Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Chuck Colson :: Townhall.com Columnist
An Ironic Juxtaposition
by Chuck Colson
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


In my new just-released book, The Faith, I argue that the two greatest challenges to the Christian worldview come from radical Islam and extreme secularism. Almost on cue, recent events in Europe have conspired to illustrate the point.

In Britain, one Anglican bishop wrote in the Telegraph about the impact of the “worldwide resurgence of the ideology of Islamic extremism” on British Muslims. When coupled with British-style multiculturalism, the results are young British Muslims alienated from “the nation in which they [grew] up.” He warned about efforts “to give Britain an increasingly Islamic character by introducing the call to prayer and wider use of sharia law.” And Muhammad turns out now to be the second most popular name for newborn baby boys.

Another effect is the turning of the “already [Muslim] communities into ‘no-go’ areas where adherence to this ideology has become a mark of acceptability.” According to the bishop of Rochester, “those of a different faith or race may find it difficult to live or work there because of hostility to them.”

The bishop who wrote this should know: He is Michael Nazir-Ali, a native of Pakistan. If any member of the British elite can possibly be said to understand these communities, it is Bishop Nazir-Ali.

This unique insight into the problems did not keep members of that elite from attacking the bishop. The leader of the Liberal Democrats called his words “a gross caricature of reality.” Even a Conservative party leader said that Nazir-Ali had put it “too strongly.”

One part of Europe where religious activities are frowned upon by elites is Spain—though, ironically because of Spain’s long Christian history, it is against Christian activity. Last December, some 2 million Spaniards demonstrated in Madrid to defend marriage and family life.

They heard from Pope Benedict XVI, who called marriage “an indissoluble union between a man and a woman.” He also spoke of the “the right and fundamental obligation” of parents to educate their children in moral matters.

The huge crowd and the Pope’s words were a clear rebuke of the policies of Spain’s Socialist government. You might think that the sight of 2 million people demonstrating against your policies would cause government officials to at least reconsider those policies.

You would be wrong. Government officials called the rally an impermissible intervention in political affairs—and then demanded an apology from the Catholic bishops!

So, in Britain you have elites downplaying evidence of creeping Islamic sharia, while in Spain, Christian defense of the traditional family prompts a demand for an apology.

What makes this juxtaposition even more ironic is that both countries have recently experienced the dangers of Islamic extremists: the horrible transit bombings in London and Madrid.

Bishop Nazir-Ali is right when he draws a link between creeping sharia and secularism. The denial of the “distinctively Christian character of [Britain’s] laws, values, customs and culture” leaves a vacuum that Islamists will eagerly fill.

The same, of course, is true in Spain and the rest of Europe. Secularism, however, will fail because it cannot provide the “moral and spiritual vision” every society needs. The question becomes, “Who will?”—the faith that made Europe possible or ones wholly alien to its values and culture?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Chuck Colson was the Chief Counsel for Richard Nixon and served time in prison for Watergate-related charges. In 1976, Colson founded Prison Fellowship Ministries, which, in collaboration with churches of all confessions and denominations, has become the world's largest outreach to prisoners, ex-prisoners, crime victims, and their families.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Chuck Colson's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Post the Tenth: Aren't [I] Curious?
There's Three half-way decent points here, Scott. But I tire.

Briefly then: Yes, I would accept peer-reviewed evidence, so long as as "peer" does not mean 'theologian.' Facts, and facts only. Not interpretations of musty texts.

So far, of course, you're in serious trouble: The universe is not 6006 years old. Jesus is not the son of David (Pick one: the 29 ancestors listed by one gospel, or 46 from another, and anyway, wasn't he born of a virgin?), speciation is happening as we speak (H5N1 is not H3n2 or whatever). And so on.

Of course I hear the wind blow as I walk past the graveyard. It's called--wait for it--wind. So?

Essentially, all your words boil down to this: You think the Truth has been published and it will 'save' those who believe this Truth. Well, the evidence is against you, and I have no desire to be saved.

I have a good number of xian friends. They are all good people (else they wouldn't be my friends). But they are, by and large, no better than my non-christian friends. It's just a time-wasting foible of theirs. Let them do it.

OTOH, the xians I have met on TownHall are mostly despicable, self-righteous, arrogant, passive-aggressive, fascist slimeballs. Some have all these properties, some only a few. And they wish to impose their fairy tales on our body politic! The idea of spending an eternity with the likes of them makes my stomach turn.

So, no. I'm not curious. I've seen enough.

Post the Ninth: Compare to the Book
Nice sleight of hand there, Scott.

The 'Book', of course, is not mathematics. There is no observable truth (and a lot of 'truth' that is evidently false), so you cannot predict from it or test it against reality.

Post the Eight: Do not pass Go
"I am asking [MellorSJ2--use the handle, Scott], a published author and a man of sound body and mind, to examine all of the available evidence honestly and openly, and THEN reach his own conclusion."

Well, my mind is fine, but my body has been giving me some stick lately.

Two issues: First, there are many other paths that could be investigated: Zeus, Zoroaster, Jupiter, Hinduism, Scientology, and, of course, Hank-ism.

Second: So far,they all appear to be equally preposterous. (Except possibly Hank, who at least has some accessible advice about weiners.)


Post the Seventh
Really, Scott, I have no interest in doctrinal errors, nor how they came about, for the simple reason that it's *all* error.

I will say, however, that the combination of errors, clarifications, redactions and explaining away makes it extraordinarily difficult to de-program people once they've drunk the Kool-Aid. It's self-reinforcing.

Post the Sixth: LDS
That is, LDS made it up. Paul said so. (So did I, but apparently that's not good enough.)

Really, Scott, see a doctor for this logorrhea.

Mellor's joy
"Do you answer a fool?

PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."

This is my favorite: like crying fire in a crowded theater, you have to know when it is appropriate, life-saving (yes), and wise.

MellorSJ2 -Part 10 (Aren't you curious?)


MellorSJ2: “What you mean is that it contradicts itself sufficiently ambiguously that you can spend a lifetime justifying the obvious inanities.”


Nope. You *could* spend a lifetime examining every potential contradiction if you wanted, but I’m sure they’ve all been examined before. After you examine 10, 20 or 30 of them for yourself and discover that each turns out to be logically consistent with (and does not contradict) other Scripture, I suspect most people will get tired of it and only examine other possible contradictions as they find them in the normal course of Bible study.


But you can keep searching for them and checking them out for as long as it takes you to satisfy yourself that the Bible reconciles with itself. The more you do it, the more convinced you’ll be, so I don’t see that there’s any harm in it.



~~~



MellorSJ2 writes: “No. ‘Peer review’ is not the answer. You have not convinced the Great Unwashed. And No, retreat to ‘that's not the True Word of God’ is not an answer either.”


Would you not consider evidence that met the accepted standards of “Peer review” by professional, credentialed, academic scholars for other scientific examinations? If so, why not for this subject?


I’m not talking about their opinions regarding whether God is “real” or not; I’m just talking about things that can be scientifically determined about any ancient text, regardless of the claimed source, from a thorough and methodical examination by well-qualified professional scholars.


This really isn’t about me ‘convincing’ you of anything; if you will simply examine the evidence for yourself, you will reach your own conclusion, regardless of what I think. The only question is, will you consider the evidence?



~~~



MellorSJ2 writes: “Part the Last: There is nothing here. Why bother?”


Aren’t you even curious?


Do you never feel the wind blow or hear the leaves rustle, as you whistle past the graveyard?


MellorSJ2 - Part 9 (Compare to the book)


MellorSJ2: “You just can't be serious: ‘harmonizes and reconciles with itself?’ ”


I *am* serious; if you believe I’m serious about any other thing, you should at least temporarily suspend your disbelief long enough to consider what I’m saying without prejudice.


