Any reasons to be a Christian? [Archive]

Matthew

February 16th 2003, 01:19 AM

Blake,

1) I do not think you have went deep enought into your "scholarship". Apparently you have never heard of the Literary Framework Theory of Genesis 1 and 2. You should read a little bit on it since you are studying Hebrew . I think you should devote your time to Biblical Studies and grasping the text in their time period.

I am beginning to expand my understanding of biblical scholarship. I still have to master it and right now I can't say I understand the context of every passage- I do not. And sorry to disappoint you but I have heard of the Literary Framework Theory. I just never bought into it. As for as biblical studies and grasping the context- I am doing precisely that.

I am sure you have been devoted to studying things like doctor Dino!

Well..he was good for some laughs. I don't spend a lot of time these days "studying" him. I consider him to be a collosal joke.

Also you must give good reasons for rejecting a Global flood.

Well, my rejection of a global flood are because of the scientific arguments I have studied. My studies in science have led me to reject a global flood and now I am very much convinced that the authors intended the flood to be understood as global.

I have not idea how much study you have done but have you read any work by any of hte Intelligent Design Theorist

Yes..I have read books by Michael Behe and William Demski and others. I agree with the intelligent design argument although I disagree with Behe and Demski about the criteria they employ to detect intelligent design. I believe in a theory of deistic evolution which integrates intelligent design and common descent. I reject Darwin's general theory of evolution although I do believe that life's evolution was guided through direct intelligent genetic engineering.

It is nice that your deconversion is going well but I could also point to many Atheist turned Christian who did not feel quite the same way as you.

I have no doubt you can. I have read some testimonies of some atheist-turned-Christians myself. Ralph Muncaster, Lee Strobel, and Glynn Patrick come to mind!

Blake Reas

February 16th 2003, 01:28 AM

So your a Deist, Matthew? Just for Clarification! :brow:

Thanks for your replies, they are appreciated.

In christ,
Blake

Blake Reas

February 16th 2003, 01:29 AM

Well..he was good for some laughs. I don't spend a lot of time these days "studying" him. I consider him to be a collosal joke.

Whole heartdely agree!:rofl:

IN Christ,
Blake

Pate

February 16th 2003, 03:52 AM

Hi Jim!

To be fair, my biggest two reasons for being an atheist are evolution and the
infinite cruelty of the concept of hell. Christians just don't know how solid the
evidence for evolution is.

I don't have any big problems with evolution, even though I'm a Christian. I'd also have to be dishonest if I claimed that I never ponder the apparent cruelty of hell. But as a reason for being an atheist, this is not very good one, I think. Therefore, if these two are your reasons for being an atheist, it seems to me that you have no good reason to be an atheist. But of course you may explain why you think I'm wrong.

As far as evolution is concerned, it's compatible with Christianity. At most it may require some reinterpretation of some traditional Christian beliefs, but I think that the extent to which this reinterpretation may be needed, is greatly exaggerated. I don't consider myself to be any kind of "liberal christian", despite my openness to evolution.

With regard to the concept of hell, yes, it's not a pleasant thing to think about. But how exactly do you formulate an atheistic argument based on the concept of hell? I suppose that you don't just reject Christianity because you don't like the concept of hell? If you claim that hell is unjust or immoral, in what basis do you make this kind of moral judgement? And of course, it may be the case that we don't know enough of what hell is all about. It may be the case that our difficulties with that consept are based on our own misunderstandings. We may still at least try to make some informed speculation which may be of help. Very few thinking Christians believe, for example, that hell is some sort of "divine torture chamber", though this is a quite common picture of hell that's painted by "fundamentalist Christians". It makes much more sense to see hell as being a complete separation from God who is the source of love, truth and happiness. And even if we assume, for the sake of an argument, that the concept of hell can't be true, it doesn't follow that atheism is true. It even doesn't follow that Christianity as a whole is false.

As for the reasons for being a Christian, there may be an important distinction to be made first. There are reasons for thinking Christianity to be true, and also there are more practical reasons for being Christian, like Pascal's wager, the meaningfulness of life and human existence in Christian framework compared to the temporally limited and arbitrary "meaning" which is the best that atheism can give, etc.

If you meant reasons to believe that Christianity is true, I'd give this kind of answer:

There is a good cumulative case that can be made for the existence of God (defined along the general lines of the theistic concept, not going into the doctrinal details yet). Many traditional theistic arguments can be formulated in such ways that they give rational support for belief in God. When we conclude that it's rational to believe in the existence of such an entity, the question then arises whether this entity has indeed given some special revelation about Himself at some point in human history, as the majority of humanity believes. Then it can be argued that the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is such that it makes it probable, when considered together with the background knowledge which includes God's existence, that this God indeed has revealed himself to humanity specifically in the person of Jesus and has confirmed this by raising him from the death. And if this is so, it makes sense to believe that Jesus is the key to understanding what God is like.

AgnosticAtheist

February 16th 2003, 04:19 AM

Dee Dee Warren:

And that is one reason I am a Christian... I find materialistic explanations for life wholly unsatsifactory, so there is one reason that I gave....

But simply finding "materialistic explanations for life" to be "unsatisfactory" doesn't serve, necessarily, as a reason to be Christian. One could still be Hindu, Muslim, Rastafarian, etc.

"And if you notice I said that I was giving my reasons by defeating the contra positions stated in the opening post, and this example polemically and rhetorically demonstrated the shakey foundations of his obection to hell which was based upon his subjective emotional feeling about the subject which is irrelevant to whether or not it is true.... so there is another point."

I can appreciate this but, again, the question was about reasons to be Christian. Jim's "objection to hell" and his "emotional feeling" was, as you say, irrelevant to the question. You addressed his "objection to hell" and his "emotional feeling," but not the question.

"There has to be a God to create something so large. Naturalistic forces simply cannot expain the size of Boom's head.

Mere assertion.

"One was a postive reason, ie the failure of materialism, the second was a disproof of the negative criticism given in the opening post, and the third was simply a cheap shot at Boom."

None of which address the question.

"I realize that, and I say again that was not the only response given as I have now demonstrated.

Oh, there were plenty of responses. Just none which addressed the question. Since my last posting, however, I see that some people have finally gotten around to the original question. I thank them. Also, I apologize for not yet knowing how to post on this forum properly. I just signed up today and haven't yet figured out how to copy quotes from other letters. I'll work on it.

jimbo

February 16th 2003, 05:09 AM

AgnosticAtheist,

Dee Dee wrote: "There has to be a God to create something so large. Naturalistic forces simply cannot expain the size of Boom's head.

AgnosticAtheist wrote: Mere assertion.

I think Dee Dee was making a joke. But then maybe you are making a joke too.

Anyway, I wanted to make a small comment on Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager could be appealed to by any religious believer. A Muslim could appeal to Pascal's Wager as a reason to accept Islam. Of course Pascal himself was a Catholic, so technically anyone who takes this "wager" should be a Catholic. The main problem with Pascal's Wager is that if you believe something only because you think you will avoid a terrible fate and will receive a wonderful reward for believing it, then your belief isn't really based on anything other than fear and desire.

Jimbo

Robyn Banks

February 16th 2003, 05:45 AM

TheFiveSolas:
for evolution to be true I would first need to believe the following propositions:

1. Something came from nothing
This is not a proposition that must be necessarily accepted in order for evolution to be considered true.

Evolution is a theory about how life developed. The theory of evolution does not comment on how the stuff of existence came into existence in the first place.

TheFiveSolas:
2. Order came from disorder
'Order' and 'disorder' are classifications in the mind. This is not reality. You confuse reality with your ideas, which is 'insanity'.

TheFiveSolas:
3. Life came from inorganic matter
'Life' and 'inorganic' are classifications in the mind. This is not reality. You confuse reality with your ideas, which is 'insanity'.

TheFiveSolas:
4. Variation came from sameness
'Variation' and 'sameness' are classifications in the mind. This is not reality. You confuse reality with your ideas, which is 'insanity'.

TheFiveSolas:
5. Intelligence came from non-intelligence
'Intelligence' and 'non-intelligence' are classifications in the mind. This is not reality. You confuse reality with your ideas, which is 'insanity'.

TheFiveSolas:
6. Language arises from no language
'Language' and 'no language' are classifications in the mind. This is not reality. You confuse reality with your ideas, which is 'insanity'.

TheFiveSolas:
7. Morality arises from non-morality
Morality has nothing to do with reality, nor with evolution.

TheFiveSolas:
Sorry, I just don't have enough faith to believe the above.
You don't think realistically. This has nothing to do with 'faith' yet.

Andrew

February 16th 2003, 07:00 AM

The reasons to be a Christian ought to be Christo-centric. An analysis of the NT documents without the sort of philosophical assumptions adopted by the Jesus Seminar invites one to affirm their veracity. JP has done a good investigation into social factors that corroborate this study: http://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose.html

Robyn,

"This is not a proposition that must be necessarily accepted in order for evolution to be considered true.

Evolution is a theory about how life developed. The theory of evolution does not comment on how the stuff of existence came into existence in the first place."

True. Evolution is the change in genetic characteristics of a population with time. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that rests upon the slimmest odds imaginable that life came into existence from non-life.

"'Order' and 'disorder' are classifications in the mind. This is not reality. You confuse reality with your ideas, which is 'insanity'."

Actually, the concepts of order and disorder are central to the second law of thermodynamics.

"'Life' and 'inorganic' are classifications in the mind. This is not reality. You confuse reality with your ideas, which is 'insanity'."

No, it's merely a matter of comparing the molecules of life with those of inorganic chemistry and observing the vast differences in structure, etc.

"'Variation' and 'sameness' are classifications in the mind. This is not reality. You confuse reality with your ideas, which is 'insanity'."

Actually, the concepts can be neatly expressed mathematically.

Personally, I don't have a problem with variation deriving from sameness.

"'Intelligence' and 'non-intelligence' are classifications in the mind. This is not reality. You confuse reality with your ideas, which is 'insanity'."

If words have meaning, and intelligence can be understood as something along the lines of computational ability, then it is clear that some things possess this while others don't.

"'Language' and 'no language' are classifications in the mind. This is not reality. You confuse reality with your ideas, which is 'insanity'."

If language be communication, then it is clear that some things can communicate with each other, while other things cannot.

"Morality has nothing to do with reality, nor with evolution."

Morality DOESN'T have anything to do with reality if there is no transcendent benchmark.

True, it doesn't have anything to do with biological evolution.

dizzle

February 16th 2003, 08:56 AM

AgnosticAtheist:

But simply finding "materialistic explanations for life" to be "unsatisfactory" doesn't serve, necessarily, as a reason to be Christian. One could still be Hindu, Muslim, Rastafarian, etc.

I was getting to the point of narrowing it down, but at least getting to the point of showing that there is reason for theism is getting there.

I can appreciate this but, again, the question was about reasons to be Christian. Jim's "objection to hell" and his "emotional feeling" was, as you say, irrelevant to the question. You addressed his "objection to hell" and his "emotional feeling," but not the question.

Sorry, I did by showing that the objection was based upon an invalid foundation.

Mere assertion.

You must never have seen how incredibly huge it is.

None of which address the question.

Sorry, oops, they did.

Oh, there were plenty of responses. Just none which addressed the question. Since my last posting, however, I see that some people have finally gotten around to the original question. I thank them. Also, I apologize for not yet knowing how to post on this forum properly. I just signed up today and haven't yet figured out how to copy quotes from other letters. I'll work on it.

I will be happy to assist you in any way that I can. Also in the Orientation section there is a tutorial on TWeb features.

Andrew

February 16th 2003, 09:07 AM

Jim, hell is a way of honouring the free will of humans. If people want to live apart from God, He will allow them to exist in separation from Him. Why, may you ask, doesn't God just annihilate those who have made such a choice? The answer is because, being in the image of God, humans have intrinsic value. As a lover of intrinsic value, He must sustain it. He refuses to see humans as a means to an end, ignoring their inherent worth, by saying, "what really matters is that people don't suffer consciously... I'm going to annihilate them in order to achieve this end."

dizzle

February 16th 2003, 09:23 AM

Now continuing a bit.....

The utter failure of materialism to explain creation and life leads me to theism, and it is at that point that one begins to examine the competing claims. Many make no claim to special or ordered creation and are little better in that regard than Darwinian evolution, so the field is narrowed bit there.

I also have examined the various worldviews/philopshies of the competing truth claims and find the Christian worldview comports with reality.

But Cadet mentioned the resurrection, and it is the resurrection that is the final proof in the pudding of Christianity. Where is Muhammend? Dead. Where is Bubbha? Dead. Where is Joseph Smith? Dead. And so on. But death did not hold Jesus, He yet lives, and because He does, so shalll we. He proved His outstanding claims.

Of course there is more, but I am not trying to write a novel here..... this is a subject that is vast and broad, and thus my thousands of books comments before.

Socrates

February 16th 2003, 09:42 AM

Robyn Banks our resident Katipo sez:

Evolution is a theory about how life developed. The theory of evolution does not comment on how the stuff of existence came into existence in the first place.Then you should inform the leading evolutionary textbooks which include a discussion on the origin of life. It is often called "chemical evolution".

Furthermore, the evolutionary biology professor G.A. Kerkut of Southhampton University agreed with TheFiveSolas, not Robyn, in defining the General Theory of Evolution in Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960:

"‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form."

He continued:

"the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis."

TheFiveSolas:
Order came from disorder
-----------------------------------------------------------------

'Order' and 'disorder' are classifications in the mind. This is not reality. You confuse reality with your ideas, which is 'insanity'.How do you know that everything YOU say isn't in your mind (presuming you have one)?

But these concepts have firm foundation in information theory even though Robyn the solipsist can disagree all he pleases.

Socrates

February 16th 2003, 09:47 AM

Matthew:

The more I read about the Bible and the more I learn of it..the more skeptical I grow. Right now..I lack any reasons to become a Christian and my skepticism keeps on growing. More likely, you don't sem to WANT any reasons and DO want a justification for skepticism, which is why you turned to Feral McTill (you MUST have been desperate!).

I just learned that the Hebrew and Greek best supports a global interpretation of Noah's floodYou're right there.

which is one more reason I am skeptical of the Bible since I am thoroughly convinced that the earth and universe are many orders of age older than 10,000 years old.You should turn your skepticism on the dating methods (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp) instead of accepting them on FAITH as you admit you do, and realise instead that there is much evidence consistent with a "young" Earth (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp) and global Flood (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp#geology).

So right now..I don't see any good reasons to be a Christian.I must have missed your refutation of the historicity of the Resurrection, instead of trying to find minor quibbles in the accounts.

dizzle

February 16th 2003, 09:55 AM

Dear Matthew:

Let me encourage you in your search and also caution you against exchanging one blind faith for another... a blind faith in anything is not good. I suspect that is what you may have tentatively had in Christianity before, which is why it fell. I would love to see you built up in a real and grounded faith, so I will pray for you on these twists and turns. Christ lives, and that is the cornerstone. Without the resurrection our faith is vain.

Jaltus

February 16th 2003, 11:07 AM

Why do I believe in Christianity?

There are a few reasons, but the biggest ones stem from what I have seen.

First, I have seen lives changed by the power of God, including my own. Atheism does not call for change, it calls for sameness.

Second, evolution cannot answer the ultimate question, where did matter come from?

Third, Christianity gives a reason to be moral.

Fourth, there has never been a counterproof to the resurrection of Christ. Even contemporaries or critics of Christianity have never disputed this, other than to say "it is impossible," which is a preconceived notion on their part.

Fifth, frankly, I know Christ is in me. What better reason for me to believe than because I know Him, and He knows me!

dizzle

February 16th 2003, 11:13 AM

Dear Jaltus, you bring up a good point that my husband brings up frequently. The empty tomb is undisputed even by those livng at the time who had the most motivation to nip this upsurgent sect in the bud. If the body was available, all the Jewish leaders of that time would have to have done was drag the body through the streets of Jersualem in a public display. They could not do that, and they had every reason and motivation to want to.

Jim E.

February 16th 2003, 11:19 AM

cirisme:

Do you understand the concept of hell?

I'm not sure how this question adds to the discussion. So I guess it's time to pull out my Bible (or does your faith draw from a different source?)

Revelation (a wild and wacky book) 14:11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever"

I can see why you wouldn't want to quote that - it is repulsive, unjust, unloving, cruel, vindictive, barbaric, wicked, evil, and uncivilized.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

dizzle

February 16th 2003, 11:25 AM

Dear Jim:

Revelation is actually not wild and whacky at all read within the genre/idiom that it is intended to be.

Second, I read a newspaper report of the effects of jumping off a high rise buildng... it was just graphic and repulsion. I do not see how you can possibly believe in the law of gravity in light of those shocking descriptions.

Mr Stick71

February 16th 2003, 04:09 PM

I have a quick question for the atheists/agnostics here: Where do you think life came from, and what evidence do you have to prove this? (I am NOT asking where variation came from, just how life first came into being). I'm yet to hear a convincing case that life could come into existance apart from God.

Aaron

Gavin

February 16th 2003, 07:00 PM

But, if anyone has a good reason or two to be a Christian, please speak up.

Jim, I appreciate you asking the question. I think there are many reasons to be a Christian, but I just want to quote C. S. for my two cents.

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.

God bless.:smile:

J. J. Ramsey

February 16th 2003, 07:29 PM

A few opinions I have about Christianity, Genesis, and atheism:

The genealogies after the Creation and the Flood in Genesis are the chief difficulties for Christianity. The preponderance of the geological evidence seems to be against them, and the defenses I have seen of young-earth creationism (YEC) have been horribly flawed. There has been a, um, discussion :argue: on that very topic here (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=758).
In contrast, the resurrection is the chief difficulty for atheism. Here I find that it is the atheists who are on the defensive, and often the name-calling, willful misapprehension, and facileness of argument that I often see in YEC defenders I also see in many atheist skeptics. In many ways, the shoe is on the other foot.

If the resurrection is true, atheism pretty much falls apart. On the other hand, Genesis need not be fully true for Christianity to be true. Obviously it would help if the evidence were all neatly lined up in Genesis' favor, but if the resurrection holds, then the core of Christianity manages to hold, even if there are problems.

PRAISE

February 16th 2003, 07:35 PM

AgnosticAtheist:
Wow! A dozen responses and only one actually addressed the original question. And, sadly, that one was nothing more than a watered down version of Pascal's Wager.

Anyway, back to Jim's original question. Does anybody have any reasons for being a christian?

AA-may I ask a favor of you? I think I can answer your question, If you will do something for me? Would you be willing to do it? Click here at www.theologyonline.com Go to the fellowship forum, & find the thread entitled "TO ALL MY FAMILY AT TOL!" (DATED 2/10/03-posted by bibliophile1954!) I think you will find all the evidence you need as to why someone becomes, (or in my case-returns to the Family of God!), a Christian!

Praise!:thumb:

(I AM bibliophile1954 at TOL!)

Andrew

February 16th 2003, 07:43 PM

Jim,

Hell IS torment, let there be no mistake about that. It is the torment at the realisation at what you've lost: you've chosen to be separated from the source of goodness, love, community, etc.

It needs to be realised that the 'firey' references to hell are actually literary devices, rather than literal descriptions. Fire is a metaphor for judgement. We see the same figure of speech where we are told that Christ is going to return surrounded by flames and that he's going to have a big sword coming out of his mouth: the figure of the sword stands for the Word of God in judgement. The flames stand for Christ coming in judgement.

AgnosticAtheist

February 16th 2003, 08:53 PM

PRAISE:

AA-may I ask a favor of you? I think I can answer your question, If you will do something for me? Would you be willing to do it? Click here at www.theologyonline.com Go to the fellowship forum, & find the thread entitled "TO ALL MY FAMILY AT TOL!" (DATED 2/10/03-posted by bibliophile1954!) I think you will find all the evidence you need as to why someone becomes, (or in my case-returns to the Family of God!), a Christian!

OK, I read it. The letter indicates that you were a believer to begin with. Why?

Andrew

February 16th 2003, 09:16 PM

AgnosticAtheist, if you would really like to investigate the issue I suggest reading Wright, N T, Jesus and the Victory of God, Fortress Press 1997. I also suggest you also look at JP's 'The Impossible Faith', Glenn Miller's 'The Miracles of Jesus' series, as well as his essays on whether Jesus was buried in a temporary tomb.

Socrates

February 16th 2003, 10:08 PM

JJRamsey:

The genealogies after the Creation and the Flood in Genesis are the chief difficulties for Christianity. The preponderance of the geological evidence seems to be against them, I hope that others watching our, um, debate, note Ramsey's tacit admission that the Biblical genealogies DO point to a "young" Earth. Matthew realizes this too, so Ramsey's gutlessness in kowtowing to "methodological naturalism" certainly doesn't help.

and the defenses I have seen of young-earth creationism (YEC) have been horribly flawed. All the attacks on YEC that I have seen have been horribly flawed, e.g. failing to distinguish between data and their interpretation, especially by the scientifically unqualified JJR.

AgnosticAtheist

February 16th 2003, 10:55 PM

Andrew:
AgnosticAtheist, if you would really like to investigate the issue I suggest reading Wright, N T, Jesus and the Victory of God, Fortress Press 1997. I also suggest you also look at JP's 'The Impossible Faith', Glenn Miller's 'The Miracles of Jesus' series, as well as his essays on whether Jesus was buried in a temporary tomb.

I'm sure they are all fabulous books and, some day, I might even get around to reading some of them. However, the original question from Jim was directed to the members of this forum. He wanted to hear the reasons that people in this forum are Christian. If somebody in here became a Christian just because they read one of those books, then that's fine. All they have to do is say so. Usually, though, the reasons are a bit more personal than that. That is, in my opinion, what Jim is interested in. (My apologies to Jim if I overstepped my boundries by presuming to know what you were originally interested in.)

Jin-Roh

February 16th 2003, 11:15 PM

I'm sure they are all fabulous books and, some day, I might even get around to reading some of them. However, the original question from Jim was directed to the members of this forum. He wanted to hear the reasons that people in this forum are Christian. If somebody in here became a Christian just because they read one of those books, then that's fine. All they have to do is say so. Usually, though, the reasons are a bit more personal than that. That is, in my opinion, what Jim is interested in. (My apologies to Jim if I overstepped my boundries by presuming to know what you were originally interested in.)

That's actually a fairly perseptive responce. The reasons I think some becomes a Christain are always personal. Evidence is important, and people have became Christians because of it, but it still takes more then just "logic" for someone to become a Christian.

As far as the books, there are many others. "Case for Christ" is actually a skeptic's inquiry into the question. They're great, but only if you're an honest skeptic. From what you and other skeptics here have said so far, I'd say that you are.

Sheepdog

February 16th 2003, 11:47 PM

Primarily because if i never became a Christian, i would have committed suicide by now. simply put, the meaninglessness of agnosticism simply can never justify the amount of pain i have gone through.

of course, i don't expect skeptics here to find this satisfying, but the question is about why I am a Christian.

but, why do i stay a Christian? i have been tempted to revert to skepticism, but in order to do so i had to ignore the evidences against abiogenesis and evolution (i.e. extreme improbabilities and irreducable complexity), the evidences for the Resurrection (which is so satisfying from a historical point of view that to deny it would require me to also deny all of History), the Kalaam Cosmological Argument, a couple of miraculous events in my life, the many blessings i had received, and so on. i don't know how skeptics can bury their heads in the sand so effectively, but i just cannot cover my ears and screach "LALALALALALALALA" like most of them seem to do. well, i could, but i have too much integrity to do so.

johnransom

February 17th 2003, 12:17 AM

Jim Eisele:
Does anyone have any reasons for being a Christian?

Everyone else's very valid rebutals notwithstanding, there is one very simple but overwhelming reason to subscribe to Christianity:

IT'S THE TRUTH!!!

There. My $0.02.

flipper

February 17th 2003, 12:57 AM

Jaltus, Pascal's wager? I'm deeply disappointed in you, as I assume you are already familiar with the flaws inherent in said wager.

Blake Reas:

Also you must give good reasons for rejecting a Global flood. I have not idea how much study you have done but have you read any work by any of hte Intelligent Design Theorist? I really hope you do not just brush them aside in your next post, as other Skeptics do.

I wasn't aware of any ID theorists who were publicly defending the global flood, mostly because they know how damaging it would be to their credibility if they did. ID theorists maintain the figleaf of objective credibility by pretending that they don't know or make any claims as to who the designer is, or who the designers are. Privately, most (if not all) IDers that have declared an interest are Christians. I'm open to correction on this....

Jin-Roh

February 17th 2003, 03:25 AM

I wasn't aware of any ID theorists who were publicly defending the global flood, mostly because they know how damaging it would be to their credibility if they did.

ID Scientists will typically face voilent verbal abuse, suspension of degrees, and loss of jobs if they question evolution or present arguements for design.

Typically, if someone needs to resort to ad hominim and suppression to sustain a theory, it speaks very badly for that theory.

flipper

February 17th 2003, 04:20 AM

Jin-Roh:

ID Scientists will typically face voilent verbal abuse, suspension of degrees, and loss of jobs if they question evolution or present arguements for design.

This is not the same thing as defending a YE global flood, I should point out. I'm not entirely sure I doubt what you are saying here, but all the same, do you have any links to specific examples of this? I notice that Behe is still Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh, so he has not yet been Galileized.

It seems to me that if these ID scientists had some reasonable scientific evidence for their position rather than the current variants on "Oh well, we don't currently know of a mechanism by which the complex feature or features came about no matter what the timeframe, so therefore it must be evidence of design", which is nothing more than God of the Gaps II, then science would be forced to consider it. After all, apparently radical ideas that forced reconsiderations of established dogma appears to be a hallmark of the evolution of science. Look at notions such as Cold Fusion, which in hindsight were quite crackpot - they were still given time in the spotlight and serious consideration before falling out of favor.

Complexity is not yet a smoking gun. Behe does raise some interesting points, but I will reserve judgement until various genomes have been better unpicked and understood. I suspect that ID will be fighting on two fronts in the future ("well, it just shows you the accretive genius of the designer...").

Remember, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, as I occasionally get reminded.

flipper

February 17th 2003, 04:44 AM

Actually, the following is quite an insightful statement from the ID camp. It was written by the head of the Discovery Institute, David Berlinski, in relation to certain issues he has with how the Nilsson and Pilger eye evolution simulation has been interpreted by the evolutionary sciences community.

He wrote:

These are again circumstances that properly afford a measure of satisfaction to members of the intelligent-design community. But in what respect is our understanding improved by assuming that the visual system is the result of intelligent design? Unless very specific religious hypotheses are invoked, neither the identity nor the nature of the designer is known. The principles that he employs are a mystery, and the objects of his design are not well understood. Certain questions now reappear with unyielding insistence. Could a designer whose nature we cannot fathom, using principles we cannot specify, construct a system we cannot characterize?

http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/vexingeye021302.htm

So unless the ID movement are making a significant attempt to answer these questions through their own research, or are proposing hypotheses or experiments to help answer these questions, then it seems to me that continuing on the assumptions of a purely naturalistic outlook is much the better course. So far such an approach has served us all extremely well, and I see no reason yet why it will not continue to do so in the future, despite these problems that, for now, appear intractable.

Socrates

February 17th 2003, 04:46 AM

Flipper flaps: :dufus:

I wasn't aware of any ID theorists who were publicly defending the global flood, mostly because they know how damaging it would be to their credibility if they did.:doh: Or because the global Flood is about geology, while ID is about bioinformatics. FYI, there are a number of people in the ID camp who DO believe in a global Flood.

Look at notions such as Cold Fusion, which in hindsight were quite crackpot - they were still given time in the spotlight and serious consideration before falling out of favor.
:argh: Cold fusion doesn't challenge anyone's world view, e.g. that they are wrong to dismiss the fact that they actually have a Maker to whom they will have to give an account!! :bonk:

Patroclus

February 17th 2003, 04:46 AM

'Order' and 'disorder' are classifications in the mind. This is not reality. You confuse reality with your ideas, which is 'insanity'.

To call somebody insane dilutes your point.

markg

February 17th 2003, 05:03 AM

Jim Eisele:

...

Revelation (a wild and wacky book) 14:11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever"

I can see why you wouldn't want to quote that - it is repulsive, unjust, unloving, cruel, vindictive, barbaric, wicked, evil, and uncivilized.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

Well, I'm glad to see that you are no moral relativist, Jim, and you have some objective, universal standards by which to judge the right and wrong, the good or bad, of things. Most of the other skeptics here deny that there are any external moral standards.

So they are limited to expressing only their personal feelings about the matter... in which case they don't mean much to anyone else. You on the other hand are able to identify evil, injustice and wickedness, and call a spade a spade. But how do you know its a spade and not a pick?

And who is the "you" not wishing to quote this verse? More importantly why would one want to quote this verse? I just can't see many contexts when one would want to pull out of the hat "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever". It's a real conversation stopper - even on this thread.

PRAISE

February 17th 2003, 05:03 AM

AgnosticAtheist:

OK, I read it. The letter indicates that you were a believer to begin with. Why?

I'm really praying about your question. I hadn't become a believer, until I was around 18. I wasn't satisfied with what my church had been teaching, & was looking for some meaning to life. It was then that I commited my life to Christ. I had gained a great insight into how utterly meaningless my life had become before I had made this decision. My life was very full during those early years of being a believer-I learned what true love really was, by all the friends that I had made during my college years. There is nobody to blame for the fact that I backslid but myself! I was overwhelmed by the reality of the real world after I graduated. I didn't have the support of other believers, & that was my big mistake! Since I was renewed back into the family of God on 1/11/03, do you think that I could have overcome any one of those problems that had been afflicting me is I hadn't had God, The TOL'ers who were praying for me, & my own church supporting me? No-I would be dead right now! What I went through, it WAS because I had all that support! There is NO WAY that I could have changed myself, by myself! This was the power of God that changed me-nothing else could have! I do love you, even though you may not understand this. It was my wish to share some of my own personal experiences with you, to show you that there is a God who even could still love me, even though I hadn't loved Him for all those years! A God who NEVER gave up on me! I know that this is difficult to understand for you, because being a Christian is an intensly personal experience. No one can change a heart except a loving Savior like Jesus Christ. I KNOW! You are the one who would have to make that decision for yourself. God won't force you to do anything that you don't want to- & I think that that is what makes being a Christian such a joy-that the God who created the entire universe, still loves me enough to give me the CHOICE to come back to HIM-He never forced me! I'm here for you, man! Don't hesitate to contact me if you would ever like to talk! I love you man! Trust in the Lord with all your heart, & lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways, acknowledge Him, & He will direct your paths.' (Proverbs 3:5-6)

Praising God for the love that I have for you, AA!
PRAISE:thumb:

flipper

February 17th 2003, 06:17 AM

Socrates:

Or because the global Flood is about geology, while ID is about bioinformatics.

