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!
Login | What's Hot
  • 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

Comment on: Reformation Man

Non-Biblical World Views and Self-Deception

92 Comments
Tuesday, September, 29, 2009 4:21 PM Jack writes:

Flawed and Self-Centered Reasoning

"Although in one sense they very sincerely deny knowing God or being persuaded by His revelation, they nevertheless are mistaken in this denial."

Reading this post, I got the same sensation I did from the last one in the sense that it used the same flawed reasoning. I believe we have discussed it before, Valiant. It works off an illogical, backwards premise. The narrow interpretation of Christiantiy that you champion is assumed to be right and all those who deny it are by default mistaken. They just have just been shutting god out and refused to let him/her/it reveal the truth to them, or so you claim.

It goes back to the same flawed mentality I pointed out before, confusing belief with truth. These ideas of Christianity you espouse are perfectly sound as beliefs. They are by their own nature beliefs, yet you're calling them truth and anyone who doesn't accept your view suppressors of the truth. This is completely false because it once again misconstrues the nature of truth and belief. Beliefs like that of god cannot be proven and must be assumed on faith. Truth is different. Truth in a purely objective sense is founded in reason and logic, whereas there must be evidence and logic behind a claim or assertion. God and religion has none of this. They must be assumed on faith. As such it cannot be called truth. It is and always will be belief.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 29, 2009 7:08 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

Jack...


Do you have anything of substance to add about not having a metaphysical base for your beliefs?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 29, 2009 7:11 PM ROK writes:

Orwell once said

"He was an embittered atheist, the sort of atheist who does not so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike Him"

when you see a Dawkins and his obsession with God I it fits your blog and Orwell quite well.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 29, 2009 7:16 PM ROK writes:

Orwell once said

"He was an embittered atheist, the sort of atheist who does not so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike Him"

When you see a Dawkins so rabidly anti-God it fits your blog or Orwell quite well.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 30, 2009 7:19 AM Jack writes:

Burden of Proof

If you want something of substance, here is a well-cited piece on morality in a purely non-supernatural sense. It has many sources and is backed up by numerous studies, something no supernatural text can boast.

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~culture/Sunar.htm

I cite this because you're asserting there needs to be a metaphysical basis for my beliefs. But that's not how it works. Not believing in god is not so much a rejecting of the supernatural. No more than not believing in stamp collecting is rejecting stamp collecting as a whole. I don't believe because I see no evidence or reason to believe. The burden of proof is on you, the believer.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Positive claims require positive evidence. You're asserting something is there. So it's on your shoulders to prove it. You haven't done that in a way that isn't full of fallacies and shortcomings. I'm more than open to a reasonable claim. But if you can't provide that, then I can't take your claim seriously.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 30, 2009 9:06 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

Specifically...


What is your rational for the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, man's dignity and ethical absolutes?

ROK, thanks for Orwell quote. This is consistent with Romans 1...those of a reprobate mind are said to be 'haters of God'.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 30, 2009 2:19 PM ROK writes:

Jack

Everybody believes in something.
Even if that something is Nothing.
In order to avoid believing in God you are declaring a belief in Nothing.
This Nothing created the universe and everthing in it.
Spontaneous generation was disproven years ago and yet you declare a belief that life itself also came from Nothing.
Where is YOUR proof that everything came from Nothing?
What proof do YOU offer for this tenuous belief system.

The fact is, you do acknowledge a God, his name is Nothing. You are steadfast in your faith in this Nothing in spite of a lack of proof.

At some point you will realize that the sun cannot orbit a flat earth.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 30, 2009 3:04 PM Jack writes:

My Answer, Valiant

"What is your rational for the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, man's dignity and ethical absolutes?"

Please see the link I had listed previously. It has plenty of information that answers that question. If you want a more general answer in with respect to the order of everything, I have one:

Systems Theory

http://www.answers.com/topic/systems-theory

This is a broard theory that has been applied to many different fields outside of science. It explains that order, law, and nature are composed of transactional, heirarchical systems between various processes. It is logical, reasonable, and has been tested in many ways all throughout the history of science. It has no need for god or a supernatural being.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 30, 2009 3:07 PM Jack writes:

ROK

No ROK, you are dead wrong. I do not believe in "Nothing" as a god. That's like saying NOT collecting stamps is a hobby. I don't avoid believing in god any more than I avoid believing in Santa Clause. I don't believe in god because there's no evidence for god just as there's no evidence for Santa.

What exactly is your proof that there's an invisible sky god? I told Valiant the same thing. The burden of proof is on you. You're claiming something is present. But positive claims require positive evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You can't make a belief out of non-belief without destroying the point of belief in the first place. You believe something is there even though there's no evidence. I don't. I need evidence to accept something as truth. I haven't gotten that from you or any religous believer for that matter. Until I do, I will not believe.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 30, 2009 8:05 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

Criticisms…


Jack, the natural man is at enmity with God. He has no desire or ability to remove this enmity. Your contention of believing when the evidence suits you is just another sign of deception.

Unbelievers suppress the evidence in unrighteousness. According to the Bible they are without excuse. Our Creator thinks the evidence is sufficient enough that unbelief results in eternal punishment. We are repulsed by this only because our understanding of sin is deficient.

The unbeliever is ignorant of his condition and therefore without hope apart from sovereign grace. When sin is rightly understood, then grace becomes precious.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 30, 2009 8:43 PM Jack writes:

Misinterpreting

Valiant, I do not accept evidence only when it suits me. I accept evidence if it is free of fallacies. You, ROK, and Chiefest haven't done that. I've pointed out before how your arguments fail when put under the lens of reason. You constantly espouse anecdotal evidence, non-sequiters, and foundational bias.

Unbelievers don't suppress truth. I don't suppress truth either. I'm all for truth. But I understand what truth is and it isn't beliefs assumed on faith. Truth is truth, no matter how you spin it. That's something you don't seem to understand. You can't keep calling these beliefs of yours truth and not commit a major fallacy.

Calling the unbelievers ignorant is not only derogatory, it's arrogant and narcissistic. It's also very irresponsible. The idea of having your beliefs entrenched and absolute, relegated to the realm of the supernatural, makes them unprovable and untestable. That way you don't have to question them critically. It doesn't take any study. You don't have to know anything about anything. Whereas with reason you actually have to do the work. You have to try and understand. But you won't even try. It's not just irresponsible, it's lazy. You claim you know the will of an invisible deity through a 2000 year old book. That's fine to believe, but you can't say it's true without proving it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 30, 2009 9:32 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

Ignorance…


To Christians the apostle says, “You should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart…” [Ephesians 4:17]

If you understood you would repent and believe the gospel. Since you are blinded to the truth, you do not understand. The only remedy to the blind man is to plead for mercy, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me” [Mark 10:46-48].
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 01, 2009 7:07 AM Jack writes:

Not Blinded By Anything

Again Valiant, you're putting your own beliefs on a pedestal as if they're not subject to the whims of reason and logic. You're wrong. I do not suppress truth and I do not shun evidence that I don't agree with. I shun evidence that is flawed and fallacious. I don't just accept anything because it's written in a 2000 year old book that claims to be the word of some deity. There are dozens of other books just like it that make the same claim. All use the exact same reasoning. Just because you're a Christian, it doesn't mean your beliefs cannot be questioned. It doesn't mean your way is true and all those who don't agree are somehow truth suppressors. That's a very arrogant and self-centered perspective.

Now Chiefest has said before that I can't understand the evidence until I actually accept the premise of god to begin with. But that would be working backwards. The rules of reason dictate you can't just accept something for the sake of seeing the evidence. You must follow th evidence to the conclusion. I have found no line of evidence that leads to the conclusion that there is a supernatural god dwelling in some magical realm. That's why I don't believe. If there is evidence, I'll reconsider.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 01, 2009 8:59 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

Trust…


We trust in Jesus Christ. His resurrection from the dead validates His victory over sin and death and confirms all His words. These are the words that will judge all men on the last day. What are you trusting?

Your denial of His words is just further evidence of enmity. The deceitfulness of sin is that a man dead in sin does not see his danger. Like the Pharisees who thought they understood, Jesus called them blind guides for the blind. [Matthew 23]

Jack, you are like the Pharisee…Puffed up with knowledge and thinking that you know better than Jesus Christ, when you are really blind and ignorant and lost.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 01, 2009 10:12 AM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

backwards

"Now Chiefest has said before that I can't understand the evidence until I actually accept the premise of god to begin with. But that would be working backwards."-jack

Now jack, isn't working backwards what evolutionists DO??

You accept the premise that there must be no God, and work backwards to come up with some alternative. Working backwards is nothing new to you, you just refuse to do it when it counts.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 01, 2009 4:27 PM Jack writes:

Trust = Faith

Saying you trust in Jesus Christ is the same as saying you have faith that he's right. But no amount of trust or faith in anyone or anything will make it true. Evidence makes it true, regardless of personal prejudices. It's not that I don't trust Jesus Christ as a good teacher. He offered many valuable lessons that I still retain even though I am no longer a Christian. But I don't believe his claim that he's some supernatural messiah anymore than Muhammed claimed he was a prophet. That cannot be verified or proven. Thus, it is assumed on faith and to call it true is to completely misconsture the meaning of truth.

I don't deny it out of emnity. I deny it out of reason. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that some guy that lived 2000 years ago was the son of some god is a very extraordinary claim. It would definitely require some extraordinary evidence and so far, nothing has come forth to verify it.

