My little experiment didn't work. So, I'm still curious. How does one remove a comment by mistake? I'm trying to remove a comment the nifty way you did on purpose, and can't get the identical results.

Never mind steve. I think I figured it out.

If the foundational position of secular humanism is an absolute materialialistic understanding of the universe, then we have the tenet of a religion. There is a fundamental difference between science, which studies only observable manifestations of the natural, and philosophical materialism, which holds that the whole of existience is nothing more than natural materialistic laws. If there is...more

If the foundational position of secular humanism is an absolute materialialistic understanding of the universe, then we have the tenet of a religion. There is a fundamental difference between science, which studies only observable manifestations of the natural, and philosophical materialism, which holds that the whole of existience is nothing more than natural materialistic laws.

If there is a place where science cannot go, we have only affirmed the position of secular mateialism as a religion.less

Good question Steve! Would deism or theistic evolution be qualifiers?

Note that Ephrem's whole point read : personal knowledge of God, given once and for all in Christ's perfect and transfigurative death on the cross. While humanists are quick to point at all the branches and interpretations of the Bible within Christianity, it is also apparent that the vast points of agreement are obvious. How many would ascribe to the wording of the Apostles' Creed (even those...more

Note that Ephrem's whole point read : personal knowledge of God, given once and for all in Christ's perfect and transfigurative death on the cross.

While humanists are quick to point at all the branches and interpretations of the Bible within Christianity, it is also apparent that the vast points of agreement are obvious. How many would ascribe to the wording of the Apostles' Creed (even those who don't like the concept of creedal statements)? And, remember, the creeds were developed in times when too many bogus teachings of the Christ were spooking about.less

2010, >> Personal knowledge of god? How can one tell if one is hallucinating or not? Isn't this one of those "escapist" responses you recently referred to? Beware of these "E.R.'s" lest we just end up spinning our wheels in the muck of our own arguments.

>> Although Hazen said humanists have no business interpreting the Bible, he concluded that the ads may have some resonance due to the biblical illiteracy among Christians today. Fascinating. I find also a lack of perception in the understanding of science as well. But a boom in technology will forever keep it interesting. But the point is well taken. I would refrain from making points o...more

>> Although Hazen said humanists have no business interpreting the Bible, he concluded that the ads may have some resonance due to the biblical illiteracy among Christians today.

Fascinating. I find also a lack of perception in the understanding of science as well. But a boom in technology will forever keep it interesting.

But the point is well taken. I would refrain from making points on the technical aspects of science. Too easy to display ignorance that way That is what the humanists display in their cherry-picking approach to Scriptures. If you don't study the full context of science, you will tend toward inaccuracy. Ditto with Scriptures.less

>> Jesus never existed. Uhh yeah, whatever. Tell it to Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Lucian, Pliny and other historians and writers who spoke of the man and His following . >> .. Look up Horus, Attis, and Mithra. Amazing. If these were studided in depth, one could uncover a variety of disimilarities. However, focus on one quirky similarity and voila, smoke and mirrors. If this is the e...more

>> Jesus never existed. Uhh yeah, whatever. Tell it to Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Lucian, Pliny and other historians and writers who spoke of the man and His following .

>> .. Look up Horus, Attis, and Mithra. Amazing. If these were studided in depth, one could uncover a variety of disimilarities. However, focus on one quirky similarity and voila, smoke and mirrors.

If this is the evidence, one can clearly see that this attack on Christianity is not an exercise in intellectual accumen, but a desperate dodge, a feeble attempt at denial.. And it is still one more tired attempt. Celsus, Porphyry, Voltaire, Neitschze, and all the rest. Yaawwwn!less

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me. (Ps. 23: 4) Talk about going in to something with an advantage.

I'll use this metaphor to see if I can make my point. Science, as we know it, was responsible for alot of horrors of war. Think of the destructive paraphenalia: gatling gun, chemical and germ agents, the bomb. Let's reject science to the full. Uhhh, but the good things, the cures, the technological wonders from information/communication devices, all the advances that improve life. Right! It...more

I'll use this metaphor to see if I can make my point. Science, as we know it, was responsible for alot of horrors of war. Think of the destructive paraphenalia: gatling gun, chemical and germ agents, the bomb. Let's reject science to the full. Uhhh, but the good things, the cures, the technological wonders from information/communication devices, all the advances that improve life. Right! It's not science, but the men who exploit the methodology for selfish, evil advantage. Same deal with Christianity: the concepts of hospital and the university, the inspiration of great art and music, the foundations of modern science itself. Your assertions about the evil of religion in general and Christianity in particular display a tunnel-vision that filters out the wrong stuff. Too narrow. Too biased. Employing false causation.