*grin* I take your point, but I would also point out that a global extinction less than 6,000 years ago would, one might think, have significant genetic implications.

http://www.breeders.umn.edu/ansc3221/cheetahs/sld001.htm

Socrates

February 17th 2003, 09:27 AM

Flipper:

I take your point, but I would also point out that a global extinction less than 6,000 years ago would, one might think, have significant genetic implications. I fail to see, even from your site, why it's a problem. The Creation/Flood/migration model takes into account rapid diversification after the Flood. Most likely, God brought animals with much heterozygosity.

Jim E.

February 17th 2003, 10:53 AM

cirisme:

Do you understand the concept of hell?

Hopefully you are simply away from your computer. But,
I replied to your question. Are you going to share with
the rest of us your reason for asking this question, and
what it has to do with this thread?

To the rest of the group - you all seem to be firmly
committed to THE TRUTH, which I deeply appreciate.
And yes, skeptics and atheists aren't perfect people.

I probably only have time to post about once/day. And,
in my experience, a slower pace gives people time to
think anyways. Time permitting, I hope to address each
and every "reason" presented for being a Christian.

Let's get right to the one that suckered me into Christianity,
though. How could this big, complex universe have "created
itself?" If your thought process stops there, you will be a
Christian.

Just remember, there are plenty of web resources to help
Christians deconvert. If you aren't too afraid to think harder
about this question, you'll realize it is an entirely inadequate
reason to be a Christian.

That's it for now.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

J. J. Ramsey

February 17th 2003, 11:19 AM

Jim Eisele:
Let's get right to the one that suckered me into Christianity,
though. How could this big, complex universe have "created
itself?" If your thought process stops there, you will be a
Christian.

Or a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Deist, or a . . .

If you aren't too afraid to think harder
about this question, you'll realize it is an entirely inadequate reason to be a Christian.

The design argument is insufficient to lead one into Christianity, period. To be a Christian, one must also believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Conversely, if one becomes unconvinced of the creation account in Genesis, it does not follow that one should disbelieve in the resurrection. There are just not strong enough ties between the two doctrines.

jpholding

February 17th 2003, 12:15 PM

Just thought ya'll would appreciate Eisele's comments on the Errancy list, speaking to Doug "Jewish Scholar Jeffrey Tigay is Unfamiliar with Deuteonomy" Krueger...

Let's not forget human psychology, Doug. We all do what we believe to be in our best interests. We only act in other ways when we are ignorant. By its very nature, Christianity is restrictive (do we really need to go into all the
gory details). People don't want to waste their lives believing in a fairy tale.

Hmm, does Jim only believe what he does because it is in his own best interest? :argh:

I'm not on a mission or anything, but it seems that it shouldn't be too hard to deconvert Christians. Sometimes they just can't handle too much new information, and they withdraw. They're only acting in their own perceived self-interest. They're afraid of punishment by the Almighty.

Aw, aren't we just the sad cases. Hmm, ya don't suppose Mr. Eisele is projecting his own former fears, do ya? Mmmmm. :idea:

So let's just take over all the open Christian lists and let the others die. We can't take over anything if we're getting kicked off or refusing to participate. Christians are already obviously on the defensive, and many are probably looking for a safe exit strategy. Let's stop over-focusing on Christian shortcomings, and try to get Christians over the hump of fear.

Aw, isn't he sweet. :rofl: Maybe you're under the impression we're on the defensive and think we have fear because YOU used to be that way, and are projecting/universalizaing your experience to give yourself some assurance? Um. Two can play this boo game, Dr. Freud. My, what arrogance atheism can bring to people.

BTW tell Dougy that I am not co-owner of this forum.

As a close for a more reasoned look at torment and hell in the Bible see part 2 of

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gutripper.html

$cirisme

February 17th 2003, 02:41 PM

Andrew:
Jim,

Hell IS torment, let there be no mistake about that. It is the torment at the realisation at what you've lost: you've chosen to be separated from the source of goodness, love, community, etc.

It needs to be realised that the 'firey' references to hell are actually literary devices, rather than literal descriptions. Fire is a metaphor for judgement. We see the same figure of speech where we are told that Christ is going to return surrounded by flames and that he's going to have a big sword coming out of his mouth: the figure of the sword stands for the Word of God in judgement. The flames stand for Christ coming in judgement.

Amen. :thumb:

Jin-Roh

February 17th 2003, 03:23 PM

This is not the same thing as defending a YE global flood, I should point out. I'm not entirely sure I doubt what you are saying here, but all the same, do you have any links to specific examples of this?

Yes I realize that the defense of a Global Flood and questioning of Evolution are not totally the same, but since they are connected I can still say this: “Secular Scientists do suppress dissenting information." Here are my examples.

In an interview with over 100 creationists, with advanced degrees in biology, Dr. Bergman (for his book The Criterion) found that all reported that they had experienced some discrimination. Over 12% said that they had received death threats. Many also said that they had been denied jobs or degrees because of their views.
In this same book, a department supervisor was quoted saying, “You creationists are Stone Age Neanderthals, and if I had my way I would fire every one of you.” Another stated, “Frankly, I don’t like holy people, fundamentalists, especially Baptists, Church of Christ types, Pentecostals or other seventeenth century retrogressives. If we find out we hired one, especially if they start talking to the other scientists about their beliefs, I terminate them within the month.”
Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle was close to receiving a Nobel Peace Prize, but when he appeared in a book, which doubted evolution on mathematical grounds, his books became negatively reviewed and he never received the Peace Prize

The above all taken from Ready with an Answer (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1565076184/qid=1045509185/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-9604896-2477662?v=glance&s=books) by John Ankerberg and John Weldon

My final example comes from non-Christian scientist Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist of the British Natural History Museum) who lectured before scientists at the American Museum of Natural History back in ’81. To paraphrase, he asked if any of the scientists could assert one thing of evolution that is absolutely true. He had asked this same question to many other groups of scientists. After his lecture’s transcript was circulated, he came under serious opposition and has pressured to renounce his statements.

This argument taken from Darwin on Trial (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830813241/qid=1045509699/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-9604896-2477662?v=glance&s=books) by Phillip E. Johnson

Jin-Roh

February 17th 2003, 03:25 PM

Anyway, the point I was trying to make with my initial statement was that people don't usually hear Global Flood, Young Earth, or any other "Bible-Science" arguements becuase such things are actively repressed.

(I also apologize in advance for any rules on sources that I might've broken here)

ItalianGold

February 17th 2003, 04:25 PM

Greetings all,

I am new here. I've considered myself to be a true agnostic. Now I'm not even sure of that! I think the commonly accepted definitions of "agnostic" is someone who thinks that an ultimate reality (God) is unknown and probably unknowable.

Regarding the question "Why would someone want to be Christian?" - I can only speak from my own ex-Catholic experience. I was pretty young when I became disillusioned with the Church. It was a terrible experience and I would have given anything to be able to sustain my faith. I still would.

But the term Christian has so many meanings that I can't wrap my mind around it. The YEC's think everyone else is wrong. The fundamentalist evangelists are sure that I'm going to physically suffer an unimaginable firey agony for eternity. Some believe (insist) on a literal and inerrant translation of the Bible....still others are comfortable with seeing many layers of metaphorical meaning. I'd love NOT to wrestle with these things. That's why I'd like to be a ....some kind of Christian.

What I am though is a seeker, a sinner, an agnostic.

J. J. Ramsey

February 17th 2003, 05:49 PM

ItalianGold:
But the term Christian has so many meanings that I can't wrap my mind around it.

The term "Christian" has been used and abused and misapplied, but I think it really has only one basic meaning: someone who believes Jesus Christ died and rose again and tries to live by moral teachings in the New Testament. That is about it; everything else is an add-on.

The YEC's think everyone else is wrong. The fundamentalist evangelists are sure that I'm going to physically suffer an unimaginable firey agony for eternity. Some believe (insist) on a literal and inerrant translation of the Bible....still others are comfortable with seeing many layers of metaphorical meaning. I'd love NOT to wrestle with these things.

Bad behavior and internal fighting among Christians are not good reasons to reject Christianity. Ultimately what you have to wrestle with are the truth claims of Christianity itself. The best advice I can give is to start with the resurrection. That is the center; that is the heart. Christianity does not stand or fall or YEC, or the Flood, or inerrancy. If YEC and so on turn out to be true, great, but at best they are still peripheral. Focus on the resurrection.

AgnosticAtheist

February 17th 2003, 05:59 PM

Jin-Roh:

Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle was close to receiving a Nobel Peace Prize, but when he appeared in a book, which doubted evolution on mathematical grounds, his books became negatively reviewed and he never received the Peace Prize
[/list]
The above all taken from Ready with an Answer (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1565076184/qid=1045509185/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-9604896-2477662?v=glance&s=books) by John Ankerberg and John Weldon

You might want to recheck your source. I don't think Hoyle was ever considered for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Gavin

February 17th 2003, 06:20 PM

St. Augustine:
Not with doubting, but with assured consciousness, do I love
Thee, Lord. Thou hast stricken my heart with Thy word, and I loved
Thee. Yea also heaven, and earth, and all that therein is, behold,
on every side they bid me love Thee; nor cease to say so unto all,
that they may be without excuse.
. . .
But what do I love, when I love Thee? not beauty
of bodies, nor the fair harmony of time, nor the brightness of the
light, so gladsome to our eyes, nor sweet melodies of varied songs,
nor the fragrant smell of flowers, and ointments, and spices, not
manna and honey, not limbs acceptable to embracements of flesh. None
of these I love, when I love my God; and yet I love a kind of light,
and melody, and fragrance, and meat, and embracement when I love my
God, the light, melody, fragrance, meat, embracement of my inner man:
where there shineth unto my soul what space cannot contain, and there
soundeth what time beareth not away, and there smelleth what breathing
disperseth not, and there tasteth what eating diminisheth not, and
there clingeth what satiety divorceth not. This is it which I love
when I love my God.

I think that is a beautiful expression of why this man loves God.

Jim E.

February 17th 2003, 08:34 PM

Andrew:
Jim,

Hell IS torment, let there be no mistake about that. It is the torment at the realisation at what you've lost: you've chosen to be separated from the source of goodness, love, community, etc.

Here it sounds like you do believe in a literal hell.
Below, it sounds like you don't.
Andrew:
It needs to be realised that the 'firey' references to hell are actually literary devices, rather than literal descriptions.

These types of comments indicate Christians may need psychological help. Any evidence against Christianity
can be written off as metaphor. I don't mean that to be cruel - for some reason Christians struggle with reality, and that is a shame.
Andrew:
Fire is a metaphor for judgement. We see the same figure of speech where we are told that Christ is going to return surrounded by flames and that he's going to have a big sword coming out of his mouth: the figure of the sword stands for the Word of God in judgement. The flames stand for Christ coming in judgement.

There are some metaphors in the Bible (calling Herod a fox, for example). Context dictates what is metaphor and what is not. Just because the concept of hell is an atrocity that conflicts with God's purported qualities of love and justice does not give Christians license to claim metaphor. The evidence is solidly against Christianity.

If you wish to provide EVIDENCE for why hell is a metaphor, feel free to do so. And expect to be slammed by many of your fellow Christians. In the meantime, your mere assertion simply does not equal reality. Those of us who know what the text says aren't swayed by Christian attemps to claim that 2+2=6. 2+2=4. Always has. Always will. When you die, you die.

I hate to see you spend your life following a fairy tale. Have the courage to say 2+2=4, and get on with your life. Life as a non-Christian is, quite simply, better than life as a Christian.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

jpholding

February 17th 2003, 09:12 PM

In rides Dr. E, still prescribing his own medication,

These types of comments indicate Christians may need psychological help. Any evidence against Christianity
can be written off as metaphor.

Aw heck yeah. Just check that link I gave a few messages back. That's all just an excuse -- contextual study as an excuse to write off as metaphor.

Context dictates what is metaphor and what is not. Just because the concept of hell is an atrocity that conflicts with God's purported qualities of love and justice does not give Christians license to claim metaphor.

Well, that wasn't a reason given in the article. Ignore it again and I'll bring the kit and kaboodle here for you to answer. :smile: Er, ignore.

And expect to be slammed by many of your fellow Christians.

**PRESSING PANIC BUTTON OVER AND OVER***

No, Dr., please don't threaten me with the criticism of my peers! How will I ever get online again?!?

I hate to see you spend your life following a fairy tale. Have the courage to say 2+2=4, and get on with your life. Life as a non-Christian is, quite simply, better than life as a Christian.

Still trying to convince yourself, are you? :rofl: The classic case of the apostate trying to convince others in order to make himself feel better. How do I know this? Why the same way you know all about our psychological profiles, Dr. E. :smile:

As an aside, to your friend "gcivello" on Errancy: we regard most of the descriptions of heaven as metaphorical as well. Gold streets are after all impractical.

Sheepdog

February 17th 2003, 09:25 PM

I don't mean that to be cruel - for some reason Christians struggle with reality, and that is a shame.

"and all skeptics are weasels." ;)

see how easy it is to mass stereotype? (especially when you don't have the statistical date to back you up.)

Socrates

February 17th 2003, 09:52 PM

----------------------------------------------------------------
Jin-Roh:
Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle was close to receiving a Nobel Peace Prize, but when he appeared in a book, which doubted evolution on mathematical grounds, his books became negatively reviewed and he never received the Peace Prize
[/list]
The above all taken from Ready with an Answer by John Ankerberg and John Weldon
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Agnostic Atheist:
You might want to recheck your source. I don't think Hoyle was ever considered for the Nobel Peace Prize.AA is right, but it doesn't affect JR's main point. From an obituary (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/hoyle.asp) on the Answers in Genesis website:

"Alas, Hoyle paid for his outright questioning of the materialist paradigm. In the 1950s, Hoyle had some ingenious ideas about stellar fusion, and predicted that the Carbon-12 nucleus would have a certain energy level (called a resonance) to enable helium to undergo fusion. His co-worker William Fowler eventually won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1983 (with Subramanyan Chandrasekhar), but for some reason Hoyle’s original contribution was overlooked, and many were surprised that such a notable astronomer missed out. Fowler himself in an autobiographical sketch affirmed Hoyle’s immense contribution:

‘Fred Hoyle was the second great influence in my life. The grand concept of nucleosynthesis in stars was first definitely established by Hoyle in 1946.’

Socrates

February 17th 2003, 10:06 PM

JJRamsey:
he design argument is insufficient to lead one into Christianity, period.Correct. That's why I think AiG is right in this article on the Intelligent Design Movement (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_idm.asp).

To be a Christian, one must also believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.Necessary but not sufficient. According to the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, one must believe that "Jesus died for our sins, according the Scriptures". Without this historical context, the resurrection is just a strange quirk in history. And what is this context? The Scriptures, which teach where sin orginally came from, i.e. Genesis. Paul continues to explain that it came from the "first man", Adam, who sinned and brought death, the "last enemy". And Jesus, the "Last Adam", brought resurrection from the dead (see 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 26, 45).

Conversely, if one becomes unconvinced of the creation account in Genesis, it does not follow that one should disbelieve in the resurrection. No, it doesn't, but you lose all the theological context. After all, 1 Cor. 15 is probably the earliest written account of the resurrection, and Paul uses the language that shows it was already a long-established creed.

There are just not strong enough ties between the two doctrines.As shown, Paul would disagree. Also, in the great exposition of justification by faith, the Epistle to the Romans, Paul connects "the trangression of the one", Adam, resulting in "condemnation of all men"; with the "abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness [that] will reign in life though the by the grace of the One, Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:12-19).

The Laughing Man

February 18th 2003, 01:16 AM

Jim Eisele: Life as a non-Christian is, quite simply, better than life as a Christian.

Really? "Quite simply?" First of all, please explain how it is better. That shouldn't be a problem since, as you've stated, it's "quite simpl[e]." Second, prove your assertion to be true. Third, please prove to me how the 10 or so years of my life as a non-Christian were better than my current life. I'll give you an overview of both:

My non-Christian life: No wife (quite bitter towards women and marriage, actually), no children, poor relationship with my parents and brother (all fundamentalist Christians, so I viewed them with disdain like a good non-Christian would), no purpose to my life, no stability (bouncing from job to job and apartment to apartment), no money, overwhelming debt, p.o.c. cars, depression, insomnia, and no motivation.

My Christian life: I have a wonderful, beautiful, loving, caring wife whom I cherish very deeply, a beautiful, adorable, fun, healthy, happy son who I also very deeply cherish, another child on the way who I already deeply cherish, reconciled relationships with my parents and brother, a definite purpose to my life (several, actually: husband, father, follower of Christ), stability (have held the same job for over 3 years now with no end in sight and my wife and I own a house), we have money, our debt is under control, we each have decent vehicles, I am happy and healthy, I get a decent nights sleep 99.99% of the time, and I have motivation to do things.

You know what? Forget it. Any explanation you could provide would be meaningless and would most likely just be a prejudiced slam against Christians. Neither can you prove your assertion true because I am the proof that it is not. So are many, many, many millions of other people. Finally, you can't prove that my non-Christian life was better than my Christian life because, quite simply, it wasn't.

See, it's someone like you who give atheists and other non-believers a bad name. If you were just simply content with not believing in God (true atheism), I and others wouldn't have a problem with you. It's your choice not to believe in God and no one can argue you into believing in Him. But you're not just content with simply not believing. You are bound and determined to make us not believe (which is actually anti-theism). You see, instead of stating things like, "I don't believe in God," you are making claims like, "Your God doesn't exist." Do you see the difference? Along with those anti-theist claims comes "half-vast" statements such as, "Life as a non-Christian is, quite simply, better than life as a Christian." Your foolishness and prejudice simply flow from that sentence like a flood-swelled river.

Socrates

February 18th 2003, 02:14 AM

Further to what Jinx72 wrote above, this article is most relevant:

H.A. Ironside responds to an Agnostic (from http://suewidemark.com/catholic/ironside.htm)

Early in his ministry Dr. Harry A. Ironside was living in the San Francisco Bay area, working with some Christians called Brethren. One evening as he was walking through the city he came upon a group of Salvation Army workers holding a meeting on the corner of Market and Grant avenues. When they recognized Ironside they asked if he would give his testimony. So he did, telling how God had saved him through faith in the bodily death and literal resurrection of Jesus.

As he was speaking, Ironside noticed that on the edge of the crowd there was a well-dressed man who had taken a card from his pocket and had written something on it. As Ironside finished his talk the man came forward, lifted his hat, and very politely handed Ironside the card. On one side was his name, which Ironside immediately recognized. The man was one of the early socialists who had made a name for himself lecturing not only for socialism but also against Christianity. As Ironside turned the card over he read,

"Sir, I challenge you to debate with me the question 'Agnosticism versus Christianity' in the Academy of Science Hall next Sunday afternoon at four o'clock. I will pay all expenses."

Ironside reread the card aloud and then replied somewhat like this.

"I am very much interested in this challenge. Frankly, I am already scheduled for another meeting next Lord's Day afternoon at three o'clock, but I think it will be possible for me to get through with that in time to reach the Academy of Science Hall by four, or if necessary I would arrange to have another speaker substitute for me at the meeting already advertised. Therefore I will be glad to agree to this debate on the following conditions: namely, that in order to prove that this gentleman has something worth debating about, he will promise to bring with him to the lecture hall next Sunday two people, whose qualifications I will give in a moment, as proof that agnosticism is of real value in changing human lives and building true character.

"First, he must promise to bring with him one man who was for years what we commonly call a 'down-and-outer.' I am not particular as to the exact nature of the sins that had wrecked his life and made him an outcast from society -- whether a drunkard, or a criminal of some kind, or a victim of his sensual appetite -- but a man who for years was under the power of evil habits from which he could not deliver himself, but who on some occasion entered one of this man's meetings and heard his glorification of agnosticism and his denunciations of the Bible and Christianity, and whose heart and mind as he listened to such an address were so deeply stirred that he went away from that meeting saying, 'Henceforth, I too am an agnostic!' and as a result of imbibing that particular philosophy found that a new power had come into his life. The sins he once loved he now hates, and righteousness and goodness are now the ideals of his life. He is now an entirely new man, a credit to himself, and an asset to society -- all because he is an agnostic.

"Secondly, I would like my opponent to promise to bring with him one woman -- I think he may have more difficulty in finding the woman than the man -- who was once a poor, wrecked, characterless outcast, the slave of evil passions and the victim of man's corrupt living, perhaps one who had lived for years in some evil resort, utterly lost, ruined and wretched because of her life of sin. But this woman also entered a hall where this man was loudly proclaiming his agnosticism and ridiculing the message of the Holy Scriptures. As she listened, hope was born in her heart, and she said, 'This is just what I need to deliver me from the slavery of sin!' She followed the teaching and became an intelligent agnostic or infidel. As a result, her whole being revolted against the degradation of the life she had been living. She fled from the den of iniquity where she had been held captive for so long; and today, rehabilitated, she has won her way back to an honored position in society and is living a clean, virtuous, happy life -- all because she is an agnostic.

"Now," he said, addressing the man who had presented him with his card and the challenge,

"if you will promise to bring these two people with you as examples of what agnosticism can do, I will promise to meet you at the Academy of Science Hall at four o'clock next Sunday, and I will bring with me at the very least one hundred men and women who for years lived in just such sinful degradation as I have tried to depict, but who have been gloriously saved through believing the gospel which you ridicule. I will have these men and women with me on the platform as witnesses to the miraculous saving power of Jesus Christ and as present-day proof of the truth of the Bible."

Dr. Ironside then turned to the Salvation Army captain, a girl, and asked her if she could find, within her corp, a few people like he had instructed the agnostic to find,

She exclaimed with enthusiasm,

"We can give you forty at least just from this one corps, and we will give you a brass band to lead the procession!"

Dr. Ironside then turned to the agnostic and told him:

"Now, sir, I will have no difficulty picking up sixty others from the various missions, gospel halls, and evangelical churches of the city. So if you will promise to bring two such exhibits as I have described, I will come marching in at the head of such a procession, with the band playing 'Onward, Christian Soldiers,' and I will be ready for the debate."

Apparently the man who had made the challenge had some sense of humor, for he smiled wryly and waved his hand in a deprecating kind of way as if to say "Nothing doing!" and then edged out of the crowd while the bystanders applauded Ironside and the others.

"The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, giving joy to the heart. The commandments of the Lord are radiant, giving light to the eyes. The fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever. The ordinances of the Lord are sure and altogether righteous"
(Ps. 19:7-9).

This article originated on The Salvation Online Network

The Laughing Man

February 18th 2003, 02:26 AM

"Most relevant" indeed! You have a gift for understatement, Socrates. :wink: Thanks for that article. I'd never seen or heard of it before.

Jin-Roh

February 18th 2003, 02:56 AM

I hate to see you spend your life following a fairy tale. Have the courage to say 2+2=4, and get on with your life. Life as a non-Christian is, quite simply, better than life as a Christian.

That is both a weak arguement and a subtle insult.

flipper

February 18th 2003, 03:07 AM

I would not presume to make such a statement as: ""Life as a non-Christian is, quite simply, better than life as a Christian." As a non Christian, I would want to see some pretty good empirical evidence before supporting that claim. After all, some of the poorest, most apparently miserable people on earth are non-Christians, so it seems a wildly bold one.

As far as Socrates' tale goes, I don't think that Ironside made an apples to oranges comparison. His challenge does not illustrate anything about the truth or lack it in either world view. It illustrates only that one approach is more effective at helping those who are hopeless. This is, of course, admirable but I don't think that atheism or agnosticism are world-views that are specifically altruistic, and they are not likely to be very comforting for many. I think that most people would prefer to believe that there is a higher power that is looking out for them and has their best interests at heart.

That is not to say that there are no altruistic atheists, or that atheists are more or less selfish than Christians, but rather that Christianity has a different focus. In that way, it is similar to some of the other world religions that emphasize compassion towards the poor. Islam and Buddhism spring to mind.

So I expect that in Japan, one might be able to find 100 people able to extol the lifechanging abilities of Shinto; in Peking, it might still be possible to find 100 people willing to testify to the rehabilitative properties of Falun Gong; in New York, 100 people willing to testify to the amazing redemption that they achieved through scientology; in San Francisco, 100 people who will swear that coming out as gay not only changed their lives, it saved them; and in London 100 people to whom Mohammed handed the keys to heaven.

Besides, the atheists have always been much outnumbered in society (oddly enough, existential/atheistic approaches are not much favored with the general populance) and are generally not evangelical in their propagation, so the statistics are likely to always be in Ironside's favor.

The Laughing Man

February 18th 2003, 11:26 AM

flipper: Besides, the atheists have always been much outnumbered in society (oddly enough, existential/atheistic approaches are not much favored with the general populance) and are generally not evangelical in their propagation, so the statistics are likely to always be in Ironside's favor.

Which is why he only asked for two people from the agnostic side.

Sheepdog

February 18th 2003, 01:55 PM

upon reading many of the posts in this thread by a certain couple of skeptics, i am starting to wonder if my Galileo quote should be directed at the anti-intelectualism stereotype placed on the church, or moreso against how many skeptics "reason."

(to be fair though, some skeptics here did come up with some good points)

just an observation...

Gavin

February 18th 2003, 03:56 PM

""Life as a non-Christian is, quite simply, better than life as a Christian." As a non Christian, I would want to see some pretty good empirical evidence before supporting that claim.

1 Corinthians 15:19
If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men

flipper

February 18th 2003, 04:16 PM

Statement of opinion :P

Also, I suppose the question revolves around how you define "better than". I was using the usual indices, plus a few other studies that show some additional stress benefits that come from prayer and meditation. I took the term "non-Christian" in a narrow sense to mean "atheist" or possibly "agnostic", bearing in mind how it was introduced to the conversation.

Jim E.

February 18th 2003, 04:38 PM

Thanks to Gavin for his Biblical evidence that life as a
non-Christian is much better than life as a Christian.

Maybe Andrew and Cirisme are away from their computers...

From page 1 in this thread

Faramir:
Jim, I also find the evidence for evolution unconvincing.

Well, so much for your objectivity…
Faramir:
However, there are many Christians who do accept the theory of evolution as the means God used to create life on earth.

Too bad the Bible doesn’t.
Faramir:
I do not see why belief in evolution would preclude one from being a Christian.

Replace “sin” with “acting in our own best interests” and you will be well on your way.
Faramir:
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good!
1 Thessalonians 5:21 (NASB)

Good is doing away with outdated concepts like Christian Biblegod. For those who need a crutch in life – exercise, see a therapist, find love, develop a positive attitude, or whatever floats your boat. Do NOT, under any circumstances, rely on divine intervention to make your life work. That’s like retiring on an empty 401K.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

J. J. Ramsey

February 18th 2003, 05:30 PM

Jim Eisele:
Good is doing away with outdated concepts like Christian Biblegod.

Outdated? I am reminded of a quote from the Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis:

Your man . . . doesn't think of doctrines as primarily "true" or "false," but as "academic" or "practical," "outworn" or "contemporary," "conventional" or "ruthless," Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Don't waste your time trying to make him think that materialism is true! Make him think that materialism is strong or stark or courageous--that it is the philosophy of the future. That's the sort of thing he cares about.

Lizard

February 18th 2003, 05:37 PM

Jim Eisele:

From page 1 in this thread

Faramir:
Jim, I also find the evidence for evolution unconvincing.

Well, so much for your objectivity…

Wow, I don't agree with you, you do not know any of my reason for disagreement, yet I am not objective. Thank you for bringing that to my attention Mr. Paragon of Objectivity.

Jim Eisele:

Faramir:
However, there are many Christians who do accept the theory of
evolution as the means God used to create life on earth.

Too bad the Bible doesn’t.

I agree with you here that the bible doesn’t teach evolution. However, your statement was that evolution was a reason for not being a Christian. I just pointed out that there are many Christians who do believe evolution. Do you deny this?

Jim Eisele:
Replace “sin” with “acting in our own best interests” and you will be well on your way.

:huh:

Jim Eisele:
Faramir:
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good!
1 Thessalonians 5:21 (NASB)

Good is doing away with outdated concepts like Christian Biblegod. For those who need a crutch in life – exercise, see a therapist, find love, develop a positive attitude, or whatever floats your boat. Do NOT, under any circumstances, rely on divine intervention to make your life work. That’s like retiring on an empty 401K.

Well here is where we disagree. Good is doing what you were created to do. And that is to Glorify the Creator.

You seem to be very hostile toward God. I wonder why. You suggest that a person should do anything that "floats their boat" other than being a Christian.

If you believe that there is no God, fine. But why does it bother you so much that others believe? I don't get that.
:argh:

J. J. Ramsey

February 18th 2003, 05:44 PM

Sheepdog

February 18th 2003, 07:53 PM

Thanks to Gavin for his Biblical evidence that life as a
non-Christian is much better than life as a Christian.

which was in response to:

1 Corinthians 15:19
If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

:huh: you need to read the passage again. the point isn't that the Christian life in-and-of-itself is better or worse than non; but that, if thier is no afterlife, all that the Christian sunk into his faith is meaningless. :doh: this is sensable, as the context of the passage is on whether their is a resurrection of the dead (IWO, an afterlife). if there is no afterlife, and all we get are rewards in this short life, what is the point (or so the Apostle argues).

Faramir:
Jim, I also find the evidence for evolution unconvincing.