Just because I don't assume this extraordinary claim doesn't mean I'm flawed. I understand that this is what you and Chiefest believe, but that doesn't make you any better or any more righteous than me. You just believe in something I don't.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 01, 2009 4:33 PM Jack writes:

To Chiefest

"Now jack, isn't working backwards what evolutionists DO?"

Absolutely not. Evolution does not work backwards. It complies to the philosophy and premise of science in that it is supported by empierical evidence that cross confirms over many fields like palentology, biology, chemistry, physics, sociology, psychology, comparative morpholoy, and taxonomy. It's been tested, re-tested, and verified many times and repeatedly confirmed. No religion can make that same claim.

Now you talk about having a premise of there no being a god. But the problem with this premise is that it's assuming a negative. That's an irrational stance. You can't prove that there's NOT a teapot orbiting Jupiter, but nobody makes that claim because it's irrational. Positive claims require positive evidence. For something to be accepted as truth, evidence must be brought forth to prove that it is there. If there is no such evidence, then the claim is not supported and a reasonable mind does not accept it until that evidence comes forth. But claims like that of god do not follow these tenents. It is assumed on faith without the positive evidence being brought forth. The evidence cited with sacred texts and prophecies are not positive evidence in that they can't be verified. They too are assumed on faith. It's a faulty premise, meaning it's all a subject of belief and cannot be taken as truth.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 01, 2009 5:06 PM George writes:

Evidence

As I read Jack's comments, I am reminded of Christ's narative of the rich man and Lazaras from Luke 16. It is interesting that the text does not call this a parable. The rich man in hell asks the Lord to warn his brothers that they might repent. The Lord responds, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead." So it is with Jack. Pleading for evidence provides a veil of rationality and respectability to his position. However, his unregenerate heart is prejudiced against the evidence which does exist. And so we see the truth of Romans 1:18-20:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly
seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

The weight of the evidence is so great that Jack and others are absolutely without excuse. And so from now until the judgment, they bask in the light of their own self-justification. But when the righteousness of Christ is revealed at His coming, eternal suffering and dispair will follow. By contrast, how blessed are those who have been granted the grace to humble themselves before Christ in this life.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 01, 2009 5:52 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

Stop the nonsense…


Jack, you cannot hold the position that Jesus was just a good moral teacher. How can that be true when you also accuse Him of lying about who He is?

He is eternal God in flesh, the Creator of all things, the God-Man, the Lamb of God and Redeemer of the covenant people, or He is a deceiver and liar. There is no middle ground unless you are a fool.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 01, 2009 6:01 PM PDX Dave writes:

Valiant, Jack is a...

Valiant, Jack is a moral relativist.

A man who lies, cheats, steals, or even kills while in the pursuit of a "good cause" can still be a "good man."

So in Jack's book, a fraudulent Messiah is a good man if his intentions were good.

It's not what one DOES that matters, it is what one FEELS.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 02, 2009 7:21 AM Jack writes:

To George

As I've said to Chiefest, George, please do not patronize me.

"If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead."

You're completely wrong about this. If by some miracle the dead did rise from the grave and I could not uncover that it was a trick or anything, then I would change my beliefs. Rising from the dead is extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim that is a supernatural deity. I am not prejudice against any evidence. It takes a lot of arrogance and self-centered sophistry to assume you're so right and anyone who dissents is somehow inherently wrong. That doesn't make you or any of your beliefs more righteous. That just makes you ill-mannered.

I'll say it again. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You say the weight of the evidence is too much to deny. Great. What is it? Where is it? Can it be verified? Can it be tested? Just because it's evidence of your personal deity doesn't make it immune to critical inquiry. I don't deny god out of some selfish chauvinism. I deny god because there's no evidence. At least I'm humble enough to admit that I don't know all the answers and I don't claim any special revelation. You often warn me about me being wrong on the day of judgment. But what if you're wrong too? Ever think of that? And all these elaborate beliefs mean nothing when we all die and go the same way?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 02, 2009 7:26 AM Jack writes:

About Jesus

Valiant, I never said that Jesus lied about who he was. He probably believed in his heart of hearts that he really was the son of god. Just as a lot of other savior gods at the time like Appolonius of Tyana or Dionysus of Greece believed they were the son of god as well. So I don't think he was lying. It's doubtful that he was. But just because he claimed he was the son of god doesn't make it true. He like so many others were charismatic and appealing enough to get a lot of people to believe in him so he really didn't have to justify himself. That's all well and good for someone not concerned with truth, but if I'm going to accept an extraordinary claim like that I need some extraordinary evidence.

It's not foolish to want to have some kind of proof before placing your undying faith in someone who has been dead for 2000 years. It is foolish to just up and assume something on faith without giving a second to ponder critically the merits of a claim. I understand you are deeply vested in your faith and I would never ask that you change it, unlike you who always asks me to change mine. But I'm trying to keep open the perspective that beliefs are beliefs and not to be confused with truth. What you believe is fine. You're free to believe anything you want. But if you want to call it true, you have to prove it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 02, 2009 7:30 AM Jack writes:

PDX Dave

As I said to George, PDX, don't patronize me. I'm not a moral relativist. I believe there is right and there is wrong in this world. But I don't believe it comes from a supernatural deity or a 2000 year old book written in 3 different languages that aren't even used anymore.

Now I live by 2 commandments. Try not to hurt anyone and try to be nice to people. I say try because we're human and humans make mistakes. But no matter what mistakes are made, there is still right and there is still wrong. There are situations where the distinction isn't clear. But killing will always be wrong and so will stealing. It's hard wired into our cognition. It's part of humans being a social species. It doesn't need a supernatural source. It just needs the fundamental psychological makeup of the collective human mind.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 02, 2009 9:46 AM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

comeliness

"But just because he claimed he was the son of god doesn't make it true. He like so many others were charismatic and appealing enough to get a lot of people to believe in him so he really didn't have to justify himself."-jack

Reminds me of a scripture. The Pharisee had a counsel, and Gamaliel stood up:

Acts 5
34Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;

35And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.

36For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.

37After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.

38And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

39But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.


There have been alot of pretenders even in Jesus' day, but only one Christ; "charisma" or "charm" make no difference now or then. As a matter of fact the scripture states:

Isaiah 53:2-3
...he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

That doesn't sound like he was charismatic to me. Of course, I just read it plainly.


jack, if the Bible is some "bronze age book", then why do you believe it?





EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 02, 2009 12:25 PM Jack writes:

The Message

38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

These two lines reinforce my point. By saying something is of god, it cannot be questioned or critically examined. As such, it cannot be proven and has to be assumed on faith. That's perfectly fine, but if something is assumed on faith it can't be truth. It is and always will be a belief.

You're correct in stating that there were a lot of similar figures like Jesus in his day. It was a popular trend in Judeah at the time. But historically speaking, Jesus's message won out because it was more appealing. Other figures like Appolonius and Mithrus were restrictive. Jesus's message was open to everybody, giving it a much broader base. It also had the benefit of being accepted by Constantine and made the official religion of the Roman Empire. That more than anything solidified Christianity's dominace.

As for the bible, it doesn't have to be literally true to give a message. Like the Illiad, the anelects of Confucious, or the Rig Vedas one can still take positive messages from the bible just as any other book. It doesn't need to be divine in the eyes of the reader. It just has to have the right salience. In numerous parts it does, but that doesn't make it infallible.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 02, 2009 2:31 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

Chiefest...


Thank you for the Act 5 & Isaiah 53 references.

They also said of Him, "Never a man spake like this man." He is full of the Spirit of wisdom without measure.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, October, 03, 2009 11:05 AM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

charismatic

jack, your reading comprehension skills are poor. You missed the whole topic of my post, or better yet, you chose to ignore it as you do with any information that does not fit your godless worldview.
The topic of my post was:

Isaiah 53:2-3
...he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Which of those you listed rose from the dead on the third day? and was seen of many witnesses? was recieved up to the Father, where He sits on the right hand of the throne, expecting till His enemies are made His footstool(Hebrews 10:13)? The point was, THEY WERE charismatic, He was not. THEY did the works of thier god (John 8:44), as you do, and HE did the works of the Father (John 10:37-38). You profess to deny the truth contained in the scriptures yet you attempt, as many do, to pick and choose the parts that support your position, as if you did believe! As always, you err when you do so.

Why do you believe the Bible if it is just some "bronze age book"? And in so believing, how can you cast aside certain parts, like salvation for the soul, and eternal damnation?

John 8:45
And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, October, 03, 2009 4:56 PM Jack writes:

Wrong again

"You missed the whole topic of my post, or better yet, you chose to ignore it as you do with any information that does not fit your godless worldview."

I apologize if there was a part I misconstrued, but I did not ignore anything. I don't ignore what doesn't fit my worldview. That's what you do whenever I present a counter to your claim in asserting your beliefs as facts without evidence. I don't ignore your points because they're opposed to my beliefs. I reject them because they have major fallacies in them, particularly foundational biases and ad hominums.

As for other savior gods that rose from the dead, Apollonius of Tyana was said to have many witnesses of his ascension to heaven after his death. His entire home town of Tyana was said to have witnessed his spirit.

http://www.answers.com/topic/apollonius-of-tyana

But as I've stated before, witnesses are purely anecdotal by nature and the stories of the bible as well as the stories of Apollonius are not cross confirmed within secular sources. The only place any figure did anything miraculous was in their holy text, which thus has to be assumed on faith. To say it is true and that all the witnesses inside it are valid is to accept a faulty premise.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, October, 03, 2009 5:03 PM Jack writes:

Picking and Choosing

Also, you claim I pick and choose the parts in the bible to accept. But that's what all Christians do. Just as you pick and choose the parts of the bible that accept your worldview. Do you murder disobedient children? Do you murder witches? Are you okay with selling your daughter into slavery? The bible condones many grossly immortal tenants, but believers will ignore those and focus on others they like that support gay bashing, racism, and war. Believers and non-believers alike pick and choose. It's impossible to accept everything in the bible because it's a book compiled from multiple sources at multiple times that has been translated, re-translated, and re-translated again from three different languages. It has been shown to be historically inaccurate and to contain contradictions.

