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.
No doubt, just as the world is Americanized today. That doesn't mean the world has a sophisticated knowledge of the English language down to the common farmer. They are familiar with brands and have the ability to communicate. In the Middle East very few people actually speak English.
Your average Greek fisherman doesn't speak English, neither does your average Spanish farmer. Your average Moroccan cazba merchant may be able to offer his items in several broken European languages, but not hold a political or philosophical discourse in any.
The Hellenization came, of course, from Alexander the Great and his conquest. But the nature of the Jewish culture was such as to prohibit mixing with the Gentiles, eating with them, etc., so the direct contact was much more limited, the exchange of information also, and education was reserved for a few and far in between.
To simply assume the Palestinian Jews were fluent Greek speakers, or that they would preferably write in Greek than in Aramaic for other Jews is far fetched. The situation with Jewish Diaspora in Egypt and Asia Minor was different. They lost their language and spoke and wrote in Greek the way American Jews speak and write in English.
Yes, I believe they were Ebionites, observing the Law, and therefore not really Christians but followers of Christ; I will have to check.
Sorry. That’s private correpsondence, goml.
There were not "incessant persecutions," Cronos. That is another Christian tale.
Secondly, this does keep a wrong Eurocentric focus -- Christianity spread well in Persia, in Ethiopia, in Armenia, in India
To what extent? How big were the communities compared to the rest of the population? You have Christians in Japan too, 1-2%, of every kind, hardly noticeable.
Gnosticism persisted despite persecutions for many centuries and even to this day. Bogomils persisted in Europe despite pogroms against them by the East and the West. Non-Chaleceodnian churches persist, and Christianity has been extinguished in places like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan under severe persecutions.
There is nothing magical about Christianity as compared to other religions as far as survival is concerned: where they somewhat tolerated they subsisted. Where there were severely persecuted they disappeared, just like Judaism. There are no Jews in Saudi Arabia. The reason Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) managed to survive is because there are sufficiently tolerated. Their survival and numbers is directly proportional to the the degree of that tolerance.
True as that is, nevertheless the following indicates the credibility of the claims against Christians.
Mangalore: Peeved Christian Unions to Condemn Series of False Allegations
False allegation of conversion on the owner of Jillus Caterers, attack on Ebenezer prayer hall in Haleyangady, attack on orphanage run by Lancelot Pinto, and recent attack on Stella Maris school children near PVS Circle all have been pre-planned and falsely targeted by miscreants to damage communal harmony, she said and questioned whether the government has given any contract to Bajrang Dal activists to safeguard the society in their own way.
She also said that the Christian institutions are doing social works and providing food, education and shelter to the needy and that is being stopped by Bajrang Dal activists and other harmful people.
I understand :)
Coming from Dawkins, I am not surprised! Can you give me reference to that?
And accounting for intangibles - things we don't experience with our senses - they do so all the time. Ask one to explain wind or gravity or emotions or any number of other "intangibles".
Now you are straying and grasping for straws. Comparing God to wind and gravity? LOL. All these you mention, wind, gravity, emotions, etc. are directly or indirectly observable phenomena. God is not, although according tot he NT he used to be by taking on human nature, so why can't he be an observable phenomenon?
Observable phenomena can be measured, quantified, etc. are therefore considered objectively real. You don't need to a priori believe in them. Your 'salvation' doesn't depend on them. They are night and day compared to talking snaked and walking on water! You are dangerously on thin ice here with your logic.
You have failed to offer anything other than tacit denial for anything that makes you uncomfortable to admit such as the reality of the resurrection
The reality of Christ's Resurrection is real as much as the Bible is a book. There is no extra-biblical record of anyone getting out of their tomb after being dead for days. Stop this nonsense. Resurrection is a Christian belief, not an observed phenomenon.
I can't say that I blame her. You have done little more than mock whatever she has said
I said it would be the greatest discovery ever if someone found proof that God exists. That's mockery to you? Wow.
You seemed to totally miss her point that an eternal, omnipotent, all-knowing Creator of the entire universe(s) - who reveals he is a spirit - could actually be reduced to some provable entity that everyone could see and smack their heads exclaiming, "Oh, wow, now I get it! I believe, I believe!".
