is not science. …there is no science in Expelled.”
…Spoken by a naturalist who has yet to see the movie. Should anyone wonder? “All the information is out there available to you. Take the time to look at some of it.” Sounds like you’ve got some great source material w00t. Why should anyone bother watching it objectively when there are plenty of emotionally distressed reviewers who have been barred from the early previews in the first place? Perhaps if you devoted materialists were to unlock science from strangulation you might learn a thing or two and even have a little laugh along the way. I doubt anyone who has been to Stein’s film sight has been able to keep a serious face. But for you, its all magic man superstition, no?
You may not take pleasure in your worldview being picked at, but it does not give you the right to dictate what other people should think and investigate, just because Maha mahesh w00t says so. Even if I.D. proponents are wasting their time and finances, what is it to you? If Neo-Darwinism is the king of the hill let the facts speak for themselves; it’s not like they are tax-payer funded as the numerous scientific naturalism projects are. They are not advocating an exclusive indoctrination, as Neo-Darwin proponents. If anything they want science unleashed, rather then being stifled by an angry mob of mad scientists who are committed to religious naturalism who demand respect and government support.
You know, X, you can be a real pain in the rear. I'm not "shoving" anything down your throat. I was just commmenting to other Christians about a Biology cirriculum we use (btw - you can CLEP college-level biology classes with it). I wasn't even trying to say anything to the evolutionists out there.
You might find that you will get a little more respect, and people will be a whole lot more willing to listen to you if you'd drop the hostility. It's just downright mean.
"There is no point to wanting it taught in schools"
Well, here your words are at variance with reality. One need only look to the history of how many times creationism has been sought out to be taught in public schools over and over. noe-creationism/ID is just the latest to try and make its attempts.
"...the public schools are the LAST place you'd want to send them! It shouldn't even be a consideration"
Well of course not, now with all that fancy, smacny science and other information they might learn, huh, well it might just jepoardize their faith. and this is the very same reason the Amish don't allow their kids a seodnary education as it too would no doubt inpact the affectiveness of their faith. Heck, look what happens when and if they go to Universities, for those already wavering they have a hard time holding on there.
"including Apologia's "Exploring Creation with Biology" for our 9th grader."
Which means that the earth is taught to be 6000 years old and man lives with dinosaurs and tons of other falsehoods, do I have it about right?
(flagged self)
It's the only way to fulfill Dt 6:6-9 (These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.)
We use nothing but Christ-centered curriculums for our kids - including Apologia's "Exploring Creation with Biology" for our 9th grader.
Two thumbs for Emmaus !!
Now if more parents who call themselves Christian would follow suit - we wouldn't be reading articles such as "Disaffected Youth Abandoning Church".
That's precisely why we homeschool our kids.
I said it once and I'll say it again -
regarding ID:
There is no point to wanting it taught in schools
Why?
I don't see why anyone would bother. If you intend to raise your children with a Christian worldview, the public schools are the LAST place you'd want to send them! It shouldn't even be a consideration.
Furthermore if you think that presenting ID or creationism to public school cookie-cutter kids and that it's somehow going to overcome the rampant secular humanist tripe that is force fed to them everyday in classes, you're sadly mistaken.
Pro 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." Psalm 127:3 "Children are a heritage from the Lord, a reward from him."
Eph 6:4 "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."
This is not a suggestion! It is a duty.
We, as Christians, have a tremendous responsibility given to us when the Lord blesses us with a child. By doing so, He entrusts us with the responsibility of raising up that child in the way of the Lord and establishing early in his life, a foundation built upon Jesus Christ.
We are answerable to the Lord for how our children are raised.
It's folly to think that we can rightly entrust our children's education to strangers, much less those that would teach them moral relativism, religious pluralism and historical revisionism.
In as much as a pastor is responsible to God for his flock - parents are responsible to God for their children. What is needed is for more parents to take their duties more seriously instead of catering to that tongue in cheek excuse, "economic reasons" or "convenience".
UhHuh- try using that excuse before God when He asks you why your children did not follow in the faith of their fathers.
"All the information is out there available to you. Take the time to look at some of it."