Many RCC and some Protestant beliefs do not reconcile or harmonize with the Bible, but the Bible DOES harmonize and reconcile with itself.


Think of it this way: A Math book teaches 4 + 2 =6, 4 - 2 =2, 4 × 2 =8 and 4 ÷ 2 =2


Church #1 says 4 + 2 =3, 4 - 2 =2, 4 × 2 =7 and 4 ÷ 2 =2

Church #2 says 4 + 2 =6, 4 - 2 =4, 4 × 2 =8 and 4 ÷ 2 =7

Church #3 says 4 + 2 =6, 4 - 2 =2, 4 × 2 =3 and 4 ÷ 2 =9

Church #4 says 4 + 2 =6, 4 - 2 =5, 4 × 2 =8 and 4 ÷ 2 =5


See the pattern? According to the original Math book, they each get SOME right, they each get SOME wrong, and they each get DIFFERENT things right and wrong.


But the original Math book hasn’t changed, it says exactly what it has ALWAYS said: 4 + 2 =6, 4 - 2 =2, 4 × 2 =8 and 4 ÷ 2 =2, and all four of those reconcile and harmonize with each other, forward and backward. Various churches may be out of sync with the original Math book, but the Math book is not out of sync with itself.


If you start with a blank slate and just let the Math book tell you what the truth is, it doesn’t contradict itself.


But if you have a pre-conceived notion about what it says, or if you know what you want it to say, and you “twist” it just a little bit to “fit” what you want it to say, it will no longer reconcile with itself.


If we insist that “4×2=7” instead of “8” because that’s what our church has always taught, there is NO WAY to reconcile or harmonize that statement with the others in the Math book (4 + 2 =6, 4 - 2 =2 and 4 ÷ 2 =2). It won’t work.


That’s how we know “4×2=7” can’t be true, no matter how much we might want it to be.


MellorSJ2 - Part 8 (Don't pass "Go"!)


MellorSJ2 writes: “LDS claims their interpretation is true. Why should I believe you?”


DON’T believe me; I don’t want anyone to take *my word* for anything. Taking the words of men without testing them against the Word of God is how all these divisions got started in the first place!


Besides, you have to get past the simple problems of logic listed above before we even GET to “interpretation” issues… we haven’t even passed “Go” yet...


I am not asking you to believe in God. I am asking Stephen J. Mellor, a published author and a man of sound body and mind, to examine all of the available evidence honestly and openly, and THEN reach his own conclusion.


What can a man of science possibly have to fear?


Rich D. - Hi Rich!


Mellor wrote: "Now, I could have written the above paragraph (as you are wont to do) using 1500 words. The information density of that replacement paragraph would be lower."


Rich D. replied: "Have you applied Shannon's theorem to it?"


Hi Rich, you're crackin' me up :-)



Mellor
MellorSJ2 writes: Tuesday, January, 22, 2008 12:52 AM

"Rich D: The Da Vinci Code mentions Jesus. Does that make it true? The Caesars professed belief in their gods. Does that make them true/

Thought not."

That's one of your most foolish arguments - the sources are contemporary. Can't address the point, or are you simply choosing to ignore hostile testimony that Jesus was an historical person?

Get some rest, and stop thinking that you can get away unchallenged by quoting an idiot site as an authority.

MellorSJ2 - Part 7 (Evolution...)


MellorSJ2: “So do all the other churches.”


No, the other churches have different errors. Broadly speaking, the RCC filters the Bible through its dogmas, often giving *greater weight* to the “authority of RCC tradition” over the Authority of God’s Word in the Bible. Examples are legion; I’ve posted them many times.


Broadly speaking, I have learned that Protestant churches read the Bible in light of their own respective dogmas, each based (more or less) on teachings of Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc.


The RCC is well beyond “Reform[ation]”, but it was not wrong about everything; Luther and his contemporaries were mortal, fallible men, and they were not right about everything. God’s Word in the Bible is the final Arbiter of right and wrong in Christian belief; wherever doctrine diverges from His Word, there we will find error.



Evolution is a favorite subject for non-believers. If you study the evolution of human doctrinal error in the various “Christian” faiths, you'll gain a better understanding of:


1. The 1st century Christian church, the later RCC & EOC, the various Protestant denominations, how they are different, and why.


2. How doctrinal error gets started, becomes institutionalized, and can become a foundation for subsequent error. Like ripples in a pond, the original errors, once small, can be magnified over time.


3. Why God’s Word in the Bible, for practical reasons, is the only objective, unchanging standard Christians can hope to unify around.


If you understand the reasons for Christian division, and what those divisions are, you will understand your own error of using those divisions to show that Christianity is either incomprehensible or that *everyone* is ‘making it up as they go along’.


Then you can focus on the Bible alone, instead of using the “filter” of what other people say about the Bible to manufacture non-existent contradictions, and examine it objectively.


Perhaps for the first time.


BTW
"The fool has said in his heart that there is no God."

If you have any trouble with my usage of "fool", show me that the translation from the Hebrew is wrong, or else take it up with the author.

Mellor
MellorSJ2 writes: Tuesday, January, 22, 2008 12:35 AM

"Now, I could have written the above paragraph (as you are wont to do) using 1500 words. The information density of that replacement paragraph would be lower."

Have you applied Shannon's theorem to it?

Mellor's joy
"CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:

"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (Jer. 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (James 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1 Chron. 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (Ps. 145:9)
"God is love." (1 John 4:16)"

More foolishness from those who can't distinguish between mercy and justice.

Mellor's joy
"Who bears guilt?

GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden."

The first in context refers to burdens that are unmanageable by one person, and means to help. The second refers to burdens that you can manage. Does the word "context" mean anything? Have you studied Koine?

MellorSJ2 - Part 6B (tip 'O the berg...)


One problem with LDS doctrine is that they embrace “Another Testament of Jesus Christ” that we are explicitly warned against (i.e., Galatians 1:6-12). They have several arguments to counter this “problem”, but it is what it is.


The LDS will tell you: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” (Article of Faith #8)


If LDS agrees that the original Hebrew and Greek text underlying the English translations of the Bible are authentic and accurate, but they believe parts have been translated incorrectly, that does not necessitate “Another Testament of Jesus Christ” that will invariably be subjected to the same potential for future misunderstanding; what it requires is a careful study of the parts that are claimed to be translated incorrectly, so that whatever disputes there may be are resolved.


God assures us that “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matt 24:35) and “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:11).


God promised to preserve His Word; certainly LDS wouldn’t argue that He is not able to accomplish what He pleases. But if the KJV is an unacceptable translation, if it is fundamentally flawed to the extent that God had to alter His plan and send “Another Testament of Jesus Christ”, then we are faced with some irreconcilable problems:


1. God must not be Almighty or all-powerful if the actions of man altered His plan.

2. God must have failed to keep His promise to preserve His Word, either by direct action or divine providence.

3. If God was unable to keep His previous promise, what possible reason do we have to believe whatever promises He makes in “Another Testament of Jesus Christ”?


And that’s just the tip of the iceberg…


Maybe it should have been longer :)
I watched the video and read the parody, and I disagree. There is insufficient information (not words!) in your comment for me to understand why you say what you say.

Rich D: The Da Vinci Code mentions Jesus. Does that make it true? The Caesars professed belief in their gods. Does that make them true/

Thought not.

Scott: I gotta go... get across town before the evening rush for an early dinner.

I'm sure you'll have more for me later :)

Rich D: Don't bother.

Feeling little things
MellorSJ2 writes: Tuesday, January, 22, 2008 12:44 AM

"Biology is the study of things we can touch and feel every day."

So, tell us - how does a virus feel?

MellorSJ2 - Part 6A (on making it up...)


