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.
The "Jew who believed in the Torah" is also the Jew who believes in the complete Old Testament.
Inconvenient, isn't it.
Hardly mine, but I do understand why a Chritsian would be in dneial. From Jewish Encyclopedia
It means regenerated in a figurative sense, which is quite different from John 3.
Yet your argument avers that John is made up
That the alleged conversation with Nicodemus was, yes.
"living word of God"(John's concept)
Peter's living and enduring word is not the Logos of John; the "word" in 1 Peter 1:23 is never capitalized Or do you not understand the fiference?):
The author means literally utterances of God.
And then you conclude with the astonishing conclusion
Astonishing, really?
Final question if the Greek words presented up to now do not communicate "born again" or "reborn" what Greek words do?
Change of mind.
Really? So, you have no body?
For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost
No wonder the Jewish Encyclopedia says Paul was no Hebrew scholar. You may want to look up what the Jewish Encyclopedia (with appropriate references to the Bible) says about the Kingdom of God. You may only then grasp the extent of Pauline innovations he dished out on his own accord to unsuspecting Greeks.
1 Cor. 4:20-1 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. ..
Wow, I wonder where he got that one from!
In other words taken from the Jews and changed.
The Torah takes precedence. Not all scriptures is equal in Judaism.
Inconvenient, isn't it?
Amen! How merciful, how gracious, how loving is our Lord that when he forgives us, he removes that sin from us as far as the east is from the west! This also makes me think that when we face him at our judgment, it will not be our sins that we are judged upon but what we have or haven't done for his glory. Unlike some religions who believe we will be weighed in the balance with all our sins on one side and our good deeds on another and the result determines whether we spend eternity in heaven or hell, those who have fled to the cross for grace and forgiveness will not be judged for our sins because they have been paid in full and we will stand before Almighty God clothed in the righteousness of Christ. Praise his holy name!
Sounds to me as if you spend a lot of time reading stuff by a goof-ball who calls himself, "Prof. Mordochai ben-Tziyyon, Universitah Ha'ivrit, Y'rushalayim"
Well, despite your finally posting a source, your source still does not support your contention that "Kingdom of God" is synonymous with Israel. You stopped short of "Accordingly, says the Midrash (Cant. R. ii. 12), "when the Kingdom of Rome has ripened enough to be destroyed, the Kingdom of God will appear."
Israel had been around for a few centuries before the "Kingdom of Rome"(king of Rome?).
I certainly know the difference between "Λ" and "λ" and "Θ" and "θ" and "Ε" and "ε".
Jhn 1:1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
1Pe 1:23 ἀναγεγεννημένοι οὐκ ἐκ σπορᾶς φθαρτῆς ἀλλὰ ἀφθάρτου διὰ λόγου ζῶντος θεοῦ καὶ μένοντος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα
Change of mind.
That looks Greek to me.
Not in the least. Get up to speed and aquaint yourself with The Semitic Totality Concept.
Peter had you pegged millenia ago.
2Pe 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
And if even the skeptical Sanhedrin and/or Pilate had recorded something like that happening you wouldn't believe it either, now, would you.
Cordially,
Not an unreasonable supposition, assuming that Jesus existed, and had disciples who were with in him for a period of several years.
But I'm not the one making a claim that the whole conversation was just made up, and whoever wrote it wasn't even there. You are not being agnostic enough on this point. How could you possibly be in a position to know such a thing?
Cordially,
Are you sitll in denial?
I was tlaking about English trnalsaitons. Original Greek manuscirptus were all in capitals. Try looking at the English translation 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NIV) 1 Peter 1:23 23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. (NIV)
Are you sitll in denial?
I certainly know the difference between "Λ" and "λ" and "Θ" and "θ" and "Ε" and "ε".
I was talking about English translations. Original Greek manuscripts were all in capitals. Try looking at the English translations:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NIV)
1 Peter 1:23 23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. (NIV)
Are you still in denial?
I am, I read Semitic sources.
You are the denier. This whole discussion is not about an English translation. It is about a Greek one. So don't try to obfuscate. To attempt to attribute to Peter what the English translator determined is a foolish attempt at distraction. And your reposting of the verse, highlights the fact that rebirth is the center of discussion since it talks about seed.
That would have made a great deal of difference.
If any Jew ever thought the word "Israel" meant the kingdom of God, he must have missed where God first used that name. It was recorded in Genesis 32:37-28:
And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
The word Israel has always meant Prince of God. As far as assuming Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born of the Spirit to enter Israel is what makes no sense.
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.