No doubt, just go here and watch how Comer was let go......for teaching Evolution. Her and many others have lost their tenure or been let go for the same reason. And Expelled thinks ID folk are the ones being 'persicuted or targeted' unfairly.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Seed,
You’re a smart guy, obviously you see how/why appealing to the supernatural isn’t scientific, right? And yet you’re trying to get something that isn’t science, taught as such. Think about this one Seedy.
“rather than subjecting their selves to the creationists, they assume that evolution is true and continue on in presuming naturalism”
Well, not quite. There is a good reason why natural explanations are more sought than appealing to supernaturalism, and it has to do with intrinsic value. We seek a naturalistic explanation b/c, well we live in a natural/material based world, and more importantly as history has shown, it’s the one to be most pure (as opposed to lumping in ‘god did it’ here and there to make sense of things), most understandable and thus leads to further discoveries. Appealing to ‘god made it that way’ is an intellectual dead end.
“Instead of answers, naturalistic materialism only leaves more questions.”
Are you kidding? Name me a single discovery where ‘god did it or made it that way’ was ever used and resulted in an increase in overall knowledge for humanity? Show me an instance where an appeal to god or supernaturalism has explained anything in more detail than before. Even those who espouse ID wouldn’t bring any answers other than to note that certain things are, well, complex, or have the appearance of design.
“you would admit that there is no empirical evidence that completely dispels the scientifically based pronouncements in ‘Expelled.’”
To be sure there are questions yet to be answered in evolutionary theory, as there are in gravity and every other theory, so in sake of knowing all things right now, you’re saying it makes more sense to appeal to god/supernaturalism?
“It is the efficacy of random natural selection coupled with genetic mutations that is causing the spin out for Neo-Darwinian evolution.”
What spin out, what can’t be explained by evolution and its processes now? Give me an instance of IC that hasn’t already been diced, shredded and thrown back in Behe’s or others faces.
seedplanter, ID is not science. There is no evidence for ID. You cannot go down in to the fossil record, or map a genome and point to someone's initials and say "HA, here is the proof!"
What science do you have to back ID, because, there is no science in Expelled. There are only baseless claims and arguments that push the emotional buttons on the viewer. That is the deception. Science is not about emotion or philosophy. It is about discovering answers to complex problems. If Expelled wanted to be a truly great movie, they would have presented real evidence just as the scientific community does and used it to refute the evidence of Evolution.
Instead they chose to use false representations and deceit in their movie. They make the claim that people where silenced or let go because of their views on intelligent design. These stories are easily refuted and have documentation to back it up. They purposely try to make the scientist in the film look bad. I could go on and on about this. All the information is out there available to you. Take the time to look at some of it.
If the makers of Expelled want to be honest, then let’s have an honest debate on the evidence and models. They shouldn’t put a movie out that is shallow in it’s understanding of science, and then masquerade around as the end-all movie on Evolution.
This “documentary” not only insults the intelligence of people in science and academia, but also your own because it does not present the ideas in a truthful light.
<rolls her eyes>
I'm off to "Settlement Allows Presbyterian Church to Leave Denomination" - it's getting inane in here.
Quit using the products of science & it will wither on the vine . . . . .. . Refuse medical technology, anything made in a factory (did you know they use _statistics_ for 'quality control'?), & all the other artifacts of Satan . . . . .. The scientists & their evil minions will be laid low . . .. . .
...and the same can be said of proponents of evolution.
JC,
It seems creationists always use the same tired, old arguments.
“The gravitational pull on this planet would have been tremendous, and the two likely would have pulled each other apart and disintegrated.’
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html
Agent,
“One can endlessly look for small holes of ignorance and cram god/ID into the void, and this is exactly what IC is…”
I would not be alone in arguing that this is exactly what naturalists seem to do. When a problem arises with evolution, rather than subjecting their selves to the creationists, they assume that evolution is true and continue on in presuming naturalism. When Neo-Darwinism cannot cough up the necessary results to completely silence its critiques, I think it should speak for itself and it would in fact speak loud and clear. Instead of answers, naturalistic materialism only leaves more questions. This double standard of falsifiability does not help the Darwinian cause. Yes, I read earlier claims that seem to put creationism on par with flat earthers and geocentrics this speaks volumes as to the shallowness in the debate on the part of Neo-Darwinian advocates. It is interesting how intelligent scientists can spend their entire lives trying to prove that no intelligence made them in the first place. Sorry Agent, the debate is far from over and while this film may or may not deal with the subject honestly, I am anticipating its arrival along with many others. While it is true as you stated that I am not a biologist and you are I think that if you are honest enough you would admit that there is no empirical evidence that completely dispels the scientifically based pronouncements in ‘Expelled.’ Regardless of whether or not Neo-Darwinism holds the title as the standard scientific dogma, it has not been proven as an incontrovertible fact.
