Stones for Bread, Snakes for Fish

[Jaecp]

As for what jesus would do when faced with a solidarity? Of people supporting the bad?

Probably get a whip and beat people ah la "brood of viper"

Sam, the 1st chapter of "case for faith" is a bit wonky as well, the answer to the problem of evil was laughable, which chapter was ID on? I have read c4f in awhile.

Still on phone,

Peace

J

(Sdcc = awesome btw)

[Ansgar Seraph]

(Sdcc = awesome btw)

I hear a new TRON movie (not just a remake) got introduced there. Awesome.

[Jaecp]

Didn't hear that, but sdcc is huge you know.

Met john barrowman. Cool dude.

Ill pm you when I'm not flying

[Pai Geacademe]

Ravi Zacharias? Never heard anything from him, so I can't comment on that.

Here's Ravi yucking it up with D. James Kennedy -- on TBN, of course -- on the matter of how amoral and evil God's engine of creation is.

If that's not tying teleology to the atonement, I'm not sure what would constitute that short of saying "You're going to hell if you find natural science compelling."

I have a hard time thinking of anything more insulting to human dignity than telling children they can't partake of numinous teleological wonder. In place of that, these teleologists and their adherents have Bible pop-up books and Creation Museums. And dads and uncles who point to articles on "the sinkhole controversy" to erase the reams of data on cosmic bombardment and how it shaped the solar system.

To instill the dignity of Christianity in young people, which results in the religious philanthropy you referenced, the last thing one should do is lie about data and promote a whacked epistemology.

Geological features aren't decor. They represent real events backed by strong evidence. That evidence accumulates and becomes proof. Cosmic bombardment is just one example. It's not just a pretty lightshow; it says something about the final stages of accretion that apologists like Zacharias deny even occurs. William Lane Craig won't publicly denounce his brother's epistemology. Instead, he attends prayer breakfasts with him.

BTW, this happened last week.

V V V

[Ansgar Seraph]

Here's Ravi yucking it up with D. James Kennedy -- on TBN, of course -- on the matter of how amoral and evil God's engine of creation is.

Interesting thing, that. Point 1 is "agnostic" in its conclusion, of course; Point 2 is one of those awful arguments that no one should be using at this point (though possibly at some future point?) and Point 3 is generally agreeable to me, though I would qualify and hedge it a lot more than he did.

If that's not tying teleology to the atonement, I'm not sure what would constitute that short of saying "You're going to hell if you find natural science compelling."

Not terribly compelling, from my view, but not as far as you take it; Point 2 (the Intelligent Design point) isn't necessary for his argument . . . it just gives it the appearance of being iron-clad (which we know it is not). It's apologist gaming, agreed . . . I was surprised to see Darwin in the title but no negative mention of biological evolution in the video.

I have a hard time thinking of anything more insulting to human dignity than telling children they can't partake of numinous teleological wonder. In place of that, these teleologists and their adherents have Bible pop-up books and Creation Museums. And dads and uncles who point to articles on "the sinkhole controversy" to erase the reams of data on cosmic bombardment and how it shaped the solar system.

To instill the dignity of Christianity in young people, which results in the religious philanthropy you referenced, the last thing one should do is lie about data and promote a whacked epistemology.

Amen. I've got a YEC cousin and a little nephew-ling who told us a story from the Creation Museum about a girl who "believed in evolution in the beginning but at the end she believed in God." To which everyone at the table replied: "Well, I believe in God and evolution." Luckily, I'm able to smuggle him natural science books that will hopefully maintain his enjoyment of natural science, whatever he ends up believing about biological sciences.

But remember that most of the "dads and uncles" aren't lying; they believe it to be true and from their perspective it is true. Most people I've met like the type you mentioned might be guilty of ignorance (sometimes inexcusable ignorance) but rarely have I seen them as outright liars.

Geological features aren't decor. They represent real events backed by strong evidence. That evidence accumulates and becomes proof. Cosmic bombardment is just one example. It's not just a pretty lightshow; it says something about the final stages of accretion that apologists like Zacharias deny even occurs. William Lane Craig won't publicly denounce his brother's epistemology. Instead, he attends prayer breakfasts with him.

As would I; just because Zacharias is wrong on some issues and pushes a bad argument doesn't mean he should be removed from the Community. Craig and others ought to tell Zacharias that he's making a bad argument and publicly explain (either specifically or generally, whichever way is best) how that argument is weak or inaccurate.

This is the unfortunate nature of popular apologetics. Full of bad arguments, misrepresentations and illusionary strength. It's a function of human nature and we're not likely to see the end of it, in Christian circles or otherwise. The best we can do is point it out when we see it, regardless of who the speaker is, and hope other people point our bad arguments.

BTW, this happened last week.

V V V

That was so cool. I was explaining to the farmhand today what would happen if that thing had hit earth. He was under the impression that a good number of humans would've stayed alive. I mentioned that it's a real good thing Jupiter's around.