But it still has some positive messages just as other stories and mythologies do. It even bases some stories around real events just as other texts do. The Illiad and the Oddessy revolved around the Trojan war, which really did happen. The movie Gone With The Wind was based on the pre-Civil War South, which also really existed. It's part of literary tradition, using real historical events to tell stories. Movies, comics, and TV shows still do it. The bible is not written as a history book or a science book. It is a theological text, containing poetry as well as prose. To accept it all as literal is to miss the point.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, October, 04, 2009 2:06 AM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

jack pt1

"You profess to deny the truth contained in the scriptures yet you attempt, as many do, to pick and choose the parts that support your position, as if you did believe! As always, you err when you do so. "-CofS

"It has been shown to be historically inaccurate and to contain contradictions."-jack


Shown by who? unbelievers as yourself? Now THERE is objectivity!! There you go again, citing passages (grossly immoral tenets as you put it) you don't understand to justify your willing ignorance.

The proper context is that the Bible is a story of the history AND future of a people who reject the very One God who created them and would care for them. He goes so far as to give the life of His only Son in exchange for their lives, yet many still deny Him. In the end, it is a just God who takes vengeance on the disobedient, the unthankful, yea, the unholy, and rewards those who are the blood-bought justified. I understand this is not the proper context for your worldview; but your worldview is that of reprobates (Romans 1).
It is a text to be understood prayerfully, humbly, and not by unbelievers. It is designed to be understood in detail not by the unrepentant, but according to the will of God by the heart of the truly repentant man, by the grace and help of God through His Spirit. That is why for you it "has been shown to be historically inaccurate and to contain contradictions."

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, October, 04, 2009 2:07 AM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

jack pt 2

jack, for every link you post, I could find links to say the opposite. Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and lives today in the hearts (John 14:23) of His true followers, seated at the right hand of God Himself (Heb 10:12). Until you recognize that fact, and can admit it with certainty, His Word will continue to be unsavory and confusing to you. THAT IS HIS WILL (Isaiah 28:13; John 8:47).

Apollonius of Tyana (whoever he was) is still in his cold, deep, dark, grave awaiting the resurrection and the judgement; where he will give account just like you will.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, October, 04, 2009 2:14 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

The end of ungodly men…


‘…be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men’ [2 Peter 3].


Who are the ungodly men who will face the judgment of fire and join the father of lies in hell? They are the scoffers wed to their own lusts. They deny the Genesis Flood because they deny that men are accountable to God for their sin. In His righteous judgment God has once destroyed all men except the eight inside the ark as a warning and left undeniable evidence in tablets of stones. Yet, ungodly men in their enmity deny the evidence. They now deny the day of accounting and the final judgment by fire when God will again destroy all men who do not avail themselves of His salvation. How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, October, 04, 2009 9:39 AM Jack writes:

Bible Archeology

"Shown by who? unbelievers as yourself? Now THERE is objectivity!!"

Chiefest, please don't take offense to this. I am merely stating fact. It isn't non-believers or anti-Christians that have debunked some of the historical aspects of the bible. It's science and reason that has shed light on the stories. Archeology has largely confirmed that there was no Genesis, Exodus never happened, there is no trace of David or Solomon as they appear in the OT, and most of Jesus's life is not affirmed by any non-biblical text.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_arhs.htm

To assume the bible is true as if it were a history book requires faith. There is nothing outside the bible that cross confirms the claims it makes. There is a context to books like the bible just as there is a context to all theological texts. There is no reason, logic, or evidence behind the claims. That's why a lot of it is written as poetry (as is a great deal of the Old Testament). Assuming it's true is to miss the point. Bear in mind, this is a 2000 year old book written in 3 languages by many different people from a different culture at a different time. To assume it all to be literally true is to ignore all the holes in this assumption. The bible can still provide a good story as do many texts like it, but to say it is completely true and all others like it are false is arrogant and self-centered.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, October, 04, 2009 9:43 AM Jack writes:

About My Links

Chiefest, I know it's easy to find links that say the opposite of what mine say. The internet is full of it. The difference between those links and the links I give is that I try to make sure that mine are well-cited. If it isn't well-cited, then there's no way to check your facts to verify if the authors points have any fallacies. Many of the points made by apologists are full of fallacies, largely that of foundational bias. They do not or will not address opposing viewpoints and that's something all sciences have to do in order to be verified. If you ignore this, you step outside of reason and you lose both perspective and depth. Science and reason are ongoing processes, always making new discoveries and shining new light on the unknown. Sometimes these revelations don't fall in line with your favorite dogma. That doesn't mean they aren't valid. It just means that there is a context to the whole position of faith and losing that context loses any sense of merit behind it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, October, 04, 2009 9:52 AM Jack writes:

Valiant of Prejudice

So you're dogmatic beliefs in Christianity somehow give you the right to judge the billions of human beings who don't believe as you do? Valiant, you're a better man than this.

I'll say this again. People don't deny god because they are natural truth suppressors. They deny god because there's no evidence for god. They deny the Genesis flood because there's no evidence for it. They deny many supernatural forces because there is just no evidence and there's no logical argument that can be made to support it. These are things that have to be assumed on faith. That doesn't make them true, that just makes you a believer. And that's fine. People can believe whatever they want. But calling it true is flat out wrong, arrogant, greedy, pig-headed, insert whatever selfishness you like.

Now you and Chiefest constantly warn me about your god's judgment. You say unless I accept god and Jesus as you both interpret it (as narrow it may be), I am going to burn eternally. But if god will punish me just for being who I am and trying to live my life as righteously as I can, than I would rather not spend eternity with him. A god that perverse, judgmental, and arrogant deserves no worship. I am who I am, regardless of what I believe or used to believe. I'm humble enough to admit that I am a fallible man and I don't have all the answers. But I'm not so arrogant to believe I would gain the favor of any deity by believing in something that goes against so many other forces in the world. I try to keep perspective. That is just who I am. If that isn't enough for god, that's his problem.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, October, 04, 2009 11:03 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

Wrath & suppressors of truth…


Jack, my last message only applies to unbelievers who deny the revealed truth and the evidence before their face…

‘[We are] not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.” For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools…’ [Romans 1]


Have some truth suppressors not made an idol of neo-science and bowed down to it? Does the father of lies not use this vain philosophy toward the corruption of men and the destruction of the culture? The evidence for the Genesis Flood is a witness against you and condemns you unless you repent and believe the gospel.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, October, 05, 2009 7:26 AM Jack writes:

Truth and Belief

Valiant, your previous past and the excerpts that you and Chiefest cite all seem to indicate the same thing. Anybody who does not believe in god as you the believer is somehow flawed and condemned unless they change their minds and accept your ridged subjective interpretation of Christianity. That's not a denial of truth. That's just a denial of a certain interpretation.

I know many Christians, some of which are in my close family, who would take great offense to it. A great deal of my family (namely on my father's side) is catholic and the idea of god condemning everybody who does not hold a narrow interpretation of the bible goes directly against the notion of a just and loving god. Even the priest from my old church didn't go that far (although he did push it at times). I remember one sermon where he said true wickedness wasn't just men not believing in god and Jesus. True wickedness was not believing and actively doing the opposite of what the good word preached, taking a selfish pleasure in it and not caring about the damage done to family and loved ones.

All throughout my Christian years, the one notion that I had the strongest faith in was that god was just and loving and that Jesus preached forgiveness. There's nothing just or loving about condemning people who just believe differently and are still good people. You can quote mine the bible all you want, but the bible is NOT god. It was written by men and it is arrogant for anyone to claim they know the will of god through any medium including the bible.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, October, 05, 2009 7:30 AM Jack writes:

Again with the threats

"Have some truth suppressors not made an idol of neo-science and bowed down to it? Does the father of lies not use this vain philosophy toward the corruption of men and the destruction of the culture? The evidence for the Genesis Flood is a witness against you and condemns you unless you repent and believe the gospel."

No, nobody has made an idol of this neo-science term you're throwing around. As I've said before, there is no such term. Nobody idolizes evolution, quantum theory, or the big bang. If they idolized it they would never change it. And if you look over the history of science, every theory has been refined, reinterpreted, and reimagined as new evidence comes to light. Religion and creationism never change. It's always constant and as such, it isn't science.

You say all these sciences you don't like are a destruction to our culture? That's total hypocrisy because the very computer you're using is a testament to science. The fact you and I are alive is a testament to the medical advances evolution has brought us. The fact that we have food to eat is all a product of evolution (thanks largely to Norman Borlaug who recently passed away).

The evidence for evolution is vast. There is no evidence for the Genesis flood. It has never been proven without evoking supernatural forces and there can be no supernatural forces in science. Threatening me with damnation for not believing in something that has no evidence is just plain arrogant and self-centered. I understand that you believe this. But your belief in it doesn't make it true. Evidence makes it true and that's something science has and religion does not.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, October, 05, 2009 9:23 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

Knowledge of God…


God has revealed Himself in the Bible and in Jesus Christ. Our imagination is not a source of truth about God, nor is any church, including the Roman Church. Look at the extra-Biblical stuff that has entered and continued since the Reformation. The most traveled way to hell is the broadway of false religion, including perversions of Biblical Christianity.

