Here's an email exchange I recently had with a Christian. It's typical of many others. I said:
Him:
Although both of us could be wrong, at least one of us is wrong. How do you propose deciding which one of us is right, if one of us is?His response:
I agree that at least one of us is wrong. Unless one of sees evidence or has an experience to convince us otherwise, neither of us will change our minds. No matter how much you and others want to paint it otherwise, atheism is not a purely scientific conclusion.My response:
It's the method of science that shows your faith to be wrong. There is no other way but to assume a natural explanation for everything. That method has no need of a god. Historians cannot approach the past any other way, nor can scientists. If we cannot know something by the method of naturalism as applied in science and history then we cannot know something at all.
Him:
John,Me:
When you say, “It's the method of science that shows your faith to be wrong,“ that’s just simply not true, no matter how much you want it to be true. There is not a single branch of science that has concluded that there is no god.
Yes, correct. But here's what science does: It offers natural explanations that better explains the phenomena than your theistic explanations, which are no explanations at all (see my next comment below).Him:
All science does is attempt to explain via natural means how physical events occur. Just because botany explain how plants grow or because geology explains rock formations, that does not exclude the activity of a god.Me:
This god of yours ends up being nothing more than the god of the gaps. And at that point any god will do.Him:
The scientific METHOD has no need of a god, and its conclusions are not dependent on a god.Me:
Then your specific conclusions could be derived no matter what method we use and so could any other god explanation.Him regarding a natural explanation of the Bible:
Using simple logic, if you look at the Bible as a whole (in addition to its parts individually), you have to ask certain questions about continuity and about why it reads so much differently than other ancient texts. That’s where a purely natural explanation falls even more into what’s merely possibly rather than what’s probable.Me:
Did you say you read Hector Avalos's chapter on Yahweh in The Christian Delusion: Why Faith FailsHim:? Did you really read it? Say it isn't so, for if you did I'm at a loss for words here. I really think you are ignorant about the Bible and the results of Biblical criticism. That's right, ignorant. Sorry. There is nothing in the Bible nor in how it was written or compiled or canonozied that reveals any divine mind behind this process in whole or in part. There is no statment or series of statements, no book, no prediction, no moral teaching, no lesson of hygene, nothing, that cannot be more credibly explained as the musings of an ancient suprestitious barbaric people living in a high context society. Nothing.
John, be consistent here. Are you willing to apply that standard to every single aspect of human existence? If so, you have lost a lot!! (Including love and all other emotions, beauty and all aesthetics, and most other phenomena that make human life enjoyable.)Me:
Humans evolved from the lower primates so one would expect that with our common ancestors we share with them these emotions. It's NOT HARD TO EXPLAIN AT ALL! There is brain research and psychological studies all showing this is who we are and it can be explained by our cobbled together brain (in three layers, the lowest of which is the reptilian brain) and socializing tendencies discovered by psychology.
I really think that given the way you are forced to argue your case above (very lame) that you are blind. The reason we cannot agree is because you are not willing to be consistent nor cn you allow yourself to even consider that you are living in a cult group surrounded on every side by many other Moonies in a much bigger commune that includes people who have doctorates in Moonieism in a culture that is largely Christian where you speak Christianeze that has a history stretching down two millenia. That's all you are. That's why you believe. That's why you cannot even consider for one minute you are wrong. That's why you must offer one non-sequitur after another and why you fail to understand the implications of what you accept in other areas of life.
572 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 572 Newer› Newest»Peoria:
If someone tells me that I am guilty of a crime of which I am unaware, and that they are basing this knowledge upon some supernatural power informing them of a hidden dimension of reality that I am blind to, then I will look upon their claims with a great deal of skepticism.
I think that if there is no methodology available to decide whether a proposition is true or false, then we should just be agnostic about it. For example, I have no way of knowing whether there are alien life forms in the nearest galaxy. Even if I really wanted there to be aliens there, I would have to honestly admit that I am unable to determine whether it is true or not, and will have to abstain from offering my opinion.
Now, sometimes in life we have to make a decision based on limited information, and we have to make a leap of faith, but we still have to do our best to make as much of an informed decision as possible. After all, we want to reduce our chances of makes a mistake, even if it is impossible to reduce our chances to zero.
I personally think that the best methodology that humans have devised for uncovering the truth is scientific inquiry, which involves accepting that human beings are easily fooled by others and by themselves, and thus attempts must be made to control for such biases, confounding factors and other distortions as much as possible. Any form of knowledge that does not address these limitations is not genuine inquiry at all, but just propaganda, in my opinion.
I hope this helps to clarify some things. :)
Peoria Pastors Assn. said...
"Anyway,
It's been real as always. BTW, you know this is me DSHB. I forgot to sign off the other account...
Anyway...PEACE...I've read about as much misinformation and lies as I can stand for a month.
Gandy, I ain't mad-atchya, at least not yet-LOL!"
Ohhh shucks Harvey,i might be hellava cheeky, and get a lil naughty here and there.And stick it to ya like i see`s it!.
But hey you do much the same !.And besides,sure i might really honestly dislike some of your actions and beliefs ,but one thing for certain! im not at all interested in carrying around personal (hate for anyone).
I got me enough wrinkle`s already, thanks very muchly.
All the best Harv.
Harvey
The links you posted distinguish between macro and micro evolution but they do not support your point in using those terms to deny common descent. Macro and micro evolution have been terms used in biology but when addressing the unified theory of evolution their meaning is not significant. Therefore the scientists I work with (bench researchers for major pharmaceutical companies) do not distinguish between the two terms the way you do. You do it to affirm a controversey where there is none. The links you provided recognize vocabulary terms that are not in conflict in terms of theory and DO NOT signify the controversy you seek to assert.
You didn't answer my question. Where did you study biology and evolution because I think I am going to go with the practicing scientists rather than the preacher on this one. The links you provided DID NOT prove your point.
You shared that your Dad was an alcoholic Harv. I know a little about that disease and adult children of alcoholics often exhibit the same narcissism, delusions and rage as their addict parents. Your persecution complex and OCD indicate what addiction specialists would consider a "dry drunk". Get some help Harvey. You are a fool.
Marcus
ID literature is work issued by the Discovery Institute that supports the wedge document underwriting that institutions political aims. It is amazing how your credulity works. You constantly prove yourself an idiot.
What is your alternate falsifiable theory to evolution that offers the same predictive and explanatory power? You have yet to provide one. And if you drift into theology as evidence of ID then you prove my point regarding the DI.
Do you realize how stupid you are?
Dguller,
You missed my point...I said IF someone accuses you of something and it's simply your word against theirs and it looks like you're guilty, in fact there is NO scientific method available to prove your innocense...and THEN a Christian comes to you and says by the word of the Lord that you're innocent...
Would you reject that word and possible help in setting you free simply because it's the world of the Lord. What with you skepticism then?
Harvey:
I'm sorry, but if someone accuses me of being guilty of violating some law, then the burden is upon them to prove me guilty. In order to prove me guilty, they must bring evidence in support of their position and be able to refute evidence that contradicts their position. That IS the scientific method in its most general sense, i.e. testing a hypothesis on the basis of empirical evidence.
Your hypothetical scenario is that some stranger stops me in the street, and declares me guilty of disobeying an invisible supernatural entity. You then add the limitation that there is no evidence to bear on whether (a) this person is reliable, (b) this person is sane, (c) there is an invisible entity, (d) that this entity cares about my daily activities, and (e) will punish me based upon my transgressions.
I think that this is a silly hypothetical scenario, because there WILL be evidence regarding whether (a) to (e) are true propositions or not. Your thought experiment simply does not align itself with real life, and thus should not be taken very seriously. That is, unless you can provide good reasons why there cannot be any possible evidence for (a) to (e), and if there isn't, then why does this person in question believe in (a) to (e)? At the least, this would count against the truth of (a) and (b)!
Harvey:
Also, why could I not muster any evidence of my innocence? I have no allibi? No DNA evidence? No character witnesses?
Why do I only have to rely upon the word of a Christian?
And to answer your question, I would NOT rely upon the word of a Christian regarding my innocence unless they had good evidence to support it. The fact that Jesus inspires them to believe in my innocence is INSUFFICIENT, because I believe that religious hallucinations are unreliable testimony.
Chuck O,
If you weren't so pathetically hate filled you'd be funny also. You said:"The links you posted distinguish between macro and micro evolution but they do not support your point in using those terms to deny common descent."
Do you understand that wasn't the point of my rebuttal? Last time...THAT WASN'T THE POINT OF MY REBUTTAL. The point was to display your either ignorance or stupidity in trying to discredit my words by saying that scientists don't distinguish the difference between micro and macro evolution...NOW you change and say some silly garbage like this:
I work with (bench researchers for major pharmaceutical companies) do not distinguish between the two terms the way you do.
So the scientists that YOU work with have no need to distinguish the difference right??? It's NOT that scientists DON'T distinguish the difference as you tried to slide in under the radar. Pharmaceutical research is what it is. We are talking biological evolution which includes another set of criteria. This is a disingenuous way to hide your ERROR and ERONEOUS statements. Micro and macro evolution may not be distinguished as it is in your profession or line of work BUT it is a distinguishable field of study in evolutionary biology and is TAUGHT clearly that there is a difference between the two. RIGHT???
You asked:"You didn't answer my question. Where did you study biology and evolution because I think I am going to go with the practicing scientists rather than the preacher on this one."
You never asked (that I am aware) and IF you did I'd never tell-LOL
You said:"The links you provided DID NOT prove your point."
Ahhhh...YES they did. You made the point that in the field of evolutionary biology there was no distinction between micro and macro evolution...I presented non-Christian sympathetic information that there is a great distinction and that the difference between micro and macro evolution is clearly taught within evolutionary circles...POINT PROVEN!
You said:You shared that your Dad was an alcoholic Harv. I know a little about that disease"
I'm sure you do because you write and present rebuttal like a very stoned alchy would do...
You said:"and adult children of alcoholics often exhibit the same narcissism, delusions and rage as their addict parents.
Certainly this seems to be in line with your character, so I won't argue the point, only to say that you also appear to have smuggled one or two more Oxycontin than normal out of the lab...
You said:"Your persecution complex and OCD indicate what addiction specialists would consider a "dry drunk". Get some help Harvey. You are a fool."
I think this fits you perfectly:
Psalms 53:1~"THE FOOL hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: [there is] none that doeth good."
Since you change the subject to talk about being a "fool" since you so sadly embarrassed yourself on micro and macro evolution (Chuck O the science guy) It would seem that this verse spells you out to the T...it is YOU that is the fool my friend!
Was that a dry or a wet drunk statement?
Harvey,
What is your point in pointing out a distinction between Micro and Macro evolution?
My reading is that you are saying they are discrete processes with no relationship.
Fallacy of equivocation anyone?
The links you provide prove you wrong.
Also, I am working on a TKI for oncology, a biologic for Lupus and RA, and a blood glucometer for Diabetes.
No Oxycontin.
Thanks for playing.
Keep raging. You're making an ass out of yourself.
Dguller,
I don't know what experience that you may have, but I'll say this...there are times when a person only stands on their account. There is no empirical evidence that will support their innocence.
There is no character witness, there is no test and the accuser is not in sain. However there is an accusation and it is a word against word...This happens ALL the time and I see it quite often dealing with people that have come to me for help on different subjects....
NOW, since I KNOW the hypothetical I render is valid and even has validity for individuals more close to this than you know...I want you to answer the question truthfully as I don't believe what you currently stated...
AGAIN: If it was only, your word against another's word and there was no scientific evidence available to prove or provide your innocence and a CHRISTIAN by the inspiration of God's word to him declared your innocence...Told YOU that "God said" you were innocent, would you reject that declaration of innocence???
So far you've said, EVEN when your neck is on the line:And to answer your question, I would NOT rely upon the word of a Christian regarding my innocence unless they had good evidence to support it.
I mean the situation is that you KNOW that you are innocent, but no one else does but you. You answer is a very ridiculous answer displaying classism and discrimination and one you may readily live with but silly nonetheless.
Remember, we're talking (hypothetically ) about YOUR innocence and guilt...Is that your final answer??? Would you reject the Word of the Lord in spite of your own life?
(BTW: I WILL NOT be more specific as to the situation that I am speaking of, but this is a real life type of circumstance)
dguller,
I find Harvey's strawman cute don't you.
Isn't a person presumed innocent until proven guilty?
If there was no evidence to pursue a case then the person would be presumed innocent.
Am I missing something here?
Oh and Harvey, insane is not spelled in sain.
Chuck O,
You said:"What is your point in pointing out a distinction between Micro and Macro evolution?"
To point out the FACT that you were incorrect in suggesting that there was no difference and or distinction.
You said:"Keep raging. You're making an ass out of yourself"
I think you've done that enough for everyone on the board.
Anyway, I'm trying to conclude my time here so I'll leave you alone...I want to read dguller's final answer to my question...now I think, THAT'S and equivocation don't you???
Harvey,
Get honest.
Your original point in driving a distinction between micro and macro evolution was to pursue an argument that common descent is a fallacy.
I said no scientist I work with makes the distinction you make.
You then linked to sites that proved my point.
All you keep doing is proving that you don't understand evolution.
Get honest Harvey. Jesus is watching.
Harvey,
"now I think, THAT'S and equivocation don't you???"
Huh?
Chuck O,
Oooh how big the tees become when one doesn't realize where the forest is...
You saidIsn't a person presumed innocent until proven guilty?...If there was no evidence to pursue a case then the person would be presumed innocent.
That may be a standard within a court and there are different burdens of proof in different courts, but in the court of opinion, family, friends and even in some legal situations there doesn't need to be anything but an assertion of guilt.
If a Christian says you're innocent because God told them such about you...do you reject that declaration simply because it doesn't follows scientific method???
Harvey,
You said, "That may be a standard within a court and there are different burdens of proof in different courts, but in the court of opinion, family, friends and even in some legal situations there doesn't need to be anything but an assertion of guilt."
And this would hold value if one deferred to the authority of emotionally immature, superstitious and tribal folk.
I don't.
Harvey,
I know I am innocent without god.
Thanks.
Chuck O,
You said:"I said no scientist I work with makes the distinction you make.
Yes, Chuck, we know what you said and we know how you tried to deceive us. Your assertion was that scientists in general don't make that distinction...which is something that only the most radical atheists assert by the way...I mean I've read it over and over that radical atheists such as you try to get away with this type of assertion to discredit Christians and their understanding of evolution...YOU JUST GOT CAUGHT!
Instead of you saying that the scientist that you work with don't need to make a distinction you tried to slide in the fact that scientists in general don't make the distinction and that is an untruth...ie: ya sent a misdirection, and obfuscated the truth!
BTW you question:"now I think, THAT'S and equivocation don't you???"
It would seem that the science guy would have simply known to drop a D to make it all make sense...It should read like this:
"now I think, THAT'S an -(d) equivocation don't you???"
I still think it is.
Harvey,
Please prove your point that macro and micro evolution are distinct processes which show that common descent is falsified.
That has been your point.
You have yet to prove it.
You are wrong.
Your superstitions make you believe you are guilty and shameful and therefore you need to try to prove that tribal magic will make you feel good. One way you do this is by lying about proven science.
Do you believe micro and macro evolution are discrete processes describing separate phenomenon therefore discrediting the truth of common descent?
If so, please provide some evidence to prove that argument.
You have yet to do it.
Chuck O,
you said:"I know I am innocent without god."
That may well be the case and you should know that at least as it pertains to physical matters and crimes, what I'm talking about is more deep than that...Let's lay this out...true story:
Man was at a bar, fight broke out, he fought to defend himself. Police arrested him for disorderly conduct. In court he says he's innocent, witnesses say they saw him fighting along with others....No one exonerates him....
Evidence:
1- He's in the bar, 2- he fought, 3- he had a previous bar fight 10 years ago. 4- witnesses say they saw him fighting.
Now he fought in the bar to defend himself, but all evidence points against him and he's got a good job that he doesn't want to jeopardize but if he gets a charge he'll loose his job....
NOW, IF a God told a Christian that this guy was innocent at the jury trial, do you think he should reject that help (as if he could make a decision) based on lack of scientific evidence?
Answer that. This is a real life circumstance, not the one I'm thinking of as it pertains to this topic or blog, but real nonetheless.
Chuck O,
Yea, loose one argument, obfuscate, diverge and go to the next never acknowledging you error in the first...
You're tooooooo funny.
(I guess you can delete some of those 0's to understand that right?)
Harvey,
I have never been in a bar fight.
My reason would not allow it.
Thanks.
Harvey,
Are you going to answer the question pertaining to your interpretation of micro and macro evolution as discrete non-overlapping processes which prove common descent falsified (your original point)?
Or are you going to continue attacking me?
You make yourself out to be foolish.
BTW,
Since I'm talking to a bunch of literalistic and fundamentalist atheists I'll correct this one too:
I said NOW, IF a God told a Christian that this guy was innocent at the jury trial, do you think he should reject that help (as if he could make a decision) based on lack of scientific evidence?
Remove (a) to read:NOW, IF God told a Christian that this guy was innocent at the jury trial, do you think he should reject that help (as if he could make a decision) based on lack of scientific evidence?
Hope that clears that up.
Harvey,
No scientist I work with makes the distinction you made between micro and macro evolution.
You have yet to provide any data that denies this.
Harvey,
You asked, "NOW, IF God told a Christian that this guy was innocent at the jury trial, do you think he should reject that help (as if he could make a decision) based on lack of scientific evidence?"
I don't believe god exists and would tell a christian that he is choosing a delusional control belief to minimize cognitive dissonance towards his or her crime if he or she chose to offer this strange reality.
I'd tell him to grow up and take responsibility for what he did and stop seeking after invisible saviors as a means to dealing with his emotional distress.
I'm really asking a simple question and I see I have no takers...
Bar fight or whatever and i could get more specific...let's say an allegation from an associate at work science guy...
Let's say a new employee says you sexually harassed her by ogling her...this is causing you much grief and potentially a loss of your job....
Neither of you have records of such, but under the law a determination and actions must be made and she is vehement in her assertions...
Evidence:
1- You spent time with her during the regular course of your job. 2- other employees witness you with her in the employee cafeteria having lunch. 3- She had relayed to a friend that she was uncomfortable with you months before the allegation.