MellorSJ2 writes: “LDS made it up as they went along.“


The majority of LDS I have met here on TH (which is most of my personal experience) are moral, kind and intelligent people who I would be glad to know. But if I had the pleasure to meet a member of the LDS personally, we would have the same discussion in person that we have on this forum.


A major difference between LDS and other “Christian” religions in that LDS has accepted “Another Testament of Jesus Christ”.


The New Testament is prophesied and described in Jeremiah 31:31, Isaiah 2:2-4, etc., but there is no further or additional Testament mentioned or prophesied in Scripture. To the contrary, the Apostles warned us explicitly against following doctrines or commandments not given by them through inspiration of God:

“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: [7] Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.” (Galatians 1:6-7, KJV)


Their concern was so great that they even warned against the possibility of impostors and beings who presented themselves as angels from heaven. Paul says it TWICE IN A ROW so we CAN’T miss it:

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. [9] As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Gal 1:8-9)


Paul tells us that gospel he teaches is not of men, but from Christ Himself:

“For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. [11] But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. [12] For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Gal 1:10-12)


(cont.)

Mellor's joy
"Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

As a man, Jesus was lesser than God. As Deity, he is not. A tough doctrine for some.

Speaking of D'Souza
I agree with his evaluation of Dawkins. That does not make Dawkins' position weaker, nor D'Souza's stronger.

Rather it demonstrates that Dawkins is frustrated that in the 21stC we have to spend any time dealing with this nonsense.

Mellor's joy
From the fool's website referenced by Mellor:

"The number of beasts in the ark

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah."

Oh, joy! The first specifies the total number, the second says that they entered in male/female pairs. A fool, not knowing Hebrew, sees a contradiction.

Parody? I don't think so
Theology is the study of the writings and musings about a fiction that cannot be shown to exist. Biology is the study of things we can touch and feel every day.

That's the point of the parody, and the reason why your attempt fails.

MellorSJ2 - Part 5 (a SHORT one!)


MellorSJ2 writes: “Kiss Hank's @zz is a parody demonstrating the difference between 'contradiction' and 'clarification'. Please try to keep the abstraction levels straight.”


If you will consider moving one step beyond the obvious, you might take one step closer to the truth.


I have read Hank’s parody, and I have seen the “enactment” of this “skit” on Youtube.


I understand that it’s a parody, but it’s really a parody of *inaccuracy*, essentially a “parody of a parody”, whether Hank (or you) ever realized it or not.


MellorSJ2 - Fair enough...


MellorSJ2 writes: "Now, I could have written the above paragraph (as you are wont to do) using 1500 words. The information density of that replacement paragraph would be lower."


Okay, that just means you're a better writer than I am, which I readily concede.


I don't have any books to my credit, but I am doing the best that I can.


And I would love to have an editor!


Annoying Post: Whack your own mole
This entire post can be summarized thus: "I write in this manner (dilatory, over multiple posts) because I wish to cover all the bases and guide your thinking to what believe to be the inescapable conclusion. What you with with that indformation is then up to you."

Did I miss a _single_ thought?

Non-secular evidence
Perhaps Mellor would like to explain the many non-secular (some hostile) references to the person of Jesus. Perhaps not.

MellorSJ2 - Speaking of Mr. Dawkins (P4)



-Begin Excerpt -

“One point I did make was that the new atheists--people like Richard Dawkins--who use science to promote atheism are in fact an embarrassment to science. They are abusing science for ideological ends. Although I was in a generally hostile crowd, my comment drew a spontaneous and surprising burst of applause.

Why? Part of the answer can be found in a remarkable article in the current issue of Skeptic magazine. Note that the magazine is published by none other than my debate adversary, Michael Shermer. Authored by David Sloan Wilson, the article is subtitled, "Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion." Wilson is the author of several books including the acclaimed study Darwin's Cathedral in which he examines the evolutionary basis for religion.

Wilson begins, "Richard Dawkins and I share much in common. We are both biologists by training who have written widely about evolutionary theory." Moreover, "We are both atheists in our personal convictions." Then Wilson gets to his point. "When Dawkins' The God Delusion was published, I naturally assumed he was basing his critique of religion on the scientific study of religion from an evolutionary perspective. I regret to report otherwise. He has not done any original work on the subject and he has not fairly represented the work of his colleagues." Rather, Dawkins has subjected his atheist readers to "sleights of hand." He has produced a "diatribe against religion" that is "deeply misinformed." Indeed he is "just another angry atheist trading on his reputation as an evolutionst and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion."

-End Excerpt-


(Source: Dinesh D’Souza, “Desecrating Darwin’s Cathedral”, http://tinyurl.com/3x8qa4)


Part 1: Why waste *my* time?
Scott,

You could express your thoughts in far fewer words than you do. The white-space trick is mildly annoying, and the multiple-post trick helpful, but every one of your posts is a slog. I have rewrite them mentally so I can distill the meaning.

Now, I could have written the above paragraph (as you are wont to do) using 1500 words. The information density of that replacement paragraph would be lower.


MellorSJ2 - Part 3 (*this* parody?)


MellorSJ2: “I refer you to PZ Myers' parody of the Emperor's New Clothes:”


I have considered Scott’s impudent belief in God with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion - Exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots”, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Charles Darwin’s masterwork “On the Origin of Species - The Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat”.

We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Theory of Evolution and the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Scott cavalierly dismisses them all.

He even laughs at the most persuasive arguments of Dawkins’ fellow countryman Christopher Hitchens (a.k.a. Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler), who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Scott arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed - how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry - but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Scott fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his evidence, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.


Until Scott has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in communication may give him the ability to present arguments that are difficult to refute, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics ;-)


MellorSJ2 - Part 2 (whack-a-mole!)


MellorSJ2: “You are correct that it takes less quantity to cast doubt than to explain. It does not require less density. You, OTOH, require an editor.”


That depends on your perspective. You always play the skeptic in our discussions, so you have the easy part. I can focus laser-like on a specific point, with short posts that allow you to raise multiple obvious false objections. This approach requires multiple follow-ups to re-focus the debate.


Or, I can do my best to anticipate likely objections and address them preemptively, in hopes of keeping the discussion on track. This leads to lengthy posts, but fewer of them, with better focus. It’s a trade-off, but I believe my approach is the more efficient method.


You have to realize, if someone has no real interest in the truth (as is often the case), it requires as much (or more) effort to focus the discussion as it does to make one’s case. If the last thing my opponent wants to do is confront the truth on a subject, he or she is going to use every loophole, diversionary tactic or escape route available to derail the train before it ever gets to the station.


My job is to get that train to the station and park it there, so that my opponent must confront the truth and make a choice. I don’t have any control over the choice; they can choose to ignore reality and just sit there on the train. Or they can confront the truth and be changed by it, get off the train, and see the world through new eyes.


But people don’t like change; they resist it to greater or lesser degrees, depending on the person. That’s why so many discussions turn into the written equivalent of the old arcade game “Whack-a-Mole”.


So I’m trying to plug up all of the holes, all the escape routes, so there’s only one left for you to stick your head out of, and if I can do that, then you will be forced to confront the truth.


My job is just to get you there.


What you do at that point is up to you...


MellorSJ2 -Part 1 (why waste your time?)


MellorSJ2 writes: “(b) Word choice does not seem to be a part of the US education system. I suggest you consider the different meanings of 'density' and 'quantity.' ”


Why waste time, effort and space on this point?


Okay, let’s look at it again, then:


MellorSJ2 wrote previously: “The content density of my posts is significantly higher than yours, as I shall demonstrate (again) shortly. Any fair-minded observer would agree”


Density
1. the state or quality of being dense; compactness; closely set or crowded condition. (Dictionary.com)


If you are simply criticizing my use of “white space” to set apart one point from another in order to make my posts easier to read, why does that bother you so much?