Well, so much for your objectivity…

so, anyone who believes in evolution is objective, and those who don't are whackoes? that isn't argumentation, it is nonsense.

i mean, doesn't it sound familiar? think, Galileo Galilei vs. the Roman Catholic Church...

Faramir:
I do not see why belief in evolution would preclude one from being a Christian.

Replace “sin” with “acting in our own best interests” and you will be well on your way.

more cake-glazing from skeptic mill! you are presuming (1) sin includes all of "own's best interest" and (2) sin doesn't have an existance outside of a given religion. the former is simply not true (indeed it ultimately is in our best interest not to sin, granted Christianity is true), and the latter presumes the nonexistance of God-- something you expect us to accept a priori when such a presumption is not justified at all.

Good is doing away with outdated concepts like Christian Biblegod.

thus saith Jim Eisele, who huffs and puffs, but as of yet hasn't blown down God's house.

For those who need a crutch in life – exercise, see a therapist, find love, develop a positive attitude, or whatever floats your boat.

only ill or injured people need crutches. we all are injured by sin, and thus we all need crutches, as supplied by Jesus. some people are just ignorant of or unwilling to come to terms with the evidence for him.

Do NOT, under any circumstances, rely on divine intervention to make your life work. That’s like retiring on an empty 401K.

actually, the opposite is the case-- failing ot put faith in God in this life before you die is exactly like retiring on an empty 401K; or no savings at all, for that matter.

Epoetker

February 18th 2003, 08:38 PM

My #1 reason for being a Christian: The ressurrection makes sense as a historical event.

My #1 reason for STAYING a Christian: A hell of a lot of people I know well, not generally known to be liars in the matter, are somehow feeding me BS on miraculous events in their lives. And somehow the act of praying to my particular deity works a lot better than repeating any self-empowerment mantra.

Christianity and its implications offers a wide explanatory net for both "natural" and "supernatural" or "paranormal" events. It's nice to not have to reminisce on explanations that border on the type of logical contradictions atheists supposedly despise (Time-traveling visitors from the future! The incredible chance event that was the origin of life repeating itself early enough in the history of the universe to create a sentient society through evolution that's more advanced than ours!)

Pilgrim

February 18th 2003, 08:55 PM

Jim Eisele:
Does anyone have any reasons for being a Christian?
To be fair, my biggest two reasons for being an atheist are evolution and the
infinite cruelty of the concept of hell. Christians just don't know how solid the
evidence for evolution is. And I feel sorry for folks who believe in hell.

But, if anyone has a good reason or two to be a Christian, please speak up.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

Of course your assumption there is that Christianity and evolution are incompatible which is a fallacy. Even the concept of eternal hell is not held by all Christians.

Jim E.

February 18th 2003, 09:31 PM

Epoetker:
My #1 reason for STAYING a Christian: A hell of a lot of people I know well, not generally known to be liars in the matter, are somehow feeding me BS on miraculous events in their lives. And somehow the act of praying to my particular deity works a lot better than repeating any self-empowerment mantra.

I have a moment for this one. :smile: I, too, have heard a few tales of "miracles." They all involved people under unusual stress and in an unfamiliar environment. The kind of miracle that would convince me would be an accurate Bible. We know that couldn't be further from the truth, and thus all claims of miracles must be viewed with skepticism.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

Blake Reas

February 18th 2003, 10:16 PM

Jim Eisele:

I have a moment for this one. :smile: I, too, have heard a few tales of "miracles." They all involved people under unusual stress and in an unfamiliar environment. The kind of miracle that would convince me would be an accurate Bible. We know that couldn't be further from the truth, and thus all claims of miracles must be viewed with skepticism.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

Hmmmm...... this is almost as good as Hume's blanket against Miracles. Your argument must go something like this:

1) If all people who experience Miracles are insane it follows that they are lying
2) All people who experience Mircales are insane
3) Therefore, All miracles are dillusional lies.

Lets see I dispute 1 & 3! Please prove that all people who have experienced Miracles where under stress or some such paranoia and while your at it why don't you give a refutation of the REsurrection?
2) there are perfectly rational people who experience God, not only through Miracles but through Prayer. You must make better arguments that just state your assumption.

In Christ,
Blake

AgnosticAtheist

February 18th 2003, 10:54 PM

PRAISE:

I hadn't become a believer, until I was around 18. I wasn't satisfied with what my church had been teaching, & was looking for some meaning to life. It was then that I commited my life to Christ.

This indicates that you were a 'believer' before you "commited (your) life to Christ." What were you before? A non-xtian theist?

Since I was renewed back into the family of God on 1/11/03, do you think that I could have overcome any one of those problems that had been afflicting me is I hadn't had God, The TOL'ers who were praying for me, & my own church supporting me?

I don't see why not.

No-I would be dead right now!

That may be a bit overly dramatic. I know a lot of people go through periods of depression like that but most recover. I know of many who recovered without resorting to religion in general or Xtianity in particular.

What I went through, it WAS because I had all that support!

Now I agree. The 'support' is an extremely important element in recovering from bad times. Family and friends are paramount.

There is NO WAY that I could have changed myself, by myself! This was the power of God that changed me-nothing else could have!

Well, you don't really know that...you only believe that. There's probably no way of really knowing for sure.

No one can change a heart except a loving Savior like Jesus Christ. I KNOW!

'Moonies' feel the same way about Rev. Sun Myung Moon. And they probably 'KNOW' the same way you think you 'KNOW'. Personally, I think they, and you, only believe.

The Laughing Man

February 18th 2003, 11:26 PM

What the heck is a "biblegod?" Is that like "skydaddy"- i.e. yet another word that atheists have made up to express their disdain and limited cleverness?

Socrates

February 18th 2003, 11:35 PM

---------------------------------------------------------------

JJR:
To be a Christian, one must also believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

S:
Necessary but not sufficient. According to the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, one must believe that "Jesus died for our sins, according the Scriptures".

----------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, yes. Forgot to mention that one. Hardly surprising, because places where this is taught are also places that connect Adam's literal fall into sin and death with Christ's Resurrection from the dead.

----------------------------------------------------------------

S:
The Scriptures, which teach where sin orginally came from, i.e. Genesis. Paul continues to explain that it came from the "first man", Adam, who sinned and brought death, the "last enemy". And Jesus, the "Last Adam", brought resurrection from the dead (see 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 26, 45). . . . blah, blah, etc., etc.

----------------------------------------------------------------
For a person who whinges about alleged misquoting by creationists (just because an atheist claims this) you have violated quoting ethics yourself. It's etiquette to put editorial comments in square brackets[/i] [...].

Socrates, I believe that I dealt with the dependence of core Christian doctrines on Genesis here and here.

You believe wrongly, and this is further shown above where you forgot the "died for your sins" part --- just shows the dangers of wrenching the historical resurrection out of any theological context.

In the first post you mention, you admit:
"I had forgotten that Paul's material about Christ as the second sic -- last] dealt with the resurrection as well as the atonement."

Socrates

February 18th 2003, 11:42 PM

Sheepdog:
upon reading many of the posts in this thread by a certain couple of skeptics, i am starting to wonder if my Galileo quote should be directed at the anti-intelectualism stereotype placed on the church, or moreso against how many skeptics "reason."
Yep, Galileo's main opponents were the establishment scientists who dogmatically defended the pagan-invented Ptolemaic cosmology. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geocentrism.asp

George Blaisdell

February 19th 2003, 12:24 AM

AgnosticAtheist:

> Wow! A dozen responses and only one actually addressed the original question. And, sadly, that one was nothing more than a watered down version of Pascal's Wager.

Wow...

> Anyway, back to Jim's original question. Does anybody have any reasons for being a christian?

I was an athiest fot my first 36 years, and then avoided Christians for the next 15, in the arrogance of having had direct contact with the almighty and did not want to have anything to do with Bible Thumpers. I saw Christians as thick headed, over-opinionated, and very un-spiritual... Thinking all they knew was words written in a book...

I had no way of knowing that it was the Christian God that brought me forth out of the loss that I was in athiestic philosophy, and that His Church is still in existence. He brought me to understand, reading John in Greek, that I was a Christian, but with what I was seeing, I feared for my [Protestant and Catholic] Christian bretheren, worrying who would minister unto the ministers... So I became a "satellite Christian", orbiting the local Churches without joining any of them, and mecoming friends with the pastors. I was not seeking a church. I had seen enough to know better.

And I was wrong...

And then the Church that I was not seeking found me, and it was love at first sight, and now, some 4 years later, after a long and prayerful and tearful and utterly difficult struggle, I will be baptized, God willing, on March 5th... Into the Eastern Orthodox Church, founded in the 1st century, and still saving souls as it always has...

Discoursive reasonings will never give anyone a reason to be a Christian. You must be called of God, and then all too often only when you hit bottom, give up, and turn toward death. At this point, being utterly and finally and truthfully humbled, one is poised for the greatest of blessings, the intervention of God into one's previously way too hardened but now finally (intellectually and emotionally) softened heart. The rich, the spiritual Hugh Hefners, have the means to fill their lives with people and things - More toys, and live the tragedy of avoiding such life-giving crisis until death...

As long as one is still living in the arrogance of one's own mind, there will most likely never be reason for him or her to become a Christian...

You cannot THINK your way to salvation, you see... To the world, the Christian Truth, so sacred to those who believe, is but foolishness, for the world cannot see beyond the flesh and the surfaces, however microbiological they might be, however interior to the body, or however life-changingly and psychologically "deep"... To the Christian, these are all but shallow shadows of the richness and depth of their life in Christ.

So the reason I turned from athiesm was God calling me inwardly, and the reason I became a Christian was God leading me there... If you are a Christian because you are logically convinced it is the right thing to do, you are blessed with the opportunity to become a far better Christian!!

May God Bless You, dear nameless Agnostic/Athiest You will come to the faith in God's time...

geo

Captain Ochre

February 19th 2003, 12:33 AM

Well, thanks to George, I'll now have to be extra-careful about saying that Franky Schaeffer went wacko.

:smile:

Sheepdog

February 19th 2003, 12:35 AM

Socrates:
Yep, Galileo's main opponents were the establishment scientists who dogmatically defended the pagan-invented Ptolemaic cosmology. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geocentrism.asp

:eek:

d00d, read through the first section of the essay "The Galileo 'Twist,'" then compare that to the list posted earlier by Jin Roh (see below). the parallels are striking!

From earlier:

Yes I realize that the defense of a Global Flood and questioning of Evolution are not totally the same, but since they are connected I can still say this: "Secular Scientists do suppress dissenting information." Here are my examples.

* In an interview with over 100 creationists, with advanced degrees in biology, Dr. Bergman (for his book The Criterion) found that all reported that they had experienced some discrimination. Over 12% said that they had received death threats. Many also said that they had been denied jobs or degrees because of their views.
* In this same book, a department supervisor was quoted saying, "You creationists are Stone Age Neanderthals, and if I had my way I would fire every one of you." Another stated, "Frankly, I don’t like holy people, fundamentalists, especially Baptists, Church of Christ types, Pentecostals or other seventeenth century retrogressives. If we find out we hired one, especially if they start talking to the other scientists about their beliefs, I terminate them within the month."
* Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle was close to receiving a Nobel Peace Prize, but when he appeared in a book, which doubted evolution on mathematical grounds, his books became negatively reviewed and he never received the Peace Prize

The above all taken from Ready with an Answer by John Ankerberg and John Weldon

My final example comes from non-Christian scientist Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist of the British Natural History Museum) who lectured before scientists at the American Museum of Natural History back in ’81. To paraphrase, he asked if any of the scientists could assert one thing of evolution that is absolutely true. He had asked this same question to many other groups of scientists. After his lecture’s transcript was circulated, he came under serious opposition and has pressured to renounce his statements.

This argument taken from Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson

...........

>>>furthermore, regarding Hoyle:
"Alas, Hoyle paid for his outright questioning of the materialist paradigm. In the 1950s, Hoyle had some ingenious ideas about stellar fusion, and predicted that the Carbon-12 nucleus would have a certain energy level (called a resonance) to enable helium to undergo fusion. His co-worker William Fowler eventually won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1983 (with Subramanyan Chandrasekhar), but for some reason Hoyle’s original contribution was overlooked, and many were surprised that such a notable astronomer missed out. Fowler himself in an autobiographical sketch affirmed Hoyle’s immense contribution:

quote:
‘Fred Hoyle was the second great influence in my life. The grand concept of nucleosynthesis in stars was first definitely established by Hoyle in 1946.’

(added in edit) Quote from essay of relavence:

The heliocentric (from Greek helios = sun) or Copernican system opposed the views of the astronomer-philosophers of the day, who earned their livelihood by teaching Aristotle and Ptolemy, and so were biased against change. They therefore either ignored, ridiculed, destroyed, or hostilely opposed Galileo’ writings. Many Church leaders allowed themselves to be persuaded by the Aristotelians at the universities that the geocentric (Earth-centred) system was taught in Scripture and that Galileo was contradicting the Bible. They therefore bitterly opposed Galileo to the extent of forcing him on pain of death to repudiate his findings.

The Laughing Man

February 19th 2003, 01:03 AM

Excellent post, George!

There is a saying that "no one can be argued into Heaven." That is so true. Salvation is a matter of the spirit and heart, not of the mind. If the non-believers would just shut down the anti-Christian intellectualism, they might actually hear that same gentle whisper that Elijah heard on the mountain.

See, I really think that apologetics is primarily for answering the thoughtful inquiries of believers and not to respond to the objections and accusations of non-believers. However, that is not to say that we shouldn't respond to non-believers, but we can't do so with the belief that we will somehow be able to convince them to believe in God. It simply won't happen. Salvation is a one-on-one relationship between God and the sinner. Others can help provide guidance, but it is up to the individual to decide to heed God's call.

Rusty T

February 19th 2003, 02:39 AM

1. The seemingly absent God.

2. The seemingly illogical nature of the Christian God: i.e. Trinity, omnicience vs omnipotence, etc.

3. The vast opinions held by differing Christians. It seems to me that God didn't get his message out very well - notice I said to me. I know I'm being ego-centric, but that's what the question was about, now wasn't it.

4. I don't believe the Bible has to be inerrant for Christianity to stand - but it would make more sense to have a "foundation" for Christian belief. If the Bible is inerrant, it does on the face value at least have discrepencies that may or may not be argued away - but the very idea that I would have to apologize for God's word - to me offends the very concept of God.

5. How Christianity, when viewed from a global perspective (to me, again) is no more than another answer for life's great mysteries. I don't hate Christianity. In fact, I have been a Christian most of my life - and maybe one day I will be again, but I can't currently accept that it's anything other than man's seeking the unknown in yet another way.

6. The concept of original sin, and the depravity of successive generations seems (to my thoroughly modern mind) incompatible with the definition of the Christian God by most people.

7. If by one man, all were condemned. And Jesus really, trully came to solve this eternal problem for mankind, then by one man all will be saved. If not, then Jesus really didn't do much.

8. I believe in a historical Jesus, but I think if he were alive today, he'd be surprised at what's happened in his name.

9. My own personal journey in life. As I stated, I have been a Christian most of my life - "borned-again" when I was 12. But ever since I was young, I had questions about things that even today have no good answer in my mind - and I can't count the times I was told I had to trust God - but I couldn't turn off that question mill in my head. I've lived life as a Christian - loving this Jesus that I was told to love with all my heart. And I've lived life as a non-theist, believing that Christianity is simply an accident of history. I can trully say, I've never felt more free than when I threw off the "chains" of religion.

Anyway, those are my two bits. Good night everyone.

Rusty

Nathan

February 19th 2003, 02:51 AM

I wish I'd been here at the beginning of this topic, it's a good one.

Atheism is not attractive to me. I think it's an improbable and incomplete philosopy. However, I do feel somewhat of a tug away from Christianity by other forms of theism.
I think that'd be a more interesting conversation than Atheism vs. Christianity. Of course maybe that's already taken place somewhere between page 2 and 7. :hmm:

I wanted to make a couple of observations of this post from early in the thread.

thefivesolas said on page 1:
With regards to your statement that hell is infinitely cruel I would point out that this statement has a few problems.
1. It is completely subjective since it is purely autobiographical (i.e., it simply tells us how you feel about hell). Though personal tastes may be persuasive to you, they cannot be for me since YOUR tastes are YOUR tastes and not mine.

True, but he didn't present it as being anything other than autobiographical.

2. As an atheist you cannot rationally account for your implication that cruelty is wrong/bad. In fact, given your belief in evolution it would be more consistent for you to claim that cruelty is the NORMAL course of events in a world governed by the axiom of "survival of the fittest". Also, this seems to be supported by the natural order where cruelty is practiced by virtually ALL animals (humans included).

Again, there is nothing intrinsically false about this statement.
What makes it false isn't that you don't use his presuppositions in his statement, but that you use them inconsistently.

As an atheist you cannot rationally account for your implication that cruelty is wrong/bad.

True. But his implication that cruelty is wrong was strictly from a Christian perspective.

In fact, given your belief in evolution it would be more consistent for you to claim that cruelty is the NORMAL course of events in a world governed by the axiom of "survival of the fittest".

Again true, but he doesn't have a problem with the idea of "natural cruelty" such as a lion killing his male cubs, he has a problem with the Christian worldview because he finds it internally inconsistent. He finds it's foundations to contradict it's own rules.

I'm a Christian, so I'm not trying to defend Atheism, just trying to be honest.
IN Christ,
Nathan

Socrates

February 19th 2003, 04:18 AM

Pilgrim:
Of course your assumption there is that Christianity and evolution are incompatible which is a fallacy.They are too, and the main problem is the denial of sin-death causality, which is an important theological framework of the Last Adam. See Some questions for theistic evolutionists (and 'progressive creationists') (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1273.asp). Evolution from goo to you via the zoo is also incompatible with real science too!!

jimbo

February 19th 2003, 04:48 AM

Socrates,

Evolution from goo to you via the zoo is also incompatible with real science too!!

Here is a definition of biological evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

"Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population."

This is an observed fact. Evolution is an observed fact. Christians who cling to the idea that evolution does not occur are doing themselves a terrible disservice IMO. The evidence that this process of evolution has continued over the course of the billions of years that life has existed on this planet is overwhelming.

Just my two cents.

Jimbo

Pilgrim

February 19th 2003, 10:03 AM

Socrates:
They are too, and the main problem is the denial of sin-death causality, which is an important theological framework of the Last Adam. See Some questions for theistic evolutionists (and 'progressive creationists') (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1273.asp). Evolution from goo to you via the zoo is also incompatible with real science too!!

This is interesting because a few posts ago you asserted that the only essential was to believe that Christ died for our sins and rose again.

Did you intend to include creationism as an essential for salvation?

Pilgrim

February 19th 2003, 10:09 AM

jimbo:
Socrates,

Here is a definition of biological evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

"Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population."

This is an observed fact. Evolution is an observed fact. Christians who cling to the idea that evolution does not occur are doing themselves a terrible disservice IMO. The evidence that this process of evolution has continued over the course of the billions of years that life has existed on this planet is overwhelming.

Just my two cents.

Jimbo

Just to be truthful...in all of recorded history the evolution of one species to another has never been observed. (Indeed even the hybridization of species is more often than not effected by human intervention rather than natural adaptation and usually with out human intervention is not followed by descent. ie. the famous "Finches of Darwin" that never adapt and descend but always revert back to previous characteristics) In fact it is dishonest to call it an observed fact.

jpholding

February 19th 2003, 10:24 AM

Since it seems Dr. E is letting his silence speak for his motives, we'll try someone else...Rusty:

1. The seemingly absent God.

Why absent? Did you not get the Xmas present you wanted? :smile: Problem of evil? What? By my paradigm I would expect God to not be nosing in very much.

2. The seemingly illogical nature of the Christian God: i.e. Trinity, omnicience vs omnipotence, etc.

Trinity: Very simple notion and no different in principle than ANE concepts of hypostases and the Platonian Logos. You'd be hard-pressed to call such intelligent people "illogical" in their thinking. Omni stuff: Too vague for a reply as it stands.

3. The vast opinions held by differing Christians. It seems to me that God didn't get his message out very well - notice I said to me. I know I'm being ego-centric, but that's what the question was about, now wasn't it.

It is indeed. Still waiting for an answer on that myself.

4. I don't believe the Bible has to be inerrant for Christianity to stand - but it would make more sense to have a "foundation" for Christian belief. If the Bible is inerrant, it does on the face value at least have discrepencies that may or may not be argued away - but the very idea that I would have to apologize for God's word - to me offends the very concept of God.

Why? To note my own saying, there's nothing education can do that ignorance cannot overcome. I'll add "an agenda" as well.

5. How Christianity, when viewed from a global perspective (to me, again) is no more than another answer for life's great mysteries. I don't hate Christianity. In fact, I have been a Christian most of my life - and maybe one day I will be again, but I can't currently accept that it's anything other than man's seeking the unknown in yet another way.

Vague, but perhaps discussable.

6. The concept of original sin, and the depravity of successive generations seems (to my thoroughly modern mind) incompatible with the definition of the Christian God by most people.

Tell me what you think of http://www.tektonics.org/origsin.html

7. If by one man, all were condemned. And Jesus really, trully came to solve this eternal problem for mankind, then by one man all will be saved. If not, then Jesus really didn't do much.

Correct.

8. I believe in a historical Jesus, but I think if he were alive today, he'd be surprised at what's happened in his name.

Correct to a good extent. The social world we live in has a lot to do with that however.

9. My own personal journey in life.

I can't argue with that obviously. But then again personal testimony was not the way the early church evangelized. You never see Peter or Paul telling non-believers to convert becase Jesus made them feel good and freed them from their habit of smoking mustard leaves.

Some of these if you choose to pursue them may be suitable for a new thread.

Rusty T

February 19th 2003, 11:43 AM

For Mr. Holding - notice no er, or ahem - getting too tedious to type :smile:

First, I wasn't really making a case against Christianity for the - masses - just why I don't accept it. I do, however, appreciate your reply. I'll address some of these things in a new thread: Why I am not a Christian, here on Religion 101.

Rusty

Socrates

February 19th 2003, 12:14 PM

----------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
Evolution from goo to you via the zoo is also incompatible with real science too!!
----------------------------------------------------------
Jimbo:

Here is a definition of biological evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...to-biology.html

"Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population."

This is an observed fact. Evolution is an observed fact. This is a typical example of bait'n'switch. If that is all that evolution is, then I (and all of AiG and ICR for that matter!) would be an evolutionist!! But in fact, goo-to-you evolution is a totally different matter, and nothing to do with this. The evolutionist G.A Kerkut defined "The General Theory of Evolution as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’ [Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.] See more on the dishonest evolutionary equivocation at Definitions as slippery as eels (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Definitions), to find out about the all-important role of genetic information.

Just my two cents.That's about right :tongue:

The Laughing Man

February 19th 2003, 12:25 PM

Pilgrim:
Did you intend to include creationism as an essential for salvation?

By itself, no, it's not essential. But it can't really be taken by itself, can it? Jesus is called the New Adam. Salvation makes no sense whatsoever outside of the context of Creation(ism).

Socrates

February 19th 2003, 12:26 PM

Pilgrim:
Just to be truthful...in all of recorded history the evolution of one species to another has never been observed.Sorry to say, but new species as defined by reproductive isolation have definitely been formed, e.g. Brisk Biters — fast changes in mosquitoes astonish evolutionists, delight creationists (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4034.asp). But actually rapid speciation is predicted by the Biblical Creation/Fall/Flood/Migration model, because this teaches that many species arose from comparatively few kinds of land vertebrates on the Ark. And this has nothing to do with goo-to-you evolution, because the speciation involves no new genetic information, but merely blocks in information transfer between populations. See also Speciation Questions and Answers (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/speciation.asp). I hope this helps with understanding the creation model.

(Indeed even the hybridization of species is more often than not effected by human intervention rather than natural adaptation and usually with out human intervention is not followed by descent.[/quoteIf two organisms can hybridize, or if they can hybridize with the same third organism, then they are all part of the same created kind. Each kind was originally a species, as the Bible says they were to reproduce "after their kinds". But the kinds have diverged into different so-called species and genera (these are man-made categories). Therefore the "kind" is a lot broader than today's species.
[quote]
ie. the famous "Finches of Darwin" that never adapt and descend but always revert back to previous characteristics)That is true. Their changes are pre-programmed cyclical responses to changing environment.

In fact it is dishonest to call it an observed fact.Par for the course for evolutionists, sorry to say. It's a shame that genuine Christians like Kline have allowed themselves to be intimidated by them -- by their own admission.

Pilgrim

February 19th 2003, 12:35 PM

If there is no new genetic material is it legitimately a new species or just a variation on an old one?

Socrates

February 19th 2003, 12:41 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
They are too, and the main problem is the denial of sin-death causality, which is an important theological framework of the Last Adam. See Some questions for theistic evolutionists (and 'progressive creationists'). Evolution from goo to you via the zoo is also incompatible with real science too!!
-------------------------------------------------------------

Pilgrim:
This is interesting because a few posts ago you asserted that the only essential was to believe that Christ died for our sins and rose again.And that's what I believe. But this is incompatible with evolution for the reasons I've stated.

But I never said one goes to Hell for holding incompatible positions, OK? Some people are saved through "blessed inconsistency". Most genuinely Christian theistic evolutionists just haven't thought through the many problems (have you, e.g. the article I mentioned above, Some questions for theistic evolutionists (and progressive creationists) (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1273.asp)?). I have to say though, that in my experience, those professing Christians who have thought through the issues but maintain evolutionary belief have a number of other doctrines wrong as well.
Did you intend to include creationism as an essential for salvation?No. Rather, I think AiG has put it well, and I think the following two articles would be endorsed by most creationists here:

The Big Picture: Being wrong about the six days of creation does not automatically mean someone is not a Christian. But if you think that makes it unimportant, stand back and look at the big picture.... (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n2_big_picture.asp)
Do I have to believe in a literal creation to be a Christian? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/docs/v23n3_literal_creation.asp) This concludes, "The short answer is ‘No’. The long answer is ‘No, but …’."
I hope this makes the creationist view clearer.

Socrates

February 19th 2003, 12:47 PM

Pilgrim:
If there is no new genetic material is it legitimately a new species or just a variation on an old one?It is legitimately a new species by definition if it has become reproductively isolated. But since it has no new genetic information, it is a variation within the kind. Therefore it offers not the slightest support for the goo-to-you theory.

J. J. Ramsey

February 19th 2003, 12:53 PM

JJR:
To be a Christian, one must also believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

S:
Necessary but not sufficient. According to the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, one must believe that "Jesus died for our sins, according the Scriptures".

JJR:
Ah, yes. Forgot to mention that one.

S:
Hardly surprising, because places where this is taught are also places that connect Adam's literal fall into sin and death with Christ's Resurrection from the dead.

Wrong, Socrates. Christ's death is linked to a sacrifice for sin even when Adam is not even mentioned at all: Acts 8:22-39 (which contains a reference to Isaiah 53); Galatians 1:4; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 Peter 3:18. Even when Adam's is mentioned, he is mentioned as part of a parallel: Adam brings in sin, and Christ takes it away. The way Christ takes sin away is already understood to be linked to the sacrifice-for-sin motif, which is not tied to Adam at all.

JJR quoting S:
The Scriptures, which teach where sin orginally came from, i.e. Genesis. Paul continues to explain that it came from the "first man", Adam, who sinned and brought death, the "last enemy". And Jesus, the "Last Adam", brought resurrection from the dead (see 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 26, 45). . . . blah, blah, etc., etc.

S:
For a person who whinges about alleged misquoting by creationists (just because an atheist claims this) you have violated quoting ethics yourself. It's etiquette to put editorial comments in square brackets[/i] [...].

That's sophistry, Socrates, and again not worthy of your namesake. I would have thought it dead obvious that "blah, blah, etc., etc." was not part of the original quotation. Anyhow, if someone were to have mistaken the "blah, blah, etc., etc." to come from you, the sense of what you were saying could hardly have been said to be violated, which is more than can be said of the misquotings to which I have referred.

JJR:
Socrates, I believe that I dealt with the dependence of core Christian doctrines on Genesis here (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=14479&highlight=resurrection#post14479) and here (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=14801&highlight=resurrection#post14801).

S:
You believe wrongly,

I will let those who click on the above links decide that for themselves.

and this is further shown above where you forgot the "died for your sins" part --- just shows the dangers of wrenching the historical resurrection out of any theological context.

No, Socrates, it just shows the dangers of trying to explain something I mostly take for granted. It is easy to forget to mention obvious details.

In the first post you mention, you admit:
"I had forgotten that Paul's material about Christ as the second sic -- last] dealt with the resurrection as well as the atonement."

Yup, I admitted it and dealt with it (by pointing out that it is not as if the encounters of Mary Magdalene, Thomas, and the other disciples suddenly go away if Paul is wrong in his interpretation of Jesus as the second Adam).

Socrates, my objection stands: Genesis and core Christian doctrine are too loosely coupled for any arguments like "six-day creation is false, so Christianity is false" to hold water.

Pilgrim

February 19th 2003, 12:53 PM

Good enough and the articles were helpful

Socrates

February 19th 2003, 01:40 PM

Socrates:
Hardly surprising, because places where this is taught are also places that connect Adam's literal fall into sin and death with Christ's Resurrection from the dead.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Ramsey:

Wrong, Socrates.Wrong yourself. The most important expositions are 1 Cor. 15 and Romans, which makes the link clear in Ch. 5.
Christ's death is linked to a sacrifice for sin even when Adam is not even mentioned at all: Acts 8:22-39 (which contains a reference to Isaiah 53); Galatians 1:4; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 Peter 3:18. And what does sin mean? Paul presupposed that his readers had a knowledge of the Fall.

Even when Adam's is mentioned, he is mentioned as part of a parallel: Adam brings in sin, and Christ takes it away.And this presupposes the historicity of Genesis 1-3!!

The way Christ takes sin away is already understood to be linked to the sacrifice-for-sin motif, which is not tied to Adam at all.
Rubbish, because where does the concept of sin come from in the first place!? That is where the blood sacrifice originated, when God made coats of skins for Adam and Eve to replace the fig leaves.

