=============================================
Theology, with an added bonus of "how to beat a dead horse"
=============================================
>>Danny Denier: "No, Joey. My statement was perfectly biblical and gives glory to God."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Sorry, Danny boy, but you are not giving glory to God when you call Him "natural", just the opposite.
You, as a deist, have convinced yourself that God must remain forever confined inside a neat little box of your own invention, which is then neatly tucked away outside the realm of a mystical thing you call "natural." But Paul didn't think so:
"There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." -- 1Cor 15:41-44 KJV
Now tell us, Joey, was Christ's body, prior to the resurrection, a natural body, or spiritual body? In the meantime, how do you interpret this?
"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven." -- Col 1:16-20 KJV
If all fullness dwells in Christ, is nature included, or not?
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "[context: "My statement was perfectly biblical and gives glory to God.] But since you brought up heresy, any claim that the eternal God's image evolved from an ape, or a frog, or a bacteria, is one of the worst forms of heresy I can imagine."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Nonsense, that is just your own fantasy, projected onto me. Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.
Child, Jesus said that man and woman were created at the beginning of creation:
"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female," -- Mat 19:4 KJV
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." -- Mar 10:6 KJV
The scripture states Jesus was a descendant of the first man:
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli . . . Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." -- Luk 3:23,38 KJV
Yet, you deny the words of Jesus, rather claiming he was the descendant of an ape, which evolved from the world of bacteria, or pond scum, or whatever.
At the beginning of his narrative that included the flood, Peter wrote of damnable heresies, implying the worst to be "denying the Lord that brought them":
"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." -- 2Pet 2:1 KJV
If you deny the words of Jesus, is that the same as denying Jesus?
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "Show us that definition in the scripture, Joey. In the meantime, chew on this verse, again:
>>Kalamata quoting: "For verily he [Jesus who is God] took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." -- Heb 2:16 KJV"
>>Delusional Joey said: "First, "us"? Who's "us"?
It doesn't say "us", Joey, but rather it says, Jesus took on the nature of the seed of Abraham. So tell us, Joey, is the seed of Abraham natural, or unnatural?
*****************
>>Delusional Joey said: "Second, actually, Paul tells "us" in verse 9 of that chapter:
>>[Joey quoting] "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." What King James translates as "a little lower than the angels" sounds about right to me because Jesus in human form still had supernatural powers to perform miracles and also Jesus did not follow "mere natural instincts", i.e., did not sin. Jesus was human enough to die and that's what mattered."
Paul implied in verse 2:16 that angels were natural; and he said Jesus became a seed of Abraham, who is also natural. In fact, Jesus became just as natural as any other man, except without sin. His ability to perform miracles set him apart until his death and resurrection; but later Peter and Paul also performed miracles after receiving the Comforter.
So, were Peter and Paul natural, or supernatural? According to Paul, they were "natural" until they were resurrected, as was Jesus:
"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." -- 1Cor 15:44 KJV
*****************
>>Danny Denier on Gaia & Pele: "Is that called a straw man, or a red herring? I forget."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Neither, it's simply a logical conclusion from your calling God "natural", because such a term equates Him to mythological nature gods.
Perhaps in the mind of unbelievers. But to the believer, God created the first man, and later God became an offspring of that same man via birth from a virgin named Mary. In other words, Jesus is both his natural root (via his creation of Adam) and his natural offspring (as a seed of Abraham, a seed of David):
"I Jesus... am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." -- Rev 22:16 KJV
Therefore, Jesus is fully God, and fully man. He dwelled on the earth with men, ate bread with them, and died a horrible death on a Roman cross.
So, there is a natural God, and a supernatural God, who are one:
"I [Jesus] and my Father are one." -- John 10:30 KJV
Jesus made that statement while he was still a natural man, before his resurrection and ascension to the throne of the Father.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "God said he shall also dwell among men:...""That may be supernatural to man, but it is the natural thing for God to do. He did that from the beginning of his creation:"
>>Delusional Joey said: "Now you're just messing around with word definitions. The fact is that the Bible nowhere equates God's nature to human nature or the natural world. God can dwell among us, but He is not ruled by our "mere natural instincts".
See my statements about to find out where you are wrong, Joey.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "God can do as he pleases, Joey. He is not subject to your rules:"
>>Delusional Joey said: "Nor is He subject to Danny boy's idiotic definitions.
It seems that Joey doesn't believe God was a seed of Abraham, born of a woman, and raised as a Jewish child, who began his ministry at about age 30, and died a horrible death roughly 3.5 years later, at which time he gave up his natural body and became a spiritual body. I believe it happened that way, Joey.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "Also, Joey, God will frown on your attempts to confine him in your neat little deist box. You wrote: "the Bible was never part of science." [the rest of my statement: "That was pretty dumb, Joey. Perhaps you should drop the pretense that you are a theologian. While you are at it, please stop pretending to be a scientist."]
>>Delusional Joey said: "Danny boy, from the time of at least Galileo (1616), science was in conflict with the Bible, in that case with: 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5.
Science has never been in the conflict with the Bible, Joey. Perhaps you are thinking of inventions of men promoted under the pretense of science, as it was in the days of Galileo, and is today.
*****************
>>Delusional Joey said: "But long before Galileo, St. Augustine of Hippo warned against misusing text to make the Bible look ignorant:
[Joey quoting Augustine] "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions..."
You took Augustine's statement out of context, Joey. He is warning Christians not to stray from the positions of the ancient sacred writers. Therefore, it is your biblical doctrine that he is warning against, as also expressed here:
"[L]et those people now restrain themselves, who are so puffed up with their knowledge of secular literature, that they scornfully dismiss as something crude and unrefined these texts which are all expressed in a way designed to nourish devout hearts." [Saint Augustine, "On Genesis: The Literal Meaning of Genesis." New City Press, Book I.20.40, p.187]
Taken together, Augustine is pointing to those puffed-up with secular literature, who dismiss the interpretations of the biblical text by ancient sacred writers as being something crude and unrefined, like you do. How avante garde of you, Child.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "That was pretty dumb, Joey. Perhaps you should drop the pretense that you are a theologian. While you are at it, please stop pretending to be a scientist."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Child. Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.
