Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When Atheists Attack (Each Other)
Evolution News and Views ^ | April 28 2011 | Davld Klinghoffer

Posted on 05/01/2011 7:24:18 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode

The squabble between Darwin lobbyists who openly hate religion and those who only quietly disdain it grows ever more personal, bitter and pathetic. On one side, evangelizing New or "Gnu" (ha ha) Atheists like Jerry Coyne and his acolytes at Why Evolution Is True. Dr. Coyne is a biologist who teaches and ostensibly researches at the University of Chicago but has a heck of a lot of free time on his hands for blogging and posting pictures of cute cats.

On the other side, so-called accommodationists like the crowd at the National Center for Science Education, who attack the New Atheists for the political offense of being rude to religious believers and supposedly messing up the alliance between religious and irreligious Darwinists.

I say "supposedly" because there's no evidence any substantial body of opinion is actually being changed on religion or evolution by anything the open haters or the quiet disdainers say. Everyone seems to seriously think they're either going to defeat religion, or merely "creationism," or both by blogging for an audience of fellow Darwinists.

Want to see what I mean? This is all pretty strictly a battle of stinkbugs in a bottle. Try to follow it without getting a headache.

Coyne recently drew excited applause from fellow biologist-atheist-blogger PZ Myers for Coyne's "open letter" (published on his blog) to the NCSE and its British equivalent, the British Centre for Science Education. In the letter, Coyne took umbrage at criticism of the New Atheists, mostly on blogs, emanating from the two accommodationist organizations. He vowed that,

We will continue to answer the misguided attacks [on the New Atheists] by people like Josh Rosenau, Roger Stanyard, and Nick Matzke so long as they keep mounting those attacks.
Like the NCSE, the BCSE seeks to pump up Darwin in the public mind without scaring religious people. This guy called Stanyard at the BCSE complains of losing a night's sleep over the nastiness of the rhetoric on Coyne's blog. Coyne in turn complained that Stanyard complained that a blog commenter complained that Nick Matzke, formerly of the NCSE, is like "vermin." Coyne also hit out at blogger Jason Rosenhouse for an "epic"-length blog post complaining of New Atheist "incivility." In the blog, Rosenhouse, who teaches math at James Madison University, wrote an update about how he had revised an insulting comment about the NCSE's Josh Rosenau that he, Rosenhouse, made in a previous version of the post.

That last bit briefly confused me. In occasionally skimming the writings of Jason Rosenhouse and Josh Rosenau in the past, I realized now I had been assuming they were the same person. They are not!

It goes on and on. In the course of his own blog post, Professor Coyne disavowed name-calling and berated Stanyard (remember him? The British guy) for "glomming onto" the Matzke-vermin insult like "white on rice, or Kwok on a Leica." What's a Kwok? Not a what but a who -- John Kwok, presumably a pseudonym, one of the most tirelessly obsessive commenters on Darwinist blog sites. Besides lashing at intelligent design, he often writes of his interest in photographic gear such as a camera by Leica. I have the impression that Kwok irritates even fellow Darwinists.

There's no need to keep all the names straight in your head. I certainly can't. I'm only taking your time, recounting just a small part of one confused exchange, to illustrate the culture of these Darwinists who write so impassionedly about religion, whether for abolishing it or befriending it. Writes Coyne in reply to Stanyard,

I'd suggest, then, that you lay off telling us what to do until you've read about our goals. The fact is that we'll always be fighting creationism until religion goes away, and when it does the fight will be over, as it is in Scandinavia.
A skeptic might suggest that turning America into Scandinavia, as far as religion goes, is an outsized goal, more like a delusion, for this group as they sit hunched over their computers shooting intemperate comments back and forth at each other all day. Or in poor Stanyard's case, all night.

There's a feverish, terrarium-like and oxygen-starved quality to this world of online Darwinists and atheists. It could only be sustained by the isolation of the Internet. They don't seem to realize that the public accepts Darwinism to the extent it does -- which is not much -- primarily because of what William James would call the sheer, simple "prestige" that the opinion grants. Arguments and evidence have little to do with it.

The prestige of Darwinism is not going to be affected by how the battle between Jerry Coyne and the NCSE turns out. New Atheist arguments are hobbled by the same isolation from what people think and feel. I have not yet read anything by any of these gentlemen or ladies, whether the open haters or the quiet disdainers, that conveys anything like a real comprehension of religious feeling or thought.

Even as they fight over the most effective way to relate to "religion," the open atheists and the accomodationists speak of an abstraction, a cartoon, that no actual religious person would recognize. No one is going to be persuaded if he doesn't already wish to be persuaded for other personal reasons. No faith is under threat from the likes of Jerry Coyne.