“Other than Behe, please list those in the ID camp that do accept common descent then?”
As I said prior, this is irrelevant to the I.D. proponents in the bigger scheme of things. It is the efficacy of random natural selection coupled with genetic mutations that is causing the spin out for Neo-Darwinian evolution.
Kudos Pattie.
I haven't commented on that article in several days. Sometimes it is very tiring having to repeat yourself over and over again to people who are so blinded by sin that they just won't listen.
Unfornately Teen4Christ attends a church that teaches him that not only should we love the homosexuals in our midst, but actually condone their behavior as normal.
Yes, we should show love one for another, but God calls us to call sin what it is, sin. And to put out of our midst those that would sin openly and unashamedly while trying to still call themselves Christian.
Teen4Christ's pastor is teaching a false doctrine. Scary for Teen to be misled like that - but even scarier for the pastor. God will hold him personally accountable in the day of judgment for those that he has misled.
For those of you still discussing evolution here,
I found today's joke on the company bulletin board to be amusingly appropriate.
A little girl asked her mother, 'How did the human race appear?'
The mother answered, 'God made Adam and Eve and they had children and so all mankind was made.'
Two days later the girl asked her father the same question. The father answered, 'Many years ago there were monkeys from which the human race evolved.'
The confused girl returned to her mother and said, 'Mom, how is it possible that you told me the human race was created by God, and Dad said they developed from monkeys?'
The mother answered, 'Well, dear, it is very simple. I told you about my side of the family and your father told you about his.'
Oh, and Hebrews 4:12:
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Quecat: Don't forget 2 Tim 3:16-17:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Praise the LORD!
Pattie
You just keep on - keeping on!
Tthese forums have been a wonderful tool for me to spread the Gospel and reach people who need to hear. I was initially amazed to find how many atheists, secular humanists, pagans and "seekers" I've encountered in these forums. They came with the intention of being a spoiler or posting some smart-alecky comment.
But God promises that His word will not return to Him without having the intended effect.
I use every opportunity, every encounter with folks on these forums as a chance to speak the truth of God's word into their lives. Some run away, others rebel and turn hateful, some want to argue along pointless rabbit-trails, but some will engage and reason - and prayerfully still others are watching (reading) and being taught the truth although they themselves don't yet know it or recognize it.
I've been blessed by the effort too. It tests your self-control to refrain from returning spite for spite, and trains you to listen to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and let His words flow through you, instead of allowing your natural man to respond in a fleshly way.
And most of all, it's made more of a Bible scholar out of me. Some of the challenges that I've answered in these forums, required much study on my part. ...Study through which I've learned pearls of biblical truth of which I had not previously known!
All in all, by exercising my "gospel-spreading-muscles" here - I've strenghtened my own faith, increased my understanding of God's word, practiced answering the questions of skeptics and am more confident of my abilities to engage folks, one-on-one in real life in a more knowledgeable and logical way.
Isa 1:18 "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD:"
2Ti 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
Maranatha!
Pattiepie,
It’s nothing personal against Jesus, I don’t solely reject him.
“He died on the cross to pay the penalty for your sins so you wouldn't have to”
Talk about psychological lesson 101, today’s class, the meaning of ‘guilt trip’. Now I am getting spiritual advice from a person that talks like Jar Jar Binks from Star Wars and can’t avoid using ‘S’ when it’s not grammatically correct.
“If yous don't thens you are going to the bad place you know hell to pay for your own sins. And its goin to last forever.”
And lastly another added layer of guilt trip for good measure.
To Agentorangex:
I'm sorry for not getting back to you earlier, I mostly do this during off times while at work and school.
