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 ... 3,551-3,6003,601-3,6503,651-3,700 ... 4,001-4,044 next last
To: SouthernClaire
Dear heart, thank you so much for sharing your testimony. You are completely correct that God WILL be found if we seek him with all our hearts. When you related that you said to God, "If You can really hear me ... If You are there ... Will You, please ... Please, Lord. Please... can You ... will You help ... me?” , I recognized those words because I said almost exactly the same thing. "God, if you are real, if there is any such thing as truth, I want to know it.". We are "proof" that God answers sincere, heartfelt prayers for him. Thank you again for sharing that with us.
3,601 posted on 06/18/2011 5:18:04 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3578 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Well said. Thank you.


3,602 posted on 06/18/2011 5:31:01 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3590 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Why?


3,603 posted on 06/18/2011 7:52:35 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3524 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
He is a very slippery correspondent, to put it mildly. Not really worth talking to, for he'll give you the runaround every time.

Not anymore. kosta50 was zotted at 3524.

3,604 posted on 06/18/2011 9:05:04 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3597 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Dang, I missed it.

Good morning Jim! (7:00 AM local on Sunday as I type).

3,605 posted on 06/19/2011 5:09:23 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3524 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Not so fast

I do not agree with his conclusion. It is equivalent to me stating that Godel's proof is false because of "spelling" errors. Godel's proof is true.(or technically, valid)

3,606 posted on 06/19/2011 7:33:31 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3595 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
"I do not agree with his conclusion. It is equivalent to me stating that Godel's proof is false because of "spelling" errors. Godel's proof is true.(or technically, valid)"

There is definitely NO such "equivalent".

The idea that we can have inerrant "COPIES" of the original autographs is held by no one....other than perhaps the King James Only crowd.

But of course, skeptics are welcome to send suggestions on how such a process would be accomplished.

What are your unique "process" suggestions, other than those that have already been addressed in the commentary linked above)?

"...many believers today have a view of inerrancy that could not possibly have been that of that of the writers of the Bible. They fail to account for differences in the way ancient persons thought, acted, or perceived the world. At the same time, Skeptics, too, have the same sort of misconceptions, basically these: That, as one writer puts it, inerrancy means that God preserved the text through the ages and through translations inerrantly. This is held by no one I know of other than perhaps the King James Only crowd. That "error" is judged based on 21st century standards of what constitutes a mistake - when in fact, we ought to judge by the standards of the day in which the Bible was written. ....

The question that must be asked is, "Would this be regarded as 'inerrant' by the standards of those who originally wrote the text?" The answer in every case I have found so far is NO -- and the difficulty is increased because inevitably what the ancients regarded as a form of narrative art -- within which precision could acceptably be compromised -- is regarded as an "error" today.

....it is plain that neither the Bible nor a belief in inerrancy is required to be a Christian. If this were so, then skeptics like Frank Morison or C. S. Lewis, who believed in the historicity of the Resurrection but not in the inerrancy of the Gospel reports of it, would never become Christians. People behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains would never have become Christians in times when the Bible was forbidden in those countries and they often had no more of the Bible than a few pitiable verses handwritten on a paper towel.

Finally, ... literacy would be a prerequisite for belief, which would be absurd being that the Bible was written in a time when up to 95% of the given population was illiterate. .......Moreover, given the circumstances, it is clear that "the Word of God" for most people was not what was written on paper, but was the original idea (what I have called the "home office" copy) recorded on paper. Few could have appreciated the significance of a written, inerrant original document.

....When discussing Biblical inerrancy, it is important to remember that ONLY the original texts of the Bible are claimed to have been inerrant. Furthermore, one might suggest that the "original" text was in something of a different format. How? Take the book of Ezekiel as an example. Zeke certainly didn't bang out all 48 chapters of his book in one sitting; his oracles were composed over his lifetime, and were collected together at a later date (by him, or by one of his students; it makes no difference), when - presumably - they were put together into the unified whole like that we now have. But did the collector of this material leave everything "as it was"? In all likelihood, yes, given the reverence held for the work of a prophet; but this would not necessarily prevent the addition of transitional phrases needed to make the oracles into a sensible whole. Skeptics will throw up their hands at this and ask how we can therefore believe accept our present text, since any number of errors could have crept in.