TOPICS: Education; Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: atheism; atheists; darwin; evolution; gagdadbob; onecosmosblog
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 3,451-3,5003,501-3,5503,551-3,600 ... 4,001-4,044 next last
To: AndrewC; getoffmylawn
No the discussion is about "reborn"(born again/above) and the assertion that this is the antecendant to the conclusion that John is a liar. I stated that your deconstruction(disarticulation) attempt had no bearing since this was about a mistranslation into Greek

Again, how could mistranslation occur when John was writing under "inspiration"? The fact is that John 3:3-4 cannot be retrotranslated into Aramaic and make any sense. Thus, either John mistranslated under "inspiration" or he made it up.

3,501 posted on 06/17/2011 6:29:15 PM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3488 | View Replies]

To: getoffmylawn; Jim Robinson; betty boop; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; ...
The scariest thing about the Bahble thumpers is their refusal or inability to understand logic or the concept of proof. Folks like that are the last thing this country needs.

This country wasn't founded on logic or the concept of proof.

It was founded on the principles and precepts of the very Bible you and other atheists despise and disparage.

We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. Those rights and the value we have as human beings is a result of the belief system you mock. They are not based on *proof* or*logic*. Proof and logic cannot impute intrinsic value to a human being.

They cannot grant rights. They cannot declare all men equal.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

3,502 posted on 06/17/2011 6:35:15 PM PDT by metmom (Be the kind of woman that when you wake in the morning, the devil says, "Oh crap, she's UP !!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3500 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

That only shows it based on someone’s interpretation.

It does not make it real for the other person.

There is no way for you to communicate what you feel to another, even if it can be demonstrated by actions which you claim show it.

You demand proof of God and God’s love from those who have experienced it and they can no more convey the experience of that love than you can convey to them your experience of someone else’s love or your love for someone else.

By the same standard you use, I can declare your love towards another as not real and not valid because you cannot convey to me the emotions you experience yourself. Claiming that your actions demonstrate your love does not transmit the love itself and validate it to another. It does not make the love you have real to the observer. They’re still on the outside looking on.


3,503 posted on 06/17/2011 6:42:04 PM PDT by metmom (Be the kind of woman that when you wake in the morning, the devil says, "Oh crap, she's UP !!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3499 | View Replies]

Comment #3,504 Removed by Moderator

To: metmom

Touche’


3,505 posted on 06/17/2011 6:52:11 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3504 | View Replies]

To: metmom; kosta50
You demand proof of God and God’s love from those who have experienced it and they can no more convey the experience of that love than you can convey to them your experience of someone else’s love or your love for someone else.

Not only that, but they demand proof under their own qualifications for proof. The trouble with that way of thinking is simply that God HAS already told us that he requires faith in order to please him. Without faith, no one can "see" God. The dilemma then is a battle of wills. The atheist/agnostic on one side demanding visual, verifiable, somewhat nebulous proof and on the other side is the Almighty Creator of all things saying he demands faith first. Someone has to give in, and it ain't gonna be God, I know that much. So the choice is really up to the person. Do it your way and NEVER know truth or do it God's way and know what you desire to know.

For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.(I Samuel 15:23)

3,506 posted on 06/17/2011 6:59:59 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3503 | View Replies]

To: metmom
This country wasn't founded on logic or the concept of proof.

This is disgusting and very un-American.

3,507 posted on 06/17/2011 7:14:09 PM PDT by getoffmylawn ("Nihilist? That must be exhausting." - The Dude)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3502 | View Replies]

To: getoffmylawn

How so?

Show me where I’m wrong.


3,508 posted on 06/17/2011 7:17:52 PM PDT by metmom (Be the kind of woman that when you wake in the morning, the devil says, "Oh crap, she's UP !!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3507 | View Replies]

To: metmom; getoffmylawn
You demand proof of God and God’s love from those who have experienced it and they can no more convey the experience of that love than you can convey to them your experience of someone else’s love or your love for someone else.

U never demanded proof of God's love form God or from anyone. You are making things up (again).

By the same standard you use, I can declare your love towards another as not real and not valid because you cannot convey to me the emotions you experience yourself

God's existence is not an emotion. It's either a hypothesis or a fact. if it is a fact then it should be provable.

3,509 posted on 06/17/2011 7:25:49 PM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3503 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

Prove your service to your country to us.


3,510 posted on 06/17/2011 7:29:39 PM PDT by metmom (Be the kind of woman that when you wake in the morning, the devil says, "Oh crap, she's UP !!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3509 | View Replies]

To: metmom; betty boop; getoffmylawn
Prove it. Prove it with the same level of proof that you demand of believers to prove that God exists.

Prove that you are mother. I don't' believe the likes of you could conceive.

Of course, if we were to divulge our identities that would be no problem, so your request and my request are not doable here but they are provable. Betty Boop said God's existence is not provable.

3,511 posted on 06/17/2011 7:31:50 PM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3504 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; metmom
Touche?

You have yet to prove that you are a Christian.

3,512 posted on 06/17/2011 7:34:33 PM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3505 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; metmom; getoffmylawn
Not only that, but they demand proof under their own qualifications for proof

No, boatbums. rea,l things are provable for all. I don;t have to device my own special emthod to prove that you will sink if you try to wlak on water. I will sink just the same. That's relaity. Either God exists or doesn't. IF you say he doe,s then you should be able to prove it whtout special "qulificaitons of proof". reality doens;t recongize believers and nonbeievers. It affects all equally.