Fact: The moon is moving away from the earth approximately 3.8 cm each year.
If one were to do the math on this, this planet and it's moon could not have co-existed 65 million years ago. Not even 5 million years ago. The pulls on the planet tidal system would have left nothing intact. The gravitational pull on this planet would have been tremendous, and the two likely would have pulled each other apart and disintegrated.
Fact: The earth is slowing down each year, approximately 200 ms every 100 years.
Once again, do the math. At the speeds at which this planet would have been going over 65 million years ago would have been phenomenol. Nothing could have survived. Just from the blast of wind that would have been created from that much speed would have incinerated anything in it's path.
And, yes, "agentorangex", I do believe that T-Rex and mankind was here at the same time. There is more evidence to support this, than there is to support that the earth is 65 million years plus in age.
--------------
Beloved, the world's theory of Evolution is just that, theory. And, scientifically, not a very good one at that. It can be disproven every step of the way, Evolutionists however refuse to look at all the data. For these have chosen to believe selective reasoning and have instead not pursued understanding. This can lead to a very treacherous path.
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (John 8:32)
agentorangex: If I've given you the idea that I think you dislike the Bible, then, I'm sorry. I never meant to give you that impression.
My intention has just been to try to understand where you're coming from, and to lay down some groundwork in which to have a discussion. I understand that you don't accept the Bible's own claims to be divinely inspired as sufficient as an authority to you. So, I'd ask if you'd accept evidence that's external to the Bible as evidence? Is it acceptable to you if I use the same types of tests that are applied to other ancient works to verify their authenticity and claims, such as bibliographic evidence, internal and external evidence, and archeological evidence?
Emmaus,
"But, I do think that its a question of authority"
Oh but it is. You're appealing to the bible to vouch for its own authority, in which you quoted parts.
More or less the framing by you is fair and correct on my position. But understand my position is not from not liking the bible or something like that, it's from how logic is applied to propositions. i reject such a reasoning on basis of how logic is used.
It's not logical to assert authority for something (bible) and then to verify the authority of it to appeal back to the same something (again the bible), in this case its a cirucal reasoning and this is what you offered.
Pattie:
So you understand that God is perfectly just and absolutely Holy and that we as men have sinned against Him and as such are utterly deserving of judgment and punishment for our sins?
And you understand that God loved us so much he paid that price himself so that we would not have to. He sent his perfect Son, Christ Jesus to earth as a man and God to die a death that He
did not deserve so that His divine blood would serve to cover our sin.
And that now the Lord says to all that would believe and have faith in Christ's atonement, that they would be saved. And even our faith isn't something that we worked hard to create within ourselves. God gave us the faith that we need.
We who belong to Christ now do our best and with the help of the Holy Spirit, live daily to become more like our Savior. We talk to God in prayer and pay attention to His leading us by the Holy Spirit. We read our bible to learn more about God's ways. We have a blessed and a living hope that we will all be together in heaven one day.
Pattie - if this is the gospel that you understand and embrace - congratulations sister!
But if not, we need to talk. :)
Agent: I see what you're trying to say, and I understand. But, I do think that its a question of authority. I view the Bible as authoratative, and you do not. I'm really just trying to paraphrase, not trying to put words into your mouth, or to do a "gotcha." I'm just trying to frame the discussion into terms that we can both agree on and understand. Do you agree with what how I'm framing your objection?
“I've seen you say that resting on the Bible as an authority is wrong. Is that correct?”
Let me reiterate. Earlier it was pointed out that- “Jehovah God is the one and only true God, and is set apart from all man-made gods (1 Chr. 16:25).”
This was in reference to how you (Emmaus) were stating that the biblical god is different that all the others. And the source you used to back it up? Yup, the bible.
Essentially, you’re saying ‘the bible says this god (Jehovah) is the one true one, (you know, as opposed to those other 1000’s of previous ones) well, b/c it (the bible) says so!’. See why this is circular argument and thus a logical fallacy?
You’re essentially saying, ‘the bible and the god in it is true, well, b/c it says so!’ see the dilemma there?
agentorangex: "I could of swore most of the initial followers left Israel and sought to spread the gospel elsewhere following his death"
Actually, that's not true. Paul became a missionary to the gentiles (non-Jews), and travelled throughout the region. But, the remainder of the apostles stayed in Israel.