—Sam

[Pai Geacademe]

Amen. I've got a YEC cousin and a little nephew-ling who told us a story from the Creation Museum about a girl who "believed in evolution in the beginning but at the end she believed in God." To which everyone at the table replied: "Well, I believe in God and evolution." Luckily, I'm able to smuggle him natural science books that will hopefully maintain his enjoyment of natural science, whatever he ends up believing about biological sciences.

What a very cool subversive act. Thanks for sharing.

But remember that most of the "dads and uncles" aren't lying; they believe it to be true and from their perspective it is true. Most people I've met like the type you mentioned might be guilty of ignorance (sometimes inexcusable ignorance) but rarely have I seen them as outright liars.

IYO, what's the difference between "inexcusable ignorance" and simply ignorance? Here, I'd point to Comfort's banana apologia and suggest we count the degrees between outright lying and simply forging ahead with an argument sans any substantive research. I find both acts to be morally equivalent. ESPECIALLY when you consider the consequences.

In other words, what Comfort did (and what Christian teleologists like Zacharias currently do) exemplifies the epistemological damage that can be wrought. What does that damage result in? I'd argue it results in shallow belief. Shallow belief is bad because it results in apostasy down the line. The connection between teleology and the atonement has already been explicitly made in countless ways by the Christians themselves.

As would I; just because Zacharias is wrong on some issues and pushes a bad argument doesn't mean he should be removed from the Community. Craig and others ought to tell Zacharias that he's making a bad argument and publicly explain (either specifically or generally, whichever way is best) how that argument is weak or inaccurate.

Boy do you misunderstand me. I'm not advocating Zacharias's forced removal from the community, just the shaming of his epistemological approach. It's rather easy for you and I to do that. Imagine how much easier it'd be for an intellect like Craig! The only reason that's not happening is because Craig values fraternal loyalty over correcting a brother. Publicly correcting a brother's epistemology is bad PR.

That was so cool. I was explaining to the farmhand today what would happen if that thing had hit earth. He was under the impression that a good number of humans would've stayed alive. I mentioned that it's a real good thing Jupiter's around.

Yes, Jupiter sucks. =)

Speaking of bad apologetic arguments, have you heard the one about God putting Jupiter in the solar system to keep us from being hit by SO MUCH errant material? It's an interesting and comical new spin on dysteleology.

I'm not saying you're making that argument here, but some of the new apologists like D'Souza take it to that extent.

[Ansgar Seraph]

IYO, what's the difference between "inexcusable ignorance" and simply ignorance? Here, I'd point to Comfort's banana apologia and suggest we count the degrees between outright lying and simply forging ahead with an argument sans any substantive research. I find both acts to be morally equivalent. ESPECIALLY when you consider the consequences.

I agree that forging ahead with a lousy argument when given the opportunity to proper research it is inexcusable. Just being presented with the opportunity online (or briefly in person), though, is not sufficient for being truly given the opportunity. For most of the people, including me and possibly including you, the option of substantive research is very much limited by intellect, environment, upbringing and, especially, time. In terms of scientific exploration, we can be talking about a lot of "substantive" research necessary to create a foundation that was never put into its proper place during childhood schooling.

Inexcusable ignorance seems to me to come when one has cut away the lifelines of a person's scientific ignorance, shown repeatedly in very simple terms the nature of the claim and the evidence and that person persists in the same certainty of belief they started with. In my opinion, it's inexcusable to go ahead and teach your children the things that you ought to know are false. Naturally, that point where ignorance becomes inexcusable varies from person to person.

In other words, what Comfort did (and what Christian teleologists like Zacharias currently do) exemplifies the epistemological damage that can be wrought. What does that damage result in? I'd argue it results in shallow belief. Shallow belief is bad because it results in apostasy down the line. The connection between teleology and the atonement has already been explicitly made in countless ways by the Christians themselves.

I don't know who Comfort is but the "shallow belief" is very much agreed upon; I've met a lot of people who can't deal with the implications of honest scientific evidence after a lifetime of shallow arguments. It's the main reason people can't get me to shut up when they ask an evolutionary question. It really is, as you note, a problem that the Church needs to deal with in some form.

Boy do you misunderstand me. I'm not advocating Zacharias's forced removal from the community, just the shaming of his epistemological approach. It's rather easy for you and I to do that. Imagine how much easier it'd be for an intellect like Craig! The only reason that's not happening is because Craig values fraternal loyalty over correcting a brother. Publicly correcting a brother's epistemology is bad PR.

Well, I agree that he needs to correct Zacharias; I just was reacting to the inferred mutual exclusivity of correcting him or going to prayer breakfasts with him . . . I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Obviously, there needs to be more control in the Church . . . the scientific issue is, however, a secondary issue and not directly part of the Commission. I don't know enough of Craig's work to say whether he's distanced himself sufficiently Zacharias' argument. I obviously agree that there should be more effort to weed out these bad arguments by popular apologists . . . but I wouldn't say it's the highest priority for the Church. If most apologists were to stop focusing on the scientific arguments and focus that energy on Christ's ethic and social justice, I'd be really happy. As it stands, I let the book-writing apologists know a bad argument when I spot it. One mind at a time, I suppose.