But your use of the word “content” before the word “density” led me to think you were commenting on the length (i.e., quantity of content) per post, in light of the 2,000 character per post limit imposed by TH:


Density
2a. The quantity of something per unit measure, especially per unit length, area, or volume. (American Heritage Dictionary)


Regardless, unless you simply enjoy “point-counterpoint” for the sake of itself, I don’t know why you wasted time and effort in this way. I expect better from your efforts to derail the discussion ;-)


Oh No! It's kinda like the pod people!
My late partner once said "'Smart' grows on trees." As one of the three brightest people I've known, I was astonished. Her point, of course, was that 'smart' means nothing unless it can be applied.

Chief amongst the sins of the smart-but-useless crowd is the inability to separate the wood from the trees. Second is the 'sin' is becoming so enamored one of one's expertise that one simply displays it to no effect.

Part the First: (a) Of course Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. It's a State issue.

(b) Word choice does not seem to be a part of the US education system. I suggest you consider the different meanings of 'density' and 'quantity.'

(c) You are correct that it takes less quantity to cast doubt than to explain. It does not require less density. You, OTOH, require an editor.

Part The Second: I refer you to PZ Myers' parody of the Emperor's New Clothes: http://richarddawkins.net/article,463,The-Courtiers-Reply, PZ-Myers

Part the Third: Kiss Hank's @zz is a parody demonstrating the difference between 'contradiction' and 'clarification'. Please try to keep the abstraction levels straight.

Part the Fourth: LDS made it up as they went along. So do all the other churches. LDS claims their interpretation is true. Why should I believe you?

Part the Fifth: You just can't be serious: "harmonizes and reconciles with itself?" What you mean is that it contradicts itself sufficiently ambiguously that you can spend a lifetime justifying the obvious inanities.

No. "Peer review" is not the answer. You have not convinced the Great Unwashed. And No, retreat to "that's not the True Word of God" is not an answer either.

Part the Last: There is nothing here. Why bother?


MellorSJ2 - Thanks - Part 6 of 6


MellorSJ2 writes: “Did you decide not "to understand" Scientology? Or Hinduism? Or did you just reach the conclusion that they were nuts and move on.”


I am not aware of any evidence of any kind to back up anything in Scientology. I don’t even know if they claim any evidence. I wrote a paper on Scientology in the early ‘90s (college), and I’ve thought they were nuts ever since.


Unlike the Bible, to the best of my understanding Hindus do not claim that their religious texts were revealed by a deliberate act of God (e.g., the Rig-Veda, Sama-Veda, Atharva-Veda, Yajur-Veda, the Brahmanas, Upanishads and Aranyakas, the epic poems Ramayana and Mahabhrata which includes the Bhagavad-gita, etc.)


To my knowledge, Hindus offer no objective evidence of any kind that their teachings were revealed by God or that their scriptures are of divine origin. People believe many things for many reasons, but I am aware of no valid evidence to show why anyone should believe Hinduism, and you will find that the same is true for every other “religion” in the world.


Only the Bible, the OT and the NT, provides evidence and reason, much of which is verifiable by secular historical accounts and (continuing) archeological discovery, to convince the unbeliever that it is in fact the Word of God revealed to His creation, mankind.



"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:1-3, KJV)


"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6, KJV)


"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12, KJV)


MellorSJ2 - Thanks - Part 5 of 6


MellorSJ2: “I know: God's word is inerrant blah blah. But you don't know what that is any more than I do.”


God’s Word harmonizes and reconciles with itself, yet the 66 books of the Bible were written down by 40+ different men from widely divergent educational, social and vocational backgrounds, many of whom never met each other, across a span of some 1,600 years. This ‘internal consistency’ is powerful and compelling evidence for One Author, and is itself one of many evidences that the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures are inspired by God.


As I asked earlier, if you have any genuine contradictions of doctrine, contradictions discovered by reputable scholars that have withstood the scrutiny of peer review, I would like to see them. One advantage of scholarly review is that they (hopefully) do not bring the same “doctrinal baggage” or bias to the examination that a member of a particular denomination (or RCC) might bring.


As I’m sure you have noticed from many discussions on TH, many Christians are extremely adept at pointing out the doctrinal error of each other’s denominations; they only have trouble seeing the error of their *own* denomination. Multiple scholars, with determined effort, are able to get past this issue. So are scholars (especially, even) who have no religious belief whatsoever, and therefore don’t have a “dog in the fight”.



~~~



MellorSJ2: “Oh yeah? So the Jews think it's OK to keep slaves?”


I can’t speak for what Jews or anyone else “thinks”; only what the Bible actually says. There are Reform, Orthodox and Conservative Jews, and they each believe different things.


I stated that the OT Law of Moses was given to the Jews only. That’s what the Bible says. I don’t believe any Jew would say otherwise. As for slaves, that’s a separate issue you’ll have to take up with them. There are many things in the Old Law not practiced by any Jews today (e.g. animal sacrifice for sins).


MellorSJ2 - Thanks - Part 4 of 6


MellorSJ2 wrote previously: “change practice explicitly (like the LDSers and blacks, Coca Cola etc),”

My reply: “I don’t know what the reference to ‘Coca-Cola’ means."

Mellor response: “The LDS used to prohibit drinking Coke. Then, as their commercial empire expanded, they changed their minds. Er, I mean: Had a revelation.”


I don’t know what they “had”, but the Bible says nothing about prohibiting the consumption of Coca-Cola. I suppose one could argue against the contents (e.g., caffeine), but without Bible Authority, it could not be binding on others.



~~~



I wrote: "All of the division that gives people like yourself so much ammunition against Christianity is the result of men... After a time, the error becomes established “tradition”. Once error is established and accepted, it then (naturally) becomes the basis for *new* doctrine. And on it goes. Extrapolate that process over 200 years, over 500 years, or over nearly 1,800 years, and you will see just how far away men can get from the truth of God’s Word."


MellorSJ2 reply: “IOW, you make it up as you go along.”


No. It is true that too many people have, but the blame for this lies with man, not with God’s Word. All that anyone needs to do to escape the errors that have become institutionalized in many churches is to abandon the creeds, doctrines and commandments of men and return to the Word of God. Some people would call that a “Restoration” of 1st century Christianity, others might call it a return to “first principles” (cf. Heb 5:12).


I don’t expect, for example, that the RCC or most any other long established organization will abandon their centuries upon centuries of error, but certainly good people with honest hearts within such organizations can come out of them and choose to follow Christ according to His Word.


There are churches that teach the plain Word of God just as it is written. If you want to find such a church, you will.


MellorSJ2 - Thanks - Part 3 of 6


MellorSJ2: “Reminds me of Hank. From http://tinyurl.com/jf7qp "Me: "But item 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, Use alcohol in moderation.”


The Bible does not Authorize alcohol “in moderation”. Many people disagree, but curiously, nearly all of them want to drink alcohol. The conflict is between those who want to drink alcohol and the admonitions in the Bible not to do so.


I believe a serious and honest examination of the Scriptures, the underlying Greek text and the context of the era when the Word was written, will show that except for a small amount for medicinal use (cf. 1 Tim 5:23), alcohol is not something a Christian should partake of.



~~~



MellorSJ2: “claim 'tradition' (as laid out by said book written by the same misogynistic, homophobic, genocidal racists who benefit from enforcing said tradition) demands the continuation of some practice;”


We do as we're told. If it changes, no problem."


Seems to me we agree.

"MellorSJ2: “claim some parts of the book do _not_ support the practice;"

God’s Word does not contradict itself. Either it's a mistranslation (possibly deliberate), or god changed his mind."

We agree again!”



No, the above is a gross misrepresentation of both your words and my replies. Anyone who is interested in the actual discussion will find it here: http://tinyurl.com/28axhe



~~~



MellorSJ2: “Verbatim now: "You like to pretend it’s a “make it up as you go along” kind of thing, and unfortunately there will always be plenty of examples to give you ammunition to do so..."