If America's view of Manifest Destiny was fueled by a notion to wipe-out an unChristian sub-human race to gain the land, rest assured it was a total misapplication of something you might have heard in the Bible, but didn't consequential apply to native Americans. If you hijack faith to promote greed, don't blame Scriptures, but the foolish individual who only wish to rationalize their attrocity.

In one respect, johnzon, your line of thought against Christianity is like Oedipus searching for the regicide. He found a patricide instead. Think about it..less

johnzon, and you seem to be in denial of something grander, ideas that in the end validate Christianity and skewers your own humanistic thinking: the utter falleness of men, the utterly dumbfounding ability of men's creulty to mankind, the futility of employing secular means to gain spiritual goals, the reality of Satan. I do not deny any of the events you have cited. But how these event promo...more

johnzon, and you seem to be in denial of something grander, ideas that in the end validate Christianity and skewers your own humanistic thinking: the utter falleness of men, the utterly dumbfounding ability of men's creulty to mankind, the futility of employing secular means to gain spiritual goals, the reality of Satan.

I do not deny any of the events you have cited. But how these event promote the spirit of Christ and His teachings? They don't. Christ spoke of His kingdom as not of this world, and that this kingdom advances with the spread of Gospel, not by force, coercion, fire, or sword. I am sure Torquemada was sincere in his belief that his inquisition was of divine origin. Poor dope! But he had the backing of the Catholic monarchs to pursue his cause. But not Christ's consent. Hardly. Imagine his surprise as he stood before God on his passing. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord ...."less

Continued .... Your linking of attrocities to native Americans, Jews, etc directly to Christianity is a premise no clear thinking historian would allow. First, of all wars and social up-heavals, 95% were due to humanistic causes: advancement of empire, promotion of ideology, control of markets and property, etc. Only 5% would be attributed to religious causes of zealous crusaders or jihadist. ...more

Continued ....
Your linking of attrocities to native Americans, Jews, etc directly to Christianity is a premise no clear thinking historian would allow. First, of all wars and social up-heavals, 95% were due to humanistic causes: advancement of empire, promotion of ideology, control of markets and property, etc. Only 5% would be attributed to religious causes of zealous crusaders or jihadist. Political forces at play hardly care for the ideals of the teachings of Christ, but will exploit them for cause. Granted, the first estate in pre-revolutionary France had it coming to them. But what part of gaining vast wealth, bedecking one self in finery, building fair-sized palaces for cardinals and bishops is covered in the Gospels. When clout is more important than Christ, you have a charlatan, but no Christian The tsars drove the pogroms for political reasons, but the concept of political absolutism held by the monarch was more for the reason of weak compliance than tacit approval. The U.S. cavalry massacred the native American, not troops of priests, pastors, and monks. But they came on the scene afterwards to offer assistance, and not solely the proclamation of white-man's religion.
Your websites are chiefly humanist sites that have a history of denigrating the Christian faith. If this is your source of information of the Church, I would suggest you drop this source of research and take on Phillip Schaff's History of the Christian Church. It is fair and balanced, ready to give the faults and failings along with the successes and triumphs. Granted, it's 8 volumes long, but you seem to need to drop the nonsense you have been reading for something more balanced.
And, oh yes, you should try to consider the idea that Hitler gained much of his ideas of a "Master Race" not from Luther, but from the radical social Darwinists who were more than happy to advance the concept of "favored races." Again, Hitler only learned of Luther from his propaganda minister. He personally had no use for Luther.less

Johnzon, I take in your proposed sites, and the results are the same, poor scholarship biased premises, faulty logic, postions that no serious histroian would advocate. Your line is tired, old, blame the Christian. How Nero-esque. Burn a burgh, blame a Bible banger. I've replied to your Luther attack before. The weaknesses are obvious. You ignore historical context and focus on a relatively...more

