God Shave the Qu-en!
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.
Yes, Catholicism does teach predestination. However, it treats it as God's foreknowledge that such and such will live the life in the Church (i.e. confess, be absolved, receive communion) and thus will be saved. Calvinism rejects any of these "works" as salvific and maintains that one is saved only through faith in Jesus.
Either way, the elect are already known to God and that cannot change.
Indeed....which creates within an individual a sense of Godhood. A judge and jury of God and those who are His. For that, what they so seek as knowledge..or knowing.. is kept from them....and at best distorted when it comes to the things of God. There is much 'knowing' that is revealed by God once we know of His son and make our decision concerning Him. The veil of our understanding is then removed and we see rightly and our understanding is remarkably fuller.
Oh that's rich, boatbums. How low can you sink?
pnsn who denies Jesus is his God and Savior tries to play a Christian. Tell us pnsn, is Jesus Christ your God? Are you a Christian or just pretend to be one?
Nice.
So where do you find Preordaination or Predestination of salvation?
Those who will be "saved" are foreknown to God. That cannot change.
That's the new way...neither here not there, Bill Clinton style...Are you saved.? Yes or no? "Oh, ah, ummm, a little bit..." :)
LOL!
Right there is your problem as you see Jesus Christ as merely human
I never said that. I merely say that the person by the name of Jesus of Nazareth, aka known as the son of Joseph the carpenter, who suffered and died on the cross was human. Surely you don't believe that God suffered and died on the cross?!? If you do, then you are mixing and confusing the divine and human natures Christian believe Jesus Christ possesses. Basic Christian theology holds that divinity is not subject suffering and death.
Not completely correct -- the Bible is to be read as a whole, not as excerpts. If one takes a verse (the basic level) and reads it out of context, the message and interepretation can mostly be wrong.
only a Moslem or another who denies Christ was God would forget that for a Christian, the fact that Jesus Christ died, ROSE FROM THE DEAD and ascended into Heaven is the focus. Not just a dead Christ
I realise that it is difficult for the non-Christians like presently no-no to acknowledge that, it is the central mystery of our Christian faith which is not only that Christ DIED, but more importantly that HE TRIUMPHED OVER DEATH, He rose again from the dead, He IS/WAS/will always be GOD
Non-Christians cannot acknowledge this fact of Jesus's resurrection and that Jesus Christ is God.
Come on, pnsm, admit it, you don't believe Jesus Christ is God, do you?
Which cult do you belong to in any case?
God Shave the Qu-en!
Yet your 'question' focused on entire people groups - are you now backtracking on your question since it can't stand on its own now?
Jesus was fully God and fully human.
#3 - the clone question I endeavoured to answer above -- a clone like an identical twin has its own soul. Man can tinker with the tools to push the birth of a clone, but man does not "create life" and definitely does not create a soul
That is just wrong on so many levels. Souls are a fictional concept. Man does create life all the time. And if souls existed Man would be creating souls all the time too. To deny this is to deny the reality of life and birth.
#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
Obviously no one is damned and just as obviously no one is saved by the Blood of Christ, because no one is damned in the first place. What kind of barbaric religion believes in sacrificial practices anyway?
#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.
"Innocent ignorance" Now there is a misnomer if I ever heard one. Innocent ignorance is just another term for ignoramus, not unlike many of the so called "Christian" posters on this thread who will go nameless, as is fitting.
Predestination is fairly similar to prophecy and the providence of God. He knows every decision that we will make [right or wrong] and He knows them all before we ever get to each decision place. In fact He knows of all these decisions and knows all of us before we are even born.
We know the Bible to be God’s Word because man can not accurately predict future events esp. in great detail, but God created time and is transcendent in time therefore prophecies [like Psalm 22] can be very detailed and exact when breathed by the One who knows all including the beginning from the end.
And amazingly in spite of all of the natural disasters and all of mankinds inhumanity to mankind, He decided to let it all continue to show His great love and to restore us to a rightful relationship to Him.
You know how I feel about that: that's his belief, and that's fine with me. But he quotes from the NT as if he were a Christian and converses with Christians on FR as if he were one.
Yet, very few seem to realize that he denies Jesus' divinity AND resurrection (as you pointed out), and says that he is a child of the Most High. Or at least very few of the Christians who correspond with him seem to mind, which is even more puzzling!
I suppose to some who call themselves Christians here it's okay for someone to deny Christ's divinity AND resurrection and still pretend to be one of them, I guess anything goes, as long as he is not an agnostic or an atheist! LOL! Go figure.