The true church exists wherever men meet together under the doctrine of Christ given to us by the apostles in the New Testament. Compare what the Roman Church teaches with what the New Testament teaches.

You are right that the Bible is not God and neither is the pope and his church. The Bible alone is the ordained means whereby God reveals truth to His people. Jesus said that His people hear His voice and follow Him. We hear His voice in the Scriptures with ears of faith. We believe the promises by faith. We believe He covers us in His righteousness by faith. We believe in eternal life by faith. We believe the warnings by faith.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, October, 05, 2009 2:06 PM Jack writes:

The Bible Is Still A Book

Valiant, I understand you believe that your god has revealed himself to you in the bible through Jesus. But that doesn't change the fact that the bible is a book. It was written down, translated, and re-translated by fallible men across the ages. To accept what is written in it now on the same level as when it was first written down nearly 2000 years ago makes no sense. Even when I was a Christian, I believed fully in the events of the bible. But I didn't believe word for word that the text of the bible was perfectly translated from the three languages it came from.

In addition, what evidence do you have that the other denominations of Christianity led people to hell instead of heaven? How can you verify this? If you're going by numbers, Catholicism has you beat bar none as it remains one of the largest. There's no way to tell if god sent your average Catholic to hell. You would need special powers that you as a fallible human being do not possess. It would be arrogant as a believer to assume you know what your god specifically did to people who which you know nothing about.

Now I'm glad you concede that the bible is not god. Yet you still seem to treat it as such in that everything in it is somehow immune to scrutiny. Even the bible you have had to be printed by the hands of man. Every bible ever printed had the hands of man on it even if it was divinely inspired. As such, it's not going to be interpreted the same by everybody. Calling your interpretation more righteous over someone else is just missing the point of what the bible truly is.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, October, 05, 2009 4:18 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

Simplicity of the gospel…


Yes! There are some things in the Bible hard to understand, and all believers do not agree on all things. Chiefest and I do not agree on last things and the miraculous gifts; Mr. Gordon and I do not agree on infant baptism and church membership; Aurora and I do not agree on sovereignty and free will. But there is one essential thing that all Christians do agree on…salvation is in Jesus Christ by grace alone through faith alone. Works have nothing to do with justification; we can do nothing to commend ourselves to God. We are clothed in Christ’s righteousness alone, because we have none in ourselves.

This is the simplicity of the gospel, and why we must come to Christ in childlike faith with empty hands. The Bible is the best of books because it is God's revelation of Himself to His image bearers. It reveals our sin and gives us the divine remedy in the gospel. Without it we have no metaphysical reference.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, October, 05, 2009 5:10 PM Jack writes:

Using the Bible

You list the many disagreements you have with other posters like Chiefest, Gary, and Aurora. Yet would you say that because they do not interpret the bible as you do that they are going to hell? Would you say the same to my numerous Catholic family members who interpret the bible differently even though they too accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior? What of the other groups like the Anglicans, the Episcopals, the Mormons, the Branch Dividians, or the 7th Day Adventists? They all accept Jesus as their savior and have faith in salvation through Christ. Will they be going to hell too because they don't view the bible as you do? Where's the line?

Now you say the bible has a simplicity to it, yet through many of your posts you use it to condemn non-believers, evolution, homosexuals, and what not. You and Chiefest often quote mine it endlessly when responding to a point I make. Yet these more specific aspects of the bible have less to do with faith and Jesus Christ and the message of Christianity as a whole and more to do with other issues. If faith in Jesus Christ through god and an honest want for salvation is the simple message of the bible, for what use are all the other parts that are used to justify the agendas of dogmatic Christians and not that of god or Jesus or anything related to theology?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, October, 05, 2009 7:13 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

Fair question…


I gave you the essential thing that marks a Christian from a professor of Christianity. Salvation is of grace and not of works. If any man thinks he is earning favor with God by His works, then he knows nothing of Biblical Christianity, whether he be the RC Pope or Apostle of the Mormons.

The mystery of Christianity is that the most lowly in the humblest of churches is a join heir to the riches of Christ when through the Spirit he comes to understand grace. The humble shall be exalted, not the proud.

I will address your question this evening because you have hit on a distinguishing mark of true Christianity. It is more than a profession even if that profession is according to truth. Jesus said to His disciples, “If you love Me, then keep My commandments”. But before He told them to obey He told them who they were…chosen and accepted in the Beloved.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 06, 2009 1:13 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

A hearer and doer of the word…


"Why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say? Whoever comes to Me, and hears My sayings and does them, I will show you whom he is like: He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently against that house, and could not shake it, for it was founded on the rock. But he who heard and did nothing is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream beat vehemently; and immediately it fell. And the ruin of that house was great.” [Luke 6:47-49]


There is more to being a Christian than a profession. What good is a profession of Christ as Lord when His words are not obeyed? His disciples are those who not only hear Him, but do what He says. These are the wise men who build on the rock.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 06, 2009 1:17 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

The Christian and the Bible...


We can take the Ephesian letter as a good example of the indicative and the imperative methods of teaching used in the New Testament to encourage and instruct the believer. The indicative communicates who men are in Christ; the imperative describes how redeemed men should live given their standing in Christ. The first 3 chapters lay out the good news that we are blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ. The final 3 chapters instruct us in proper thinking and living; what we should put away and what we should embrace…

‘Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you’ [Ephesians 4:31-32].

The motive for obedience is always a remembrance of the person and work of Christ. The imperative is always preceded by the indicative. These depend on one another. Obedience requires sound doctrine; doctrine understood demands obedience.

The Christian life is the most difficult life because the world and its prince are aligned against us. We are at war with them and with our remaining sin. We need all the words given to us in the Bible to help us stand, knowing that we stand because the Lord is able to make us stand.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 06, 2009 7:30 AM Jack writes:

Where The Line is Drawn

"His disciples are those who not only hear Him, but do what He says. These are the wise men who build on the rock."

And here in lies the problem, Valiant. Some self-professed Christians claim they hear the spirit of Christ one way and others claim to hear it another. It is reflected in the many sects and denominations of Christianity just as it is reflected in every major religion. The Mormon church claims to hear the spirit of god in a different way and they too believe that anyone outside their strict code of beliefs is untrue. The same can be said for the Branch Dividians or Jehova's Witnesses.

Of these many doctrines, there seems to be no correlation as to which makes people more moral or upstanding. I've yet to find a study that links higher deviance rates with any certain branch. If I do find one I'll definitely post it. However, the issue remains. Texts like the bible and overall doctrine are at the mercy of an interpretation. If you were go to to an all black congregation in the deep south, you'd get a much different interpretation than you would in an all white church in Texas. So what is the dividing line? How does any one know if god will punish certain self-professed Christians for not interpreting something the 'proper' way? Can there even be a 'proper' way when you're dealing with texts like the bible and various cultural differences across Christian communities? It seems arbitrary and always has been.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 06, 2009 9:11 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

Infallible interpreter...


The Scripture is the only infallible interpreter of Scripture, but we are talking about the simplicity of the gospel and the perspicuity of the Bible.

When the Bible says to repent of sin and believe the good news, how many ways can we interpret that? When it says to have no other gods before the one true God, how many ways can we interpret that? When it says to flee immorality and perversion, and those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom, how many ways can we interpret that?

The Bible is the cure for postmodernism. Don't bring relativism to the Bible.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 06, 2009 3:32 PM Jack writes:

Scripture vs Scripture

Saying scripture is the only interpreter of scripture is ignoring the unavoidable element of human interpretation. In an ideal world, there wouldn't be so many disagreements on what the text says. But this isn't a perfect world. That much we can agree on. It's hard to say the bible itself is it's best interpretation because as I've pointed out before, the bible was not written in English. It was written 2000 years ago in many different parts in 3 different languages, none of which are spoken in the vernacular anymore. It is hard to use that base as the sole interpretation because there are other aspects that come into play with interpretation such as culture.

One example that comes to mind is the interpretation of Japanese Christians. Now they believe every bit as much that Christ is the path to salvation, but there are also strong traditions that believe Jesus during the years before he returned to the holy land visited Japan, sometimes in person sometimes in spirit.

Now it's easy to agree on some parts like having no other gods and there being one true god. That even different cultures agree on. But the concept of what is immoral has many variations across culture and eras. What was moral yesterday is not moral today and vice versa. Some tenants like not murdering and not stealing remain constant, but that isn't just restricted to Christianity. So the question remains, at what point do these interpretations send a heart-felt believer to hell? What causes god to favor one Christian over the other?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 06, 2009 6:58 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

Do not be deceived...


'Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.' [1 Corinthians 6:9-10]

A man cannot be a Christian while he is wed to his sin. This is what repentance is all about, agreeing that the commandments are good and my sins are what crucified Christ. How can a man who is joined to Christ by faith and who has died to sin still live in it?

Repentance is not subject to interpretation. It flows from a renewed heart in love with Christ and that is grieved over his remaining sin. A mark of the Christian is that he may fall into sin, but he will not continue in it. He will continually repent and believe the gospel because the New Covenant promises include the forgiveness of sins and the law written on the heart. The Christian is purchased with the blood of Christ, and He has promised that none of the redeemed will be lost.

