>>Kalamata: "You mean, the Age of "Dark Reasoners", don't you?"
>>Joey said, "No, because we are children of the Enlightenment. Founders like Franklin, Jefferson & Madison were among its greatest minds, George Washington was its greatest leader, our Declaration and Constitution among its greatest political documents. The Enlightenment was a shining moment in history, when minds had finally escaped the clutches of a highly restrictive Church and before they soon-enough slid under the controls of even more destructive secular ideologies, i.e., Marxism, totalitarianism, etc.."
Our Founding Fathers created our great nation in spite of many of the so-called "Enlightenment" thinkers. Even the heavy influence of the blasphemous Christ-mocker, Thomas Paine, was not enough to sway our framers away from establishing a Christian nation which lasted for nearly two centuries, until the corrupting influence of ACLU, Marx and Darwin finally took hold.
This is Paine mocking Christ, the Virgin Birth, and the genealogies of Matthew and Luke:
"It is not then the existence or the non-existence of the persons that I trouble myself about. It is the fable of Jesus Christ, as told in the new testament, and the wild and visionary doctrine raised thereon, against which I contend. The story, taking it as it is told, is blasphemously obscene. It gives an account of a young woman engaged to be married, and while under this engagement, she is, to speak plain language, debauched by a ghost, under the impious pretence (Luke chap, i, ver. 35.) that 'the holy ghost shall come, upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee.' Notwithstanding which, Joseph afterwards marries her, cohabits with her as his wife, and in his turn rivals the ghost. This is putting the story into intelligible language, and when told in this manner, there is not a priest but must be ashamed to own it." [Thomas Paine, "The Age of Reason." Citadel Press, 1988, p.792]
"The history of Jesus Christ is contained in the four books ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The first chapter of Matthew begins with giving a genealogy of Jesus Christ; and in the third chapter of Luke, there is also given a genealogy of Jesus Christ. Did these two agree, it would not prove the genealogy to be true, because it might nevertheless be a fabrication; but as they contradict each other in every particular, it proves falshood absolutely." [Ibid. p.793]
That is a clear demonstration that Paine was just another arrogant "reasoner" who was far too ignorant of the scriptures to understand them, but too sanctimonious to realize it. Unfortunately, he still influences many today.
Thankfully, the great majority of our Framers were devout Christians, or this nation would have been destroyed from within before the ink was dry on the Constitution.
*****************
>>Joey said, "The Enlightenment corresponded to the beginnings of the scientific and industrial revolutions.
The scientific revolution began in the Renaissance with the discoveries by Christians such as Kepler, Bacon, Pascal, Boyle, Steno, Hooke, Harvey, Huygens, Copernicus, Newton, Linnaeus, Herschel, Faraday, Maxwell, Davy, Cuvier, Herschel, Dalton, Morse, Henry, Maury, Joule, Mendel, Pasteur and Kelvin. The corrupting influence of Darwin and Lyell has led to an unjust marginalization of those great scientists and their achievements.
Three of those -- Newton, Maxwell, and Faraday -- were Albert Einstein's heros:
"Einstein was so inspired by Maxwell that he placed a photograph of him on his study wall, and Maxwell is the hero — among many heroes — of this book, too… Newton is immortal not simply because he turned his experimental discoveries about motion into mathematical laws. After all, Galileo and others had laid firm foundations for these laws. Rather, it is Newton's work in theoretical physics that makes him so important. Einstein is the quintessential theoretical physicist for most of us, but he was indebted to his heroes, Newton and Maxwell, both of whose portraits were on his study wall. Maxwell has never received the popular acclaim he deserves, but Newton is still an intellectual icon because of the breathtaking imagination and skill with which he actually created both the modern discipline of theoretical physics and much of its mathematical language (which we call calculus)… [Michael Faraday] had lived long enough to see Maxwell's field equations published in 1865, but he had missed out on Hertz's discovery, and never knew that he, Faraday, would go down in history as the creator of the now standard field idea. (And that his would be the third portrait on Einstein's study wall.)" [Robyn Arianrhod, "Einstein's Heroes: imagining the world through the language of mathematics." University of Queensland Press, 2003, pp. 7, 48, 238]
Einstein knew he was standing on the shoulders of giants -- Christian giants.