At this we should reply with: The OT is 95% accurately transcribed; the NT, 99%. That means (in a Bible without any commentary) 50 pages of your OT and 3 pages of your NT may have been fumbled by later writers. Since most of the "errors" critics harp on turn upon no more than one or two letters or words, those 53 pages give us plenty of room to accept intellectually the idea that the original texts were inerrant! ...... Skeptical obfuscation in this area, however, abounds: One 19th-century Skeptic said that there were "150,000 blunders in the Hebrew and 7,000 in the Greek." That sounds bad until you remember that these "blunders" consist for the largest part of JUST ONE LETTER OR NUMERAL spread across multiple copies! Thus, if a letter is put 26 different ways in 26 different manuscripts, that counts as 26 "errors".

Let's keep things on perspective, here! It should be obvious that since many of the "errors" in our Bibles turn on single letters, numbers or words, no doctrine of Christian belief is the least bit altered by any questionable reading in Scripture.

Nor does salvation require a functional belief in inerrancy; indeed, if it did, those who were illiterate or did not have a Bible in their own language could never be saved. The number of horses in Solomon's army, the name of Saul's daughter who had no children - these things should be recognized and corrections noted, but they should be no cause for shipwreck of anyone's faith or an excuse for disbelief in the Good News of salvation through Jesus Christ.

....No convinced skeptic will turn to Christ simply because we explain why Chronicles says Ahab's bathtub held 75 gallons while Kings says 85. Their reasons for disbelief are beyond that. ....."

3,607 posted on 06/19/2011 9:00:27 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (In the latter times the man [or woman] of virtue appears vile. --Tao Te Ching)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3606 | View Replies]

Comment #3,608 Removed by Moderator

To: Matchett-PI
The idea that we can have inerrant "COPIES" of the original autographs is held by no one....other than perhaps the King James Only crowd.

My point sailed completely over your head. Suffice it to say you are correct when using the wisdom of men. That said, I have no interest in discussing the wisdom of men with you and you can discuss the errors in the Bible with unbelievers. And to alleviate your quivering heart, I do love the King James version, but it is a translation.

3,609 posted on 06/19/2011 12:29:31 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3607 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
"That said, I have no interest in discussing"

:)

3,610 posted on 06/19/2011 12:50:34 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (In the latter times the man [or woman] of virtue appears vile. --Tao Te Ching)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3609 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
:)

At the risk of being misunderstood, may I suggest that you include this viewpoint along with your link to "inerrancy- is it real or imagined?"(paraphrased of course).

IS THE BIBLE INERRANT?

I don't use the word inerrant. I use "true"/"the truth".

P.S. ;^)

3,611 posted on 06/19/2011 1:01:36 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3610 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
"IS THE BIBLE INERRANT? I don't use the word inerrant. I use "true"/"the truth"."

Your point is moot.

But you could have saved yourself the trouble if you were a careful reader. You skimmed over this little tid-bit in my previous post on "inerrancy":

Let's keep things on perspective, here! It should be obvious that since many of the "errors" in our Bibles turn on single letters, numbers or words, no doctrine of Christian belief is the least bit altered by any questionable reading in Scripture.

3,612 posted on 06/19/2011 1:33:00 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (In the latter times the man [or woman] of virtue appears vile. --Tao Te Ching)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3611 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Your point is moot. But you could have saved yourself the trouble if you were a careful reader. You skimmed over this little tid-bit in my previous post on "inerrancy":

I did not skim over it. That said, I repeat "... I have no interest in discussing the wisdom of men with you ..."

3,613 posted on 06/19/2011 3:39:51 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3612 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
"I repeat "... I have no interest in discussing the wisdom of men with you ...""