Your last question reveals a fundamental lack of understanding. Your whole view of Christianity is skewed. You mock and disparge what you do not know from a position of ignorance mixed with enmity. The Bible and the gospel will remain a closed book to you until you bow before Christ in repentance and plead for mercy. He is the only One who can help you to know.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 06, 2009 9:43 PM Jack writes:

Attonement

You will find few self-professed Christians who would disagree that the commandments are good and that people should plead for atonement for their sins. That's at the very core of Christian teachings. It's at the core of Christ's teachings. And they're good teachings. Even as a non-believer, I believe strongly in atonement and forgiveness. I just don't believe in the supernatural element to it.

The issue at hand is what dooms a person on a strictly spiritual level. If someone lives goes through life acknowledging that they are not without flaws and constantly feel regret and seek atonement, yet do not believe in the narrow interpretations of the bible will god still cast them into hell? There's also the issue of what is immorality. The culture during the time of Jesus had very different tenants for what was immoral, much of which had a practical aspect. This is a time where slavery was tolerated and animal sacrifice was deemed moral and necessary.

Times have changed. The 21st century has brought a different context to society. It is no longer pragmatic to condemn people for certain behaviors like homosexuality, drinking, and people who idolize sports teams as much as they idolize god. If you did you would have to condemn nearly the entire human race. But the virtue of forgiveness and atonement remains the same so where is the line? At what point does god no longer become loving and forgiving?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 06, 2009 11:44 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

Narrowly speaking...

"If you did you would have to condemn nearly the entire human race. But the virtue of forgiveness and atonement remains the same so where is the line? At what point does god no longer become loving and forgiving?"

Is condemning nearly the whole human race unheard of? Not at all...

Matthew 24
37But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

The loving and forgiving God you seem to be want to believe exists, yet deny Him the service due Him, has condemned the whole human race before-except for eight people, saved by a man who believed God and moved with fear:

Hebrews 11:7
...Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

This will make no difference to you, however, for you are not interested in answers but only questions-you feel that as long as you ask questions, you somehow demonstrate to God a lack of understanding. But be not decieved, God is not mocked. Those who do not believe, as the scripture has said, are, and will be, eternally damned-seemingly the whole human race or not.

See also 2 Peter 3:10-12. jack, what makes you think you can do it your way? It's His race-He makes the rules, not you, not me. Even if you don't agree, it's HIS race, and He awards the prize for running (1 Corinthians 9:24).


Forgive me Vft, for intruding.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 07, 2009 9:12 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

Chiefest...


Thank you for input. I agree with your assessment and will no longer be spending time addressing WWM.

Is there anything you would like to address together?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 07, 2009 8:22 PM Jack writes:

Misreading My Point

Please do not misconstrue my words, Chiefest. I do not talk about this because I want to believe in god. I've said before and I'll say again, I am a non-believer. Until I see evidence of god, I will not believe in him/her/it/them.

You bring up the Genesis story of Noah. Is that not indicative of a god that isn't necessarily loving? How can anybody call anything loving that destroys an entire planet, killing untold millions? That does not really fit the definition of loving. When I was still going to church, my priest often downplayed that story as a morality tale Jesus used in his teachings. There was one pastor, however, who used it with much more of a literal interpretation. But I don't remember him calling that act loving.

I bring these points up because it seems to be an inconsistency in your arguments that god is just and loving and deserves worship and faith. It seems contradictory that you would call a god loving who condemns even those who believe in him, just not with a certain interpretation. That's not being loving or forgiving. That doesn't fall in line with Jesus's overall preachings of love and forgiveness.

Forgetting for a moment that I don't believe, how can anyone judge what is the 'right' way to read the scriptures? The bible is a book. Books are prone to interpretation. You and Valiant have proven that in your own debates. So where's the line? At what point is one interpretation hell worthy?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 08, 2009 12:31 AM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

Same territory-jack pt 1

"It seems contradictory that you would call a god loving who condemns even those who believe in him, just not with a certain interpretation."-jack

John 7
38He that believeth on me, AS THE SCRIPTURE HATH SAID, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Notice the emphasis, jack. AS THE SCRIPTURE HATH SAID. PERIOD. There is no "living water" that comes from the belly of the homosexual, or the buddist, or the taoist, etc,etc,etc, because they don't truly believe in Jesus Christ. The Spirit (1 Cor 2) is not given to such(Romans 8:9). Instead, what comes from such? Death, and destruction, not life (Romans 1:27).

I've said it until I'm blue in the face; it's not my interpretation or VFT's that counts, but it is the interpretation of the scripture by the unction (1 John 2:20) of the Spirit of God(1 Cor 2:13) that He has given to the believer to guide us into all truth (John 16:13). When I have a belief that doesn't fall into line with the Word, then that belief is not correct according to the Truth (2 Timothy 2:15).
What Valiant and I may disagree on can be attributed to different levels of such Spiritual education-not carnal interpretations. For instance, you believe that homosexuals are not damned, when the Word of God CLEARLY says otherwise.
You believe a loving God would overlook trodding the blood of His Son underfoot, when the scripture says otherwise.
In order for you to justify your beliefs according to the Word, you must twist and wrest it, and according to the same Word, you do so to your OWN DESTRUCTION (2 Peter 3:16).

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 08, 2009 12:31 AM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

Same territory-jack pt 2

We constantly cover the same territory with you jack. You should really try reading and understanding our responses; for we have answered these same questions over and over again. The answer is still the same. By all means, if I can help you, ask your questions-but if you have other motives, then leave off because I'm not interested.

Believe it or not, I don't judge you jack-the Word does. The Word judges me as well. Some though send their sins on ahead to be judged, some men they follow after (1 Timothy 5:24). All we have ever done here, is give you the Word as a warning, and told you the way to our only Hope of salvation. Ignore Him at your own peril.

John 12:48
He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 08, 2009 12:34 AM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

Vft

Is there a topic on your mind, Valiant?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 08, 2009 1:22 PM Jack writes:

As the scriptures say

You make out as though it's so clear, Chiefest. But it's worth reminding that what you're reading is a translation of a translation of a translation from a language that is no longer spoken. It isn't that clear. To say it is would be ignoring the context. Saying scriptures make themselves clear is self-defeating. You can't use the bible to prove the bible just as you can't use Gone with the Wind to prove Gone with the Wind is real. It's not logical nor is it reasonable. It's still assumed on faith and because everybody is different, nobody is going to interpret something as complex as the bible the same way.

Please don't think I ignore your posts. I read them carefully. However, you continue using the same flawed reasoning in your points. You keep quote mining the bible and presenting your ridged beliefs as if they were proof of anything. That's not how reason works. You can't prove your beliefs about god are real, which is why they have to be assumed on faith. You can't prove I'm going to hell or that the rest of my Christian family is going to hell because they interpret the bible differently. That's all a subject of belief. You may present it as a warning, but it is still a statement of belief and until you can prove it reasonably and without fallacy that is how it will stay.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 08, 2009 7:18 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

more excuses that won't fly

1 Cor 2:14-KJV
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Cor 2:14 NIV
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Cor 2:14 New Living Translation
But people who aren’t spiritual[a] can’t receive these truths from God’s Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can’t understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means.

1 Cor 2:14 Contemporary English Version
That's why only someone who has God's Spirit can understand spiritual blessings. Anyone who doesn't have God's Spirit thinks these blessings are foolish.

1 Cor 2:14 Young's Literal Translation
and the natural man doth not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for to him they are foolishness, and he is not able to know [them], because spiritually they are discerned;

SHOULD WE FIND MORE? No, for it is of no matter.

I believe they all say the same thing here jack, exactly what I posted. But this won't suffice for you, since you seek to justify yourself, and not humble yourself under the mighty hand of God.
These translations really are of no consequence anyway jack, since it is the Spirit that teaches us by the unction (1 John 2:20) from the Holy One. We know what we know through His Spirit; which is why you are ignorant of these things(Romans 8:9).
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 09, 2009 2:02 PM Jack writes:

Translation Differences

You're quote mining again, Chiefest. Just because these passages have similar meanings doesn't mean they're perfect translations. Remember, these translations are also translations. Just look back at anything that's been translated from a long time ago. Look at Shakespere, which was written in English, and you can see how vastly different the language is. And people still speak English. The Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic of 2000 years ago isn't used anymore. It's not going to be the same.

I'm glad you mentioned a few versions because there are some clear distinctions between versions like the King James version and the New International Version. Please see the link below to see some examples of the differences:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_vers1.htm

I've told you before that I am more than willing to accept god if there is some evidence presented that can't be explained away by fallacy. I've yet to see it, but if I do I will certainly change my tune. For now, however, I do not believe. Just as I do not believe there is a teapot orbiting Saturn, I do not believe in god.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 09, 2009 2:18 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

forever troubled

Luke 7
33For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.

34The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!

35But wisdom is justified of all her children.


Nothing will ever satisfy you, jack.

"Just as I do not believe there is a teapot orbiting Saturn, I do not believe in god."-jack

May those words forever ring in your ears and trouble you greatly.


John 8:45
And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 09, 2009 11:28 PM Jack writes:

Not Troubled

Chiefest, I am not troubled that I don't believe in some supernatural deity that supposedly has control over all things. I am not troubled that there is no mystical gateway after we die. I am not troubled that a 2000 year old book that has been translated, edited, reinterpreted, and misconstrued for centuries may not be literally true. I'm perfectly content with all this.

The only thing I'm troubled by is people who blindly believe in something and never question it. Part of being rational, understanding, and enlightened is to question and doubt everything even doubt itself. There is nothing moral about believing in something so strongly that you won't accept any reasonable arguments. I am more than willing to accept a god if there was some evidence. There isn't so as a rational minded person I don't believe. Positive claims require positive evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That's not troubling. That's reasonable in every facet.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 13, 2009 1:02 PM ROK writes:

Out for a while but Jack

"There is nothing moral about believing in something so strongly that you won't accept any reasonable arguments."