Joey still has this bizarre notion that the Bible was never scientific or historic, even though there is not a single scientific or historical error to be found in it.
*****************
>>Delusional Joey said: "As Protestants we believe in what's called the Universal Priesthood of Believers (see 1 Peter 2:9):
I am a protestant, Child, and this is how I interpret 1 Peter 2:9,
"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." -- 1Pet 2:9-10 KJV
Peter is addressing the faithful scattered tribes of Israel (the "diaspora") living in five areas of Asia Minor (See vs 1:1-2.) In 2:9 Peter quotes the LXX to explain they, the children of Israel, are the Royal Priesthood (or a part of it) as promised to the children of Israel in Exodus:
"And now if ye will indeed hear my voice, and keep my covenant, ye shall be to me a peculiar people above all nations; for the whole earth is mine. And ye shall be to me a royal priesthood and a holy nation: these words shalt thou speak to the children of Israel. -- Exo 19:5-6 LXX
Jesus said his sheep would hear his voice (John 10:27,) and they did.
Verse 2:10 came from Hosea, in which God promised Israel that one day he would remarry the House of Israel under a new convenant, and regather the two houses into one, as follows:
"And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away. But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen. Now when she had weaned Loruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son. Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God." -- Hos 1:6-9 KJV
"Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel." -- Hos 1:10-11 KJV
"Say ye unto your brethren, Ammi; and to your sisters, Ruhamah. Plead with your mother, plead: for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband: let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts;" -- Hos 2:1-2 KJV
"And she shall follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find them: then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than now." -- Hos 2:7 KJV
"And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the Lord." -- Hos 2:19-20 KJV
"And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God." -- Hos 2:23 KJV
But an Israelite, such as Christ, was forbidden to marry her who was put away. Paul explains to the Israelites in Romans 7:1-4 that Christ had to die to release the adulterous Israel from the old covenant, so that he could remarry her under the new covenant:
"Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." -- Rom 7:1-4 KJV
Paul also mentions the Hosea prophecy in Romans 9, but it is grossly mistranslated. Paul was still addressing the Israelites when he said:
"And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God." -- Rom 9:23-26 KJV
Verse 24 should read:
"Even us, whom he hath called, not only out of Judaea (or of the Jews), but also out of the nations (or, the scattered tribes)."
That translation harmonizes Paul's statement with Peter's statement to the scattered tribes in Asia Minor. James also wrote to the scattered tribes (James 1:1.)
It's a little complicated.
*****************
>>Delusional Joey said: "and as small-R republican citizens we participate in debates of our time. My education was quite general but did include several serious scientific subjects -- plenty enough to know the difference between real science and fake theology masquerading as science.
When are you going to show us that you know the difference?
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "It certainly appears that you dismissed the role of God and his Church in the advancement of Western Civilization, while both promoting pagan philosophers, and attempting to redefine God's creation as "natural processes" (that is, "godless".)"
>>Delusional Joey said: "That's total rubbish, Danny boy. I merely point out, factually, that what we call "Western Civilization" began with Greek philosophers like Plato & Aristotle and was incorporated by Christian theologians like Augustine & Aquinas into Christian thought.
I don't recall the part about Christians, Child. I recall the following statement you made which was part of an ongoing diatribe in #341 in which you were attempting to marginalize the Word of God and traditional Christian theology:
[Joey] "Basic history of Western Thought begins with Greeks like Plato & Aristotle and was taught in medieval Universities as various branches of philosophy -- theology, metaphysics and, yes, "natural philosophy" which looked for natural explanations of natural processes."
*****************
>>Delusional Joey said: "Further, it's you Danny boy, who's trying to redefine God's natural processes as "godless".
You really are delusional, Child.
*****************
>>Delusional Joey said: "I'm going to give that more thought, but for now will suggest to you: calling nature "godless" is your first and biggest mistake. It's what starts you off on the wrong road entirely.
That is what you claim, Alinsky Joe, that nature is godless. Further, your interpretation of science is derived from atheistic philosophies, such as this one:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." [Lewontin, Richard C., "Billions and Billions of Demons: Review of Sagan's 'The Demon Haunted World'." New York Review of Books, 1997]
While you pretend to defend God, Joey, you in reality defending the anti-God's, like Lewontin and Shermer.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "It gets worse. Previously, in #149, you dismissed my assertion that atheists have been pushing to "to erase all mention of the Bible from science and science education." This was your dismissal, and my response in #172:
[Joey] "Natural science, by definition excludes anything outside natural explanations for natural processes. It’s not a matter of “erasing the Bible from science,” because the Bible was never part of science."
[Danny] 'Who invented that stupid rule? There is nothing more natural that the creator of all nature.' "
>>Delusional Joey said: "The fact is the Bible does not define God as "natural" in the sense of humans' "mere natural instincts" and your suggestions otherwise are quite... false. The fact is also that natural-science, by definition, is forbidden from beginning its research by reading the Bible to see what it says on any particular subject. Scientists are allowed, once their research is completed, to notice if their conclusions match, or don't match, what the Bible may seem to say, but they cannot use the Bible to direct their work."
Are you defending God, or atheistic, secular materialism, Child? The great scientists, like Galileo, Newton and Faraday would hoot at your ridiculous notion that, "natural-science, by definition, is forbidden from beginning its research by reading the Bible to see what it says on any particular subject."
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "The only heretic in this discussion is you, Joey. In fact, Peter was pointing at those with doctrine like yours when he wrote this statement:"
>>Delusional Joey said: "Liar."
