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 ... 3,851-3,9003,901-3,9503,951-4,0004,001-4,044 last
To: count-your-change; Iscool

FOTFLOL!


4,001 posted on 06/25/2011 6:27:02 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 4000 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Anything added to the work of Christ on the cross means that what Christ did wasn’t good enough, that we have to add more to it to make it adequate.

That is spitting in God’s face, treating the death of Christ with contempt as useless.


4,002 posted on 06/25/2011 6:40:53 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 3997 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"That is spitting in God’s face, treating the death of Christ with contempt as useless."

No, actually what's spitting in God's face is pretending that 100% of His Revealed Word is contained in the Bible and that it took a French shyster 1500 years after Christ's death to tell the world which parts were relevant and which parts could be ignored.

4,003 posted on 06/25/2011 7:14:06 PM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4002 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; ...

Christ alone is adequate for salvation. Nothing need be added when forgiveness is given, because when one is forgiven, there’s nothing left to work for or earn.

Man’s problem is that he likes to be in control and that includes of his own salvation and God. Trusting God completely like that is hard for a control freak to give up, but without the unbridled trust in God to do for us what we CAN’T do for ourselves, we can never be free.

Once the works are required for salvation, then life is nothing more than a marathon course of performance based perfectionism, a constant striving to be good enough. If you just do one more thing, and just do it well enough, then maybe, just maybe that will make the grade.

That is not freedom in Christ, that is bondage. Bondage to works, bondage to performance based perfectionism, bondage to the enemy of our souls who has us chasing after the wind trying to earn something that God has freely given and freely offered to all mankind, just for the asking.

God is not a harsh task master, waiting up in heaven for us to make one little mistake so he can zot us to hell and then demand that we come back groveling and whining for His pardon. He is a loving heavenly father, something that I know was NOT conveyed by the Catholic church, not with the continual demand for sacraments, ritual, works, just one more thing, to make us acceptable to God.

Christ is all and in all. He is the final authority in all. He is the beginning and the end and every knee will bow to Him one day.

Better to recognize our inadequacy now and do it before we die, then vainly trust in ourselves to work out our own salvation, which we can never do.

There is freedom in Christ, not bondage to any one or any thing or any church.


4,004 posted on 06/25/2011 7:49:42 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 4003 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"Christ alone is adequate for salvation."

You are going to have to give up the schizophrenic story line. Which one an I dealing with now.

Is it the "Christ alone" story or is it the "Jesus only came for the Jews, and it is Paul to whom we look to for revelation and the creed of Salvation" story?

Is it the "we must each choose to follow the doctrines of Calvin" or is it the "God already decided our fate so we have no ability to choose" line tonight?

4,005 posted on 06/25/2011 8:02:56 PM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4004 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Once the works are required for salvation, then life is nothing more than a marathon course of performance based perfectionism, a constant striving to be good enough. If you just do one more thing, and just do it well enough, then maybe, just maybe that will make the grade. That is not freedom in Christ, that is bondage. Bondage to works, bondage to performance based perfectionism, bondage to the enemy of our souls who has us chasing after the wind trying to earn something that God has freely given and freely offered to all mankind, just for the asking.

Indeed! I think that the main obstacle for "religious" people is letting go of the pride and the feelings of false piety that happen whenever we rely upon our own goodness and righteous acts to make us worthy of Heaven with God. How many times did God say in his word that all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags? That the price of our sinning against him is death? That he provided a complete and sufficient sacrifice for us? That he demands faith in order to please him? That he saves us by his grace and we receive that gift - that unspeakable gift - by believing in him whom he hath sent, we receive Jesus as our Savior, our redeemer and deliverer?

I wonder about why there are still so many people, who after hearing the Gospel, still insist on doing it all for themselves. Sure, they may say they believe in Christ and that God saves us by grace, but they then still hold onto their own deeds to add to their faith because they have been deceived into believing that faith is not enough. That God still expects us to work for it - not even getting the point that if we are saved by grace then it cannot be also by works because then grace would not be grace.