3,513 posted on 06/17/2011 7:38:52 PM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3506 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; metmom; getoffmylawn
Okay, spell-checked this time...

Not only that, but they demand proof under their own qualifications for proof

No, boatbums. real things are provable for all. I don't have to device my own special method to prove that you will sink if you try to walk on water. I will sink just the same. That's realty. Either God exists or doesn't. IF you say he doe,s then you should be able to prove it without special "qualifications of proof". reality doens't recognize believers and nonbelievers. It affects all equally.

3,514 posted on 06/17/2011 7:40:36 PM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3506 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Prove that you are a mom.


3,515 posted on 06/17/2011 7:41:33 PM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3510 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; betty boop; count-your-change; Alamo-Girl; Matchett-PI; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; ...

Prove your service to this country.

You claimed it to be real.

You have shown the utmost contempt for bb on this forum with your comment in post 3,498 when you said, “No, I only despise people like you, betty boop because you have no shame. “ And then appealed to your service to our country, as if you expected us to recognize and acknowledge it as valid on your say so alone.

Well, your say so is not good enough. Prove your service to our country.


3,516 posted on 06/17/2011 7:42:53 PM PDT by metmom (Be the kind of woman that when you wake in the morning, the devil says, "Oh crap, she's UP !!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3512 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Prove that you are a mom.


3,517 posted on 06/17/2011 7:44:14 PM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3516 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

Yeah, that’s a fencing term. Since you like to say, “Prove it”, welllll...sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.


3,518 posted on 06/17/2011 7:54:09 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3512 | View Replies]

Comment #3,519 Removed by Moderator

To: count-your-change
Yeah, that’s a fencing term...

No, you won't even disclose your personal denomination because you feel it's too personal. Metmom's request is a violation of privacy.

3,520 posted on 06/17/2011 8:29:19 PM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3518 | View Replies]

To: metmom; betty boop

I am certainly not going to publish my DD 214 to some anonymous poster any more than you’re going to publish your record of live birth or what cult you belong to.


3,521 posted on 06/17/2011 8:38:47 PM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3519 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
Okay, spell-checked this time... Whew! Thanks, I thought you started writing in tongues for a minute. :o)

No, boatbums. real things are provable for all. I don't have to device my own special method to prove that you will sink if you try to walk on water. I will sink just the same. That's realty. Either God exists or doesn't. IF you say he doe,s then you should be able to prove it without special "qualifications of proof". reality doens't recognize believers and nonbelievers. It affects all equally.

I disagree. I am not a scientist, but they sure do know a lot more than I do about a lot. Many of those things are not visibly verifiable. An example is a heater. I could show you how it works but unless you stood before it and felt it for yourself you wouldn't KNOW it was true that it could warm you without fire. For someone with a sensory disability, they would even have to just take your word for it because they couldn't experience it for themselves. Lousy example, you're thinking, right?

No scientist today can explain everything about gravity, yet we don't let it stop us from believing it exists. We experience its effects every day. The same things can be said of music which is simply sound waves produced by a type of instrument. We can explain the beauty of a Beethoven sonata, but a deaf person could not do anything but take our word for it. A person who has been deaf from birth has an even more impossible time of believing since he has no reference to even understand sound at all much less what qualifies as beautiful music.

So this is what I was trying to get at by talking about qualifying proof. You ask if I can prove God exists. I can prove he does in many ways yet many of them are purely experiential. I have seen specific prayers answered on time, exactly as prayed. I have seen prayers for specific amounts of money needed and the money comes in the exact amount needed when it is needed. I have seen lives changed in miraculous ways. Even my own. I have seen the sick brought back to health and some who were not healed go on to better and more wonderful lives to the glory of God than they ever would have if made whole. They admitted it themselves. I could go on and on about these answered prayers and miraculous times in my life where I saw the hand of God (not literally his hand, but his handiwork). But I cannot convince you of them because you didn't experience them yourself.

When I went through that time of doubt, it was the truth of Scriptures and the resurrection as well as all the times God worked in my life that pulled me out of it. He met everyone of my needs and still does to this day. But you have refused their proofs. All I can say is you need to decide what kind of unbeliever you are going to be. Are you a fideist, which is a particular kind of deist who believes that God, though he exists, is unknowable and has not bothered to make himself known to mankind through any means of divine intervention or revelation? Or do you think God is knowable? Or do you think there is no God?

This is a road only you can take. I get the feeling that there is something that you know you are missing else you wouldn't bother coming on these threads. It is up to you what you will do with the knowledge God HAS given you but please don't make the mistake of thinking he must come to you on your terms.

Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. (Isaiah 55:6-7)

3,522 posted on 06/17/2011 8:46:59 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3514 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; Amityschild; Captain Beyond; Cvengr; DvdMom; firebrand; ...
KOSTA50:
Prove that you are mother. I don't' believe the likes of you could conceive.