I must have hit a nerve.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "You deny the Lord when you dismiss this statement:"
>>Delusional Joey said: "Liar."
Big time!
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "Those are not idle words, Joey; they are spirit:"
>>Delusional Joey said: "Your words here are too often lies."
Please point out my lies, Child, so that everyone can see them.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "God can do as he pleases, Joey. He is not subject to your rules:
>>[Kalamata quoting] "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." -- Luk 18:27 KJV"
You didn't respond, Child.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "You wouldn't know a heretic if he whopped you upside the head. BTW, I didn't say Christ was "only" natural; but I did say he can do as he pleases. I also said, with him all things are possible."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Here's what I know for certain: Danny Denier is also Danny the Liar = Danny Liar Denier. For one tiny example: on this thread Danny boy, you never posted the words, "with him all things are possible." Your quote just above from Luke 18:27 was the first & only like it.
So, I did say it! Then why the bluster?
Besides, that quote wasn't found "just above", as you claim. Rather, you cherry-picked from a longer conversation in #341 to make it appear I had just said it. Tricky Child.
*****************
>>Tricky Joey said: "I've never "defined" God and you don't get to redefine Him. I simply take understandings of Him from the Bible and Church Fathers. "
>>Danny Denier: "Really? The early Church Fathers, almost to a man, believed in a global flood in which Noah and his family were the only human survivors. You seem to be selective in your understanding."
>>Tricky Joey said: "Child. That is pure Denier Rule #12: divert, distract & dissemble."
From that response, Joey, can we assume you were lying when you said you simply "take understandings of Him from the Bible and Church Fathers"?
*****************
>>Tricky Joey said: "Here's your problem -- what I've posted is totally consistent with traditional Western & Christian theology. What you're suggesting is something quite different and alien."
>>Danny Denier: "So is your pretense that man is evolving from an ape, while on the way from evolving from a bacteria. You don't seem to have a problem with that."
>>Tricky Joey said: "That's just more of your use of Rule 12: divert, distract & dissemble. Here's what I think on this point: in scientific terms, evolution does not falsify the Bible."
From that response, Joey, can we assume you were lying when you said "what I've posted is totally consistent with traditional Western & Christian theology"?
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "BTW, have you ever heard of the Church Father Alexander of Alexandria? He seemed to think Christ is God's natural son:"
>>Tricky Joey said: "Sure, iirc, Alexander's opinions are now Trinitarian doctrine, so today nobody disputes that Christ was both fully man and fully God. He was man enough to die and God enough to be the first raised from the dead. Any suggestions that Christ was only a man or only God are... false."
If Christ is "fully man", could he also be considered "natural", or is he not really "fully man"? How does that work?
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "This is Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, reminding us that Christ has a "natural rank and dignity":"
>>Tricky Joey said: "Right, Christian Trinitarian doctrine holds that Christ was both fully man and fully God. Ambrose & other Church Fathers tried to explain how that can be. No believer I know of ever suggested that Jesus was only a man or only "natural". From the beginning He was seen as much more."
Again, if Christ is "fully man", could he also be considered "natural", or is he not really "fully man"?
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "The ECF's used the word "natural", well, naturally! If quibbling is all you have left, Joey, perhaps you should consider another line of entertainment." Child, that's Denier Rule #12.
Child, you left out this statement I posted by Augustine, who asserted that the body of our Lord was "sown a natural body"
"Wherefore it is said, 'Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;' and, as if in explanation of this, 'neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.' What the apostle first called 'flesh and blood,' he afterwards calls 'corruption;' and what he first called 'the kingdom of God,' he afterwards calls 'incorruption.' But as far as regards the substance, even then it shall be flesh. For even after the resurrection the body of Christ was called flesh. The apostle, however, says: 'It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body;' because so perfect, shall then be the harmony between flesh and spirit, the spirit keeping alive the subjugated flesh without the need of any nourishment, that no part of our nature shall be in discord with another; but as we shall be free from enemies without, so we shall not have ourselves for enemies within." [Augustine, The Enchiridion, in Philip Schaff, "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Ser 1 Vol 03." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887, Chap.XCII.91; p.266]
Like I said, the Early Church Fathers used the word "natural", well, naturally!
*****************
>>Tricky Joey said: "Neither the Bible nor any "ECF" ever claimed that Jesus was only "natural" or only man."
True. I don't recall any ECF saying that. Why would they?
*****************
>>Tricky Joey said: "Even in human form Jesus had supernatural powers to perform miracles."
So did Peter and Paul, after receiving the Holy Spirit from Christ.
*****************
>>Tricky Joey said: "So your efforts here, Danny boy, to mix natural and supernatural together and call them both "natural" are just... false."
I never said that, Child. My statement was only to alert everyone that evolutionists' confine God's supernatural powers inside a neat little box of their own invention, so God doesn't interfere with their new-fangled understanding of science as "all-natural," like organic butter. What they are really refusing to accept is, the ruler of all nature is God; the laws of physics are putty in his hands.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "Since the time the two Charlie's wrote their civilization-destroying books, the era of "The Darkening" is more realistic."
>>Tricky Joey said: "So Danny boy, our Master Theologian is also a Master Historian, redefining whatever terms stand in the way of his own unique propaganda? Well, here are broadly recognized European historical periods: . . . A "Darkening Age" is not one."
It looks pretty dark and gloomy to me, Child, and history shows that Charlie's anti-God philosophy had a major hand in it. But I know you are not supposed to say anything negative about Charlie.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "False. As aforementioned, Galileo was threatened and suppressed by a corrupt Church orthodoxy that believed the doctrines of the pagans Aristotle and Ptolemy, which is not biblical, over the observable science of Galileo. "
>>Tricky Joey said: "As posted here now several times, Galileo was convicted of heresy, specifically regarding: 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5."
But you refuse to acknowledge that Galileo accusers included the scientific orthodoxy. But I know you are not supposed to say anything negative about the scientific orthodoxy.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "By making that claim, you are ignoring the misery the "enlightment" contributed to the Europeans."