A Christian says by the inspiration of the Lord that he knows your innocent and willing to stand with you and vouch for your character based on what he or she is confident of. They will certainly not say he's innocent because God says so, but they are convinced enough to stand with you because of what has been revealed to them. Do you reject their comradery and help simply because they are a Christian and or because God told them that you were innocent?
Remember, on the other side, you'll loose your job and even your spouse has doubts.
Chuck O,
What is this, contagious confusion...you offer the same type of rationale as dguller, only because YOU want to exempt yourself from the situation...but I'm talking about YOU....not someone else's assertions.
You said:"I don't believe god exists and would tell a christian that he is choosing a delusional control belief to minimize cognitive dissonance towards his or her crime if he or she chose to offer this strange reality."
The situation is that YOU are the one being accused and Christian, whom you don't know from Adam, is the ONLY ONE in the room confident of your innocence....
Do you reject that sentiment of innocence in favor of taking a sentence simply because you don't believe????
Now the situation is hypothetical, but as I said they are based on real life situations...I'm wanting you, as an unbeliever to place yourself in these individuals shoes and tell me HONESTLY whether or not you would reject a Christian's assistance simply because they are a Christian and had received a 'word of knowledge" from the Lord of your innocence....
It's really that simple.
Harvey:
I stand by my contention that I would reject the witness of a Christian in support of my innocence if it was only based upon religious inspiration.
First, because I do not believe that religious inspiration is sufficient evidence of anything, except that someone had a psychological experience that they interpreted in a religious way.
Second, because no court of law would accept such a witness as reliable, and thus it would not help my case.
Third, even if I DID accept such a witness, then it would only be to save my skin and my job, and it is possible that in my desperation I would choose a course of action that in calmer and more rational times I would consider preposterous. Similarly, if I was about to be tortured to death unless I confessed my belief in God, then I would absolutely confess my utter belief in Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior. Do you SERIOUSLY take such a confession under duress as truly indicative of my faith?
So, again, unless I was utterly desperate, I would reject the Christian’s testimony if it was only based upon religious inspiration.
Anyway, what exactly are you trying to prove with this thought experiment? I really do not understand the point of this.
Are there some situations in which we have insufficient evidence that are fundamentally important? YES.
Does that mean that we have to accept ANY explanation, no matter how little evidentiary support it has, JUST BECAUSE it is SOME KIND of explanation? NO.
If we are intellectually honest, we can choose a position that has little evidence in support of it, but we should be honest that it is the best we can do at this time, and that we are trying to improve our understanding so that future situations would be less uncertain.
Chuck, I don't remember Elder Burnett or I agruing that there is no relationship between Macro and Micro Evolution. You read our comments like you read the Bible that is why it's obvious you don't understand what the Bible says.
Let's be clear. I'm saying that micro evolution is observed in the lab and the field. Who is disputing that? I haven't. I'm saying that Macro evolution does not make sense because no amount of undirected mutation can explain the increase of information in genetics or all of the variety of lifeforms on earth. Also last I check there is no way to explain the common ancestry of eyes. I mean we can't show an animal that had eyes that gave rise to all the different types of eyes that are around today.
I agree with the Elder, Chuck, what does Macro Evolution has to do with pharmaceuticals? I mean no matter what a virus or bacteria or living cell is still going to be what it is no matter what you do to it.
Also, Chuck, I find your definition of Intelligent Design literature problematic. In order to accept your position, one would have to think that every one in science who agrees that Intelligent Design is viable is a member of Discovery Institute and shares nefarious and conspiratorial aims. That's nuts! I mean do you really believe that. Is there any reason to think that? No. So who is being dishonest? Who is equivocating? You.
You Told Eld. Burnett that we are innocent until proven guilty, Chuck. You have shown yourself biased and already tossing out an supernatural evidence without examining it. Why does the Bible get a guilty verdict of being a lie without you providing evidence? The Bible says that all are sinners. Hypocrisy and lying are sins and you have demonstrated these often. God hates liars. Sounds like you, as is all of us, need a savior!
@dguller
My methodologies in determining which religious texts is true is to start from the point of view that only one can be completely true because they conflict with one another.
I don't try to substantiate every truth claim because I can't prove or disclaim them all, instead I see that I only have to disprove one and that would invalidate that book as being worthy to base my life on.
For example - Joseph Smiths (Mormonism) says that he was visited by Elijah and Elias - problem is they are same man - "Elias" is Greek for "Elijah". Second - none of the people, places, and events in the book of Mormon has any corroboration in history. They even teach that the universe is eternal - no credible scientist today would argue that.
Another ex - The Qur'an says that Jesus was not crucified and history says he was - not just the Bible.
There are more examples.
Marcus,
Please provide an alternate theory to Evolution that is as parsimonious and can be falsified.
God did it is not one.
And you contradict the Elder when you say macro-evolution can't be true. He provided links to show it can.
I will believe supernatural explanations when they can be falsified. Until then, they are imaginary.
Harvey,
I would reject the Christian's help. I'd expect it to be a bad strategy in asserting my no-guilty status.
Appealing to the imaginary revelation of a total stranger would be akin to saying I did it.
I know you think such delusions sane but most grown-ups don't.
I'd provide a reasoned argument utilizing evidence and defend myself against the slander.
What would you do? Speak in tongues and let your Holy Ghost power overwhelm your accusers?
Dguller,
You provide a weakening testimony of what you would do (hypothetically speaking of course).
First, you said:I stand by my contention that I would reject the witness of a Christian in support of my innocence if it was only based upon religious inspiration."
Then you softened that up a little later with:
So, again, unless I was utterly desperate, I would reject the Christian’s testimony if it was only based upon religious inspiration."
That "unless I was utterly desperate" changes the context of your answer...now, the situations I render, which are hypothetical to you, are what could be considered "utterly desperate" for a number of reasons.
1- There is no scientific method that will rove innocence for either of these individuals and 2- even if there is no physical harm there is damage to reputation and a lingering doubt from those who are not as in tune with you as a person. In fact some of those close to you may doubt your story of innocence for any number of reasons.
So let's assume "desperation". Let's assume that you'll face the worst possible situation unless a Christian intervenes and stands with you, NOT with a bible, preaching, but with you as a person and vouches for your innocence...
Do you yet hold to your assertion? Which is it? Strong YES, No or maybe???
You all really have me curious on this one.
Chuck O,
First there is no conflict regarding macro or micro evolution the point was clear and that's settled. the links I provided were not to support micro or macro evolution, they were to display that you obfuscated in answering and rendered a shaded answer to try to undermine my credibility. your attempt failed. Common descent is overturned on many basis the bankruptcy of the fossil record is just one of them...NOW, on to the point at hand:
You said:"I would reject the Christian's help. I'd expect it to be a bad strategy in asserting my no-guilty status."
OK, now you're being a little more honest and intellectually open here and I appreciate it.
You said:"Appealing to the imaginary revelation of a total stranger would be akin to saying I did it."
I see where you're coming from but that really doesn't hold. Appealing to TRUTH doesn't mean that one is guilty of anything. In fact appealing to truth is a smart thing to do.
Now, what you have displayed is called class racism...You would rather hang than be freed at the hands of a Christian or be supported in your cause by a Christian.
This is class racism, religious discrimination and ultimate selfishness. How is it selfish?
Your intense belief against the supernatural would cause you to limit your options of vindication and this would directly effect those around you. At some point I think it would be wise to explore opportunities that not only help you but help those around you including your family. You would deny them that benefit because of your class disdain and rejection of knowledge that you can't measure.
Now, I want you to think for a minute, how are your sentiments any better than the sentiment of a religious fundamentalist or a person let's say in medieval times???
How are you, with all of your scientific enlightenment, any better than a medieval witch-hunter that rejects knowledge and interpretation of knowledge other than what he has been taught and come to believe?
I mean you REJECT innocence and an opportunity to prove that innocence in light of no validating scientific evidence simply because the one validating you is God...Your life and the life of those around you would be destroyed and you gladly go down to destruction rather than accept the validation of God (who certainly does exist) and a Christian who is privy to the FACT of your innocence against all evidence.
On the other hand, you're an atheist and we certainly don't have an agreement on worldview, BUT if you come out with a drug and I have a condition that it treats, why would I reject your efforts simply because you are metaphysical naturalist whom I could say ultimately lives in a materialistic, primordial slime of a fantasy land mentally...
I mean under the hypothetical, do you think that rejecting the knowledge that the Christian has of your innocence is either scientific, in your best interest, or works in favor of the truth????
If you believe so my friend, you and those who think like you are not only class racists, you are in trouble, because some truths are scientifically impossible to determine.
I can think of more than a few of them.
Harvey you contradict yourself when you say there is no conflict between micro and macro evolution because you stated on your blog that, "That type of evolution is called MICROevolution. MICROevolution is simply a change in gene frequency within a population. However, the type of evolution claimed to have occurred and ultimately produced man is called MACROevolution. The difference between these two types of evolution are as vast as the difference between midnight and high noon."
You are a liar Harvey. Your words confirm it.
I stand by what I said. No scientist I know of makes the distinction that you make. The ideas of Micro and Macro evolution are not incompatible to anyone who understands the theory. It is only incompatible to lying-science-denying-christian-aplogists like yourself.
You should be ashamed.
Your pathetic.
Harvey,
Based on the obvious lie I discovered I don't think your arguments need to be addressed further.
You are a perfect example how imaginary appeal to supernaturalism leads to unfounded arrogance.
Every accusation made about you is absolutely true.
You are back-peddling, lying scum-bag.
Chuck O,
You are a LYING IDIOT and I don't hold it against you...i have caught you over and over put you on display for hat you said and you continue to act and write foolishly....
Just admit that you were wrong! You tried to LIE that there was no distinction between micro and macro evolution by saying that the scientist you work with don't even talk in those terms...
Then when I presented EVIDENCE unsympathetic to my cause that scientists DO make a distinction, and that micro and macro evolution are taght and distinguished from one another, you try an end around and get squashed again...
YOU ARE THE LIAR and YOU ARE PATHETIC in your lie!
Just move away from the issue, you we're caught and you can't spin your way out of it!
Harvey,
Read your words. I said no scientist I know makes the distinction you make. I stand by that. You said there was a vast difference between micro and macro evolution and then you said there wasn't and then you provided links to confirm there isn't then you said I lied when I pointed out your "high-noon to midnight" analogy (one every scientist who accepts evolution would laugh at).
You lying prick.
You are an object lesson in why christ-followers are despicable liars.
You better hope our paths don't cross boy. I will kick the bullshit out of you.
Harvey,
Tell me where you live so I can call you a fucking liar to your face. You little prick.
Harvey,
Your words Liar:
"First there is no conflict regarding macro or micro evolution the point was clear and that's settled."
Your "scientific" assertion on the conflict regarding macro and micro evolution (which no scientist I know would acknowledge as true), " "That type of evolution is called MICROevolution. MICROevolution is simply a change in gene frequency within a population. However, the type of evolution claimed to have occurred and ultimately produced man is called MACROevolution. The difference between these two types of evolution are as vast as the difference between midnight and high noon."
Your words expose you as a fucking liar and if you were in front of me I would kick the shit out of you.
Why don't you just start making comments in glossolalia. It would be more consistent with your narcissistic solipsism.
And you wonder why people reject christianity.
One more time, you are a pathetic liar.
Harvey,
One last thing. You are a prick.
Wow, Chuck, such a potty mouth. I thought you were educated enough not to resort to vulgarity. But I can admit when I'm wrong. Obviously you can't.
Harvey:
Okay, let me clarify my response.
If I were trying to mount a convincing defense and were being true and honest with myself, then I would reject the Christian’s testimony, because (a) it would not help my case since hallucinations are not considered valid testimony, and (b) my use of it would only be a sign of my utter desperation to try anything, including the utterly absurd, and that would be evidence that my reasoning faculties had completely failed me and were overridden by fear and anxiety.
Now, I still fail to understand your point. I would happily include the testimony of the Christian, or any other believer, if they actually knew me or the circumstances and could provide evidence of my innocence, but their being Christian would have NOTHING to do with anything.
And what is this “scientific evidence” that you keep harping about? What does it mean that there is no scientific evidence to support my innocence? Do you mean forensics? Or do you mean evidence in general?
Help me understand what the point of all of this is, please.
Damn Marcus,
Go back to your church full of intellectual derelicts where your complete stupidity is adored and respected.
Repair your stupidity, Marcus. DNA is not made of proteins. DNA is not made of amino acids.
Amino acids are building blocks of proteins, not DNA. Do the people associate with let your ignorance slide so often that you you have become convinced that your lack of understanding is truth? What really pisses me off about you, Marcus, is not that you've chosen to let yourself go down in intellectual flames, but rather that you have no compunction at all, no qualms whatsoever, about forcing those who rely on you to go right along with you.
Both of my children have known the basic structural elements of DNA since elementary school. What the hell happened to you with all the degrees and training you suggest give you insights to the encoding of DNA.
You said,
I'm not asking you because I haven't looked it up but because I have. Why should I trust you as an authority when my own research disagrees?
This is another lie you keep telling yourself, Marcus. You have not researched anything. You have sought materials to confirm your own biases, but you do not even know the most fundamental aspects of evolutionary genetics. Yet you contend you have the necessary background to assess the evidence related to evolution? How immoral can you get? You do not know the page-one fundamentals of evolutionary theory, and still you hold yourself out as a worthy critic?
Marcus, you are a pathological liar.
I feel sorry for those who would come to you for honest answers on this topic. Your answers to their questions can only be lies. Completely ignorant of even the barest fundamentals, anything you say to them can only be more lies. They can't trust you concerning evolution, and given your adamant insistence that you have knowledge far beyond what you demonstrate, you will certainly be consciously lying to them in other areas too.
I doubt you read Signature in the Cell. If you soldiered through it, the complete lack of understanding you've shown here tells me you could not have understood it, and you certainly have no capacity to discern its flaws.
If you were a scientist, as you claim, Marcus, you would be able to make the trivial observation that the intelligent design movement has never produced one piece of data to support its claims, not one. Complexity is not evidence. "Not understanding" is not evidence. A scientist would know that. Meyer's book is a monument to a mindset that embraces notions like: "ignorance is knowledge;" "if I don't understand it, then something infinitely smart created it;" and "what I don't know proves anything I say it does." For you I'll state the obvious: those are all wrong.
If you were a scientist, you would recognize that the budget of the Discovery Institute does not go into building a case for intelligent design, but instead it goes into propaganda, marketing, and politics. Notice that atomic theory made it into the science classrooms only after it had built a strong base of evidence supporting it. ID has none, so they want to skip the evidence and put their religious propaganda directly into science classrooms.
If you were a scientist, you would see through their transparent attempts at deception when they say, "The designer could be space aliens." Everything the ID types say about their proposed designer, when they're not in court, tells us that the entire notion is a religious one. That's just more of their dishonesty.
Marcus
If you were a scientist, you would see that ID is the lazy man's solution to real thought and hard work. ID says that when you get tired, give up and ascribe the cause to the designer. When your learning and experience isn't up the task, throw in the towel and tell everyone the designer did it. If your work confuses you, the designer did it. If you're afraid of the hard work required to truly understand, the designer is the way out. When using the natural world as a standard is too hard for you to live up to, surrender, abandon the quest, say the designer did it.
If you were a scientist, you'd recognize that ID does not produce peer reviewed work in the sciences - it's not science(please don't do the stupid thing of pointing to a literature review that was published without peer review). They've gone so far as to invent their own peer review journal, just the Creation Science types, and their books are all for popular press, not scholarly work. You claim to be a physicist, Marcus, so tell me did Einstein take his ideas to local school boards to force them on students? No. Did he lobby university boards to coerce his ideas into the curriculum? No. Why does the Discovery Institute seem to think that that's the way its done? Why don't they just produce the compelling evidence - remember you said you don't want to change the standards of science - and submit it for critique by knowledgeable reviewers? They do not have the goods, that's why. In the same way that the evidence does not support that being a Christian affords any benefits, it also does not support intelligent design notions.
If you were a scientist, you would be able to ascertain that the evidence supporting evolution is as strong as the evidence supporting gravity, atomic theory, germ theory of disease, plate tectonics, relativity, the photoelectric effect, or quantum mechanics.
If you were a scientist, you would be able to ask yourself why scientists accept the fact of evolution, and why after more than 150 years since Darwin(and Russel) set the cornerstone for evolutionary theory, it remains the best explanation for the biodiversity on this planet. As a scientist you would be able to research it and then clearly and accurately present the evidence for evolution and explain why evolutionary theory is the best account we have for the biodiversity and biodistribution we observe.
If you were a scientist your research would provide you with the knowledge and understanding for why it is that the mountain of evidence supporting evolution grows larger every single day, and why no evidence exists which refutes the theory of evolution. As a scientist you would know that after millions of experiments the substance of evolutionary theory keeps getting stronger and stronger, and continually adds to mankind's understanding of the world we live in.
If you were a scientist, you would understand that the theory of evolution is a robust theory with exceptional explanatory power, and that the materials, processes and mechanisms whereby you have descended from single celled organisms over the course of nearly 4 billion years is evolutionary fact.
But, you are not a scientist.
So, Marcus, get your head out of your ass and get your nose out of your Bible. Learn enough that you can have an intelligent conversation about it. Stop telling lies.
Marcus,
"Wow, Chuck, such a potty mouth. I thought you were educated enough not to resort to vulgarity. But I can admit when I'm wrong. Obviously you can't."
Fuck off Marcus.
You and Harvey have been insulting me on here with your ignorance over and over again and when your "Elder" is exposed for the liar he is, he continues to insist he is the injured party.
You are an ignorant dirt-bag who exposes himself as a pathetic and self-righteous liar.
I am educated. I use the exact terms necessary to communicate what I mean while defining my adversary for what he is.
For example, you are a small-minded child and an asshole.
Well said Russ.
I love your mind man.
Russ, Name one lie that I have told. I haven't got enough space in the comments field to recount yours.
I know that there is strong evidence for gravity, atomic theory, germ theory of disease, plate tectonics, relativity, the photoelectric effect, or quantum mechanics. Evolution is a lot different. I've asked several questions Evolution does not answer.
And until it can, I wouldn't bet my life on macro evolution. We bet our lives on gravity, atomic theory, germ theory of disease, plate tectonics, relativity, the photoelectric effect, or quantum mechanics all the time. Macro evolution is not observable and i don't feel comfortable inferring it.