[slightly Quixicated EMPHASIS formatting]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

In my experience, this is the sort of assaultive bitterness, resentment, hostility . . . that eventually gets expressed toward God and results in folks becoming atheist or agnostic when they have been taught better.

'Tis a sad thing to see a soul eat itself from the inside out.

3,523 posted on 06/17/2011 8:48:30 PM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3511 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

zot


3,524 posted on 06/17/2011 9:01:58 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3511 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC; boatbums
As I said, it's not that you guys don't have something right. The problem is that the BAers, as an adverse reaction to Presbyterianism (which is why the Presbyterians call you damnable heretics) went to the other extreme from them

In both cases, the virtues, separated from each other went crazy and over-extended. That is the clear problem with the BAers -- there is no balance and it just veers to the laugh-sing-dance and ignore oblivion model

3,525 posted on 06/17/2011 9:41:47 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego słynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3492 | View Replies]

To: everyone
I was going to ask kosta to consider something about the Greek word, anothen, but it looks like that is no longer an option.

I have noticed that footnotes in translations of John 3:3,7 give from above as an alternate reading for ἄνωθεν- anothen. They state that it can mean both again and from above, and one adds that the Greek is purposely ambiguous:

In looking into this I found some posts on another board that discuss the issue. The first post I quote here gives one sense as a locative; "from above" or "up there" and the other sense as in narrative or inquiry; "from the beginning, from farther back". It also compares the the Syriac translation to the Greek.

The second post lists every instance of ἄνωθεν in the LXX as having he meaning of location [or perhaps direction, i. e., "from up there"]

From the first post:

The meaning of ἄνωθεν in John 3:3 has been discussed many times, including on the b-Greek list. Whereas the term is ambiguous in Greek, there is apparently no corresponding ambiguity in Hebrew or Aramaic.

If we look at the Greek, LSJ has two main senses:
I: Adv. of Place, from above, from on high,…
II: in narrative or inquiry, from the beginning, from farther back,..

Under sense II, they have a subsense 3, which is the one that appears relevant for John 3:3:

“over again, anew, afresh, φιλίαν ἄ. ποιεῖται J.AJ1.18.3, Artem.1.14, cf. Ev.Jo.3.3; πάλιν ἄ. Ep.Gal.4.9, cf. Harp. s.v. ἀνάδικοι κρίσεις; κτίστης ἄνωθε γενόμενος IG7.27 12.58.”

So, sense I is the literal, locative sense “from above” which is what we find in the LXX and several places in the NT. The Hebrew is me’al or similar phrases. This sense is found in John 3:31.

BDAG has similar senses, and I will only quote their number 4 here:
“at a subsequent point of time involving repetition, again, anew (Pla., Ep. 2 p. 310e ἄ. ἀρξάμενος; Epict. 2, 17, 27; Jos., Ant. 1, 263; IG VII, 2712, 59; BGU 595, 5ff) ἄ. ἐπιδεικνύναι MPol 1:1. Oft. strengthened by πάλιν (CIG 1625, 60; Wsd 19:6) Gal 4:9.—ἀ. γεννηθῆναι be born again J 3:3,7…”

John 3:3 was not originally spoken in Greek, so what would the Hebrew (or Aramaic) have been? It is unlikely that me’al or something like it would have been used, since that is the literal sense, and Jesus is probably not intending a literal sense here.

In Hebrew and to some degree in Greek, too, there is a close affinity between top, head, first and beginning. Luke 1:3 uses ἄνωθεν in the sense of “from the beginning”. One sense of ἄνωθεν can be expressed in English as literally “let’s start again from the top/beginning” or more commonly “let’s start all over again”. Paul has this sense in Gal 4:9.

Yancy Smith mentioned a Syriac translation of John 3:3 in a post on b-Greek from February 6, 2010:

“The Syriac translation of ANWQEN in John 3[:3,7 and 31] is given in two ways, reflecting its ambiguous meaning in Greek:

3:3,7

ܡܬܝܠܕ ܡܢ ܕܪܝܫ
mtyld mn dryš
γεννηθη ανωθεν
GENNHQH ANWQEN
=from beginning, anew, from head, re-

3:31
ܗܘ ܓܝܪ ܕܡܢ ܠܥܠ ܐܬܐ ܠܥܠ ܡܢ ܟܠ
hw gyr dmn l’l ‘t’ l’l mn kl hw
Ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν
hO ANWQEN ERCOMENOS EPANW PANTWN ESTIN

The Syriac “from head” [in 3:3,7] means “again,” or “from the beginning.” And when the Peshitta translators were faced with a clearly spacial meaning of ANWQEN [in 3:31], they had a different, completely unambiguous way of translating ANWQEN, similar to the Hebrew phrase, מעל, the rough equivalent of which in Syriac is dmn l’l.”
End of quote.