It is make-it-up-as-you-go-along. You've admitted it yourself. See above, or go back to your original.”


Me: I have admitted no such thing. It only takes one mistaken individual for you to assert contradiction, but even you must admit that’s hardly a fair standard to judge the Bible by.


MellorSJ2 - Thanks - Part 2 of 6


MellorSJ2: “I said: "claim." Many people _claim_ that their book is inerrant etc. Some will admit of translation errors, usually to explain away troublesome passages.”


Translation errors are admitted because they are in fact translation errors. They cannot legitimately be used “to explain away troublesome passages” because other translations exist which correct the error, and we can examine the underlying text with a Greek Lexicon to determine the truth for ourselves.


~~~


Scott wrote: “I am not aware of a single, credibly sustainable contradiction in doctrine from Genesis to Revelation. If there was one, it would be such an enormous discovery that people like you would shout it from rooftops the world over. CNN would dedicate an entire year of programming, 24 hours a day, to such a discovery.


Even the so-called “minor” contradictions are not really contradictions at all, but either intentionally misrepresented text and twisting of the words, or honest misunderstandings which can be logically explained and understood, if you care to investigate the truth. I don’t claim to know the answer to every possible “contradiction” you might point out, but every one I have investigated has been resolvable.


More importantly, if any were NOT resolvable, people who have dedicated their careers to studying and/or criticizing Scripture would certainly publish them, and they would be able to credibly withstand peer review. If you have any so-called “contradictions” like that, as opposed to those listed by anti-Christian websites, I’d like to see some.”



MellorSJ2 replies: “Too late. People have been talking about them for millenia. For a current redition, see (http://tinyurl.com/2wfgwz)”


That is exactly the kind of anti-Christian website I was referring to. Please show me peer-reviewed contradictions by reputable Bible scholars that have credibly withstood academic scrutiny.


MellorSJ2 - Thanks - Part 1 of 6


MellorSJ2: “On just about every issue, we would vote in the same way. Off-hand, the only disagreement I can think of is abortion rights. This christian, despite his delusion, is a good man, and it may well be that his delusion is the proximate cause of his honesty, integrity, charity etc. Certainly, he thinks it is. Of course, that does not constitute evidence that the delusion is true.

I am, however, anti-christofascist: The type of person who would impose their moral views on the rest of us because their imaginary friend said so. If that causes me to point out that their grasp on reality is, um, weak, then so be it.

Second, I don't ramble.”


Thank you for the clarification, and I thought I remembered that we were in agreement on most political issues. I am anti-fascist (all types), and I am also anti-judicial fiat. Roe v. Wade is bad law, even most proponents acknowledge as much. Undoing Roe v. Wade would be a return to the established order, not some imposition of “new Christian law”.


The “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” certainly extends to all human life, but pro-chioce advocates must argue the “right to life” does NOT extend to all human life. As technology develops, I believe the Left will ultimately lose the argument, ironically due to emotional appeal, their own favorite tactic.


The word “ramble” was not well chosen. I was pressed for time, choosing between “screed”, “ramblings” and a couple of others. “Ramblings” seemed the least contentious.



~~~



MellorSJ2: “The content density of my posts is significantly higher than yours, as I shall demonstrate (again) shortly. Any fair-minded observer would agree”


They should also agree that I have the much more difficult task. It is easy to challenge, misrepresent or cast doubt; it takes a great deal more space (and effort) to correct, defend and/or present a coherent rebuttal, referencing your words and any evidence at my disposal.


And science too! Jeez.
Anna,

Please learn how to use google. To answer your first three paras, this link might help.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/elements/imagine /09.html

I stand corrected on the date of writing of the gospels. A xian website (http://www.gotquestions.org/when-Gospels-written.html) that explicitly states its preference for an early date chooses between 40AD and 140AD. Let's pick the earliest.

Jesus was born (if indeed he even existed) no later than 4BC and he lived till his early thirties. That puts the time between his death and the earliest estimate of the writing of the first gospel at about 10 years.

Now I don't know about you, but I can't remember what I had for breakfast 10 *days* ago. Moreover, the importance of the event does not appear to improve recollection. I was reading the other day about a study that asked people to write down their recollection of an important event when it happened. They were then asked to write down the same history some years later. When shown the paper written contemporaneously, they denied its veracity. Ten years means "eyewitness", my eye.

Lee Strobel is even less convincing than Chuck Colson, hard though that is to believe.

You probably have this quote in mind: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Yet he also said: "It is a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie that is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have expressed it clearly. If there is something in me that is religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

It is telling that xians will manufacture these lies.


Mellor
BTW, what happens to enriched uranium? Is it stable? It will eventually break down to its elemental parts...as do we all!

Mellor
Does nature enrich uranium?

What about iron? It's an element as are the others. The elements I would think are more evidence of intelligent design. They are fundamental building blocks. Did they evolve into elements? Going to evolve out? They are considered fixed base elements. That is established scientific principle

They all arrived with the big bang? To say they evolved would contradict established principles on the nature of elements.

BTW the bible was not written 70 years after Christs death. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are first hand accounts. By other standards for ancient writings the bible far exceeds them all. There are NUMEROUS copies within one generation and they match. Not so for other writings people have no problem accepting, Socrates, etc.

Check out Lee Stroebel's (The Case for Christ), research on this. He was an atheist lawyer who set out to disprove the diety of Christ. He was forced to answer the question, would he follow the truth wherever it led him even if it disagreed with what he wanted to believe.

I wish I had the direct quote, but Einstein becamse convinced of the existance of God because of the order of things. The notion that things were just bumping around and evolved into complex structures (DNA) and life just isn't backed up by scientific evidence. The opposite is true, everything is breaking down. We are all in bondage to decay, as is nature. Mutations that lead to natural selection are accidents and certainly are not purposeful as current education implies. Schools now teach that an animal "needed" a certain part so they just grew it.

That's about as real as the notion that our thoughts create reality.




@suzerose
"My un scientific opinion is that God is the Theory of Everything and once this is proven we will find that there is no contradiction btw Intel des, and evolution!"

This is entirely possible, but I am at a loss to design an experiment to prove it.

Let's hypothesize that it's true. Now all xians have to do is show that Christ is a manifestation of the Theory, and that Theory cares what we do in our bedrooms.

Good luck with that.

"In the meantime, if one is inclined to believe that God has created man, with talents, abilities, and intelligence, it would seem paradoxical not to understand as well that scientific inquiry and discovery are not really revelations of God. NO?"

Quite so. If one is so inclined. But then as LaPlace is reputed to have said to Napoleon on being asked why there was no mention of god in his book System of the World: "Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis"

MellorSJ2
Very interesting conversation.
My un scientific opinion is that God is the Theory of Everything and once this is proven we will find that there is no contradiction btw Intel des, and evolution!

In the meantime, if one is inclined to believe that God has created man, with talents, abilities, and intelligence, it would seem paradoxical not to understand as well that scientific inquiry and discovery are not really revelations of God. NO?

Scott: Part 4 of 4
"MellorSJ2: “or better yet, claim that--although we believe it *all*--the newer stuff supersedes the old stuff (and, in a lovely anti-Semitic touch, the old nasty stuff only applies to Jews);”

That’s not a “lovely anti-Semitic touch”, and I know you know better. That’s the truth according to the Jews themselves."

Oh yeah? So the Jews think it's OK to keep slaves?

[Anything vaguely resembling a bible verse deleted.]


"Your decision not to understand it does not make it “nasty stuff”. It just makes you ignorant of the truth, but you can change that, and I hope you will."

Did you decide not "to understand" Scientology? Or Hinduism? Or did you just reach the conclusion that they were nuts and move on.

And you can drop the passive-aggressive attempts to get me to drink the Kool-Aid. Not gonna happen.