>>Tricky Joey said: "The Enlightenment era included both the scientific revolution and the beginnings of the Industrial revolution. It was a time of rising populations and prosperity. Many Europeans, including most of my ancestors, found relief from oppression by emigrating to America."
So, it was not all "light", Child. Further, the posterity of those American immigrants who fled oppression now find their religious traditions suppressed by the atheistic religious doctrine of your "child of the enlightenment," Charlie Darwin.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "You have also failed to recognize the contributions of devout creationists, such as Isaac Newton, whom both Hume and even Voltaire heaped the best of praise. And you have also failed to recognize the contributions of the Early Christian settlers, and well as those by the multitude of devout Christians among the Founding Fathers. Rather, you choose to focus on the one devout anti-Christian among them. Why is that?"
>>Tricky Joey said: "Total nonsense since it's Danny boy who's focused on Thomas Paine while I've argued against your claims that Enlightenment thinkers were atheists & anti-Christian. Very few were either, though some could be described as somewhat "Watch-Maker" Deists. So now you childishly obey Denier Rule #5.
Child, I was under the impression that one of the primary driving forces of the "enlightenment" was man's rejection of traditional values, including God's religious instructions, in favor of "reason." Pinker explains it this way:
"Foremost is reason. Reason is nonnegotiable. As soon as you show up to discuss the question of what we should live for (or any other question), as long as you insist that your answers, whatever they are, are reasonable or justified or true and that therefore other people ought to believe them too, then you have committed yourself to reason, and to holding your beliefs accountable to objective standards. If there's anything the Enlightenment thinkers had in common, it was an insistence that we energetically apply the standard of reason to understanding our world, and not fall back on generators of delusion like faith, dogma, revelation, authority, charisma, mysticism, divination, visions, gut feelings, or the hermeneutic parsing of sacred texts." [Steven Pinker, "Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason Science Humanism and Progress 1." Viking Penguin, 2018, Chap. 1]
We can safely assume Pinker is no fan of Augustine.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "Have you mentioned the ongoing threat by one of the foundational principles of the "Enlightenment," namely "equality"? The push for "equality" by the left, as opposed to life, liberty and the rights to property, will deal this nation a crippling blow, unless our Christian morality is restored before "equality" becomes rooted too deeply."
>>Tricky Joey said: "Certainly our Leftists have gone politically insane, but equality is part of our Declaration and Constitutional DNA. No sane person would remove that word from either document.
Another straw man, Joey? Why did you not address the issue?
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "You are a very sinister person, Joey. First you slander me by indirectly accusing of being a holocaust denier because I refuse to kiss the ring of Charlie Darwin; and now you indirectly accuse me of trashing our Founding Fathers, the very people I have been judiciously defending for virtually my entire life. And why? For favoring them over and above the enlightenment philosophers."
>>Tricky Joey said: "Well, first you are absolutely a Denier -- except for their vulgarity you behave exactly like the Holocaust deniers I debated nearly 20 years ago. Fundamentally, you are every bit as dishonest as they were.
Joey frequently rehashes his imaginary debates with" holocaust deniers" on this thread; but he will never convince me he debated a holocaust denier. However, I am convinced he has become adept at using the tool of slander against anyone who challenges his anti-tradition worldview. He probably got his "you are a holocaust denier if you don't bow down to Darwin" scheme from someone he truly admires, the atheist Michael Shermer.
*****************
>>Tricky Joey said: "Second, sorry, but the key fact which you utterly refuse to recognize is that our Founders were among the greatest Enlightenment philosophers! That's what's got you so utterly confused, to the point of absolute insanity, FRiend. You fantasize the Enlightenment was something else, something darker, something opposed to our Founders when the total opposite is true. Our Founders lead and epitomized the Enlightenment, it died when they died off."
Again, Child, our Founding Fathers were great in spite of the so-called "enlightenment," because they refused to abandon Christianity, but rather incorporated it into our Constitution, as well as in an initial Act of Congress. The demise of Christianity came from later infiltration of our culture by "children of the enlightenment," such as Charlie Darwin and his cult followers.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "If anyone is trashing the memory of our Founding Fathers, it is you, with your support for the tactics of the ACLU, and those of your far-left, "climate-change" pusher of a hero."
>>Tricky Joey said: "Nonsense, Denier Rule #8. >>Danny Denier: "Child."
>>That's Denier Rule #12.
Joey is a big supporter of the judiciary telling the people of our nation what science is, and is not. What can we expect from someone who admires one of the most famous anti-Christian, anti-God, Far-Left bigots on earth: Michael "Mikey" Shermer. This is Mikey teaching others that God doesn't exist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pOI2YvVuuE
Perhaps Mikey knows God doesn't exist because God told him so, or perhaps it was Satan.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "I am fairly certain you are not one of those keepers, Joey. Our Founding Fathers promoted the teaching of Christianity in schools, which continued until I was in high school, which was before the ACLU and the Darwin orthodoxy became entrenched. Why do you support the suppressive activities of the ACLU, Joey?"
>>Tricky Joey said: "And still more nonsense, Danny boy, because I favor local control of schools and it turned out in "Dover" the voters didn't want phony-baloney theology taught in science classes. In the end they voted-out the Creationist school board which tried to do that."
The ACLU and their partners in crime, the NCSE, were not local, concerned citizens, Joey; but rather anti-Constitution, anti-Christian activists and infiltrators.
*****************
>>Tricky Joey said: "I don't agree that all religion should be kept out of schools, but the first problem is, any public school will include children from many different denominations (or none), all of which should be respected."
