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.
| 38But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? |
Lk 12:50
| 50But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! |
The blood and water that flowed from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus are types of Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacraments of new life.
Jn 19:34
| 34But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. |
1 Jn 5:6-8
| 6This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. |
From then on, it is possible "to be born of water and the Spirit" Jn 3:5
| 5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. |
in order to enter the Kingdom of God.
well put.
The fact is that when you translate something from a precise language like Greek into a messy one like 1600s English, there is more than a bit of tendency that possible errors may happen -- and it is to the translators that those were minor (in one place using oaths instead of oath), however, the language itself is now outdated, just as Shakespearean English can give different ideas
A translation is not inerrant, as M-PI put it, but the Word Himself, the Word is inerrant.
Exactly. Thanks. bttt
Who would that be? count-your-change's account is still active.
1. Logic gets you correctly from valid premises to a valid conclusion. The conclusion, though it may be logical, will not be true if the premises are not true ("All creatures with six legs are insects. Spiders have six legs. Therefore, spiders are insects." logically valid but untrue.)
2. Logic is not species specific: "If A is contained in B, and if B is contained in C, then A is contained in C" holds whether it's a chimp or and angel or a human who says it.
3. It's true that "If A, then B" does not necessitate "If not-A, then not-B," but it still may be that both are true: "If you are not this height, you cannot go on this ride. If you are this height, you can go on this ride." And in this case, salvation, we're told that the relationship between "A and B" or "not-A and not-B" is the fundamental nature of things:
"Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life."--1 John 5:12
This message comes to you from......
BEYOND THE ZOT ZONE!!!!
Exactly.
"....Intellectual intuition (nous) involves the direct perception of Truth.
"Logic (dianoia), on the other hand, is merely a mental operation that can lead to true or false conclusions, depending upon the data provided it.
"Logic is particularly useless -- even dangerous -- without the a priori intuition of Truth, without which logic alone eventually leads one over the abyss.
"The most important truths are indeed "self evident," that is, evident to the higher self.
"Clearly they are not necessarily evident to the lower self, which is why liberty and human dignity are a tough sell in the Islamic world, which awaits the day when its progress is not thwarted by the infrahuman majority in its midst.
"In America, the anti-progressive forces are represented by secular progressives, anti-religious Liztards, and other spiritual medullards.
"The application of mere logic would dismiss as silly superstition those transcendent truths that are known directly by the higher mind.
"This is why you cannot prove the existence of God to such a logic-bound individual, any more than you could prove it to a dog.
"Religious truths are conveyed through symbolism and analogy (with the assistance of grace), more like a great work of art than a mathematical equation.
"Although not merely logical, it would be a grave and simplistic error to suggest that the great revelations are illogical, any more than a Shakespearean sonnet or one of Beethoven’s symphonies are illogical.
"Rather, they are translogical............snip............]"
Sorry, feigning ignorance doesn’t work.
yeah. sure.
Yes. But again, I point out that it is not necessary in order to be saved. But you must repent.
No. "AND" is not "THEN".
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.
Thank you so very much, dear sister in Christ, for posting these wonderfully illuminating passages!
I think Cronos is hampered by a stereotypical caricature of "born again" folks as snake handlers and/or given to speaking in tongues, etc. To me, this is a sign of crude bigotry at work. In light of the above passages, perhaps he may wish to rethink his position. I certainly hope he will....
I just hate it when Christians beat up on each other over such nonsense.
I have been born again, just as you have boatbums. The history of this amazing conversion, this epiphany, is very like your own.
But I do not speak in tongues; and neither do you, dear sister in Christ.
Thank you so very much for your eloquent testimony!
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.
Apparently, this is the post that got Kosta50 banned/suspended. A suspension is normally for a few weeks and can be removed by a note of apology to JR. If it's a banning, then it's pretty much permanent.
I suspect the personal attack: "the likes of you could conceive" was the tipping point.
Now we know.
While all the quotations are true, you are perverting the meaning of Acts 22:16. Paul in defense was relating what Ananias told him after he had received his sight.
There is no "perverting of meaning" because those are direct quotes from scripture
I do not add any thing to God's words. You have been. I have used the tools God gave us to see the truth. "AND" and "THEN" are not equivalent. The thief on the cross was not, I repeat not, baptized while hanging on the cross. And certainly he was dead when he came down. Jesus commanded us to remember him by eating and drinking. Are we condemned if we do not do that? If we are condemned then the thief hanging on the cross was even in more trouble.
Remember that the Apostles right from Acts take the very words of Jesus Christ (above) and believed in them. They did not use human logic to deny what He said. Paul only elaborates past the simple message of Christ.:
Acts 2:38,
Acts 22:16;
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Rom. 6:1–4;
16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name. 1 Cor 6:11,
1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 1 Cor 12:13;
11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God Gal. 3:26–27;
13 For we were all baptized by[a] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Eph. 5:26;
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ Col. 2:11–12;
to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, Titus 3:5;
11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh[a] was put off when you were circumcised by[b] Christ,
12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, Direct quotes -- if you find these to be a perversion, I'm sorry, but Acts 22 is quite clear
11And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus. 12And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, 13Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. 14And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. 15For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. 16And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. -- be baptised and wash away your sins calling on the name of the Lord. This is Ananias DIRECTLY listening to the DIRECT words of Jesus Christ:
12After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. 13And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. 14Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. it's very simple -- one ought to follow Jesus Christ's words and do not let human logic twist one away from this -- Christ is clear -- Believe AND be baptise and one is saved. Believe not, baptism doesn't follow and one is damned. That's God's logic -- human logic is in your post that said If A then B does not imply If not A then not B(inverse). It does imply If not B then not A(contrapositive).
"Inerrant" is man's wisdom. I use the word Jesus himself used(to borrow your argument) "TRUTH".
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.