I genuinely worry about people like my Mom who think they must earn their place in heaven. Sure, she believes in Jesus as the Savior, that he died for our sins and he "opened" the gates of heaven, but that is where it stops - the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ. He only made it possible to go to heaven but that she must also do all she is supposed to do like not sinning and going to confession when she does and doing penance afterward and going to Mass every week and receiving communion and giving her money and, and, and. There is never anything more than a glimmer of "hope" that she will make it there. Why I worry is because I ask can a person be really saved who says they trust in Jesus as their Savior but that they must also do certain things and not do certain things to go to heaven? Is that really trusting or receiving Christ like we're supposed to when all the other stuff must be added on or else we won't make it? I pray for God's mercy and grace for her and others like her caught up in a works based salvation. I pray that God opens their eyes through the Holy Spirit to hear his words and understand that we all have a precious gift from God and it is available to all who in faith receive it. I yearn for her and others to have assurance of their salvation, to KNOW they have eternal life. To rest in the promises of God and be free from the bondage of sin and death.

4,006 posted on 06/25/2011 9:11:46 PM PDT by boatbums (my cat erased my tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4004 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
No, actually what's spitting in God's face is pretending that 100% of His Revealed Word is contained in the Bible and that it took a French shyster 1500 years after Christ's death to tell the world which parts were relevant and which parts could be ignored.

But then no one has any revealed word from God that is outside the bible...Maybe you guys are hoping God will reveal something to you so you can prove scripture alone is false???

4,007 posted on 06/26/2011 4:48:26 AM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4003 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

God wants us to have assurance of our salvation or He would not have told us we could.

1 John 5:6-15

6This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. 9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. 10Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. 11And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

13I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life. 14And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. 15And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him.


4,008 posted on 06/26/2011 6:59:35 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 4006 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
"But then no one has any revealed word from God that is outside the bible.."

LOL

4,009 posted on 06/26/2011 7:06:50 AM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4007 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
LOL

That's all we ever get out of you guys...We ask you to post what, where, when and by whom and all you do is LOL...OF course, that's all you have...

4,010 posted on 06/26/2011 8:08:42 AM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4009 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
"That's all we ever get out of you guys..."

When all we ever get out of you guys is a demand that we use an artificial 15th construct that you can't even substantiate from that very same construct of course it will be met with laughter.

If you want to be taken seriously start by posting the what, where, when and by whom that establishes that 100% of the revealed Word is contained within the Canon of the Bible and that 0% of Holy Tradition is to be ignored. Until then LOL!

4,011 posted on 06/26/2011 9:00:35 AM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4010 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
"That's all we ever get out of you guys..."

When all we ever get out of you guys is a demand that we use an artificial 15th construct that you can't even substantiate from that very same construct of course it will be met with laughter.

If you want to be taken seriously start by posting the what, where, when and by whom that establishes that 100% of the revealed Word is contained within the Canon of the Bible and that 100% of Holy Tradition is to be ignored. Until then LOL!

4,012 posted on 06/26/2011 9:01:43 AM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4010 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Christ alone is adequate for salvation. Nothing need be added when forgiveness is given, because when one is forgiven, there’s nothing left to work for or earn.

Amen!

Too bad FRoman Catholics don't read their Bibles to know the liberty Christ has won for them...

"My grace is sufficient for thee." -- 2 Corinthians 12:9

Imagine the impudence that thinks something more is required.

4,013 posted on 06/26/2011 9:39:10 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4004 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
When all we ever get out of you guys is a demand that we use an artificial 15th construct that you can't even substantiate from that very same construct of course it will be met with laughter.

If you want to be taken seriously start by posting the what, where, when and by whom that establishes that 100% of the revealed Word is contained within the Canon of the Bible and that 0% of Holy Tradition is to be ignored. Until then LOL!

No,no,no...You guys keep telling us that you have some sacred, revealed tradition right from the Apostles...But you can't ever come up with anything...

Of course, you and I both know you can't...It doesn't exist...

So take one on the chin...The only thing revealed by God is in the written scriptures...

4,014 posted on 06/26/2011 10:08:54 AM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4011 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
"The only thing revealed by God is in the written scriptures..."

LOL. Is that all you got? LOL. If you can't run with the big dogs, Fifi, stay on the porch.

4,015 posted on 06/26/2011 10:20:55 AM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4014 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; Iscool; metmom
I think Cyril of jerusalem gives a nice summary of what sola scriptura is and how the early church practiced it.