Seems like exactly what you are doing.

Evolution is taken entirely on faith. The examples of micro-evolution that are presented as "proof" do not involve the creation of new genetic material. Instead they almost always involve a loss of genetic material.

Dog breeds are a perfect example. The various breeds of dog if found in nature would constitute multiple species by scientific standards. Nobody would assume a Toy Poodle and a Great Dane were the same species. Yet not one breed of dog was created by "adding" genetic material. In fact the way you breed a Great Dane is by selectively breeding the Toy Poodle out of the bloodline. This means a loss of genetic material.

As far as your God is concerned; the current state of evolutionary/big bang theory is that everything WAS created from Nothing.

Faith is all you have to go by.

There is no proof. There is theory and supposition from people who have publicly stated they will not consider a creator as an explanation for anything under any circumstance.
Since it is unlikely you have recreated and verified their experiments you are best putting your faith in people who have a declared enmity to a creator.
You have put your faith in Darwin and Dawkins without objective proof. Certainly nothing you have personally seen.

You are a man of great faith.

Of course you may claim that you entirely, logically, arrived at the conclusion that everything came from nothing. They are then merely supporting actors in your rational process. The truth is you have put your faith in the testimony of men. To some degree so have we.
Most of the Apostles proved they were willing to die for their testimony. By dying for their testimony.
I wonder if Dawkins would give up one minute of his cushy lifestyle for his. He won't even debate Ray Comfort so strong is his belief.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 13, 2009 4:40 PM Jack writes:

Very Wrong ROK

Glad to see you back, ROK. And you are completely wrong. Evolution is NOT assumed on faith. It has never been assumed on faith. It is indicated by evidence that it so abundent that it is nearly universially accepted among the scientific community. Not only is there so much evidence, it cross confirms across many fields such as geology, palentology, chemistry, physics, comparative morphology, embryology, psychology, sociology, and taxonomy. Creationism isn't confirmed by anything or anyone besides ardent believers who seem to think that belief is somehow evidence. It isn't. The evidence for evolution has endured scrutiny from many different angles and it always holds up. That is why it is accepted and creationism is not.

Microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing. You can't discern between the two. As I've said to Valiant, if it's possible to walk 20 feet it's possible to walk 20 miles. You're the one assuming something on faith. You're assuming there's some mythical being that poofed everything into existance. That can't be proven, tested, or scrutinized like evolution can. It is and always will be a false pretense.

And just so you know, neither evolution nor the big bang theory suggest something came from nothing. That's what creationism claims. There are theories that indicate where the big bang came from. Look up multiverse theory and M-theory. They offer a wide variety of explanations and no god is needed.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 13, 2009 4:46 PM Jack writes:

About Dogs

"Yet not one breed of dog was created by "adding" genetic material. In fact the way you breed a Great Dane is by selectively breeding the Toy Poodle out of the bloodline. This means a loss of genetic material."

Again, this whole notion of genetic material being lost has been debunked by evolution many times over by various sources. Here is everything you need to know about disproving this old, unsupported claim.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Science and evolution are not an affront to god. They are silent on the subject. Science can make no claims on the supernatural and it doesn't. The only thing it proves is that Genesis (a story about god) didn't happen.

Now you call me a man of faith. I'm not. I'm a man of reason. I follow the tenants of reason and it is more reasonable to accept evolution because of all the valid evidence supporting it than it is to assume some magical god poofed everything out of nothing. I don't revere people like Dawkins, Darwin, or Einstein. I respect their work and their contributions towards furthering the knowledge of mankind. They are not gods or prophets. They are men who happen to not believe in the 2000 year old book you believe.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 13, 2009 7:54 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

ROK...


Thanks for your input.

Some men do not understand that what is called 'micro-evolution' involves the natural selection of already extant genetics and has nothing to do with 'macro-evolution' which theorizes the production of new and beneficial DNA.

DNA is coded information and requires the genetic code to decode it into useful information. The idea that information can originate without intelligence is just plain nonsense. The fact that otherwise intelligent men believe in macro-evolution testifies to the Biblical doctrine of the depravity of man.

Your example using dogs can also be made of other life forms including men. Living things are not evolving, but instead are devolving; that is, genetic potential is being lost not gained. This is all consistent with the real sciences of probability and entropy.

The natural man is capable of believing anything in order to suppress the truth that the creation reveals about the creator. Some men are living testimonies to the undeniable truth revealed in Romans 1.

How do we argue against nonsense? The power of Christ in the gospel of grace is the only thing that can brake through.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 14, 2009 8:07 AM Jack writes:

Wrong Definition

Valiant, you hurt your credibility by making your own definition up for microevolution. What you describe is wrong. The true definition of microevolution is the evolution among species. The definition of macroevolution is evolution between species. They're both the same thing. They just operate on different scales.

It goes back to the comparison I drew repeatedly. Microevolution is walking 20 feet. Macroevolution is walking 20 miles. Each use the same process, walking. Evolution uses more process that are not just restricted to mutations. Variation emerges through basic processes like sexual reproduction and developmental biology.

DNA is not like a computer. It doesn't impart information as your computer does. It's a product of chemistry. All the components of DNA can be broken down into simple chemical bonds. It's when these bonds interact and form new, more complex systems that you get the necessary chemical processes that create life. There doesn't need to be intelligence behind it. It emerges from the bottom up as the environment and the chemical systems interact.

And you make another mistake. Living things do not evolve. Populations evolve. They're always evolving. Mankind has evolved on a small scale. You just don't notice it because it doesn't happen in individuals. It happens in populations. So if you're going to contest evolution, at least understand what you're talking about because you'll only hurt your argument if you don't.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 14, 2009 10:52 AM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

ever learning

"All the components of DNA can be broken down into simple chemical bonds. It's when these bonds interact and form new, more complex systems that you get the necessary chemical processes that create life."-jack

If that were all there is to it, jack, then chemists would have made life a long time ago. Is it possible to go into the lab and put the chemicals together, and come out in 9 months with a baby? Of course not, but you'll say otherwise, because you're lost and in need of true repentance.

Be it known that God created life from nothing; if what you say were true, then the chemists need to begin with nothing as well.



2 Timothy 3
7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 14, 2009 1:24 PM Jack writes:

Chemistry

"If that were all there is to it, jack, then chemists would have made life a long time ago."

That is seriously underestiming just how complicated chemistry is. Have you ever looked at an advanced college level chemistry book? It is very dense and very broad. A lot goes into chemicals and chemical reactions, be they living systems or not. There's a lot science hasn't figured out, but it has already done a great deal to understand the processes involved. Manipulating it is still an ongoing process, but there have been some successes. Modern medicine and nutrition studies are the best examples of that.

Now you say it's flawed because chemists can't just throw a bunch of chemicals together to make a baby. But this is an unreasonable and asinine standard because there are so many chemical and biological factors that go into living systems that to just 'throw' them together won't do anything. It takes much more because chemistry and biology is complicated and you don't seem to take any time to try and understand it on even the most rudimentary level.

I do not need to accept some invisible deity just because I happen to find science so much more reasonable than bronze age mythology. You mock science for saying something came from nothing, but you're saying the same thing so you're just mocking yourself in the process. Science doesn't claim to know everything, but it's finding out new things every day which is more than anyone can say for religion.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 14, 2009 1:56 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

textbooks

"That is seriously underestiming just how complicated chemistry is."-jack

If DNA is "simple chemical bonds" as you've put it, why can the scientist not create life? and from nothing, no less?

Mocking? It is you who mock God, who DID create something, everything, for Himself (Col 15:16) with just His Word, and nothing else. No college chemistry textbock, no beaker full of primordial soup, nothing. He spoke (Gen 1), and it happened.
That is the same way that one day you will fall on your face before Him (Rom 14:11). It will just happen, and you'll know why. You'll confess He is God, and too late you'll realize you've missed your opportunity. Unless you repent, in Hell you'll gaze across the great gulf that is fixed between eternal life and eternal death, only to wish you hadn't been so obstinate.

Of course, you'll say that is only my interpretation; but we'll see.

You read your textbook, I'll read mine.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 14, 2009 3:21 PM Jack writes:

Read Carefully

Chiefest, I said at the basic levels DNA is composed of simple molecules known as nucleic acids. How they interact with other chemicals is the complicated part. There are countless forces to go into a reaction and they all work within a system of systems that emerge into the life properties we observe.

Science has been able to sythesize parts of DNA using nucleic acids. But sythesizing DNA is one thing. Getting it to produce a fully functional living system is something entirely different. DNA just acts as a means to enhance protein sythesis. It alone does not cause life to emerge. Science has been able to use DNA to breed new organisms like genetically modified crops (some of which you probably ate today) and they've been able create new protiens, enzymes, other agents in the lab that would not occur naturally otherwise. So science does use chemistry, just not in the overly simplistic way you describe because you don't understand it.

You clearly believe god created everyting. That's fine, but your belief isn't proof of anything. You can believe there's a can of beans orbiting Neptune, but that doesn't make it true. You don't know if there is a god anymore than I do because you have no special powers. You have only belief. You can threaten and demean me by saying I'll be sorry the day I die, but that doesn't vindicate you or your beliefs. It just makes you arrogant and ill-mannered.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 16, 2009 12:47 AM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

in AGREEMENT w jack

"But this is an unreasonable and asinine standard because there are so many chemical and biological factors that go into living systems that to just 'throw' them together won't do anything. It takes much more because chemistry and biology is complicated..."-jack

After reading carefully, I have decided you're right-I agree with the above statement. The primordial soup is unreasonable and asinine. It does take much more-obviously a DESIGNER, otherwise know as GOD ALMIGHTY, the CREATOR to whom we are all accountable whether we agree or not.