Hey agentorangex
The martyrs Quecat mentioned died cus theys would not deny Jesus so theys coulds continue to lives on the earth.
The 'martrys' of today (Islam people) kill themselves and hopefully some infidels so they can go to heaven and have all the alcohol theys want and 72 virgins. It is all about them.
Nows we still haves Christian martyrs today. Many lose their lifes cus they refuse to denys Jesus. Christians don't kills themselves. People who hates Jesus dos that.
Klling yourself and being killed by someone else is not the same thing.
Muggle:
Fox's Book of Martyrs is a Christian classic - written in the 16th century, it is in the public domain. The unabridged version is preferable.
http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/
However for easier access away from my bookshelves - I referred to
http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs000.htm
and in particular:
"Christians Who Suffered and Were Slain for the Testimony of Jesus Christ, their Saviour, from the Time of Christ until the Year a.d. 1660"
http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs010.htm
“Are you really suggesting that these first hand witnesses to Christ - colluded to create a new false religion and sealed their deception with thier own blood? All of them? Unwaveringly?”
Well by listening and following him in such times they knew they were essentially creating a new religion, no real secret collusion was needed. They knew they would eventually be persecuted for being a thorn in the side of not only the current Judaism but also the Roman Empire. They knew going in persecution and perhaps death was plausible, so there is no real collusion, it was mutually agreed and understood from the get go.
“and who after the resurrection were so emboldened as to preach of the risen Lord openly in the streets and synagogues, convincingly and fearlessly so!!”
I could of swore most of the initial followers left Israel and sought to spread the gospel elsewhere following his death…
AgentOrange,
Yes, that's true ... but the 1stC martyrs still had above and beyond "sight unseen". They were there.
Agentorangex: I just want to make sure that I'm clear what you're asking. I've seen you say that resting on the Bible as an authority is wrong. Is that correct?
Quecat,
>> A few documented examples of 1st century martyrs: ...<<
Thanks very much for this info. I've been looking for a decent compliation of martyr refs. I'm actually going to cut&paste this directly into my notes :^)
MuggleBorn,
We have people now who essentially allow themselves to die or be persecuted for their beliefs simply b/c in their mind they think ‘heaven awaits’ and so the here and now and any punishments are of little consequence.
Pattie - how about your testimony? how did you come to the Lord?
A few documented examples of 1st century martyrs:
Stephen, one of the seven deacons of the church at Jerusalem, stoned outside the gate of the city, by the Libertines, A.D. 34, shortly after the death of Christ.
James, the son of Zebedee, put to death with the sword, by Herod Agrippa, in Jerusalem, A.D.45 According to the annotation of Eusebius Pamphilius, from Clemens Alexandrinus, the executioner was so moved on account of the death of James, that he professed himself to be a Christian; and so, as he states, both were led forth together to death. As they were led out, the executioner asked James to forgive him. James, after a little deliberation, said,"Peace be with thee," And thus both were beheaded. Euseb. lib. 2. cap. 9. ex Clem. Alexand. Also W. Baudart. Apophthegmat. lib. 1. page 4. from Joach. Camer. in vita Christi, page 42. Niceph. lib. 2. cap. 3. Strac. in Festo Jacobi, page 209. Cie. Circa, cap. 45. Annum.
The apostle Philip, bound with his head to a pillar, and stoned, at Hierapolis, in Phrygia, a. d. 54
James, the son of Alpheus, or half-brother of the Lord, cast down from the temple, stoned, and beaten to death with a club, a. d. 63
Barnabas, a companion of the apostle Paul, dragged out of the city and burned, at Salamina in Cyprus, a. d. 64
For the sake of space- a brief listing of the the deaths of other apostles:
Matthew the Evangelist killed by a halberd in 60 A.D.
Matthias was stoned and beheaded.
Andrew, Peter's brother, was crucified.
Mark was beaten to death.
Peter, crucified upside-down.
Apostle Paul, beheaded in Rome.
Jude was crucified.
Bartholomew was crucified.
Thomas the Apostle was killed by a spear.
Luke the Evangelist was hanged.