No, smack you head and say "Now I know, I know! God doesn't reveal he is a spirit (whatever that means); a man who wrote 2,000 years ago says he is. Why is God "knowable" subjectively but not objectively? Why should I or anyone be obligated to accept someone's claim that cannot be backed up by antything except her "witness" and fantastic stories never observed in the real world?
Do you think I "believe" cosmological theories? No, they are just that, theories. They change like the wind changes direction. In my own lifetime we went from Steady State, to Big Bang, to String, and other theories...all speculations based on some observable data a lost of fantastic assumptions.
But at least they don't force you to accept them if you want to be "saved". LOL. There is a difference. You can dismiss them or treat them as hypothetical models and go on with your life. No one will call you a left pinko liberal scum for not accepting the String Theory, or tie your political views to your belief or disbelief with regard to cosmological theories. No one is that stupid.
Do you think a loving parent would make himself available to his children if it was a matter of their life or death?
He also DID become a man and appeared in a bodily form to thousands and thousands of people.
Then he is playing favorites.
His name was Jesus - which means God with us. He performed many miraculous deeds which were witnessed by those various people
That is a Christian belief.
Some believed and some, incredibly, chose to not believe he was who he claimed to be
Incredibly, some, who ate, walked and talked with him after his reported resurrection (his own disciples), as per Matthew 28:17. Now if they disbelieved why would you expect anyone to believe except out of some subjective need?
This even happened after the most amazing of all the miracles in that he came back to life after a sure execution and walked and talked with people for over a month - not just a one-time event.
It's a Christian belief, known only through Christian books whose primary purpose was to convince everyone that it really happened. No other record acknowledges any of these events.
The Muslims really believe that Allah dictated the Koran to Mohammad via some angel...they are convicted he did. Jews believe God dictated the Law to Moses. What's the difference? Zoroastrianism also claims revelation and has in many ways influenced Christianity. Do you believe in Zoroaster?
Those people were still alive when the accounts of the times were written. Legend and myths do not get created over such a short period of time
Wrong. The Fatima and the Medjugorje myths were almost instant.
Also, the stories told at the beginning did not change to more outlandishness later on.
I don't think they can get any more outlandish than talking donkeys...
They remained as first stated. Jesus will one day return and all eyes will see him. Every knee will bow and everyone confess that he is Lord to the glory of God, just not right now
And in the meantime, the slef-styled mouthpieces of the god of their choice will insist that you believe it or be damned. Why would God want to compel people to believe blindly when he had no problem showing himself up to some and will apparently have no problems showing himself to some in the future, as you claim?
Poor analogy kosta. Islamic countries, most asian countries, heck very few areas would be considered to be 'americanized' kosta. An argument could be made for "westernized" because the european powers were far more into colonization around the world than America.
Your average Greek fisherman doesn't speak English, neither does your average Spanish farmer.
Just shot your 'americanized' argument in the foot.
To simply assume the Palestinian Jews were fluent Greek speakers, or that they would preferably write in Greek than in Aramaic for other Jews is far fetched.
You are taking my point beyond what I stated. Greek was not likely their first language, but they were probably more than adequately fluent in greek because of the centuries for greek occupation and that greek was the linguna franca (sp) of the world. The period of greek rule of Israel was one of intense work to remove Jewish life and superimpose greek language and culture.
The situation with Jewish Diaspora in Egypt and Asia Minor was different.
Then don't dilute the subject - jews outside of Israel were not the issue.
Many Jewish writings from the era were written in Greek, including works such as 2 Maccabees and 1 Esdras. Scholars have found some ninety Greek inscriptions on ossuaries (boxes for bones) that date to around the time of Jesus and were found in or around Jerusalem. So your dismissal of the use of Greek and the extent of literacy is not well founded kosta.
Based upon WHAT kosta. If a scientist was observing the tomb would you believe? No, you've already improperly discounted eyewitnesses. Brings you right back to the points you've failed to answer - demonstrably empty tomb (which you admit to), multiple visitations of Jesus in contexts not conducive of mass hallucinations like fatima, the hostile witness of the jewish leadership, the day one message of the church.