Not scientist who have done good science accept and embrace evolution. You cannot say that 100% of all the world agrees with you and arguing from consensus can't be conclusive. Once upon a time the majority thought the universe was eternal. I want to know why presenting evidence against evolution means that I'm not a scientist. I thought that evolution is science because it's testable. Well, I've asked questions. Instead of dealing with them You, Chuck, and Dawkins say trhat only uneducated morons question darwinian evolution.
Funny how you are accusing me of being close-minded and superficial and not caring about evidence while it is you just making assertions without any thought to proving anything you are saying. Arguing from authority should not be convincing even if you are the once claiming authority.
Disagreeing with you does not make me a non-scientist.
@Chuck...you make me laugh. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make ignorant. I think I've been way more respectful of you than you have been of me. But that's fine. it really doesn't matter. I just think you should consider your behavior. It doesn't reflect well on you or your ilk. Jesus loves you.
Marcus
No one cares if you accept evolution or not.
You don't understand it so, it is better you don't try to apply the knowledge.
Stick with your superstitions but please keep them in your church.
We grown-ups have problems to solve and would like you primitive-minded people to stay out of our way when we are using science to solve them.
@ Chuck...so you wanna stay ignorant. Okay.
Marcus
"@Chuck...you make me laugh. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make ignorant. I think I've been way more respectful of you than you have been of me. But that's fine. it really doesn't matter. I just think you should consider your behavior. It doesn't reflect well on you or your ilk."
What is my "ilk".
I think you are engaging in class racism.
You are ignorant because you fail to understand basic science and when this is pointed out to you, you believe your opinion trumps fact.
You are also ignorant because when asked to offer a competing theory that can be more parsimonious in describing biodiversity you simply display your ignorance as an example to evolution's inabilities.
Saying you don't know why something is does not contend as an explanatory theory.
You are not ignorant because we disagree. You are ignorant because you argue from ignorance as an explanation of things.
Marcus,
Of course we also think you are ignorant for statements like this, "Not scientist who have done good science accept and embrace evolution."
What?
Harvey and Marcus,
Good luck. I won't be responding further.
I recommend Jerry Coyne's book "Why Evolution is True".
Thanks too for being living proof that Jesus-belief makes one an ignorant credulous liar.
Chuck O,
You said:"Your words expose you as a fucking liar and if you were in front of me I would kick the shit out of you."
Who's raging now you PATHETIC IDIOT! ~ LOL-LOL-LOL!!!!!
On your best day, you'd have no chance even if I were there....please grow from the snivelling pathetic child that you are and try to comprehend....
you sent and equivocation and an attempt at a misdirection...YOU got caught...instead of admitting it, you become a spoiled worthless little snot that you are...
I'll venture to say this...
you're not in the pharmaceutical industry...IF you are you're only a runner and doing nothing of significant importance. Why? what type of research have you done today???? NOTHING but act a rats behind on an atheist blog....
Now, IF you're at work, I gotta question the company. What kind of company allows an IDIOT like you spend time on atheist blogs all day making more of an IDIOT out of yourself???Tellk us you have friday's off right???? YEA!
Yours is the drug company on the corner. Meth and crack sound like is your specialty...LOL!!!!You sound like you even took some of that left over LSD out of the cabinet too....
Get off the drugs or scientific king and come back to earth...
MARCUS,
Now, IDIOT # 2 Russ said some time back that he was "better than us"
That's what he said, he was "better than us" Christians.
Now as I look at your commentary and his and theirs especially Chuck's in particular, neither of us have threatened them in any way, we have patently stuck to the arguments and addressed the chief IDIOTS as they have made personal assertions but neither of us have cussed gone off topic nor lied, obfuscated, or tried to confuse the information...it is what it is...but they have consistently, lied, shaded, obfuscated, threatened, cussed, threw personal attacks etc...
I wonder how they think they are "better than us"??? How is it that they have this "better" thing going on and lack of religion has helped them...It hasn't helped them not to threaten anyone, nor to not call names...I call them IDIOTS because that's what they have portrayed themselves to be. That's a true assessment.
I mean look at Chuck's statements... doesn't he sound like complete TRAILER TRASH !)LOL...He says, "gimme yo address boy" while he waives a confederate flag, like anyone I know 9especially me) has any fear of him-LOL-LOL-LOL!!!!What is he an atheistic terrorist???-LOL-LOL!!!
What he doesn't know is that I'm glad to be the Christian he hates...See them degenerate into rage when their shoddy worldview is called on the carpet in their own backyard!
What amazing things we see everyday...this must be that "most wonderful show on earth" type of evolution that Dawkins was talking about....TOOOOOOOOOO Funny!!!!
BE BLESSED MAN...don't let these chumps get ya down!
@Chuck
"ilk" means people who think like you. How is that "racist"?
NO, I wasn't offering those things as an alternate explanation to evolution. I told you that I want you to explain how Evolution comprehensive answers those question. You didn't give an answer because you can't. No one can. I'll answer your question when you answer mine. I gave you links to material showing why scientists who hold Intelligent Design is science hold that view. I bet you didn't even look at it, let alone explain why they are wrong.
I apologize for the typo. I was saying that you assume that no good scientist rejects macro evolution yet there are many. Are you willing to dismiss all of their work?
Elder Burnett, they lie, cuss, and threaten because at the end of the day, that is all they have.
@Chuck
"ilk" means people who think like you. How is that "racist"?
NO, I wasn't offering those things as an alternate explanation to evolution. I told you that I want you to explain how Evolution comprehensive answers those question. You didn't give an answer because you can't. No one can. I'll answer your question when you answer mine. I gave you links to material showing why scientists who hold Intelligent Design is science hold that view. I bet you didn't even look at it, let alone explain why they are wrong.
I apologize for the typo. I was saying that you assume that no good scientist rejects macro evolution yet there are many. Are you willing to dismiss all of their work?
Elder Burnett, they lie, cuss, and threaten because at the end of the day, that is all they have.
Watch your back Harvey. I don't live far from Peoria. I might show up at your church one Sunday and you can tell me what a sinner I am.
Marcus,
He said:"I am educated. I use the exact terms necessary to communicate what I mean while defining my adversary for what he is"
This sterling declaration was proceeded by"Fuck off Marcus."
WOW! That sounds like educated to me...straight outta the text books. In fact I remember that in my 8th grade earth science book. It was written inside the back cover by one of the 10 kids who had the book before me-LOL!!!
Chuck O, the science guy...he said we insult him, "with your ignorance
Well woooopdeeedooo!!! here's Chuck..."I am insulted by your ignorance...I use words exactly so you better be careful...although I suffer from educated tourette's syndrome!"-LOL-LOL-LOL!!!!
Chuck why don't you create a drug that you can take to manage your educated tourette's and pathetic liar syndrome since you can't cuss and be educated at the same time? It should be easy since you spend so much time in the lab talking atheism...just whip you up a batch of that evolutionary, educated ignorant suppressor-LOL!!!!LOL!!!
This whole dialogue has been a complete gag!!!!-Entertainment value is priceless!
Marcus,
Your DI buddies like to use improbabilities as evidence. Here's a link to a National Geographic article which looks at the probabilities of having enzymes with the same structure in organisms from different kingdoms.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/
Might that be enough of that inane "macroevolution" you and Harvey love to talk about. As Chuck pointed out, microevolution versus macroevolution is not a useful discriminatory tool, since they do not have any clear delineation. Sometimes speciation takes place with seemingly minor genetic changes. Sometimes speciation does not happen even though some members of a population have major genetic structural differences. Micro/macro is only a broad-stroke means of classification, and suggests nothing specific.
Work like that linked to above underscores why one must be cautious about affording too much significance to discipline-specific terms intended for conversational expediency. Your insulin, Marcus, is different from pig insulin by only one amino acid. Bovine insulin differs from yours by only 3 amino acids and many fish insulins are close enough to be used by human diabetics. The probability of such similarities is very low without common descent. Common descent best explains this physiological similarity.
Chuck O IGNORANCE,
You said:Watch your back Harvey. I don't live far from Peoria. I might show up at your church one Sunday and you can tell me what a sinner I am.
PLEASE DO Chuckerton...824 N. Duryea on the campus of Bradley University Campus...I GUARANTEE I'll cast that devil all the way out of you...GUARANTEE!!!8:30 AM every Sunday....
Please come, in fact your presence is REQUESTED!!!!
Harvey said..."Common descent is overturned on many basis the bankruptcy of the fossil record is just one of them...NOW, on to the point at hand:"
Harvey i too sometimes have much trouble believing in my common decent with a funny old fossil like you.
But sadly that doesnt just prove it incorrect.
Gandy,
You said:Harvey i too sometimes have much trouble believing in my common decent with a funny old fossil like you."
Good one Gandy!!! I left myself open to that one.
Dguller,
You don't see the conflict between this:If I were trying to mount a convincing defense and were being true and honest with myself, then I would reject the Christian’s testimony
and this:
"I would happily include the testimony of the Christian, or any other believer, if they actually knew me or the circumstances and could provide evidence of my innocence, but their being Christian would have NOTHING to do with anything
I mean under the assumption, the person would know you, or at least that's the context I'm speaking under...but 'knowing you" doesn't mean you're not guilty. I'm talking about the person that knows you and goes one step further to the assurance, by supernatural intervention, that you are innocent and is willing to stand with you when others have rejected them....
You mean to tell me, that you would reject them based on that??? If so that's sounds silly and very unscientific and flat out unreasonable.
It is called Personal Time Off Harv. Good companies offer it as an incentive to valued employees.
Marcus and Harv,
I admit it. I lost my temper.
I need to offer an apology to John and to my fellow atheists for playing into your hands and confirming that atheists can be jerks.
I do however think it is very important to maintain proper mental health and, to that end, when faced with a couple of insolent liars it is important to let them both know they should go fuck themselves.
It is only proper.
@Chuck
Now apologize for the stupid arguments.
@ Chuck
You still haven't explained how I or Elder Burnett have lied.
Harvey:
This is getting ridiculous.
Yes, I would reject a Christian’s testimony if it was based upon their reception of supernatural signals regarding my innocence. I would reject this testimony for the same reason if someone said they heard aliens describing my innocence through an implanted chip in their brain. Psychotic symptoms are not considered reliable evidence in a court of law, and thus would not benefit me at all, which is why I would not include them.
I would be happy to include the Christian if they know me well and can vouch for my good character, and if they want to elaborate by including some religious beliefs, then that is their business. However, the main benefit that I would gain from their testimony would be as a character witness regarding aspects of my personality that they know through personal experience and NOT through spiritual sights and sounds in their head. Again, I would be happy to have them stand with me and support me in my quest for innocence, but their testimony would ONLY benefit me if it was based upon their personal observations of my good character.
The only situation in which I could imagine myself including the Christian’s spiritual knowledge of my innocence is if I was so utterly desperate that my reasoning faculties crashed and burned in the fire of pure anxiety and fear that I would make STUPID decisions for myself. I really do not know how I can possibly make this any clearer. It would be an utter failure on my behalf if I were to include the testimony of the Christian, not because he is a Christian, but because his testimony is based upon psychotic symptoms.
I truly cannot see how this is “unscientific and flat out unreasonable”. I think it is the exact opposite and is akin to rejecting the testimony of a dear friend on the basis that he is a psychic who heard from spirits from beyond the grave regarding my innocence. Such testimony would be laughed out of court, as would the testimony of the Christian IF is main content was divine inspiration regarding my innocence.
Chuck said..."I do however think it is very important to maintain proper mental health and, to that end, when faced with a couple of insolent liars it is important to let them both know they should go fuck themselves.
It is only proper."
Chuck, dont be tempting evolution like that !
Things are bad enough now,who knows what type of dangerous mutation might arise next
Marcus, your support of ID makes you a liar (or ignorant- your choice). Here are some reasons why:
http://www.csindy.com/colorado/lies-damned-lies-and-intelligent-design/Content?oid=1142845
http://forgodssakeshutup.blogspot.com/2005/12/intelligent-design-lies.html
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/colorado-spring.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
Harvey,
I confessed to my Evangelical wife last night my bad language and she suggested we pray together.
We did.
I was visited in my dreams by Jesus of Nazareth.
He told me that you were a charlatan using His name to sell bad financial instruments to superstitious people whose unresolved Daddy issues makes them easy prey for a smooth talking liar.
He also told me to go easy on you because your own unresolved Daddy issues enflame your cognitive bias and make your dishonesty impossible for you to detect.
He then gave me coordinates where we can dig up his body.
Thanks for inviting me into a relationship with Jesus. He is a cool guy.
Oh and Marcus when I asked Jesus about you he looked quizzical and said, "Who? I don't know that guy."
Chuck O,
Unless he told you that you were a sociopath and a complete idiot then you didn't meet the real Jesus..."Mr. Pharmaceutical mail room guy"(that is IF you have a job in the first place)
Did you take your your "educated" tourette's medication today?
Harv
Sorry it was him and he predicted you would say that. I forgive your ignorance (Jesus told me that he has a reason for your stupidity).
Prove that I didn't have that conversation.
I consider it a miracle. Are you denying miracles now?
Hi, Chuck, I'm sure you experienced a miracle. Satan can furnish them just fine. Glad someone answered your prayer because obviously God didn't.
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. - Hebrews 11:6
I think it describe you and your views extremely well.
Marcus,
I do not suffer well fools like you and Harvey. You two belong to the mental, emotional, and intellectual backwater of Christianity.
Remember that when we discuss evolution, we are talking about science, that broad discipline which uses nature as its metric for correctness. It is nature which defines the constraints set on science-based explanations. Operating within those constraints, science has arrived at evolution as the best explanation for the observed biodiversity and biodistribution on this planet. Within the constraints of science there is no better explanation. Of course, if we step outside science there exist no standards for correctness, there is only the subjectivity of conflicting superstitions.
Christianity is one of those superstitions, and it had its heyday as the dominant explanatory mechanism five hundred years ago. Given the success of the scientific enterprise the last five centuries, it would be complete folly to abandon it. Given the success of ignoring Christian gods, and all others to boot, in the pursuit of truth, it would again be folly to abandon it as well as morally wrong. When the approach of ignoring all the various deities and all the religious superstitions propping them up has benefitted mankind to the great extent that it has, it would be morally wrong to adopt a sectarian approach in its stead. But, by supporting ID you are endorsing the abandonment of the science as practiced for the last half millenium. This is the expressed intent of the ID movement. By supporting ID you throw open the door to allowing any and every bizarre notion to be considered evidence. By supporting ID you are endorsing casting aside a standard that gives us reliable results which benefit mankind. By supporting ID you favor giving up the only common understandings that are effective and reliable for all men.
ID is yet another place for religions to underscore their vast differences as each can insert the name of their preferred god for the place-holding phrase "intelligent designer." No supporter of ID actually believes that their designer is a 100 percent supernatural-free space alien. No, they all put in their most elevated form of superstition, their gods. You put in your Christian god. Roman Catholics put in their god. Sunni Muslims put in their god. Shiite Muslims put in theirs. And, so on. ID is but one more way in which religion divides people.
If you were a scientist, Marcus, you would indeed recognize and acknowledge this.
I do understand the appeal of the notion, however. It appeals to the religious need to have an answer to every question, and to have that answer somehow depend on the believer's version of a god. It's an artificial simplicity which in reality answers nothing. You've mentioned computer programming here, so let's borrow an analogy from that.
If you've ever written a body of code which required you to deeply analyze a problem, sort through the "complex" interrelationships of the involved factors, and devise a software solution which matches the requirements to a tee, then you understand how empty and meaningless it is to dismiss your effort by saying, "Marcus did it." For someone to follow your work and learn from your experience, your means and mechanism has to be clarified. The platitude "Marcus did it" diminishes what you did. For your work to be useful beyond the triviality of getting an answer, what is needed is answers to questions like "how did Marcus do it," "what was the thinking involved," "what specific knowledge was needed for Marcus to do this," and "how can we pass this understanding on to those who come after Marcus."
Marcus,
Just as "Marcus did it" is worthless for advancing understanding, so is "The intelligent designer did it." You, however, are a real person who could answer questions about your work. In the ID movement, their are numerous intelligent designers working through an even larger number of mediums and interpreters. At the Discovery Institute for instance there are those who say they are Biblical literalists like you, and Biblical metaphorists like Behe; there are young earth creationists, old earth creationists, day agers, theistic evolutionists and on and on. The intelligent designer the religious prefer is not reliable; it tells different people different things.
As Chuck pointed out to you earlier, ID is a political movement designed by religious people to circumvent the US Constitution's First Amendment Establishment Clause. As Chuck also pointed out, their Wedge Document lays out their designs to overthrow the foundational standard of correctness used by science, nature. Again, Marcus, you claim that you do not want to alter science's use of nature as its standard, but so many of those you have allied yourself with certainly do: Harvey Burnett is one, almost all those calling themselves Christian fundamentalists and Biblical literalists are more of them, and everyone from the Discovery Institute since they have all married themselves to The Wedge Document are more yet.
You said,
Name one lie that I have told.
You've said the Bible is true. That is a lie. Trivially, the Bible is not true. No, Marcus, I'm not engaging in the stupidity of battling apologetics with you. There are thousands of Christianities which will gladly point you to the religious error of your ways. A lifetime wouldn't be enough to sort out their widely varying claims. There has never been "one Christianity" with a core set of beliefs, not ever. There have always been lots of different Christianities. Today we can watch them come and go which is very different from the past when people could only see the name and were inclined to think it implied some sort of uniformity. A thousand new Christianities pop up every year now and they breathe into life many ideas distinct from and foreign to the ideas in the old guard Christianities. Many of the new Christian theologies are based on nothing but personal experience. For them, gone are holy books and conflicting clergy enticing and inducing them with carrots and sticks. The point is simple: the thought covered by the Christian-labelled umbrella becomes more and more diverse, moment by moment. Christianity can't be true in any meaningful sense. If something is true it will have the curious trait that for well-informed and well-reasoning people, the understanding they have of that something will not become less and less coherent, but rather will converge toward a point. The Christianities, and religions in general, are not like that at all. They become less and less coherent as the name becomes associated with ever more diverse, conflicting, and contradicting ideas.
You know this, Marcus, and you address it by saying that other religions are all wrong, including all those named "Christian" that you don't like. Notice how you elevate the notion of religious experience, and, yet, in an instant, you reject the religious experience of others. You want readers here to accept and respect your religious experience when you refuse to do the same for others.