:)

3,614 posted on 06/19/2011 3:54:04 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (In the latter times the man [or woman] of virtue appears vile. --Tao Te Ching)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3613 | View Replies]

To: metmom
I was going to point out… The the point is moot now.

But that didn't stop your post about a moot point to someone who cannot respond.

3,615 posted on 06/19/2011 11:32:32 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3579 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; metmom

#3579 post was to me. I think I can respond even if I didn’t. Thanks


3,616 posted on 06/20/2011 12:48:13 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3615 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
He who believes and is baptized will be saved.

and in context it reads

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.
God has clearly said -- believe and be baptise and you shall be saved. If you don't believe, then baptism can't help you and you shall be damned.

But the clear point is you believe then you get baptised.

These are the words of Christ.

Baptism sans belief does not help, but Christ says believe and be baptised -- it is if you do A (believe) then get B (baptism) done. If you don't do A, then B has no point. This does not mean that B is not necessary, just that it does not stand on its own.

For the Lord says, ‘Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven.’

3,617 posted on 06/20/2011 4:41:00 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego słynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3566 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Again, you said . I show the logic. And the logic uses the absolute truth of God's word. If A then B does not imply If not A then not B(inverse). If you believe that it does, you need remedial logic.

this is the wisdom of men, using human logic when Jesus Christ's words are so simple: The one who "believes and is baptized shall be saved," (Mark 16:16) -- you do A (believe), then B (baptism) follows and you shall be saved. You don't do A (believe), then B does not follow, hence you won't be saved. Yet, CHRIST HIMSELF says you MUST do A and then B.

3,618 posted on 06/20/2011 4:44:30 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego słynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3567 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
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,

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.
Acts 22:16;
16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.
Rom. 6:1–4;
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 6:11,
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
1 Cor 12:13;
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.
Gal. 3:26–27;
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
Eph. 5:26;
to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word,
Col. 2:11–12;
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.
Titus 3:5;
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,

3,619 posted on 06/20/2011 4:46:39 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego słynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3567 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
We re-read it emphasised in +Paul's letter to the Romans

Rom 6:4

4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
;


Titus 3:5

5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
John 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.

3,620 posted on 06/20/2011 4:48:50 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego słynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3567 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
In his Passover Christ opened to all men the fountain of Baptism. He had already spoken of his Passion, which he was about to suffer in Jerusalem, as a "Baptism" with which he had to be baptized
Mk 10:38
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.

3,621 posted on 06/20/2011 4:49:38 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego słynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3567 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
And finally, note that it is not I deriving something from it, but your posts which is adding human logic to the very simple words of Christ 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. -- 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 If A then B does not imply If not A then not B(inverse). It does imply If not B then not A(contrapositive).
3,622 posted on 06/20/2011 4:51:36 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego słynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3568 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI; getoffmylawn
..it is plain that neither the Bible nor a belief in inerrancy is required to be a Christian. If this were so, then skeptics like Frank Morison or C. S. Lewis, who believed in the historicity of the Resurrection but not in the inerrancy of the Gospel reports of it, would never become Christians. People behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains would never have become Christians in times when the Bible was forbidden in those countries and they often had no more of the Bible than a few pitiable verses handwritten on a paper towel.

well put.

3,623 posted on 06/20/2011 4:56:17 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego słynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3607 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC; Matchett-PI
It's not a wisdom of men -- not like the human logic that doesn't take Christ at his word in Mark 16:16.

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.

3,624 posted on 06/20/2011 4:59:52 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego słynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3613 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Exactly. Thanks. bttt


3,625 posted on 06/20/2011 5:13:00 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (In the latter times the man [or woman] of virtue appears vile. --Tao Te Ching)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3624 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; count-your-change
But that didn't stop your post about a moot point to someone who cannot respond.

Who would that be? count-your-change's account is still active.