"Have thou ever in thy mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures."

4,016 posted on 06/26/2011 10:39:12 AM PDT by bkaycee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4012 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; count-your-change; ...

Isn’t it sad that some churches and some people don’t think that God’s Word is enough?

Actually, sad isn’t the word. It’s tragic. A tragedy because those who don’t think they can find God in inspired Scripture think they can find Him in some other arena, at the cost of their own soul. If God is a liar in Scripture, then there is nothing left for mankind to turn to.

Too many people are going to find out too late that the Bible was all they needed to bring them to Christ.


4,017 posted on 06/26/2011 11:23:37 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 4010 | View Replies]

To: bkaycee
"I think Cyril of jerusalem gives a nice summary of what sola scriptura is and how the early church practiced it."

With all due respect to Cyril you could not have an authentic canon nor even a sufficient guarantee without an authority other than that of the Bible itself. Absent the Holy Tradition that established the canon the Bible is an errant compilation of inerrant works. Absent the Magisterium the you have an errant interpretation of those inerrant works.

4,018 posted on 06/26/2011 11:24:05 AM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4016 | View Replies]

To: bkaycee; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; count-your-change; ...

Interesting what the CCC says about Scripture. I’d say the message hasn’t filtered down the ranks, like so much other Biblical teaching.

Looks like some of the FRoman Catholics need to get with the program concerning the adequacy of Scripture.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PO.HTM

103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God’s Word and Christ’s Body.66

104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God”.67 “In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them.”68

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book”. Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, “not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open (our) minds to understand the Scriptures.”74

124 “The Word of God, which is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, is set forth and displays its power in a most wonderful way in the writings of the New Testament”96 which hand on the ultimate truth of God’s Revelation. Their central object is Jesus Christ, God’s incarnate Son: his acts, teachings, Passion and glorification, and his Church’s beginnings under the Spirit’s guidance.97

132 “Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. the ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture.”111

133 The Church “forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful... to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.112


4,019 posted on 06/26/2011 11:35:17 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 4016 | View Replies]

To: metmom

You and others might find this interesting: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Scripture.html


4,020 posted on 06/26/2011 1:31:05 PM PDT by daniel1212 ( "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4019 | View Replies]

To: bkaycee; Natural Law; Iscool; metmom
Cyril was not the only "recognized" doctor of the church to say such things. The point is not that "tradition" has no place in the Christian faith, but that the Holy Scriptures must be the authority by which those traditions are judged to be relevant to the church today.

For an example, there was a tradition that early Christians continued to honor the Sabbath day. They also met on the first day of the week to honor the resurrection of Jesus. When the Roman Emperor Constantine issued a decree making Sunday a day of rest from labor in 321 A.D. he did not forbid Saturday Sabbath observance, but said the empire should honor the "day of the sun" in order to satisfy both pagans and Christians. Even today, most Christian denominations conduct services on Sunday. Now this tradition developed after the Apostolic period and the day to meet was never demanded or commanded in Scripture as long as a day of rest was set aside - as Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made for the man and not man for the Sabbath.". Scripture DOES, however, state that "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."(Romans 14:5).

So we have a "tradition" that is not spelled out in Scripture but, since it does not contradict Scripture, it is acceptable. There are many other traditions that developed later within certain churches that are either optional or clearly contradicted by Scripture. For example, the tradition that women should not wear pants because Scripture says women should not dress like a man. We can clearly see from Scripture that there was a reason and a context for Paul stating women should not pretend to be men nor that men should dress as women. Its context had to do with homosexuality, and not a restriction like we think that has relevance today seeing as women wear pants who are NOT trying to look like men. Back in the first century, I'm sure even the men didn't wear "pants". But my point is that tradition certainly has a place but it must be judged against Scripture, which is our objective authority for the faith handed down to us from the Apostles.

4,021 posted on 06/26/2011 2:03:06 PM PDT by boatbums (my cat erased my tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4016 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; Natural Law
Cyril was not the only "recognized" doctor of the church to say such things. The point is not that "tradition" has no place in the Christian faith, but that the Holy Scriptures must be the authority by which those traditions are judged to be relevant to the church today.
Irenaeus is another ECF who practiced Sola Scriptura.