There again you are a liar, Marcus. You say that religious experience reflects truth and so is to be trusted, but what you mean is that religious experience is only to be trusted for you and those who are exactly like you. You are saying that religious experience is a lie if it differs from your religious experience. You are saying that the only trustworthy religious experience is one that leads someone to think and believe exactly like you. That's a lie, Marcus.
You said,
I know that there is strong evidence for gravity, atomic theory, germ theory of disease, plate tectonics, relativity, the photoelectric effect, or quantum mechanics. Evolution is a lot different. I've asked several questions Evolution does not answer.
Evolution is not different at all. The fact of evolution is not dependent on you accepting anything. Of course, you prove time and time again that you are not a scientist. If religion was true, the evidence would show it. Psychologically and emotionally you can't look at religion with that eye of scrutiny. You've said all along here on this comment thread that you reject evolution because, "I've asked several questions Evolution does not answer."
Here again you are a liar and deceiver, Marcus. The Christianities fail to answer an infinite number of questions; they give wrong answers to many more and they offer up a smorgasbord of contradictions for so many others, but still you cling to some version of Christianity which you say is "true." By no reasonable standard for "true" are the Christianities "true." That you say "I was saved at a young age" says a lot about what and why you believe, but still there is no truth there. You say you reject evolution for questions you think it doesn't answer, but you don't reject religion for the questions it doesn't answer. Why is that?
No discipline can adquately address your questions when you refuse to make a bit of an effort on your own and honestly engage the evidence. You lied when you said DNA is based on protein. It was a lie since you thought you knew it, but did not. I was not an honest mistake, it was a lie. It was a lie when you said DNA is made of amino acids; it's not. This encounter shows you have never thought through the idea of evolution. What you've done is sought out apologetics which you think can excuse you from having to do the work. Understanding is hard sometimes. Stupid is easy, that's why so many choose it.
I cringe when I think about how many hundreds of hours you have to have spent over the years seeking out justifications for not understanding evolution, when just a few hours of concerted effort on the internet could have given you a basic understanding of evolutionary theory and the oceans of evidence that support it.
You said,
And until it can, I wouldn't bet my life on macro evolution. We bet our lives on gravity, atomic theory, germ theory of disease, plate tectonics, relativity, the photoelectric effect, or quantum mechanics all the time. Macro evolution is not observable and i don't feel comfortable inferring it.
If you were a scientist, then working within the constraints of nature-as-standard, you would be perfectly content with the whole of evolutionary theory. If you are thinking of "macroevolution" as being a change of one organism into a radically different organism, then, yes, even the macroevolution you cast in the role of religion's divine hero versus science's evil evolution is observed. Go to the search engines, Marcus. Don't remain scientifically uninformed to enjoy religious comfort. Things like antibiotic resistance are oftentimes not just a mark of a subtle genomic alteration, but they herald a completely new organism.
A few billion years ago all life on earth was single-celled. If we keep to science and nature-as-standard, since conflicting superstitions offer no insights, then we will conclude that accumulated heritable mutations led to cells which aggregated in symbiosis. Further genetic modifications gave rise to mutual dependence and true multi-cellularism. This is what is observed chronologically in the fossil record. Through science this continues and crystallizes into a sound body of evidence and theory which both explains life as we see it today and integrates today's life into the broad narrative of life's history on earth.
Marcus,
If we introduced the supernatural, all we would have would be competing senselessness.
You said,
Not scientist who have done good science accept and embrace evolution.
I have no idea what the fuck this might mean, but I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you. So, amen!
You said
You cannot say that 100% of all the world agrees with you and arguing from consensus can't be conclusive.
Marcus, does this not sink into you in a religious context. Here, you are arguing for John's Outsider Test of Faith. Notice that your Christianity is only a small fragment of the tens of thousands that are out there.
But, then science doesn't depend on consensus. If it did would we have had special relativity in 1905 as explicated by Einstein's article On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies? How about Brownian Motion? The photoelectic effect? These are all true for all mankind regardless of religious, political, or other ideological resistance. Unlike religion where god's come and go based on social whim, science establishes useful truths, or at least very strongly supported provisional truths, that all can make use of. Religion is completely dependent on consensus of professed beliefs.
You said,
Once upon a time the majority thought the universe was eternal. I want to know why presenting evidence against evolution means that I'm not a scientist. I thought that evolution is science because it's testable. Well, I've asked questions. Instead of dealing with them You, Chuck, and Dawkins say trhat only uneducated morons question darwinian evolution.
Marcus, if you cared to know, any question you might ask is easily addressed through online resources. Why would you come to an atheist website with your religious predisposition that evolution is wrong and demand that we provide for you satisfying answers to questions you refuse to research. When we do answer them you simply reject the answers as not not being in concert with your predispositions or with Harvey or with a book written by some Discovery Institute shill.
Don't demand answers that you will never accept, Marcus. Your pretense of openmindedness is another lie you continually reiterate.
Evolution explains well the information that resides in the genome as well as its origin and its vulnerability to mutation. That it is well-established science means that it is reliable and it makes sense in science's context, the natural world.
Funny how you are accusing me of being close-minded and superficial and not caring about evidence while it is you just making assertions without any thought to proving anything you are saying. Arguing from authority should not be convincing even if you are the once claiming authority.
That there are so many competing religions and competing sects under the name of specific religions shows that religions only exist and survive via authority. Here you lie again, Marcus. You say, "Arguing from authority should not be convincing even if you are the once claiming authority," but you have the balls to then tell me that you know of many Christianities that are not true. There is no authority for Christian correctness. That's how there can be so many of them. You are one authority. The Archbishop of Canterbury is a different authority and the pope is another. And you all believe yourselves to be correct despite contradicting each other.
Marcus,
You said,
Disagreeing with you does not make me a non-scientist.
True. But, you do not think like a scientist. You lack the curiosity of a scientist. You fail to research easily answered questions which is very unlike a scientist. You say you accept nature as the standard for science yet you actually reject it through so many of the allegiances you hold and the ideas you put forth. You reject much of science using criteria you refuse to apply to religion. If you were a scientist, you would be able to look the world over and conclude that though people live differently from you that does not mean they are wrong. They are simply different. You decide that all are wrong who fail your religious tests. You are observably not a scientist for many many reasons, Marcus. Just as the evidence supporting evolution is irrefutable to the informed reasoning mind, so too is the evidence that you are not a scientist.
Russ, I've obviously rubbeyu you the wrong way good!
I totally disagree with you and Chuck about intelligent Design. Not everyone who believes that reality was designed thinks that we need to do away with the scientific method or have the political motivations you are ascribing to all of us. That, sir, is a lie. What dfoes it matter if you put your "god" up as the designer? That does not change the fact that some intelligence is behind it. You said that are a real scientist is curious. Why saying "God did it" cheapen the thrill of finding out what God did and how God did it? Why should it make you not wanna know more? It makes me wanna know more! Fills me with awe and wonder.
You wrote:
The platitude "Marcus did it" diminishes what you did. For your work to be useful beyond the triviality of getting an answer, what is needed is answers to questions like "how did Marcus do it," "what was the thinking involved," "what specific knowledge was needed for Marcus to do this," and "how can we pass this understanding on to those who come after Marcus." Why would this be the case? This isn't how I think. This isn't how a scientist should think.
Russ, for pointing out the errors I made in the structure of DNA and ignoring the questions I raised that evolution cannot answer it was slick. And I apologize for the erroneous information i posted about DNA structure. It has been a while since i looked at that and I made a mistake. I know you won't accept that. It helps you sleep better at night assuming that I am ignorant and stupid that way you can ignore what I say. You however won't admit to being wrong about Christians or what Christians in COGIC believe althought i have pointed out your errors you still won't repent and still saying things that are not true. That's dishonest.
There are lots of questions. Being a Christian does not mean that you think you have all the answers...you have more questions. You don't even understand the psychology of believers. Your conclusions don't describe 1000% of religious people so you should quit talking about things you don't know about.
As for calling me the liar. You said I was a liar that says the Bible is true. Prove it isn't true. You can assert it all you want. But go ahead prove me a liar. The other thing is You are completely wrong about how i see the Bible. I'm saying it's true - including the parts that I wish were not there and there are plenty. The standard for what is Christian and what isn't has nothing to do with me or what I think. What does the Bible say? If you think that it's a mess and has no coherent message that could be understood honestly multiple ways - prove it. Pick one form of "Christianity" that I disagree with and show how the Bible supports them and undercuts me. I'm waiting.
Russ,I'm not asking anyone to accept my religious experience...I'm telling you to go to God on your own and have your own relationship with God. God is real and the Bible is not going to tewll you something different. If you see it differently, I'm more than happy to hash it out. There is ol;y one God. God would not tell me something contradictory to what He tells you. As for other religions...if they denty waht the Bible says they are wrong. Sorry. I't as simple as that. if i deny something the Bible says or get something wrong I'm wrong too. Simple. That is why i have to study and sometimes I do find that I have to make adjustments. That's life.
I'm not a liar. I never said that you must believe what i do.b There are many Christians who disagree with me on a lot of things but i know they are going to heaven anyway. We agree on the essentials of historic Christianinty. The rest will be worked out and some questions will never be answered. Why do you constantly say i think, believe or say things that i don't. That's lying.
The only true objective standard for Christianity is the Bible...people who abandon that are why we have the confusion. How have I done that. Prove it.
I think it s a good point that you can't reject a scientific theory or religion based on the questions it doesn't answer. That is why I aslo take into account that evolutionary processes as they are currently described do no adequately explain as much as you say they do. And i'm not the only one who sees it thatway. The Bible however explains the state of human life and what you can do about it to get closer to the onw who made everything. Deep down does it really make sense to think that all of life int is complexity came about uncaused for no purpose? Like a software package springing into existence without as programmer? DNA code, coded and a packages in exquisite detail without cause or purpose? I've never written code like that. Why would I think the my code would be any differnt?
How does acknowledging a creator circumvent figuring out what that purpose or methodlogy is? It doesn't. I've thought all of this through and it doesn't really matter if you think I haven't. You haven't really considered what if all the scientists and engineers who disagree with you are right. Do you really think you are smarter than us? Better than us? You're not. I cling to Jesus not because I'm better than you but I recognize my need for a savior. You need Jesus too. You're just too hopelessly clinging to your skewed vision of what a Christian is to see your need.
I don't think that real science is based on nature as a standard, I wish i had been clearer. It's like how an electron's own electric field can't exert a force on itself. How can nature truly explain itself. You can't explain yourself outside of the given context of an objective reality,
You make so many assumptions and then try to pass them off as scientific as if no one knowledgeable disputes them. funny you keep saying that i have no done research when obviously you haven't bothered to look at competing ideas or opinions on the same data if it doesn't agree with yours. No one can prove or show that you can get enough mutations from a single cell organism to get anything other than a single cell organism. If you disagree...give an example. You are trying to use micro evolution ti infer macro evolution because after all Darwin had to be right, or gasp, you may have to seriously consider the Bible as fact. Can't have that can we?
If a scientist is not close-minded, offers and follows evidence in all areas of inquiry, before making decisions and conclusions despite emotions or bias, then you sir are not a scientist.
Marcus,
You are indeed a liar. You assert the Bible as truth, but fail to abide by it, so you do not even believe it yourself.
Do you put your wife in shed while she's on her period? No. The Bible commands that just like it does so many other stupid superstitions. Do you sit on furniture your wife has set upon when she's on her period? Yes? Then you are rejecting the Bible just like I do. Do you advocate killing stubborn and rebellious children? No? Then you are rejecting the Bible, just like any other atheist. Do you agree that we should cut off hands or stone people to death for petty crimes? Then you reject the Bible just like all other atheists. You're a liar, Marcus. If you say the Bible is true, that you believe it, or that you live by it or are guided to a moral understanding by it, you are a liar. Liar, liar, liar.
You simply pick and choose the parts you like. Again, Marcus, you have a social club who will all agree with you about the parts they like.
Your god is not real. Almost all of today's humanity rejects your god in favor of another or no god at all. The world is about 20 percent non-believers, Marcus. You live by the lights of Edison in more ways than one. You sing White Christmas which was penned by the atheist secular Jew, Irving Berlin. Throughout human history a very small fraction of mankind has paid attention to your silly notion of a god. That's to be expected since it is so unreliable.
Think of it Marcus. Your god tells Jews that Jesus is no one's savior. Your god tells Muslims that your Jesus was a run-of-the-mill apocalyptic prophet, a nice guy, but nothing special. I simply agree with your god that Jesus was no one's savior and with the Muslim's god that Jesus was nothing special. I agree with the Pope that you are just as likely to go to Hell as I am. Just like you, I am the wrong kind of Christian. I agree with non-Christians that your Christianity is wrong and I agree with atheists that your Christianity is a delusion. All of the holy books and non-holy books agree that you are wrong, except for the hand-chosen bits of the Bible you have elected to call "true."
You said,
God would not tell me something contradictory to what He tells you.
That, too is a lie, Marcus, and you know it. The Bible is a book, nothing more. It is not the word of a deity. The vast storehouse of contradictory Christian apologetic literature says you are flatout wrong.
You said,
As for other religions...if they denty waht the Bible says they are wrong.
I don't know what the fuck that means, but whatever it is, I'm sure you're wrong there too.
You said,
Sorry. I't as simple as that.
I'm sorry, too, Marcus. You do not get to decide that all of humanity is wrong except the little shithole church you belong to. Don't extrude more of your delusion by telling us that it's not you, but is instead your God. It's not your god; it's you making it up and using your God-talk to avoid taking responsibility for what you say when its wrong.
People are different from you. That's all. That does not make them wrong. If your silly notion of a god wanted people to know about itself, it should have announced itself a bit more widely. Every notion of a god has been wrong throughout human history. Yours is no better.
Bye, bye, Marcus,
Peace.
Russ, you don;'t know my life and you don't know what the bible says. all those old testament rules you are appealing to are no longer in force. I'm not under law, and neither is any Christian We are under grace. I can't go into detail on this because you will not understand it. Jesus said not to cast your perls before swine...so I'm going to move one to sometjhng you can understand.
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. - Matthew 7:6
Don't shoot the messaenger. I can't give you meaty theology. You need milk.
Russ, there more than 6 Billion people on the earth and last I heard about 2-3 billion of them claim to be Christian. Does what you say that the bulk of humanity rejects Christianty hold up? Nope - lie
What parts of the Bible say I am wrong? I agree with you about Muslims, and some Catholics concerning me. So waht. Does waht they say agree with the Bible and Christains who Believe the bible is true no matter what their tradition says? Nope Lie number 2.
Give one example of christian apologetic literature disagree with me. You can;t assert something and then offer no proof - lie number 3
Can you prove that the Bible is not the workd of God. If you can...demonstrate it. Prove it.
I said: "As for other religions...if they deny what the Bible says they are wrong." And i sand by that.
Russ, you've got to be kidding. you have offered nothing but gross exaggeration and ad hominem attacks. This is all you have. It just shows pittiful you really are. n order to show me wrong all you have to do is who either the Bible is n error or that i have misrepresented what it says. Which you have failed to do. You truly need a lot of prayer.
All I know is I've been hanging with Jesus and he says he has no idea who Marcus is. Marcus, prove that he didn't say that to me. Russ, it is obvious that Marcus isn't one of the elect thus, his rage (and poor typing skills)
Chuck, let met tell you how i know Jesus did not say anything to you. Nothing Jesus would say would go against what the Bible says:
If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions. 1 Tim 6:3-4
Therefore if you have a saying that goes against previous instruction then it wasn't Jesus.
Jesus said:
"I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins." John 8:24
Chuck you don't believe Jesus is who He said He is. Therefore I know Jesus did not speak to you.
Further Hebrews 11:6 says:
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
You have no faith. Obviously the only one you hear from is Satan and I don't want to talk to him. You shouldn't either.
Marcus said "all those old testament rules you are appealing to are no longer in force."
Yet Jesus allegedly said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven."
One or both of you is wrong, probably both, but according to Jesus, you are the "least in the kingdome of heaven".
Just FYI
Ryan, have you ever read the Torah?So many places in it says the ceremonial laws - all of which Russ appealed to - were for the Jews - a theocratic kingdom. Not for today. And who was Jesus talking to in the passage you quoted. He was talking to Jews. I'm a gentile. Jesus came so that we can be justified because no one can keep the law. I am the least. I know I'm in the Kingdom because of only what Jesus did for me. I can take no credit. God did it for me and He can do the same for you.
Marcus you must have missed the post where I admitted I prayed with my wife. Jesus came to me soon after and I spoke with him about you. He said he has never known you. So by faith I've established a relationship with Jesus and he has denied knowing you. Prove to me it was Satan. you can't. Jesus also said he was confused with all these people quoting Paul forgeries as if it was something he said.
Marcus:
Interesting interpretive principle you got there. So, if Jesus said something to Jews, then that ONLY applies to the Jews, and if Jesus said something to gentiles, then that ONLY applies to gentiles?
Seems "the law" was a hard sell for Paul, so he made the distintion Marcus is clinging to.
But, Jesus allegedly said what Jesus allegedly said...
But then again, Jesus allegedly said a lot of contridictory things...
@Chuck
I did prive that you talked to Satan because JEsus would have told you what He said inm the Bible
"I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins." John 8:24
What? You think Jesus wants you to got hell? I don't. So why wouldn't He tell you something that will keep your butt out of hell?
In the Gospels Jesus talked more about hell than than He did about heaven. This shows that you have no relationship with Jesus Christ. Sure matches Satan however. I've shown how your paradigms and conversation has nothing resembiling Jesus. So quit lying on Jesus who is Lord and Savior.
@dguller
I did not say that none of the Torah is incumbant on Gentiles. Do you know the distinction between the ceremonial law and the civil laws. All the examples Russ gave from the OT that Christians no longer follow or worry about show that neither you or he understands what the Bible is saying.
Do you guys remember: Israel was supposed to be a model for what a nation dedicated to God was supposed to look like. They failed. We are no better - if not worse!
Hear now, O Israel, the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you. - Deuteronomy 4:1
This isn't the only verse in the Books of Moses that tells us that the law was for the Jews.
How does this apply to us gentiles? Read Romans 2; Galatians 3:1-14.