Based on such considerations, I believe that John 3:3 introduced an unintentional ambiguity when it was translated into Greek. It must have been “from the top/head” in Semitic, meaning a fresh start, being born all over again. The meaning of the Hebrew phrase would probably not have been clear to Nicodemus as the dialogue indicates. It was meant in a spiritual sense, but was taken literally as happens again and again in John’s Gospel. Jesus often spoke briefly in cryptic ways in order to initiate a dialogue and create a memorable phrasing. Another well-known example is the dialogue with the Samaritan woman.

So, as far as translation goes, I would suggest “born again” or “born all over again” for the underlying Semitic phrase that Jesus must have used.

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

The other post:

Mike Sangrey contends that there’s the Jewish understanding of the term γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν (born again or born from above). You see, Nicodemus already did believe he had an understanding of being born again.

But is the Greek phrase “γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν” really Jewish? Why doesn’t anything like it at all appear in the LXX? Why elsewhere in the NT is there not more of this “term”? I Pt 1 has ἀναγεννήσας and ἀναγεγεννημένοι, which is much less ambiguous and much more clearly referring to re-birth or a being born again (in verses 3 and 23). When John translates what Jesus said in Jn 3:3 as “γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν,” then Greek readers get it more as a locative, “born up there.” Every instance of ἄνωθεν in the LXX has this meaning of location [or perhaps direction, i. e., "from up there"] (see Gn 6:16, Gn 27:39, Gn 49:25, Ex 25:21, Ex 25:22, Ex 36:27, Ex 36:38, Ex 38:16, Ex 38:19, Ex 40:19, Nm 4:6, Nm 4:25, Nm 7:89, JoB 3:16, 3Kgs 7:40, Jb 3:4, Wsd 19:6, Is 45:8, Jer 4:28, EpJer 1:61, Ez 1:11, Ez 1:26, Ez 41:7). And notice how in Gn 27:39 and Gn 49:25 it’s οὐρανοῦ ἄνωθεν, or “the sky above” and “the heaven up there.” Likewise, in the NT, every other use of ἄνωθεν is this idea of some place up at the top or above (see Mt 27:51, Mk 15:38, Lk 1:3, Jn 3:7, Jn 3:31, Jn 19:11, Jn 19:23, Acts 26:5, Gal 4:9, Jas 1:17, Jas 3:15, Jas 3:17).

So is “born again” a good translation of γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν in Jn 3:3? Is the phrase best understood as John’s Greek translation of Jesus’ wordplay? Is it really to be linked to some common-knowledge Jewish concept of the day? Are we all confused with Nicodemus? If so, why or why not?

http://betterbibles.com/2010/12/23/discuss-john-38/

Cordially,

3,526 posted on 06/17/2011 9:47:51 PM PDT by Diamond (He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3295 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; kosta50; getoffmylawn
Firstly, we are orthodoxy. Your little sects are, well, sects -- some are bad sects, some are weird sects, but all are wild sects which practitioners who are into these cults crave

As I pointed out, the BAers think that just song and dance and trying desperately to ignore the abyss will help them forget the hollowness and incompleteness of their philosophy

While your sect takes something from the Bible, it leaves out a lot, while it takes one extreme of joy, it leaves out the reflection, while it takes the mystery it leaves out the solemnity. It doesn't accept the inexorable, rather ignores it

As I said, your sect fails because be just song and dance without detailed, deep study is as bad as to be dry text without the joy. The balance is lost, the tying force that brings the loss of fear of the inexorable abyss is gone in both of these extremes and they lead to despair in one and delusion in the other.Remember that the main problem in the BAers is the separation or compartmentalisation of God and of His worship -- it is not this OR that, but this AND that.

3,527 posted on 06/17/2011 9:48:39 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego słynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3493 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; MarkBsnr; Natural Law; kosta50; getoffmylawn
"how about you hold off the criticism for once and actually judge what each person says"

REally? On another thread you said that one should not point out the mistakes that the Jesse Duplantis believers or the OPC(Pentecostals and Baptists and Methodists are damnable heretics) believers say?

Can you spell hypocrisy?

3,528 posted on 06/17/2011 9:51:16 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego słynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3493 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
Again, how could mistranslation occur when John was writing under "inspiration"? The fact is that John 3:3-4 cannot be retrotranslated into Aramaic and make any sense.

Who can prove that John was translating? The translation likely occurred after the intial transcription. How many times does the New testament say a person must be born?

3,529 posted on 06/17/2011 10:05:27 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3501 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; AndrewC
As I said, it's not that you guys don't have something right. The problem is that the BAers, as an adverse reaction to Presbyterianism (which is why the Presbyterians call you damnable heretics) went to the other extreme from them In both cases, the virtues, separated from each other went crazy and over-extended. That is the clear problem with the BAers -- there is no balance and it just veers to the laugh-sing-dance and ignore oblivion model

It's truly amazing that those who are not afraid to refer to themselves as "born again" - which is a wholly Scriptural term - receive such scorn from those who think such beneath them. The Eastern Orthodox say:

Serapion of Egypt, a fourth century contemporary of St. Athanasios summarized Eastern Orthodox theology:

"The Anointing after Baptism is for the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, that having been born again through Baptism and made new through the laver of regeneration, the candidates may be made new through the gifts of the Holy Spirit and secured by this Seal may continue steadfast." (http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7112)

Also, from the Liturgy of Baptism, the priest says: Form the Image of Your Christ in him (her) who is about to be born again through my humility.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church freely uses the term "born anew", "born of God" and "born from above". The Baltimore Catechism still says:

315. What is Baptism? Baptism is the sacrament that gives our souls the new life of sanctifying grace by which we become children of God and heirs of heaven.

Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

310. Why are Baptism and Penance called sacraments of the dead? Baptism and Penance are called sacraments of the dead because their chief purpose is to give the supernatural life of sanctifying grace to souls spiritually dead through sin.

Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

Also, I have no problem with using born from above, born anew, or born again as they basically mean the same thing. It is regeneration of the spirit into a new nature. We become children of God when we come to Christ in faith. I also doubt ANY Protestant denomination would have any problem with using that phrase. There is plenty of balance, don't worry your little head about it. Call me a BAer if it makes you feel good. It doesn't change who I am in Christ. It is futile to continue in this "let's you and him fight" charade. Why not give it a rest?

3,530 posted on 06/17/2011 10:35:29 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3525 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
In both cases, the virtues, separated from each other went crazy and over-extended. That is the clear problem with the BAers -- there is no balance and it just veers to the laugh-sing-dance and ignore oblivion model

I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. Laugh, dance, sing are not requirements for salvation. Being born again, is. And being born again is a consequence of accepting Jesus sacrifice and being like him and dying to sin and the world.

Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

3,531 posted on 06/17/2011 10:49:05 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3525 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; getoffmylawn; kosta50
Actually, it's not a 'scriptural term' -- as I pointed out above, the normal translation is "born from above"

Now, besides this terminology, the problem, as I pointed out, is that he BAers, as an adverse reaction to Presbyterianism (which is why the Presbyterians call you damnable heretics) went to the other extreme from them In both cases, the virtues, separated from each other went crazy and over-extended. That is the clear problem with the BAers -- there is no balance and it just veers to the laugh-sing-dance and ignore oblivion model

3,532 posted on 06/17/2011 10:50:33 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego słynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3530 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; getoffmylawn; kosta50
Namely, your philosophy is incomplete, it takes one part of the message of God and over-amplifies it -- as a reaction to the over-amplification of the OPC-types human reasoning.

Both extremes are wrong and by deviating further and further from God's word, the BAers end up with "burning in the bosom" arguments to contradict the Calvinist logic.

3,533 posted on 06/17/2011 10:52:14 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego słynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3530 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
I'm not talking about the phrase. I'm talking about the entire BA philosophy which expunges and belittles scholarship -- as an adverse reaction to Calvinism's human logic reducto

being born again is a consequence of accepting Jesus sacrifice and being like him and dying to sin and the world. --> the key word is "being like him" as not all who say "lord, lord" will be saved.

The problem, as I said, is the over-extension to one side or the other of the philosophical stretch.

3,534 posted on 06/17/2011 10:59:18 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego słynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3531 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
You DID volunteer the information, alleging it was so....

And why should it be accepted as so without proof? Particularly when there are so many people that make false claims of the same nature?

If you truly thought it “a violation of privacy” why would it be offered as a defence of some sort?

Enjoy the sauce!

3,535 posted on 06/17/2011 11:02:25 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3520 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Also, note Jesus's words

Salvation is by GRACE alone not by faith ALONE

Let's repeat a basic Bible lesson:

  1. What does Jesus say saves us?
    • Matt. 24:13
      13But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

    • Matt 25:31-46 34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
      35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
      36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

    Jesus says that if you endure to the end you get salvation, that if you helped your fellow man you inherit the kingdom of God (you get salvation) --> note these are HIS own words

  2. 1 Pet. 3:20-21: " It (Baptism )saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

  3. Note -- also in Acts 16:31 we are told to believe and you will be saved -- so Faith is definitely one of the things needed, yet as you see above, it is not ONLY faith. Remember -- James says "even the demons believe - and shudder" -- it is not faith ALONE that saves

Jesus said it is not faith ALONE. We are saved by God's GRACE. Full-stop.

James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. -- it's never faith ALONE. Note that

  1. He who believes and is baptized will be saved. (Mk 16:16)
  2. [U]nless you repent you will all likewise perish. (Lk 13:3)<,li> [H]e who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (Jn 6:54)

no one is denying that one MUST have faith to be saved by the freely given grace of salvation, however, it is not faith ALONE. As shown above, Jesus Himself said that

He who believes and is baptized will be saved. (Mk 16:16)
[U]nless you repent you will all likewise perish. (Lk 13:3
[H]e who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (Jn 6:54)

So, do listen to the words of Jesus who said it is faith+ repentance+baptism+the Eucharist+endurance, not any of these in isolation. Of course, these don't "save us" per se, since it is Christ's sacrifice on the Cross that grants us our salvation that we can accept or reject

The problem happens when one takes one section of the word in isolation.