One must also wonder how Ramsey would have got on in the Areopagus. He thinks it's sufficient just to preach the Resurrection, but when Paul did that in Acts 17, the Greek philosophers said "What is this babbler trying to say?" So Paul went right back to "the Unknown God" as creator, who made of one man/blood all the people on Earth.

J. J. Ramsey

February 19th 2003, 01:59 PM

Socrates:
I have to say though, that in my experience, those professing Christians who have thought through the issues but maintain evolutionary belief have a number of other doctrines wrong as well.

I think I know the reason for this, and interestingly enough, it is contained within an AiG article.

From Do I have to believe in a literal creation to be a Christian? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/docs/v23n3_literal_creation.asp):

There is a slippery slope [emphasis mine] into unbelief that accompanies disbelieving any part of the Word of God. If some part of the Bible is not true because it does not mean what it says, how do we know that other parts, such as the Virginal Conception of Jesus or the forgiveness of sin, are true?

The problem is that slippery slope is a classic fallacy, but one that many people buy. I think what happens is that this fallacy thus becomes an excuse to disbelieve doctrines that seem distasteful or inconvenient, which is probably why Socrates sees the pattern that he does.

The proper solution, of course, is to disabuse people of this fallacy.

J. J. Ramsey

February 19th 2003, 05:56 PM

S:
Hardly surprising, because places where this is taught are also places that connect Adam's literal fall into sin and death with Christ's Resurrection from the dead.

JJR:
Wrong, Socrates.

S:
Wrong yourself. The most important expositions are 1 Cor. 15 and Romans, which makes the link clear in Ch. 5.

Why don't we fill out that quotation a bit, and see if it makes you look so good. The additional quoted material is in italics:

JJR:
To be a Christian, one must also believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

S:
Necessary but not sufficient. According to the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, one must believe that "Jesus died for our sins, according the Scriptures".

JJR:
Ah, yes. Forgot to mention that one. :duh:

S:
Hardly surprising, because places where this is taught are also places that connect Adam's literal fall into sin and death with Christ's Resurrection from the dead.

JJR:
Wrong, Socrates. Christ's death is linked to a sacrifice for sin even when Adam is not even mentioned at all: Acts 8:22-39 (which contains a reference to Isaiah 53); Galatians 1:4; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 Peter 3:18. Even when Adam's is mentioned, he is mentioned as part of a parallel: Adam brings in sin, and Christ takes it away. The way Christ takes sin away is already understood to be linked to the sacrifice-for-sin motif, which is not tied to Adam at all.

S:
Wrong yourself. The most important expositions are 1 Cor. 15 and Romans, which makes the link clear in Ch. 5.

Curious. Your original assertion was that the places where it was mentioned that Jesus died for our sins were also places that linked Adam to Christ. When I mentioned several verses of Scripture that mention that Jesus dying for our sins without even mentioning Adam, you then excise both your original assertion, and the substance of my response. You do, in the end, quote the rest of my response, but only after making it appear as if my response was the sole line "Wrong, Socrates." :hrm:

Also curious is that your assertion that the most important expositions are 1 Cor. 15 and Romans 5 is a non sequitur to both a defense of your original assertion that the places where it was mentioned that Jesus died for our sins were also places that linked Adam to Christ, and to the substance of my reply, which showed your original assertion was false.

A suspicious soul might allege that you were intentionally misquoting. Even a not-so-suspicious soul might contend that your quotation was deceptive, even if not intentionally so. And this after complaining about a supposed misquote from me where I appended "blah, blah, etc. etc." to the end of a quote from you, with the clear understanding that no reader would ever conclude that "blah, blah, etc. etc." was part of the original quote! Talk about straining a gnat but swallowing a camel. :no:

And now to the substance of your latest reply:

The most important expositions are 1 Cor. 15 and Romans, which makes the link clear in Ch. 5.

I cannot concur that the expositions in Romans 5 and 1 Cor. 15 are the most important expositions of the crucifixion and resurrection's theological context. First, the crucifixion and resurrection are quite comprehensible without reference to Adam, the crucifixion as a sacrifice for sin, and the resurrection of Jesus as vindication and the sign of our own future resurrection. Second, the Adam-as-a-type-of-Christ motif only is comprehensible after understanding that Jesus' death is a sacrifice for sin and his resurrection a sign of our own in the future. That is, it is a secondary addition to a core understanding already in place. What Paul is doing in his Adam-Christ treatment is establishing a typological parallel. As Adam brings in sin and death, so Christ removes sin and death. For that parallel to work, though, one must already understand that Christ removes sin and death. The typology adds an additional layer of meaning, but it has to build on the core meaning already established.

Ah, yes . . . and now the part of my quote that should have appeared right after "Wrong, Socrates."

JJR:
Christ's death is linked to a sacrifice for sin even when Adam is not even mentioned at all: Acts 8:22-39 (which contains a reference to Isaiah 53); Galatians 1:4; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 Peter 3:18.

S:
And what does sin mean? Paul presupposed that his readers had a knowledge of the Fall.

Of course Paul presupposed that his readers had a knowledge of the Fall, otherwise he would not have mentioned Adam. But that doesn't answer your question of what sin means. Sin is missing the mark, rebellion against God, departure from right behavior, and so on. While all those things can be exemplified by the Fall, they are comprehensible without them. All one really needs to understand sin is an understanding of departing from a moral code or exemplar.

JJR:
Even when Adam's is mentioned, he is mentioned as part of a parallel: Adam brings in sin, and Christ takes it away.

S:
And this presupposes the historicity of Genesis 1-3!!

It presupposes that Paul understands Genesis 1-3 as true in some fashion. He probably does understand it as historical, but that is not the same as it truly being historical.

JJR:
The way Christ takes sin away is already understood to be linked to the sacrifice-for-sin motif, which is not tied to Adam at all.

S:
Rubbish, because where does the concept of sin come from in the first place!? That is where the blood sacrifice originated, when God made coats of skins for Adam and Eve to replace the fig leaves.

:huh: Socrates, that was an unimpressive stretched interpretation the last time you mentioned it, and it still is.

One must also wonder how Ramsey would have got on in the Areopagus. He thinks it's sufficient just to preach the Resurrection,

Socrates, I did not say that it is sufficient just to preach the Resurrection. Rather, I said that it was Christianity's main evidential anchor, that the truth of Christianity depends on the resurrection and not Genesis.

Socrates

February 20th 2003, 07:34 AM

JJR:
It presupposes that Paul understands Genesis 1-3 as true in some fashion. He probably does understand it as historical, but that is not the same as it truly being historical.So now you're saying that Paul is wrong??
I'd rather trust him than you and the god-haters you parrot.

Anyway, the quotes:

1 Cor. 15:21-22,26,45:
21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit.Romans 5:12-19
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. So, Genesis is foundational. The Bible is God's progressive revelation, which Ramsey undermines right at the beginning because of his craving for the respect of the evolutionary "scientists". But Proverbs 29:25:

Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe.

J. J. Ramsey

February 20th 2003, 10:08 AM

Socrates:

1 Cor. 15:21-22,26,45:

21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit.

Romans 5:12-19
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

So, Genesis is foundational.

Your conclusion does not follow from your quotes. In these passages, it is taken for granted or presupposed that Christ took away sin. Christ's status as the last Adam is not used as the reason that He takes away sin. Indeed, Romans 4:24b-25 says, ". . . Jesus Christ our Lord from the dead, who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification." Christ's death is what effects the removal of sin, and this is established before the Adam-Christ passage.

Further, the parallel that Paul is establishing is typological, which is made clear in Romans 5:14b , " . . . Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come." The more literal NRSV uses the word "type" instead of "pattern." That makes it clearer that Paul is dealing with typology. For the typology to work, both the type and antitype have to be already specified. In other words, for Paul's Adam-Christ parallel to work, both Adam's fall and Christ's redeeming work must already have been understood. So, not only is it presupposed that Christ took away sin, but that presupposition is necessary for Paul's passage to be understood.

In short, the Adam-Christ passages provide an additional layer of meaning on top of the foundational meaning already established before Adam was mentioned.

jpholding

February 20th 2003, 11:33 AM

J. J. Ramsey:

The problem is that slippery slope is a classic fallacy, but one that many people buy. I think what happens is that this fallacy thus becomes an excuse to disbelieve doctrines that seem distasteful or inconvenient, which is probably why Socrates sees the pattern that he does.

The proper solution, of course, is to disabuse people of this fallacy.

I think you are right to this extent:

It is a fallacy.

People buy into it way too much.

As for disabusing them, GOOD LUCK! :grin: I'm doing my best to try.

Pilgrim

February 20th 2003, 02:18 PM

The reason it is called a fallacy is because it has always been argued that reasonable people can halt the slide where ever they need to.

What if this is no longer the case? What if the slide continues because we have become to unreasonable?

Pilgrim

J. J. Ramsey

February 20th 2003, 02:48 PM

Pilgrim:
The reason [slippery slope] is called a fallacy is because it has always been argued that reasonable people can halt the slide where ever they need to.

No, it's a fallacy because it is assumed without proof that a particular action will begin a chain of consequences, glossing over how one consequence really affects the next one.

Here's another way to describe why "slippery slope" is a fallacy. Say that there is a row of standing dominoes on a table, but some are glued to table, and some are even far enough apart that if one falls it won't touch the domino before or after it. The slippery slope fallacy is like taking a glancing look at the dominoes and assuming that if the first one in the row falls, the rest will fall -- even though closer examination would show that it would not work out that way.

Jim E.

February 21st 2003, 11:54 PM

02-19-2003 @ 12:03 AM
Jinx72:
There is a saying that "no one can be argued into Heaven." That is so true. Salvation is a matter of the spirit and heart, not of the mind. If the non-believers would just shut down the anti-Christian intellectualism, they might actually hear that same gentle whisper that Elijah heard on the mountain.

Well, so much for the command to love the Lord your God with your whole heart, soul, and mind. It’s more like pretend there is a Lord your God by closing your mind so you can experience emotion. This is why people deconvert from Christianity. Once they have the facts, there are no more reasons to be a Christian. That is why internet forums are very dangerous for Christians. You get exposed to differing points of view which trump your own point of view.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

The Laughing Man

February 22nd 2003, 12:53 AM

02-21-2003 @ 09:54 PM
Jim Eisele:Well, so much for the command to love the Lord your God with your whole heart, soul, and mind.

Sorry, Jim, but misuse of scripture won't get you anywhere. Yes, Christians are called to love God with heart, soul and mind, but they need to have salvation first. Salvation does not come through intellectualism. You can no more argue someone into salvation than you can argue someone into loving you. It just doesn't work that way.

It’s more like pretend there is a Lord your God by closing your mind so you can experience emotion.

Where did I say anything like that? Please don't put words into my mouth (so to speak).

This is why people deconvert from Christianity.

Actually, no, it's not. People "deconvert" from Christianity because of smooth-talkers who misuse scripture, speak vaguely about supposed "facts," twist the words of others, and/or just out-and-out lie.

Once they have the facts, there are no more reasons to be a Christian.

Uh-huh. So how does that explain me? Did I suddenly lose these non-specified "facts" and "deconvert" from 10 years of atheism? I don't even know how one would lose facts without suffering some sort of memory loss. (Mine's very much intact, thanks.)

That is why internet forums are very dangerous for Christians. You get exposed to differing points of view which trump your own point of view.

If nothing else, being exposed to differing points of view has only strengthened my belief in God. When I was an atheist, I believed very much the same as you do about the Bible. After I came out of atheism, I still wasn't sure about the Bible, but then I started to become exposed to Christian apologetics. The well-researched explanations and clarifications I found about the Bible far, far outweighed the poorly researched (to the point of blatant ignorance!) objections and accusations of skeptics.

TheFiveSolas

February 22nd 2003, 02:58 AM

Jim wrote:

This is why people deconvert from Christianity. Once they have the facts, there are no more reasons to be a Christian.

Dr. Cornelius Van Til said, "The issue between believers and non-believers cannot be settled by a direct appeal to "facts" or "laws" whose nature and significance is already agreed upon by both parties to the debate. The question is rather as to what is the final reference point required to make the "facts" and "laws" intelligible."

Jim, you are naively assuming that the facts are what make someone a believer or unbeliever, however, it actually boils down to one's interpretation of the facts. As Dr. Van Til pointed out, we need to ask which position's final reference point is able to make even the concept of "fact" intelligible.

So, my question to you is how can you even meaningfully speak of "facts" as if to imply that facts are interrelated? As a Christian I can agree that facts are interrelated, but I do so for good reason, God has created all things, therefore facts are NOT isolated from each other. You see, within the Christian worldview it makes SENSE to assert that facts are intelligible, are interrelated to each other, are rationally understandable, etc.

On the other hand, you don't start with the Christian worldview, you start with an atheistic worldview. In such a system of thought, you can give NO rational justification for claiming that facts are related to each other.

To put it another way, you presuppose many things that your worldview CANNOT rationally account for; the reliability of your senses, the rationality of your thinking, invariant and universally binding laws of logic, the freedom of human choice/will, the rationality of the universe (in the sense that events can be studied and understood), etc.

In your worldview, which asserts that the universe is NOT designed, is NOT created with a rational purpose, is completely RANDOM, where your thinking is the result of millions of years of accidental mutations, where brain chemistry is governed SOLELY by the laws of chemistry and physics (which by necessity rules out ANY FREEDOM of thought), etc., you have NO REASON to believe in all the things I listed in the last paragraph.

In other words, you, in your very attempt to argue against the Christian faith, are presupposing those things that can only exist IF the world is the way the Christian says it is.

You, my friend, are borrowing from OUR worldview. This is proof that in your heart of hearts, you KNOW the Christian worldview is true and this is one of the best reasons for my faith. Those that attempt to refute it INEVITABLY must adopt a Christian view of the world to even make their case. This of course is a hopelessly self-refuting tactic and one that proves (indirectly) the truth of Christianity.

flipper

February 22nd 2003, 06:01 AM

Great philosophical questions of the ages: #4.

"You know we are, but what am I?"

Jim E.

February 22nd 2003, 10:42 AM

02-21-2003 @ 11:53 PM
Jinx72:
If nothing else, being exposed to differing points of view has only strengthened my belief in God.

Jinx, as long as you continue to give the impression that Christianity is rational and not emotional, I will call you on it. What are your, say, top one or two reasons for being a Christian? Please, please, please, don’t give a non-starter reason such as Because it’s true!

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

johnransom

February 22nd 2003, 12:29 PM

02-22-2003 @ 08:42 AM
Jim Eisele:

Jinx, as long as you continue to give the impression that Christianity is rational and not emotional, I will call you on it. What are your, say, top one or two reasons for being a Christian? Please, please, please, don’t give a non-starter reason such as Because it’s true!

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

You have been repeatedly shown that the Christian worldview is indeed rational and that there is no competing worldview that can make the same claim. Without contradictory evidence, quit the nonsensical claim that Christianity is emotional. In fact, the opposite is true - the two top reasons for which I observe individuals rejecting Christianity are thoroughly emotional, namely i) the problem of evil, and ii) the argument from outrage. Neither of these have any component of rationality whatsoever. Attempts to construct refutations on Bible contradictions and the like are mere rationalizations of this emotional conclusion.

And how exactly is "Because it's true" a "non-starter reason"? This is the ONLY valid reason to believe anything.

Get a grip.

Socrates

February 22nd 2003, 02:22 PM

Pilgrim:
The reason [slippery slope] is called a fallacy is because it has always been argued that reasonable people can halt the slide where ever they need to.

What if this is no longer the case? What if the slide continues because we have become to unreasonable?Quite so. One of the slippery slope dangers is a practical one, and thus it doesn't depend on whether it is a formally logically valid argument. It has happened so often that theological cemeteries have become that way over several generations. The first questioned Genesis on the basis of "science", and the next one or two down the track questioned the Virginal Conception and Resurrection accounts on the basis of "science". Once the Resurrection is doubted, the institution is no longer Christian. But the liberals are more consistent and they proclaim it with all their might.

There is also logically valid forms of slippery slope arguments. One is positive: Jesus made a number of claims, including Deity and the authority of Scripture, including Genesis. His Resurrection validated that HE was who he said He was, and this is historically verifiable even (for now) not presuming inerrancy of the documents but merely historical reliability. But since one of His claims was the COMPLETE inerrancy of Scripture, it follows that a consistent Christian should believe it. So if "science" conflicts with Scripture understood in its grammatical and historical context, we should question the "science" not the Bible.

Another one is negative. If we take the C.S. Lewis Trilemma: Jesus was liar, lunatic or Lord -- but we already know that Jesus believed that Genesis 1 and 2 were historical, and said that manking was around "from the beginning of creation." He also affirmed that the Flood and Ark, Sodom and Gomorrah, Jonah and the great sea creature, the historical existence of Cain and Abel, "Scripture cannot be broken", etc. But a critic argues: "Jesus believed all those things which we know are absurd -- yet you deny He was a lunatic?"

Sure, maybe one can believe in Jesus's death for our sins, His Resurrection and Deity, and thus be a Christian despite rejecting Genesis. But it's a totally confused and confusing apologetic. Many skeptics won't even consider checking out the reliability of the NT if Christians give away Genesis to "science". After all, would you trust an instruction manual if you knew the first Chapter was bunk, and the rest of the manual treated it as true?

Jim E.

February 22nd 2003, 03:10 PM

02-22-2003 @ 11:29 AM
johnransom:

Without contradictory evidence,

Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution.
I’d say more but I find myself in familiar territory. A Christian has spoken
out of turn and is over a barrel. I will spare you further humiliation.
johnransom:
quit the nonsensical claim that Christianity is emotional.

Why, that sounds like an emotional response, John Ransom. If it is not
grounded in facts, it is emotional. I will spare you the further humiliation
of suggesting what else atheists consider Christianity to be.
<snip>
johnransom:
And how exactly is "Because it's true" a "non-starter reason"? This is the ONLY valid reason to believe anything.

Get a grip.

I tire of Christians who claim “Christianity is true because it is true.” In
essence, you are continuing this trend. In your emotional post, I do not
see you offering one, not one, reason for being a Christian. Christianity’s
reputation goes a little bit deeper into the trashcan…

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

TheFiveSolas

February 22nd 2003, 03:13 PM

Jim wrote:

Jinx, as long as you continue to give the impression that Christianity is rational and not emotional, I will call you on it.

Jim, as long as you continue to imply that your worldview can account for rationality, I will continue to call you on it.

Explain how you justify rationality with a worldview that asserts that our brain function is the result of millions of years of accidents?

Explain to us whether the laws of logic are material or immaterial? If your answer is immaterial then answer how YOUR worldview can account for immaterial things like laws.

Explain to us whether rationality in your view is universal or whether it is merely a convention of men. Is rationality objective or subjective?

You are on the horns of a dilemma that I'm confident you can't extricate yourself from.

I'll await your "rational" response.

Captain Ochre

February 22nd 2003, 03:30 PM

02-22-2003 @ 07:10 PM
Jim Eisele:

Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution.
I’d say more but I find myself in familiar territory. A Christian has spoken
out of turn and is over a barrel. I will spare you further humiliation.

Please humiliate me by explaining how "evolution" is supposed to offer evidence that Christianity is based on emotion.

Why, that sounds like an emotional response, John Ransom. If it is not
grounded in facts, it is emotional.

The above statement, using itself as the rule, would appear to be based on emotion.

I tire of Christians who claim “Christianity is true because it is true.” In
essence, you are continuing this trend. In your emotional post, I do not
see you offering one, not one, reason for being a Christian.

My, what an emotional response! He referred to the reasoning that others have given for adopting a Christian worldview: Self-consistency of worldview, along with the ability to account for reason as other than a name given to the conclusions we like.

Christianity’s
reputation goes a little bit deeper into the trashcan…

. . . said Jim, emotionally.

J. J. Ramsey

February 22nd 2003, 10:39 PM

02-22-2003 @ 01:22 PM
Socrates:
But since one of His [Jesus's] claims was the COMPLETE inerrancy of Scripture

Where did Jesus make that claim? The closest thing I see to that is a verse you quoted, John 10:35, which mentions the offhand phrase "and the scripture cannot be broken (KJV, NIV)" or "and the scripture cannot be annulled (NRSV)."

After all, would you trust an instruction manual if you knew the first Chapter was bunk, and the rest of the manual treated it as true?

An instruction manual like that? Of course not. The Bible, though, is not an instruction manual. It contains instructions, certainly, and in practice, it provides guidance. However, it is a anthology of loosely coupled documents from different authors, in different genres, about many different topics.

There is also logically valid forms of slippery slope arguments.

No, there are not, Socrates. By definition, the problem of a slippery-slope argument is that it presumes without proof that some action will trigger a consequence that will trigger another consequence that will trigger another consequence, etc. If one can establish that the chain of consequences must logically occur, then the argument is not slippery-slope.

What is interesting is that none of the examples that you portray as logical slippery-slope arguments are slippery-slope arguments at all. The classic "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" trilemma that you mentioned, for example, is not a slippery-slope argument, period.

The one slippery-slope argument that you do mention is a good example of why slippery-slope is a fallacy:

It has happened so often that theological cemeteries have become that way over several generations. The first questioned Genesis on the basis of "science", and the next one or two down the track questioned the Virginal Conception and Resurrection accounts on the basis of "science".

The questioning of Genesis has been based on multiple lines of evidence, such as dating by radiometric clocks, ice cores, varves, and stratigraphy; the fossil record; certain common patterns of biological structure; and certain patterns of genetic commonalites. Together they point to a story very different from the one presented in Genesis.

In contrast, there are no multiple lines of material evidence that point to a story different from the one presented by the Gospels. Rather, the main evidence of the virgin birth and resurrection is the Gospels themselves, and what tells us that this evidence is good evidence is evidence of relatively early dating of the Gospels and bits and pieces of corroborative evidence, as well as failure of naturalistic explanations to successfully account for the content of the Gospels. In short, in the case of the Gospels, science has neither come up with an independently constructed account of first-century Christian history that contradicts the Gospels, nor has it successfully explained away the main evidence for the core Christian claims.

In short, there is no reason to make the leap from "Genesis is false" to "core Christian claims are false." There is no slippery slope.

Socrates

February 23rd 2003, 11:08 AM

------------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
But since one of His [Jesus's] claims was the COMPLETE inerrancy of Scripture

------------------------------------------------------------
JJR Ramsey:

Where did Jesus make that claim? The closest thing I see to that is a verse you quoted, John 10:35, which mentions the offhand phrase "and the scripture cannot be broken (KJV, NIV)" or "and the scripture cannot be annulled (NRSV)."Exactly. If it has an error, it IS broken. But that's not the only place. I pointed out in Post# 22085 that Jesus affirmed as historical the one place you love to unequally yoke with God-haters to undermine. And Jesus cited Scripture with "It is written ..." and this settled the debate.

----------------------------------------------------------

Soc:
After all, would you trust an instruction manual if you knew the first Chapter was bunk, and the rest of the manual treated it as true?

----------------------------------------------------------

JJR:
An instruction manual like that? Of course not. The Bible, though, is not an instruction manual. It contains instructions, certainly, and in practice, it provides guidance. However, it is a anthology of loosely coupled documents from different authors, in different genres, about many different topics.There is still a large element of instruction. E.g. how to be saved and how to live one's life. They were not the "10 Suggestions".

-----------------------------------------------------------

There is also logically valid forms of slippery slope arguments.

-----------------------------------------------------------

No, there are not, Socrates. By definition, the problem of a slippery-slope argument is that it presumes without proof that some action will trigger a consequence that will trigger another consequence that will trigger another consequence, etc. If one can establish that the chain of consequences must logically occur, then the argument is not slippery-slope.Yes it can be, which is why some forms of sorites can be valid. Why should we believe your stipulative definition?

What is interesting is that none of the examples that you portray as logical slippery-slope arguments are slippery-slope arguments at all. The classic "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" trilemma that you mentioned, for example, is not a slippery-slope argument, period.What nonsense. I made an APPLICATION of that in an informal sorites form.

The one slippery-slope argument that you do mention is a good example of why slippery-slope is a fallacy:In this case, it was not intended to be logically deductive. And I've pointed out that science, which you worship, is based on induction, which is also a formal logical fallacy. The example you site was merely a practical outworking that's been repeated time and again in seminary after seminary, and with people like Charles Templeton.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Soc:
It has happened so often that theological cemeteries have become that way over several generations. The first questioned Genesis on the basis of "science", and the next one or two down the track questioned the Virginal Conception and Resurrection accounts on the basis of "science".

-----------------------------------------------------------

JJR:
The questioning of Genesis has been based on multiple lines of evidence, such as dating by radiometric clocks, ice cores, varves, and stratigraphy; the fossil record; certain common patterns of biological structure; and certain patterns of genetic commonalites. Together they point to a story very different from the one presented in Genesis.More elephant hurling from the master compromiser, who wouldn't know true science if it ran him over.

In contrast, there are no multiple lines of material evidence that point to a story different from the one presented by the Gospels. Rather, the main evidence of the virgin birth and resurrection is the Gospels themselves, and what tells us that this evidence is good evidence is evidence of relatively early dating of the Gospels and bits and pieces of corroborative evidence, as well as failure of naturalistic explanations to successfully account for the content of the Gospels. In short, in the case of the Gospels, science has neither come up with an independently constructed account of first-century Christian history that contradicts the Gospels, nor has it successfully explained away the main evidence for the core Christian claims.I agree with that, which is why I also agree with everything Jesus said, even when it contradicts so-called "science".

In short, there is no reason to make the leap from "Genesis is false" to "core Christian claims are false." There is no slippery slope.As I've said elsewhere, some people are happy to hold two or more contradictory positions in their skulls at once. But having separate boxes for "religion" and "science" disobeys the command to love God with all our minds.

J. J. Ramsey

February 23rd 2003, 03:03 PM

S:
But since one of His [Jesus's] claims was the COMPLETE inerrancy of Scripture

JJR:
Where did Jesus make that claim? The closest thing I see to that is a verse you quoted, John 10:35, which mentions the offhand phrase "and the scripture cannot be broken (KJV, NIV)" or "and the scripture cannot be annulled (NRSV)."

S:
Exactly. If it has an error, it IS broken.

There are a few problems with viewing Jesus' statement here as an absolute statement on inerrancy, in light of the surrounding passages in the context of John 10:22-42. First, the word for "broken" is very unspecific. It just means "loosed," "broken," "destroyed," etc. There is nothing in it that means errant per se. Second, it it said very offhandedly. The status of Scripture is not under discussion, but whether Jesus is blaspheming by saying he is God's son. Third, Jesus' apparent interpretation of the passage he cites in Psalms is awfully strange, and one that he himself does not take seriously: he seems to be saying that those to whom the word of God came (the Jews?, the authors of the Scripture?) were "gods." Together, these factors make it hard to interpret the offhand comment in John 10:35 as a clear statement of Scriptural inerrancy.

S:
And Jesus cited Scripture with "It is written ..." and this settled the debate.

There are a few reasons why Jesus would refer to Scripture other than blanket acceptance of inerrancy:

The particular scripture that he is quoting is true.
He is hoisting his opponents by their own petards, showing their inconsistencies by pointing out that their own positions are inconsistent with the Scriptures which they claim to believe.
He is using the Scripture as an illustration.

These possibilities are not mutually exclusive per se.

S:
After all, would you trust an instruction manual if you knew the first Chapter was bunk, and the rest of the manual treated it as true?

JJR:
An instruction manual like that? Of course not. The Bible, though, is not an instruction manual. It contains instructions, certainly, and in practice, it provides guidance. However, it is a anthology of loosely coupled documents from different authors, in different genres, about many different topics.

S:
There is still a large element of instruction. E.g. how to be saved and how to live one's life.

Of course. I don't dispute that the Bible contains a substantial amount of instruction, only that its structure is all wrong for it to be an instruction manual. The documents of which the Bible is composed are too loosely coupled for the argument "if the first part is wrong, why trust the rest?" to be reasonable.

JJR:
By definition, the problem of a slippery-slope argument is that it presumes without proof that some action will trigger a consequence that will trigger another consequence that will trigger another consequence, etc.

S:
Why should we believe your stipulative definition?

Socrates, it isn't my definition, but the textbook one.

As I've said elsewhere, some people are happy to hold two or more contradictory positions in their skulls at once. But having separate boxes for "religion" and "science" disobeys the command to love God with all our minds.

:huh: Since when have I tried to put religion and science in separate spheres?

Socrates

February 24th 2003, 08:01 AM

Socrates:
Exactly. If it has an error, it IS broken.

---------------------------------------------------------
Once again, JJRamsey resorts to the most amazing special pleading to he can continue to please men. I hope the likes of Pilgrim see the SLIPPERY SLOPE of evolutionary compromise on the likes of Ramsey, in that the latter is overtly throwing out the Word of God.

There are a few problems with viewing Jesus' statement here as an absolute statement on inerrancy, in light of the surrounding passages in the context of John 10:22-42. First, the word for "broken" is very unspecific. It just means "loosed," "broken," "destroyed," etc. There is nothing in it that means errant per se. Come off it. If it can be successfully attacked, even in places directly affirmed by Jesus, it sounds to me that it can be "broken".

Second, it it said very offhandedly.If anything, that strengthens the point. The inerrancy of Scripture was so well assumed by Jesus that He only needed to mention it in an offhand way

The status of Scripture is not under discussion, but whether Jesus is blaspheming by saying he is God's son. And He defends Himself by Scripture.

Third, Jesus' apparent interpretation of the passage he cites in Psalms is awfully strange, and one that he himself does not take seriously: he seems to be saying that those to whom the word of God came (the Jews?, the authors of the Scripture?) were "gods." Together, these factors make it hard to interpret the offhand comment in John 10:35 as a clear statement of Scriptural inerrancy.The only thing hard is your heart, because you want to follow fallible humans rather than the infallible God.

S:
And Jesus cited Scripture with "It is written ..." and this settled the debate.