Simon the Zealot was crucified in 74 A.D.
Note: John the Evangelist (according to legend) was cooked in boiling hot oil but survived. However it is known fact that afterwards John was imprisoned on the isle of Patmos by the emperor Domitian in a.d. 95 and kept there for eighteen years. He was the only one of the original twelve Apostles who was not martyred. It was during this period that he wrote the final book of the canon of the Bible, the Revelation.
Are you really suggesting that these first hand witnesses to Christ - colluded to create a new false religion and sealed their deception with thier own blood? All of them? Unwaveringly?
...These same followers of Christ who deserted Him in the Garden of Gethsamane and hid behind locked doors afterwards for fear of suffering the same fate as Jesus? ...and who after the resurrection were so emboldened as to preach of the risen Lord openly in the streets and synagogues, convincingly and fearlessly so!!
Emmaus
“Jehovah God is the one and only true God, and is set apart from all man-made gods (1 Chr. 16:25).”
This is exactly what I mean by circular reasoning. So the bible says it’s god is the only true one, well b/c it says so! You can’t point to the bible itself to give it authority or credence in this manner, that isn’t logical.
“from walking and talking with Adam and Eve in the Garden,’
Again, referring to the bible to vouch for its credence isn’t logical.
Imagine you’re god right, does it seems logical or sensible to reveal such important information to humanity using the very same methods virtually all other previous religious have used? No, of course it doesn’t and in retrospect one cant’ find it hard doubt the veracity of it on this very detail alone. Such a revelation isn’t the work of an omniscient diety, but somehow you and others so overly overlook it, how?
“I won't ruin the story for you, but, it does show that the LORD is the one true God over all of the little man made gods”
Again, appealing to the bible for it’s own veracity isn’t logical. I take it you’ve not heard the phrase ‘to the victors the spoils and they write the history of events’? From this view point the writings can be as damning as they want as in the end they are meant to support itself.
AgentOrange,
>> What accounts are there for their deaths and how supported are they? People fly planes into buildings b/c they think not only is it righteous but in the end they will live in bliss, thus they are motivated by their imagination as it relates to their after life and the same can be said of those willing to die for their religious convictions now and in the past. <<
The distinction between the first martyrs and martyrs of the "anything and everything" of today is that the first followers of Christ went to their deaths claiming to have actually SEEN the Risen (came back from the dead) Lord ascend into the sky.
The later martyrs up until now and forward to the Second Coming that have not walked with Jesus would (and do) rely on testimony.
If the first martyrs who KNEW Jesus died for what they said, and it wasn't true, they either all lied (I'd personally come clean from a lie at just the threat of a monetary fine), OR they all had the exact same hallucination.
And ... the age of the testimony shouldn't make it any less viable.
“So what of the apostles and other 1st century saints who went to their deaths proclaiming that they were first hand witnesses of the risen Lord?”
What accounts are there for their deaths and how supported are they? People fly planes into buildings b/c they think not only is it righteous but in the end they will live in bliss, thus they are motivated by their imagination as it relates to their after life and the same can be said of those willing to die for their religious convictions now and in the past.
In their mind they don’t care so much if they are persecuted, tortutured, or removed from society as in the end, as least from their perspective, they will be in heaven and so what events transpire in the here and now are utterly meaningless in the abstract. So from this view, it matters little if you’re persecuted for your beliefs if in the end you think you’re going to some imagined blissful place. This is the same type of rationale that overcame those in the Branch Dravidians, the cult of Jim Jones, Buddhists lighting themselves a blaze, and so on….
Of course this is all from their perspective and ultimately they can’t know for sure what occurs post death and so you’re essentially looking at a cocktail of “Greed of eternal life + wishful thinking = behavior on earth”. Would you really care if you were persecuted if in the end you sincerely thought you were bound for heaven anyway? Of course not. So in summation, we shouldn’t be all that surprised if people willingly allow themselves to be killed/persicuted if in the end they think they’re going to heaven, it could essentially be viewed as a dillusion. This is why sheer persecution stories aren’t convincing either.
(Sigh) Pattie - are you still working on that grace thing?
"want it taught in schools"
???