3,626 posted on 06/20/2011 5:33:34 AM 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 3615 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; AndrewC
I show the logic. And the logic uses the absolute truth of God's word. If A then B does not imply If not A then not B(inverse). If you believe that it does, you need remedial logic.

...wisdom of men, using human logic...


Three things:
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

3,627 posted on 06/20/2011 5:38:00 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3618 | View Replies]

To: metmom

This message comes to you from......

BEYOND THE ZOT ZONE!!!!


3,628 posted on 06/20/2011 6:01:54 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3626 | View Replies]

To: aruanan; AndrewC
"....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...."

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............]"

3,629 posted on 06/20/2011 6:03:05 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (In the latter times the man [or woman] of virtue appears vile. --Tao Te Ching)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3627 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Sorry, feigning ignorance doesn’t work.


3,630 posted on 06/20/2011 8:14:01 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3626 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

yeah. sure.


3,631 posted on 06/20/2011 8:16:29 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3616 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
God has clearly said -- believe and be baptise and you shall be saved. If you don't believe, then baptism can't help you and you shall be damned. But the clear point is you believe then you get baptised

Yes. But again, I point out that it is not necessary in order to be saved. But you must repent.

3,632 posted on 06/20/2011 9:32:23 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3617 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Yet, CHRIST HIMSELF says you MUST do A and then B.

No. "AND" is not "THEN".

3,633 posted on 06/20/2011 9:35:12 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3618 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; Cronos; Alamo-Girl; AndrewC; metmom; xzins
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.

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!

3,634 posted on 06/20/2011 9:40:02 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through, the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3530 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; stfassisi
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.

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.

3,635 posted on 06/20/2011 9:41:07 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3511 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Acts 22:16; 16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.

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.

3,636 posted on 06/20/2011 9:47:07 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3619 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Err...? the only words I put in that post were 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., the rest were direct quotes from scripture.

There is no "perverting of meaning" because those are direct quotes from scripture

3,637 posted on 06/20/2011 9:50:56 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego słynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3636 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
That's God's logic

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.

3,638 posted on 06/20/2011 9:57:02 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3622 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC; Matchett-PI; getoffmylawn; aruanan
I said
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,

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.
Acts 22:16;
16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.
Rom. 6:1–4;
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 6:11,
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
1 Cor 12:13;
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.
Gal. 3:26–27;
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
Eph. 5:26;
to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word,
Col. 2:11–12;
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.
Titus 3:5;
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).


3,639 posted on 06/20/2011 9:57:40 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego słynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3636 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
A translation is not inerrant, as M-PI put it, but the Word Himself, the Word is inerrant.

"Inerrant" is man's wisdom. I use the word Jesus himself used(to borrow your argument) "TRUTH".

3,640 posted on 06/20/2011 10:00:32 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3624 | View Replies]

To: xzins; stfassisi
Yet, that is the same as the other personal comments given TO kosta, by the very same poster.

Secondly this was an answer to the question Prove it. Prove it with the same level of proof that you demand of believers to prove that God exists. in which the accuser asked him to prove his own personal details, so the question response was valid, but both were overheated.

3,641 posted on 06/20/2011 10:00:31 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego słynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3635 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
I do not add any thing to God's words. You have been.

Actually, no, let's review. This starts with my post 3558 saying

The wisdom of God is here
Mk 16:16, Lk 13:3, Jn 6:54, Matt 23:13 are Jesus's own words telling us that
  1. He who believes
  2. and is baptized will be saved.
  3. [U]nless you repent you will all likewise perish
  4. [H]e who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day
  5. he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved

These are the Lord's very own words His very own statements, exhortations, commands.

this is not the philosophy or wisdom of men, this what God Himself has commanded.

to which your post 3561 said
BUT I insist that the only "unless"(sbsolute necessity) involves repentence.
--that's putting human logic on the simple words of Christ