Irenaeus assesses the Gnostic position in these words:

When however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and assert that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For they allege that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce (orally)...For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to &‘the perfect’ apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the churches themselves.39

One must also be careful understand what is meant by tradition in the Fathers writings. Many times tradition just refers to the major tenets of the Faith as found in the scripture. Many times it is traditions such as facing the east or other liturgical proceedings. There has never been a major doctrine proved to originate from any apostle that is only ORAL in nature.

4,022 posted on 06/26/2011 2:13:44 PM PDT by bkaycee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4021 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; bkaycee
"The point is not that "tradition" has no place in the Christian faith, but that the Holy Scriptures must be the authority by which those traditions are judged to be relevant to the church today."

First, let me thank you and bkaycee for making this a reasonable discussion of doctrines and differences.

Your underlines the Catholic premise that there exists a hierarchy within the Revealed Word in which Scripture does indeed carry a higher weight than Tradition. We Catholics also believe that within Scripture there exists a similar hierarchy in which the actual words of Jesus hold a higher importance than do the letters and epistles of the Apostles and the laws and accounts of the Old Testament. However, all of Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture play an important role.

It is through this understanding of hierarchy that Catholic doctrines and dogma can be better understood.

If we parse the revealed Word and exclude Tradition can we then keep going and exclude everything except the Beatitudes and still be Christian?

4,023 posted on 06/26/2011 2:39:30 PM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4021 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

There certainly are traditions that are not kept today, nor does Rome have unanimous consent of the fathers for all her doctrines, and the EOs also differ with Rome about what Tradition teaches in some things, primarily papal infallibility and power.

But i would have to differ regarding worship on Sunday being a result of a 4th cent, edit. Justin Martyr records this was practiced in the 2nd century, and the command to keep the 7 day Sabbath is the only one of the 10 commandments not reiterated under the New Cov., and i see it as falling into the class of typological laws. (Gal. 4:10; Heb. 4:309). But to save typing, i will just reference this which i first wrote a long time ago,
http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/lawandgrace.html

I also see a restriction against women in male clothing as not so much being against homosexuality, but in order to reflect the anatomical distinction God made btwn genders (thank God), and due to the Fall, and the attraction to female anatomical parts by normal males, beyond simply appreciating God-given beauty - the extent of which i think many women do not realize (while others seem to all too well).

No, there is NO excuse for us men taking that second look at a shapely female in revealing clothing, nor must we, and as there is a vast difference between women as regards how dress would affect this, one cannot make a dogmatic rule, yet i think women need to understand the command for modest apparel, and against unisex clothing, as having more of a purpose than preventing homosexuality.

And in a spiritual sense, God veils Himself, revealing enough so that souls should seek Him, but only to those who enter into covenant with Him will He the more fully reveal His glory. And true seeking prepares the heart for receiving with proper appreciation. But those scoffers who declare that God must explicitly show Himself to them on cue, if He expects them to believe, are spiritual rapists.


4,024 posted on 06/26/2011 3:18:29 PM PDT by daniel1212 ( "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4021 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; bkaycee
Your underlines the Catholic premise that there exists a hierarchy within the Revealed Word in which Scripture does indeed carry a higher weight than Tradition. We Catholics also believe that within Scripture there exists a similar hierarchy in which the actual words of Jesus hold a higher importance than do the letters and epistles of the Apostles and the laws and accounts of the Old Testament. However, all of Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture play an important role. It is through this understanding of hierarchy that Catholic doctrines and dogma can be better understood. If we parse the revealed Word and exclude Tradition can we then keep going and exclude everything except the Beatitudes and still be Christian?

Thank you as well for the respectful discussion. I do have an objection to your statement about Catholics holding the "actual words of Jesus" having a higher authority than the rest of Scripture. My reasons for objection is because the words Jesus spoke while here on earth were retold by men specifically inspired by the Holy Spirit who brought to their remembrance all things that Jesus taught them. John, for example, not only wrote one of those retelling books (The Gospel According to John) but several other Scripture books. Are you implying that what the Gospel of John says Jesus said is more important than what John the Apostle said in his epistles as well as the book of Revelation? Are not ALL of the Holy Scriptures God's word? Are not Paul's writings as Peter said in his epistle that Paul's writings were inspired Scripture equally authoritative?