*****************
>>Joey said, "We are here to defend our Founders' ideals, which are the Enlightenment ideals, and they include all the traditional Western philosophical concepts, including God, nature and mankind."
Who is "we"? I am here to defend Christ, the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, and Christian traditions of western civilization, which includes exposing those who are, or have been corrupting influences against any of those four great pillars of peace and prosperity. That statement is a paraphrase of this statement by George Washington:
"With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes… Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness--these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them." [George Washington, "Farewell Address." 1796]
George Washington stated the earliest U.S. citizens had roughly the same religion (Christianity), and the subversion of that religion was unpatriotic.
*****************
>>Joey said, "The Age of Enlightenment ended far too soon in what we call the "Romantic Era", Age of Revolutions and Modern Era beginning just as our Founders were passing, in the early to mid 1800s. I gather from your posts that Kalamata has a problem with Enlightenment leaders and thinking, but I can't figure out just why..."
Some; for example, those who attacked Christianity and perverted the doctrine of Christ. The "Enlightenment" was not all peace and harmony, Joey. It also gave us the French head-choppers and Napolean, not to mention Social Darwinism and its incredibly brutal and destructive doctrines. Try to keep things in perspective.
*****************
>>Kalamata on Enlightenment religious beliefs: "That is what they claimed; but every "good" politician has a tool called "name-dropping" in his bag of tricks."
>>Joey said, "Sure, anybody can cynically mock the values of others and point out their failures to match ideals with actions. But there's no hint during the Enlightenment that men like our Founders didn't take their own ideals very seriously.
No doubt our Founding Fathers took their work seriously, which included issuing warnings to their posterity, such as the aforementioned by Washington, and this one:
"On every question of construction [of the constitution,] carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." [Letter to William Johnson, from Monticello, June 12, 1823, in Appleby & Ball, "Thomas Jefferson: Political Writings." Cambridge University Press, 1999, p.455]
The most destructive invention, to date, is the "separation of church and state" usurpation. It is tragically ironic that Jefferson, the person who warned us against such an invention, had his own words taken out of context and used as the most dangerous invention against the Constitution in our nation's history! Our nation can tolerate abuses of power, and even corruption within our financial systems, but not the destruction of those great pillars.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "You are greatly deceived. The "Separation of Science and the Bible" sham reinstalled the type of scientific orthodoxy that threatened Galileo, which now hinders the advancement of science, world-wide, while suppressing those who oppose their worldview."
>>Joey said, "Sorry, but that's pure propaganda. In fact, Galileo was a scientist suppressed by the Church because his ideas didn't match their interpretations of the Bible -- just as you and Tour would suppress modern science because it doesn't match your own interpretations of the Bible."
Sorry, but that is pure propaganda, Joey. The Bible is silent on the issue, mentioning only that the earth is "floating" in space:
"[The Lord] stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." -- Job 26:7 KJV
Galileo was threatened and suppressed by a corrupt Church orthodoxy that believed the doctrines of the pagans Aristotle and Ptolemy over the observable science of Galileo. The orthodoxy of today operates under the same paradigm, promoting certain pagan and atheist philosophies (e.g, evolutionism and big-bangism,) while suppressing observable science that contradicts or questions them.
*****************
>>Joey said: "Your claim to be the "real science" is pure unadulterated bunk, because you are, in fact, theology masquerading as science."
That is a mighty bold claim for someone who comes across as a scientific illiterate, Joey. Have you ever taken a science course above introductory or survey courses? Just curious.
*****************
>>Kalamata on St. Augustine of Hippo: "He was not a scientist; but if you insist on using him as a reference, you should first know that he was a young earth creationist:"
>>Joey said: "St. Augustine was the greatest of the early Church theologians, one of the first to be called Doctor of the Church. He made no pretense of being a scientist, as we understand that word, and he had no reason to think the Bible didn't correspond to scientific evidence. But he did fully understand that some people could take the Bible's words out of context, misunderstand their intentions and present them to the world as if the Bible were talking nonsense. Augustine opposed that."
Show us what you are talking about, Joey.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "He denounced old-earthism, calling those who embraced it, "deceived":"
>>Joey said: "In your quote, Augustine opposed "mendacious documents", he knew nothing of scientific evidence. But Augustine's views are absolutely correct in this respect, from your quotes:
>>Joey quoting Augustine: "If it offends them that the time that has elapsed since the creation of man is so short, and his years so few according to our authorities, let them take this into consideration, that nothing that has a limit is long, and that all the ages of time being finite, are very little, or indeed nothing at all, when compared to the interminable eternity." [Augustine, City of God,"
So? How does that contradict this statement where Augustine is crystal clear that not 6,000 years had passed?
"They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed." [Philip Schaff, Augustine, City of God, 'Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Ser 1 Vol 02.' Charles Scribner's Sons, 1886, Book XII.10, p.232]
*****************
>>Joey quoted a Psalm: "Or, as Psalms 90:4 says: "A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." A thousand years, a billion years, a trillion years -- all of no consequence to the Infinite God."
So, which is it? Is a thousand years a day, or a day a thousand years? Will the thousand-year reign of Christ last a day? Was Christ in the ground 3,000 years?
It is a metaphor Joey, to let us know that God exists outside of time. He created time for people, and he explicitly told us that the duration of time it took for him to create the heavens and the earth, was the length of the work-week he established for the Israelites:
"Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." -- Exo 20:9-11 KJV
*****************
>>Kalamata: "Theologians routinely claim to be real scientists. A few examples are, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, and Richard Lewontin."
>>Joey said: "And that is pure propaganda, Denier Rule #2.
Child.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "Many scientists were and are young earth creationists."
>>Joey said: "Every scientist regardless is entitled to his or her religious & theological beliefs, but those, by definition, are not science.
I will agree that evolutionism is not science, nor will it ever be science, but religious dogma.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "No matter how much you try to attach your religion of evolutionism to the coattails of the Founding Fathers, it is going to be a hard sell. We are already back in the "Dark Ages" as a society, in part because of evolutionism."
>>Joey said: "No, no, I'm not trying to "sell" attaching evolution to our Founders -- whatever real burdens they do carry (i.e., slavery), evolution is not one of them. I am "selling" the traditional idea that, what our Founders called "natural philosophy" or "natural science" has its roots in ancient philosophy (i.e., Aristotle) and theology (i.e., St. Augustine of Hippo) and is the beginnings of modern science."
John Locke, and his good friend and devout Christian, Isaac Newton, were probably the greatest influencers of the Founding Fathers, Joey. Newton, who believed in a sovereign and intervening God (not deism,) also influenced other great philosphers, such as Voltaire and Hume.
This is Voltaire on Newton:
"Somebody answered that Sir Isaac Newton excelled them all. The gentleman's assertion was very just; for if true greatness consists in having received from heaven a mighty genius, and in having employed it to enlighten our own mind and that of others, a man like Sir Isaac Newton, whose equal is hardly found in a thousand years, is the truly great man. And those politicians and conquerors (and all ages produce some) were generally so many illustrious wicked men. That man claims our respect who commands over the minds of the rest of the world by the force of truth, not those who enslave their fellow-creatures: he who is acquainted with the universe, not they who deface it." [Letter XII - On The Lord Bacon, in Voltaire, "Letters on England." Pennsylvania State University, 2003, p.39]
And Hume on Newton:
"In Newton this island may boast of having produced the greatest and rarest genius that ever rose for the ornament and instruction of the species. Cautious in admitting no principles but such as were founded on experiment; but resolute to adopt every such principle, however new or unusual: From modesty, ignorant of his superiority above the rest of mankind; and thence less careful to accommodate his reasonings to common apprehensions: More anxious to merit than acquire fame: He was, from these causes, long unknown to the world; but his reputation at last broke out with a lustre, which scarcely any writer, during his own life-time, had ever before attained. While Newton seemed to draw off the veil from some of the mysteries of nature, he showed at the same time the imperfections of the mechanical philosophy; and thereby restored her ultimate secrets to that obscurity in which they ever did and ever will remain." [David H. Hume, "The History of England Vol. 8." 1796, p.334]
Those are some pretty powerful endorsements of Isaac Newton, Joey; and you rarely even mention him, if at all. Do you have something against creationists?
BTW, I seriously doubt if Augustine was mentioned very much, if at all, in the debates leading up to the Constitution.
*****************
>>Joey wrote: "I'm also telling you, factually, that Charles Darwin was a child of the Enlightenment and was raised in its traditions, including the study of natural science. Of course, you may claim Darwin went astray from those traditions, which were at the very least Deistic, but Darwin himself never admitted to being atheistic and did life-long support his family's church.
I know that Charlie's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was a leading figure in the European "enlightenment", so-called. And I know that both promoted the apes-to-man myth; Charlie much more so.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "Are you saying you do not believe in the Darwinist roots of the holocaust? If you had actually read that book of Shermer's – the one you keep name-dropping -- you would know that Shermer explains the role of Darwinism in the holocaust:"
>>Joey wrote: "So now, after first attacking Shermer mercilessly and very unfairly, suddenly Shermer is your hero?
No, he is your hero. He is my enemy, and an enemy of Christianity and our republic.
I do have to admit, Joey, that was a very slick misdirection by you.
*****************
>>Kalamata quoting Shermer: "The racial theories of social Darwinism gave the Nazis and others the scientific sanction they needed to make their racist ideology seem wholly rational..."
>>Joey wrote: "Notice Shermer's key words here, "social Darwinism":
Yes, that is what he wrote.
*****************
>>Joey quoted Wikipedia: "While most scholars recognize some historical links between the popularisation of Darwin's theory and forms of social Darwinism, they also maintain that social Darwinism is not a necessary consequence of the principles of biological evolution. Scholars debate the extent to which the various social Darwinist ideologies reflect Charles Darwin's own views on human social and economic issues."
Why did you stop there, Joey? The very next sentence, citing Bowler, 2003, states: "His writings have passages that can be interpreted as opposing aggressive individualism, while other passages appear to promote it." This is Bowler:
"The disagreements among historians are reflected in the debate over Darwin's own views on society (J. Greene 1977). Opinion ranges all the way from accusations that he openly promoted aggressive individualism (Harris 1968) to denials that he had any sympathy for such views (Freeman 1974). Unfortunately, Darwin's writings contain passages that can be interpreted in favor of both positions. He was aware of the role played by the model of economic individualism in his thinking, especially as expressed in Malthus's population principle. He saw both individual and tribal struggle as important in human evolution, and feared that the relaxation of selection within a civilized society (where charity helps the unfortunate to survive) would harm the race by allowing the unfit to breed. Yet he was surprised when a newspaper article accused him of justifying the actions of Napoleon and of tradesmen who cheat. For Darwin, at least, 'fitness' in the human context did not include the kind of immorality which would justify any action by the motto 'Might is right.' The fit were the able and energetic, not those who cheated or forced their way to success." [Peter J. Bowler, "Evolution: The History of an Idea." 3rd Ed, 2003, p.300]
You tried to pull another fast one, Joey. That is a no, no.
*****************
>>Joey continued, "Bottom line, there's no possibility Darwin himself would have supported the Holocaust."
Perhaps so, but that doesn't justify your underhanded attempt to downplay your own reference.
*****************
>>Joey wrote, "As important, whatever "Social Darwinism" Nazis employed against Jews was just one ideological weapon among many. So, in my previous analogy: blaming Darwin for the Holocaust is like blaming 9/11 on the breakfast those terrorists ate."
Yeah, sure . . .
*****************
>>Kalamata: "Shermer quoted a significant chunk of Mein Kampf to justify that statement."
>>Joey wrote, "But nowhere in Mein Kampf does Hitler mention Darwin, natural selection or evolution in the context of natural selection."
He was darn close. The following quote from Mein Kampf sounds like something Charlie's eugenicist cousin, Francis Galton, might write:
"The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all" [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf." Hurst and Blackett Ltd., 1939, p,222-223]
Even Charlie endorsed that concept, after reading the first 50 pages of Galton's book. How about this one?
"For it is a necessity of human evolution that the individual should be imbued with the spirit of sacrifice in favour of the common weal, and that he should not be influenced by the morbid notions of those knaves who pretend to know better than Nature and who have the impudencc to criticize her decrees." [Ibid. p.234]
That sounds like Darwin 101, to me.
*****************
>>Joey said: "Instead, Hitler tells us his violent anti-Semitism began from his experiences in the Christian Social Party. Shermer well knows that violent anti-Semitism in Europe generally and Germany specifically did not begin with 20th century Nazis, but dates back many centuries."
Stephen Jay Gould claimed that racism "increased by orders of magnitude" after evolution was accepted:
"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory. The litany is familiar: cold, dispassionate, objective, modern science shows us that races can be ranked on a scale of superiority. If this offends Christian morality or a sentimental belief in human unity, so be it; science must be free to proclaim unpleasant truths. But the data were worthless. We never have had, and still do not have, any unambiguous data on the innate mental capacities of different human groups—a meaningless notion" [Stephen Jay Gould, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny." Belknap Press, 1977]
*****************
>>Kalamata quoting himself: ""There is nothing more natural than our creator, and his creation." The words "more natural" are NOT the same as "merely natural", nor will they ever be."
>>Joey said: "Sorry, but if you'd said "God is more than natural," you'd be correct, but now you're just piling one more lie atop the others. Stop it! Back away from it, it's deadly heresy regardless of how much you try to qualify & sugar coat it, it's simply false. You're trying to make a point which is impossible and ultimately insane."
No, Joey. 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.
*****************
>>Joey said: "The theological truth is, by ancient Biblical exegesis and traditional Western philosophy, God is super-natural, not "natural".
Show us that definition in the scripture, Joey. In the meantime, chew on this verse, again:
"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
*****************
>>Joey said: "God is not "Gaia" (Mother Earth), God is not Pele (Hawaiian volcano).
Is that called a straw man, or a red herring? I forget.
*****************
>>Joey said: "God existed before the Universe and outside the Universe, the Universe is His Creation and a home."
God said he shall also dwell among men:
"Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God." -- Rev 21:3 KJV
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:
"And [Adam and Eve] heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day" -- Gen 3:8 KJV
*****************
>>Joey said: "Nature's scientific "laws" and processes are God's, but they are not Him. Again my analogy of the architect and builder of a home. We can study a home to learn the "mind of the Architect", but the home itself is not His mind. So you need to abandon the idea that God is less than supernatural:
God can do as he pleases, Joey. He is not subject to your rules:
"The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." -- Luk 18:27 KJV
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."
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.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "For the record, that was in response to your dismissal of God and his church and their role in the advancement of Western Civilization, while promoting pagan philosophers, in your never-ending quest to redefine God's creation as "natural processes", which is a clever way of saying "godless". "
>>Joey said: "Total lies, not a word of that true.
Really? This was your statement in #187, Joey, and my response in #196:
----------
[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."
[Me] "There is nothing more natural than our creator, and his creation."
----------
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".)
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."
[Me] "Who invented that stupid rule? There is nothing more natural that the creator of all nature."
-----------
It appears you are trying to rewrite history, Joey, by omission; but I am glad your statements are exposed.
*****************
>>Joey said: "Obviously, you're hoping to lie your way out of your own ridiculous heresies."
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:
"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
You deny the Lord when you dismiss this statement:
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." -- Mar 10:6 KJV
Those are not idle words, Joey; they are spirit:
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." -- John 6:63 KJV
*****************
>>Kalamata: "BTW, angels have nature. God, rather than taking on the nature of angels, took on the nature of a man. That sounds pretty natural to me:"
>>Joey said: "Sure, but no Biblical scholar I've heard of, not even heretics, claimed Christ was only natural. The Bible clearly demonstrates His super-natural powers, even while in human form."
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.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "As you can see, you don't get to define God. He can do as he pleases, and be anything he pleases, including being "natural." "
>>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. Even as a "natural" man, Christ had supernatural powers. No believer I know of has ever claimed otherwise."
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.
*****************
>>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."
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.