Johnzon,
I take in your proposed sites, and the results are the same, poor scholarship biased premises, faulty logic, postions that no serious histroian would advocate. Your line is tired, old, blame the Christian. How Nero-esque. Burn a burgh, blame a Bible banger.
I've replied to your Luther attack before. The weaknesses are obvious. You ignore historical context and focus on a relatively short tract written late in life, in the years where Luther is stricken with digestive and nervous ailments, an old man trying to continue a grinding schedule though laboring with sapped energy and wracked with depressions whether his reforms were of any importance. His "Against the Jews" is hardly the quality of the writings that make up the core of his Hauptschriftung (Major writings: like the 95 Theses, Freedom of a Christian, Catechisms, EIn Feste Berg). Consider. His rediscovery of the Gospel of free grace was attacked by the Catholic hierarchy as dangerous to their position. The peasantry he sought to serve turned on him as it became evident that his reforms were more spiritual and were more promptings to the princes and electors to rule with more consideration. Ltuehr was outraged that the peasants would revolt to gain their ends, things Luther felt would occur as the Gospel was embraced more widely. The princes themselves eventually grew more lukewarm to his reforms. The last hope Luther had, naive at best, was the conversion of the Jews to the restored Gospel (ala Romans 11 and Paul's hope for Israel would had spurned the Gospel). His overtures were, however, rebuffed by Jewish leadership. Luther's wording in "Against the Jews" was fierce, but in the light of the words of Jeremiah whose commital of the Jews to sword, famine, banishment, and Jesus' words of coming judgment of the nation of Israel (Mt. 23: 37-24: 2), Luther was driven by zeal to warn of yet one more refusal to believe.less

Skep, do you know my wife? Prophet, is that the ignoance you were speaking of? Skep, this leads to all those questions that may hold relevancy: 1. Are you married? 2. If so, for how long? 3. If for any length of time, is it enough for idiosyncracies to be noted? 4. If so, has it been enough time for these idiosyncracies to become annoying? If you've been "yes"sing up to this poi...more

Skep, do you know my wife? Prophet, is that the ignoance you were speaking of?

Skep, this leads to all those questions that may hold relevancy:

1. Are you married?

2. If so, for how long?

3. If for any length of time, is it enough for idiosyncracies to be noted?

4. If so, has it been enough time for these idiosyncracies to become annoying?

If you've been "yes"sing up to this point, you may just be able to understand that I went with my gut on the parking call. I love and cherish my wife, and listen to her ideas and opinions, but will do it my way if I choose. If this parking maneuver helps my daughter do the same with some degree of confidence, then I've done well as a father to a daughter he loves and cherishes as well.

Masculininity is fine in itself, but the role of gentleman to a lady better not be sacrificed for manliness.less

I always note these days that the "ardent defender of Darwinism" also has to be an avowed atheist. It seems that the theory has not progressed all that much since the days of Huxley. That's probably why I find David Berlinski refreshing. A self-confessed agnostic, yet a critic of the evolutionary theory. His book, Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions, makes for insightful reading.

Actually, dt, your idea is not so far removed from the Roman Catholic cardinal who defended Gallileo by stating that the Bible is a book that tells us how to go to heaven and not on how the heavens go.

In one sense, Rev. Stier's misapplies Romans 14: 1-5 (not Romans 1: 1-5; obviously the "4" key was sticking; happens to the best of us). He rightly understands the issue, but forgets that Paul would lovingly never eat meat again (1 Cor. 8: 13; boy, I hope I got that citation right!) if it would help a person with a weak faith. I understand the flaw of legalism and caring2's leaving JW on an is...more

In one sense, Rev. Stier's misapplies Romans 14: 1-5 (not Romans 1: 1-5; obviously the "4" key was sticking; happens to the best of us). He rightly understands the issue, but forgets that Paul would lovingly never eat meat again (1 Cor. 8: 13; boy, I hope I got that citation right!) if it would help a person with a weak faith.

I understand the flaw of legalism and caring2's leaving JW on an issue like this. But Halloween is a complex case. Originally the eve of All Saints's Day, speaking to the rise of evil before the coming of the saints in glory. There are points I find no problem with. Let the children have the treats. there are aspects to avoid. The mischief and vandalism is clearly the gray areas leading into a darker side. Let each Christian decide, but be ever sensitive to those whose misgivings have led them to avoid Halloween as the Plague. If Paul would eat no meat, would candy for our children be a logical extension?less

Curious thing happened to me after reading this article, almost an opportunity to comment on in in life-practice. The family was going shopping and taking care of details downtown. I was driving and the family (key element of the story: wife and three daughters with one female friend of the teen-age daughter) was commenting on the up-coming driver's test my teen daughter would be taking. She ...more

Curious thing happened to me after reading this article, almost an opportunity to comment on in in life-practice.