Yes, Jupiter sucks. =)

Speaking of bad apologetic arguments, have you heard the one about God putting Jupiter in the solar system to keep us from being hit by SO MUCH errant material? It's an interesting and comical new spin on dysteleology.

I'm not saying you're making that argument here, but some of the new apologists like D'Souza take it to that extent.

It's wasn't?!?!

Yes, there is no end to the "God set this up specifically for us humans" arguments. At best, they're to be used for edifying believers . . . they're of little use for apologetics. People will always seek an explanation that makes them unique or special . . . I don't mind that desire, as I believe it to be properly-placed. We just have to learn to like being insignificant at the same time!

—Sam

[Jaecp]

You don't know comfort?

Oh snap,

Heres the most current thing,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2FskTKrx40

Thats Ray Comfort and Thunderf00t, a prominent youtube atheist,

Here is classic comfort, the video everyone more or less laughs at him for,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGMuI...eature=related

Particularly once you realize how cultivated banana's are :-/

[Pai Geacademe]

You don't know comfort?

Oh snap,

Heres the most current thing,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2FskTKrx40

Thats Ray Comfort and Thunderf00t, a prominent youtube atheist,

Here is classic comfort, the video everyone more or less laughs at him for,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGMuI...eature=related

Particularly once you realize how cultivated banana's are :-/

AS seems to be missing out on the cream of bad teleological apologetics. Comfort is especially dangerous given his specific stoking of fiery existential dread. He EXPLICITLY ties teleology to the atonement. Significantly, his approach is actively endorsed by the likes of David Jeremiah, Ravi Zacharias, Charles Stanley, and a whole host of popular evangelical leaders with huge audiences.

I thought eternal destinies shouldn't compel conversion. I also thought teleology had zero to do with salvation.

Some Christians participating in this thread seem to not be connecting the dots. Kudos to AS and rogue06 for connecting the dots.

[Mountain Man]

Didn't hear that, but sdcc is huge you know.

Met john barrowman. Cool dude.

As in John "Captain jack Harkness" Barrowman?

[Jaecp]

Yes.

Really cool guy, friendliest actor I talked to. I now desperately want a copy of the robin hood pantomime, but its a stage play :-/

[Mountain Man]

Anyway, with regards to the topic of this thread, I still have no idea what Pai expects us to do. So some apologists arguably preach questionable theology. O.K. And what? Are we supposed to start a letter writing campaign? Buy airtime to run our own rebuttals? Put it on the Goodyear blimp? What? Or is it O.K. that when we find points of disagreement during our normal day to day interactions within our spheres of influence that we make sure to correct people's understanding of Christian theology, which is exactly what most of us do already?

Honestly, this is the same routine Pai's been doing for months, and I'm still waiting for the punchline.

[Jaecp]

Not exactly.

This is probably spurred by LPoT's rather passionate defense of an ideology she thinks is wrong with respect to the Dover bits.

Edit: he seems to think that your hurting your own causes by not calling people who use shoddy reasoning or fallacy, because it gives a bad impression that solidarity is more important than truth.

[Mountain Man]

Edit: he seems to think that your hurting your own causes by not calling people who use shoddy reasoning or fallacy, because it gives a bad impression that solidarity is more important than truth.

I understand that, but I'm not sure what he expects us to do about it other than correct bad theology that we encounter in our day-to-day conversations.

Beyond that, I'm still not quite sure that a problem even exists, or if it does that it's doing any kind of grievous and widespread harm to Christianity. Pai was asked several pointed questions to that end that he has thus far been unable or unwilling to answer, so you'll understand if I chalk all this up as much ado about nothing.

[Pai Geacademe]

Anyway, with regards to the topic of this thread, I still have no idea what Pai expects us to do. So some apologists arguably preach questionable theology. O.K. And what? Are we supposed to start a letter writing campaign? Buy airtime to run our own rebuttals? Put it on the Goodyear blimp? What?

I've said it several times and in so many ways. There is a fraternal loyalty among apologists that allows a Craig to sit with a Strobel on a debate panel or at a prayer breakfast while never publicly confronting their epistemologies. If you truly understood the consequences of, say, tying teleology to the atonement, you'd understand how poisonous that silence is. What Strobel and Zacharias do is a thousand times more destructive to fulfilling the Great Commission than a drunk Hitchens waxing dysteleological about colliding galaxies.

I'm only talking to Christians who understand the power of dignified discourse. It is within the realm of possibility that such Christians will also understand that inconsistent epistemology and pop-up book teleology eclipses pop atheism in churning out ineffectual Christians. Rogue and AS seem very close to understanding this if they don't already, and yet they still believe with a passion. It's also important to note the absense of dumbassing in their skillset.