Posted on 05/01/2011 7:24:18 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
The squabble between Darwin lobbyists who openly hate religion and those who only quietly disdain it grows ever more personal, bitter and pathetic. On one side, evangelizing New or "Gnu" (ha ha) Atheists like Jerry Coyne and his acolytes at Why Evolution Is True. Dr. Coyne is a biologist who teaches and ostensibly researches at the University of Chicago but has a heck of a lot of free time on his hands for blogging and posting pictures of cute cats.
On the other side, so-called accommodationists like the crowd at the National Center for Science Education, who attack the New Atheists for the political offense of being rude to religious believers and supposedly messing up the alliance between religious and irreligious Darwinists.
I say "supposedly" because there's no evidence any substantial body of opinion is actually being changed on religion or evolution by anything the open haters or the quiet disdainers say. Everyone seems to seriously think they're either going to defeat religion, or merely "creationism," or both by blogging for an audience of fellow Darwinists.
Want to see what I mean? This is all pretty strictly a battle of stinkbugs in a bottle. Try to follow it without getting a headache.
Coyne recently drew excited applause from fellow biologist-atheist-blogger PZ Myers for Coyne's "open letter" (published on his blog) to the NCSE and its British equivalent, the British Centre for Science Education. In the letter, Coyne took umbrage at criticism of the New Atheists, mostly on blogs, emanating from the two accommodationist organizations. He vowed that,
We will continue to answer the misguided attacks [on the New Atheists] by people like Josh Rosenau, Roger Stanyard, and Nick Matzke so long as they keep mounting those attacks.Like the NCSE, the BCSE seeks to pump up Darwin in the public mind without scaring religious people. This guy called Stanyard at the BCSE complains of losing a night's sleep over the nastiness of the rhetoric on Coyne's blog. Coyne in turn complained that Stanyard complained that a blog commenter complained that Nick Matzke, formerly of the NCSE, is like "vermin." Coyne also hit out at blogger Jason Rosenhouse for an "epic"-length blog post complaining of New Atheist "incivility." In the blog, Rosenhouse, who teaches math at James Madison University, wrote an update about how he had revised an insulting comment about the NCSE's Josh Rosenau that he, Rosenhouse, made in a previous version of the post.
That last bit briefly confused me. In occasionally skimming the writings of Jason Rosenhouse and Josh Rosenau in the past, I realized now I had been assuming they were the same person. They are not!
It goes on and on. In the course of his own blog post, Professor Coyne disavowed name-calling and berated Stanyard (remember him? The British guy) for "glomming onto" the Matzke-vermin insult like "white on rice, or Kwok on a Leica." What's a Kwok? Not a what but a who -- John Kwok, presumably a pseudonym, one of the most tirelessly obsessive commenters on Darwinist blog sites. Besides lashing at intelligent design, he often writes of his interest in photographic gear such as a camera by Leica. I have the impression that Kwok irritates even fellow Darwinists.
There's no need to keep all the names straight in your head. I certainly can't. I'm only taking your time, recounting just a small part of one confused exchange, to illustrate the culture of these Darwinists who write so impassionedly about religion, whether for abolishing it or befriending it. Writes Coyne in reply to Stanyard,
I'd suggest, then, that you lay off telling us what to do until you've read about our goals. The fact is that we'll always be fighting creationism until religion goes away, and when it does the fight will be over, as it is in Scandinavia.A skeptic might suggest that turning America into Scandinavia, as far as religion goes, is an outsized goal, more like a delusion, for this group as they sit hunched over their computers shooting intemperate comments back and forth at each other all day. Or in poor Stanyard's case, all night.
There's a feverish, terrarium-like and oxygen-starved quality to this world of online Darwinists and atheists. It could only be sustained by the isolation of the Internet. They don't seem to realize that the public accepts Darwinism to the extent it does -- which is not much -- primarily because of what William James would call the sheer, simple "prestige" that the opinion grants. Arguments and evidence have little to do with it.
The prestige of Darwinism is not going to be affected by how the battle between Jerry Coyne and the NCSE turns out. New Atheist arguments are hobbled by the same isolation from what people think and feel. I have not yet read anything by any of these gentlemen or ladies, whether the open haters or the quiet disdainers, that conveys anything like a real comprehension of religious feeling or thought.
Even as they fight over the most effective way to relate to "religion," the open atheists and the accomodationists speak of an abstraction, a cartoon, that no actual religious person would recognize. No one is going to be persuaded if he doesn't already wish to be persuaded for other personal reasons. No faith is under threat from the likes of Jerry Coyne.
Perhaps quoting the exact verse Re: #2437 might be what’s needed.
Another commercial...
When did you read my Bible?!?! lol
I don’t recall any scripture saying what you just said rather opposite that there is only 1 substitute for our sins.
It does also say:
Mar 7:8 “For you ignore God’s law and substitute your own tradition.”
LOL, well since you can’t PROVE that they have the opportunity to be saved or not it is apparent you have no clue to the whole issue.
You want the answer - start with Romans JCB.
There is no moral problem here - only the strawmen you set up. Romans makes it clear that none will be without excuse. Romans also makes it clear that God imputes grace according to his will and his knowledge of the person’s heart.
You cannot prove that these people had adequate ‘faith’ or not based upon the revelation of God. Nor can you prove conclusively just what form that Grace that God provides takes.
Perhaps if you spent time understanding the real truth - you wouldn’t spend so much time trying to find the smallest speck to prove yourself.
BTW, I am not impressed when you play a victim card - it is a sign of a weak character.
LOL, no, Godzilla.
You didn’t answer me: Saved or not? Yes or no? Simple question, simple to answer. Do so.
The smallest speck that isn’t accommodated by a dogma that declares that only faith in its deity’s sacrificial offering can suffice for “salvation” renders null and void, the entire claim of “absolute truth” paraded by this dogma. The real strawmen are the copious obfuscations that pour forth instead of a direct, precise reply.
I’ll make it even simpler for you or anyone else who may want to try: The tribals, ignorant of Jesus, are ______ because _______.
Fill in the blanks as sensibly as possible, using precise terms, devoid of ambiguity.
BTW, I am not playing any victim card. You comprehend in error. All I did was say how it delights me that they vindicate me by showing their frustration by way of heaped insults. If my delight in this vindication seems to portray victimhood to you, I don’t know what to say.
Oh, and I don’t really seek to impress anyone. Please don’t get carried away by such thoughts.
As has been clearly pointed out to you - neither you or I can see the spiritual state of their hearts and the degree of faith expressed towards God in response to what He has revealed. Some are saved, some are not. Prove me wrong - but I won't wait long because you already said you don't have a clue.
The smallest speck that isn’t accommodated by a dogma that declares that only faith in its deity’s sacrificial offering can suffice for “salvation” renders null and void, the entire claim of “absolute truth” paraded by this dogma. The real strawmen are the copious obfuscations that pour forth instead of a direct, precise reply.
The only obfuscation I see here is your refusal to apply what is written in Romans to the situation - Paul specifically refers to the issue. Once again, you fail to prove to anyone here that you have the absolute knowledge of how those people respond to the revelation God has provided. Do you mind read to tell us the exact form or manner this 'faith' must be applied and in each individual instance? Didn't think so.
In your case, you don't have that 'excuse' - you have been informed of the gospel, thus your salvation depends upon Jesus.
I’ll make it even simpler for you or anyone else who may want to try: The tribals, ignorant of Jesus, are ______ because _______.
I'll put the cookies on the lower shelf for you - because your question is based upon an invalid premise and definition of God and is commonly used to avoid the issue at hand - your response to Jesus. They are saved or not based upon their response to the revelation of God to them. Again, read Romans, and even Matthew (7:7). Can you PROVE to me otherwise? They may be ignorant of the name "Jesus", but they are not ignorant about the existence of God (of whom Jesus is a part of) Doubt it.
BTW, I am not playing any victim card. You comprehend in error. All I did was say how it delights me that they vindicate me by showing their frustration by way of heaped insults. If my delight in this vindication seems to portray victimhood to you, I don’t know what to say.
Its called playing the victim card - particularly since this is the first time's I've engaged you in this thread.
Oh, and I don’t really seek to impress anyone. Please don’t get carried away by such thoughts.
Riiiiiiiight
LOL, same old, same old!
Thanks for proving my point to everyone james.
Saved or not?
Until I have a specific, precise answer from you about this, there is no point in discussing with you, further.
"Paul specifically refers to the issue."
Then fill in the blanks. As simple as that. Why the hesitation? Obfuscation is the tactic employed by someone who has no real reply that can hold water.
If the tribals are saved, then there is no need for any scriptures. This deity would be able to administer the same "test" to all, thus proving itself to be a truly absolute arbiter. Now, as the arrangement stands, if reliance on the scriptural dogma is a precondition to faith (no other way can you know of Jesus, other than through the Scriptures or their derivatives), then you need to have faith in the men who've conveyed you this "divine message" before you can have faith in your deity. That is, your faith in the fidelity of the "divine message" conveyed to you is pre-conditional, and therefore of higher importance, than your faith in the chosen deity.
You really don't have to harp on about my case. As I said numerous times before, this is not about me: this is about evaluating the claim of "absolute truth" that your adopted dogma trots out.
Metmom hasn't answered anything as requested, either.
As I said earlier, don't get carried away by your own assumptions, either about me, or your deity.
People indulge in such imagined fantasies all the time. How else can dogma morph into "absolute truth"?
LOL!
What does your Koran say about that? Who died for your faith?
Once again - flawed construct. Biblical example is that some who never heard of Jesus were saved. Biblical example also is that there are those who chose to refuse the revelation of God and are not saved. Salvation is on an individual basis - you try to force it into a blanket act.
Until you acknowledge that salvation is based upon an INDIVIDUAL decision, and as such is based upon a false premise.
Obfuscation is the tactic employed by someone who has no real reply that can hold water.
The obfuscation is repetition of an invalid statement on your part james. If the tribals are saved, then there is no need for any scriptures.
Again - your logic is based upon a flawed premise - that people groups - enmass - are 'saved' or not. The question is related to individuals james.
This deity would be able to administer the same "test" to all, thus proving itself to be a truly absolute arbiter.
The Bible states that God is holy and will judge humans with justice (Acts 17:31), according to the available measure of revelation they had and their response to it, expressed through their deeds (Romans 2:6), words (Matthew 12:36-37) and thoughts (Hebrews 4:12). The amount of revelation one has determines a consequent measure of responsibility on his behalf (Luke 12:47-48). If you demand an answer - then you must accept what the scripture states - not your invalid atheist construct.
Now, as the arrangement stands, if reliance on the scriptural dogma is a precondition to faith (no other way can you know of Jesus, other than through the Scriptures or their derivatives), then you need to have faith in the men who've conveyed you this "divine message" before you can have faith in your deity. That is, your faith in the fidelity of the "divine message" conveyed to you is pre-conditional, and therefore of higher importance, than your faith in the chosen deity.
Your definition - not that of Christianity found in the bible james. Romans makes it clear that God revealed himself to man and it is man's responsibility to respond to that revelation. As the verses I cited above show - your assertion that the 'precondition to faith' is ONLY your definition is not valid according bible.
You really don't have to harp on about my case. As I said numerous times before, this is not about me: this is about evaluating the claim of "absolute truth" that your adopted dogma trots out.
I have to disagree with you james - the evidence of your posts state otherwise. It is common to try to misdirect responsibility for your adopted dogma to other subjects.
As I said earlier, don't get carried away by your own assumptions, either about me, or your deity.
Yet you want to now 'harp' about my case james? My assumptions are firm - your assumptions on this - evidenced by your flawed question - are what you are getting carried away about.
Judaism believes that no man can atone for the sins of another man (human sacrifice is forbidden). Also, intentional sins cannot be atoned for by turtle doves lambs, and goats. Only the sinner can atone for his intentional sins, by repentance. That is one of the basic Jewish beliefs, and the main reaosn why the Jews reject Christ to be the "Lamb of God."
And the OT states:
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." — Ezekiel 18:20
Where does your (Christian) Bible allow human sacrifice?
A common trait of atheists.
They like to preach, JCB. They fit Nietzsche's description of the people of ressentiment to the "T" (I am sure this will cause a whole lot of misunderstanding and more accusations!). They are not going to answer your question because they realize the consequence either answer brings. So, they will try to deflect and obfuscate and insult and belittle in hopes that you will get, intimidated, frustrated, tired and leave.
Had you answered with a "yes" to the question whether the tribals are saved due to ignorance, then your entire scriptures, its dogma and its contents are not a pre-condition to salvation. Had you answered with a "no" then it makes your dogma inadequate to address the salvation modes necessary to make it applicable for all modes of human existence.
You are assuming the answer is yes or no. In fact, you are assuming (it would seem arrogantly), that your question is an important, decisive, logical question. None of that is true.
metmom gave you a great answer. God will judge justly. He will do the most loving thing as he does the just thing. It won't be the least strain on Him. I know secondhand of instances that Muslims had visions or dreams where Christ appeared and they became Christians - despite having no Christians to communicate the Gospel and no Bible to read.
... but in the end, you ain't one of them. You've heard, rejected, and set yourself up as the moral judge of God - apparently.
ampu
Some people can be absolutely "certain" about uncertain things...It's really easy: if you believe that just because you believe something makes it true then there is no problem. Narcissism, JCB, solipsistic narcissism.
Even you can see the fatal flaw in the question kosta. Salvation is an individual issue - not extended upon whole people groups. Since the question is flawed to begin with - there can be no answer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.