Scott: Part 3 of 4
Quotes etc.

"MellorSJ2 writes: “change practice explicitly (like the LDSers and blacks, Coca Cola etc),”

I don’t know what the reference to “Coca-Cola” means."

The LDS used to prohibit drinking Coke. Then, as their commercial empire expanded, they changed their minds. Er, I mean: Had a revelation.


"All of the division that gives people like yourself so much ammunition against Christianity is the result of men... After a time, the error becomes established “tradition”. Once error is established and accepted, it then (naturally) becomes the basis for *new* doctrine. And on it goes. Extrapolate that process over 200 years, over 500 years, or over nearly 1,800 years, and you will see just how far away men can get from the truth of God’s Word."

IOW, you make it up as you go along.

I know: God's word is inerrant blah blah. But you don't know what that is any more than I do.



Scott: Part 2 of 4
Quotes here, ostensibly from Scott, are not. A precis is all we require.

"MellorSJ2: “claim 'tradition' (as laid out by said book written by the same misogynistic, homophobic, genocidal racists who benefit from enforcing said tradition) demands the continuation of some practice;”


We do as we're told. If it changes, no problem."

Seems to me we agree.

"MellorSJ2: “claim some parts of the book do _not_ support the practice;"

God’s Word does not contradict itself. Either it's a mistranslation (possibly deliberate), or god changed his mind."

We agree again!

Verbatim now: "You like to pretend it’s a “make it up as you go along” kind of thing, and unfortunately there will always be plenty of examples to give you ammunition to do so..."

It is make-it-up-as-you-go-along. You've admitted it yourself. See above, or go back to your original.

Scott: Part 1 of 1
Quotes here, ostensibly from Scott, are not. A precis is all we require.

"MellorSJ2: “Claim their book is inerrant,”

The original texts are the inspired and inerrant word of God. The translations are not."


I said: "claim." Many people _claim_ that their book is inerrant etc. Some will admit of translation errors, usually to explain away troublesome passages.

"MellorSJ2: “flat-out contradictions and all”


If there were any contradictions, we'd all know about it."

Too late. People have been talking about them for millenia. For a current redition, see http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-co ntradictions.html


"Even the so-called “minor” contradictions are not really contradictions at all"

Reminds me of Hank . From http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php "Me: "But item 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, Use alcohol in moderation.

John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2."



Why so you did!
Scott writes: "Btw Stephen, yesterday I replied to your anti-Christian ramblings in the Craig Shirley column ;-)"

Why so you did. Well, you did write something (as usual quite a lot) over there, but we need to clear some things up first.

I am not "anti-christian." I kid you not: My one of my friends is christian, and quite rabid about it. But so long as he doesn't try to convince me of the error of my ways, I'm happy not to convince him of the error of his. I'll sit happily (and not just chow down) while he says grace, but I'll have no part of it.

On just about every issue, we would vote in the same way. Off-hand, the only disagreement I can think of is abortion rights. This christian, despite his delusion, is a good man, and it may well be that his delusion is the proximate cause of his honesty, integrity, charity etc. Certainly, he thinks it is. Of course, that does not constitute evidence that the delusion is true.

I am, however, anti-christofascist: The type of person who would impose their moral views on the rest of us because their imaginary friend said so. If that causes me to point out that their grasp on reality is, um, weak, then so be it.

Second, I don't ramble. The content density of my posts is significantly higher than yours, as I shall demonstrate (again) shortly. Any fair-minded observer would agree, no matter how much they disagree with what I say.

MellorSJ2 - Re: "Sword of Light"


MellorSJ2 writes: "@Scott - 'You're right.' I think that would work."


Hi Stephen,

Thanks for your insight, but I was really hoping to hear "Sword of Light's" perspective, since he claims to be Christian.


It is one thing to spend a few moments making a hasty assessment and then rebuking everyone "drive-by shooting" style.


It's quite another to explain what you would do differently.


And of course it's another big step from there to actually do it, leading by example.


So I was interested to see if “Sword of Light” would offer correction after rebuke, and whether he would then make application of his own solution. Lilly would be the beneficiary, and I have no doubt it would be an opportunity for learning and edification, both for those he admonished, and also certainly for myself.





Btw Stephen, yesterday I replied to your anti-Christian ramblings in the Craig Shirley column ;-)






Please try again
'Eyewitnesses' reported 70 years after the fact are not eyewitnesses.

You are asking for evidence of creatures that evolution does not predict. That's about as red-herring as it gets.


Mellor
You reject the evidence of Christ's resurrection. There were many witnesses, in addition to the apostles. But when I ask for fossil evidence for the hybrid creatures and there should be billions of them you say it is a red herring.


Still misinformed, eh, Anna?
"The basic law of chemisty is that everything is breaking down. Adding energy does not change that fact."

Explain then the enrichment of uranium. Or the presence of iron on this earth,.

"Natural Selection does not support the notion of a reptile transforming into a mammal.'

No it doesn't. It supports differentiation. Either there is a common ancestor (read that again: a _common ancestor_) or one is a natural progression of the other.

"And if this evolutionary process was taking place over thousands, millions of years there would be plenty of fossil evidence for these hybrid creatures. Where are the fossils? Natural selection would have left plenty of evidence of the failures."

Red herrings.

""life is on and off", so Christ demonstrating that he had power over life and death has no meaning? "one more than me" You might want to re-think that."

Not unless you have some credible evidence.

"I can state my opinions without the need to insult you."

Possibly. We'll see :)

"Not another word until I understand the implications? You mean until I agree with you? Kinda arrogant don't you think?"

Nope. I'm sorry you clearly do not understand the concept. I'm certainly no expert (software me), but natural selection is being used via software to improve the bandwidth of fiber optic cable.

"Dan 7: 23-25 and I suspect EZ 38/39 are probably not far off. Both are specific. Suppose you ARE willing to follow truth where ever it may lead?"

Specific? Dates? Places? If it's specific why do always "suspect" some possible event as fulfilling the prophecy?

Mellor
The basic law of chemisty is that everything is breaking down. Adding energy does not change that fact.

Natural Selection does not support the notion of a reptile transforming into a mammal. And if this evolutionary process was taking place over thousands, millions of years there would be plenty of fossil evidence for these hybrid creatures. Where are the fossils? Natural selection would have left plenty of evidence of the failures.

"life is on and off", so Christ demonstrating that he had power over life and death has no meaning? "one more than me" You might want to re-think that.

I can state my opinions without the need to insult you. Not another word until I understand the implications? You mean until I agree with you? Kinda arrogant don't you think?

Dan 7: 23-25 and I suspect EZ 38/39 are probably not far off. Both are specific. Suppose you ARE willing to follow truth where ever it may lead?

I'll try to take you seriously
"These two always show extreme contempt for Christians."

You are too kind.

"First I would like to know what scientific law supports the supposition that matter is created out of nothingness?"

None. Except that we're here.

"And if the earth is billions of years old how come it only happened once?"

There may be other 'earths.' There may be other universes.

"I studied Chemistry"

None too well it would appear.

"and the basic law of Chem was that everything is moving towards disorganization. That would be the exact opposite of the idea that things are evolving up."

Unless you apply energy. In so doing, you increase the disorganization of the whole.

"The amoeba rising out of the primordial swamp, turning into a worm, then a fish, growing lungs, then legs, etc, etc. Culminating of course with the monkey turning into a man. (These charts are in our schools and taught as FACT to our kids)"

Two words: Natural Selection.

"Where is the evidence of cross species evolution EVER happening? I will give you natural selection. Where is the fossil evidence for the half bird/half rat or any other creature of the sort. There should be MILLIONS of fossils if this was true, but their are NONE."

Differentiation is the word you're looking for. I read a story about a finch that had differentiated just last month.