3,536 posted on 06/17/2011 11:06:04 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrz&#261;szcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego s&#322;ynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3531 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; Dr. Eckleburg; metmom; presently no screen name; Quix
REally? On another thread you said that one should not point out the mistakes that the Jesse Duplantis believers or the OPC(Pentecostals and Baptists and Methodists are damnable heretics) believers say? Can you spell hypocrisy?

I didn't say that at all. What it appears you are doing - besides carrying issues across threads - is beating people over their heads EVERYTIME they make a peep on a thread with things OTHER people have said that may or may not have a connection to them. For example, you repost the disparaging remarks of a disgruntled former OPC'r speaking about what he didn't like when Dr E posts a comment even when she has said he doesn't represent the Presbyterians' views. It has nothing to do with the subject of the thread. You post and repost goofy things Jesse or Benny said no telling how many years ago and hang it around Quix's neck whenever he shows up on a thread. The same thing when you ignorantly accuse Metmom or PNSN of being either muslim or resurrection deniers or saying they don't believe that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. You say these things and others reading them pick it up and start the same accusations when they don't even know if the things you said were even true!

Now, I know why you do these things. You probably think it's payback for whenever Quix posts the Rosary/Mary as Goddess excerpts or when Dr E says something about the Pope or when PNSN or Metmom criticizes Catholicism in any way. So it is quite a bit too much when you whine about being "personally" offended when it seems like that is about you do towards others all the time. Other than your educational "expertise" about foreign land and customs, I don't see much in the way of dialog about the issue of the thread. You brought out your canned stuff on THIS thread which had no relation to the subject of Atheists Attacking Atheists, but you did it anyway as a slam against someone you disliked because they don't agree with you. It gets to be so wearying. We've discussed these points numerous times both on a thread and on Freepmail but it doesn't get resolved and you will broach no correction. It becomes futile to even try to talk. It's becoming obvious, too, that any attempts to try to open your eyes to these things only results in defensiveness and name calling. I;m sure this too will be used as an opportunity to call me something again. Go ahead. I'm done.

3,537 posted on 06/17/2011 11:10:36 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3528 | View Replies]

To: Diamond

Good stuff. Thanks.


3,538 posted on 06/17/2011 11:11:47 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3526 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

INDEED.

I need a good shoes and dust gif.

LOL.


3,539 posted on 06/17/2011 11:19:02 PM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3537 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; D-fendr
besides carrying issues across threads

Really? So when others do this, there are no posts from you complaining about this?

3,540 posted on 06/17/2011 11:20:26 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrz&#261;szcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego s&#322;ynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3537 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
I'm talking about the entire BA philosophy which expunges and belittles scholarship -- as an adverse reaction to Calvinism's human logic reducto

If you mean ignoring scholarship as a requirement for salvation is belittling scholarship, well sorry then you must accept it. God does not require a cap and gown for entry into heaven.

the key word is "being like him" as not all who say "lord, lord" will be saved.

Ta-da!

3,541 posted on 06/17/2011 11:21:17 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3534 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; AndrewC

WRONG!

3,542 posted on 06/17/2011 11:22:47 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3533 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
boatbums: Go ahead. I'm done.




3,543 posted on 06/17/2011 11:23:03 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrz&#261;szcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego s&#322;ynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3537 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
boatbums: Go ahead. I'm done.


3,544 posted on 06/17/2011 11:24:08 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrz&#261;szcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego s&#322;ynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3537 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
no one is denying that one MUST have faith to be saved by the freely given grace of salvation, however, it is not faith ALONE. As shown above, Jesus Himself said that

So tell me, what good works did this one do?

Luk 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

Luk 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

3,545 posted on 06/17/2011 11:27:40 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3536 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Nah, it's correct -- as I said
your philosophy is incomplete, it takes one part of the message of God and over-amplifies it -- as a reaction to the over-amplification of the OPC-types human reasoning.

Both extremes are wrong and by deviating further and further from God's word, the BAers end up with "burning in the bosom" arguments to contradict the Calvinist logic.

3,546 posted on 06/17/2011 11:27:45 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrz&#261;szcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego s&#322;ynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3542 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

3,547 posted on 06/17/2011 11:31:46 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3546 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
cronos: I'm talking about the entire BA philosophy which expunges and belittles scholarship -- as an adverse reaction to Calvinism's human logic reducto

f you mean ignoring scholarship as a requirement for salvation is belittling scholarship, well sorry then you must accept it. God does not require a cap and gown for entry into heaven.

