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.
Please. Are all your choices works? Was your choice to accept Christ works?
Father who will not capriciously disown His children
Will he tie them up if they insist on running away? Or take away their free will?
I thought you said you weren't Calvinist? You're veering into Calvinist thinking here.
This is linked to the baptism of water and spirit that we see at the time of His Crucifixion, this was Water and Spirit, the blood and water that flowed from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus are types of Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacraments of new life. Jn 19:34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
This is what Christ foretold before His sacrifice in Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
The water is not a symbol, it is the medium and yes, this is through which the Lord saves us
1 Peter 3:20-21 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ...
If you believe in the Jehovah's Witness belief, it is your choice of belief, but it is not a "personal question" when talking of religion.
But no one's questioning you about your motives or choices. The question is what denomination do you belong to? What are your beliefs?
No one is asking you your motives
On the contrary, come on, you have asked Catholics
It's only normal to expect the same questions from others, right?
That's God you dismiss as the Final Authority.
You aren't putting God first
Au contraire. I am putting God first. And you keep objecting to it.
So can you be wrong, as I pointed out. I stated you drew a universal from solely an existential. That is a logical error. Whether or not I could be wrong was not the question.
Backsliding is also not the question. It is whether baptism is required for salvation. You say it is. I say it isn't. One of us is wrong. I have been baptized.
That is for me to decide, NOT YOU. Unless you can cite some obligation I have to answer questions then you come as a one asking a favor, a favor I choose not to grant. Period.
And your persistence when told “NO” is both rude and annoying, even for the Religion forum.
What I believe has been made quite clear from the many discussions I've engaged in and that will have to suffice with or without your permission to believe as JWs, or Adventists or as cargo cults do.
Is that clear enough or do I need to break it down a bit more?
Fine, then stop asking us about what we believe in -- if you don't want to be asked questions, then don't ask others. Isn't that right?
Also, don't make this about "granting permission" or not -- no one said that -- but you ask us about our faith and if we ask you, the it is "a personal thing"? Isn't that hypocritical?
Whatever you want to believe, that is your free will choice to do, but if you ask me about my faith, why should I not ask you about yours?
I stated you drew a universal from solely an existential. That is a logical error.
Well then let me restate: You can be wrong.
So can you be wrong
Yep, me, you, all humans can be wrong. Except for you?
That would be illogical I think: All humans can be wrong; Andrew is a human; Andrew cannot be wrong.
It is a Sacrament of the Church instituted by Our Saviour. But as I said before: God is not bound by the Sacraments. We should not presume salvation. We pray for His mercy.
Ra
AV evil 442, wickedness 59, wicked 25, mischief 21, hurt 20, bad 13, trouble 10, sore 9, affliction 6, ill 5, adversity 4, favoured 3, harm 3, naught 3, noisome 2, grievous 2, sad 2, misc 34
If you can find it in the Bible.
John 1:1-17
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
14And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15( John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'") 16And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Jesus will be the final authority, but here on earth the Bible is the written word which bears witness of Jesus and points to Him and gives us all we need that pertains to salvation and living a godly life.
2 Timothy 3:14-17 14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
Scripture is not merely writings of ancient wise men. God breathed means God breathed.
So what happened to free will? Are you a Calvinist after all?
lol. Amen. We’re all Calvinists when we’re on our knees.
Not my will, but thine.
No. It is not presumption to accept that Jesus is stating a fact in John 10:28.
Yep, me, you, all humans can be wrong. Except for you?
Of course I can be wrong. I have admitted it, but somehow your fixation prevents your eyes from seeing that admission.
That would be illogical I think: All humans can be wrong; Andrew is a human; Andrew cannot be wrong.
Jesus was a human, ie one of your premises is wrong.
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.