By no means did Paul contradict JEsus. Paul did not say that the we no longer keep the law:
Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. - Romans 3:29-31
I never said that there is anything only for the Gentiles. You can be any race/nationality and still be Christian. All the first Christians were Jews. And the Promises are only for God's people.
@Ryan
Paul was not trying to "get around" the Law. And He did not contradict JEsus. Read Paul's argument in Galatians 3:15-25. He was writing to a church that was composed mostly of Gentiles, who had people come in among them telling them that faith in Christ was not enough that they had be Jewish too. Jesus never said that. Recall John 8:24. There is no conflict with Matthew 5. Look at the whole Chapter. You have ripped a few verses out of context. I mean look at verse 20:
For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were keeping the laws you and Russ were talking about, yet Jesus says that you can't go to Kingdom unless your righteousness surpasses theirs! Then Jesus explains what that looks like. I'm sorry, Ryan, but in your attempt to rescue Russ and Chuck you are just in the same quagmire. Let Jesus get you out.
I'm making only distinctions that Jesus made.
Marcus
Jesus did say that but he was referring to Harvey. I told Him to get in touch with you and he said he'd prefer not to. I asked why and he just shrugged and said "You figure it out". I don't think Jesus likes you.
@Chuck
I'd worry about your own relationship with Christ and figure out whether or not the Father is drawing you - calling you - rather than worry about my relationship with Jesus.
Let's look at some fruit. Are you producing fruit?
But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. - Colossians 3:8
Considering you have shown yourself doing all these again Elder Burnett and myself, I'd say have a problem...to make it worse you have lied on Jesus. Best ask Jesus to forgive your mistakes and beg Him to save you.
I shared with Jesus all your testifying here Marcus and he just chuckled, shook his head and said, "Kid doesn't get it."
I checked in with JC again Marcus and he said to keep giving you and Harvey Hell. He said it is a timeless strategy to tell the sons of the devil (you and Harvey) that you are snakes. He said you need to reconsider your fruit and see how it is nor more nutritious than a crab apple. He considers you and Harv pharisees, "white cups with a clean exterior with filth inside". Your filth is your dishonesty regarding science and your insolence in facing your doubts. He said you are going to Hell.
Marcus,
You make it up as you go along. Saying those are old testament rules proves that you are making it up. You pick out garbage from the OT that you feel you can use to rally the troops or oppress the unthinking, things like the clearly false ideas that homosexuals are an abomination and original sin. You are making it up, Marcus.
You refuse to see that you are gleaning those bits from the OT and the Bible in general that you think will best keep your church afloat. Other variations on the Christian theme see it differently.
You said,
I can't go into detail on this because you will not understand it.
I understand just fine, Marcus, but you fail to see that what you say about Christianity does not impress other Christians. Why is that? Like you they are modeling their version of Christianity after their most cherished presuppositions. You hate homosexuals, so you have made your god hate homosexuals, and you read the Bible through a filter that permits you to say that your hatred is divinely justified.
Here in the US, Marcus, your version of Christianity is dying for the same reasons that the deities Loki, Aphrodite, and Dionysius died: people see that what you are saying is wrong or otherwise inhuman and immoral. Your sect along with the entire Pentecostal mindset supports killing children as witches. That's insane, Marcus. You're insane, Marcus. What your Bible says doesn't count for shit when a parent's mind is so religiously fucked up that the parent becomes the greatest threat to the child's welfare.
You say,
all those old testament rules you are appealing to are no longer in force. I'm not under law, and neither is any Christian We are under grace.
You don't like doing the nitty-gritty of what your god has commanded, so you reject most of what your god says, choosing for the most part to keep only the worst of it.
Part of being insane is lacking the ability to see that what rolls about in your mind fails to align with the world at large, including nature. You can't see it. You've given up that capacity. Your religion has divorced you from the world as it is and married you to the imaginary world of archaic superstitions related in the sub-Bible you've harvested from the full text. You're not a believer, Marcus.
People whose thinking is different from yours are different, not wrong. There are millions of ways of living a good life that do not involve your silly insanity-driven superstitions. No one needs your god Satan, your god Yahweh, your god Jesus, your god The Holy Ghost, your miracles manufactured from ignorance, coincidence, or charlatanism, or any of the other trappings and overhead associated with your intentional misreadings of the world.
Your insanity, Marcus, runs so far as to embrace Christianities that you reject and that reject your Christianity in order that you be able to get the Christian head count you want. You said,
Russ, there more than 6 Billion people on the earth and last I heard about 2-3 billion of them claim to be Christian. Does what you say that the bulk of humanity rejects Christianty hold up?
There are most of 7 billion now. If you were honest, you would acknowledge that you don't count Roman Catholics among the Christian ranks just as they do not accept you as being Christian. But, your freakish emotional neediness wants the security of numbers, so you dishonestly count them among your Christian ranks. Roman Catholics worship humans; they worship idols; they worship relics; they worship buildings; they worship places. They are not Biblical - neither are you, for that matter - but they are not Biblical in a different way than you, Marcus, so they are not Christians. But, psychologically you need their numbers, more than half of all calling themselves Christians, to make you feel sure that your gods are not diminishing in importance.
Marcus,
If you were honest, you would let Mormons be True Christians, but they're small in numbers so you and your child-raping buddies, the Roman Catholics, can cull the Mormons from the Christian herd to make it seem as if there is a standard for "correct" Christianity. You said earlier that you reject Mormons for Biblical reasons. If you were honest you would acknowledge that by the same argument you actually do reject Roman Catholics.
You said,
Does waht they say agree with the Bible and Christains who Believe the bible is true no matter what their tradition says?
Damn, you do have a way with words, Marcus.
You said,
Give one example of christian apologetic literature disagree with me.
You really should edit what you write.
The Popey Dude from the Vatican is one, but there are thousands. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and on and on. All of you claim to have knowledge or beliefs, exclusive to you, which will usher you through the Pearly Gates, while you say that what other Christians claim to know and believe will leave those Gates locked tight and emblazoned with "Your Kind Are Not Allowed Because You or Your Parents or Your Clergy Misunderstood What I Meant to Say in the Bible. Go To Hell. Signed: Your Loving Father, God." You not recognizing this simply reinforces just how detached from the world at large you and your Christianity really are. If the differences really do decide between heaven and hell, then the differences are far more significant than you are admitting to. You want the numbers to be on your side and to make that happen you lie about theological distinctions which you in your Christianity say have eternal consequences and others in their Christianities say have different eternal consequences.
Christianity is a product, bought and sold, just like toilet paper, flavored douches, edible underware and Burger King. Market niches are carved out by the promoters of particular Christianities. Go to some of the big religious marketing conferences, Marcus. You will find that the successful religious marketing campaigns have professional help. Your target market is the low hanging fruit like credulous children and those who are psychologically and emotionally vulnerable. Faith healers hit the desperately ill. The Crystal Cathedral aims at those who see themselves as being above the petty foolishness you appeal to. The emerging church is another market. Process theologies make the basis of another market niche and unitarianism and universalism draw in others who see Christianities like yours as too stupid for sane people to consider. The Christianities are different, very different. If you were more than a simpleminded insular dogmatist you would know that.
From the big picture perspective, you don't have anything special. You have a club where all the members agree to agree with you. You have some fun. You have regular potlucks. You have the occasional emotionally gratifying exorcism. You get paid. Seventh Day Adventist do it differently in their club.
Marcus,
You said,
you have offered nothing but gross exaggeration and ad hominem attacks. This is all you have.
There is nothing that I can say that is so bizarre, outlandish, or stupid that it is not true in some version of Christianity. Killing, raping, torturing, maiming one's own children for Christian reasons. It's there. Letting children die of easily-treated diseases. It's there. Psychologically and emotionally destroying people to make life easier for ministerial charlatans. It's there, too. Religious rituals where young children are taught to say, "Fuck me, Jesus," and "Let me suck your cock, Lord." It's there. Human sacrifice. It's there. Animal sacrifice. It's there. These things make up the broad tapestry of Christianity, Marcus. Yours is but one thin thread of a Christianity. In your Christianity you sycophantically worship Jesus; in other Christianities, they jerk-off for Jesus. Different strokes, eh?
Don't give me your shit about the Bible determining what is Christian because it doesn't. The Christianities are whatever their practitioners say they are. You are a liar, Marcus. You do not understand Christianity. In your comments you have stated your rejection of much of the Bible because you say its message was intended for someone else or you've decided that the rules no longer apply to you. Isn't that convenient? Others do the same thing with different parts of the Bible and most of humanity doesn't give a rats ass for your Bible. Observably, almost all Christians ignore or outright reject the Bible.
You said,
You truly need a lot of prayer.
Give me a verifiable example of answered prayer. You can't. It's a stupid superstition. Your "answered prayers" are post-hoc errors, Marcus. If I pray that somone wins the lottery, and, eventually, it happens, it has nothing to do with me praying and it is monumentally stupid for me to think it does. Christians structure their prayers so they are "answered" in exactly this same way: pray for things that are possible or are likely to happen on their own, then, make believe that your inane utterance induced the creator of the universe to make it happen. You stack the deck so that post hoc errors will be dealt out on a regular basis. Pray for the impossible, like having an amputated limb regrow exactly as it was, and it doesn't happen...ever. Pray for the likely, "Dear Lord, please let Auntie Thesnelda's nose stop running" and you have a pre-manufactured miracle. Unless she dies with that headcold, the after-the-prayer cessation of the running nose will occur but it has nothing to do with the prayer and it is monumentally stupid to think it does.
Marcus, in a town near me a nice Christian lady adopted a seven year old boy then beat him to death with a hammer. Her fellow churchgoers were surprised; imagine that. She stuck the body in a plastic bag, disposed of it in a wood a few miles off, and set up a well-publicized charade about him having run off. While the game played itself out in the public eye, with hundreds of volunteers combing the area for him, the psychics set up their marketing ploys, by concocting hundreds of versions of the boy's whereabouts. The police departments were inundated with these guesses. When it was over they discovered that almost all of those guesses came from four psychics. When the body was found, they received many more psychic's insights by registered mail, all with the correct location of the body and some having accurate geographical descriptions taken from google satellite images and US Geological survey photos and maps.
Marcus,
Those psychics knew it was highly likely that the boy or his body would be found. All they needed to do to manufacture a "hit," a deceptively constructed guess, was to make enough guesses. Make enough guesses, and one might be close enough that you can claim a hit. Make the guess after the outcome is known and give it authority by sending it via registered mail, and you can really make some people think you really have the powers you claim.
Your "answered prayers" work in a similar manner. Bizarrely, in the "answered prayer" game you play both sides and you claim victory, win or lose. You fuck with your own mind and you love every minute of it. Truth counts for nothing.
You said to Chuck,
You have no faith. Obviously the only one you hear from is Satan and I don't want to talk to him.
Faith is useless and if you actually read the Bible you will find that Satan is a much nicer fellow than is your other god, Jehovah.
@Chuck
I haven't been dishonest about science or my doubts. And taking Jesus's words and applying them against anyone without first recognizing how they apply to oneslf is stupid. Jesus would not tell you I'm wrong without telling you to fix your own life. I'm not judging you. He is. You have said much about Jesus that is not true. You deny his deity and resurrection - the very things he taught as most improtatn. Better check the "beam" in your eye" before imagining a "speck" in mine. I'fve got issues and problems but not the one s you accuse me of. You however are exactly ehat i have pointed out that you are.
@Russ
Yous said: You make it up as you go along. Saying those are old testament rules proves that you are making it up. You pick out garbage from the OT that you feel you can use to rally the troops or oppress the unthinking, things like the clearly false ideas that homosexuals are an abomination and original sin. You are making it up, Marcus.
You refuse to see that you are gleaning those bits from the OT and the Bible in general that you think will best keep your church afloat. Other variations on the Christian theme see it differently.
I don't hate homosexuals. Why do you think that? Have I said that? Are you saying that I am making up that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin? Are you saying that I made up original sin? Wat does Romsans 1 and 5 mean seem to think that i don't understand the Bible. What does it say? When did i say that killing Childrenas witches is okay? Thyat makes as much sense as aborting unborn children just bewcause you don't the responsibility of raising a child. Nutts! When did I ever condone that? I think you are having a differtent conversation. You are bringing up thing and have no idea what you are talking about. The only one making presuppositions and knocking them down is you not me. That's insanity.
Russ, I wrote a response about Old Testament scriptures and you have nothing to say about why it's wrong. I thiun it's because you didn't understand it. Like i said you can't get the nitty-gritty because it's not for you. You say you don't even want it. Am I surprised? No. If yopu look at what I said, Isaid that billions are claiming to be Christian, I never said that they are really Christians. And the criteria is not that they have to agree with me...they have to agree with the Bible. Mormons do not. Roman Catholics do. The Bible is true. It does not matter to me who agrees with it. You are making a lot of assumptions about me and what i believe and just embarassing yourself. Either you are ignorant or stupid.
Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists are not Christians andf for years they would tell you that they are not Christians. I have distinct reasones why I'm not a roman cahtolic but that does not mean that i don't they are a viabel church. It's sad that you are so blinded you don't undestasnd what i'm saying. If you think that the mormons have a good case against my position prove it. If you think that Christian Science is just as right as I am, prove it.
I'm sorry that you don't know what a relationshiop with God is. Answered prayesrs are not always "yes". God can say no. We are God's servants not the other way around. Don't get it twisted.
And yes, I agree Chuck needs help but you are not qualified to help him. Both of you need Jesus as do we all.
Considering that Satan is a liar - the father of lies - who only wants to kill, steal, and destroy - saying that he is betyter than God means you know nothing of God. But you sure know a lot about how to lie.
Marcus asked,
"Better question is if there is no transcendence of this life and no one has any ultimate value (as many consistent atheists believe) than what does it matter? How do you prove you matter period?"
Easy. You matter to the people who depend upon you. You matter to those that truly love you. Your ultimate value isn't tied up in where your 'soul' will end up after you die.
This atheist's position is that there is no such thing as "soul". Similarly, no god(s), no heaven, no hell, no angels, no devils, no cherubim and seraphim.
I live the life I have, because I can prove to myself that I exist. But after I die, I expect that to be the end. Period.
Why does anyone expect more?
And PLEASE don't start haranguing me with verses from the New Testament! I've heard all that, and if the Bible is all you got, then you got nothing.
Marcus
I shared your last post with Jesus and He thinks your spelling is atrocious. He did consider you might be trying to type with a beam in your eye. We laughed at that. Me and the Lord of Lords are tight. He never knew you befor I brought you to his attention and he really dislikes you now. Quit while you're ahead. Jesus suggested I tell you to shut up. Prove that he didn't say that to me.
@GearHedEd
Christians don't believe that a person's ultimate value is tied up to where your soul will be when you die. The Bible teaches that ultimate value comes from God. How do you know you exist? How do you prove it? Why do you think that when you die that will be it? I don't see how can come to that conclusion. Everything you say and do has consequences and affects everyone around you and affects everyone around them. Those consequences can affect other people who haven't even been born yet. I think ulitmate value is what positive ways you can leave your mark on this reality. There are lots of people who lived throughout history who's actions and thoughts are still felt today and those that we don't know about did too in ways neither they or us can imagine. What are you going to leave behind? What is going to live on after you? Christianity is not about heaven or hell. IT's about your relationship with the one you are accountable to.
IF your life can have such consequences why would you expect it just be over like blowing out a candle and you cease to exist?
I'm interested to know why would you think of me quoting Bible verses to be "haranguing" you? If you like I could use the Old Testament. IF you think the Bible is false why? How do you prove it false and that you exist? How do you know that there is no final authority that we are all accountable to?
@Chuck
Can you even find a single verse to validate any of the crap you are saying? If Jesus really spoke to you, He would not say anything that would contradict what the Bible says. I've demonstrated time and time again things Jesus said that blows your visions out of the water exposing them to be the devil's. You haven't responded to a single one. Can you reconcile your Jesus with the Jesus of the Bible. Nope. Since I've only presented what the Bible says regarding Biblical matters this is what Jesus said
Mark 9:37-39 says:
37"Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me."
38"Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
39"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me,
If Jesus was really talking to you He would not say the things you say He said since I am not speaking against Him, and never would. You however do. You don't agree with what He said. This shows you love your sin more than you love Him. I'm not the liar, you are.
You deny John 1:10-14
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Marcus,
You claim you have something special in Christianity, but you don't. That is easily, trivially, observable to any honest eye. There are no gods making life better for Christians and when we look scientifically at the numbers we see that the sects like yours, those fundamentalist sects, are the most wanting. It really looks like there is a god out there intervening only to smite you since your life outcomes are so poor relative to US society in general and other Christian sects in particular.
I know that you can't learn from honest academic work concerning Christianity if it doesn't make you look all rosy, but I'll try again anyway.
Here is a link to some research done by a Christian, more to the point an evangelical Christian tending to fundamentalism, R. J. Krejcir Ph.D. The work was done over the years 1989 to 2006 through the Francis A. Schaeffer Institute of Church Leadership Development. These people care about what's happening in the Christian church so much that they use real science to give them an accurate assessment of various aspects of church life and the lives of clergy. They're not trying to piss in the punchbowl, Marcus. They care enough that they turn to the only known means for getting accurate information about the topic: science.
[http://www.intothyword.org/apps/articles/default.asp?articleid=36562]
Read what they have to say, Marcus. No, it does not reflect well on the your church, but it is the truth. If it is the case that the truth will set you free, then you need to read this. You make the claim that the church is truly of value to its followers, but the numbers do not bear that out.
Remember, Marcus, these are not people who haphazardly slapped together a bunch of numbers intending to denigrate the church. Much of this work was done by people who are themselves pastors who really want to know the truth, so that insight can help them in their church-related objectives.
From the article:
Eight hundred eight (808 or 77%) of the pastors we surveyed felt they did not have a good marriage!
Seven hundred ninety (790 or 75%) of the pastors we surveyed felt they were unqualified and/or poorly trained by their seminaries to lead and manage the church or to counsel others. This left them disheartened in their ability to pastor.
Seven hundred fifty-six (756 or 72%) of the pastors we surveyed stated that they only studied the Bible when they were preparing for sermons or lessons. This left only 38%[sic][this is actually only 28%] who read the Bible for devotions and personal study.
Three hundred ninety-nine (399 or 38%) of pastors said they were divorced or currently in a divorce process.
Three hundred fifteen (315 or 30%) said they had either been in an ongoing affair or a one-time sexual encounter with a parishioner.