"Mel and Lilly ought to try this experiment. Take a watch apart. Put all the pieces in a box, shake it up and dump it out. Do this over and over until the watch puts itself back together...or evolves into something else. I will check back with you in a million years to see how it is going."

Repeat after me: Natural selection. And don't write another word until you understand the implications.

end times
Bible says in the end times good will be called evil and evil good.

Hostility towards Christianity grows every day.

Islam is overrunning the world. I wonder if the religion of the anti-christ is going to be Islam.

Everyone will soon get to see how "great" things will be once the church is removed and satan is not restrained.

Meller/Lilly cont.
Supposedly matter just appeared. Atoms bumped around and evolved into living creatures. A watch can not compare to even the simplest DNA of the simplest cell.

When Julian Huxley was asked why the scientific community was so quick to accept evolution he said it was because of their sexual values, (not scientific evidence!). (Shocking, a truthful answer!) When you have God, you have morality. That is in conflict with screwing whoever you want and scraping the baby out of the womb if you don't want it. It is not convenient to be created in the image of God when you would prefer to act like an animal.

Evolution is a THEORY that is accepted by faith, by those who believe in it. They won't even debate intelligent design scientists any more because they get trounced every time. Evolution is taught as fact and they are outraged when we want to even present intelligent design as another theory. (No problem with the Indian creation story though)

This is what passes as rigorous science to Lilly.

Let's face it. Nothing has changed since the beginning. "If you eat of this fruit you will be like God" Most of mankind does not want to bend the knee. They want to be God themselves.

It is "hateful" to try to warn people who are about to fall off the cliff into eternity? Everyone will believe in the end. It is a tragedy to die and your sins are not covered by the atoning blood of Christ.

I don't hear the Christians calling you names. It is always the other way around. Mellor called me a b*tch yesterday because I didn't agree with him on "free trade".

I know of only one who had the power to lay down his life and to take it up again of his own will. HE WILL HAVE THE LAST WORD!

Meller/Lilly
These two always show extreme contempt for Christians.

Meller (and Lilly) have both mocked intelligent design and said it is not "scientific".

This is really hillarious. First I would like to know what scientific law supports the supposition that matter is created out of nothingness? And if the earth is billions of years old how come it only happened once?

I studied Chemistry and the basic law of Chem was that everything is moving towards disorganization. That would be the exact opposite of the idea that things are evolving up. The amoeba rising out of the primordial swamp, turning into a worm, then a fish, growing lungs, then legs, etc, etc. Culminating of course with the monkey turning into a man. (These charts are in our schools and taught as FACT to our kids)

Where is the evidence of cross species evolution EVER happening? I will give you natural selection. Where is the fossil evidence for the half bird/half rat or any other creature of the sort. There should be MILLIONS of fossils if this was true, but their are NONE.

Mel and Lilly ought to try this experiment. Take a watch apart. Put all the pieces in a box, shake it up and dump it out. Do this over and over until the watch puts itself back together...or evolves into something else. I will check back with you in a million years to see how it is going.


@Scott
"You're right."

I think that would work.

Sword of Light - What should they say?


Sword of Light writes: "And for those who will protest that Lilly posts silly stuff all the time, I say, 'Shut up and listen!' "


If only Lilly might do the same...


After "listening" to Lilly, what should those who you have admonished say to her, that might be more productive?

close
We know Iran will never back down. Israel will have to bomb them.

Events of EZ 38/39 will rearrange status quo of ME and could set the stage for anti-christ making peace pact with Israel which will usher in period of tribulation. Israel and Babylon (Iraq) come out on top. We know anti-christ sets up gov in Babylon.

I believe in pre-trib rapture, but we are going to be here longer than we would like. I see dark days ahead for America. Who is China planning to go to war with?

It is close.

getting close
We are not to know the time, but we are to recognize the season. It is getting close.

Israel becoming a nation was a supersign. I was shocked when I found out a couple of years ago how advanced the agenda for the NAU was. When America goes down we will take the world with us.

"The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on the earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, (one world gov.), trampling it down and crushing it. The ten horns are ten kings (EU, NAU, etc) who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws…" Dan 7: 23-25

I suspect once the first dominoe goes down things will happen quickly. They will need a precipitating event for NAU and I suspect it will be economic collapse.

I suspect we will see EZ 38/39 soon. Read "Epicenter" by JOel Rosenberg. I suspect the three subdued will be US, China and Russia. Bible says anti-Christ will come out of resurrected Roman Empire. That would be EU.


Thanks Lilly, Michael, Sword of Light
rjas: You are a hateful creature.

Happily, if you're right about the "tribulation" you'll be first. And you know it.

Thanks Lilly, Michael and Sword of Light
rjas: You a hateful creature.

Happily, if you're right about the "tribulation" you'll be first. And you know it.


atheism
Mr. Colson: I'm 74 yrs old, been in 9 wars, many times in combat. The only reason an atheist can exist in the USA, is that no one is trying to kill them on a daily basis. If they were going to be killed at any time, they would immediately turn to some form of religion. I've never met an atheist in combat. every one was trying to pray to some kind of god, until the danger past, then they go back to whatever they were in the beginning.

Bible not source of morality
To the bitter end, Colson gratuitously asserts that the source of morality is various biblical injunctions rather than reason.

A rational moral code is derivable from a proper assessment of the nature of man as well as the nature of reality (think "individual rights").

Colson and his fans must realize this, at least subconciously. Otherwise, they would see nothing wrong with murder, rape, and theft if they were not enjoined in the Bible. I strongly suspect few would fail to see the problems such a regime would entail. All societies have banned such things, long before Christianity existed.

Moral commandments NOT derivable through reason (e.g., praying towards Mecca, attending church, etc.) have no place in earthly law. They are inherently irreconcliable and attempting to impose them by force is rationally immoral.

To all who are piling on to Lilly...
for her response to rjas:

I am a Christian, and I am ashamed of you. She stated a legitimate concern that I share with her. You all may not intend to say what she heard, but *I* heard what she heard, and I didn't like it. I would have been scared, too, looking at it from her angle.

Proverbs says that wise people shut up and listen. I won't quote a verse; it's all over the place. You all know that what I say is true.

And for those who will protest that Lilly posts silly stuff all the time, I say, "Shut up and listen!"

ps
Jesus loves ALL of us...not SOME of us~

Lilly
My answer to you is not an attack on you in any way...you sound like a lovely gal...what's up with all the angst against Lilly? the demise of a
people and their country/world is not a spectator
sport...God has given us free will...let's honor
His gift and keep this a good,free country.Banks cannot be given a free pass to give illegal immigrants credit&mortgages because it's illegal!
Not very complicated...pretty straightforward,it
is against the very laws that patriotic folks
supposedly support...Christian conservative folks.Sadly,our true "base" is bucks$and business
understood that and backed Mr.Bush and he & his
cohorts backed business...to all the rest..."Let
them eat cake" It's all tied together,if you are
Christian, obeying the law of the land ought to
matter as should defending the law of the land and
let us not forget that lots of good folks are not
Christian by religion,but are good,law abiding
folks.Wouldn't it be a shock if when Jesus returns he shows compassion to all? If his actions remind us that He died on the cross for
our sins? Pity that we seem to have forgotten that He loves all of us.

More of the same
Lilly -

I'm not here very often, but each time I do, I am surprised at your comments. Your absolute hate for Christians is obvious, as is your complete ignorance of it.

Jesus came so that people would put their trust in Him and be spared judgment due to ALL of us because of our sin. But people such as yourself do not want Jesus.

This is nothing to rejoice over. It's tragic.