----------------------------------------------------------

There are a few reasons why Jesus would refer to Scripture other than blanket acceptance of inerrancy:

The particular scripture that he is quoting is true.That's enough to demolish you, because He quoted so many of the Scriptures under dispute as I pointed out, e.g. Genesis Creation and the Flood.

He is hoisting his opponents by their own petards, showing their inconsistencies by pointing out that their own positions are inconsistent with the Scriptures which they claim to believe.This fallacious idea is addressed by AiG here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4306apol_v3n21994.asp#accom)

‘Jesus deliberately accommodated Himself to the mistaken views of His audience.’ But:
[list=a] This confuses Adaptation to human finitude with accommodation to human error: the former does not entail the latter. A mother might tell her four-year-old ‘you grew inside my tummy’ — this is not false, but language simplified to the child’s level. Conversely, ‘the stork brought you’ is an outright error. Similarly, God, the author of truth, used some simplified descriptions (e.g. using the earth as a reference frame, as modern scientists do today) and anthropomorphisms, but never error.
Jesus often challenged His audience, so He would not have failed to point out their mistaken views on Scripture, if such they were.
If Jesus acquiesced in this error, maybe He did so elsewhere as well. Who ultimately decides when Jesus is acquiescing? We must, so once again, Jesus loses His authority.
The passages considered in section II(1) (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4306apol_v3n21994.asp#Christ) show that Jesus was not just acquiescing to the views of His audience on the inerrancy of Scripture, but was in fact reinforcing them.[/list=a]
He is using the Scripture as an illustration.Which it is, and especially so because it is true.

Of course. I don't dispute that the Bible contains a substantial amount of instruction, only that its structure is all wrong for it to be an instruction manual. The documents of which the Bible is composed are too loosely coupled for the argument "if the first part is wrong, why trust the rest?" to be reasonable.Nonsense—the Bible is notable for its strong internal consistency. Ramsey just dismisses the repeated citation of Genesis as history throughout the rest of Scripture.

J. J. Ramsey

February 24th 2003, 11:33 AM

JJR:
There are a few problems with viewing Jesus' statement here [John 10:35] as an absolute statement on inerrancy, in light of the surrounding passages in the context of John 10:22-42. First, the word for "broken" is very unspecific. It just means "loosed," "broken," "destroyed," etc. There is nothing in it that means errant per se.

Second, it it said very offhandedly.

S:
If anything, that strengthens the point. The inerrancy of Scripture was so well assumed by Jesus that He only needed to mention it in an offhand way.

You are begging the question by assuming that John 10:35 is a clear confirmation of inerrancy. The problem is that the word for "broken" is ambiguous, potentially meaning "broken" in nearly any literal or metaphorical sense. The ambiguity must be resolved by the context. Given that, the offhandedness of the remark doesn't help.

JJR:
The status of Scripture is not under discussion, but whether Jesus is blaspheming by saying he is God's son.

S:
And He defends Himself by Scripture.

But he defends himself in a truly strange way, as pointed out below:

JJR:
Third, Jesus' apparent interpretation of the passage he cites in Psalms is awfully strange, and one that he himself does not take seriously: he seems to be saying that those to whom the word of God came (the Jews?, the authors of the Scripture?) were "gods."

The strange interpretation muddies the context considerably.

S:
The only thing hard is your heart, because you want to follow fallible humans rather than the infallible God.

Cute ad hominem, Socrates.

S:
And Jesus cited Scripture with "It is written ..." and this settled the debate.

JJR:
There are a few reasons why Jesus would refer to Scripture other than blanket acceptance of inerrancy:

2. He is hoisting his opponents by their own petards, showing their inconsistencies by pointing out that their own positions are inconsistent with the Scriptures which they claim to believe.

S:
This fallacious idea is addressed by AiG here:

‘Jesus deliberately accommodated Himself to the mistaken views of His audience.’

Um, except that the places where he hoists his opponents by their own petards are not places where Genesis or the Flood are discussed. They are, however, sometimes places where Jesus uses some very unusual interpretation, such as in John 10:35 above, or in Matthew 22:31-32, where Jesus puts a weight on the "am" in "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" that would be considered questionable by a modern, mortal human exegete. That suggests at least a willingness to accomodate certain errors, such as the sometimes dubious exegetical methods of the time.

JJR:

3. He is using the Scripture as an illustration.

S:
Which it is, and especially so because it is true.

You are begging the question again, Socrates, by assuming that the Scriptures in question are true.

JJR:
The documents of which the Bible is composed are too loosely coupled for the argument "if the first part is wrong, why trust the rest?" to be reasonable.

S:
Nonsense—the Bible is notable for its strong internal consistency.

"Loose coupling" and "internal consistency" are not opposed to each other. All "loose coupling" means is that the individual documents in question are not strongly dependent on each other, that "false in one, false in all" just doesn't hold.

Here's the problem, Socrates:

It is invalid to take as an axiom that Scripture is true no matter the evidence. Axioms cannot be chosen arbitrarily. They must either be self-evident, like the laws of logic, or unprovable, like the parallel postulate of Euclidian geometry. The truth of Scripture is not self-evident. The historical nature of many of the Scriptural documents even implies that they should be corroborated by physical evidence if it is available.

It is valid, however, to take "Scripture is true" as a working assumption, a provisional presupposition that can be modified or wholly overturned by other evidence.

So far, I have a couple reasons to modify this working assumption. First, the physical evidence from fossils, various methods of dating (including radiometric ones), and so on, implies that certain pieces of Scripture are false. Second, other evidence implies the overall reliability of other parts of Scripture, especially the New Testament. This means that I can neither say with any reasonable certainty that "All Scripture is true" or "All Scripture is false."

You, Socrates, have attempted to show that certain passages of the New Testament affirm the historicity of the disputed parts of the Old Testament. These passages, however, do not have sufficient evidential weight to overturn the physical evidence against the disputed parts of Scripture, mainly because they, at best, only indirectly affirm the historicity of disputed parts.

These passages, though, also do not have sufficient evidential weight to totally undo the overall reliability of the Gospels, because 1) as noted before, they, at best, only indirectly affirm the historicity of disputed parts, 2) because they are a small proportion of the New Testament, and 3) because they do not primarily concern the historicity of the events on which Christianity is founded.

So far, Socrates, I am pretty much stuck. I neither have enough warrant to accept Genesis in full, nor do I have enough warrant to turn my back on Christianity. Call that a "blessed inconsistency" if you like, but it is an inconsistency with which I am stuck.

johnransom

February 24th 2003, 02:30 PM

Well, our resident SPECTRUM officer has already responded quite adequately, but let's see now:

02-22-2003 @ 01:10 PM
Jim Eisele:

Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution.
I’d say more but I find myself in familiar territory. A Christian has spoken
out of turn and is over a barrel. I will spare you further humiliation.

Hmm. Evolution five times. Looks pretty much like an emotional outburst to me. And irrelevant to boot. Note also how the word did not change over time. :teeth:

Why, that sounds like an emotional response, John Ransom. If it is not
grounded in facts, it is emotional. I will spare you the further humiliation
of suggesting what else atheists consider Christianity to be.
<snip>

Only to an emotionalist who wouldn't recognize a logical statement if it jumped on him screaming "I'm based on facts, you idiot!". Christianity rests on facts, most specifically the fact of the resurrection. And why would I be huiliated by the vacuous opinions of atheists? Exasperated, maybe. Humiliated, hardly. More illogic.

I tire of Christians who claim “Christianity is true because it is true.” In
essence, you are continuing this trend. In your emotional post, I do not
see you offering one, not one, reason for being a Christian. Christianity’s
reputation goes a little bit deeper into the trashcan…

Only because you don't like the reason, let alone understand it. You see circularity where none exists, probably because of the circles you keep spinning in yourself. I never stated that Christianity is true because it is true. I stated that Christianity is worthy of belief because it is true. The source of the conclusion that it is true was never given, because anyone with an IQ above about 40 could see that an assessment of its truth was implied in the observation.

I open the trashcan only to find you wallowing in the filth at the bottom..

sandlewood

February 25th 2003, 02:02 AM

Hi, this is my first post. I haven’t read this entire thread, but I happened to notice some things in the thread I wanted to comment on, though I don’t know if I can do it without bending Religion 101 guidelines 4 & 7 but I’ll try. Sorry if I’m repeating old ground; I’ll try to go back and read the whole thread.

One common response I notice goes something like “I believe in God because science has no satisfactory answer for X.” X can be the origin of life, order, intelligence, or whatever. But I fail to see how God solves that. You still don’t know how anything happened. All you know is that some unknowable entity created the universe in some unknowable way. To us, it would be magic. So I don’t know what it explains. You still have the same questions, just removed back one step.

02-15-2003 @ 12:10 PM
TheFiveSolas:
1. Something came from nothing
2. Order came from disorder
3. Life came from inorganic matter
4. Variation came from sameness
5. Intelligence came from non-intelligence
6. Language arises from no language
7. Morality arises from non-morality

1. I don’t know any non-Christian viewpoint that states that something came from nothing. Science certainly doesn’t. We just don’t know what happened earlier than a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. “I don’t know” is a valid answer. One possibility is that the universe was always here.

2. Order comes from disorder all the time. When a raindrop freezes into a snowflake. When air forms into a tornado. I think this article (http://xxx.infidels.org/~meta/getalife/) gives a nice perspective on it.

3. What is life? Matter that copies itself? If you define organic matter as material that is built upon carbon atoms, then why is it so unbelievable? Carbon atoms combined with other atoms to form organic matter.

4. If you’re talking about evolution, variation comes from mutations. If you’re talking about all things, then atoms combine with various other atoms to form various things.

5. I think you can find varying degrees of intelligence from humans to apes to dolphins to dogs to ants to viruses and antibodies. I don’t see any reason why the development of intelligence could not have progressed in the reverse direction to that. Also, keep in mind that it is we who have defined what intelligence is, so naturally we define ourselves as having the highest degree of it. An ant might think we are pretty stupid for not being able to follow an ant trail or communicate in ant-speak.

6. Like intelligence, language exists in varying degrees. Gorillas have been taught very large vocabularies. (Search for Koko the gorilla). Other creatures obviously communicate. Why couldn’t language have developed? We see language developing and changing all the time.

7. This somehow makes the assumption that there was immorality before there was morality. I’m not sure how that could be.

Even if I had not responded to any of these points, it wouldn’t matter. Those points constitute what is known as the Argument from Incredulity. Essentially you are saying, “I can’t believe that that could have happened, therefore God did it.” All we really need is to learn how it happened. Or, another variation of this is often,” I don’t know how that could have happened, therefore God did it.”
Like many people, you misunderstand “survival of the fittest”. (In fact, I don’t think Darwin ever used those words.) What Darwin means is that those species that are best adapted to their environment are most likely to survive and reproduce. That has nothing to do with cruelty.

I would also encourage theists to get a better understanding of atheism by actually taking to atheists. There are very often misunderstandings.

Captain Ochre

February 25th 2003, 02:32 AM

Socrates

February 25th 2003, 02:43 AM

sandlewood:
2. Order comes from disorder all the time. When a raindrop freezes into a snowflake. When air forms into a tornado. I think this article gives a nice perspective on it.Typical of the Infudgels to confuse the order in crystals with the order (or better, complexity) in living things. See What about crystals? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/370.asp#crystals).

3. What is life? Matter that copies itself? If you define organic matter as material that is built upon carbon atoms, then why is it so unbelievable? Carbon atoms combined with other atoms to form organic matter.Do you have the slightest idea of the chemistry involved? If you did, you would not make such a simplistic statement that all we need is carbon atoms to bond to each other. See Origin of Life (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp).

Pate

February 25th 2003, 02:50 AM

02-25-2003 @ 06:02 AM
sandlewood:

1. I don’t know any non-Christian viewpoint that states that something came from nothing. Science certainly doesn’t. We just don’t know what happened earlier than a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. “I don’t know” is a valid answer.

As far as I know, you're mistaken here. I'll quote the atheist philosopher Quentin Smith:

"it belongs analytically to the concept of the cosmological singularity that it is not the effect of prior physical events. The definition of singularity … entails that it is impossible to extend the space-time manifold beyond the singularity. … This effectively rules out the idea that the singularity is an effect of some prior natural process."

One possibility is that the universe was always here.

Yes, that is a possibility. But that's a problematic possibility and incompatible with the standard Big Bang cosmology.

2. Order comes from disorder all the time. When a raindrop freezes into a snowflake. When air forms into a tornado. I think this article (http://xxx.infidels.org/~meta/getalife/) gives a nice perspective on it.

3. What is life? Matter that copies itself? If you define organic matter as material that is built upon carbon atoms, then why is it so unbelievable? Carbon atoms combined with other atoms to form organic matter.

4. If you’re talking about evolution, variation comes from mutations. If you’re talking about all things, then atoms combine with various other atoms to form various things.

Evolution is not an issue to me. But I'd take this discussion to a little deeper level. Imagine that there's no order at all in the fundamental level of material reality. Imagine that there are no regularities and no laws of nature, that consistently apply to the universe. Certainly there would be no life, evolved or otherwise, in such universe. It's also plausible to argue that this kind of order in the fundamental level of reality that in fact exists in our world, instead of the kind of chaos that I mentioned that could very well exist, is not something that science can explain, because that is by definition a matter outside of science and one that's prerequisite of it.

5. I think you can find varying degrees of intelligence from humans to apes to dolphins to dogs to ants to viruses and antibodies. I don’t see any reason why the development of intelligence could not have progressed in the reverse direction to that. Also, keep in mind that it is we who have defined what intelligence is, so naturally we define ourselves as having the highest degree of it. An ant might think we are pretty stupid for not being able to follow an ant trail or communicate in ant-speak.

I really doubt it that an ant can have that kind of complex thoughts. But furthermore, I'd like to know what's your basis for trusting your own intelligence, your cognitive faculties and the beliefs that you form by them, given that you're a product of naturalistic evolution.

7. This somehow makes the assumption that there was immorality before there was morality. I’m not sure how that could be.

What's your view on the nature of morality?

Even if I had not responded to any of these points, it wouldn’t matter. Those points constitute what is known as the Argument from Incredulity. Essentially you are saying, “I can’t believe that that could have happened, therefore God did it.” All we really need is to learn how it happened. Or, another variation of this is often,” I don’t know how that could have happened, therefore God did it.”

In my opinion, that's far too simplistic view of the theistic position.
True, there is a danger of "God of the Gaps" fallacy. But it's very different to conclude on the basis of what we DO know, that the God-hypothesis is the best explanation of the data, than to just say "goddidit".

I would also encourage theists to get a better understanding of atheism by actually taking to atheists. There are very often misunderstandings.

Yes, I agree. And the same is true of many atheists. I belive that both sides can benefit from a honest dialogue, even in the case that it does not lead anyone to change his/her mind on this question.

Socrates

February 25th 2003, 03:04 AM

Our resident compromiser Ramsey spruiks:

You are begging the question by assuming that John 10:35 is a clear confirmation of inerrancy. The problem is that the word for "broken" is ambiguous, potentially meaning "broken" in nearly any literal or metaphorical sense. The ambiguity must be resolved by the context. Given that, the offhandedness of the remark doesn't help. If "cannot be broken" can mean "can have erred", then one must wonder we can understand anything Jesus said.

S:
This fallacious idea is addressed by AiG here:

‘Jesus deliberately accommodated Himself to the mistaken views of His audience.’

--------------------------------------------------------------

Um, except that the places where he hoists his opponents by their own petards are not places where Genesis or the Flood are discussed. I have also provided places where Jesus DID quoted Creation and the Flood as real history, e.g. Mt. 19:3-9, Mark 10:6-9, Luke 17:26-27.

They are, however, sometimes places where Jesus uses some very unusual interpretation, such as in John 10:35 above, or in Matthew 22:31-32, where Jesus puts a weight on the "am" in "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" that would be considered questionable by a modern, mortal human exegete.That's their problem. It wasn't a problem to His contemporaries, and once more, it showed that all parties agreed that what Scripture said, God said.
That suggests at least a willingness to accomodate certain errors, such as the sometimes dubious exegetical methods of the time.Now Ramsey acts the modern chronological chauvinist who now insists on reading the Bible through the eyes of a 21st century provincialist. Wow, did you pick this up from the many bibliosceptical websites wallowing in the deeper cesspools of the Internet?

-------------------------------------------------------------
JJR:

3. He is using the Scripture as an illustration.

S:
Which it is, and especially so because it is true.

--------------------------------------------------------------

You are begging the question again, Socrates, by assuming that the Scriptures in question are true.The benefit of the doubt should be given to the document, not the critic.

It is invalid to take as an axiom that Scripture is true no matter the evidence. Axioms cannot be chosen arbitrarily. They must either be self-evident, like the laws of logic, or unprovable, like the parallel postulate of Euclidian geometry. The truth of Scripture is not self-evident. Yes it is! And your apparent axiom of methodological naturalism fails this test too!

Furthermore. you have no idea about axioms, because you can choose whatever you like. For example, is the Brouwer system of modal logic more illegitimate than System T because it adds an axiom A implies necessarily possibly A? Is this self evident? What about the S-4 system which adds the alternative axiom necessarily A implies necessarily necessarily A? How self-evident is that? Or is S-5 still less legitimate becaue it adds both these axioms to T, or alternatively adds to T the single axiom possibly A implies necessarily posssibly A?

So far, Socrates, I am pretty much stuck. I neither have enough warrant to accept Genesis in full, nor do I have enough warrant to turn my back on Christianity. Call that a "blessed inconsistency" if you like, but it is an inconsistency with which I am stuck.Wallow in your inconsistency all you wish, but I'll try to love God with all my mind.

J. J. Ramsey

February 25th 2003, 03:26 PM

JJR:
You are begging the question by assuming that John 10:35 is a clear confirmation of inerrancy. The problem is that the word for "broken" is ambiguous, potentially meaning "broken" in nearly any literal or metaphorical sense. The ambiguity must be resolved by the context. Given that, the offhandedness of the remark doesn't help.

S:
If "cannot be broken" can mean "can have erred", then one must wonder we can understand anything Jesus said.

:rofl: Socrates, if you think that I was arguing that, then you need your eyes checked. What I was pointing out what that the word for "broken" was vague enough that its meaning 1) had to be pinned down by context, and that 2) the context was insufficient to pin down the meaning clearly enough to show that John 10:35 was a definitive statement of inerrancy.

S:
I have also provided places where Jesus DID quoted Creation and the Flood as real history, e.g. Mt. 19:3-9, Mark 10:6-9, Luke 17:26-27.

Luke 17:26-27 is the easiest one to deal with. The account of Noah was definitely used as an illustration, a way to paint a picture of what is usually identified as the second coming (though I think preterists have a different interpretation of the events described, which I'll leave to JPH and Dee Dee to hash out).

Mt. 19:3-9 and Mark 10:6-9 (both refer to the same event) are trickier to deal with. My opinion, such as it is :help:, is that the basic principle that Jesus was pointing out was true, but rather than try to explain from first principles or something like a Greek philosopher, he met them where they were, and used a text that they would recognize as authoritative to make his point.

JJR:
They are, however, sometimes places where Jesus uses some very unusual interpretation, such as in John 10:35 above, or in Matthew 22:31-32, where Jesus puts a weight on the "am" in "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" that would be considered questionable by a modern, mortal human exegete.

That suggests at least a willingness to accomodate certain errors, such as the sometimes dubious exegetical methods of the time.

S:
Now Ramsey acts the modern chronological chauvinist who now insists on reading the Bible through the eyes of a 21st century provincialist. Wow, did you pick this up from the many bibliosceptical websites wallowing in the deeper cesspools of the Internet?

Um, no, Socrates. :rofl: Try Gordon Fee and Douglas Stewart. And there is nothing chauvinist in pointing out that modern, mortal human exegetes do things like read passages as wholes and try to intepret things as the original audience would. Such methods are helpful in avoiding too much reading into the text, but would preclude pressing the meaning of "am" the way Jesus did, since the original readers would have simply understood "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" to mean that when Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were alive, God was Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob's God.

JJR:

3. He is using the Scripture as an illustration.

S:
Which it is, and especially so because it is true.

JJR:
You are begging the question again, Socrates, by assuming that the Scriptures in question are true.

S:
The benefit of the doubt should be given to the document, not the critic.

As a general rule, indeed, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the document. That, however, is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, since the passages in question, namely those in Genesis about the Creation and the Flood, are disputed because of the presence of positive evidence against them. It is also not relevant to the question of illustration, since the use of a story for illustration does not imply necessarily that the story is historically true. When you wrote, "Which it is, and especially so because it is true," you merely assumed the disputed passages in Genesis were true, which was what you seemed to be trying to prove to me.

JJR:
It is invalid to take as an axiom that Scripture is true no matter the evidence. Axioms cannot be chosen arbitrarily. They must either be self-evident, like the laws of logic, or unprovable, like the parallel postulate of Euclidian geometry.

S:
And your apparent axiom of methodological naturalism fails this test too!

Socrates, I never claimed "methodological naturalism" as an axiom. If I did, why then did I bother to point out when it was and was not a good approach (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=14801&highlight=methodological+naturalism#post14801)?

Furthermore, you have no idea about axioms, because you can choose whatever you like. For example, is the Brouwer system of modal logic more illegitimate than System T because it adds an axiom A implies necessarily possibly A? Is this self evident? What about the S-4 system which adds the alternative axiom necessarily A implies necessarily necessarily A? How self-evident is that? Or is S-5 still less legitimate becaue it adds both these axioms to T, or alternatively adds to T the single axiom possibly A implies necessarily posssibly A?

These axioms are not self-evident, but rather unprovable in the same way that the parallel postulate is unprovable.

However, you have pointed out a flaw in my scheme. I was implicitly confusing mathematical axioms with philosophical ones. You are right, mathematical axioms can be anything. Whether those axioms have anything to to with reality is another matter. Mathematics need not have anything to do with the real world at all, although in practice it often does.

Philosophical axioms, though, do deal with reality, and are meant to form a foundation for a world view. That means they have to be chosen carefully. This is why I distinguished in my earlier post between axioms and working assumptions. Working assumptions fill out the world view and build on the foundation, but are held more tentatively.

JJR:
The truth of Scripture is not self-evident.

S:
Yes it is!

No, Socrates, the truth of Scripture cannot be self-evident because it is falsifiable. It makes historical claims that can potentially be found to not accord with reality.

Contrast this with the laws of logic. For example, it is impossible to deny the principle of non-contradiction without employing it.

I'll try to love God with all my mind.

Well, you are certainly trying. :teeth:

sandlewood

February 25th 2003, 06:19 PM

02-24-2003 @ 10:32 PM
Captain Ochre:
I'll take this first one.
That article does not deal specifically with the topic of origin of the Universe. It’s about students having preconceived ideas and is probably not the best source to look for known facts about the Big Bang. Their use of the phrase “explosion from nothing” seems to be an oversimplification made for convenience. No one knows what existed before the Big Bang, so to say that there was a state of nothingness would be presumptuous. It may be more complex than that. I believe Stephen Hawking has remarked that asking what it was like before the Big Bang is like asking what the surface of the Earth is like one mile north of the North Pole. The question doesn’t make sense.
02-24-2003 @ 10:43 PM
Socrates:Typical of the Infudgels to confuse the order in crystals with the order (or better, complexity) in living things.
I’m not sure what an Infudgel is.

I believe that article you referenced does say that crystals are ordered. So order does come from disorder, which is what I said. Now you’ve changed it to complexity. Sarfati’s claims about complexity aren’t convincing to me. The only real difference between how he defines order and complexity is one of degree. More complex combinations can occur given enough time. (You obviously did not read that article called “Get a Life” that I posted.) It seems to me the crystal has “information imposed” on it just as much as DNA. If it did not, then instead of getting ABABAB you might get two A’s together, as in ABAABB and it would not be a crystal.
Proteins and DNA are also non-random aperiodic sequences. The sequences are not caused by the properties of the constituent amino acids and nucleotides themselves. This is a huge contrast to crystal structures, which are caused by the properties of their constituents. The sequences of DNA and proteins must be imposed from outside by some intelligent process.
Someone needs to introduce the author to the evolutionary process. The complex sequences are not a result of the properties of the constituent parts. They are the result of an evolved process in which combinations that did not work did not copy themselves successfully. Combinations that did work continued on. The first molecules that copied themselves were not necessarily that complex. His last sentence there about DNA sequences needing an outside intelligent force is a completely unjustified assertion. A lot of the statements on that page seem to be assertions that certain structures are just too complex to have happened without an intelligent being to cause them to happen. I think the same argument can be applied to God himself, who is more complex than a human being.
Do you have the slightest idea of the chemistry involved? If you did, you would not make such a simplistic statement that all we need is carbon atoms to bond to each other.
I think the original point was that it was hard to believe that life came from inorganic matter. But I don’t think that is claimed. I think it came from organic matter, since that is what it is. The question wasn’t about complexity. When talking about probabilities, don’t discount that there were many millions of years for the process to occur, and oceans full of molecules to work on the problem. And the earth is only one planet out of what could be a huge number.

I did not have time to do more than glance the first one, but it looks like more argument from incredulity. I don’t hold much hope when I see titles like including phrases like “evolutionary theory of the origin of life”. If you are going to post links to a lot of pseudo-scientific web pages and expect me to debunk them all, I just don’t have the time. There are too many and it’s not very fruitful.
02-24-2003 @ 10:50 PM
Pate:
As far as I know, you're mistaken here. I'll quote the atheist philosopher Quentin Smith:
A philosopher? Commenting on the nature of singularities? Do you believe he is correct in what he says? Does he say that something came from nothing?
02-24-2003 @ 10:50 PM
Pate:
But that's a problematic possibility and incompatible with the standard Big Bang cosmology.
Problematic in what way?
But furthermore, I'd like to know what's your basis for trusting your own intelligence, your cognitive faculties and the beliefs that you form by them, given that you're a product of naturalistic evolution.
The quick answer is “what choice do we have?” It’s like asking how we know that our physical senses give us an accurate picture of reality.
But more exactly, the reason is that when we use our intelligence, we stay alive and have success. If I used my intelligence to conclude that it is not safe to jump off a cliff and I stayed alive by following that, then I would infer I could trust my intelligence. The reason for determining whether our intelligence is successful and correct is that it works in practice in the face of the real world. (Did I misunderstand your question?)
What's your view on the nature of morality?
I hesitate to get into that because it may be a long subject. My observation about the original point was only that to have immorality I think you’d need to have morality, in the sense that they are two sides of the same coin. But I don’t see any problem with morality emerging when you think about morality as those behaviors that keep a species from becoming extinct.
But it's very different to conclude on the basis of what we DO know, that the God-hypothesis is the best explanation of the data, than to just say "goddidit".
I just find it hard to think it can ever be the best explanation when it doesn’t really explain anything. Or rather I should say, it doesn’t explain the things it was meant to explain when it is invoked in those cases.

Captain Ochre

February 25th 2003, 07:44 PM

02-25-2003 @ 10:19 PM
sandlewood:

That article does not deal specifically with the topic of origin of the Universe. It’s about students having preconceived ideas and is probably not the best source to look for known facts about the Big Bang.

I suggest that it was a good source regarding what qualified educators hope students would know about the Big Bang.

"Approximately 15 billion years ago all the matter you feel and see was created in a "big bang". It exploded out of nothing and there was nothing there before it."
http://www.netlabs.net/hp/tremor/bigb.html

"The so-called Big Bang theory is the current favoured hypothesis of the formation of the universe according to astronomy. This asserts that some 12-15 billion years ago there was a suddenly expansion and explosion of all matter and energy out of an original point - out of literally nothing - and that not only space but even time began at this moment. (So we cannot speak of an explosion in space - because there was no space before, or no time at which this could be measured - space and time being properties of the universe rather than something outside of it)."
http://www.kheper.net/cosmos/universe/Big_Bang.htm

"At the instant of the Big Bang, the universe was infinitely dense and unimaginably hot. Cosmologists believe that all forms of matter and energy, as well as space and time itself, were formed at this instant. Since "before" is a temporal concept, one cannot ask what came before the Big Bang and therefore "caused" it, at least not within the context of any known physics."
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/InTheBeginning.html

Tell you what: You tell me what sources you find acceptable, and perhaps humor me by explaining why time wouldn't exist "prior" to the big bang if matter existed "prior" to the big bang.
Sound cool? Excellent. I look forward to hearing from you.

Matthew

February 25th 2003, 07:47 PM

Guess what Socrates? I am back!

More likely, you don't sem to WANT any reasons and DO want a justification for skepticism, which is why you turned to Feral McTill (you MUST have been desperate!).

Socrates, please- I was hoping you wouldn't be so presumptous as to try to guess my motives or desires. If it's your opinion or conclusion that I don't want any reasons to believe or justification for skepticism, that's fine with me, I will let you conclude whatever you want. I just would ask that you not get self-righteous and judgemental with me. I must have been desperate, huh? Well it seems that asking you not to be judgemental and self-righteous wasn't worth it on my part- you seem (to me) to excel in it. Just curiously..why do you call him "Feral McTill"? Are these "editorial comments" or is it derision and scorn for anyone who is skeptical of the Bible, or what?

You should turn your skepticism on the dating methods instead of accepting them on FAITH as you admit you do, and realise instead that there is much evidence consistent with a "young" Earth and global Flood.

Um, Socrates, I hate to remind you- but you accept several things on faith, like the resurrection of Christ-so if I did accept the reliability of dating methods on faith- why would you have a problem with that? The problem is not accepting things by faith-but in what circumstances would faith (of any sort, in anything) be rationally justified? I do consider my acceptance of dating methods to be rationally justified-even if it is "faith" (actually, I accept it as an inference-to-the-best-explanation).

I must have missed your refutation of the historicity of the Resurrection, instead of trying to find minor quibbles in the accounts.