That is the kind of argument I hear from leftists, Joey. The real story is that the Christian denominations were respected by governments, at all levels, before the ACLU came along. Several of the initial states/colonies adopted state constitutions recognizing one denomination over another, much like the federal government of today recognizes the religion of evolutionism over the Christian denominations. But the states soon struck that provision, or implications of that provision, from their constitutions. The new 1818 Constitution of Connecticut protected the rights and privileges of all Christian denominations:
"And each and every society or denomination of Christians in this state, shall have and enjoy the same and equal powers, rights, and privileges; and shall have power and authority to support and maintain the ministers or teachers of their respective denominations, and to build and repair houses for public worship, by a tax on the members of any such society only, to be laid by a major vote of the legal voters assembled at any society meeting, warned and held according to law, or in any other manner." [Constitution of Connecticut, 1818, in "The Original State Constitutions."]
Now the government trashes Christians, while kissing-up to atheists and muslims.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "Then I believe you are not a good keeper of the traditions of our Founding Fathers, Joey."
>>Tricky Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, your nonsense just never stops. {sigh}
Hopefully, one day, the nonsense will stop, and we will kick the sick, dangerous religion of evolutionism out of our schools and into the trash-bin of history where it rightly belongs.
Mr. Kalamata
Kalamata post 439 cont. 2:
"Child, Jesus said that man and woman were created at the beginning of creation:" Baby Danny, Genesis says it was Day Six, which was not really the beginning but near the end, and it also says that God began with "dust" which is what science speculates on.
Of course it makes perfect sense to me that God could start with "dust" at the beginning and end with mankind on Day Six, but I would not insist on that theologically.
Kalamata: "Yet, you deny the words of Jesus, rather claiming he was the descendant of an ape, which evolved from the world of bacteria, or pond scum, or whatever."
Rubbish, I'm happy to accept that Jesus was descendent from Adam and Adam was the first true man with God's "breath of life" and the first "living soul".
I also notice that the Bible does not tell us exactly how God got "from mud to man", so I'm willing to let science fill in whatever blanks it can.
Finally, unlike the Bible, science never claims to be Divine Truth, only the latest tentative explanations, always subject to revisions or falsification in light on new data & better explanations.
Kalamata: "If you deny the words of Jesus, is that the same as denying Jesus?"
I've denied nothing, but it seems to me, oh Danny boy, that you are the one denying the Bible's words in, for example, trying to stretch its use of "nature" and "natural" to mean Jesus was no more than a "natural man".
Kalamata: "So tell us, Joey, is the seed of Abraham natural, or unnatural?"
First baby Danny, I repeat, who is "us"?
Second, little boy, Jesus conceived by the Holy Spirit was never just "natural".
From the beginning He was also "truly God" meaning both free from sin and capable of performing supernatural miracles.
So, "natural" yes, but not only natural.
Kalamata: "Paul implied in verse 2:16 that angels were natural;"
Liar!
Kalamata: "he said Jesus became a seed of Abraham, who is also natural.
In fact, Jesus became just as natural as any other man, except without sin.
His ability to perform miracles set him apart until his death and resurrection; but later Peter and Paul also performed miracles after receiving the Comforter."
Acts 19:11 says of Paul: "And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:"
But John 12:37 says of Jesus: "But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:"
Do you see the difference?
It's because (according to doctrine), Jesus was always also true God, never only "natural man".
Examples of his divine nature included conquest of natural sin and performance of supernatural miracles.
Many others like Peter & Paul also instrumented miracles, but not by themselves, only through God's actions.
At least, that's my understanding.
Kalamata: "So, were Peter and Paul natural, or supernatural?
According to Paul, they were "natural" until they were resurrected, as was Jesus: "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.
There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."
-- 1Cor 15:44 KJV"
Many Christians, including Peter & Paul, performed supernatural miracles after receiving the Holy Spirit.
All died natural or martyred deaths, all will be raised again with incorruptible spiritual bodies, if I understand correctly.
Kalamata: "So, there is a natural God, and a supernatural God, who are one:"
In Christ only!
While God's "divine nature" is mentioned, God the Father is never called "natural" in the human sense, and from the beginning Jesus was never only "natural".
""I [Jesus] and my Father are one." -- John 10:30 KJV"
Kalamata:
"Jesus made that statement while he was still a natural man, before his resurrection and ascension to the throne of the Father." But Jesus was never only "natural", was always also God, according to Trinitarian doctrine, if I understand correctly.
Kalamata: "See my statements about to find out where you are wrong, Joey."
Your own statements prove you are wrong, baby boy.
Kalamata: "It seems that Joey doesn't believe God was a seed of Abraham, born of a woman, and raised as a Jewish child, who began his ministry at about age 30, and died a horrible death roughly 3.5 years later, at which time he gave up his natural body and became a spiritual body."
Baby Danny boy, you are such a bald-faced shameless liar, it's breathtaking.
Kalamata: "Science has never been in the conflict with the Bible, Joey.
Perhaps you are thinking of inventions of men promoted under the pretense of science, as it was in the days of Galileo, and is today."
And your lies just never stop, do they?
Galileo was not tried by some Greek philosophical guild, but by an Inquisition of the Roman Church.
Galileo was not charged with crimes against Aristotle, but rather of heresy against the Bible.
Galileo was not accused by some philosophical or academic professors, but by Church officials like Dominican friars Niccolò Lorini and Tommaso Caccini, Jesuits like Melchior Inchofer.
The Inquisition judge in 1615 was neither secular nor philosophical, but rather Roman Catholic Cardinal Bellarmine.
The Church's 1633 judgment against Galileo was "vehemently suspected of heresy" a more serious "crime" than mere "erroneous in faith".
I should also note again that it wasn't just Galileo but also Copernicus and Kepler whose works were condemned as heresy for their heliocentrism.
For Danny boy here to continue pretending the Galileo affair was more about natural-philosophy than Church theology simply confirms your status as a serial bald-faced liar.
Kalamata: "You took Augustine's statement out of context, Joey.
He is warning Christians not to stray from the positions of the ancient sacred writers."