Romans 9:20
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 16, 2009 8:15 AM Jack writes:

Wrong Again

You didn't read it again, Chiefest. You just tried to twist my words to support your beliefs. Did you completely skip the part where I described complex biological systems emerging from the bottom up? I'm assuming you didn't because if you did you would know how foolish it would be to assume there was some supernatural designer.

Let me try to be clearer. At the very lowest levels of chemistry you have simple molecules that can be formed in any lab or in many natural settings. Nucleic acids and carbon-based lipids form easily in a wide variety of locations, even in superheated vents like those in Yellowstone. It's when these simple chemicals interact in systems that they emerge complex living organisms. It starts at the lowest level with simple systems and those systems interact through environmental pressures to form more and more systems that become increasingly complex until you get something as big as a human or the universe. It all starts at the bottom and you do not need a god to get things going. You just need the simple processes of chemistry and physics.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 16, 2009 10:28 AM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

again?

Aren't you describing the process of "throwing them together", jack?

If all these chemicals, lipids or whatever, are found in the variety of places you say, are you saying your god Fauna is more powerful than your educated scientists, in that she can make life and they can't?

or are you still saying:

"But this is an unreasonable and asinine standard because there are so many chemical and biological factors that go into living systems that to just 'throw' them together won't do anything. It takes much more because chemistry and biology is complicated..."-jack

I'm getting confused on your stance here. On one hand throwing everything together does nothing, yet on the other hand, from this haphazard mixture everything comes by chance.

Your way too smart for me to understand.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 16, 2009 1:35 PM Jack writes:

More Misreading

Chiefest, at no point did I use the term "throwing them together." Emergence isn't like that. It's an ongoing process of interacting systems. You don't care to understand the mechanisms that are behind it and if you don't care to understand, then you're not engaging in any rational debate. You're just enjoying the sound of your own voice, metaphorically speaking. That takes a lot of arrogance, pride, and narcicissm, all part of the sin of pride last I checked. Do you have no sense of humility when it comes to your fellow man?

Life produced by nature is vast and elaborate. There are many parts scientists can make in a labratory fairly easily. Other parts have yet to emerge, but science is always working towards a greater understanding. One day it may very well be possible to synthesize an entirely artifical cell. The knowledge may be there, but the technology isn't. We'll just have to wait and see.

Also, I didn't say mixutre either. I said systems. A system is different than a mixture. It is part of General Systems Theory and it is ar the heart of the growing field of emergence. For more information on systems theory, here is an insightful link I think you will find most helpful.

http://www.answers.com/topic/systems-theory
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 16, 2009 2:54 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

all twisted up

"Chiefest, at no point did I use the term "throwing them together." "-jack post of Friday, October, 16, 2009 1:35 PM

"...there are so many chemical and biological factors that go into living systems that to just 'throw' them together won't do anything."-jack on Wednesday, October, 14, 2009 1:24 PM

jack, can you keep up with what you're saying?

I'm finding it difficult. On one hand you say you didn't use the term, yet on the other hand I quote the actual fact from your previous post.

Now the haphazard mixture I refer to is what the evolutionists call the "primordial soup". Do you or don't you believe in that theory? and by chance life as we know it evolved from such?

If you do believe in it, then how can you say throwing things together is not the way to produce life? Is there a "soup" of another kind? For these complex systems and interactions that you are introducing had to begin somewhere in the soup, didn't they?

I believe ROK had it right. You might be a man of great faith after all. To bad its not in the Truth.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 16, 2009 3:08 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

concerning rationality

jack, you say that I'm engaging in no rational debate.

"You don't care to understand the mechanisms that are behind it and if you don't care to understand, then you're not engaging in any rational debate."-jack

Or did I somehow misunderstand that, too?

Do you say this because I refuse to recognize your premise? as you refuse to recognize mine?

Knowing this site for what it is, then what are you doing here? I defend the gospel as the Word of God, and you defend Darwin. You've been asked to cease because you are irrational, I have not (yet).
If my premise is not rational to you, it is because we use different standards- I the standard set by this blog (the inerrant scripture), and you bring in a standard that is foreign to this blog; yet you think you sound rational and reasonable to us.
Well, you don't. There is nothing rational about denying the very evidence that is presented to all men concerning the Creator (Romans 1). Denying such is the height of irrationality and arrogance to us.

If you want rationality according to your standard, post on a site where they will agree with your nonsense.

Do I like hearing my own voice? No, but I do rejoice to see the scripture DEFEAT nonsense, and since the scripture is Truth:

Philippians 1:18
What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

Those of the truth will rejoice with me.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 16, 2009 4:36 PM Jack writes:

Check Your Facts

"Now the haphazard mixture I refer to is what the evolutionists call the "primordial soup"."

Again Chiefest, you need to do more research. The whole concept of the 'primordial soup' is not part of the scientific understanding of how life began. There was no 'primordial soup.' There were wide ranges of conditions throughout the pre-biotic Earth that allowed for simple self-replicating molecules to devleop, mostly in the deep ocean, and over time as conditions changed the laws of chemistry took over and more and more chemical systems emerged, thus leading to higher forms of life. The materials were there. They were part of the Earth as it formed along with the rest of the planets. It was just a matter of new conditions emerging from planetary systems that allowed for life to develop.

It had nothing to do with chance. It had everything to do with systems and how they interact and change over time to create new conditions for which new systems can emerge. Sometimes they're more complex. Sometimes they're more chaotic. Now science doesn't claim to know every minute detail of how this process happened or how these systems work, but there is ample evidence to surmise that it did happen and there was no supernatural being involved.

Make no mistake. There is no faith involved in this. I don't believe science because I have faith in it. I believe it because it's reasonable and has substance to back up the claims. Religion does not have this and never has.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 16, 2009 4:41 PM Jack writes:

My Premise

Forgive me for being presumptuous, Chiefest, but throughout our discussions I have not gathered that you are willing to be reasonable in making these points. You do not point out fallacies, you do not provide evidence, and you do not respond logically to the points that are made. Often you quote mine the bible and assert yourself and your beliefs as if that were somehow evidence. It isn't.

My premise is reason, but I do not claim to know everything. I try to be humble in the knowledge that I am just one man who does not know everything and I don't make any leaps of faith to claim that I do know. If I did then that would be dishonest. I don't defend anybody. I don't defend Darwin, Dawkins, or Hawking. I respond directly to the points you, Valiant, and ROK make. Nothing more. Nothing less.

You say you don't like hearing your own voice, but you rejoice when you quote mine scripture. That's the same thing basically. You're just asserting your own interpretation of a religion. Call it whatever you want. It is what it is. It's certainly not the truth. It's just belief.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 16, 2009 4:55 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

Rejoicing in the truth…


Chiefest, the apostle says that ‘love does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but in the truth' that is according to godliness of which the world is ignorant. Dear brother you have rightly testified to the truth and exposed the unrighteousness that is according to the vain philosophy of radical naturalism. [1 Corinthians 2:6-8]

There is always the antithesis; there is the truth and there is also the lie. There is the seed of the woman and the seed of the liar.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 16, 2009 9:06 PM Jack writes:

No Philosophy Here

"Dear brother you have rightly testified to the truth and exposed the unrighteousness that is according to the vain philosophy of radical naturalism."

Sorry Valiant, but Chiefest has done nothing other than assert his beliefs and that is not exposing anything. That's just demonstrating his own dogmatic faith. And there's nothing wrong with that. He's got every right to do so just as you do. But you can't call it truth. It's just belief and that's it. There's no philosophy called naturalism. It's a methodology used within science and reason. Philosophy is different. Please get your terms right.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, October, 17, 2009 3:25 AM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

parables and truth-Vft

You know Valiant, I am constantly in awe of the Word of God. Such verity.

I'm just sitting here thinking on it, namely the parable of the sower. How right Jesus was when He likened the preaching of the Word to the indiscriminate sowing of seed. Some brings forth fruit, some doesn't. Simple as that. Isn't it a marvel? One kernel of corn for example can produce a plant that produces usually three ears containing hundreds or maybe thousands of kernels. One dies that many are made alive. What a selfless plan of love.

What possesses a man to sit for hours laboring over these posts? except for the Spirit of God? Or, is it a carnal pleasure (as jack thinks) to neglect family and other things and deal with idiots for hours on end? If we're not careful (Proverbs 26:4), they can make us look like idiots too; perhaps I digress.

We have not yet apprehended (Phil 3:12-13), yet we preach with great confidence as though we had, trusting that God is not unrighteous (Heb 6:8-15). When we cast abroad the seed, like the sower we must hope with great patience in an abundant harvest at reaping time.

You're a great encouragement to me, and I appreciate you. I know we don't see all things eye to eye, and I wish we did.
How alone Jesus must have felt, when all others fled (Matt 26:56) and forsook Him. Even God (Mark 15:34), yet He perservered and became the Saviour of the World according to the will of God, so we don't have to feel the same loneliness.
Yet it is a trick of the Devil to attempt to isolate us and tell us we are all alone. That is why I appreciate you; may you continue to publish the truth and rejoice in it, that I may rejoice in it also.

