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 see it that way, too, dear sister in Christ!
Adversity (i.e., difficulty, misfortune) is not the same thing as "evil" spelled with an upper-case "E." But we generally do not recognize the distinction. So if we so much as get a hangnail, we view it as an "evil" perpetrated on us. Anything that disturbs our complacently and/or comfort can be labeled "evil."
Satan gets the last laugh on this score....
Thank you ever so much for your insights re: Isaiah 45:7!
Isn't that the truth! We also forget we ourselves are clumsey and can aften create our own misery...last night I bumped my toe on the recliner..ouch! Grit my teeth and of course blamed the chair....when in fact I was walking in the dark.
E.M. Bounds wrote that there are, “Two kinds of providences are seen in God’s dealings with men, direct providences and permissive providences. God orders some things, others He permits. But when He permits an affliction to come into the life of His saint, even though it originates in a wicked mind, and it is the act of a sinner, yet before it strikes His saint and touches him, it becomes God’s providence to the saint, In other words, God consents to some things in this world, many of them very painful and afflicting, without in the least being responsible for them, or in the least excusing him who originates them, but such events or things always become to the saint of God the providence of God to him. So the saint can say in each and all of these sad and distressing experiences, “It is the Lord; let him do what seems him good.” Or with the psalmist, he may say, “I was dumb; I opened not my mouth, because thou didst it.” (Or with Isaiah, he may say, “I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”)
Affliction that originates in a wicked mind, and is the act of a sinner is evil, but as Joseph said to his brothers,
“But as for you, ye thought evil against me; [but] God meant it unto good”.
I can say it no different than what God said.
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].
Truth.
Those items certainly do. Otherwise, how can one believe Jesus had the authority to die for our sins? People die everyday and Lazarus was resurrected. And if you call what God said was sin, not sin then you are calling God what?
Yes, let's start at the beginning. Noah and those on the ark were NOT saved "by" water. They were saved THROUGH the water. The ark saved them FROM the water.
I Peter 3:20-22 says: to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. Notice, the water SYMBOLIZES the baptism that saves us. It is NOT the actual water that washes off dirt, but the pledge of a clear conscience towards God. How does this save us? By the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Tell me, how can a little baby make a pledge of a clear conscience towards God? The rite of water baptism, like I have said, is an outward testimony of what has been completed in the believer's heart already. How can we have a clear conscience towards God? It can only be through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ who paid the price for all our sins. We have been redeemed, cleansed from our sins and we now walk in newness of life because we have been born again into the spiritual realm of God. If someone died on his way to be water baptized at church, but he had already accepted Christ as his savior, would he still be saved? Yes. The outward, public act is a testimony to others of the change that has already taken place.
You bring up the baptism of Jesus upon the start of his earthly ministry. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. Since Jesus HAD no sin, why do you think he was baptized? Even John was taken aback that Jesus would present himself to him for baptism and he said that it was Jesus who should baptize him. He told John that it was "to fulfill all righteousness (Matt. 3:15). It was an outward testimony of Jesus' identification with all believers. This is a good explanation:
There are several reasons why it was fitting for John to baptize Jesus at the beginning of His public ministry. Jesus was about to embark on His great work, and it was appropriate that He be recognized publicly by His forerunner. John was the “voice crying in the wilderness” prophesied by Isaiah, calling people to repentance in preparation for their Messiah (Isaiah 40:3). By baptizing Him, John was declaring to all that here was the One they had been waiting for, the Son of God, the One he had predicted would baptize “with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matthew 3:11).
Jesus’ baptism also showed that He identified with sinners. His baptism symbolized the sinners’ baptism into the righteousness of Christ, dying with Him and rising free from sin and able to walk in the newness of life. His perfect righteousness would fulfill all the requirements of the Law for sinners who could never hope to do so on their own. When John hesitated to baptize the sinless Son of God, Jesus replied that it was proper to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). By this He alluded to the righteousness that He provides to all who come to Him to exchange their sin for His righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21).
In addition, Jesus coming to John showed His approval of John's baptism, bearing witness to it, that it was from heaven and approved by God. This would be important in the future when others would begin to doubt John’s authority, particularly after his arrest by Herod (Matthew 14:3-11).