The family was going shopping and taking care of details downtown. I was driving and the family (key element of the story: wife and three daughters with one female friend of the teen-age daughter) was commenting on the up-coming driver's test my teen daughter would be taking. She noted that she had little opportunity to "parallel park," So, as we came to our first site, I had two choices, to drive up and into an available parking spot or back into a space between two cars. My wife insisted I do the easier "pull-up-into" maneuver. I did the harder "parallel park." I wished to demonstrate (and maybe practice it for myself when I had to talk my daughter through it the next time we are practicing driving for the big test. But my choice seemed to steam my wife.

I didn't mean to annoy my wife, but I wished to make my mind up on the matter, so I did. It seems that what I did ran against the cultural message of being one of those affiable, but horribly clueless individuals who act on hormones rather than on the confident sage advise of the female of the species. Sometimes it's really breaking the bonds of the PC expectations of what a man can do and what he better not do.

Really, I love my wife, but once in a while she needs to know that I can think for myself and make my own calls. Is that a part of the "masculinity issue" mentioned in this article?less

Agento, With all due respect, I find Johnzon's point, and your defense of it as full blown ad hoc contrivance to obscure the essential points that Johnzon and I disagree over. This line of argument seems like so much spohistry as that old line over God's omnipotence ... "Can God create a stone so heavy He could not lift it?" Such violates a logical Law of Contradiction against set definitions t...more

Agento,
With all due respect, I find Johnzon's point, and your defense of it as full blown ad hoc contrivance to obscure the essential points that Johnzon and I disagree over. This line of argument seems like so much spohistry as that old line over God's omnipotence ... "Can God create a stone so heavy He could not lift it?" Such violates a logical Law of Contradiction against set definitions that have been accepted.
Johnzon's main weakness is to some sense a matter of ambivalance, which is why we are quibbling over the essence of permanence, whether that of the recording material or that of the message. I insist that many a treaty has been abrogated without sending it through a shredder, burning it, or tearing it to shreds. Meer violation of a compact destoys the essence of the message it contains. Also, terms of a contract may be abided by even if the recording material is destroyed if it is agreed upon by both parties that such a written document would be moot (ah, but lawyers would steam at the very concept of "one's word being one's bond"!).
You make too much of the concepts of God's omnipotence and omniscience in promoting this titanium alloy ploy. This, first of all, is meer presumption, as if the whims and ideas of a johnzon, agentorange, or even an abhodim could prescribe the full range of omnipotence and omniscience. In the matter of omnipotence alone, God could promote His dicta on sheets of cotton candy inscribed with ink of marshmallow creme, then subject it all to gale and storm, yet preserve it by His Will. Such is the province of omnipotence (unless we flinch at this omni- issue). Thus parchment, papyrus, stone, paper, DVD, doesn't matter, as His entrustment of His Word to men.

>> just have a look at the 1000’s which are now labeled as myths. Agento, don't be such a chronological snob (C. S. Lewis's idea). Science has only recently endured its Lysenko, and recent theories of climatology are under revision. Myths are being busted all the time. The recently crafted ones make life interesting.
Highest regards and good eveningless

Johnzon, Tell you what. Let's do something nuts. Let's each get some nice strips of titanium alloy. I'll inscribe the Bible on mine, and you ... why not Darwin's Origin or Descent. We'll hand over our copies and take a nice cruise on a ship over the Pacific to the Mariana Trench area. Then we'll fling our super indestructible, permanent records of these documents into the brimy deep, all so t...more

Johnzon, Tell you what. Let's do something nuts. Let's each get some nice strips of titanium alloy. I'll inscribe the Bible on mine, and you ... why not Darwin's Origin or Descent. We'll hand over our copies and take a nice cruise on a ship over the Pacific to the Mariana Trench area. Then we'll fling our super indestructible, permanent records of these documents into the brimy deep, all so that two ornery gents from opposite sides of the spectrum can have a rollicking good time.

All kidding aside, I still fail to see the point of your posts. God works with men, not technology. His Word goes out on the medium of His choice, with no thoughts of quality of materials but rather the materials of His thought.
Highest regards.less