Socrates, I am not clear as to what you mean by "historicity". If you mean that I must refute the proposition that the resurrection really did happen- then I would hate to remind you that in critical thinking, it is the onus of the person making extraordinary claims to provide extraordinary evidence for these claims. Or do you mean that I have to refute the apologist's arguments for the resurrection? As for "minor quibbles in the accounts"..well..I don't consider these "minor quibbles". If I can find some critical historians whose lifeblood is in biblical or Mediterrannean studies who considers the resurrection un-historical, or the Bible to be errant and non-inspired, precisely because of the discrepencies in the narratives, are they still "minor quibbles"?

J. J. Ramsey

February 25th 2003, 08:29 PM

Matthew:
Socrates, please- I was hoping you wouldn't be so presumptous as to try to guess my motives or desires.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Sorry, Matthew, but I know from personal experience that Socrates has a habit of ad hominem.

Socrates:
I must have missed your refutation of the historicity of the Resurrection, instead of trying to find minor quibbles in the accounts.

Matthew:
Socrates, I am not clear as to what you mean by "historicity". If you mean that I must refute the proposition that the resurrection really did happen- then I would hate to remind you that in critical thinking, it is the onus of the person making extraordinary claims to provide extraordinary evidence for these claims. Or do you mean that I have to refute the apologist's arguments for the resurrection?

Matthew, in all fairness to Socrates, he does have a point. If you are taking on the role of skeptic of Christianity, then you have at least taken on the onus of refuting the apologists' arguments in favor of the resurrection.

If I can find some critical historians whose lifeblood is in biblical or Mediterrannean studies who considers the resurrection un-historical, . . . precisely because of the discrepencies in the narratives, are they still "minor quibbles"?

Depends a lot on how well these historians support their arguments. I think, though, that you may find it more of an uphill battle than you think. If you are serious about it, though, bring it on, and we'll see what you got.

Matthew

February 26th 2003, 05:16 AM

Matthew, in all fairness to Socrates, he does have a point. If you are taking on the role of skeptic of Christianity, then you have at least taken on the onus of refuting the apologists' arguments in favor of the resurrection

That is assuming that is what Socrates meant by it. If a much politer and friendlier Christian like Dee Dee asked me about this...I would try my best to answer the apologist's arguments. I have to say that I am not an expert..so I would have to be candid enough to admit that there are some things that I didn't have the resources to answer but not that I felt were unanswerable.

But the point is that I see very little point in dialouging with Socrates. I have a hard time thinking he is anything but just some self-righteous, superspiritual snob eager to pigeon-hole everyone into his pre-concieved notions of why people are not Christians. His ad-hominems are very un-becoming of a Christian.

Depends a lot on how well these historians support their arguments. I think, though, that you may find it more of an uphill battle than you think

Of course. I wouldn't necessarily make an appeal to an authority. That's not my style although I do use authorities only as "weighing factors". And I do think it's more of an uphill battle than I initially imagined. The problem is that sometimes I can unfortunately lend on my own naive-ness more often than I should!

Socrates

February 26th 2003, 11:52 AM

S:
I have also provided places where Jesus DID quoted Creation and the Flood as real history, e.g. Mt. 19:3-9, Mark 10:6-9, Luke 17:26-27.

--------------------------------------------------------

Luke 17:26-27 is the easiest one to deal with. The account of Noah was definitely used as an illustration, a way to paint a picture of what is usually identified as the second coming (though I think preterists have a different interpretation of the events described, which I'll leave to JPH and Dee Dee to hash out). either of them have any problem with a global Flood. Especially when Jesus said "As it happened in the days of Noah ..." Only a wilful refusal to read the text for what it says can give any impression other than Jesus believing that the Flood was a real event. And I'd rather believe Him than the God-haters who have you wrapped around their little fingers.

Mt. 19:3-9 and Mark 10:6-9 (both refer to the same event) are trickier to deal with. My opinion, such as it is , is that the basic principle that Jesus was pointing out was true, but rather than try to explain from first principles or something like a Greek philosopher, he met them where they were, and used a text that they would recognize as authoritative to make his point.Once again, it was not merely an illustration, but Jesus even rebuked them for not considering Genesis 1 and 2. In Mt. 19:6 He drew out His teaching from marriage explicitly from his previous quotes of Gen. 1:27 and 2:24. And in v. 5, Jesus even attributed the Scriptural 2:24 as something the Creator Himself said.

The tortuous reasoning people go through to fit Jesus's teaching into modern evolutionary ideas!

S:
Now Ramsey acts the modern chronological chauvinist who now insists on reading the Bible through the eyes of a 21st century provincialist. Wow, did you pick this up from the many bibliosceptical websites wallowing in the deeper cesspools of the Internet?

-------------------------------------------------------

Um, no, Socrates. Try Gordon Fee and Douglas Stewart.Are you telling us that they thought Jesus interpreted Scripture wrongly???

And there is nothing chauvinist in pointing out that modern, mortal human exegetes do things like read passages as wholes and try to intepret things as the original audience would.
But instead you judge Scripture like a modern provincialist.

Such methods are helpful in avoiding too much reading into the text, but would preclude pressing the meaning of "am" the way Jesus did, Oh, so Jesus needs hermeneutics lessons from you now? Evidently even His foes, the Pharisees, didn't think so, and the Sadducees knew they were beat.

However, you have pointed out a flaw in my scheme. I was implicitly confusing mathematical axioms with philosophical ones. You are right, mathematical axioms can be anything. Whether those axioms have anything to to with reality is another matter. Mathematics need not have anything to do with the real world at all, although in practice it often does.

Philosophical axioms, though, do deal with reality, and are meant to form a foundation for a world view.Isn't logic a branch of philosophy? Certainly it was our university philosophy dep't that taught about modal logic.

That means they have to be chosen carefully. Indeed so, which is why Christians should choose Scripture over methodological naturalism.

This is why I distinguished in my earlier post between axioms and working assumptions. Working assumptions fill out the world view and build on the foundation, but are held more tentatively.I've noted only dogmatism from you about methodological naturalism, at least as far as Earth's biology and geology are concerned.

JJR:
The truth of Scripture is not self-evident.

S:
Yes it is!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, Socrates, the truth of Scripture cannot be self-evident because it is falsifiable. It makes historical claims that can potentially be found to not accord with reality.But they don't. In any case, "self-evident" means different things to different people. E.g. Romans 1:20 ff. says that God's attributes are self-evident from nature, but atheists will swear black and blue that it is not so. Also, Jesus treated it a an axiom, by saying "it is written ...". He never once tried to prove it, but over and over again he used it as authoritative. Even after His resurrection on the Road to Emmaus, He went through the Scriptures, explicitly starting with Moses.

Contrast this with the laws of logic. For example, it is impossible to deny the principle of non-contradiction without employing it.You got that part right.

Socrates

February 26th 2003, 12:06 PM

Guess what Socrates? I am back!Oh, so you only just discovered this old post of mine?

Well it seems that asking you not to be judgemental and self-righteous wasn't worth it on my part- you seem (to me) to excel in it.Nearly got that right. Actually excelling in what Jesus commanded in John 7:24 "Judge not according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgement."

Just curiously..why do you call him "Feral McTill"? Are these "editorial comments" or is it derision and scorn for anyone who is skeptical of the Bible, or what?No only on pompous vexatious critics who know naught of what they speak. And because according to his own evolutionary belief system, he's basically feral.

-----------------------------------------------------------
You should turn your skepticism on the dating methods instead of accepting them on FAITH as you admit you do, and realise instead that there is much evidence consistent with a "young" Earth and global Flood.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Um, Socrates, I hate to remind you- but you accept several things on faith, like the resurrection of Christ-so if I did accept the reliability of dating methods on faith- why would you have a problem with that?Because you were trying to paint your reasons for rejecting Christianity as rational.

As for "minor quibbles in the accounts"..well..I don't consider these "minor quibbles". Well they are. Even Ramsey accepts the Resurrection.

If I can find some critical historians whose lifeblood is in biblical or Mediterrannean studies who considers the resurrection un-historical, or the Bible to be errant and non-inspired, precisely because of the discrepencies in the narratives, are they still "minor quibbles"?I'd like to see you try.

As for Ramsey's whinge about ad hominems, you Americans should have less of a victim culture and be more like Australians, or more like the Biblical culture where ripostes to challenges were a sign of honor — see Offensisensitivity Is It "un-Christian" to Engage in Satire? (http://www.tektonics.org/madmad.html).

J. J. Ramsey

February 26th 2003, 02:30 PM

JJR:
Luke 17:26-27 is the easiest one to deal with. The account of Noah was definitely used as an illustration, a way to paint a picture of what is usually identified as the second coming (though I think preterists have a different interpretation of the events described, which I'll leave to JPH and Dee Dee to hash out).

S:
Especially when Jesus said "As it happened in the days of Noah ..."

The KJV, NRSV, and NIV use the weaker word "was" rather than "happened." Again, the word for "was" appears to have the kind of looseness of meaning as the word for "broken." If the story of Noah had been from a work of known fiction, Jesus' words would have been just as correct.

JJR:
Mt. 19:3-9 and Mark 10:6-9 (both refer to the same event) are trickier to deal with. My opinion, such as it is :help:, is that the basic principle that Jesus was pointing out was true, but rather than try to explain from first principles or something like a Greek philosopher, he met them where they were, and used a text that they would recognize as authoritative to make his point.

S:
Once again, it was not merely an illustration, but Jesus even rebuked them for not considering Genesis 1 and 2.

Let's see, as teachers of the Law in the first century with no reason to doubt Genesis, yes, they should have looked at the passages to which Jesus referred (or at the very least, at Malachi 2:14-16).

And in [Matt. 19.5], Jesus even attributed the Scriptural 2:24 as something the Creator Himself said.

Which hardly contradicts my accomodation hypothesis (and I am happy to call it a hypothesis :help:).

S:
Now Ramsey acts the modern chronological chauvinist who now insists on reading the Bible through the eyes of a 21st century provincialist. Wow, did you pick this up from the many bibliosceptical websites wallowing in the deeper cesspools of the Internet?

JJR:
Um, no, Socrates. Try Gordon Fee and Douglas Stewart.

S:
Are you telling us that they thought Jesus interpreted Scripture wrongly???

I'm telling you that they thought Jesus interpreted Scripture in a way that modern-day mortal humans should not.

JJR:
And there is nothing chauvinist in pointing out that modern, mortal human exegetes do things like read passages as wholes and try to intepret things as the original audience would.

S:
But instead you judge Scripture like a modern provincialist.

By pointing out that the hermeneutic methods of the first century could lead to questionable interpretations of Scripture?!

JJR:
Such methods are helpful in avoiding too much reading into the text, but would preclude pressing the meaning of "am" the way Jesus did,

S:
Oh, so Jesus needs hermeneutics lessons from you now?

Of course not. But I ought to be very careful about gleaning hermeneutical techniques from someone who was using them primarily as a lever against opponents.

S:
Evidently even His foes, the Pharisees, didn't think so, and the Sadducees knew they were beat.

Well, duh! :duh: Jesus is using the Sadducees own Scriptures (which for them is just the Torah) and their own interpretive methods against them. Of course they're beat.

JJR:
However, you have pointed out a flaw in my scheme. I was implicitly confusing mathematical axioms with philosophical ones. You are right, mathematical axioms can be anything. Whether those axioms have anything to to with reality is another matter. Mathematics need not have anything to do with the real world at all, although in practice it often does.

Philosophical axioms, though, do deal with reality, and are meant to form a foundation for a world view.

S:
Isn't logic a branch of philosophy?

So? Does that mean that I should not distinguish between the kind of axioms for constructing an abstract mathematical framework from the kind of axioms for constructing a worldview for dealing with reality?

JJR:
The truth of Scripture is not self-evident.

S:
Yes it is!

JJR:
No, Socrates, the truth of Scripture cannot be self-evident because it is falsifiable. It makes historical claims that can potentially be found to not accord with reality.

S:
"self-evident" means different things to different people. E.g. Romans 1:20 ff. says that God's attributes are self-evident from nature, but atheists will swear black and blue that it is not so.

You are equivocating, Socrates! If God's attributes are evident from nature then they cannot be self-evident, because the evidence (nature) is quite separate from what it is evidence for (attributes).

As for Ramsey's whinge about ad hominems, you Americans should have less of a victim culture and be more like Australians, or more like the Biblical culture where ripostes to challenges were a sign of honor — see Offensisensitivity Is It "un-Christian" to Engage in Satire?. (http://www.tektonics.org/madmad.html)

:no: Socrates, don't insult everyone's intelligence here by using Biblical culture as an excuse to slander and not answer points.

sandlewood

February 27th 2003, 03:37 PM

From http://www.netlabs.net/hp/tremor/index.html , the author starts out by saying:
My goal for this web site is not limited to simply educating the public about astronomy and cosmology, but focuses on making these otherwise complex subjects presentable in an easy-to-read comprehensible form utilizing comparisons and gra phical aids.
The author may very well use the phrase “out of nothing” as a convenience or simplification. Perhaps more importantly, I didn’t see any information about who the writer is. Apparently he is just an average person who decided to post his own thoughts on the web.

From the end of http://www.kheper.net/cosmos/universe/Big_Bang.htm :
A still more recent theory has the universe evolving from a previous universe (perhaps from a black hole in that universe), which in turn developed from a previous universe, and so on. Similarily[sic] our universe may be giving birth to coutless[sic] further universes, of which we can (limited as we are to this section of space-time) know nothing.

From http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/InTheBeginning.html :
Science tells us nothing about the way space, time and matter behaved in our universe's earliest instant, from the time of the Big Bang to 10^-43 seconds later.

But I don’t want to get into a battle of quotes. I just intended to make a distinction. Since there was no “before” the Big Bang, how can one say that there was a state of nothingness before that, out of which the Universe appeared? In our typical understanding of the meaning of the word “creation”, there is a state before in which the thing does not exist followed by a state after in which it does.

That kind of description gives the impression that there was a nothingness that was something like space that existed and then the Universe suddenly popped into existence from within that. I don’t think that’s the picture the theory intends to put forth and that’s the distinction I was trying to make.

Back to the original point, if it is so hard to believe that the Universe came from nothing, then why is it easier to believe that a God made the Universe from nothing? The process is no better known and no less inconceivable. Plus you have the additional task of explaining how God got there.

Socrates

February 28th 2003, 12:25 AM

Socrates:Typical of the Infudgels to confuse the order in crystals with the order (or better, complexity) in living things.Sandlewood first showed the HDD (humor deficit disorder) typical of infidels:

I’m not sure what an Infudgel is.Then he spruiked:
I believe that article you referenced does say that crystals are ordered. So order does come from disorder, which is what I said. Now you’ve changed it to complexity.So some people use the term "order" more broadly to include organizes complexity as well as repetitive regularity. I advise against it, so you still have a problem explaining the former, while the latter is undisputed. Sarfati’s claims about complexity aren’t convincing to me. The only real difference between how he defines order and complexity is one of degree. Not at all. The article explained how the regularity is low information as well as low energy. More complex combinations can occur given enough time. Demonstration please. It seems to me the crystal has “information imposed” on it just as much as DNA. If it did not, then instead of getting ABABAB you might get two A’s together, as in ABAABB and it would not be a crystal.The structure of a crystal is deterministic, in that the same substances under the same conditions will form the same crystal. Conversely, the order of proteins and DNA is NOT determined by the properties of the monomers.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Proteins and DNA are also non-random aperiodic sequences. The sequences are not caused by the properties of the constituent amino acids and nucleotides themselves. This is a huge contrast to crystal structures, which are caused by the properties of their constituents. The sequences of DNA and proteins must be imposed from outside by some intelligent process.
-----------------------------------------------------------
SW:
Someone needs to introduce the author to the evolutionary process. The complex sequences are not a result of the properties of the constituent parts. They are the result of an evolved process in which combinations that did not work did not copy themselves successfully. Combinations that did work continued on. The first molecules that copied themselves were not necessarily that complex.Foul! Unfair to attack an author for not addressing a question not germane to the point under discussion. :argh: I.e. that the complexity of biology is no different in principle from the order in crystals. It is also the height of arrogance to assume that an author is unfamiliar with a concept with which he has clearly shown familiarity in other places, e.g. this critique (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3750.asp) of Dawko's Climbing Mt Improbable. And he rightly points out that natural selection cannot be an explanation for the immense minimum complexity of the first life!
His last sentence there about DNA sequences needing an outside intelligent force is a completely unjustified assertion. A lot of the statements on that page seem to be assertions that certain structures are just too complex to have happened without an intelligent being to cause them to happen.It's would be the same argument used to justify ETI if they detected a signal from space with specified complexity. But an ordered signal, e.g. from a pulsar, would be like a crystal, and attributed to natural causes. I think the same argument can be applied to God himself, who is more complex than a human being.Nope, God is simple in that He is not composed of parts.

---------------------------------------------------------
Soc: Do you have the slightest idea of the chemistry involved? If you did, you would not make such a simplistic statement that all we need is carbon atoms to bond to each other.
----------------------------------------------------------
SW:
I think the original point was that it was hard to believe that life came from inorganic matter. But I don’t think that is claimed. I think it came from organic matter, since that is what it is."Inorganic" was used in the original sense of "non-living", as opposed to modern sense where "organic chemistry" is the chemistry of carbon.
The question wasn’t about complexity. When talking about probabilities, don’t discount that there were many millions of years for the process to occur, and oceans full of molecules to work on the problem. And the earth is only one planet out of what could be a huge number.I don't. So please demonstrate that you could overcome the probability argument even if every atom in the universe was transmuted into an ocean of primordial soup.
I did not have time to do more than glance the first one, but it looks like more argument from incredulity. I don’t hold much hope when I see titles like including phrases like “evolutionary theory of the origin of life”. Then whinge to those call is "chemical evolution"!If you are going to post links to a lot of pseudo-scientific web pages and expect me to debunk them all, I just don’t have the time. By "pseudoscientific", SW means "question the materialist dogma". In reality, the pages are full of good applied operational science. [/list]

Socrates

February 28th 2003, 01:00 AM

JJR:
Luke 17:26-27 is the easiest one to deal with. The account of Noah was definitely used as an illustration, a way to paint a picture of what is usually identified as the second coming (though I think preterists have a different interpretation of the events described, which I'll leave to JPH and Dee Dee to hash out).

S:
Especially when Jesus said "As it happened in the days of Noah ..."
--------------------------------------------------------
JJR continues in his desperate attempt to deny that Jesus meant what He said, so he can keep his beloved methodological naturalism which rules out special creation and the Flood.:

The KJV, NRSV, and NIV use the weaker word "was" rather than "happened." Again, the word for "was" appears to have the kind of looseness of meaning as the word for "broken." If the story of Noah had been from a work of known fiction, Jesus' words would have been just as correct.The Greek word is egeneto, and the base word is ginomai which is indeed a stronger word meaning "come to pass" or "happen". And it's in the aorist, which means a completed action (with apologies in advance to Jaltus if I've erred here).
Let's see, as teachers of the Law in the first century with no reason to doubt Genesis, yes, they should have looked at the passages to which Jesus referred (or at the very least, at Malachi 2:14-16).But WHY should they have referred to it, unless it really was authoritative? It was the whole foundation to Jesus's teaching on marriage. It's no accident that churches that follow the Biblical teaching on creation are not the ones who condone easy divorce, fornication and homosexual activity.

-----------------------------------------------------
Soc: And in [Matt. 19.5], Jesus even attributed the Scriptural 2:24 as something the Creator Himself said.
-----------------------------------------------------
JJR:
Which hardly contradicts my accomodation hypothesis (and I am happy to call it a hypothesis ).It wasn't an accommodation at all, but actually going further than what Genesis 2:24 said, because Jesus made an additional statement that it was from the Creator Himself, so it reinforced the view of Scriptural authority.
I'm telling you that they thought Jesus interpreted Scripture in a way that modern-day mortal humans should not.
And I should believe them rather than Jesus??

S:
Oh, so Jesus needs hermeneutics lessons from you now?

-----------------------------------------------------------
JJR:
Of course not. But I ought to be very careful about gleaning hermeneutical techniques from someone who was using them primarily as a lever against opponents. Oh, so we shouldn't try to imitate Christ??

JJRL
Well, duh! Jesus is using the Sadducees own Scriptures (which for them is just the Torah) and their own interpretive methods against them. Of course they're beat.It was more than that. Jesus rebuked them for "not knowing the Scriptures". He commended others when they did know them, which is hardly accommodationism. Jesus even cited Scripture against the Devil, so that blows the accommodationist nonsense away. The Rich Man's brothers were culpable for not believing Moses and the Prophets, so even a Resurrection would not convince them (Luke 16:31). In fact, Jesus even rebuked people for unbelief in Moses, saying:
If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" (John 5:46-47).That's a question Till's crybaby trophy case must also ask compromisers like you.

--------------------------------------------------------
Soc:
As for Ramsey's whinge about ad hominems, you Americans should have less of a victim culture and be more like Australians, or more like the Biblical culture where ripostes to challenges were a sign of honor — see Offensisensitivity Is It "un-Christian" to Engage in Satire?.
-------------------------------------------------------
JJR:
Socrates, don't insult everyone's intelligence here by using Biblical culture as an excuse to slander and not answer points.First, this presupposes that you have any intelligence to insult.

Second, I realise that you're a chronological snob with no use for the Bible, but don't arrogantly assume that everyone else here shares your low view of Scripture.

Third, I answer most points, but fail to see why I should repeat myself.

Jim E.

March 2nd 2003, 02:48 PM

02-15-2003 @ 07:35 PM
spl_cadet:

The Resurrection.

People don't rise from the dead. People die. The Christ legend developed when Jesus did not return like the Bible claims he said he would. So stop pretending just saying "The Resurrection" counts as evidence. I'll grant you ignorance, but no more.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

Blake Reas

March 2nd 2003, 03:29 PM

03-02-2003 @ 06:48 PM
Jim Eisele:

People don't rise from the dead. People die. The Christ legend developed when Jesus did not return like the Bible claims he said he would. So stop pretending just saying "The Resurrection" counts as evidence. I'll grant you ignorance, but no more.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

On what grounds do you make this claim? You must first disprove the existence of the Biblical God, before you can say that GOD did not raise Jesus from the dead. You cannot just make the assertion that he didn't you are begging the question. I am sure your conspiracy theories of how the discples lied, Hallucinated etc are nothing new but have been refuted over and over and over for the last 2000 years, but then again you could be a genius who disproves Christianity if you are I want you to rescue from my supposed dillusion.

By His Grace, For His Glory,
Blake

Jim E.

March 2nd 2003, 03:57 PM

03-02-2003 @ 02:29 PM
Blake Reas:

On what grounds do you make this claim?

Blake, Christianity is a BUSINESS. Treat its claims the same way you would an advertisement. They DON'T tell you the reasons that you should reject Christianity. That would be bad for business. Once they "have you" they will manipulate and control you until you are dead. That's enough for now.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

spl_cadet

March 2nd 2003, 04:43 PM

03-02-2003 @ 11:57 AM
Jim Eisele:
Blake, Christianity is a BUSINESS. Treat its claims the same way you would an advertisement. They DON'T tell you the reasons that you should reject Christianity. That would be bad for business. Once they "have you" they will manipulate and control you until you are dead. That's enough for now.

After runniing this through the "Atheist Statement Translator" machine I came up with the following translation:
"I don't have anything to stand on but I'm going to bluff and make a statement that actually has nothing to do with the previous post to try and distract him."

Jim E.

March 2nd 2003, 06:30 PM

03-02-2003 @ 03:43 PM
spl_cadet:

After runniing this through the "Atheist Statement Translator" machine I came up with the following translation:
"I don't have anything to stand on but I'm going to bluff and make a statement that actually has nothing to do with the previous post to try and distract him."

No. Christians have been brainwashed.
That's right. Brainwashed.

I have all the time in the world to talk facts and evidence.
That's right. Facts and evidence.

If you were discussing in good faith you would put forth your reasons for why you feel the resurrection accounts are credible. I will, here and now, give you that opportunity.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

$cirisme

March 2nd 2003, 07:25 PM

I have all the time in the world to talk facts and evidence.
That's right. Facts and evidence.

Says the same man who just made this ridiculous post...

Blake, Christianity is a BUSINESS. Treat its claims the same way you would an advertisement. They DON'T tell you the reasons that you should reject Christianity. That would be bad for business. Once they "have you" they will manipulate and control you until you are dead.

:ahem:

spl_cadet

March 2nd 2003, 08:21 PM

03-02-2003 @ 02:30 PM
Jim Eisele:
No. Christians have been brainwashed.
That's right. Brainwashed.

I suppose that those studies that show that it's darn near impossible to brainwash someone are complete bunk.

I have all the time in the world to talk facts and evidence.
That's right. Facts and evidence.

That's nice. Do you have any?

If you were discussing in good faith you would put forth your reasons for why you feel the resurrection accounts are credible. I will, here and now, give you that opportunity.

Ok.
1. There is nothing that would make them unreliable.
2. The Resurrection of Christ is the only possible outcome given the facts mentioned.

jpholding

March 3rd 2003, 02:23 PM

Eisele, you are a coward and a psycho-manipulator projecting your own past fears and inadequcies on others. :smile:

Take me on if you have the nerve. You don't. You like the comfortable corner of FTill's errancy list. It feels good to be among so many self-confirmers, doesn't it?

Give us your top three reasons for rejecting the Resurrection. I will give you in return the top three for accepting it.

Put it on the line, Chicken Jim.

Captain Ochre

March 3rd 2003, 04:44 PM

After banishment of Big Bang quotations with little more than a wave of the hand, here's what was left:

[i]02-27-2003 @ 07:37 PM
But I don’t want to get into a battle of quotes. I just intended to make a distinction. Since there was no “before” the Big Bang, how can one say that there was a state of nothingness before that, out of which the Universe appeared? In our typical understanding of the meaning of the word “creation”, there is a state before in which the thing does not exist followed by a state after in which it does.

I don't blame you for not wanting to get into a battle of Big Bang quotations, because it's easy to find ones like the ones I found, and not so easy (I didn't find any) supporting the notion you're implying is the "true" one.
The notion of no "before" the beginning of the universe is used as a convenient hiding place for naturalists, imo.
In terms of causation, there is either a state from which time began or there isn't. If there is no state from which time began, then we have something from nothing. Apart from that, we've got either an intelligent proto-state or an unintelligent one (some call the former "god"). This state would either be static, or perhaps chronological in a separate time dimension (about three such have been conjectured by experts).

That kind of description gives the impression that there was a nothingness that was something like space that existed and then the Universe suddenly popped into existence from within that. I don’t think that’s the picture the theory intends to put forth and that’s the distinction I was trying to make.

It would be nice if you would support your opinion on the matter with some references. You mentioned some competing theories in the bits you (edit: actually I think I snipped them out of space considerations--sorry) snipped; one that I didn't see is the idea that the universe literally sprang out of nothing into a universe with zero net matter. In effect, we are a fluctuation of nothing. Christian Scientists are sure to feel vindicated by that one! :wink:

Back to the original point, if it is so hard to believe that the Universe came from nothing, then why is it easier to believe that a God made the Universe from nothing?

One option has a cause and the other doesn't, mainly.

The process is no better known and no less inconceivable. Plus you have the additional task of explaining how God got there.

No more so than you would have explaining the naturalistic state of stasis, and you would still have the difficulty of explaining why the stasis came to an end with the beginning of time.

Jim E.

March 3rd 2003, 07:43 PM

03-03-2003 @ 01:23 PM
jpholding:

Eisele, you are a coward and a psycho-manipulator projecting your own past fears and inadequcies on others. :smile:

Aw, I'm getting all warm and fuzzy :smile:

Take me on if you have the nerve. You don't. You like the comfortable corner of FTill's errancy list. It feels good to be among so many self-confirmers, doesn't it?

Well, JP, you ain't your average Christian that I encounter. You actually seem to want to have a discussion.

Give us your top three reasons for rejecting the Resurrection. I will give you in return the top three for accepting it.

No problem. Again, I give you credit for actually wanting to have a discussion. Believe me, living forever sounds attractive. So does winning the lottery...

Put it on the line, Chicken Jim.

No problem. I would prefer that others feel free to contribute to the discussion. Let's get as much evidence and argument on the table as we can.

1. Evolution
2. Jesus' false apocalyptic prophecies
3. Hmmm. Let's go with the fact that Jesus didn't enter history until 4000 years after the Bible says the fall occurred.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

spl_cadet

March 3rd 2003, 07:52 PM

03-03-2003 @ 03:43 PM
Jim Eisele:
1. Evolution

Fallacy of False Dilemna (or something like that). Evolution has no bearing on the Resurrection of Jesus.

2. Jesus' false apocalyptic prophecies

Again, has nothing to do with the Resurrection of Christ. Furthermore, just what prophecies are you referring to?

3. Hmmm. Let's go with the fact that Jesus didn't enter history until 4000 years after the Bible says the fall occurred.

Hey, your three for three. This is no way disproves the Resurrection of Jesus. Furthermore, what's your point? And that four thousand is only for YEC's btw. There are those of us (like myself) who are old-Earth creationists.

jpholding

March 3rd 2003, 09:12 PM

In rides Jim Bob, with a chicken leg in his holster,

Aw, I'm getting all warm and fuzzy :smile:

Try shaving and pouring cold water on your head. :rofl:

Well, JP, you ain't your average Christian that I encounter. You actually seem to want to have a discussion.

Gee. Took ya three times ignoring me to figure that out. :hrm:

Believe me, living forever sounds attractive. So does winning the lottery...

Just don't try any psycho-claptrap on me, m'boy. No projecting of your past on moi. I wouldn't mind an eternal state of non-consciousness myself.

1. Evolution

As already pointed out, not germane to the Resurrection. Theoretically both could be true.

2. Jesus' false apocalyptic prophecies

This one is relevant, perhaps, as it would suggest a violation of Deut. on false prophets. But of course you are, as I see from your latest Errancy post, aware that FTill and I are having this one out. And he is losing his shirt. Sorry, had to be added. I know you'd want to say it first. :lol: There could still be a rez, even so, but one could question accuracy of the records, or make some other comment damaging to certain doctrines of Christianity.