No, that is the other extreme -- the Calvinist extreme that I pointed out. As I said, the BA version is the adverse reaction to the extremes of Calvinism, which, as you correctly point out is wrong as God does not require a cap and gown for entry into heaven

However, the position taken by the BAs is also wrong -- for the opposite reason. There is to be a balance, my friend, not this wild swinging from side to side

As GK Chesterton expressed so well in his Orthodoxy

"Last and most important, it is exactly this which explains what is so inexplicable to all the modern critics of the history of Christianity. I mean the monstrous wars about small points of theology, the earthquakes of emotion about a gesture or a word. It was only a matter of an inch; but an inch is everything when you are balancing. The Church could not afford to swerve a hair's breadth on some things if she was to continue her great and daring experiment of the irregular equilibrium. Once let one idea become less powerful and some other idea would become too powerful. It was no flock of sheep the Christian shepherd was leading, but a herd of bulls and tigers, of terrible ideals and devouring doctrines, each one of them strong enough to turn to a false religion and lay waste the world. Remember that the Church went in specifically for dangerous ideas; she was a lion tamer. The idea of birth through a Holy Spirit, of the death of a divine being, of the forgiveness of sins, or the fulfilment of prophecies, are ideas which, any one can see, need but a touch to turn them into something blasphemous or ferocious. The smallest link was let drop by the artificers of the Mediterranean, and the lion of ancestral pessimism burst his chain in the forgotten forests of the north. Of these theological equalisations I have to speak afterwards. Here it is enough to notice that if some small mistake were made in doctrine, huge blunders might be made in human happiness. A sentence phrased wrong about the nature of symbolism would have broken all the best statues in Europe. A slip in the definitions might stop all the dances; might wither all the Christmas trees or break all the Easter eggs. Doctrines had to be defined within strict limits, even in order that man might enjoy general human liberties. The Church had to be careful, if only that the world might be careless.

"This is the thrilling romance of Orthodoxy. People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe. There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy. It was sanity: and to be sane is more dramatic than to be mad. It was the equilibrium of a man behind madly rushing horses, seeming to stoop this way and to sway that, yet in every attitude having the grace of statuary and the accuracy of arithmetic. The Church in its early days went fierce and fast with any warhorse; yet it is utterly unhistoric to say that she merely went mad along one idea, like a vulgar fanaticism. She swerved to left and right, so exactly as to avoid enormous obstacles. She left on one hand the huge bulk of Arianism, buttressed by all the worldly powers to make Christianity too worldly. The next instant she was swerving to avoid an orientalism, which would have made it too unworldly. The orthodox Church never took the tame course or accepted the conventions; the orthodox Church was never respectable. It would have been easier to have accepted the earthly power of the Arians. It would have been easy, in the Calvinistic seventeenth century, to fall into the bottomless pit of predestination. It is easy to be a madman: it is easy to be a heretic. It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one's own. It is always easy to be a modernist; as it is easy to be a snob. To have fallen into any of those open traps of error and exaggeration which fashion after fashion and sect after sect set along the historic path of Christendom -- that would indeed have been simple. It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands. To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect."

3,548 posted on 06/17/2011 11:35:32 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrz&#261;szcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego s&#322;ynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3541 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

nice. however, it still is ignoring the fact that the BA philosophy is hollow due to its incompleteness. The BAers, as an adverse reaction to Presbyterianism (which is why the Presbyterians call you damnable heretics) went to the other extreme from them In both cases, the virtues, separated from each other went crazy and over-extended. That is the clear problem with the BAers — there is no balance and it just veers to the laugh-sing-dance and ignore oblivion model


3,549 posted on 06/17/2011 11:37:31 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrz&#261;szcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego s&#322;ynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3547 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Sorry, maybe if I format that, it would be easier to read
"This is the thrilling romance of Orthodoxy. People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe. There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy.

It was sanity: and to be sane is more dramatic than to be mad. It was the equilibrium of a man behind madly rushing horses, seeming to stoop this way and to sway that, yet in every attitude having the grace of statuary and the accuracy of arithmetic.

The Church in its early days went fierce and fast with any warhorse; yet it is utterly unhistoric to say that she merely went mad along one idea, like a vulgar fanaticism.

She swerved to left and right, so exactly as to avoid enormous obstacles.

She left on one hand the huge bulk of Arianism, buttressed by all the worldly powers to make Christianity too worldly.

The next instant she was swerving to avoid an orientalism, which would have made it too unworldly.

The orthodox Church never took the tame course or accepted the conventions; the orthodox Church was never respectable. It would have been easier to have accepted the earthly power of the Arians. It would have been easy, in the Calvinistic seventeenth century, to fall into the bottomless pit of predestination.

It is easy to be a madman: it is easy to be a heretic.

It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one's own.

It is always easy to be a modernist; as it is easy to be a snob.

To have fallen into any of those open traps of error and exaggeration which fashion after fashion and sect after sect set along the historic path of Christendom -- that would indeed have been simple. It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands.

To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame.

But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure;

and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect."

as he pointed out "It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one's own." -- and today's flavor is BA. in the 1800s it was Calvinism, puritanism even, but now it veers to the other extreme
3,550 posted on 06/17/2011 11:41:25 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrz&#261;szcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego s&#322;ynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3548 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 3,451-3,5003,501-3,5503,551-3,600 ... 4,001-4,044 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson