I did, you ignored it.
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.
I did, you ignored it.
Thanks for such 'wonderful' and 'deep' insights!
No, you didn’t answer it at all. Was it a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’?
How are they saved? If they are saved, of what use is the Gospel?
Nice shirt, by the way. LOL.
How are they saved? If they are saved, of what use is the Gospel?
Just like the question I asked of you demanding a yes or no answer and you wouldn't/couldn't answer it in that way, is what many including me have been trying to get across. You want a cut and dried yes or no answer to a question that isn't even phrased right.
First of all, no one could be able say if an entire group of people - "tribal" in this case - can ever have something asked about them answered as a definite yes or no regarding ANYTHING. A collective is not judged, only individuals.
Second, the Christian faith deals with individuals only - it's between each person and God. A parent cannot save a child nor vice versa.
Third, the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to ALL. Each person then must decide how to respond to that grace. Certainly you would allow that some people will be unable to respond due to age, mental capacity, etc. For those, God's mercy, grace and love will cover. But for those who CAN respond, they are responsible before God to do so and it doesn't matter where they happen to be. Like I said in my earlier response, we cannot limit the power of God to get the truth to whosoever seeks it. God sees the heart of every person and he loves each one as a person. It is God's will that every one comes to the knowledge of the truth, so how could anyone accuse God of ignoring those who just happen to be in some place untrodden by Christian missionaries? I believe that if anyone sincerely desires the truth, they WILL hear it. But each person must receive what light they have been given and how they respond to that light will determine how much more light is given. No one will have an excuse before God.
So, the answer to your question would have to be - it depends. I asked you if you stopped beating your wife, and you don't have one, so you couldn't answer the question as a yes or no, could you? You ask me will the 'savages' be saved, yes or no? As I explained above, it isn't a simple yes or no question. If this is only what you will accept, then I would have to say that you are asking an impossible question NOT because I'm afraid of the ramifications of the answer, but because it all boils down to the individual and their capacity to respond to the light of truth. In God's eyes there ARE no savages/tribals, just people, people whom he loved so much that he gave his only Son that whosoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life. He provided a way for all to be redeemed. The sad part isn't who will never hear about it, but how many people will reject it when they do hear the Gospel.
That's the best I can answer you.
Thanks for the reply, boatbums, that was what I wanted!
I was not asking whether ALL of the tribals, as a collective, are saved or not. If that was what everyone here gathered, they interpreted wrongly. I wanted to know if even a few of them are saved outside of faith in Jesus, how it would be possible - what mechanics would imply in the procedure - those sort of things. There was only a binary answer because those individuals are either saved or they are not. There is no in-between. Remember, I am looking for an exception to the assumed “absolute” rule, to render it invalid. Even one tribal “saved” outside of faith in Jesus would have sufficed.
I see you have delved into the concept of the individual. Good. Recall in a post couple of comments ago, I asked, I think Caww, to tell me more about what constitutes an individual, theologically.
So much of mindless blather and insult showers to come to this explanation you provided. Was any of that really worth it? It unnecessarily fouled the atmosphere of what was to be a fruitful debate.
Anyway, I am in a little bit of a hurry. I’ll read your comment in detail after a while, and get back to you.
Take care.
What it is, we can't speculate, we don't know -- but we should spread the gospel to them (note: spread, tell them). We CAN say that is one knows Him, is given the opportunity to KNOW Him and still rejects Him, then yes, that person has forfeited the grace freely given by God -- only God can have mercy on their soul. But to those who do not have the opportunity to know Him -- forget about the stillborn infant, the entire tribe is the same, our Loving God will have a plan for them to be saved. What it is, we just don't know...
What is its mode of salvation -- the same as our own.
how would it affect your very own? -- nope, it's a separate being. Take identical twins. To a large extent they are clones of each other, yet they are different people and have different souls. Your clone may have the same dna as you, but its mental makeup will be different, why, as time passes, it's physcial makeup will also differ from yours. And it's soul is it's soul -- not a part of yours.
#2 - this is pretty clear that they are saved by the blood of Christ and do not have any of their own sins. They are not damned, full stop
#1 -- you are correct, The Lord blames no one for "innocent ignorance." -- neither the child, nor the other members of the tribe... What the Lord has planned for the other members, we don't know, we can only have confidence in His love and His kindness.
Neither is "assured" -- we just don't know the details, we do know that the Lord blames no one for "innocent ignorance". If they are moved by God's grace even if they don't know Him, we think they will be on the right path, but we cannot definitely say they're going one way or the other. Note: as I said above, for those who DO hear Christ's message and reject it, that's a different case
James Would it then also be fair to say that it is better to be still-born and dead, or born to be a feral human being and suffer momentarily, for an easy, assured salvation? -- Hypothetically, yes, you could arrive at that conclusion, but in reality, you have no choice over where you are born
Firstly -- as I said, they are not "guaranteed", we just don't know. Secondly, you can't change positions with them (neither can I or anyone else), so it's moot like asking whether it's better to be born black or white or Chinese or San -- you can't do anything about it.
Excellent point. This is why I argue for the case of free will. God has created us in His image. We can choose His grace or reject it.
If God wanted to create a race of slaves — or robots — then perhaps He would have "programmed" them, in the way you suggest. But then there would be no liberty in the world at all; everything in the human sphere would have been determined from the get-go. -- Agreed, however, one should make it clear to James that one does not fall into the Calvinist camp which believes in just that -- pre-programmed robots.
To the followers of Calvin it is exactly as James argues against - to a Calvinist, those in the jungle are damned full stop. There is no leeway, there is no sense of love or grace or kindness, there is only the inexorable sense of impending doom -- all heading towards Ragnarok.
Ah, now here we say "we don't know!" -- we can't perceive or understand God's perception or conception of time. We could say God is both in and outside the realm of time, both timeless and able to perform actions in time.
This isn't an empirical test, but faith.
Why don't you come out and be honest and admit you're not Christian and you don't believe Christ rose from the dead and is God?
When you ask a Christian such as myself (or any Catholic or Lutheran or Presbyterian or Pentecostal or Baptist) questions like do you believe in
They answer yes. Now I have asked you before, but oh, have been told that asking these are "personal" questions ---hmmmm... what have you got to hide?
i really don't care why you worship Allah, that's your problem, just stop pretending to be something you are not.
What crazy cult do you belong to pnsm? And what’s the problem about telling us about this? Are you afraid that if you tell everyone about the anti-Christian cult you belong to, it’ll turn everyone off?
If you have the guts,pnsm, tell us if you believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, God and Savior, part of the ONE God with the Father and the Holy Spirit. We Christians shout this out and shout out that Jesus Christ is 100% God and 100% man — non-Christians like you can’t state this. Even agnostics have the honesty to say what they believe or not, or even if they are unsure, but you don't -- why?
Let's see -- I ask a poster Secondly, does this mean that you support the use of condoms, abortion etc. as birth control? just because the Church opposes it?
and you answer What 'the poster' thinks or does in her own private life is none of your business
To which it is logical to say So, then whatever anyone outside your cult of one believes or thinks or does is none of your business either, eh?
pnsm: None of YOUR business. Read my post - don’t twist it for your own agenda. I’m not the one sticking my nose into someone’s private life -
Oh and yet here the little taqqiyah practioner is, sticking his nose into everyone else's "private life" (I don't get how talking about one's faith is 'private' especially on a religion forum)
Second, the Christian faith deals with individuals only - it's between each person and God. A parent cannot save a child nor vice versa. -- correct again
Certainly you would allow that some people will be unable to respond due to age, mental capacity, etc. For those, God's mercy, grace and love will cover. But for those who CAN respond, they are responsible before God to do so and it doesn't matter where they happen to be. Like I said in my earlier response, we cannot limit the power of God to get the truth to whosoever seeks it. God sees the heart of every person and he loves each one as a person. It is God's will that every one comes to the knowledge of the truth, so how could anyone accuse God of ignoring those who just happen to be in some place untrodden by Christian missionaries? I believe that if anyone sincerely desires the truth, they WILL hear it. But each person must receive what light they have been given and how they respond to that light will determine how much more light is given. No one will have an excuse before God. -- now that's Catholic belief! And very well elucidated
Well both James and kosta seem to behave as some modern day liberal lawyer types ~ iow it all depends upon the meaning of ‘is’ as some other such nonsense.
The Bible and Gospel message is meant to be interpreted at the basic and simplest level allowing as many as possible to come to saving faith but I dare say just as Jesus Christ belittled the ruling class then, even today the scholarly and legal intelligent types continue to pick over the smallest nits while holding a death-grip over their sinful pride.
Right there is your problem as you see Jesus Christ as merely human. It’s not imputed righteousness for nothing bud. Even Abraham the father of all those marked for heaven had his righteousness imputed to him after an act that at first appears to be an almost human sacrifice of his son, yet later we find out it was a foreshadowing to show God’s great love for us that he spared not even his only son.
Oh, yeah, very logical, and everyday occurrence. Why, people get up and walk away from their graves every day, xzins.
You deride slavery, but you have no basis to condemn it
Do you want to be a slave? I don't. Most people don't. But, then, some people are into S&M, except that's usually a play, not a lifestyle.
You are indignant at genocide, but you have nothing that makes sense in arguing for it or against it
I know that the OT God ordered infants dashed against the rocks and chopped to pieces, and that Christians and Jews find it "just". I don't want my children massacred; do you want yours? Why would you think others would want theirs?
Slavery regulated in the Torah because it, like your disbelief, was tolerated until God chose to call the end game
When did your God end slavery?
(Divorce also was tolerated in the OT, as Jesus explained regarding Moses’ “bill of divorcement.”)
You are not even Catholic, xzins. Your Protestant sects have no problems with divorce, even though the NT speaks against it. The Orthodox allow divorce in special circumstances and the Catholics found a way to "annul" the marriage without calling ti a divorce.
From this thread it is an easy thing to conclude if all questions to the “mysteries” you’ve claimed you are looking at, were revealed to you,....as well as those which are clearly understood. You will never come to the end of your search...which is your passion...that of KNOWING.
What is difficult to understand in your search is at what point would you determine the answers are sufficient?
Your appetite for knowing would be greatly satisfied were you to look closer at the man Christ Jesus. You seem to avoid this thru endless chatter about everything else...and this in a manner which is that of judging God more than seeking who He IS.
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.