The only nonsense that has been displayed is your futility on this point kosta.
Well, then you should understand my doubts.
I didn't decide to leave the church based on any personal reasons. I simply found the truth from the very Word of God - the Bible
But therein lies the rub, boatbums. That makes the Bible your god. I am sure Cronos would have something to add to that. :)
In my-case i started with fasting rules. I wanted to know why there are no fasting rules in the Bible and who invented them. Different bishops did, as they saw fit,a according top their personal interpretation of righteousness!
That's when I realized that what people do in the Church is man-made innovation. And when I started to look at historical evidence of how the scriptures came about I realized they were too.
It took a lot of gut-wrenching soul-searching to use the cliché to come to the realization that even the God I was raised to believe in was man-made and that perhaps the real God is nothing like what people make him out to be.
If the Muzzies can be wrong and if God is not the awful ill-tempered deity of the Old Testament, what makes Jesus the true God? I don't know, I don't even know what God is.
I do know that what I was raised with and what other people say God is man-made, and no I don't believe in man-made God or gods. That doesn't mean that I don't believe there is a possibility that there is some deity, if we could ever know how to define it.
Even the very concept of a deity appears o be no more than a man's hypothesis in an attempt to 'explain' that which he doesn't understand.
Perhaps you have never come to understand your need for a personal one-on-one relationship with the Lord
As an imaginary friend, to borrow atheist terminology, yes. But when I asked myself what is God I realized I had no clue. Besides, if he is beyond our understanding and is not phenomenologically provable, what do I have to go on?
I think you said it very well: a personal need. It's us who need, desire, long for divine protection. It's a selfish thing, borne out of fear, loneliness, desire to unlock the mysteries, etc.
That almost sounds Nietzschean. You create an ideal if not an idol, and then you measure yourself against it. Of course you will fall short! Then you invent the idea that by making yourself the idol's friend you can become like him and he will reward you. It's a little narcissistic of him and you, you must admit, especially if you believe that he could have made you perfect to begin with. Why is there a need for the torturous process of "becoming" like him? he could have just cloned himself!
Now, I know you may have skimmed past that last paragraph because you have heard it all before. But just consider this, if you have never, of your own accord, accepted Jesus Christ as Savior, you have never been a Christian
That's not what Eastern Orthodoxy believes, or the Undivided Catholic Church taught in the first millennium. Christ was a ransom, who died for the world (instead of the world, for everything the world did and will do to deserve death), so the world could be released form the prison of obligate (eternal) death and, instead, live eternally. Your western soteriology is something Anselm conjured up in the 11th century and has been the belief of the Western Church since then.
You are saved by dying unto yourself and conforming yourself as closely as possible to Christ. You become transparent, your ego disappears and the only thing that one can see is the light of God shining through you, but not you. It's called theosis. It's a process.
Salvation is restoration of the fallen man to his original likeness of God, whereby he becomes Christ-like. This is made possible through God's grace which enables man, who is dead to himself, to follow only God's will and not sin. In other words, they become "divine" through grace and not by nature; only God is divine by nature.
Compared that to the Western belief. God could one and the same Jesus teach people such two different things? No, they are so different because they are man-made, boatbums.
Going to church does not mean it. Being baptized doesn't mean it. Having family in the church doesn't mean it either.
Going to church is intended to help you overcome your resistance and learn how to deplete your ego and humble yourself before God and follow his will. It's a school, where you learn how to live like a Chirstian, as your bishops see fit, or as you yourself see fit; man-made ideal either way.
why not drop the pride and resistance and take that step of faith. Maybe then, it won't seem so stupid and unbelievable
And follow which man-made religion? How about if I just say that if God wants me to believe he will open my spiritual eyes. After all, Christians pray "Thy will be done..." How much resistance and pride is there in that submission?
It's darn hard to be "pure" anything, period! :)
Yes, precisely. Being an agnostic is the only intellectually honest position one can take I think getoffmylawn hit the nail on the head when he observed that we are all agnostics to some degree.
Of course "pure" believers will tell you that it is not an intellectual issue, so it doesn't apply to them.