Perhaps most importantly, the occasion of the public baptism recorded for all generations to come the perfect embodiment of the triune God revealed in glory from heaven. The testimony directly from heaven of the Father’s pleasure with the Son and the descending of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus (Matthew 3:16-17) is a beautiful picture of the trinitarian nature of God. It also depicts the work of the Father, Son and Spirit in the salvation of those Jesus came to save. The Father loves the elect from before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4); He sends His Son to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10); and the Spirit convicts of sin (John 16:8) and draws the believer to the Father through the Son. All the glorious truth of the mercy of God through Jesus Christ is on display at His baptism.
So again, water baptism is not what saves us. Nowhere does the Bible say that it does. Only by piecing partial verses out of context can you pretend to prove your point. The truth is nothing we do outside of faith in Christ can give us salvation. We do nothing of ourselves to ever merit eternal life it is all by grace through faith.
I can't say as I blame you for that. As you said, just look at the blanket statements that get tossed around these threads on a day by day basis and you know how such information can and will be used to hang you regardless of their relevance or applicability to your own beliefs.
Oh, didn't you know, "Shin/toe...a device for finding furniture in the dark." ;o)
I agree. Chuck Swindoll's version of Easy Believerism is far from basic Christian teaching.
Well, I don't quite understand what your problem is with Swindoll. I followed your link and found the list of essential beliefs. It lists the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus.
As the second person of the Trinity, the Son reveals the Father. According to the Father’s plan, the eternal Son humbled Himself and became incarnate, inseparably uniting undiminished deity with true humanity. As fully God and fully man, Jesus Christ lived a sinless life, died to pay in full the penalty for our sin, rose bodily and miraculously from the dead, ascended into heaven, and will come again in glory. See John 1:1–3, 14; Philippians 2:5-8; Hebrews 1:1–3; and 1 John 5:11–12.
BB, that happens to self-identified Catholics all the time.
If you’re not willing to claim your own church and defend it, I don’t see how you can, in good conscience, attack someone else who is.
Simply through believing the good news that Christ died for his or her sins and then rose from the dead, a person can be forgiven of all sin, declared righteous by God, reborn into new life, and guaranteed eternal life with God.
As I previously stated, one cannot believe this good news without the belief in the divinity/Trinity of Christ. And the site states that the divinity of Christ and Trinity are non-negotiable(must have) beliefs.
It’s pretty clear:” believing the good news that Christ died for his or her sins…”
If they wish to amend it to “* plus these other items...” they should.
I suspect that it’s more in line with the Easy Believerism of the sinner’s prayer theology.
Well, with all due respect, this forum is about "issues". It is a discussion forum where we can talk about our beliefs and our philosophies. Identifying a "church" or religion, as we see over and over on this forum, does not always identify what an individual actually believes. I can understand with Roman Catholics - who are not allowed to dissent from all the dogmas the magesterium proclaims - but, really, those Christians who are not Catholic - though they may be catholic - are allowed to think for themselves. What, I think, may be hard for some to grasp is that there are basic, major tenets of the Christian faith that are common to all true Christians and what the name of their local church is does not matter. We do not need to "defend" our church simply because we understand that we ARE the church. As is any other person throughout time who has come to faith in Jesus Christ. Let's talk about issues and doctrine and not get, or try to get, sidetracked by labels. Sound ok?
It says it right in the preface.
The mission statement of Insight for Living, the Bible-teaching ministry of Chuck Swindoll, states that we are committed to excellence in communicating the truths of Scripture and the person of Jesus Christ. And while a grace-based ministry such as ours allows for freedom of interpretation and expression in many areas of Christian practice, we believe that the following essential beliefs are absolute and non-negotiable.
Boy aren't you the party-pooper? ;-)
Yeah, Poopy is my middle name. ;o)
Ok, you police those attacking my Church.
Honestly, BB, are there no requirements for being a Baptist, Methodist, OP, etc? If there is nothing key to distinguish them, why do they exist as separate entities?
Aren’t you defending your church when you defend it’s confession, faith, beliefs, etc?
If you can’t identify these and be ready to defend them, then, IMHO, you are not worthy of them, and you shouldn’t be attacking those who are.
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.