* Of the pastors surveyed, they stated that a mean (average) of only 25% of their church’s membership attended a Bible Study or small group at least twice a month. The range was 11% to a max of 40%, a median (the center figure of the table) of 18% and a mode (most frequent number) of 20%. This means over 75% of the people who are at a “good” evangelical church do not go to a Bible Study or small group (that is not just a book or curriculum study, but where the Bible is opened and read, as well as studied), (This is Key). (I suspect these numbers are actually lower in most evangelical and Reformed churches because the pastors that come to conferences tend to be more interested in the teaching and care of their flock than those who usually do not attend.)
From other work by Barna, Focus on the Family, and Fuller Seminary, which the author notes backed up their findings:
Eighty percent of seminary and Bible school graduates who enter the ministry will leave the ministry within the first five years.
Marcus(continued)
Fifty percent of pastors are so discouraged that they would leave the ministry if they could, but have no other way of making a living.
Seventy percent said the only time they spend studying the Word is when they are preparing their sermons (This is Key).
Almost forty percent polled said they have had an extra-marital affair since beginning their ministry.
One note that was quite interesting to me was:
Out of the 1050 pastors we surveyed during two pastors conferences held in Pasadena, California, 825, or 78% (326 in 2005 and 499 in 2006) said they were forced to resign from a church at least once.
78%! Wow. They outline the reasons, also.
Marcus, look at the article. As pastors those involved in the various studies offer insights which restate your position on the purpose of the church and the ministry, "The bottom line is this: if you are a pastor your job is to serve Christ first and foremost!" while proposing reasons for why in real-life things don't pan out according to that purpose. For instance the author states:
The problem, as we have found (and I agree with Blackmon, but as a symptom and not the prime issue), is that people lose focus on what the mission and central theme of the Church is. Both pastor and churchgoer miss the main theme of what a church is about, which is to know and worship Christ as Lord. So, when there is no growth from the pastor’s personal life, no discipleship, few people in Bible Study, then there is no mission or appropriate purpose for that church, and there are no goals; therefore, there's nothing really to do effectively. The result is the “shearing of the sheep.” Instead of being fed, they will feed upon one another, as well as the pastor, in a feast of conflict and strife. Since the church has nothing to do, then all the energies are turned inward to attack one another. I guess it beats being bored.
In data from the late 1990's which retested earlier results they found:
We found it has slightly worsened. Most pastors now work up to and more than 60 hours a week. Hence, why the divorce rate among pastors is rising and pastor’s children rarely stay in the church or keep their faith.
I'm sure you have idealized your own vision of Christendom. What many of us here are telling you is the facts of Christendom. You want Christianity to be something special; it's not. The numbers bear that out. It is indeed a club; it is a social institution with its own perks and quirks.
This author in recounting the information from many studies gives a snapshot of what Christianity in the US really is. While the numbers here mostly deal with clergy, there is a lot of other work also done by Christians willing to face up to the cold hard fact of what Christianity is rather than what they wish it to be. Those numbers also show Christianity to be lacking relative to its claims.
Across the spectrum of Christianities nothing indicates that any of them get better life outcomes than atheists and many of them, especially the fundamentalist sects, end up much worse. That's just the way it is. The numbers are not mine. I'm taking the numbers from those who care so much about Christianity that they are willing to deal honestly with the data demonstrating that Christianity does not come close to living up to its claims. They understand that only by knowing the truth about Christianity, truth that only science can provide, will they be able to address Christianity's defects.
Demographics tell us that around 90 percent of US citizens count themselves as some sort of Christian. That means that more than 270,000,000 people are Christians in the US. We are the most densely Christian nation on the planet. Yet, we have a quality of life here that reflects no loving one's neighbor as oneself. The countries today that are the most heavily atheist do a much better job of taking care of their own citizens than the mostly Christian US.
Christianity does not work, Marcus.
Marcus,
You quoted the Fictional novel of John (which Jesus says is a real page turner but paints him as kind of odd. He likens it to Oliver Stone's revisionist history films like JFK.)
But you quoted, "39"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me."
And I haven't said anything bad about Jesus. I simply reported to you that Jesus doesn't care much for you or your ministerial pursuits. After reading your posts here he said that you seemed more like Pharisee to him.
Prove that he didn't say that to me.
Um, Chuck, you have been saying plenty of horrible things about Jesus and Christianity since your first post on this thread. And you miss Jesus' point in verse 39. i'm not saying anything against Jesus but glorifying and magnifying him, so you have no leg to stand on when you condemn me.
@Chuck...that proves that Jesus did not speak to you. Quit listening to demons.
@Russ, are you sure "fallacious"
isn't your middle name. arguing that because many Christians are hypocrites invalidates Christianity shows just how bankrupt your thinking is. God wants to help you. What does the fact that some people who claim to be Christians are lying, cheating hypocrites? What does that matter? When we all stand before Jesus on that day, is that excuse going to get you any traction? Your problem is your own sin...not mine or anyone else. I can see it now, "Jesus, you should let me into heaven because although I blasphemed you and denied your Word, I'm better than all the Christians that I've ever known." Misses the point entirely. It's not about you and what you do. By default everyone goes to hell. What the difference is trusting in Jesus. a persons who really trusts in Jesus, turning his/her life over to Him will do good. That's not saying atheist can't do good. Good things don't count toward getting in or missing on heaven. It's by grace. Did you accept God's grace on God's terms or did you try to do it your way. Here is a hint, your way won't work God's way will.
Marcus said...."And I (apologize for the erroneous information i posted about DNA structure). It has been a while since i looked at that and I made a mistake. I know you won't accept that. It helps you sleep better at night assuming that I am ignorant and stupid that way you can ignore what I say."
Marcus said.."Russ,I'm not asking anyone to accept my religious experience...I'm telling you to go to God on your own and have your own relationship with God. God is real and the Bible is not going to tewll you something different. If you see it differently, I'm more than happy to hash it out. There is ol;y one God. God would not tell me something contradictory to what He tells you."
Daer Marcus McUntrustworthy.Ohhh so you say we need a relationship with God?, with whom its become clear to us already, obviously doesnt even exist.What use is a relationship with a mere figment of ones mind,when in this relationship its quite obvious to see this god cant even be seen to even remember to remind Marcus, not to go posting ignorant mistakes about DNA structure,specially when dealing with atheist whom Marcus is supposed to be testifying to, about the valid reasons for having faith and a personal relationship with Jesus ?.
You came here telling you do study science.Then next moment go and prove your ignorance.
Where is it do you suggest? , you are actually honestly being enlightened by this holy spirit?.You suggest having a personal reltionship of enlightenment,be we then see it doesnt seem to match the actual evidence.
Marcus said .."Let's look at some fruit. Are you producing fruit?
But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. - Colossians 3:8 "
Sheeze ....And yet your offering of this "fruit" can be seen to be kinda stale and mistaken ..The "fruit" gained by your relationship shows you up to be left ignorant of the erroneous information you spout of DNA structure, while testifying for supposed benefits of relationship with gods .What kind of advertizement were you really trying to put out there Marcus?.
Didnt? god manage to quickly think...Oh deary deary me! ..must have a quick whisper! in Marcuses ear,and by use of our personal relationship,enlighten him of his erroneous information of DNA structure
What benefit is this "personal relationship" ?, if the faith makes you so faithful you seem to simply follow other religious intelligent design advocates into such erroneous ignorance.
Marcus said.."@Russ, are you sure "fallacious"
isn't your middle name. arguing that because many Christians are hypocrites invalidates Christianity shows just how bankrupt your thinking is. God wants to help you. What does the fact that some people who claim to be Christians are lying, cheating hypocrites? What does that matter?"
Oh really ?? ..So even though Harvey suggests having this "personal relationship" with god,i happen to see he still has enough malice, and with you frequents and supports a certain blog designed entirely out of obvious "malice" for personal revenge against (one person) John Loftus.
I shouldnt? then use this scientific type information,to wonder and help me decide if maybe it can be SEEN, that this suggested "personal relationship" is very likely to be just bulls**t ?.
Marcus, if all people took your advice and followed your suggestions this world would really become a very scary place.
There is valid scientific like reasons to survey and also take into account the actions of all the faithful.
Bankrupt thinking? ...Talk about pot call kettle black.
Marcus your suggestion that people simply turn a blind eye to obvious scientific type deductions we can make from our (observation) of the available evidence.
Is whats really the ancient outdated bankrupt type thinking thats happening with you here.
Quick you need to wake up and smell the roses
Marcus McUntrustworthy ..Is the the obvious observable evidence you and Harvey expose so freely,of your obvious "malice" in your agreed involvment in supporting some blog designed solely for purpose of a personal attack on one person and one person alone ...Ie ..blog Debunking Loftus
About you and our friend Harvey being a great "moon beam" for Jesus ! ..And about showing us your faith is HONEST and helps you remove such nasty evils such as "malice" ?.
Marcus ..Why?? shouldnt we also use these scientific type deductions,to also help us try to decide, what might actually hold some truth, and what might actually be utterly false and worthless .
We still do use these same scientific type deductions everyday for many things ...They have not been proved to be so bankrupt at all.
This is not just a matter of using human emotion alone at all .John Loftus also used a long tried and trusted type of scientific method of deduction from science of pros and cons also...When "observing" the nastiness of faithful folk he had known for so long !
Marcus it is actually very injust that you and Harvey also both support a blog of such bias and intent of personal revenge, splattered with such wrongful judgement that he supposedly only left faith for emotional purposes.
Observing the oulook and actions of faithful folks ,is actually also using a type of scientific method Marcus
Chuck Jebus had a word in my ear also...He said Gandy .Gandy-yyyyy ..Hear yee-ee Hear yee-eee ..Thou shalt know Marcus-sss and Harvado-oooo are only false prophets-sssss ...They are-eee really only interested in Profit-tttting from the suckers-ssss who follow-wwww them
@Gandalf
So what about all the faulty Bible explanations I see here? I've been accused of not being able to admit when I make mistakes but I did so here. Why can't you? Why not admit that the only one here being malicious is you, Chuck, and Russ. How have I been malicious? How have I attacked anyone and said anything that was not true. You continually say and speak falsely against me and God. As for "Debunking John Loftus", John is a big boy he ought to be able take it just as I put up with you. He shouldn't need u to defend him. Loftus ought to be able to defend his ideas in open public debate.
Marcus McElhaney said... "@Gandalf
So what about all the faulty Bible explanations I see here? I've been accused of not being able to admit when I make mistakes but I did so here. Why can't you? Why not admit that the only one here being malicious is you, Chuck, and Russ. How have I been malicious? How have I attacked anyone and said anything that was not true. You continually say and speak falsely against me and God. As for "Debunking John Loftus", John is a big boy he ought to be able take it just as I put up with you. He shouldn't need u to defend him. Loftus ought to be able to defend his ideas in open public debate."
And he does defend himself.
But thats beside the point Marcus McUntrustworthy you happen to be missing...You spout off here about Jesus/God supposedly not likeing "malice"
Malice is like .. matters of spitefulness , animosity, enmity, hatred, bitterness, rancor, grudge.
Sure humans are capable of this.Im capable of this.Likely John Loftus is capable of this.
Does that then make it quite ok that Marcus McElhaney,Harvey Burnett and the J.P Holding and other supposed christians partake of this nasty human trait?...To me it just points out even more how worthless your faith is.You roll the words aroud your mouth ,but cant be observed to follow up with the real actions...You are then such obvious frauds ...Little different from a Pope who moves kid fuckers around
Hell Marcus,seems your faith sense of morality is so bent and twisted and full of bullshit,you cant even seem to see there is acutally any difference between arguments and heated conversations that happen with different folks on this blog "DC" or your blog "Favorite Fiction" ,or Harveys blog "The Dunamis Word" all blogs created to discuss a number of matters and a number of people, but not aimed at any (one person) in particular ....And a blog created entirely in ("malice" to slag off one person and one person alone) "debunking John loftus".
You really cant see things are a little different ?.
Marcus really im fine with you folks having your pitiful blog.If i was John Loftus, id be quite fine with some sad arsed christian "twisted sisters" having that blog too.I think its great that you all show the world how bent and twisted and spiteful you are,i think its great you and Harvey and ole Turkey Turkel (J.P.Holding) freely show the world that being a christian apologist doesnt mean you are still not just some freaky fraudulent idiot.
Please be my guest.I love it.I love exposing it for what it actually is, even better!.When ever i feel like it, im going to keep draging it back up, and rolling the whole lot of you bent nasty frudulent supposed christians pig mucking in such malice ,back over the coals on the fire again and again.While its still around and im still able to, i will continue to make use of it as ammo.
@ Marcus
Its you Christians who claim absolutes and claim to be following in the footsteps of Jesus etc blah blah ..Its you christians always rubbing nose in your supposed higher faith morals yet somehow cant display them.Its you christians who suggest Jesus/God said dont be involved in malice,yet you christ folk are publically seen to be involved in childish blog attacking (one person) like we would expect of some hairy arsed school bullys.
Does it make you proud Marcus?..Make your Jesus proud?.
Im atheist Marcus.I dont go around blogs suggesting im anything more that a atheist human being.
But you and Harvey and ole Turkey Turkle do.
Thats the difference.You all even prove yourself a fraud as claiming to be Christian, by your very bent and nasty actions of such blatant malice.
But i do so really enjoy dragging you all over these coals you yourselves fired up for my own use!!.
Could you please pass a message on to all the twisted sisters of that blog, that im very thankful! for this option some intelligent?? folks of faith have made available
May all the supposed Gods of this universe, bless their lil wee cotton socks!
@Marcus..."John is a big boy he ought to be able take it just as I put up with you. He shouldn't need u to defend him. Loftus ought to be able to defend his ideas in open public debate."
But ..but :( ...I do so very much enjoy making fun!! of the hilarious aspect of the great foolisness and arrogant idiotic attitude of some supposed Christians publically making such a fool of themselves, while proving to be such obvious blantant frauds Marcus
Dont you understand ? ...Dont you also like seeing bullys have some of their own medicine come back...Splat!!.. in their own face?
Gandalf...point to one thing that I have said is malicious. If standing up and saying I disagree and this is why I disagree is offensive to you then there is nothing I can do about that. You far from offend me. It comes as of now surprise. You almost amuse me because you think you actually know what you are talking about. It'd be almost cute if it didn't have such terrible consequences for you that you can't see. I'm not being being malicious but just giving my viewpoint. I haven't called you out of your name. Called you stupid or any such thing you have done in attempt to disrespect me. When you personally attack me isn't that being malicious? You really don't seem to see it that way and I don't blame you because you are blind. You don't see it. You can't see it. It makes me laugh when you call me malicious because I'm the one trying to help you and you are only nipping at me heels...an annoyance. I'm glad God loves you and I hope God will call you to Himself as your own and you are able to be healed of your bitterness and pain. It's not God's fault He can heal you if you want to be healed.
Marcus,
You said,
arguing that because many Christians are hypocrites invalidates Christianity shows just how bankrupt your thinking is.
Actually use your mind, Marcus. The point is that your god shows no affect. It's not doing anything at all for anyone. The numbers demonstrate beyond all doubt that being Christian has no positive affects. All affects attributed to Christianity are the same as the affects that others get from other social groups or just from being a human being.
The numbers demonstrate beyond all doubt that you and others of your mindset do not believe what you claim to. Christians say the Bible is important to read, but they don't read it. They do not believe it, Marcus. This is not a matter of a "few hypocrites;" this is the entirety of Christendom. They don't use the Bible as a moral guide and they certainly don't think it has any other use. The Bible is useless, as the article above points out, even to clergy. They don't read it either. As Homer Simpson said as he flipped through a Bible in the Simpson's Movie, "This book doesn't have any answers!" We all know it doesn't have answers and that includes you, Marcus. You're mesmerized by the power and authority you command among the ignorant as you thump it, pound it, and shake it heavenward while you scream out vile sermons. But, Marcus, you know it's not of value.
For the most part Christians, this includes you, make their decisions based on useful information from non-religious sources. Clergy and layman alike don't use the Bible for the obvious reason that it's not useful; it's not reliable; and it's not relevant. Christian's observed behavior demonstrates this understanding, regardless of what wishful thinking they reflect when queried by pollsters.
Church teachings in the Christianities are mostly irrelevant, Marcus. For example, of all the Christianities, fundamentalist Protestant Christians and Roman Catholic Christians rail the loudest against birth control, pre-marital sex and abortion, and, yet, every year Fundamentalist Christians and Roman Catholic Christians have the highest rates of abortion among all US Christian sects. Since you call abortion murder, your variety of religion has the highest rate of murdering the unborn of all the Christianities. It's even higher than the abortion rate among US atheists, and it's much much higher than the abortion rate among the mostly atheistic Swedes. Your religion does not work. These numbers are not just a few oddball statistics, Marcus. These come from Christians doing good academic work to get at the truth.
Numbers tell us so many things which you ignore to your peril, Marcus. The numbers tell us that the Bible and church doctrine and teachings are ignored by chuchgoers. What's more, the numbers also tell us that people outside the church are every bit as good or better than those in the church. So, as anything other than a social outlet, the church is worthless. The behavior of believers and atheists prove it. People who go to church achieve, at best, life outcomes the same as atheists.
Marcus, you declared something else that is yet another example of monumental stupidity. You said,
God wants to help you.
Your inane vision of a god does not want to help anyone. Saying "Love me or I will torture your ass forever" is not an indicator of a desire to help. Your god does not help you. Your god does not help any of the others of your kind who ask for help. Again, Marcus, if some Christianity worked, we would see it. They don't work. If your god does not help those who regularly profess their faith, it sure as shit will not help me. There is more than a mild bit of irony that if a good life is the consequence of intervention by your god, then your god likes atheists as much as - or more than - it does believers.
Marcus,
Your mind is truly fucked up by religion, Marcus. There is a great big wonderful world which your Christianity has walled you off from. There are amazing people everywhere you go who have managed to survive and thrive, care for family and friends, and build their cultures around generations of incrementally better understanding the place they occupy and their relationship to it. They are different from you, not bad, not wrong. Their perpetuation has not depended on your gods or saviors. None need your god any more than they need Hermes or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Gods give us nothing useful.