3. Hmmm. Let's go with the fact that Jesus didn't enter history until 4000 years after the Bible says the fall occurred.

I'm asking in large type: SO WHAT? :hrm: Would it make the rez truer had it happened in 1000 BC? 2000 BC? What exactly is the problem here?

Well, you are one for three so far, maybe you can improve, so I will give you one back for now on my side.

1) The Resurrection offers the only plausible explanation for the origins of the Christian movement.

I go into this at http://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose.html in some detail. Kyle Gerkin and I will be discussing this article soon and I am sure you will want to watch after you have finished composing your latest psychoanalysis of someone on this thread.

Socrates

March 4th 2003, 02:00 AM

Jim Eisele spruiked:
People don't rise from the dead. People die. The Christ legend developed when Jesus did not return like the Bible claims he said he would. So stop pretending just saying "The Resurrection" counts as evidence. I'll grant you ignorance, but no more.G.K. Chesterton rightly said that people believe in miracles because of evidence for them; people disbelieve because of a dogma against them.

Jim E.

March 4th 2003, 08:58 PM

03-03-2003 @ 08:12 PM
jpholding:

1. Evolution

As already pointed out, not germane to the Resurrection. Theoretically both could be true.

Hmmm. I grant you that a resurrection theoretically could have happened. Are you happy now?

I conclude that you can’t counter the forceful evidence that evolution brings to bear against Christianity.

1) The Resurrection offers the only plausible explanation for the origins of the Christian movement.

In your dreams. False hope, freedom from Judaism, and a difficult political climate are a few more that come to mind (and I haven’t even spent much time studying first century Palestine).

I think that is enough for now. Have a pleasant evening.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

spl_cadet

March 5th 2003, 12:56 AM

03-04-2003 @ 04:58 PM
Jim Eisele:
Hmmm. I grant you that a resurrection theoretically could have happened. Are you happy now?

I conclude that you can’t counter the forceful evidence that evolution brings to bear against Christianity.

It doesn't bring any. Ever hear of the concept of theistic evolution?

In your dreams. False hope, freedom from Judaism, and a difficult political climate are a few more that come to mind (and I haven’t even spent much time studying first century Palestine).

All of which fall flat on their face when you consider that the Resurrection was what they preached about and was the central doctrine (and still is for that matter). Besides, why would St. Paul just up and turn around because of those reasons? He didn't have false hope, he was perfectly happy as a Jew and rather enjoyed persecuting Christians (heh, I can just see St. Paul now as a redneck "I got me another!" :smile:) and a difficult political climate woulnd't explain why he'd become a Christian and get an even more difficult political climate.

jpholding

March 5th 2003, 07:33 AM

In your dreams. False hope, freedom from Judaism, and a difficult political climate are a few more that come to mind (and I haven’t even spent much time studying first century Palestine).

Then it seems dreams is all you have. And vague blatter. No shock there -- and as noted, none of this explains Christian success.

Have a day. :smile:

Memnon

March 5th 2003, 09:03 PM

Jim Eisele:
1.Evolution

The same theory that claims life-forms and DNA codes arose by chance? I can't believe anyone can say that with a straight face. You say that the Ressurection is false because evolution is true. By that logic, we could say evolution is false (or at the most only partially true) because the Ressurection is true.

Jim Eisele:
Jinx, as long as you continue to give the impression that Christianity is rational and not emotional, I will call you on it.
Jim Eisele:
Revelation (a wild and wacky book) 14:11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever"

I can see why you wouldn't want to quote that - it is repulsive, unjust, unloving, cruel, vindictive, barbaric, wicked, evil, and uncivilized.

Do I sense hypocrisy here? You claim that basing one's worldview on emotions is irrational.....yet you base your rejection of Christianity on emotional reasons. To what objective standard do you base your emotional reasons on, if there is no higher sense of Good and Evil?

Jim E.

March 5th 2003, 09:04 PM

03-05-2003 @ 06:33 AM
jpholding:
Then it seems dreams is all you have. And vague blatter. No shock there -- and as noted, none of this explains Christian success.

Ah, now you're beginning to act like the rest of the Christians that I know - retreating into silence. You haven't argued against the gaping, fatal Bible errors that I pointed out. There is really not much left to your faith.

Yes, I can't prove with 100% certainty that Christianity is false. Don't have to. There is enough evidence to show the odds strongly favor the reality that Christianity is very human. There are very ordinary explanations for its origins. The hope of the second coming is 2000 years overdue.

Yes, the early church grew in the hopes that Jesus was coming back soon. Then the fantasies began. All religion (Zeus and the rest of the lot) is make-believe. JP, make-believe is for children. In adults, it's just immature. This discussion will continue without you.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

spl_cadet

March 5th 2003, 10:43 PM

03-05-2003 @ 05:04 PM
Jim Eisele:
Ah, now you're beginning to act like the rest of the Christians that I know - retreating into silence. You haven't argued against the gaping, fatal Bible errors that I pointed out. There is really not much left to your faith.

:huh: But you didn't point out any Bible errors....

Yes, I can't prove with 100% certainty that Christianity is false. Don't have to. There is enough evidence to show the odds strongly favor the reality that Christianity is very human. There are very ordinary explanations for its origins. The hope of the second coming is 2000 years overdue.

Ok, explain the Resurrection. None of the "reasons" you posted against it had anything to do with the Resurrection.

Yes, the early church grew in the hopes that Jesus was coming back soon. Then the fantasies began. All religion (Zeus and the rest of the lot) is make-believe. JP, make-believe is for children. In adults, it's just immature. This discussion will continue without you.

Not that you can describe these fantasies or anything or tell what the fantasies are. And I must say, you are actually the worst atheist debator I have ever met online. You don't even bother reading the replies to your "reasons" but claim victory all the same. At least the others I know would post a little bombast to try and make it look like they replied.

Rubens

March 6th 2003, 01:38 AM

I have joined in after reading Jim E's first post, it seems to have digressed from there with other theistic debates , with the occasional Agnostic Atheist rebuking us all for not answering JE's original question...

What question? It is actually a statement.

So far, we have been TOLD that
1/ Evolution happened. It just did. Anyone who doesn't think so is an idiot
2/ There IS no God. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot
3/ The Bible IS fantasy. Anyone who thinks so....etc
4/ Jesus DIED. He's DEAD. GOT IT?? Finito. Terminar. Morte.
5/ Being a non-Christian is a BETTER LIFE. Anyone etc....
6/ As soon as a Chrisitan hears something that challenges them, they become non-Christians immediately. So they stick their fingers in their ears and say "not listening not listening not listening..."

Now, I'm going to ask my own scholarly, meaningful, academic question (to veil my own personal agenda)

Jim.... who WRONGED you??!

(Oh that's right. We did)

You must PITY us, because we are deluded, blind individuals! We believe in something that isn't there (you know that it isn't there), and we are the oppressed victims of an imperialistic regime called religion, trying to oppress others with our disease!

Why? Because we can't convince YOU by telling you "our reasons for being a Christian".

You must be exasperated. Such incompetence.

You've already told us why YOU are not a Christian. I think.
Now, you wanna give me reasons why I shouldn't be? Come on...open my poor, deluded eyes!

To my theistic friends, I totally admire your courage to debate. But just remember this one thing; of all atheists who became Christians, none did so because we were good at winning arguments. Something else must have moved them. I wonder what?:dunce: :dunce:

Jim E.

March 6th 2003, 09:44 PM

03-02-2003 @ 02:29 PM
Blake Reas:
I am sure your conspiracy theories of how the discples lied, Hallucinated etc are nothing new but have been refuted over and over and over for the last 2000 years, but then again you could be a genius who disproves Christianity if you are I want you to rescue from my supposed dillusion.

Hi Blake,

The main thing churches won't tell you is how Christianity began. Heck, the Biblical books aren't even in the correct order. Basically, all the miracles were created to give meaning to Jesus' life. Some call this midrash. That's the culture of the first century. An in-depth view of the first century can be found at
http://www.religioustolerance.org/resur_lt.htm

Also, the "666" fits Nero. Christianity was for the first century. The church has been guarding its secrets ever since. The reason Christianity creates a ton of confusion (evolution, preterism, Bible errors, strange Bible morality, etc.) is because it is man-made when people want it to be divine.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

spl_cadet

March 6th 2003, 11:01 PM

03-06-2003 @ 05:44 PM
Jim Eisele:
The main thing churches won't tell you is how Christianity began.

Jesus was born, Jesus lived, Jesus died, Jesus came back to life. Wala. My Church told me that right from the beginning.

Heck, the Biblical books aren't even in the correct order.

:hrm:
And what pray tell would be the correct order?

Basically, all the miracles were created to give meaning to Jesus' life.

And the proof of this would be...?

Some call this midrash. That's the culture of the first century. An in-depth view of the first century can be found at
http://www.religioustolerance.org/resur_lt.htm

Ooh, religioustolerance.org. Such an authoritative site :doh:
Let's see, it completely ignores the conservative dating of everything, believes the Q theory (ignoring the complete lack of evidence for it), has a complete lack of understanding about theology, and full of bizarre little claims. For example:
Perhaps the most important component of these 22 verses is the simple phrase in Mark 16:6: "...He is risen!..." Mark contradicted Paul's concept that Jesus was raised by God. Mark writes that Jesus has raised himself!

:huh: It was a simple statement that Christ had been risen from the dead.
Let's see, there's also the bs about John being from the second century.

Ooh, I love this: "The Gospel authors might have been influenced by Gnostic Christian beliefs" Give me a break.

Also, the "666" fits Nero.

So? Double fulfillment occurs in several cases, and just because it fits Nero doesn't mean it means Nero. After all, you could get The Holy Father, Pope John Paul II to equal 666. That doesn't mean it actually refers to him.

Christianity was for the first century. The church has been guarding its secrets ever since.

Hardly.

The reason Christianity creates a ton of confusion (evolution, preterism, Bible errors, strange Bible morality, etc.) is because it is man-made when people want it to be divine.

Look, here's an official challenge to you. If you want we can do this over in the debate forum. Show how the Resurrection is false.

sandlewood

March 7th 2003, 04:12 AM

02-27-2003 @ 08:25 PM
Socrates:
Sandlewood first showed the HDD (humor deficit disorder) typical of infidels:
As I said, I am new to this forum. I really didn’t know what you meant by that term. But after reading more posts, I realized you were referring to Infidels. I’m flattered to be recognized on my first post. Actually, I’m not exactly an II regular since I have only about 200 posts there in over two years.
Not at all. The article explained how the regularity is low information as well as low energy.
You might want to be careful about interchanging the idea of entropy in thermodynamics with entropy in information theory. It is not transferable. This is explained by Christian chemical engineer Allan H. Harvey here (http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html).
02-25-2003 @ 02:19 PM
sandlewood:
More complex combinations can occur given enough time.
02-27-2003 @ 08:25 PM
Socrates:
Demonstration please.
I originally wanted to provide a link to this article called Get a Life (http://www.infidels.org/~meta/getalife/index.html) which describes how such things are demonstrated. But the link seems to be broken now. Here is the short point of it. In the past, for obvious reasons, we haven’t been able to demonstrate the effects of processes that take huge numbers of iterations. It just takes too long. But then computers came along. You can simulate the evolutionary process in software and it will work quickly. When this was done in the case of the article, a new and better variation of a software program emerged by itself, or rather as a result of mutation and natural selection working together. It appeared to be a program that was crafted by an intelligent person, but it wasn’t. This isn’t some isolated experiment; it’s commonly done. I’ve also heard of electronic circuits being developed this way.
There is more information to be found about evolutionary programming by searching for Tom Ray's Tierra program.
It is also the height of arrogance to assume that an author is unfamiliar with a concept with which he has clearly shown familiarity in other places,
It isn’t arrogant to point out that he is displaying reasoning that would indicate he doesn’t understand. What he might have written elsewhere doesn’t change what he wrote here. Perhaps he does understand evolution but intentionally chose to inject a red herring there. Or perhaps it is a false dichotomy: he is saying that since the order of DNA is not a result of the properties of the nucleotides themselves, then the only other possibility is that they were strung together by an intelligent being. But evolution says that the order is determined by natural selection. He ignored that and instead leaped to the conclusion of an intelligent being with no justification whatsoever. What is the argument? That because he found some molecules (nucleotides) that unlike crystals can fit together in more than one way that that is evidence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, personal god? Sarfati is very careless with his use of the word “information”.
It's would be the same argument used to justify ETI if they detected a signal from space with specified complexity. But an ordered signal, e.g. from a pulsar, would be like a crystal, and attributed to natural causes.
Of course, a mistake in reasoning is to say “intelligent beings can create complex things, therefore all complex things are created by intelligent beings.”
Nope, God is simple in that He is not composed of parts.This is an arbitrary assertion concocted to fit the problem. It also is vague and meaningless. What does “simple” mean? Isn’t man made in God’s image? How can a thing that understands everything about the Universe be simple? What does “not composed of parts” mean? As far as I understand it, your god is not composed of anything at all. If no one knows what he’s composed of, how do you know he’s “simple”. Does anyone besides this person think God is simple? The definition the Christian god is always vague and variable. If God is simple, how can something as complex as the Universe come from it? If something complex can come from something simple, then why can’t abiogensis by natural causes work?
So please demonstrate that you could overcome the probability argument even if every atom in the universe was transmuted into an ocean of primordial soup.
All I would ask is that theists apply the same standards of required demonstration and evidence to their own beliefs that they ask of others.

Regarding Sarfati’s critique of Dawkins, I haven’t read Climbing Mount Improbable, but I have read The Blind Watchmaker.

Sarfati seems to think that life had to start with something as complex as Mycoplasma genitalium. But I don’t see why. All that’s needed is some way for groups of molecules to make copies of themselves. After that, mutation and natural selection take over. I don’t believe there was a sharp distinction between life and non-life. If you think there is, it may just be due to the arbitrary definition you impose on it.

I think evolution is a much more informative description of how present life came about that positing that a god did it by some unknown process and leaving it at that.
The author’s intent seems to be to boggle the mind with the complexity of life so that we fall for the argument from incredulity.

In his later book, The Blind Watchmaker,16 he advocated A.G. Cairns-Smith’s outlandish idea that clay minerals with self-replicating patterns of crystal defects were the first organisms.
Actually, this is not true. A.G. Cairns-Smith’s merely says that clay minerals could have assisted the components of RNA-like molecules to come together. Sarfati calls this method outlandish but never gives any justification why. He just hopes theist readers will take his word for it without thinking.

Earlier that paragraph:
Dawkins opts for a replicating molecule, perhaps RNA, as the first entity, although RNA is itself not self-replicating,
That’s where A.G. Cairns-Smith’s method comes in. Clay minerals act as a scaffolding for the RNA-like molecules before they replicate themselves. Then at some point they do replicate themselves and become DNA. Of course RNA as it exists now is not self-replicating and is not the point. Sarfati is twisting it.

Sarfati’s abuse of the idea of information in that section on information is horrible. It’s an equivocation. Creationist Werner Gitt claims that all information requires a sender and then Sarfati uses that to prove that god exists? Talk about a begging-the-question fallacy. (This is awful stuff.)

Too much stuff to comment on. Skipping to the section about sex:

And in many cases, the male and female genitalia are precisely tuned so one could fit the other, meaning that they could not have evolved independently.
When the author makes statements like this, it seem like he really doesn’t understand. No one thinks they evolved independently, so why does he make this straw man, except perhaps to catch some unwary readers.
The origin of sex is a puzzle for evolutionists. Sex has many disadvantages, e.g. only 50% of the genes are passed on to an offspring, so there is a 50% chance of losing a beneficial mutation. And in a stable population, there is on average one offspring per parent, so asexual reproduction is twice as efficient at passing on genes to the next generation.
Doesn’t this sound like a weak statement, given that creatures that reproduce sexually often have multiple offspring? I noticed how he points out disadvantages and ignores advantages. At first, he seemed to leave out the advantage of greater variability by sexual reproduction, but then it comes in here:
Once the mechanisms are already in place, they have certain advantages. There is a 50% chance of losing a harmful mutation without cost to the population (death of an individual). Sex also enables more variability, providing a greater capacity for adaptation. But to build them from scratch, no.
So sex does have the advantage of more variability, but he asserts that it is only an advantage after the creature is already created. Why? He hand-waves this away by only saying “But to build them from scratch, no”. But it seems to me that this variation would certainly be an added source of variation to go along with mutation. He never explains why it wouldn’t.

Another strange thing is that when he wants to make sexual reproduction look good, he says that “There is a 50% chance of losing a harmful mutation without cost to the population.” But when he wants to make it look bad, as in the first paragraph, he says “…so there is a 50% chance of losing a beneficial mutation.” How can he be taken seriously?

I’m not really even sure why the topic of sex is relevant anyway. Sexually reproduction has not replaced or superceded asexual reproduction on Earth. They co-exist. Sexual reproduction is not necessarily “better” that asexual reproduction. All that matters is that it is good enough to keep going and be successful.

I’m just a regular person and don’t know a whole lot about evolution. But even I can spot the problems in this rebuttal.

I wonder if the process of abiogenesis is ever discovered, if that will change anything for theists. Will the new stance simply be that abiogenesis was God’s way of creating life on Earth? In fact, why couldn’t that be the argument now?

jpholding

March 7th 2003, 12:13 PM

Well Mr E, since you seem to be behaving yourself a bit better and not including psyhology lessons, we'll turn down the volume a bit:

The main thing churches won't tell you is how Christianity began.

Er, by whose accounting? Name some authors.

Heck, the Biblical books aren't even in the correct order.

I know of no one who doesn't realize that, if you mean chronologically. I mean, no one thinks Luke's events happened after Matthew. :hrm: What's the issue?

Basically, all the miracles were created to give meaning to Jesus' life. Some call this midrash.

Spong's bankrupt thesis? it's filled with holes. Want to rap about it?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/resur_lt.htm

Non-scholar fleas barking from a dog's back. :rofl: Do you know who Ben Witherington is? C. H. Dodd? Just testing.

Also, the "666" fits Nero.

I agree. He fulfilled that.

Christianity was for the first century. The church has been guarding its secrets ever since.

Then how did you (or whoever) get them? :hrm: And what are they? Name three.

The reason Christianity creates a ton of confusion (evolution, preterism, Bible errors, strange Bible morality, etc.) is because it is man-made when people want it to be divine.

In terms of confusion, speak for thyself but not for others. :smile:

ACFaith.Com

March 7th 2003, 03:39 PM

02-15-2003 @ 07:47 PM
Jim Eisele:

Does anyone have any reasons for being a Christian?
To be fair, my biggest two reasons for being an atheist are evolution and the
infinite cruelty of the concept of hell. Christians just don't know how solid the
evidence for evolution is. And I feel sorry for folks who believe in hell.

But, if anyone has a good reason or two to be a Christian, please speak up.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

I accept evolution (http://www.acfaith.com/faithscience.html) and I also find the infinite cruelty of hell to be a reason for rejecting that doctrine. I think your objections here are proably entirely reasonable.

Being reconciled to God is a life changing experience. Being a Christian entails experiencing "life in Christ" or "living in the Spirit." In that light, I'll give you four reasons for being a Christian which are the fruit of "life in the Spirit" or "life in Christ": joy, freedom, love and peace.

Or to echo the great hymn of love found in 1 Corinthians 13: faith, hope and love.

Vinnie

jpholding

March 7th 2003, 05:00 PM

Gee Vinnie,

No wonder you can't argue your way out of a paper bag. :hrm:

Jim E.

March 7th 2003, 08:26 PM

03-07-2003 @ 03:12 AM
sandlewood:
All I would ask is that theists apply the same standards of required demonstration and evidence to their own beliefs that they ask of others.

Sweet point. Let's create an example:

Al the Atheist: Christianity is baloney.

Chris the Christian: Prove it or go to hell!

Al: Why do I have to prove it?

Chris: Prove it or go to hell!

Chris' thoughts: I have no case but I like bullying people.

Al: Evolution thoroughly discredits the Bible.

Chris: Prove it!

Al's thoughts: Man, I have things I'd rather be doing. But Christianity is so repulsive maybe I'll keep trying.

Al: The Bible says that we die because of sin. Blatantly incorrect. How could you POSSIBLY believe a supernatural agent is behind the Bible?

Back to Jim: Oh wait, the Christians in this thread haven't even brought the discussion to this point. Grow up, boys.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

spl_cadet

March 7th 2003, 08:28 PM

Hey Jim. Just to let you know, my challenge posted to Farrell Till in the Gym applies to you as well.

And I'd think your comments might be a bit more applicable if you actually answered my posts.

ACFaith.Com

March 8th 2003, 12:00 AM

03-07-2003 @ 09:00 PM
jpholding:

Gee Vinnie,

No wonder you can't argue your way out of a paper bag. :hrm:

Blah blah blah I can debate better than you blah blah blah you are stupid blah blah blah what?

:zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

jpholding

March 8th 2003, 09:08 AM

03-08-2003 @ 04:00 AM
ACFaith.Com:

Blah blah blah I can debate better than you blah blah blah you are stupid blah blah blah what?

:zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

Great! Not only did he write another entire article for acfaith.com, he even included our reaction for us! :rofl:

jpholding

March 8th 2003, 09:23 AM

Just thought some folks might be interested in what Mr Eisele is saying about this place on FTill's Errancy forum:

I must say, it is great to see all the skeptics
at TWeb! One skeptic has the discussion powers
of 20 Christians, so it appears that the skeptics
are now dominating.

Ergh. I'm buying you a spring-loaded elbow for Xmas so you can keep patting yourself on the back 24 hours a day. :doh: How'd you like to get your tar whupped by me in the Gym, Jim? Jim Jim?

ACFaith.Com

March 8th 2003, 12:43 PM

03-08-2003 @ 01:08 PM
jpholding:
Great! Not only did he write another entire article for acfaith.com, he even included our reaction for us!

More blah blah blahing eh?

The emoticon rundown:

:read: = Holding looking for positive historical evidence (http://www.acfaith.com/jpinfancy.html) for the Matthean Magi:

:huh: he just can't find any

:argh: it turns into frustration

:idea: but then he gets an idea

:help: :bow: Holding prays to God asking for divine guidance

:no: God say no I can't help you with this one.

:bawl: JP cries

:cheers: Vinnie's drinking beer at the pub with his mates

Vinnie

jpholding

March 9th 2003, 07:59 AM

More blah blah blahing eh?

I speak in the language you understand. And I expected to see you write material using cartoons earlier. Let's see:

Vinnie demands a level of satisfaction impossible for any historical figure on that private level :shrug:

Holding points out that his demand is ridiculous and even offers parallels to it :bonk:

Vinnie claims to have won based on not being able to prove the impossible :duh:

Holding challenges Vinnie to debate :fight:

Vinnie chickens out, having no ability to defend himself beyond throwing words/concepts like "tendentious" around a la Robyn Banks :eww:

The men in the white coats pick Vinnie up, bringing along a handcart to carry his shattered ego :gim:

Holding's readers laugh at Sapone for even trying :cool:

Vinnie drowns his sorrows in beer :cheers:

Th' End

jpholding

March 9th 2003, 08:07 AM

More from Jim Jim on the Errancy list:

If JP's anger ever turns against the
lie package he's bought it's "lights out"
for his faith. Who knows how long he can
keep up the charade? He would fare much
better in discussions if he changed teams.
Then the evidence would be on his side :-)

So when are you going to get started deconverting me, Jim Jim? So far it's silent in your bushes.

I smell projected fear again. Maybe I need to check out your website and give you some direct treatment.

Jim E.

March 9th 2003, 01:45 PM

03-09-2003 @ 07:07 AM
jpholding:
So when are you going to get started deconverting me, Jim Jim? So far it's silent in your bushes.

For crying out loud, JP. At the moment I'd be impressed if you could put forth arguments that show evolution does not destroy Biblical credibility. You may still be a Christian, but you're useless.

Be enough of a man to discuss things in this thread. I have no use for your ego-filled (and truth-seeking lacking) gym challenges.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

Captain Ochre

March 9th 2003, 01:56 PM

03-09-2003 @ 05:45 PM
Jim Eisele:

For crying out loud, JP. At the moment I'd be impressed if you could put forth arguments that show evolution does not destroy Biblical credibility.

Do you mean evolution as "a change in frequency of alleles over time"? If so, we've got a thread showing that there is no such problem for Biblical authority.
Do you mean evolution as "common descent"? If human descent didn't remain characterized primarily by "missing links" then you might have a case--but I doubt it.
Afaics, it looks like you're arguing by assertion, Jim. Could you link me to a TWeb post where you provide evidence in support of something you've claimed?

You may still be a Christian, but you're useless.

:em7:

Be enough of a man to discuss things in this thread. I have no use for your ego-filled (and truth-seeking lacking) gym challenges.

What, exactly, is J. P. supposed to discuss? Do your bald assertions require detailed refutation?

Jim E.

March 9th 2003, 06:18 PM

03-09-2003 @ 12:56 PM
Captain Ochre:
What, exactly, is J. P. supposed to discuss? Do your bald assertions require detailed refutation?
Normally, I just ignore obscene Christian posts. This one is just about the most pathetic I've ever seen, though. Anyone with half a brain realizes that evolution contradicts Christianity.

As I've said before in this thread, PEOPLE DO NOT DIE BECAUSE OF SIN. PEOPLE DO NOT DIE BECAUSE OF SIN. PEOPLE DO NOT DIE BECAUSE OF SIN. PEOPLE DO NOT DIE BECAUSE OF SIN. PEOPLE DO NOT DIE BECAUSE OF SIN. PEOPLE DO NOT DIE BECAUSE OF SIN.

And now I'll add one more thing. Not only are many Christians child-like, many have zero integrity.

Now listen up, Ochre. Defend the Biblical position that people die because of sin. Come on, I'm calling you out. Right here, right now. Or else slink back into your twisted, warped, cruel, inhuman, wicked, self-righteous, arrogant, repulsive belief system. Stop wasting my time.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

Captain Ochre

March 9th 2003, 10:55 PM

03-09-2003 @ 10:18 PM
Jim Eisele:

Normally, I just ignore obscene Christian posts.

:rofl:

This one is just about the most pathetic I've ever seen, though. Anyone with half a brain realizes that evolution contradicts Christianity.

:rofl:
Argumentum ad hominen. Jim's fallacy parade continues.

As I've said before in this thread, PEOPLE DO NOT DIE BECAUSE OF SIN. PEOPLE DO NOT DIE BECAUSE OF SIN. PEOPLE DO NOT DIE BECAUSE OF SIN. PEOPLE DO NOT DIE BECAUSE OF SIN. PEOPLE DO NOT DIE BECAUSE OF SIN. PEOPLE DO NOT DIE BECAUSE OF SIN.

Argument by assertion, and argumentum ad infinitum.
Two, two, two fallacies in one!

And now I'll add one more thing. Not only are many Christians child-like, many have zero integrity.

Adding "one more thing" eh? Zero plus zero equals zero, Jim.

Now listen up, Ochre. Defend the Biblical position that people die because of sin. Come on, I'm calling you out. Right here, right now.

Okay. I sinned, and that separated me from fellowship with God. Death is separation in Jewish thought (well, maybe not some modern Jews, but the ancient ones, yes).
What am I defending it from, btw? Your huffing and puffing?

Or else slink back into your twisted, warped, cruel, inhuman, wicked, self-righteous, arrogant, repulsive belief system. Stop wasting my time.

:rofl:

Thanks for the additional laughs, Jim.

spl_cadet

March 9th 2003, 11:45 PM

HEY JIM, ARE YOU GOING TO ACCEPT MY CHALLENGE OR NOT?

03-09-2003 @ 02:18 PM
Jim Eisele:
Normally, I just ignore obscene Christian posts.

:hrm: What exactly was obscene about it? I didn't see anything pornographic.

This one is just about the most pathetic I've ever seen, though. Anyone with half a brain realizes that evolution contradicts Christianity.

Well, I've probably hung out with the Marines too long so tell me: How does it contradict Christianity?

As I've said before in this thread, PEOPLE DO NOT DIE BECAUSE OF SIN. PEOPLE DO NOT DIE BECAUSE OF SIN. PEOPLE DO NOT DIE BECAUSE OF SIN. PEOPLE DO NOT DIE BECAUSE OF SIN. PEOPLE DO NOT DIE BECAUSE OF SIN. PEOPLE DO NOT DIE BECAUSE OF SIN.

That's nice. However, what's your point?

And now I'll add one more thing. Not only are many Christians child-like, many have zero integrity....Or else slink back into your twisted, warped, cruel, inhuman, wicked, self-righteous, arrogant, repulsive belief system.

[inside joke]One ad-hominem, two ad-hominem, three ad-hominem, four. We love debating and we want some more[/inside joke]

Now listen up, Ochre. Defend the Biblical position that people die because of sin. Come on, I'm calling you out. Right here, right now. Or else slink back into your twisted, warped, cruel, inhuman, wicked, self-righteous, arrogant, repulsive belief system. Stop wasting my time.

Ok, this is easy. Spiritual death and seperation from God is a direct result of sin. That's one aspect of the argument. Secondly, only two people never had sin, Jesus and the Blessed Virgin Mary (Ochre won't agree with me on her, but that doesn't matter). We don't know if she did die (though probably not, she was probably assumed into Heaven first instead of after) and Jesus didn't die because of sin because He hadn't committed any. He died to forgive our sins.

Captain Ochre

March 10th 2003, 12:08 AM

Afaics, it looks like you're arguing by assertion, Jim. Could you link me to a TWeb post where you provide evidence in support of something you've claimed?

This question apparently stumped Jimmy, so we'll throw the question open. Anybody else? Has Jim ever provided evidential or logical support for one of his claims?

Jim E.

March 10th 2003, 12:17 AM

Well, how about this...
A little bit of argumentation.
Jim Eisele:
PEOPLE DO NOT DIE BECAUSE OF SIN.
<snip>

03-09-2003 @ 09:55 PM
Captain Ochre:
Argument by assertion, and argumentum ad infinitum.
Two, two, two fallacies in one!