I repeated in 3561

Salvation is as Christ, Himself said he who believes, is baptised (in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) for the remission of sins, who truly repents of his/her sins, who eats of His flesh and who endureth to the end, they shall be saved. If not they will perish

I don't see how one can not see this said very clearly by Christ Himself

to which you respond
If A then B does not imply If not A then not B(inverse). It does imply If not B then not A(contrapositive).
this is the wisdom of men, using human logic when Jesus Christ's words are so simple: The one who "believes and is baptized shall be saved," (Mark 16:16) -- you do A (believe), then B (baptism) follows and you shall be saved. You don't do A (believe), then B does not follow, hence you won't be saved. Yet, CHRIST HIMSELF says you MUST do A and then B

3,642 posted on 06/20/2011 10:06:27 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego słynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3638 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
To which I again told you in post 3617
He who believes and is baptized will be saved.

and in context it reads

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.

God has clearly said -- believe and be baptise and you shall be saved. If you don't believe, then baptism can't help you and you shall be damned.

But the clear point is you believe then you get baptised.

These are the words of Christ.

Baptism sans belief does not help, but Christ says believe and be baptised -- it is if you do A (believe) then get B (baptism) done. If you don't do A, then B has no point. This does not mean that B is not necessary, just that it does not stand on its own.

For the Lord says, ‘Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven'

It's so clear -- why do people subtract from the word of God? From the EXACT words of Jesus Christ from His very mouth?
3,643 posted on 06/20/2011 10:09:34 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego słynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3638 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
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:

No.

You cannot go on the ride when failing height because it is a requirement. And if you do not meet a requirement you cannot go on the ride no matter how many other requirements you may meet. If meeting the height is the only requirement then meeting the height requirement allows the "can" otherwise it is a "may". You might have a fee to pay in addition.

3,644 posted on 06/20/2011 10:11:04 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3627 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Hello wall. Re-read what I wrote, otherwise this is a complete waste of time.


3,645 posted on 06/20/2011 10:12:56 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3637 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
BUT I insist that the only "unless"(sbsolute necessity) involves repentence. --that's putting human logic on the simple words of Christ

No it isn't. I was pointing out that only item 2 had "unless" in it. What is the "Cronos" definition of "unless"?

3,646 posted on 06/20/2011 10:17:16 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3642 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

EXPLAIN THE THIEF ON THE CROSS.


3,647 posted on 06/20/2011 10:18:42 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3643 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC; getoffmylawn
Easy -- when did Jesus tell the theif that he would be in heaven?

BEFORE Jesus Christ died, right?

The thief lived under the OLD Covenant who received the grace and mercy of the Lord. The NEW covenant was not inaugurated until Jesus Christ's death on the Cross, refer Colossians 2:12-17

12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Christ ended the Old Testament nailing it to his cross;

Remember that each of God's covenants was with a sacrifice -- and for the Jews in the OT, there was forgiveness of sins which involved an animal sacrifice at the temple -- and in the case of the New Covenant of Christ this was the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross

Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is commanded after THE RESURRECTION read Matthew 28:18-20

18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

or Mark 16:15-16
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.


3,648 posted on 06/20/2011 10:29:57 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego słynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3647 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC; getoffmylawn
Note again -- the thief was promised in the OLD Covenant while in his Passover Christ opened to all men the fountain of Baptism. He had already spoken of his Passion, which he was about to suffer in Jerusalem, as a "Baptism" with which he had to be baptized
Mk 10:38
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.

3,649 posted on 06/20/2011 10:31:20 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego słynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3647 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
it doesn't matter what I, just a simple member of Christ's body, defines -- what is important is what JESUS CHRIST Himself defines:

He who believes and is baptized will be saved. [U]nless you repent you will all likewise perish. [H]e who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved

Christ HIMSELF is saying do this, do this, why use human logic to curtail HIS words?

3,650 posted on 06/20/2011 10:34:04 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego słynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3646 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 3,551-3,6003,601-3,6503,651-3,700 ... 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