But, then, that's precisely the problem, Cronos: which Christian, or "Christian" does one believe or event take seriously? It seems that there are so many self-styled Christians here, the Church of One, that it's really difficult to figure out who is the real Christian or even if there is such a thing!
darn! :)
Christian orthodoxy 101. No problem there. But it was man Jesus who suffered and died on the cross; not God. Christian orthodoxy 102.
You hit the nail on the head with that one -acidentally though it appears. Only God knows the true condition of our hearts. So while many go to church and do many good deeds it is still possible for them to be completely 100% self-deceived.
Victoria Jackson wrote a really good article on WND.com today showing how reverse-logic is continually applied by the non-believer crowd...
<<<
In answer to my question, “Why be so passionate about something non-existent,” Kenneth Samples offers this explanation for the recent interest in atheism: 1) Rising radical Islam and terrorism make “religion” seem dangerous. (They forget that atheists Stalin and Mao killed more people than any other religion); 2) Reaction to Intelligent Design (ID); and 3) “Ultimate concern” – every person, including atheists, identifies and seeks out an essential issue or source of value in life. For those who reject belief in a transcendent, personal God, this ultimate concern may be attached to an imminent, impersonal matter, such as hedonism, ethnicity, politics, or science.
I’m watching “The Religion of Evolution.” Gary DeMar points out that evolution (atheism) contains the four components of a religion: 1) What am I? 2) Where did I come from? 3) Where am I going? 4) What should I do on the way?
Michael Ruse, author of “The Darwinian Revolution,” “Darwinism Defended” and “Taking Darwin Seriously,” says, “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion – a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit in this one complaint … the literalists (i.e., creationists) are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
“In direct opposition to the biblical view that God created humankind, atheists insist that humankind created God.”
I’m watching “Collision: Is Christianity Good for the World?” It’s a debate between famous atheist and journalist Christopher Hitchens, who calls Christianity a “wicked cult,” and Pastor Douglas Wilson, who says, “There are two tenets of atheism. One. There is no God. Two. I hate him.”
Hitchens now has stage-4 esophageal cancer and as he faces death, has sent out a rallying cry to his fellow atheists: “Remain united and carry on the secular revolution.” If atheism is not a religion, why rally? Ironically, one of the scientists that designed the experimental cancer treatment Hitchens is using is an evangelical scientist, Francis Collins. My prayer for Hitchens is that in his final hours, God will give him the gift of faith (James 1:17, Ephesians 2:8-9).
Science is not healing Hitchens, but Hitchens chooses to keep his faith in science.
Both atheism and Christianity require faith. The religion/worldview you choose influences every decision you make, including and especially what and who you vote for in elections.
“The fool has said in his heart there is no God” (Psalm 14:1).
Apologist Jerry Johnson has a great article, “The Blind Faith of Atheism.”
“Human beings can reject belief in God, but they can’t shed inbuilt religiosity due to their being created in God’s image” (Kenneth Samples, Genesis 1:26-27).
>>>
Soul, life, is animated breathing (gas-exchanging) matter that replicates, be it a plant, a flatworm or a human. More importantly, life begets life, even though we don;t know when or how life began. The fact that we don't know doesn't prove it was created by God. People used to believe that lightening was something God used to throw at people, and diseases were caused by 'evil spirits'. Not knowing something doesn't prove anyone's belief is correct.
Eastern Christianity believes that God created life only once, by breathing his breath into Adam's nostrils. From there on, living creatures passed on that life to their offspring until now. Western Christianity believes that God creates a new soul (life) at every conception. Neither is dogma, just belief.
But Christianity also implies through simple belief and nothing more that man is endowed with more than just life, actually a spirit. In the NT this is used interchangeably. But the concept of a spirit (or nous, or intellect as some insist) is a matter of degree and not of kind. Therein lies the rub of an all-or-nothing spirit, nous, intellect.
Obviously no one is damned and just as obviously no one is saved by the Blood of Christ, because no one is damned in the first place. What kind of barbaric religion believes in sacrificial practices anyway?
Pagan religions do, and so does Judaism, and obviously Christianity inherited that. It's pagan, and yes, Judaism has a lot of pagan in it in that sense. But it's not really popular to say that.
"Innocent ignorance" Now there is a misnomer if I ever heard one. Innocent ignorance is just another term for ignoramus, not unlike many of the so called "Christian" posters on this thread who will go nameless, as is fitting.
You hit the nail on the head, LG. Political correctness. It's a liberal thing many self-styled conservatives seem to like and even insist on. Real conservatives (a la John Wayne) used to call it like it is, such as "life's tough; it's tougher if you're stupid."
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.