We know this from the core goodness we find in everyone, but the insight is greatness when we look at just how good atheists really are. Atheists are good, kind, loving, moral, generous, compassionate and caring, among many other admirable traits, without gods. If gods are needed to bring about such virtue in a person, how could even one atheist possess any desirable traits. And, if having gods is supposed to imbue the believer with such traits, we should, but, indeed, do not, see those traits more widely reflected among the godly.
If Christianity worked, we'd see it; it would be unquestionable.
Don't bother with mindless apologetics-based excuses, Marcus. It doesn't work. Casual observers from the outside can see that it doesn't work. Honest observers from the inside can see it doesn't work.
You said,
What does the fact that some people who claim to be Christians are lying, cheating hypocrites? What does that matter?
It's not some, Marcus. It's all. Observably, Christianity makes things better only for those siphoning off the cashflow. Any benefits claimed by Christians can also be claimed by other religious groups of people as well as atheist groups of people. It's people who matter, Marcus, not gods, not demons. Again, people ignore what you and other clergy say. Church teachings and Bibles don't matter to people.
You said,
When we all stand before Jesus on that day, is that excuse going to get you any traction?
Didn't happen with Zeus; not gonna happen with your imaginary deities either.
You said,
Your problem is your own sin...not mine or anyone else. I can see it now, "Jesus, you should let me into heaven because although I blasphemed you and denied your Word, I'm better than all the Christians that I've ever known."
I'm not a sinner, Marcus, and neither are you or anyone else. Sin is the imaginary disease you would like to afflict all of mankind with so you can justify collecting a bunch of money every week to cure it. Observably, Christianity does not make people better people, any more than Islam or Hindu or Judaism do. Every year US Christians put hundreds of billions of dollars into clergy's hands, but it still does not improve the giver's lives or make them better people.
You said,
Misses the point entirely. It's not about you and what you do. By default everyone goes to hell. What the difference is trusting in Jesus. a persons who really trusts in Jesus, turning his/her life over to Him will do good.
The two greatest philanthropists who ever lived are atheists: Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. That's good, right?
Then, you said,
That's not saying atheist can't do good. Good things don't count toward getting in or missing on heaven.
So, if doing good doesn't count, why fucking mention doing good at all. If all I need to do to make it heaven is say, "Yo, Jesus, luv ya like a savior" when I'm eight and then play video games the rest of my like, why not tell people that.
Marcus,
Why? Because you are liar, Marcus. Again you are just making it up. Other Christians believe it is all about good works. You do not care what someone believes as long as he remains a collection plate nickel-plunker. Christianity does not exist without the behaviors you call "good" needed to sustain it, especially nickel-plunking.
If the "Good things don't count toward getting in or missing on heaven," why do so many Christians, Harvey Burnett for instance, claim that it does. People are led by the likes of you to believe that the good work of giving to the church will at least aid them in getting to heaven. Your assinine Biblical god commands tithing, for instance.
You said,
It's by grace.
You try to play this like some theological Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card. This is why you don't give a shit that Christianity obviously makes no difference in anyone's life. You're telling me that how you behave has no bearing on how you're to be judged. "Good things don't count toward getting in or missing on heaven." Keep making it up, Marcus. You're not a scientist or theologian, you're a professional goalpost mover.
You said,
Did you accept God's grace on God's terms or did you try to do it your way. Here is a hint, your way won't work God's way will.
There are no gods, Marcus, Christian or other. If I met you version of a god, I would rip off its head and shit down its neck. Oh! No! Do you think that will make Yahweh or Zeus mad? If there's only one god, it must be the Big Z since he was here first. Yahweh is a late comer to the god game. He can get in line.
Christianity doesn't work. If Christianity worked we would see it.
Since Christianity can be said to "work" only to the extent that for all the effort and resources expended by Christians, they end up in the same place as atheists, we can safely say that Christianity and its gods are completely useless and should be summarily rejected.
If Christianity worked we would see it.
@Russ
You said
Actually use your mind, Marcus. The point is that your god shows no affect. It's not doing anything at all for anyone. The numbers demonstrate beyond all doubt that being Christian has no positive affects. All affects attributed to Christianity are the same as the affects that others get from other social groups or just from being a human being.
You aren't qualified to judge whether or not Christians follow the Bible or any Christian doctrine because you don't know what it is. You don't understand it. You have shown that you don't understand it. You have offered not Bible verses in context showing that I am misrepresenting what the Bible says. I disagree with your value judgments regarding the Bible and disregard your opinions about Christians. The reason why is because while you are right about some people who claim to be Christians you are not right about 100% of Christians. And you can't prove that Christianity has no effect on our lives just because it has not effect on yours. Which is what I would expect from the Bible. You are so blind you can't see the hand of God in your life.
@Russ
I'm not ignoring your numbers or the point you are making that there are hypocrites and by-and-large people are not following what the Bible says God wants for us. That doesn't mean that I'm not. It doesn't mean that other people are not either. The Bible clearly points out that there will be false brothers in our churches....should this be a surprise? No. But if you don't know anyone living right or following the Bible, you need to get out more and meet more people because I know both kinds of "Christians". Neither proves or disproves that the Bible is wrong.
Marcus McUntrustworty says to Russ..."What does the fact that some people who claim to be Christians are lying, cheating hypocrites? What does that matter?"
Yeah Russ ...Why it matter? if even those preachers seen teaching it,happen to "verbally" denounce malice, while being seen to go themselves and "action" the use of malice.
Why matter?? hmmm..It just no matter Russ.Honest!, i follows Jesus`s bible ...So ..i never tells lies ..ok?
All folks gotta do is keep cryin out.... save me! Jesus.
Goodness me ...Oh golly-yyyy Russ ..Christianity aint like one o them flue vaccine`s where folks expect to see it have an obvious effect....Or if they dont, they`ll give it the flick.
No ..nooo Christianity is kinda like one o them magic potions ..Kinda new age spiritual type "homeopathy remedy" ..But without sign of any actual real remedy.
With the christian homepathy remedy what you do, you gotta exercise da mind lots ..You need to dream about its actually having some effect.Thats it
Do that enough ..Why sooner or later you`s convincing yourself it actually is having effect.
Simple as that Russ .Thats how we works it we does.
Sheeze... cant for the life of me think why that John Loftus might have gone and left Christian faith because he happened to OBSERVE Christianity had no good effect on those other Christian folks around him .???*&#$??
Purely emotional it was!...when you minus the scientific type "observed evidence"
What the hell was he expecting to observe ?? ..Evidence that Christianity actually honestly worked??.
Goodness gracious me
Man how gullable can some folks get??wow...Holy gwakamoley!.Christianity is one o those homeopathy type remedies .They doesnt supposed to remedy nothing!,you just learns to trains ya mind ta think maybe! they does
Its simple as that
You understand it now Russ?
Jesus is waiting for you Russ.Waiting with open arms!! hoping to hear your GOLD! coins also starting to go clunkity clunk into the good ole collection plate on Sundays .
Gandalf, Jesus doesn't need your money or anyone else'. When I say that false Christians don't matter it's because they will be in hell right next to you if you don't repent. Not my words. You can do something about that. It's not about fear or condemnation. If you reject Christ you are embracing what's coming to you. I'm just delivering the message. Don't pass on the gifts God wants to give you. Honestly, I have seen God change peoples' lives not just mine. You seem blind to that. Again so surprise.
Oh and Gandalf, Russ doesn't get it. You don't understand either.
Marcus,
You said
The reason why is because while you are right about some people who claim to be Christians you are not right about 100% of Christians.
The only way you would be able to make any statement that would apply to a large fraction of those calling themselves by your preferred religious label, Christian, is by pulling your No-Real-Scotsman stunt you are so fond of. You get to pick and choose those you allow to be Christian in order to avoid dealing with the very real, and, if you take theology seriously, very important differences which determine the consequences of eternal bliss or eternal damnation.
You want to ignore these differences to make it appear that the numbers are on your side, Marcus, but this current Pope is one well-schooled theologian who will tell you in no uncertain terms that you are going to hell because you are the wrong kind of Christian. This is a lot more than a minor dispute. You make your list of Christianities which you say can go to heaven. The Pope makes his; it has one Christianity on it...his. You put the Pope and his worshipers on your list so you don't throw out more than half of all Christians when you want to enumerate Christians, to keep the numbers as large as possible. But, the Pope is the Big Dog in theological circles, and he doesn't give a shit about you or your minions, so you and COGIC and Pentecosts, in general, do not make his list of the heaven bound. You include Roman Catholic Christians in your definition of True Christians, but they don't include you or any other so-named Christian. Who is right? You? Da Pope?
So, Marcus, don't try to tell me that in order to weigh in on this that I need to make statements that apply to 100 percent of Christians. In the real world, the actual world of all Christian wannabes, such tightly delineated statements do not exist. They only exist in conceptual, read that "imagined," spaces you have defined: Mormons...out; Westboro Baptist...in; Roman Catholics...in; Episcopalian...out; etc. This is not to suggest that you are unique in this, but you do not understand the totality of the Christianities. This is nowhere more apparent than the unrequited Christian allegiances you imagine to exist. I've mentioned this before, but I'll say it again: all Christians are hellbound by the theological insights of some other Christianity. The Christian God, itself, has doomed all Christians by the beliefs of one or more Christianities.
I do not for an instant imagine that I understand all of what shares space under the Christian umbrella. But, I understand enough to know that all Christians are both going to heaven and going to hell depending, of course, on which Christians you are listening to at the moment.
Do the homework. Actually find out what other Christians believe and how what they believe puts you on a one-way flight to hell. Realize that it is not me telling you this. I am merely telling you what you choose not to accept about what other Christians are saying. Just as you claim to know that those Christian-named sects which teach their children to say, "Eat my pussy, Jesus" or "Let me suck your cock, Jesus" are bound for hell, lots of other Christian sects know that yours, too, has doomed all its members to Hades.
This is not my personal wish, Marcus (I know none of us is hellbound), this is an observed trait of Christianity.
I have not been a Christian or seriously involved in religion for a long time, Marcus, but I have studied the religious phenomenon, mostly concerning the tens of thousands of distinct Christianities, for more than forty years.
Marcus,
You said,
You aren't qualified to judge whether or not Christians follow the Bible or any Christian doctrine because you don't know what it is.
Sure I am qualified; all I have to do is listen to what Christians say about each other. I do know a lot about the Bible including its political history, but playing stupid proof text games gets no one anywhere since Christian apologists, like psychics and palm readers, find whatever suits them in the dark recesses of the labyrinthine Biblical text.
You said
You have offered not Bible verses in context showing that I am misrepresenting what the Bible says.
Please edit yourself. A couple of my responses to you were written while I was totally drunk, Marcus, but I have always proofread what I wrote so you weren't put in a position of guessing about what I meant. You often come off as a blithering idiot which your lack of writing skills brings into rather stark relief.
You said,
I disagree with your value judgments regarding the Bible and disregard your opinions about Christians.
So. Ask me if I give a shit what you think when you have proven that you do not take your religion seriously enough to want to understand its broad practice. There are Christians who would eat you, given the chance. It seems that missionaries can rather straightforwardly put the Christianity into the cannibal, but they can't as easily get the cannibal out of the newly-formed Christian. The little cross with the dead guy hanging on it, might signal nothing more than entering puts you in line as the second course.
You said,
And you can't prove that Christianity has no effect on our lives just because it has not effect on yours.
My life isn't the metric. I make more money than most Christians. I'm smarter than most Christians. Hell, I'm even better looking than most Christians. I have better and smarter kids than most Christians. I have more education than most Christians. I understand Christianity better than most Christians. I volunteer with humanitarian groups far more often than do most Christians. My life is not the metric. I'm quite content with my life and I'm perfectly at ease knowing that when I die I'm dead. End of story. I want nothing to do with the Christian Sunday morning social clubs.
You said,
You are so blind you can't see the hand of God in your life.
Most Christians never mention silly notions like "hand of God." What I'd like to know is, hand of which god? Mithra? Zoroaster? Vishnu? Yahweh? Or, perhaps the many Jesuses of Nazareth, each a returned Lord and Master, currently alive and well, ministering to a church in the US? Maybe one of them, huh? When you say "hand of God," Marcus, you want that to be so comprehensive that the only thing it can be is nature itself. As such all you've accomplished is to create a synonym for nature. Your god is equivalent to nature in the same way as the deists.
You said,
I'm not ignoring your numbers or the point you are making that there are hypocrites and by-and-large people are not following what the Bible says God wants for us.
It's not a matter of hypocrites, Marcus. Almost no Americans read the Bible. Almost none. According to Princeton Theological Seminary only about one percent of laymen and only about 5 percent of clergy read their Bibles regularly. That means that neither Christian laymen nor clergy find it useful. The article I noted above pointed out that of the more than 1000 evangelical clergy they polled in professional conferences, 28% said they only used their Bibles to prepare for sermons or lessons. Apparently, the Bible is useless, even to clergy. It has no meaning in their daily lives. Almost all Christians, including clergy, reject the Bible as anything useful. This is not me saying this, Marcus. This is other Christians.
You said,
That doesn't mean that I'm not. It doesn't mean that other people are not either.
A person who claims to live by the Bible is insane, immoral, lying or institutionalized. In one of today's modern societies, one cannot live by Biblical tenet. Those who wrote the Bible were not as intellectually as advanced as today's twelve year old.
You said,
The Bible clearly points out that there will be false brothers in our churches....should this be a surprise?
Let's see. Some people write a downright idiotic book in which they also write that the book itself was actually written by a Christian god. As time goes on, they realize that the book is really too stupid to believe, so they add the caveat that some people won't believe it. Amazing insight, hey? To steel the faith even further it offers up the not-quite-divine prophecy that some of the people who were forced to accept it as children or emotionally vulnerable adults would come to realize that it was abject bullshit. Pretty insightful, huh? So I ask you, "should this be a surprise?" Well, no it shouldn't. Most Christians already reject or ignore the Bible. That's most, Marcus.
You said,
No. But if you don't know anyone living right or following the Bible, you need to get out more and meet more people because I know both kinds of "Christians".
You only know the Biblical bits that those in your tiny little Christianity have agreed among yourselves to regard as relevant. Many other Christians see their Christianity as rather different from yours.
You said,
Neither proves or disproves that the Bible is wrong.
King James Bible
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Never happened. Science proves it. This and many other things in it are factually wrong. Your Bible is disproven.
Marcus,
From the NY Times May 21,2010
Those disturbed by the needless immiseration of innocent children should beware. “Saving Africa’s Witch Children” follows Gary Foxcroft, founder of the charity Stepping Stones Nigeria, as he travels the rural state of Akwa Ibom, rescuing children abused during horrific “exorcisms” — splashed with acid, buried alive, dipped in fire — or abandoned roadside, cast out of their villages because some itinerant preacher called them possessed.
Their fellow villagers have often seen DVDs of “End of the Wicked,” Ms. Ukpabio’s bloody 1999 movie purporting to show how the devil captures children’s souls. And some have read her book “Unveiling the Mysteries of Witchcraft,” where she confidently writes that “if a child under the age of 2 screams in the night, cries and is always feverish with deteriorating health, he or she is a servant of Satan.”
and
And in her sermons, Ms. Ukpabio is emphatic that children can be possessed, and that with her God-given “powers of discernment,” she can spot such a child. Belief in possession is especially common among Pentecostals in Nigeria, where it reinforces native traditions that spirits are real and intervene in human affairs.
In Nigeria, many preachers not only identify possessed children but charge dearly to perform exorcisms. To redeem their children’s souls — and to keep the child from being killed or banished by neighbors — parents scrimp or borrow to pay the preacher.
Is it true that a two-year is possessed by demons whenever it is sick? Really.
You, Marcus, live on the outskirts of this woman's True Christian belief. The Bible says you cannot allow a witch to live, so this devout Christian woman takes finds witches to kill or have killed. Of course, almost all her victims are defenseless children. Isn't her faith in Jesus wonderful? This woman of god is, without a doubt, heavenbound for having the faith to maim, mutilate or murder a helpless toddler.
That's your religion hard at work. That's your God "changing lives," changing an innocent child's life by dousing them with concentrated acids, pounding spikes into their heads, dumping drain cleaner down throats, bludgeoning them to death, hacking off a hand, or running them down with a vehicle.
This is what you count as "Christianity growing." This is how the missions and missionaries use the money you send them: to carry out Biblically-justified inhuman attacks on helpless children.
How do you or Harvey cover up the inevitable murders you commit when driving out a particularly stubborn demon? Isn't it odd that while your omnipotent god can't drive out the god-demon Satan, you have complete confidence that your prayers to conjure up the supernatural or your mechanistic torturing of a child's body - burning, beating, etc. - will do the trick.
How can I know this is your church, Marcus? How can I know that the COGIC and Pentecostalism in Nigeria are the same? Your esteemed Elder Harvey wrote much of the Wikipedia articles on COGIC and Pentecostalism and Nigerian missions are part of the "nearly sixty nations on five continents." His blog profile states, "Pastor Burnett has also contributed to the updating some of the information found at Wickipedia.com regarding the Church Of God In Christ, and the history of Pentecostalism." The money that your fellow COGIC churchgoers are told is for Nigerian missions is intended to pay for the brutal destruction of children while you avert your eyes from the consequences of True Belief. You people and your Christianity are truly inhuman.
Marcus,
I am so proud that I am not a Christian: cruel, heartless, and happy to be brutally violent to children. Nigeria is only one of the sixty countries to which you have spread your Christian repulsiveness. I'm sure that wherever strong secular controls do not keep you in check, your Christianity tortures, maims and murders just as in Nigeria. Nigeria highlights just how bad life is for those living under Biblical rule as seen by your version of Christianity, Marcus. Those people, especially the children, get to experience life in what is, fortunately, a modern day rarity, a truly Christian nation.
Many Christian fools suggest that here in the planet's most Christianized nation, we need to dispense with secularism and give the Christianities free reign. Christians might want to believe that, but people who actually do love their fellow man, who really do think that every single child deserves love and protection, and who sincerely want the best for the world, keep in mind the lessons of Christian history: whenever societies fall prey to the religion of Jesus they descend into an inhuman Dark Age. Nigeria is not the exception here, they follow the rule to a tee.