No, that would be you, Danny boy.
In full context Augustine is clearly warning against people like you who quote the Bible out of context, to make it look stupid in the eyes of non-believers.
Kalamata: "[L]et those people now restrain themselves, who are so puffed up with their knowledge of secular literature, that they scornfully dismiss as something crude and unrefined these texts... "
Nobody I know of uses "secular literature" to criticize the Bible as "crude and unrefined".
None of this quote has to do with natural-science.
Kalamata: "Taken together, Augustine is pointing to those puffed-up with secular literature, who dismiss the interpretations of the biblical text by ancient sacred writers as being something crude and unrefined, like you do.
How avante garde of you, Child."
And still more outrageous bald-faced lies from Danny boy, a very mischievous youngster.
Kalamata: "Joey still has this bizarre notion that the Bible was never scientific or historic, even though there is not a single scientific or historical error to be found in it."
And still more Danny-lies.
The truth is, the Bible is very historical, but there is no sense in which it even tries to be scientific.
Rather, the Bible is at great pains to show us that supernatural God created, rules over and can over-rule the natural realm.
Kalamata after quoting Hosea & Romans: "It's a little complicated."
Naw, it's all just basic and one more reason why Christians have always resisted attempts to divorce from the Old Testament.
Kalamata: "When are you going to show us that you know the difference?"
When are you going to stop posting bald-faced lies, little boy?
Kalamata: "I don't recall the part about Christians, Child.
I recall the following statement you made which was part of an ongoing diatribe in #341 in which you were attempting to marginalize the Word of God and traditional Christian theology:"
Sorry, Danny boy, but you have worked hard to set God's word at war against the best of ancient Greeks & Romans as well as medieval theologians and modern science.
I merely tried to restore their traditional positions as supporters, along with Jewish theology, of Western Civilization writ large.
Kalamata: "You really are delusional, Child."
You really are a bald-faced liar, Danny boy.
Kalamata: "That is what you claim, Alinsky Joe, that nature is godless."
And still more bald-faced lies -- you just can't stop it, can't control it, can't even slow it down a bit, you just have to lie & lie & lie?
Truthfully, I think you need serious help for that, baby boy.
Kalamata after quoting Lewontin on Sagan: "While you pretend to defend God, Joey, you in reality defending the anti-God's, like Lewontin and Shermer."
It's not clear if the opinions you quoted are strictly Lewontin's (I think) or also Sagan's (I doubt seriously).
Regardless they represent the term "philosophical naturalism" also known as "ontological naturalism" and "metaphysical naturalism" which mean, in essence: atheism.
The more traditional view is called "methodological naturalism" which defines the old "natural philosophy", today's natural-science.
"Methodological naturalism" never denied the existence or works of God, theology or supernatural events.
It merely said supernatural miracles are outside the scope of science and so must be left to theologians & philosophers to investigate.
So, Danny boy, your insistence on equating all naturalism to atheism is yet another example of your serial bald-faced lying.
Kalamata: "Are you defending God, or atheistic, secular materialism, Child?
The great scientists, like Galileo, Newton and Faraday would hoot at your ridiculous notion that, 'natural-science, by definition, is forbidden from beginning its research by reading the Bible to see what it says on any particular subject.' "
And still more bald-faced Danny-lies.
In fact Galileo was convicted of heresy, as were the works of Copernicus and Kepler, not because they opposed Greek philosophers, but because they opposed clear Biblical texts.
Isaac Newton, unlike Galileo, had the good fortune to be born in a Protestant country and the good sense to keep his religious views mostly private:
"Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.[6][7]
Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity;[8] in recent times he has been described as a heretic.[9] "
Michael Faraday, so far as I know, never ran afoul of Christian orthodoxy and indeed, the institute founded in his name seems dedicated to bridging gaps between science & Christianity, for examples, as of today:
- Faraday Public Lecture: The Changing Face of Medicine: Stem cells for future medicine - scientific advances and a Christian perspective.
24 October 2019
Prof Susan Kimber
- Faraday Research Seminar: With God in Mind?: Integrated Physicality, (Un)belief, and Spiritual Technologies.
12 November 2019
Dr Sarah Lane Ritchie
- Faith and Science for everyone - a short course for Christian leaders
10-11 January 2020
Join us in Cambridge for our professional workshop aimed at...
Of course, I have no idea if the Faraday Institute teaches beliefs consistent with Faraday's own or with traditional understandings, but I'd suspect their views are much closer to mine, properly understood, Danny boy, than to yours.
Will stop here for now on post #439, pick up the rest later. ![]()
Kalamata post #439 cont. 3:
” I must have hit a nerve.” Naw, you just piled one more lie atop the others.
Kalamata: ” Big time!”
You lie big, you lie little, you don’t seem to care so long as you’re lying.
Kalamata: ” Please point out my lies, Child, so that everyone can see them.”
I have been and will, even to the point of classifying your lies taxonomically according to your own Denier Rules.
Kalamata: ” You didn't respond, Child.”
Of course I did, baby Danny,
In your post #341 you said: ” God can do as he pleases, Joey. He is not subject to your rules:”
I responded in post #436: “Nor is He subject to Danny boy's idiotic definitions.”
To which you responded in #439 with yet another pile of stinking lies.
Kalamata from post #341: ”BTW, I didn't say Christ was "only" natural; but I did say he can do as he pleases.
I also said, with him all things are possible.”
Your second sentence is a small lie or typographical error.
It can become true if you just change the word “said” to “say” or “believe”.
But, if I understand correctly, what you’re trying to argue here is that since Christ was “truly man” He was also wholly natural and therefore his supernatural miracles can be taught in mandatory public school science classes as natural-science!
I don’t buy that, or any version of it, for one second.
Kalamata: ” So, I did say it! Then why the bluster?
Besides, that quote wasn't found "just above", as you claim.