The reason I think that compels some to place the words of Jesus in higher importance than the rest of Scripture is that they see a disconnect in Jesus' teachings and what other Bible books (such as Paul's epistles) teach. I do not see any disconnect nor any contradictions. I do not think any Scripture contradicts any other Scripture as they were divinely inspired by the same (and only) Holy Spirit and he would not, could not contradict himself. This obviously calls for a proper hermeneutical understanding of Scripture that studies the Word in regard to context, audience, times, subject and consistent with the other revelations from God. So, why do you think your church needed to state such a distinction? What do they say is "troublesome" about holding ALL Scripture as revelation from God so that all is true and equally true?

I do not think this is "parsing" of Scripture nor is it discarding tradition, but is rather an understanding that tradition MUST be understood and judged by Scripture and not the other way around. Thanks for your input.

4,025 posted on 06/26/2011 3:18:33 PM PDT by boatbums (my cat erased my tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4023 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Thanks for your comments, you know that I deeply respect and appreciate your theological reasoning. I did not mean to imply that the early Christians didn't meet together for worship on Sundays long before Constantine. They certainly did as is attested to within Scripture in several places. My mentioning this point was to show that they also had a tradition of going to the temple on the Sabbath (as Paul said he took advantage of many times to teach that Jesus was the Messiah). The recognition of changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday was by the decree of Constantine in 321.

I also agree that women should be careful to dress modestly and not be drawing attention to themselves in a way that overtly invites lust. I certainly think that admonition can be done by faithful women today even if they do wear pants, since pants are no longer - in our society - associated solely as menswear. My example was based on a few students I had when I taught at a Christian school. Their parents had placed them with our new school mainly because of the intolerance exhibited by another school that told their students their mothers were going to Hell because they wore pants! To me, that was placing a tradition in too high of a place over sensible understanding of Scripture with regards to modesty and freedom in Christ. To me, that church went too far.

4,026 posted on 06/26/2011 3:57:58 PM PDT by boatbums (my cat erased my tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4024 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Thanks for your understanding and appreciation. There certainly are extremes, though it today it is more on the libertarian side, as we become more like the society in which we exists. The RCC did as well, and so we must and i must obey Rm. 12:1+2 more deeply.


4,027 posted on 06/26/2011 4:14:54 PM PDT by daniel1212 ( "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4026 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Their parents had placed them with our new school mainly because of the intolerance exhibited by another school that told their students their mothers were going to Hell because they wore pants!

That's their control through intimidation tactic. Catholics need to be more concerned about the idolatry and man made doctrines that is pushed on them as 'of God'. What heresy that is!

Talk about manly/womanly dress - the priests and nuns looked the same in their black garbed dresses. How manly does the hierarchy look in their fussy sparkled gowns. So much for their pants are for men only when dresses are the standard for men/priests.
4,028 posted on 06/26/2011 6:02:38 PM PDT by presently no screen name ( The Palin Party: The Party of Patriots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4026 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name; boatbums
"That's their control through intimidation tactic. Catholics....."

Where was it stated that it was a Catholic school who made the asinine claim that mothers who wore pants were going to hell? Boatbums clearly said "Christian" school.

4,029 posted on 06/26/2011 6:29:40 PM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4028 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Catholic schools did the same! I know - I went there!

And don’t eat meat on Friday and fast before communion - or - oh the horrors - straight to hell for you! Condemning others to hell all on their man made rules.


4,030 posted on 06/26/2011 6:43:06 PM PDT by presently no screen name ( The Palin Party: The Party of Patriots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4029 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
"Catholic schools did the same! I know - I went there!"

You simply are not credible.

4,031 posted on 06/26/2011 7:21:14 PM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4030 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
I did not say it was a Catholic school...I hardly doubt they would have let an ex-Catholic, non-Catholic Bible College graduate teach at one. ;o)

No, it was a Protestant church school that had that strange idea. It was back in the mid to late seventies, so they may have changed their tune by now.

4,032 posted on 06/26/2011 7:42:25 PM PDT by boatbums (my cat erased my tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4028 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I have no argument with that at all.


4,033 posted on 06/26/2011 8:06:14 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4019 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
"I hardly doubt they would have let an ex-Catholic, non-Catholic Bible College graduate teach at one."

The Catholic schools that my wife and I went to and the ones kids went to K - Grad School had plenty of non-Catholic teachers.

4,034 posted on 06/26/2011 8:29:01 PM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4032 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Interesting, I was unaware of that as my Catholic school experience was mostly all nuns as I remember. Of course, those days for me probably go back way before yours. ;o)


4,035 posted on 06/26/2011 8:39:20 PM PDT by boatbums (my cat erased my tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4034 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; presently no screen name; Natural Law
pnsm (spittle, spurt) That's their control through intimidation tactic.

boatbums: I did not say it was a Catholic school...No, it was a Protestant church school that had that strange idea

burn....

4,036 posted on 06/26/2011 10:01:18 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4032 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
You simply are not credible.

What would a believer in a 'I'm all yours, Mary' church know from credible or not credible.
4,037 posted on 06/26/2011 10:11:26 PM PDT by presently no screen name ( The Palin Party: The Party of Patriots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4031 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

When the nuns started leaving in the very late ‘60’s and early ‘70’s - they replaced them with lay faculty. My children went to catholic school and there were no nuns.


4,038 posted on 06/26/2011 10:17:37 PM PDT by presently no screen name ( The Palin Party: The Party of Patriots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4035 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
"What would a believer in a 'I'm all yours, Mary' church know from credible or not credible."

It is actually pretty simple. You have been so consistently and epically wrong so often on matters of Catholic doctrine and dogma you are either an imbecile or were never a Catholic. In either case you have no credibility.

4,039 posted on 06/26/2011 10:24:48 PM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4037 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; count-your-change

Wait a minute, iscool — didn’t you say you were an ex-Catholic?


4,040 posted on 06/26/2011 10:30:41 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3988 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
You have been so consistently and epically wrong so often on matters of Catholic doctrine and dogma

You got the floor, skippy. Name what I have been wrong on. Show your credibility.

you are either an imbecile or were never a Catholic. In either case you have no credibility.

Your post clearly shows you are a Catholic - garbage in, garbage out. Now you got an idea why the sane ones have left - along with the nuns.
4,041 posted on 06/26/2011 11:02:04 PM PDT by presently no screen name ( The Palin Party: The Party of Patriots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4039 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name; Natural Law
Name what I have been wrong on.

Well, let's start about the fact that we Christians believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, God and Savior. how can anyone deny that?

4,042 posted on 06/27/2011 3:08:23 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4041 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande; Tramonto; Ethan Clive Osgoode; Abin Sur
Oh it warms my heart to such great depths.

I haven't been on FR since 2009 (Just been so busy) but I came across a fabulous NASA article that I had to post, so I signed on and wouldn't you know it, LeGrande's Orbing Sun was still Alive and Well!

Howdy' folks! It's so good to see you all again!

Said LeGrande: Maybe you should take this up with mrjesse and Ethan, they are the ones who don't understand relative motion, they think it has something to do with relativity and won't touch it.
Replies MrJesse:

What won't I touch?

The way I remember it, LeGrande finally concluded it this way:
Mrjesse and Fichori you were essentially correct too and I would like to apologize for cavalierly dismissing your arguments and I would like to thank you both for your persistence in helping to show me my error : )


While I'm just so busy, I'll have to peek in from time to time, although I'm going to try to not spend too much time. We'll see how that works.

I'm still teaching science to the local home schooled kids. Yesterday we built a model submarine out of Styrofoam with a concrete weight. It's mission was to sink in about 12 feet of salt water,tip over and dump the rock that was sitting on top, then rise back to the surface. It decided to stay down. So now we (my students and I) are building a kit-built underwater ROV to go rescue the first one.

I'm also trying to learn to fly model RC helicopters, but it's quite a challenge.

Anyway, ya'll take care now!

~Jesse
4,043 posted on 07/16/2011 2:53:16 PM PDT by mrjesse (The big bang and dark matter exist only in black holes that are supposed to be full of gray matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 651 | View Replies]

bookmark


4,044 posted on 04/01/2013 2:17:09 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (It's a single step from relativism to barbarism, low information to Democrat, ignorance to tenure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3629 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 3,851-3,9003,901-3,9503,951-4,0004,001-4,044 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