This is weak. Obviously, if people have been dying for
more than 6000 years they have simply been dying of
natural causes, not due to the Fall. It amazes me that
I have to spell this out…
Jim Eisele:
Defend the Biblical position that people die because of sin.

Captain Ochre:
Okay. I sinned, and that separated me from fellowship with God. Death is separation in Jewish thought (well, maybe not some modern Jews, but the ancient ones, yes).
What am I defending it from, btw? Your huffing and puffing?

Oh, boy. Here we go with the creative Bible interpretation. I
suppose “the wages of sin is death” means nothing to you?

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and
death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Rom 5:17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

Gen 3:19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."

Now, you want everyone to replace “death” with “separation”? What good are words if they don’t mean what they say?

If Adam's punishment wasn't death, then why does everyone die?

In short, your solution is pure nonsense. You make God out to be a murderer who is solely responsible for death.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

spl_cadet

March 10th 2003, 12:40 AM

Hey Jim, are you going to answer my challenge or post?

Captain Ochre

March 10th 2003, 01:05 AM

(i had noted that Jim had presented a fallacious argument . . .)
03-10-2003 @ 04:17 AM
Jim Eisele:

This is weak.

No, it isn't. Your advancement of argument never goes without saying (that's an ought, not an actual), and each of your premisses (that is, if you had any) would be subject to challenge.

Obviously, if people have been dying for
more than 6000 years they have simply been dying of
natural causes, not due to the Fall. It amazes me that
I have to spell this out…

It doesn't surprise me that you're surprised. Many of your fellow skeptics are so accustomed to taking the presuppositions for granted that they automatically import them into their arguments without thinking (some of them even went beyond bald assertion).

Oh, boy. Here we go with the creative Bible interpretation. I
suppose “the wages of sin is death” means nothing to you?

What is the quotation supposed to mean to me, iyo (don't tell me--it goes without saying! :rofl:).

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and
death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Rom 5:17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

In line with my question to you just above, what exactly makes you think that these quotations are inconsistent with death as separation?

Gen 3:19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere! The destruction of the body (through separation of spirit from body) is part of the curse of God for the sin of Adam: IOW, God made it the natural (read it just the way you normally would) course of events that spirits would separate from bodies as the natural course of events.

Now, you want everyone to replace “death” with “separation”? What good are words if they don’t mean what they say?

In what manner do you imagine the words don't mean what they say? A&E experienced immediate death via separation from God, and subsequent to the act, God meted out consequences. Cut off from the tree of life (which remained in the GoE), A&E experienced the second type of separation (death) the divorce of spirit from the body. For comparison, note how God made Adam a living being: He added a spirit to the body.

If Adam's punishment wasn't death, then why does everyone die?

The punishment was literal separation of spirit from body, but it wasn't the direct result of sin. Rather, it was a secondary consequence meted out by God.

In short, your solution is pure nonsense. You make God out to be a murderer who is solely responsible for death.

You raise argument by assertion to an art form. Unfortunately, that's not a good thing.
God is no more a murderer than is a duly appointed executioner who delivers the judgment of the civil authorities.

Well, cancel the request for an example of Jim supporting his claims. I'll credit him with an attempt, albeit a pathetic attempt.

Socrates

March 10th 2003, 04:09 AM

Socrates:
Sandlewood first showed the HDD (humor deficit disorder) typical of infidels:
As I said, I am new to this forum. I really didn’t know what you meant by that term. But after reading more posts, I realized you were referring to Infidels. I’m flattered to be recognized on my first post. Actually, I’m not exactly an II regular since I have only about 200 posts there in over two years.Hanging around with those fruitloops explains a lot of your ignorance

Not at all. The article explained how the regularity is low information as well as low energy.

You might want to be careful about interchanging the idea of entropy in thermodynamics with entropy in information theory. It is not transferable. This is explained by Christian chemical engineer Allan H. Harvey here.Oh, right, right, more argumentum ad verecundiam. Well, the article I cited was from a Christian physical chemistry Ph.D., so I'm not impressed by your authority. Also, my source is from a Christian who has the same view of the Bible as Christ, unlike that other prat. Hint -- biblical Christians like me are VERY wary of professing Christians like Harvey or Morton who are loved by God-haters.

In any case, you never demostrated an error. Information is related to a drop of configurational entropy.
I originally wanted to provide a link to this article called Get a Life which describes how such things are demonstrated.Oh yeah, those alleged computer "simulations" of evolution, as that other scientific ignoramus Celsus uses. FYI, such ITERATIVE NUMERICAL methods have been known since the time of Newton at least. But now evolutionists have decided to call them "evolutionary" methods, and pretend that they prove that biological information could have arisen by such methods. See Genetic algorithms¯do they show that evolution works? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/genetic_algorithm.asp)
It is also the height of arrogance to assume that an author is unfamiliar with a concept with which he has clearly shown familiarity in other places,

It isn’t arrogant to point out that he is displaying reasoning that would indicate he doesn’t understand. What he might have written elsewhere doesn’t change what he wrote here. Perhaps he does understand evolution but intentionally chose to inject a red herring there.What crap. It's clear from the article that he's talking about FIRST life, and he OFTEN refers to natural selection. It's totally unreasonable to expect him to mention natural selection in every article he writes, especially where it's not germane to the problem!

It's would be the same argument used to justify ETI if they detected a signal from space with specified complexity. But an ordered signal, e.g. from a pulsar, would be like a crystal, and attributed to natural causes. Of course, a mistake in reasoning is to say “intelligent beings can create complex things, therefore all complex things are created by intelligent beings.”More point-missing! I.e. the inference of design in DNA sequences is exactly the same as the inference of design of hypothetical signals from outer space.
Nope, God is simple in that He is not composed of parts. This is an arbitrary assertion concocted to fit the problem. It also is vague and meaningless. What does “simple” mean? Isn’t man made in God’s image? How can a thing that understands everything about the Universe be simple? What does “not composed of parts” mean? As far as I understand it, your god is not composed of anything at all. If no one knows what he’s composed of, how do you know he’s “simple”. Does anyone besides this person think God is simple? The definition the Christian god is always vague and variable. If God is simple, how can something as complex as the Universe come from it? If something complex can come from something simple, then why can’t abiogensis by natural causes work?As explained, God is indivisible. That means He is simple. How much plainer does it have to be for the village atheist. It is a deduction from His revelation in the Bible, that He is Spirit. Simplicity does NOT mean that He can't be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent or eternal. And man's being made in God's image is NOT referring to his physical form, but having certain ATTRIBUTES of God, e.g. will, morality, immortal soul, creativity.

Socrates

March 10th 2003, 04:37 AM

Sandelwood the Infudgel:
Regarding Sarfati’s critique of Dawkins, I haven’t read Climbing Mount Improbable, but I have read The Blind Watchmaker.

Sarfati seems to think that life had to start with something as complex as Mycoplasma genitalium. But I don’t see why.He made this clear, and even showed that some have argued that life could be even simpler, but still a minimum of 256 genes. but this hypothetical creature, as complex as it is, is most likely to be too simple to survive. Even Mycoplasmas are obligate parasites, i.e. they need more complex organisms to survive.
All that’s needed is some way for groups of molecules to make copies of themselves.Oh, is that all? What sort of molecule did you have in mind? Or are you content to hand-wave? Why do you think that something less complex than Koonin's hypothetical simplest life form would be able to survive and replicate?

I think evolution is a much more informative description of how present life came about that positing that a god did it by some unknown process and leaving it at that.Right, instead of "God created, but we don't know what processes He used", it's far better to believe, "It's a fact that evolution has occurred; we just don't know HOW it's occurred."

The author’s intent seems to be to boggle the mind with the complexity of life so that we fall for the argument from incredulity.If anything, the author has understated it. You just gloss over the problems so you can lcing to your atheistic FAITH.

In his later book, The Blind Watchmaker,16 he advocated A.G. Cairns-Smith’s outlandish idea that clay minerals with self-replicating patterns of crystal defects were the first organisms. Actually, this is not true. A.G. Cairns-Smith’s merely says that clay minerals could have assisted the components of RNA-like molecules to come together. No, Cairns-Smith DOES propose that the first living organisms were self-replicating clay mineral, and there was a "genetic takeoever" (the title of his technical book on his theory).
Sarfati calls this method outlandish but never gives any justification why. He just hopes theist readers will take his word for it without thinking.Oh yes he does! And it's from Cairns-Smith's own admission (from Horgan, J., In the beginning, Scientific American 264(2):100–109, 1991; quote on p. 108.
‘Cairns-Smith cheerfully admits the failings of his pet hypothesis: no-one has been able to coax clay into something resembling evolution in the laboratory; nor has anyone found anything resembling a clay-based organism in nature.’
Sarfati’s abuse of the idea of information in that section on information is horrible. It’s an equivocation. Creationist Werner Gitt claims that all information requires a sender and then Sarfati uses that to prove that god exists? Talk about a begging-the-question fallacy. (This is awful stuff.)And we should just take your word for this?? Gitt is a leading information theorist, and it is SCIENCE to say that in all cases where we have OBSERVED information to be generated, it needs a sender.

And in many cases, the male and female genitalia are precisely tuned so one could fit the other, meaning that they could not have evolved independently.

When the author makes statements like this, it seem like he really doesn’t understand. No one thinks they evolved independently, so why does he make this straw man, except perhaps to catch some unwary readers.More elephant hurling from the infudgel. That's the whole problem, getting all the changes to coordinate.

The origin of sex is a puzzle for evolutionists. Sex has many disadvantages, e.g. only 50% of the genes are passed on to an offspring, so there is a 50% chance of losing a beneficial mutation. And in a stable population, there is on average one offspring per parent, so asexual reproduction is twice as efficient at passing on genes to the next generation.

Doesn’t this sound like a weak statement, given that creatures that reproduce sexually often have multiple offspring? I noticed how he points out disadvantages and ignores advantages. At first, he seemed to leave out the advantage of greater variability by sexual reproduction, but then it comes in here:Oh, so he didn't mention something when you thought he should, and you accuse him of leaving it out.:doh:

Once the mechanisms are already in place, they have certain advantages. There is a 50% chance of losing a harmful mutation without cost to the population (death of an individual). Sex also enables more variability, providing a greater capacity for adaptation. But to build them from scratch, no.

So sex does have the advantage of more variability, but he asserts that it is only an advantage after the creature is already created. Why? He hand-waves this away by only saying “But to build them from scratch, no”. But it seems to me that this variation would certainly be an added source of variation to go along with mutation. He never explains why it wouldn’t.Missing the point again: how to explain the ORIGINS of sexual reproduction in the first place? What selective advantage would there be in the initial stages?

Another strange thing is that when he wants to make sexual reproduction look good, he says that “There is a 50% chance of losing a harmful mutation without cost to the population.” But when he wants to make it look bad, as in the first paragraph, he says “…so there is a 50% chance of losing a beneficial mutation.” How can he be taken seriously?How can an ignorant infudgel (II) be taken seriously?

I’m not really even sure why the topic of sex is relevant anyway. Sexually reproduction has not replaced or superceded asexual reproduction on Earth. They co-exist. Sexual reproduction is not necessarily “better” that asexual reproduction. All that matters is that it is good enough to keep going and be successful.:dunce: Sexual reproduction HAS superseded asexual reproduction in the creatures where it exists, according to evolutionary theory!
I’m just a regular person and don’t know a whole lot about evolution. But even I can spot the problems in this rebuttal.
We can all see that you don't know squat about what you're talking about! But you accept atheism on blind faith, regardless of knowledge.I wonder if the process of abiogenesis is ever discovered, if that will change anything for theists. Will the new stance simply be that abiogenesis was God’s way of creating life on Earth? In fact, why couldn’t that be the argument now? Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. At the moment, you haven't a clue how chemical evolution could have occurred.

Celsus

March 10th 2003, 05:05 AM

Socrates:
Oh yeah, those alleged computer "simulations" of evolution, as that other scientific ignoramus Celsus uses. ...snip...
Socrates, why don't you head back to the William Dembski thread and post a proper rebuttal to what I wrote and cited instead of hiding your insults in a long thread which I have previously not had anything to do with? You have not actually refuted my position, because argumentum ad website has this terrible knack of being unable to address the specific points of the post.

Again, I also ask you which fruits you are showing, and what Matthew 7:15-16 says about all that.

Joel

Lazy Agnostic

March 10th 2003, 12:44 PM

02-16-2003 @ 03:09 PM
Mr Stick71:

I have a quick question for the atheists/agnostics here: Where do you think life came from,
Aaron
A quick answer: I don't know and neither do you.

[I've] yet to hear a convincing case that life could come into existance apart from God.
Perhaps, but the deity of the Bible? Not terribly convincing, either.

jpholding

March 10th 2003, 12:53 PM

Jim Jim,

Seems you are otherwise occupied and still scared pantsless of engaging me, but as a backup to Ochre and SPL I will add that the use of the word "death" to refer to the broader process of separation from God (temporally and eternally) is not open to dispute. Death of this sort was seen as a present reality in the lives of the Jews. All of this of course does assume a theistic paradigm, but we have already noted you tend to gravitate towards issues with high context backgrounds, where you can work yourself into these lathers unabated and harp back to your favorite subject of evolution as soon as possible.

Too bad your confidence level is way ahead of your arguments. The All Seeing Eye will remain on you.

Lazy Agnostic

March 10th 2003, 01:01 PM

02-16-2003 @ 08:07 AM
Andrew:

Jim, hell is a way of honouring the free will of humans. If people want to live apart from God, He will allow them to exist in separation from Him. Why, may you ask, doesn't God just annihilate those who have made such a choice? The answer is because, being in the image of God, humans have intrinsic value. As a lover of intrinsic value, He must sustain it. He refuses to see humans as a means to an end, ignoring their inherent worth, by saying, "what really matters is that people don't suffer consciously... I'm going to annihilate them in order to achieve this end."

What about those you do seek a relationship with God but for reasons of geography or other chance, happen to swerve into the wrong religion or sect?

sandlewood

March 10th 2003, 01:16 PM

Socrates, I would respond to your points, except that I no longer feel like I want to invest my time for someone who is being rude and insulting to me. Is that typical of Christian behavior?

Jim E.

March 10th 2003, 07:20 PM

03-10-2003 @ 12:16 PM
sandlewood:

Socrates, I would respond to your points, except that I no longer feel like I want to invest my time for someone who is being rude and insulting to me. Is that typical of Christian behavior?

If I may comment. Owning up to the truth requires Christians to change. They would prefer to attack others.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

Jim E.

March 10th 2003, 07:33 PM

03-10-2003 @ 11:53 AM
jpholding:
The All Seeing Eye will remain on you.
<snip>

Now, (this goes for Ochre as well) the Bible says death is due to sin. Re-read Gen 3:19. JP, I always win my discussions. If I lose, I change my position. I will have the last word until your arguments become not even worth my while to reply to.

Evolution teaches us that death is due to natural causes (NOT SIN). Re-read Gen 3:19. JP, (& Ochre) enjoy your retreat into silence. Silence is exactly what your arguments are worth.

You simply can't read if you think Gen 3:19 is talking about separation. Or, your egos/fear can't handle reality. Re-read Gen 3:19.

Have you re-read Gen 3:19 yet? It's talking about Adam's punishment being death. Get it?

Let's try again:

Evolution: Death from natural causes.
Christianity: Death from sin.

Re-read Gen 3:19. Get it?

Exasperated,

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

spl_cadet

March 10th 2003, 07:40 PM

Hey Jim, are you or are you not going to accept my challenge?

Snowball

March 10th 2003, 08:15 PM

03-10-2003 @ 06:20 PM
Jim Eisele:
If I may comment. Owning up to the truth requires Christians to change. They would prefer to attack others.

Jim Eisele

Jim,

In your world-view, what is truth -- and how do you know that what you believe is the truth? If I owned up to this "truth," what would I have to change exactly?

Also, could you tell me how you know people don't die because of sin? Perhaps you could show some scientific data confirming this.

Thanks!

Jim E.

March 10th 2003, 09:41 PM

03-10-2003 @ 07:15 PM
Snowball:
Jim,

In your world-view, what is truth -- and how do you know that what you believe is the truth? If I owned up to this "truth," what would I have to change exactly?

Evolution is true. Christianity is false. If you care about the truth, compassion, tolerance, and freedom you will reject Christianity.

Snowball:
Also, could you tell me how you know people don't die because of sin? Perhaps you could show some scientific data confirming this.

Thanks!
Read your Bible. Sin entered the world through Adam, the first man. Science says Adam not the first man. Sin concept is nonsense/superstition/desire to control environment (through prayer, for example).

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

Snowball

March 10th 2003, 10:10 PM

03-10-2003 @ 08:41 PM
Jim Eisele:

Evolution is true. Christianity is false. If you care about the truth, compassion, tolerance, and freedom you will reject Christianity.

Is it possible for you to answer the original questions? You say "evolution is truth" -- how do you know evolution is truth? How does your world-view account for something such as "truth"? As my atheist friend tells me, there can be no such thing as truth for an atheist, it is merely subjective.

You also still havn't answered my other original question either: what would I specifically have to change if I were to reject Christianity and embrace your atheism?

Read your Bible. Sin entered the world through Adam, the first man. Science says Adam not the first man. Sin concept is nonsense/superstition/desire to control environment (through prayer, for example).

So, you are assuming your conclusion? I want to know how you know for sure that your conclusion is true. Where does science specifically say that the first man's name wasn't Adam? Where is the scientific data to back up your claims about the "sin concept?" And again, back to my first question: where is the scientific data showing that people don't die because of sin (I'm not asking what the Bible says, I'm asking for scientific data)?

Please answer these questions instead of committing more logical fallacies.

ACFaith.Com

March 10th 2003, 11:07 PM

03-11-2003 @ 01:41 AM
Jim Eisele:

Evolution is true. Christianity is false. If you care about the truth, compassion, tolerance, and freedom you will reject Christianity.

Read your Bible. Sin entered the world through Adam, the first man. Science says Adam not the first man. Sin concept is nonsense/superstition/desire to control environment (through prayer, for example).

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

Jim, I accept evolution and I deny original sin. Yet I am still a Christian. I also believe in striving for truth, compassion, tolerance, and freedom. I know its hard to believe I strive for these things while being a Christian :ahem:

Evolution only hinders the scientifically uninformed perspectives within Christianity. That happens to be most of them but certainly not all ;)

Vinnie

Blake Reas

March 10th 2003, 11:18 PM

03-11-2003 @ 03:07 AM
ACFaith.Com:

Jim, I accept evolution and I deny original sin. Yet I am still a Christian. I also believe in striving for truth, compassion, tolerance, and freedom. I know its hard to believe I strive for these things while being a Christian :ahem:

Evolution only hinders the scientifically uninformed perspectives within Christianity. That happens to be most of them but certainly not all ;)

Vinnie

Do you deny that Salvation is only through Christ? just wondering, it seems you reject a lot of things that the Bible speaks of.

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake

ACFaith.Com

March 10th 2003, 11:32 PM

03-11-2003 @ 03:18 AM
Blake Reas:

Do you deny that Salvation is only through Christ? just wondering, it seems you reject a lot of things that the Bible speaks of.

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake

I am going to have to ask what you mean by that question. Do I believe conscious faith in the historical work of Jesus Christ in this life is necessary for salvation?

No I do not. (http://www.acfaith.com/widerhope.html) As quoted inside, C.S. Evans said that most Christian theologians do not hold to this view anymore.

For my view on the sayings material in GJohn go here (http://www.acfaith.com/gjohn.html).

Vinnie

Jim E.

March 10th 2003, 11:33 PM

03-10-2003 @ 09:10 PM
Snowball:
Is it possible for you to answer the original questions? You say "evolution is truth" -- how do you know evolution is truth?

A heck of a lot of physical evidence. As many Christians in this thread, you
seem to DEMAND PROOF.

YOU DON’T NEED PROOF TO REJECT CHRISTIANITY. If you’re an
honest person (most Christians aren’t) you would bow to the evidence.

Snowball:
You also still havn't answered my other original question either: what would I specifically have to change if I were to reject Christianity and embrace your atheism?

Is this a joke? You don’t see the change in going from Christian to atheist?

Snowball:
So, you are assuming your conclusion? I want to know how you know for sure that your conclusion is true. Where does science specifically say that the first man's name wasn't Adam? Where is the scientific data to back up your claims about the "sin concept?" And again, back to my first question: where is the scientific data showing that people don't die because of sin (I'm not asking what the Bible says, I'm asking for scientific data)?

Please answer these questions instead of committing more logical fallacies.
I am intentionally ignoring this response because it is nonsense.

Hopefully you will stop wasting my time.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

spl_cadet

March 11th 2003, 12:06 AM

Dude, this really isn't funny. At least have the decency to give me a response. Will you or will you not debate me on the Resurrection?

Captain Ochre

March 11th 2003, 02:26 AM

03-10-2003 @ 11:33 PM
Jim Eisele:

Now, (this goes for Ochre as well) the Bible says death is due to sin. Re-read Gen 3:19.

"By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."
:rofl:
At the Eisele School of Fundamentialist-Atheist Bible Understanding (ESFABU), the preceding verse teaches that sin is the cause of death.

JP, I always win my discussions. If I lose, I change my position. I will have the last word until your arguments become not even worth my while to reply to.

Apparently you reserve the right to find arguments unworthy without divulging a rationale. More than a coincidence?

Evolution teaches us that death is due to natural causes (NOT SIN). Re-read Gen 3:19. JP, (& Ochre) enjoy your retreat into silence. Silence is exactly what your arguments are worth.

:rofl:
Evolution teaches nothing about causes of death; it simply defines those who perish without descendents as "unfit". Naturalism teaches that death is due to natural causes (and begs the question on the matter, btw). If naturalism could account for sin, then naturalism might agree that sin can lead to death.
You'd be out of your league arguing with Jimbo. Why are you messing with J.P.? You must be a masochist, or you could be invincibly ignorant.

You simply can't read if you think Gen 3:19 is talking about separation. Or, your egos/fear can't handle reality. Re-read Gen 3:19.

Ah, the fallacies of if/then and circumstantial ad hom in tandem. Impressive. Most impressive.

Have you re-read Gen 3:19 yet? It's talking about Adam's punishment being death. Get it?

We get it. You don't get it. If I murder the President, and I am executed for the crime, will the coroner put "killed the President" on my death certificate?
The point you are hilariously missing, Jim, is that God is sovereign over natural causes (in the Biblical worldview for the sake of your argument, if nothing else). God simply ordained nature to execute the sentence of physical death after the logical (causal) type of death (separation from God) had occurred.

(good-bye to part three of Jim's latest argumentum ad infinitum)

Exasperated,

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

Do you always commit fallacies when you're exasperated, or do you just always commit fallacies? :wink:

jpholding

March 11th 2003, 12:28 PM

Jim Jim,

Now, (this goes for Ochre as well) the Bible says death is due to sin. Re-read Gen 3:19. JP, I always win my discussions.

In your subtle imaginations, I am sure you win every argument you enter, Jim Jim. The phenomenon is called "unskilled and unaware of it" -- a situation that leads to inflated self-assessments of competence. Get this: Gen. 3:19 has ALWAYS been understood in Jewish thought to mean death in a spiritual sense -- separation from God. Physical death is considered a corollary. Now whether you take that as literal history, or take it as a metaphor for the human condition, you lose either way. As some have stated here, evolution is irrelevant to the issue. As I have already said, it is clear that you like to duck behind this issue as your cure-all, end-all, and I suspect you used to do the same with the Bible as a putative believer. Your evasion and also your silence to challenges like SPL's tell us enough. Jim Jim talk heapee big, short on action, anxious to end on high note but sound sour.

You simply can't read if you think Gen 3:19 is talking about separation. Or, your egos/fear can't handle reality. Re-read Gen 3:19.

I do read it. I read it without the bare-faced decontextualization you employ with your "read it like it was written last week for me personally and in English" routine. Ego and fear? I smell projection again, and my but the stench reaches high.

Exasperated,

Good. Be sure and tell the Errancy list you are.

Jim E.

March 11th 2003, 07:34 PM

03-11-2003 @ 11:28 AM
jpholding:
Physical death is considered a corollary.

Corollary: something which naturally follows. So your verbiage about separation is merely wasting everybody's time.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and
death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and
death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and
death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and
death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and
death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned

Stop your nonsense, JP. Grow up.

To spl_cadet: Tell me, in this thread, why evolution does not contradict
Christianity.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

spl_cadet

March 11th 2003, 07:53 PM

03-11-2003 @ 03:34 PM
Jim Eisele:
To spl_cadet: Tell me, in this thread, why evolution does not contradict
Christianity.

The idea of theistic evolution for one. Second, I don't see what about evolution would contradict Christianity.

Captain Ochre

March 11th 2003, 07:59 PM

03-11-2003 @ 11:34 PM
Jim Eisele:

Corollary: something which naturally follows. So your verbiage about separation is merely wasting everybody's time.

:rofl:

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and
death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned

Rom 5:12(cont'd)-13:"--for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law."

So prior to the law, people did not die if they did not have the law?

To spl_cadet: Tell me, in this thread, why evolution does not contradict
Christianity.

Why "in this thread", where it is off-topic?
Maybe you could get around to addressing the counter-arguments instead of continually repeating the same fallacies over and over again?
http://www.triwarp.com/force_field.htm

Jim E.

March 11th 2003, 07:59 PM

03-11-2003 @ 06:53 PM
spl_cadet:
The idea of theistic evolution for one. Second, I don't see what about evolution would contradict Christianity.
You've fallen behind the thread, spl_cadet.

We've been talking about how the Bible teaches death is due to sin. Evolution belies this claim. People don't die because of sin. Please be more specific with your rebuttal. Thank you.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

Captain Ochre

March 11th 2003, 08:04 PM

03-11-2003 @ 11:59 PM
Jim Eisele:

You've fallen behind the thread, spl_cadet.

We've been talking about how the Bible teaches death is due to sin. Evolution belies this claim.

How?
As I've already told you, evolution doesn't provide a cause of death. On the contrary, death and reproduction provide the supposed grounds for evolution--not the other way around.
Eisele is addicted to argument-by-assertion.

People don't die because of sin.

Argument-by-assertion: Jim's favorite fallacy?

spl_cadet

March 11th 2003, 08:07 PM

03-11-2003 @ 03:59 PM
Jim Eisele:
You've fallen behind the thread, spl_cadet.

We've been talking about how the Bible teaches death is due to sin. Evolution belies this claim. People don't die because of sin. Please be more specific with your rebuttal. Thank you.

How does evolution belie that claim? Besides, with theistic evolution, you still get the original Adam and Eve. And since they were the first people, and didn't die until after they sinned, you've still got the death from sin bit.

jpholding

March 11th 2003, 08:08 PM

Nice of you to ignore most of what I said.

Stop your nonsense, JP. Grow up.

Grow up? This from a man who merely cut and pasted Rom. 5:12 several times like a child banging on a table with his spoon, ignoring almost all of what I wrote?

Yep. There are plenty good reasons to call you Jim Jim. Or maybe Jimmy.

We're projecting ourselves on others again, Jim Jim. I imagine you now use evolution the same way you used to use the Bible -- as a security blanket you hold onto. Or maybe a thumb you suck in your spare time. :argh:

Captain Ochre

March 11th 2003, 08:10 PM

03-12-2003 @ 12:08 AM
jpholding:
We're projecting ourselves on others again, Jim Jim. I imagine you now use evolution the same way you used to use the Bible -- as a security blanket you hold onto. Or maybe a thumb you suck in your spare time. :argh:

I believe that the technical term for evolution used in that manner is "blankie". :wink:

Jim E.

March 11th 2003, 08:17 PM

03-11-2003 @ 06:59 PM
Captain Ochre:
:rofl:

What sophisticated argumentation. Notice how my point is completely ignored. Listen up, Ochre. It is acceptable to ignore posts that are nonsense. However, when posts make perfect logical sense, posting a rolling smiley will just get you embarrassed.

OK, Ochre. Let me explain this to you. Physical death results from the Fall. Your separation arguments are irrelevant. That's right, irrelevant. The bottom line is that physical death is a consequence. That's right. Physical death is a consequence.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

spl_cadet

March 11th 2003, 08:26 PM

Jim, I suggest you look at the context of that verse. Otherwise you'd have to state that Romans 5 says that we Christians will live forever in our current bodies.

17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

Captain Ochre

March 11th 2003, 08:38 PM

03-12-2003 @ 12:17 AM
Jim Eisele:

What sophisticated argumentation.

What's to argue about? I was commenting (via howls of derisive laughter) on your continued fallacies of argument by assertion: "So your verbiage about separation is merely wasting everybody's time." Your quotation is supposed to follow from Holding's use of the term "corollary". You provide no argumentation to support your conclusion. It appears to be a non sequitur, and a funny one at that.

Notice how my point is completely ignored.

If you wish to make the point that "corollary" might be too strong a term for the curse placed on mankind that resulted in physical death, then I'd probably agree with you. The semantic nitpick doesn't support your conclusion, however. That's why you're so funny!

Listen up, Ochre.

No, you listen up, Eyesore.
:rofl:

It is acceptable to ignore posts that are nonsense.

Are you suggesting that I put you on my "ignore" list? I promised QED that he could have it all to himself.

However, when posts make perfect logical sense, posting a rolling smiley will just get you embarrassed.

Since when do arguments by assertion and non sequiturs make "perfect logical sense"?

OK, Ochre. Let me explain this to you.

Oh, yes, please do. Let's see if you can avoid your pitfall/pratfall into the fallacy of argument by assertion.

Physical death results from the Fall. Your separation arguments are irrelevant.

:rofl:
Survey sez: No, you can't resist argument by assertion for more than a few seconds at a time!

That's right, irrelevant. The bottom line is that physical death is a consequence. That's right. Physical death is a consequence.

Listen up, Eyesore: Spiritual death results from the Fall, and physical death results from the curse placed on mankind. Remember how God kicked A&E out of the garden lest they partake of the Tree of Life? No, of course you don't, because you left all of the substantive arguments way behind hoping that people would forget that you never addressed them.
You're quite pathetic.