Rather, you cherry-picked from a longer conversation in #341 to make it appear I had just said it. Tricky Child.”
No, sorry, but you are confused little Danny, note my explanation above.
Kalamata: ”Really?
The early Church Fathers, almost to a man, believed in a global flood in which Noah and his family were the only human survivors.
You seem to be selective in your understanding."…
From that response, Joey, can we assume you were lying when you said you simply "take understandings of Him from the Bible and Church Fathers"?”
No, but we can reasonably conclude that virtually everything, excepting quotes, Danny boy posts is a lie of some sort.
In this particular case you are using Denier Rule #12 to distract, divert & dissemble away from your own uniquely false definitions.
Anyway, once again, on your question about Noah: the Bible and science agree that the Earth has been subject to flood and mass extinction from which God rescued small remnants for repopulation.
So here's the important difference: the Bible tells us God promises not to do it again, while science tells us another "big one" like the Dinosaur mass extinction is, ahem, "unlikely" in the near future.
I have no doubt that some believing scientists pray that by the time the next "big one" comes our way, God will have given scientists enough insight on how to divert it away harmlessly.
Kalamata: ”So is your pretense that man is evolving from an ape, while on the way from evolving from a bacteria.
You don't seem to have a problem with that.”…
…From that response, Joey, can we assume you were lying when you said "what I've posted is totally consistent with traditional Western & Christian theology"?
No, you can well assume rather that Kalamata-boy works long & hard to misunderstand, misinterpret and lie about anything that doesn’t fit your own narrative.
In this particular case the Bible and science agree that God created mankind from “dust”.
Kalamata: ” If Christ is "fully man", could he also be considered "natural", or is he not really "fully man"?
How does that work?”
Neither the Bible nor any ancient writer I know of speaks of Christ as “natural man” in the sense of 2 Peter 2:12: ”natural brute beasts” or Romans 7:18 where Paul speaks of his own “sinful nature”, or 1 Corinthians 2:14 where Paul says: ”the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God”.
Instead, Christ is always said to be both man and God – man enough for death, God enough for miracles & resurrection.
Kalamata: ” Again, if Christ is "fully man", could he also be considered "natural", or is he not really "fully man"?”
Here is a standard definition of Trinitarian doctrine on this subject:
So, Danny boy, here’s what you can be 100% certain of: the ancient Church Fathers believed the divine Christ became
also human so that his death & resurection could save mankind, us, from our own naturally sinful natures.
You can also be 100% certain that no Church Father ever thought Christ became human so that Danny Denier could preach against evolution in public school science classes.
Kalamata: ” Like I said, the Early Church Fathers used the word "natural", well, naturally!”
Sure, but no recognized Church Father ever insisted Christ was only “natural” or that his natural body included, say, Paul’s human “sinful nature”, or indeed, that Christ’s nature had anything to do with teaching evolution in public school science classes.
Kalamata: ” True. I don't recall any ECF saying that. Why would they?”
They wouldn’t, but you do, Danny boy.
Kalamata on Christ’s miracles: ” So did Peter and Paul, after receiving the Holy Spirit from Christ.”
The Bible is clear in distinguishing the miracles Jesus performed (i.e. John 12:37) from those God performed using Peter and Paul (i.e., Acts 19:11)
See my post #569 on this.
Kalamata: ” I never said that, Child.
My statement was only to alert everyone that evolutionists' confine God's supernatural powers inside a neat little box of their own invention, so God doesn't interfere with their new-fangled understanding of science as "all-natural," like organic butter.
What they are really refusing to accept is, the ruler of all nature is God; the laws of physics are putty in his hands.”
Sorry, baby Danny, but you still have it exactly wrong.
That’s because traditional, classical Enlightenment Era methodological naturalism said nothing of the sort you claim, it simply defined itself as researching only natural explanations for natural processes.
It intended to leave theological studies to theologians, that’s all.
And that is the version of natural science I’m here to defend.
Kalamata on the Age of Enlightenment: ”It looks pretty dark and gloomy to me, Child, and history shows that Charlie's anti-God philosophy had a major hand in it.
But I know you are not supposed to say anything negative about Charlie.”
Say what you wish, but it’s just insane to blame a scientist, any scientist, for evil deeds of political leaders.
Kalamata: ”But you refuse to acknowledge that Galileo accusers included the scientific orthodoxy.
But I know you are not supposed to say anything negative about the scientific orthodoxy.”
Danny baby boy, infant child, STOP LYING they weren’t scientists!!
They were the Church Inquisition and they convicted Galileo of heresy against the Bible, not of stupidity against Aristotle.
Kalamata on the Enlightenment: ”So, it was not all "light", Child.
Further, the posterity of those American immigrants who fled oppression now find their religious traditions suppressed by the atheistic religious doctrine of your "child of the enlightenment," Charlie Darwin.”
Oh Danny boy, you sound like a GD Democrat complaining about our President’s economy – sure, they say, people are better off now, but they feeeeeeeeel more… oh, yeh, that’s it: stressed, that’s the ticket!
As for those descendants of my Anabaptist ancestors, unlike me most of them attend private schools where they are taught more from the Bible, less of modern science.
Kalamata: ” Child, I was under the impression that one of the primary driving forces of the "enlightenment" was man's rejection of traditional values, including God's religious instructions, in favor of "reason."
Pinker explains it this way:”
Pinker in 2018: ”… If there's anything the Enlightenment thinkers had in common, it was an insistence that we energetically apply the standard of reason to understanding our world, and not fall back on generators of delusion like faith, dogma, revelation, authority, charisma, mysticism, divination, visions, gut feelings, or the hermeneutic parsing of sacred texts…."”
Kalamata:
” We can safely assume Pinker is no fan of Augustine.” Maybe, but our Enlightenment Founders were, especially regarding Augustine’s views on Christians serving in just wars (Augustine favored it) and slavery (Augustine opposed it).