I don't see why anyone would bother. If you intend to raise your children with a Christian worldview, the public schools are the LAST place you'd want to send them! It shouldn't even be a consideration.
Furthermore if you think that presenting ID or creationism to public school cookie-cutter kids and that it's somehow going to overcome the rampant secular humanist tripe that is force fed to them everyday in classes, you're sadly mistaken.
Pro 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."
Psalm 127:3 "Children are a heritage from the Lord, a reward from him."
Eph 6:4 "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."
This is not a suggestion! It is a duty.
We, as Christians, have a tremendous responsibility given to us when the Lord blesses us with a child. By doing so, He entrusts us with the responsibility of raising up that child in the way of the Lord and establishing early in his life, a foundation built upon Jesus Christ.
We are answerable to the Lord for how our children are raised.
It's folly to think that we can rightly entrust our children's education to strangers, much less those that would teach them moral relativism, religious pluralism and historical revisionism.
In as much as a pastor is responsible to God for his flock - parents are responsible to God for their children. What is needed is for more parents to take their duties more seriously instead of catering to "economics" or "conveneince".
Agentorangex:
You're asking some really, really good questions here, and it looks to me like you are genuinely seeking answers. I'd like, if I can, to try and answer them.
1. "Yes, absolutely. We should expect nothing less from a God, ..."
The problem here is with the assumption that all religions/revalations are equal. They aren't. Jehovah God is the one and only true God, and is set apart from all man-made gods (1 Chr. 16:25). The LORD (Adonai) makes it clear in His word that Jesus is the one and only way (John 14:6: "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"). The LORD has revealed Himself in many ways throughout the centuries, from walking and talking with Adam and Eve in the Garden, to his speaking directly with Moses through the burning bush and by other means, to appearing to the Hebrews in the desert as a piller of fire and smoke, to sending prophets like Nathan, Isaiah and Jeremiah, to sending His own Son, Jesus (who, by the way, is Emmanual - "God with us"). The point is that He hasn't chosen just one way of communicating His message. He's chosen many throughout time. The Word, or the Bible if you prefer, is the written record of those revalations, handed down throughout the centuries to believers across time. As an interesting side note, you might want to read 1 Kings 18:16-39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%2018:16-39;&version=31;) to see how other man-made gods stand up to Jehovah! Some Hebrews had decided to follow a pagan god (man-made - Baal) instead of Jehovah. Elijah, a prophet (speaker of truth) from God challenged them to a dual of sorts between Baal and Jehovah. I won't ruin the story for you, but, it does show that the LORD is the one true God over all of the little man made gods.
2. "Seriously, talk about the most illogical base for a story ever. Jesus, according to the religion comes to be born on earth to sacrifice himself for his own actions..."
I think that, perhaps, you might have a misunderstanding of what the cross represents. Since the beginning, Jehovah has required a blood sacrafice for the atonement (forgivness of a transgression of God's Law) of sins (again, transgression). This sacrafice needed to be a perfect, spotless lamb. This was a picture of the sacrafice Jesus would eventually make on the behalf of all of humanity. Where I think you might misunderstand is that Jesus didn't die on the cross to sacrifice for his own sin. In fact, Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life (the only man to have ever done so). In his perfection, He died on the cross to take all of our sins on Himself, as the perfect spotless lamb. His sacrificial atonement (propitiation) is what allows us to be reconciled to a perfect and Holy God. He didn't die for His own sins - He had none. Instead, he died for our sins - yours and mine.
I hope that this helps.
Pattie - I didn't mean your address. What country or state - where are you from?
Seedplaneter,
“As I stated on other posts, the I.D. camp does not conclusively rule out common decent”
Other than Behe, please list those in the ID camp that do accept common descent then? Good luck. And yes, ALL animals involved in CD, so that would include little ol humans.
“C.D. is irrelevant in regards to the efficacy of natural selection coupled with random genetic mutations to account for irreducible complexity and specified complexity”
Fine, show me some examples of IC, which are genuinely valid and aren’t arguing from sheer gaps of ignorance and in sake of ignorance hammer in the designer? Behe can't figure it out, uh oh, the designer did it! Well, not quite says Ken Miller, Kevin Padian, Scott and others as they demonstrate how such systems are quite reducible and not something evolutoin can't reconcile.