The entirety of Roman Catholic history, Calvin's Geneva, mass murder under Luther, the Puritans in America, and massacres by Christian missionaries the world over, all demonstrate the basic principle that Christianity in control makes for an unsuitable society. There appear to be no exceptions to the rule. Give Christianity strong influence in a society and humanity disappears as useless superstitions and their imaginary beings are given more importance than real people. When Christianity is upheld an innocent child becomes so insignificant compared to superstition's playmates, that someone like you, Marcus, would smile in joy at the thought that you were driving demons out of an infant when you soaked the child with gasoline, set it ablaze, and watched it die in agony. How do we know? Your fellow Christians, your fellow COGIC Pentecostals do this regularly in Nigeria using money you happily send them to buy those handbooks of inhumanity called Bibles, the gasoline and the matches. If the child had been cared for by atheists or at least better Christians than you, its sickness would not be attributed to Biblical witches. By people not like you, the child would be held and loved, and its illness would be diagnosed and, if possible, remedied using 100 percent supernatural-free modern medicine.
Why aren't you and Harvey following the call of the Real COGIC Pentecostalism and burning children here in the US? Only because sane, moral people in this secular society won't let you. Without the real enforcable secular controls that keep the Christianities in check this country would quickly balkanize into warring Christian factions like those that existed in the pre-Revolutionary colonies. Those who drafted the Constitution had the ineptitude of the Christianities and their conflicting insights from gods thrust in their faces daily, so our founding document took that into account. While US citizens are free to practice their Christianity, it is the secular state that guarantees the humanity that is always absent when Christianity is allowed to go feral and behave according to the Bible.
Here in the US, virulent, invasive and vile strains of Christianity, like yours Marcus, are only just kept within the bounds of human acceptability. When such Christianities are transplanted and allowed to run wild as in Nigeria their core value of inhumanity dominates and they prey on the most defenseless, desperately vulnerable adults and their tragically helpless babies and toddlers.
If Christianity worked, we would see that it work, but because Christianity does not work, we can see instead.
@Russ...Ms Helen Ukpabio is not a member of COGIC. Neither does she represent my theology or views personally or for my International Church. Russ, you are the one who is insane if you think that Nigeria is a Christian nation any more than the United States is. Educate yourself, Christians experience much persecution in Nigeria http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/12/world/la-fg-nigeria12-2010mar12 Are you ignorant or stupid? I'm using strong language because you refuse correction. Do you think that all Pentecostal Christians belong to the Church of God in Christ (COGIC)? No. Assuming that all Pentecostals in Nigeria have anything to do with COGIC is more than stupid. It's dishonest. You need to do more research. Quit putting you foot in your mouth. The sad thing you don't even realize how wrong you are. Helen Ukpabio reminds me more of the whore of Revelations than of true Christian. I mean do you really think that people who believe the Bible think her teachings and behavior are correct or pleases God? Are you really that hate-filled and blind? Your definition of Christianity is sadly lacking facts and common sense. Truly pathetic.
Marcus,
You need to read the proof you propose to ensure you don't make yourself into a fool.
You provide an article as proof that Nigeria is not a Christian run country with the line, "Gov. Jonah Jang, who leads the Christian-dominated state government, declared the next three days a period of fasting and mourning for the dead."
"Christian-dominated state government" Marcus, did you read that?
Your logic is flawed. Stop now you only add fuel to the atheist perspective.
Marcus,
Here is the statement of belief from Ms. U's ministry. Tell us which of these you think is in disagreement from your faith?
http://www.libertyfoundationgospelministries.org/belief.html
Chuck, how can you have christian dominated nation in which thousands of Christians are being persecuted by non-Christians? Did you read that? I guess not.
And the doctrinal link to your wife's Church is great - on paper. Nothing is in disagreement however it isn't COGIC and its says nothing about the crimes she is being accused of. Where is the part about killing children who you think are witches? It's not in the doctrinal statement, Chuck. Where is the part about sick Children = demon possession? It's not in their profession of faith. This is an example of people saying they believe one thing and then do another. No where in the Bible can you show that the behavior she is attempting to defend holds up or for her being an apostle. The mistaken one here, is you. And let Russ do his own research.
Chuck, on further reflection, do you really think that just because most of a government's officials claim to be Christians make a nation Christian? If that is true then America is already a Christian nation and began as a Christian nation. No? Me neither. So why would you and Russ argue that for Nigeria? Lying as always? Thought so.
Marcus said "Where is the part about killing children who you think are witches? It's not in the doctrinal statement..."
No, it's in Exodus 22:18.
@Ryan
So you think that Exodus 22:18 applies outside of theocratic ancient Israel? Who is God talking to? Exodus 21:1 says:
"These are the laws you are to set before them:"
Who is the them? Do you think the part about the bulls injuring a person is for me and you now? Do you have a bull? I don't. 22:18 is in the same context. It's talking about how a theocratic government should be ran and no where are told we should be trying to set one up now.
Who's next?
Marcus; of course I don't think that, and that's why I think the god described in Exodus is a primative tribal sky god.
But you don't think that, you think God always was and is the same.
Good for you for mentally masturbating your way out of having to kill witches, but it's not honest... Mrs. U is no less dishonest though for mentally masterbating a way to kill witches. It's all in there.
Ryan, you tell me where in the bible it says that the first century Church killed anyone in the New Testament? The writers of the New Testament believed that the God of Exodus was embodied by Jesus. So do I? Why didn't they think that they needed to kill witches? Instead of killing a witch he encountered, Paul cast out the demon. (Acts 16:16-20) Why didn't he kill the witch? If you can answer that then you know why I don't. And it's not because we decided to change the rules or that God changed. The context of society changed. In the Old Testament, Israel must have been kept pure. That is why there is so little leeway given...more judgment and less grace because that was needed to bring about God's purposes.
Marcus said "Ryan, you tell me where in the bible it says that the first century Church killed anyone in the New Testament?"
Depends on how you read Acts 5:1.
Ryan, so you would like to take the viewpoint that Annias and his wife were killed by the early Church? Doe the text say that? No it does not...But what ides say is that the Holy Spirit is God and that they lied to God and it cost them their lives. God did it. Not the Church.
Marcus; since I don't believe everything I read and I don't believe in "holy spirits" my reading of Acts 5:1 is that Peter had them killed.
We don't have any evidence that "holy spirits" exist, but we do have evidence that cults kill members who do not comply.
Seems like a no brainer.
Ryan, then you believe something the text does not say. You're just throwing out what it says and then replacing it with what you think makes more sense to you. Thanks for being honest about it. But you wouldn't read anything else that way.
Ryan, if you want to disbelieve what the text says, that is your option (a dangerous one, but it's your life, given the story), but don't twist it and read stuff into it that's not there. We have no record of Jesus' original followers killing anyone.
Marcus said "But you wouldn't read anything else that way."
In point of fact, that's how I read all fiction that purports to be non-fiction.
Ryan, you have to prove it's fiction before you do that. Otherwise you are just choosing to be a poor reader.
Man lives in whale belly for three days... talking donkeys... water into wine...
OK, done.
Marcus said,
"...don't twist it and read stuff into it (scripture) that's not there..."
Dude. The entire history of Christainity is based on twisting it and reading stuff into it that's not there. That's called "apologetics": an attempt to shoehorn some truthiness onto stories that have little if any truth in them.
You can believe in fairy tales if you want, but your delusion has no effect over me because your God doesn't exist for me.
GearHedEd, God's existence is no subjective. It doesn't matter if you believer it or not for it to be True.
Ryan using the fact that you don't believe that miracles happen doesn't prove that they didn't happen. And by the way...Jonah was in belly of a fish not a whale. Not surprised given reading comprehension level.
"GearHedEd, God's existence is no subjective."
Prove it.
Never mind, I'll answer that myself.
IF there was proof of God, there would be no debate.
End of subject.
And I'm still not subject to the alleged consequences of YOUR delusion.
@GearHedEd
Prove what? That your opinion has no sway over reality? That needs proof? Arrogance abounds.
Marcus; "Not surprised given reading comprehension level."
Ha! It's amusing how quick you go to the ad hominem, sign of a weak intellect. Another sign of a weak inellect is that you think a person living in the belly of a fish is MUCH more believable then that person living in the belly of a whale. Sorry, my bad. Laughable.
Both of us are arrogant, Marcus. You claim to know tthat I'm going to roast in hell if I don't believe the same mush you do.
That's arrogant.
@Ryan
"ad hominem" really? I'm not questioning your intellect just your honesty since you admit to tossing out stuff you don't think is true when you read it and replace it completely out of context. It you are offended, I apologize. As for the question of "believability" again you can't honestly say that miracles do not happen just because you don't understand them or observed them.
The chalolenge stands:
Prove God exists.
@GearHedEd
I'm just delivering the message. I didn't write it. I just believe it. IF you don't like what the Bible says take it up with God.
Marcus said:
"...Prove what? That your opinion has no sway over reality?"
No! That God exists! And you can't use the Bible, because the Bible is NOT evidence of itself!
Marcus said,
"...I just believe it."
Because someone else told you to at some time in the past, and you bought it, hook, line and sinker.
Marcus said,
"... IF you don't like what the Bible says take it up with God."
I can't. God doesn't exist.
@GearHedEx
Read the following essays and when you are done, either accept that God exists, or that you don't know. Either prove God does not exist or stop claiming that God does not exist.
http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/search/label/Essay%20Series
Marcus; reading comprehension is a function of intellect, not honesty.
Seems you are the dishonest one.
Don't presume to instruct me with apologetics, Marcus.
That's arrogant and lazy to boot.
@Ryan. I know you know how to read English. I'm talking about ignoring what you know the text says and put your own fantasies into it. That's dishonest. You may have a point that "reading comprehension" does not cover what I want to express. Considering that you are imaginative, you are far from stupid. The point I'm making is that you can't just ignore a text and rewrite it to suite yourself, not that you are stupid. Again it wasn't meant to hurt your feelings
@GearHedEd
Lazy? I wrote one of the articles. You obviously don't have all the information and has not read all you could read.
@ Marcus.
The first two words in the article you wrote are "I believe".
No one needs to go further.
Can you say "OPINION"?
The challenge stands:
Prove God exists.
Marcus; you cannot offend me. No worries. It's amusing.
I'm not rewritting the text. I have no idea if Peter, Ananias and Saphira even lived. So I'm clearly not rewritting anything.
And I have to admit that I'm impressed with a three paragraph screed on a religious site that not a single admirer responded to.
I could hear the crickets through my computer.
When are you going to admit that NOBODY CARES what YOU believe, Marcus?
@GearHedEx, I have reasons for why I believe Christianity is Objectively True. I give them in that article. On top of that there are several other people giving their reasons. Your opinion against God is just that an opinion with really no good evidence aside from emotion. There are 25 posts in that series, you might learn something.
@Ryan - You said that you believe Peter had Annias and his wife killed despite what the text says and now you are saying that you don't think the story happened at all. Despite that most secualar historians accept that Jesus and Peter did exist. Therefore my statement is correct there is no proof of first century Christians killing anyone.
@GearHedEd
In the final analysis...what matters is What God thinks and what God thinks. Do you really think that no comment on my article means anything? It doesn't. If my opinion doesn't matter then why are you opposing me? I mean who is wasting his time here? Not me. I'm talking to you because you matter. It matters to me that you know the God truly loves you and wants a relationship with you. It matters to me because it matters to God. You matter to God even if God does not matter to me. Maybe you will hear. Maybe you won't. Either way I told you.
Marcus,
I didn't look at any of the others besides yours, but I could still see that NOBODY commented on ANY of the posts on the first page.
For a mutual admiration society, you guys don't do much admiring...
I remain unconvinced.
I've been an atheist for ~40 years, and you haven't presented me with anything I haven't heard at least several times in the past.
And I DO read the bible. Because I want to know why otherwise sane people would subjugate themselves to the mental slavery required to "believe" what's written there.
You asked (not in these exact words)
Why would the apostles lie about the resurrection, and proclaim Jesus in the face of the Roman authorities, jepoardizing their lives?
It's KNOWN that the apostles knew that the Judeans were hanging their hopes on the Messiah to deliver them from opression, commonly identified with the Roman occupation of the region.
It's WRITTEN that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah.
It's POSSIBLE that after having been executed, the apostles were presented with a dilemma:
How do you use a dead Messiah to oppose the Romans?
Is it not then POSSIBLE that the apostles fabricated the story so that the people could have some HOPE that they would be delivered after all, even though Jesus was DEAD?
If you deny this possibility, then you're not HONEST.
And don't forget that the first gospels were not written until at least 30 years after the fact, and that Luke ADMITS in the first two verses of his gospel that he's NOT AN EYEWITNESS!
Couple this with the average life span of roughly 35 years, and you get a fish story of epic proportions.
And PLEASE don't quote Paul at me...
I said,
"...Is it not then POSSIBLE that the apostles fabricated the story so that the people could have some HOPE that they would be delivered after all, even though Jesus was DEAD?"
And if the apostles had been successful in inciting a successful revolt, would they then not have been praised as heroes?
Here is MOTIVE to lie.
Now pretend you're a Roman private, tasked to guard a dead guy in a tomb for some period of time (I think you can see where this is going...). Is it not possible that the guarding became lax after some time, and the guard fell asleep (NO! that could NEVER happen!)?
Here is OPPORTUNITY to raid the tomb and move the body.
And the seal is not a problem:
Someone moved it into place; others could just as easily move it again to open it.
Here is MEANS to accomplish the ruse.
@GearHedEd
You can't say that you have seen all available evidence because you did not read all the articles.
Do you UNDERSTAND what you are reading?
Where is your proof that its was the apostles goal to oppose the Roman government? It wasn't Jesus' goal.
Of course it is possible that the apostles made it up but is it probable? I don't think so. Many folks argue that we don't know how the apostles died so we can't argue that they died because of their belief in Jesus. What about the Apostle James. We know from Luke and We know from Josephus that James was martyred. He was one who would have known beyond any shadow of doubt if He was purposely making it up. Second we know that group hallucinations don't answer anything because they are impossible.
Your timeline is not agreed upon. Some scholars date Mark to 40 AD and all of PAul's writings are before 70 AD and so are Peter's letters. I agree Luke was not an eyewitness but he interviews and investigated the events in question. Where did you get the average life span of a 1st century Jews in Palestine was 35 years? We know Paul was older than that. Why wouldn't Peter and John live to be in their 50's and 60's. Can you prove that no one lived that long then? You are talking about generalities and probabilities.
What is wrong with Paul? His writings are the earliest Christian texts. If you wanna know what Christians are supposed to believe you need the New Testament to understand what Paul and the others wrote, Peter and John were eyewitnesses. You can read what it is they believe and why.
@GearHedEd
A lax team of Roman soldiers is possible but give that failure was not tolerated well, it is not probable. Ever hear of the Roman army's method of discipline known as "decimation"?
I don't think soldiers would willingly admit to dereliction of duty without knowing that they were not going to be punished. And it the leaders knew the disciples stole the body why not catch the disciples and make them tell what they did with Jesus' body? Simple. There was not body to find...Jesus rose from the dead.
Why do you keep bring up arguments that have been put forth and answered? If you heard them all then you know what the answers are.
Personally, I BELIEVE that the story is closer to "Weekend at Bernie's" than "The Easter Story".
And blasphemy is a victimless crime.
It says right in the gospels that the apostles skeedaddled to Galilee as soon as they could.
@GearHedEd
You said
"And blasphemy is a victimless crime."
Sure would like to see how well that flies on judgment day. Good luck with that.
And of course the soldiers would deny falling asleep.
This adds fuel to the lie, if you didn't notice.
"Sure would like to see how well that flies on judgment day..."
I don't believe in heaven, or hell, or eternal souls either.
What's the problem here?
"Why do you keep bring up arguments that have been put forth and answered?"
Because all the answers come from Christian apologists.
They're BIASED.
And I know what 'decimation' is.
One out of every ten men killed by drawing lots to see who the unlucky bastard is.
I said,
"It says right in the gospels that the apostles skeedaddled to Galilee as soon as they could."
And from the perspective of the Romans, it would look to them as if the apostles were running away with their tails between their legs.
Why chase them? Jesus was dead.
Extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary proof, Marcus.
I've shown how it could have been done, and why the apostles would have lied to cover the truth, even at the cost of their lives.
My assessment is at least POSSIBLE, and has the advantage of not requiring any EXTRAORDINARY PROOF.
Marcus said,
"...Where is your proof that its was the apostles goal to oppose the Roman government? It wasn't Jesus' goal."
I didn't say that it was either Jesus' OR the apostles' goal. In fact, I know that the gospels say that Jesus denied this WHENEVER THE PEOPLE PRESSED HIM ON IT.
Why do you keep sidestepping the things I say to put your own spin on it?
Furthermore, Luke wasn't an eyewitness, and parts of Josephus (specifically the statements about a guy roaming around Judea named "Jesus") were FORGED. Eusebius even said it was all right to lie in the name of faith.
And Paul was a spin doctor.
@GearHedEd
Not believing something doesn't make it untrue any more than believing something make it true. You have serious problem if there is such thing as an eternal soul. Is it your belief that the electrical-chemical processes of the brain gives rise to consciousness and self-awareness? I don't think you can make sense of that without a soul.
Your possible explanation for the belief of the resurrection is biased against the text. Possible doesn't mean probable. If you recally my reference to Josephus it was in reference to Jesus's brother James. That part of the text is not considered a forgery or embellishment. The problem with your contention that the Romans would not have chased the apostles to Galilee has two problems:
The apostles returned to Jerusalem were preaching the resurrection about 40 days after the crucifixion and the authorities could not produce a body. This is where your assessment fails to cross over from possible to probable. I think Jesus being seen by 500+ people at onces is extraordinary evidence. And I think the conversion of Paul and Jesus and Jude (Jesus Brothers who did not belive Jesus' claims) are extraordinary evidence. Just what would it take to convince you that you were all wrong about a religion and convert to it after you tried to destroy it? What would it take to convince you that your older brother is God? I think the resurrection answers this extremely well.
I haven't side-stepped anything you said. You said that the question the apostles had to answer was "how to use a dead JEsus against the Romans?" and I was merely pointing out that no one was asking that question, I know what Eusebius said, but the Bible disagrees. Sorry, Eusebius.
And what proof do you have that Paul was a spin doctor? Oh wait...none.
@GearHedEd
When did I say that Luke was an eyewitness to Jesus' life? I didn't. He was a companion of Paul...therefore he was an eyewitness to some of the event in Acts. Some of Acts is written in the second person because Luke was traveling with Paul.
Post a Comment