Whoa,guys,whoa...
The very point is to create dissension
Any reason for me to mention
It's working!!! Stop and talk
Not an option to balk
and pull away from each other
stand tall next to your sister&brother!
Lilly,the law of the land
gives the final command
What is "legal" and what is not
Here,we can't beat children black & blue
Folks should get deported if they do
And return to where their customs are law
Stand together Americans,support that call
Stoning women&mutilating?Need a 5time daily call to prayer?
Go back to YOUR land...it CAN happen there.
We respect cultural diversity
But do not impose illegal "religion/customs" on me!
No quandary,no problem we need to ponder
Illegal activity needs to go yonder
'Outta here,never to create a foothold
Let's keep our own America free...because that's gold!
The law of our land,though welcoming immigrants
here
Also makes it very clear
What is and is not okay
Play by OUR rules,or do NOT stay!!! How about respecting the laws of the country that warmly
welcomed you?~

Back to the original subject
I believe that the militant homosexuals who claim that scripture actually supports what they do, and the openly atheist ones as well, are living in a little bubble. They continue to rail against genuine Christians who do not condone stoning or other physical abuse of people who engage in flagrant sin. Yet, they utterly ignore Islam. If Islam ever gets the upper hand in Europe and then the United States, it will be largely a radicalized Islam.

Then there will be a blood bath against athiests and homosexuals first, (bombs at clubs... gun attacks.. home invasions) and then against all others who disagree with Islam eventually. Watch for murder from radical Islam in Europe while the blind and deceived secularists continue to rail against Bible believing Christians who feed, clothe, and educate millions of the World's poorest people in Haiti, Africa, and other places.

"When a blind man leads a blind man, they will both fall into a pit." - Jesus Christ

Yes Lilly,
When the Lord returns, justice will finally be dispensed. That should give you God-mockers some pause to reconsider your beliefs, but it probably won't.

What a hateful old lady you are lilly
4:04 PM
To rjas
Re "We are in end times...It is a very exciting time to be a Christian"

lilly writes:
---your post sounds as if you may be stocking up on popcorn so you can fully enjoy watching all who differ from you destroyed by a vengeful and angry God. Will this be shown on television? I can imagine you reared back in your recliner, cheering God on as he rips sinners limb from limb: "POW! Smack! Yea, God! Give him another one! Jeez, I just love this stuff."
--------

Unbelievable
You see evil everywhere but in your own self it appears to me, and where it dwells.

What you see is what you are.

The Lords Prayer is "Thy Kingdom Come".
You think that is for spectator sports?
I have experienced your personal hate also lilly, and you are the one who needs help.

Have
either of you, valiant for truth and rjas2330
heard of a book, When Nations Die by Jim Nelson Black. I bought it several years ago, wow, I guess it was several years ago, just looked at the year it was published, 1994.
It's quite interesting, chronicaling the rise and decline of great civilizations and where we are on that track.
I guess I'm pan trib..it will all pan out in the end. I'm just trying to occupy til He comes, and
Lilly, just to let you know..we win in the end, the back of the Book says so. I hope you will be able to overcome your anger and bitterness towards God. I know you've been angered by well meaning Christians who intruded on your day a few years ago, and that can be a turn off. You sound like a very intellectual lady, I wonder
if you are openminded enough to read books written by former atheist. Lee Strobel. If anything, they are very thought provoking.

Rjaz2330...

Lessons from history on judgment...

Thanks for testifying to the truth. As in the days of Noah the mocking of God and His people will not stop until judgment falls. The God deniers of today believe the fossils prove the theory of evolution. They are willingly ignorant of the plain truth that the fossil record is testimony in stone of the mass destruction of contemporary life forms.

In favor of Mr. Darwin, they reject the testimony of Jesus Christ. ‘As it was in the days of Noah so it shall be at the coming of the Son of Man.’ You do well to confess Him before men for ‘whoever believes in Jesus will not be put to shame.’

In Deuteronomy 28 the principles of blessing and cursing related to the adherence to God’s Law are given to the nation of Israel. Do this and live and prosper. Disobey and fall under calamity and judgment.

Why did Israel turn away from God? They became an apostate nation because of unbelief; they did not heed the warnings of impending judgment.

We realize that the West is not Old Testament Israel, but are there not spiritual principles to be gleaned from God’s dealings with them that apply to all nations? In the following sense the answer is yes…the nature of man does not change as a function of generation nor of national origin and the moral Law of God is constant, because He is immutable.

Consider just a couple of symptoms that fall under the category of judgment leading to the destruction of nations…

‘The alien who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower. He shall lend to you, but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail’ [Deuteronomy 28:43-44].

The increase in national debt and loss of national identity should grab our attention.

To Lilly
This is what it all boils down to. It is indeed exciting, but not in a banal, sporting event sort of way. As a Pre tribulation, dispensational Christian, it is extremely exciting to me to think my Savior and Lord is soon to arrive. This also places a powerful burden on me. My explicit command is to tell everyone about Jesus Christ. I believe that the time of His coming is near. I need to get to work.

Don't misunderstand. I am not happy or cheerful at the prospect of billions of my fellow brothers and sisters perishing. My Father wishes that not one would be lost. I pray with weeping every night for the lost. I am not jazzed about seeing those who differ with me being destroyed. I am also a lost soul, who someone reached out to and told the Truth. Your beef is with God. I recognize that I am no different from those who "differ" with me. I can only love them and hope the Holy Spirit draws them to Him, and I will shout for joy with them when that happens.

To rjas
Re "We are in end times...It is a very exciting time to be a Christian"---your post sounds as if you may be stocking up on popcorn so you can fully enjoy watching all who differ from you destroyed by a vengeful and angry God. Will this be shown on television? I can imagine you reared back in your recliner, cheering God on as he rips sinners limb from limb: "POW! Smack! Yea, God! Give him another one! Jeez, I just love this stuff."

Stay Tuned
None of this is new. Around 35 years ago I taught in a high school that was receiving new Vietnamese immigrants whose normal cultural practices included a degree of physical punishment of children that in the United States got them arrested for child abuse. I am speaking of beating a fourteen year-old black and blue and unconscious. The father would protest that this is the way his people had always controlled their sons and daughters. Who prevails?

Since then it's come to medical attention that certain immigrants still practice the genital mutilation of female children. A clitoridectomy is performed (a, should it be permitted or forbidden?) by an untrained person (b, if the procedure is going to be allowed should we insist it be done by a doctor?) without asepsis or anesthesia (c, this violates US medical ethics standards). Again, who prevails?

Another example: Indians and Pakistanis living in the US and Britain have sometimes killed a bride when her family failed to meet the dowry expectations of her family.

Allowing Sharia law in a British or American community opens the same can of worms. Stoning of an adulterous woman? Death penalty for her? Honor killings? Women kept out of view?

On one hand, we have a cultural tradition of leaving domestic matters largely up to the family. On the other hand, some of the things they want to do (in our country!) are totally unacceptable to us. Drawing the lines is no easy undertaking.

And Ironically from GOP Candidates
If you believe traditional marriage to be fundamental to a Christian Worldview and you believe that the assault on traditional marriage is part of a larger secular assault on a Christian Worldview then this documented blog that compares the GOP candidates on the issue of marriage is an eye-opening shocker. 4 out of 5 GOP candidates are weak on traditional marriage values, only one has been consistently for strong marriage:

http://huckablogger.com/blog/2008/01/save-marriage-vote-for -huckabe.html

The Book of Revelation.
There can be no greater proof that we are moving toward the end times than the widespread embracing of evil and anti Christ themes and rhetoric, clothed in the guise of "multiculturalism" and "tolerance". When there was only Noah and his family left to worship God, he destroyed everyone else. The remnant is growing very small in the modern day. It is a very exciting time to be a Christian.

The book of Revelation?
I used to wonder how individuals that distrust things like The Patriot Act would allow "the mark of the beast" on their foreheads or the backs of their hands. Then I overheard a coworker comment, "If those crazy Christians are against it, then you *know* I'm for it."
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.