The Truth is getting hard to come by in the world we live. We Christians should savor it, before it is lost altogether (2 Thess 2:7).
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, October, 17, 2009 3:36 AM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

inconsistent

jack, I can't talk to you. You say one thing out of one side of your mouth, then in the next breath you boast you didn't say it out of the other side.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, October, 17, 2009 4:04 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

Chiefest...


I am always reminded of Elijah...

When he was feeling alone, the Lord reminded him that He had 7000 who had not bowed the knee to the idol. Our labor is not in vain and neither are we alone. We serve a sovereign God who has given all authority into the hands of His Christ for the good of His Church. Herein is our hope.

You are somewhat mistaken here; it is I who am encouraged by you. Whenever I have this eye problem I am reminded of our dear friend...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, October, 17, 2009 11:48 AM Jack writes:

Personal Attack

I know you don't want to talk to me, Chiefest, but I am compelled to respond when you attack me personally.

"Or, is it a carnal pleasure (as jack thinks) to neglect family and other things and deal with idiots for hours on end?"

Are you really so arrogant to think you know why I'm doing what I'm doing even though you've never met me and don't know me? There's that pride again. I don't claim to know you or judge you. I just judge the claims you make in the name of your beliefs. I'm not in favor of neglecting anything. I do this of my own volition and don't negate family or other things to deal with 'idiots' as you say. I don't think you or Valiant or anybody are idiots for believing in something. That would be wrong and selfish of me. I only seek to inject reason into these claims you and Valiant keep making, claims that if not rationalized send the wrong message for you and those who may read this.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, October, 17, 2009 2:50 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

the personal attack

Why jack, I never used the term "idiot". I'm amazed that you keep twisting my words to "support your beliefs" as you say. You don't even try to understand, jack, therefore you engage in no rational debate.

Wait a minute; wasn't it you who said that? or was it me? Wait. Did I really say idiot? I must have meant something else, even though I said idiot. I'm sure you must have taken it the wrong way. Go ahead, "quote mine" me, I'll deny it anyway.

jack, all kidding aside, we all can read plainly that I did say it, but the course you pursue is "utter foolishness" (see idiot definition). According to the Bible it is the fool that says there is no God. Once again, all I have done is speak the truth. It is the "salt" that purifies and cleanses; but we see little of it today. It has gone by the way, replaced by politcal correctness.

I'm amazed that my opinion matters to you anyway, it coming from such an irrational, arrogant, narcisistic, self righteous tyrant such as myself. Did I miss any? Oh yeah, prideful, lets not forget that. But then again you never attacked me that way, did you. It is only I that issued the dreadful "personal attack" and I must be excoriated. Remember Jesus called them liars, vipers, adulterers, perverse, and hypocrites, probably among other things, yet He went to the cross for you without sin.

For Him to do so must have been righteous then because He was telling the truth.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, October, 17, 2009 5:56 PM Jack writes:

Misunderstanding

I'm not twisting your words to support my beliefs. I never try to do that and never claim to. I do not champion my non-belief. I merely point out the inconsistencies in the arguments put forth. It's not about beliefs. It's about reason.

You call my course utter foolishness because it isn't in line with your beliefs. That's why the arrogance is on your end. Now you say you're just reporting the truth from the bible. But the bible is a book. You're not reporting truth, you're reporting your interpretation of a book. Yes, the bible has harsh things to say about non-believers, but it also condemns wearing two different fabrics and working on a Sunday. It also has a talking snake. Even if your god is infallible, the bible itself is NOT god. Treating it as such only hurts your argument.

Your opinions don't matter to me. I could care less what you believe. It's the claims you make in the name of your opinions that I challenge. It's important for such discussions. I don't care if it does not change your mind. I only care that the proper context is utilized in such issues.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, October, 19, 2009 12:41 AM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

Valiant

Concerning our friend, I know the seed is sown. Once the seed is sown and taken root, there is nothing more we can do but tend it as best we can, but ultimately it is God who gives the increase(1 Corinthians 3:7).

It is the Spirit that guides us into ALL truth; truth is revealed (1 Corinthians 2:10)by the Spirit to the spiritual(1 Corinthians 2:15, Romans 8:9). It is the Spirit that quickens; this flesh is of no profit (John 6:63). Let us pray for an outpouring of the Spirit in each of our lives.

When God is our master (Romans 14:4), he is able to make us each one to stand.

Your thoughts?



2 Corinthians 4:7
But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, October, 19, 2009 11:57 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

Chiefest…


I agree with what you have written.

I can better understand the power of the ecumenical movement. It is easier to smooth off the rough edges of the gospel to make it more palatable to men and to be thought well of by men. We in our pride do not want to hear about our helpless condition and our deadness in sin. But this doctrine is the very thing that puts to dead human pride and exalts the grace of God. Biblical Christianity stands or falls by the doctrines of total depravity and justification by faith alone through grace alone.

It is true that the gospel is able to tear down the walls of separation, even between Jew and Gentile and form a bond in spirit closer than blood relations. But it is also true that truth claims separate people and cause divisions, even among family.

Yes, let us continue to pray for an outpouring of the Spirit that we would be faithful bond servants content to do what is expected of us who in mercy have seen the grace of God. I believe that you have the same attitude where it is written ‘to consider the other more important than yourself’ desiring only to speak of grace and to pass it along to others.

Take care my friend. Have I read you right?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 23, 2009 1:01 PM ROK writes:

Back again

Jack,
Thing is genetic information is like a book. One could hardly expect a book to mutate into a better book by occassionally and randomly inserting errors into the book. Unless of course you did it over millions of years:)
But seriously not only would the book have to mutate into a better book it would first have to mutate into a book.
There about 23,000 known genes in the human genome according to wikipedia. If we assumed half of them are critical to human life, then we would need to write an 11,500 page book using only random letters and have it make sense. Now the IRS thinks they are God and has further claimed intelligence as an innate trait yet the tax code of roughly 13,000 pages makes no sense whatever.
Even if you assumed each gene only had a binary character it would still be 2 to the 11,499th power. Really big odds.
According to wikipedia even simple organisms have half as many genes. Putting the odds of writing even a fruitfly book at roughly 2 to the 6,000th power. A relative short story.
I say you must have faith because you are more likely to be dealt a royal flush 1,000 hands in a row than for even a virus to have randomly evolved. While the lottery has long odds at least we can be sure that generally somebody wins. Nobody gets dealt 1,000 royal flushes without cheating. (God)
Those odds take lots of faith.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 23, 2009 3:08 PM Jack writes:

For ROK

Hello again, ROK. Glad you're back. Again, you're wrong and I see you didn't check out any of the links I provided.

DNA is NOT like a book. Far from it in fact. DNA is a chemical chain of molecules and as such, it's a chaotic and often clunky means of storing genetic information. It's often prone to errors and mutations are common. We just don't notice them because nearly all mutations are neutral. In fact, Science Daily estimates there are over 150 mutations per human zygote so you and I are both mutants in that sense.

And nobody says DNA formed by chance. That's what the creationists say, that something poofed into existance out of nothing. In fact, DNA came later after the emergence of life. RNA came first along with simple nucleic acids. It was a chemical process very different than that of a book and these processes emerged over eons of changing environment and differing pressures. But the simple laws of chemistry never changed. No god was needed. Check out the links I provided earlier for more information as there is much more material on this subject that is supported by a wide body of evidence.

Contrarily, there's no evidence a magic being poofed it all into being out of nothing. That takes real faith. It only takes reason to follow the evidence and see that no god was needed with DNA. Chemistry and systems theory was all that was needed.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 23, 2009 7:08 PM ROK writes:

Not saying your links are broke they

just don't work on my HughesNET. But from the title of the first I doubt it is more than basic evolutionary biology dogma. Lots of dogma really from both sides. Part of my earlier point that caused me to label you a man of faith is still valid. You are taking other people's testimony on what they have seen and conclusions they have reached. Unless you did the various research and archaeology you are placing your faith in these men. You can not say you have arrived at a logical or rational conclusion exclusive of this evidence and yet the very evidence and the men who produced it have an agenda that involves disproving creationism. They have all of the same reasons to play bogus scientist that global warming nut jobs do.
You are not putting your faith in the evidence you are putting your faith in the men who produced it and published it. They have a lot to gain. Be it fame or fortune.
The guys who produced the New Testament died. Though I dare say they gained more.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, October, 24, 2009 9:21 AM Jack writes:

ROK

So you cannot access the links because of your ISP. That's fair. I know it happens. But to just write them off without ever even seeing them is not only stubborn and ignorant, it's just plain irrational. It is a trait all creationists share. They don't look at the evidence or they just flat our ignore it because it stands opposed to their favorite stories about their god. But the evidence is still there. I've laid some of it out for you, but you're ignoring it.

See, I have looked at creationists sites and seen creationists material from people like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and Duane Gish. So far none of them have presenting anything that even approaches rational evidence for their position. All their so-called evidence is what they feel are shortcomings in evolution. And I admit that evolution like all theories has holes in it, but there are no alternatives that better explain what is observed in the vast fields of science in biology, genetics, paleontology, and taxonomy (which creationists don't even talk about). Every one of their claims has major fallacies in them. In real science, people work to overcome those fallacies through further testing. But in creationism, they don't even try. Either it doesn't bother them that they're wrong or they simply don't care.

You're making a fallacy yourself, ROK. It's called appeal to conspiracy, claiming science is somehow out to get religion. It's not. Science has no agenda other than the furthering of knowledge. Just because that knowledge doesn't fall in line with your favorite stories about god doesn't make it invalid. Evolution has evidence. Creationism doesn't. That's why evolution is accepted and creationism is rejected.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive