Skip to comments.We're not in Kansas anymore (Krauthammer slams Intelligent Design)
Posted on 11/18/2005 7:58:33 AM PST by UncledaveEdited on 11/18/2005 6:57:43 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON -- Because every few years this country, in its infinite tolerance, insists on hearing yet another appeal of the Scopes monkey trial, I feel obliged to point out what would otherwise be superfluous -- that the two greatest scientists in the history of our species were Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, and they were both religious.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
This is difficult for you to figure out?
Well, I'm just stating a historical fact. The bus came and the jews of today missed it. Most of the early church was jewish. Some scholars estimate that 50% of all jews followed this schism from judiasm.
Your rationale is flawed. Let's unpack your last statement
"Yes they can!>>>>>> Your interpretation of heaven or the route there is not written in stone. Last time I checked Jesus was a jew."
"Yes they can!>>>>>><<<<<< Something must have changed. Before Jesus a jew had to go to Jerusalem yearly for the absolution ceremony where the high priest put the collective sin of the nation onto the scapegoat. What changed was profound, most jews became Christians.
Your interpretation of heaven or the route there is not written in stone.>>>>>>><<<<<<< In Stone's Hebrew Bible, the scripture reads "the only pathway to the father's house goes through his son,the Bridegroom" BTW, the old testament has over 500 separate prophecies that could only have been solved by Jesus alone. It took 70 rabbi's 120 years to write the Hebrew Bible. Actually, the text of the commandmants was written on stone tablets and compiled by jews that did not understand what was being said.
Last time I checked Jesus was a jew.">>>>>><<<<<< Yes, He was born a jew I agree. In the early roman church bishops would will their sons their bishoprics, did that make them compentant theologians? No, so being born a jew doesn't help much. It might actually make you stiff necked and proud.At the appointed time Jesus was baptised into His ministry and Jesus became the universal Savior. He became a priest of the Order of Melcheczadek, which was something understood to be older and more exalted than either Abraham or Moses.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Is it that different men of different cultures at different times describe the divine in different ways and therefore the divine does not exist?
Or is your point that because Elron Hubbard started a religion and he was something, I guess, of a charlatan, then Christ is equally a charlatan because he also started a religion?
While I am certainly not a scholared apologist I'll attempt to answer these two rather simple points;
In the first case, I believe that men are born w/ what Pascal described as a God shaped vacuum and that they have always sought to fill that vacuum. Naturally, this effort is expressed in the multitude of idioms reflecting diffrences in time and culture. Some are more articulate, some more honest, some more profound. What I find amazing is not the diffrences but the similarities, for example if you took a Buddist holyman and a Christian holyman (not to be confused w/ a TV evangelist) and sat them side by side you would witness a remakable harmony between the two.
Why I am a Christian and not a Buddist is point 2:
As Christians we are taught to test all spiritual claims using reason and logic. And to further test these claims against the witness of Holy Scripture. In this way we come to a better more perfect understanding of Christ and the Trinity. Its not hocus pocus, but rather the teachings of some of the wisest and greatest thinkers of history.
Ulimately, of course, the decision to give one's life to Christ is a personal one; it cannot be otherwise. There is a great gulf of difference between Muhammad and Hubbard and Christ, it is up to the honest man to discover that for himself.
However, if your point is that all religion is bunk, then you are a fool and we really have nothing to discuss.
Like I said, Jews - who recognize JC as a historical figure, btw - do not recognize that the Messiah has come. I don't know how to state it more plainly than that. Not sure what you're getting at.
We know Pilate was the prefect of Judea -- it's in the Bible. You've expressed suspicion over the matters relating to Jesus due to the lack of state records. Where are the records for the rest of Pilate's activities-- budgets, appointments, other civic disturbances, crucifixions etc.?
> We know Pilate was the prefect of Judea -- it's in the Bible.
For the sake of illustration, consider for a moment this hypothetical: "The New Testament stories of Jesus were works of fiction intended to trick people into a new religion."
Now, even though this was written 30 years after the fact, if you wanted to convince people that your story was for real, you'd have to use *real* and commonly known figures. Just as if I were to try to create a new religion today based on the mystical exploits of Zander P. Whifflebottom thirty years ago... if one of those exploits was meeting with the President of the United States, I'd better not say that he met with President Stimpson J. Cat in the Rhombus Room of the Gray House in the US capital city, New Megalopolis, East Illinois.
> I'm not sure I understand your point. Is it that different men of different cultures at different times describe the divine in different ways and therefore the divine does not exist?
No. It's that people tend to invent things. Whether for political power, insanity, superstition, a desire to just see the best doen or whatever, people make stuff up. And we should always bear this in mind when confronted with the extraordinary.
> is your point that because Elron Hubbard started a religion and he was something, I guess, of a charlatan, then Christ is equally a charlatan because he also started a religion?
Not exactly. My point is that we *know* charlatans sometimes invent religions. But "miracles" and whatnot are *not* verified events. Most "miracles," once examiend, turn out to befrauds, the rest mistakes or misinterpretations. There has yet to be a real-deal miracle in the scientific era that has been adequately explored and determined to be impossible to be anything *other* than a miracle.
> I believe that men are born w/ what Pascal described as a God shaped vacuum and that they have always sought to fill that vacuum.
Some clearly are. Some clearly are not. And there are vast gradations between the extremes.
> if your point is that all religion is bunk...
Nope. I have one of my own, as it turns out. However, I do not say that "X is true" in such matters, but rather that "I believe X." Because certainty about such things, when there is no real evidence (especially when a vast multitude of wholly different religions see the same speck of evidence and all claim that that proves *their* religion right), is scientifically unfounded.
I am not personally offended, for I am not a Jew. But I know this to be true that your attitude, and that of others like you, are the reason that the ACLU exists, that Michael Newdow (and his Ilk, past, present and future) also exist and why Jews tend to be Democrats.
Your attitude that a Jew is inferior to a Christian before the same God of Jesus Christ, who was a Jew, is the reason that Jesus Christ has been tossed out of the public square in the USA. I know you can't see the connection, because your pious sanctimony has blinded you to its consequences.
You suffer from the proverbial, sliver and log in the eye paradox. Your exclusion of others has caused others to want to exclude you.
IMPO, I think that Jesus would be ashamed of you, but then, I don't pretend to speak for Jesus, as do you.
BTW, I believe that it is you who has inverted the Almighty's priorities. The Jew will get to Heaven just fine with Moses. It' s you, the Gentile, who is lacking of God's favor and cannot get to Heaven without Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, you have insulted his servant, Moses and His Son with your self righteous conceit.
You have taken Satan's bait and swallowed it whole: "Pride".
That's the theory I was going on when I read the New Testament for the first time.
In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled We're not in Kansas anymore (Krauthammer slams Intelligent Design), Steve_Seattle wrote:
"The theory of evolution is basically a denial that there is ANY intelligence in the universe. It requires that a Boeing 747 be regarded as a product of blind chance. Why? Because if all of nature operates according to blind mechanism, natural selection, and inexplicable mutations, then there is no reason or guiding intelligence ANYWHERE in the process from the pre-biotic soup all the way to the 747."
This is a self-evidently stupid statement.
Evolution by natural selection explains precisely HOW complexity can emerge from random changes. Natural selection acts as the "ratchet," favoring certain changes over others.
If you don't understand this, you're too ignorant to be making public comments on the subject. And if you do understand it, then you're deliberately lying and will go to Hell when you die.
If you were going to trick someone into a new religion, would you tell them their founder was executed with theives? That they should expect the same persecution as their founder? Would you tell men, that women were their equal? Masters that slaves were their equal? Slaves to love their masters? How would you account for the leaders refusal to acquire wealth and power, but embrace torment? A happy afterlife? Rome promised that by honoring their civic gods? Judiasm promised that by following the Torah? Why didn't they triumph?
The only explanation for the success of Christianity is that it's true.
So that's the log in your eye, you're a Jehovah's Witness! I have never known them to be anti-Semites as well, but I get the impression that you would welcome Adolph Eichmann into your fold if he were not now spending his eternity in the infernal regions.
> If you were going to trick someone into a new religion, would you tell them their founder was executed with theives?
Maybe. Zealots love a good martyr. And many love to *be* martyrs. If you get the BDSM crowd togehter with religious fervor... watch out!
> How would you account for the leaders refusal to acquire wealth and power, but embrace torment?
Huh. I wonder what relevance that has to this discussion. Did, or did not, the early Christian church start seekign out, oh, I dunno, Roman *Emperors?* Did the Christianization of Scandinavia go top-down or bottom up? Did or did not the fall of the Icelandic Republic as a going concern happen after the place was Christianized and the churches started collecting all the wealth?
> The only explanation for the success of Christianity is that it's true.
Uh-huh. I always love those "The only explanations is..." explanations.
I thought I drank a lot, but man, you got me beat.
That was the largest accumulation of nonesuch as I've seen in a freepin fortnight--call borbounbreath for clarification.
Damn; I hate callin' forth that knucklehaed but he's got it all over you per lineal thought....
Call me in the mornin', perhaps you'll gain control of sentence structure. In the mean time keep thinkin'
Who is we?
You dunno. The answer is no. Have you ever read the Bible?
Did the Christianization of Scandinavia go top-down or bottom up?
Did or did not the fall of the Icelandic Republic as a going concern happen after the place was Christianized and the churches started collecting all the wealth?
No. The Althing was established in 930. Iceland became Christian in 1000. It remained independent until 1262 when it submitted to the King of Norway. The Althing, however, remains and except for a period in the early 19th Century met regulary.
The only explanation for the success of Christianity is that it's true. Uh-huh. I always love those "The only explanations is..." explanations.
As opposed to what? People were tricked because they love martyrs?
>> Did, or did not, the early Christian church start seekign out, oh, I dunno, Roman *Emperors?
> You dunno. The answer is no.
Ah. So much for Emperor Constantine...
> Have you ever read the Bible?
>>Did the Christianization of Scandinavia go top-down or bottom up?
Nope, top down. King Olaf Tryggvasson slaughtered those who did not convert.
>>Did or did not the fall of the Icelandic Republic as a going concern happen after the place was Christianized and the churches started collecting all the wealth?
The answer you're looking for is "yes." You might find this enlightening:
> People were tricked because they love martyrs?
Well, people joined up with the Heaven's Gaters and lopped their nuts off, so...