“the I.D. camp has rigorously maintained an agnostic approach toward what this Designer might look like.”
And for good reason, for if they all admit openly that ID = God, then it’s obvious what their motives are. But one can read their work, their history and know their intentions regardless and what the designer is in their mind. Just say the works 'intelligent designer' to a person not familar with the debate and good $$ says among the top of the list will be....God. By not defining the designer, they remove it from scientific critique all together, thus making it an unfalsifiable component. It’s pretty hard to falsify something which isn’t defined and left totally ambiguous. See why it’s not Science?
‘Phillip Johnson refuses to be enticed by religious references”
Um, no he and they won’t/can’t reference exclusive religious references as they know teaching it as such is illegal in public schools, that is the main agenda, refer to the 'Wedge Document' remember?
“William Dembski (who by the way holds to common decent with the exclusion of humans)”
Geeeee, I wonder why Bildo, singles out humans and no other animals as being included in common descent? =) Well, it’s quite apparent what his subliminal message is, as is his website ‘uncommon descent’, sorry I wasn’t born yesterday Seed.
“I.D. can be falsified if plausible natural mechanisms can be devised to explain all candidates for irreducible complexity...”
Um, don’t you see the problem already? There will always be temporary small gaps of ignorance which we can’t initially explain but as more evidence comes we do find the explanation and always a natural one.
One can endlessly look for small holes of ignorance and cram god/ID into the void, and this is exactly what IC is, it’s argues from personal incredulity and argues gaps of ignorance. ‘I can’t figure X out, thus the designer did it!’ only to have a smarter person come along and reveal the truth in how such systems aren’t IC in the first place.
You want it taught in schools, so me how it's sciiencentific and has the evidence to boot.
Pattie - where do you live?
Something for you to believe?
Luk 16:22-31 "And it came to pass, that the beggar (Lazarus) died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence.
Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. "
In fact, Jesus rose from the dead, a fact attested to by the witness and the blood of the martyred. And yet you do not believe. Abraham was right.
Many people have died for something they thought was true, but no one will willingly die for something they KNOW is a lie. So what of the apostles and other 1st century saints who went to their deaths proclaiming that they were first hand witnesses of the risen Lord?
Slacker,
you better be reading those biology and science books already....=)
“Are you asking for God to show you something for you to believe?”
Sure, why not? I would prefer something more out of the ordinary which isn’t portrayed by the same message revelations virtually all other religions have used though. In other words, a god shouldn’t have to stoop the same level of ‘revelation’ as all other religions have, such a method of revealing ones message brings more doubt then genuine acceptance on face value. That’s not asking for a whole lot, especially from a god.
Perhaps you don’t find it hard to accept all the other religions that existed prior to Yaweh and how such acts would ultimately bring genuine doubt to any future god that would be revealed in the same manner. To you and others, this is of no consequence. You have to ask yourself, why would an omnipresence/ omnipotent god allow all these other religions to come to fruition in the first place?
“What your saying is that God creates the world and sends his Son to die as a sacrafice for us.”
No, I am saying he sent himself/son to die for his own actions he indirectly or directly caused in the first place and thus he should be partially to blame in the equation. Worst of all is how some theists can’t see how such an instance utterly disproves the notion of omnipresence and being omnipotent, as if he truly was he would know such an outcome would have occurred and would have taken other actions to avoid it.
w00t,
Seems like you've stubmled upon Thunderf00t's vids too. he's quite the creationist nemisis.
Star - i think Pattiepie is Howie/BobCu etc.
He was all over the boards yesterday whining about why no one would talk to him and kept asking who Howard is. Odd behavior to say the least. I invited him to share the gospel or explain the concept of grace (something a nonchristian would be ill prepared to attempt) after which he disappeared lickety-split!
I just want to make one thing clear. There is NO such thing as a "Darwinist" or "Darwinian". That's about as silly as calling someone a Newtonist, Einstenist, or Heisenberist. They are all scientist. Not theologians.
The reason why we "come out of the wood work" is to show how shoddy of a film this is and how it does not present it's story with any journalistic standard. It is made by a group of men that state that they have no back ground in science, yet they parade around like they do, bringing up points that most high school students