I disagree with you kosta on making up fantastic stories -- I regard cosmology as evidenced by hawkings to be the creation of religion as it is based on speculation. As an engineer -- if I can measure it, it's science, anything else is speculation and fits in the bounds of religion, any religion
Science has come up with many fantastic stories. Epicycles and ether come to mind...Theories are not religion, Cronos. Only an idiot would put his life on the line for a Big Bang or a String Theory.
I can use Hawkings theories to speculate on how the universe started but that is speculation and holds as much water as a Jain monk or a Sanyasi or an Imam or a Pastor giving their proof by their logic.
Speculations are just that. Man-made musings. Scientific specualitons, at least, are based on observed phenomena. Walking on water isn't. Talking odnekys isn't. Curing the flu by driving 'evil spirits' isn't.
There is a difference. Religion comes in when you begin to assign to your speculations divine origin and authorship and are willing to blow yourself up or be nailed to the cross for it, or, worse, when you begin to torch people for not believing it because by torching them you someone "save" their "spirit." It's a fine line that separates speculation from confabulation, and fantasy from insanity.
true, Dawkins makes atheism into a religion!
Yes, he simply substituted one belief with another. That's like going from heroin to methadone. Curing addiction with addiction.
And do you honestly expect me to sit back and simply take such stupidity without saying something?
I agree. Another thing that perhaps is being missed in the parsing of words here is why is it not considered that the account of Jesus with Nicodemus was only retold in the Greek language but that the original dialog was in Hebrew. I conclude by Nicodemus' response that he certainly understood Jesus to be speaking about a second birth. We aren't told whether Jesus spoke these words in Hebrew or in Greek, but the point is they were retold using Greek. So, if the Greek word for "again" differs from "above" it only means if the Hebrew word for "again" or "above" was spoken it was relayed in Greek and the context clearly proves whatever Jesus used to teach his lesson was understood as again. Why else would the learned Nicodemus think Jesus meant a man would need to go back into his mother's womb and be born anew?
The conclusion Kosta makes that John made it all up is proved wrong simply because he would have done a better job of creative writing. He would have corrected words and dialogs as well as replacing women with men for a better witness of things like the resurrection.
Sure, watch Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
Though I am sure you believe you are batting 1000 in disputing every point of mine, just remember that I am not the one who invented Christianity. All your "Why would God..." questions should be directed at Him. It's his world and his rules. I do not condemn anyone, but Jesus sure made it clear that whoever rejects him, rejects God and those who believe in him will not be condemned. Your railings against why he did things the way he did and not according to how you would have done things only shows a person whose heart is set against truth and controlled by pride. That is why God says he HATES pride. But, hey, as long as you can put off faith you can still hope you will be granted a consolation prize, right?
Aw, jeez, don't sic Cronos on me! ;o)
I didn't say the Bible is my God, so don't just assume you can read into what I wrote. I said I saw for myself the truth as the Bible presented it. It was the very words of Jesus Christ that opened my eyes to the truth of the Gospel. It IS in there! What I had been told was truth turned out to be wrong and I knew that by reading God's word for myself just as he intended us to do. That is why it was written and why it has been preserved for all these years.
I don't recommend following ANY man-made religion. I don't. And yes, it would be exactly what I would recommend to say if God wants you to believe he will open your spiritual eyes. I believe we must first be willing to do certain things such as admitting to God we don't know it all and then allowing ourselves to trust him to reveal the truth and to open our eyes. The only thing is you must take a step of faith. Without faith God says it is IMPOSSIBLE to please him. Whether you like that rule or not doesn't matter because it is what he said.
You say you want to KNOW what God is, well, the first step is to consider that he HAS revealed himself and entertain the idea that the BIBLE just might be the method in which he has done so. Then also acknowledge that he continues to reveal himself in nature, through other people and in that still, small voice that keeps knocking on your heart's door. Open it.
The assumption would be other than Greek since it is asserted to be a mistranslation. I would assert that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic since the discussion is about things Jewish("King of the Jews") and not Greek. Thus whatever Aramaic word Jesus used, Nicodemus either correctly or incorrectly understood it to require a reentry in to the womb. It seems to me that Ockham's razor would indicate that the inferred meaning was reborn. Without that why would Peter use "ἀναγεννάω"?
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.