As for ancients’ ideas on government, our Founders looked more toward Greek (small-d) democrats and Roman (small-r) republicans than to early Christian theologians.
So Pinker apparently sees in the Enlightenment what he wants to see, not necessarily everything that was really there.
In fact, many Founders were quite religious though they often favored ideas of Unitarians, freemasons and Deists.
Kalamata on his quirky opposition to equality: ”Another straw man, Joey?
Why did you not address the issue?”
Of course I did, in the only sense which matters: ”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”
So, Danny baby boy, explain to everyone why you want those words deleted from our Declaration of Independence?
Kalamata: ” Joey frequently rehashes his imaginary debates with" holocaust deniers" on this thread; but he will never convince me he debated a holocaust denier.”
Right, because you hate the truth so much in this as everything else, so you concoct your own set lies to live.
The proof of those debates is my copy of Shermer’s copyright 2000 book, Denying History, as well as several others like it.
Just as I am today boning up on evolution by reading related books, so back then I boned up on the Holocaust by reading Shermer & others.
I have cheerfully acknowledged that you are an upgrade over old Holocaust deniers in that the worst of them were quite vulgar, though you are no less insulting, belittling or name-calling.
I also recognize that your lovely “research assistant” puts a lot of effort into getting your quotes accurate, complete and correctly attributed, for which I thank her.
But otherwise you behave just like the worst of them in your tactics, insults & lies.
Kalamata: ”However, I am convinced he has become adept at using the tool of slander against anyone who challenges his anti-tradition worldview.
He probably got his "you are a holocaust denier if you don't bow down to Darwin" scheme from someone he truly admires, the atheist Michael Shermer.”
That, for just one example, is a pack of lies which any decent person, especially somebody trying to defend the Bible would never post.
Kalamata: ”Again, Child, our Founding Fathers were great in spite of the so-called "enlightenment," because they refused to abandon Christianity, but rather incorporated it into our Constitution, as well as in an initial Act of Congress.
The demise of Christianity came from later infiltration of our culture by "children of the enlightenment," such as Charlie Darwin and his cult followers.”
Oh baby Danny boy, now you’re just babbling nonsense for the sake of it.
In fact, for better or worse, our Founders were the Enlightenment and they like many others – Newton, Paley & Priestly come to mind quickly – were quite religious, though not always 100% orthodox.
Kalamata: ”Joey is a big supporter of the judiciary telling the people of our nation what science is, and is not.
What can we expect from someone who admires one of the most famous anti-Christian, anti-God, Far-Left bigots on earth: Michael "Mikey" Shermer.”
Danny baby boy, your visceral hatred for Shermer convinces me my comparison of you to Holocaust deniers is very close to the mark of truth.
Just like you baby boy they too went berserk at the mention of his name, they too frothed at the mouth, smoke from their ears on seeing his words, they too exploded into incoherence in dealing with his ideas.
That’s why it’s clear to me you guys all went to the same denial school, or palled around together, or served the same devil master – who knows, but Shermer’s is the one name that most solidly glues you to them, baby boy.
Kalamata: ”This is Mikey teaching others that God doesn't exist:”
Nothing in Shermer’s 16 minute talk is new to me, sounds like college dorm (or frat-house) sophomore year bull sessions, and the answers to Shermer’s questions are pretty simple: belief & faith is a choice which can be rational or emotional or both.
A rational choice can begin here, question: is it reasonable to think that our physical bodies are the highest values possible, or are there values which exceed our own well-being?
The obvious answer is, of course there are, love & loyalty to our families & country, for examples.
Question: OK, but what about love & loyalty to the Creator of the Universe, of life and of mankind?
Answer: sure, but now we get into Shermer’s talk about many different religions.
Question: OK, but why not just pick one, the one which makes the most sense and feels the most right to you?
Answer: of course, but how do I know for sure?
Question: how do you know anything for sure?
My point is: Shermer himself acknowledged he is in the “skepticism” business, but I’d say that particular talk was a very, very mild form of “skepticism”, easily answered and moved on from.
Kalamata: ”Perhaps Mikey knows God doesn't exist because God told him so, or perhaps it was Satan.”
Perhaps.
Kalamata: ” The ACLU and their partners in crime, the NCSE, were not local, concerned citizens, Joey; but rather anti-Constitution, anti-Christian activists and infiltrators.”
And here again, Danny baby boy, you just can’t stop your lying, can you?
Do those lies come from God? No, they have to come from elsewhere.
Probably, I suspect, the same place those old Holocaust deniers got all their lies.
How else can we explain it?
So yet again, let me tell you the truth, try to learn it this time young child: 
- Dover science teachers refused to teach the school board’s bogus theology in their science classes.
- Parents sued in court to stop the school board.
- Unhappy voters fired the school board.
Both sides in court were represented by “outside interests”, but the theological interests hung their hopes on your buddy Behe plus a slight-of-hand “textbook” called, “Of Pandas and People” which itself admitted it was all about supernatural interventions in natural processes.
Kalamata: ”That is the kind of argument I hear from leftists, Joey.
The real story is that the Christian denominations were respected by governments, at all levels,”
Sorry but no, iirc, the first schools to remove prayer were in cities where Catholics & Protestants could not agree on which prayers to say, or large Jewish minorities objected to Christian prayers.
To me the obvious answer is to let parents & children chose homerooms & religious classes which are most compatible, but the more practical solution has been to teach religions in Sunday schools and private schools for those who care most about it.
Kalamata: ” Hopefully, one day, the nonsense will stop, and we will kick the sick, dangerous religion of evolutionism out of our schools and into the trash-bin of history where it rightly belongs.”
You and I will then be long dead and, even without a second coming, many questions now speculated on will be answered with more clarity, such as: is there also life on other stars’ planets and if so, how did it get there?
If not, then exactly how unique is life on Earth, and why?
End of Kalamata's post #439! ![]()