BTW, have you ever heard of the Church Father Alexander of Alexandria? He seemed to think Christ is God's natural son:
"And His proper and peculiar, natural and excellent Sonship, St. Paul has declared, who thus speaks of God: “Who spared not His own Son, but for us,” who were not His natural sons, “delivered Him up.” For to distinguish Him from those who are not properly sons." [Alexander of Aleandria, Epistle on the Arian Heresy, in Roberts & Donaldson, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 06: 3rd Century." Charles Scribner's Sons, Amer Ed, 1886, p.294]
This is Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, reminding us that Christ has a "natural rank and dignity":
"Hence it is that Christ is not only God, but very God indeed—very God of very God, insomuch that He Himself is the Truth. If, then, we enquire His Name, it is 'the Truth;' if we seek to know His natural rank and dignity, He is so truly the very Son of God, that He is indeed God's own Son; as it is written, 'Who spared not His own Son, but gave Him up for our sakes,' gave Him up, that is, so far as the flesh was concerned." [Ambrose: Selected Works and Letters, Exposition of the Christian Faith, in Philip Schaff, "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Ser 2 Vol 10." Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1896, Book I.17.108; p. 219]
This is Augustine asserting 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]
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.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "That should be called "The Darkening" since the days of Charlie & Charlie, perhaps before."
>>Joey said: "Darwin was a child of the Enlightenment, born at its tail end, in 1808. Darwin grew up in the "Romantic Era" which followed."
Since the time the two Charlie's wrote their civilization-destroying books, the era of "The Darkening" is more realistic.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "Besides, the Renaissance played a greater role in the origin of modern science; and those men rejected "enlightenment" type arguments against political and religious traditions."
>>Joey said: "The Renaissance was an age of scientific inquiry and conflict with traditional Church theology. Scientists like Galileo were persecuted by Church authorities who couldn't reconcile Galileo's findings with their understanding of the Bible. Authorities who believed like Kalamata today.
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. The "scientific" orthodoxy of today operates under the same paradigm, promoting certain pagan and atheist philosophies (e.g, evolutionism and big-bangism,) while suppressing observable science that contradicts or questions their pagan/atheistic doctrine.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "You have been exaggerating the influence of the enlightenment figures on the Founding Fathers. The founders secured the idea of "due process" from a 15th century pre-enlightenment document, which included both personal liberty and the rights to property. In general, the protections in the Bill of Rights are pre-enlightenment."
>>Joey said: "The word "Enlightenment" is largely defined by the contributions of our Founders."
By making that claim, you are ignoring the misery the "enlightment" contributed to the Europeans. 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?
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.
*****************
>>Joey said: So you cannot trash the Enlightenment without trashing them too. And if your intention, consciously or subconsciously, is to trash our Founders, then you don't belong posting on Free Republic, FRiend."
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.
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.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "The "Enlightenment" crowd these days seem to be Marxists and other anti-nationalists, though they seem to be as least as driven toward destroying our traditional morality as they are our national borders."
>>Joey said: I can't speak for, or defend, our Leftists, Democrats, Progressives, Socialists or any of those who "wrote the book" from which my brief summary of Denier Rules is derived. Whatever their notion of "woke" means, it is not our Founders' ideas & ideals.
Child.
*****************
>>Joey said: "Conservatives such as Free Republic are keepers of our Founders flame and original intentions -- all of which help define the word "Enlightenment"."
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?
*****************
>>Kalamata: "That is why I am here. One way to promote our Constitution and Christian faith is to get evolution and the ACLU out of our classrooms."
>>Joey said: "Two of my four grandparents were school teachers in the early 1900s, small one-room school houses, began each day with a Bible reading and prayer."
We had regular, weekly, school-sponsored devotionals in my public schools until I reached College. Every hallway contained a Bible verse, such as "Be ye kind ... ", or the Ten Commandments; and virtually every pickup truck in the parking lot had a shotgun in the back window, with the windows rolled down on sunny days.
*****************
>>Joey said: "Local schools should be, and generally are, controlled by local governments and so teach children what their voters want children to learn."
False. The ACLU and their partners-in-crime called the NCSE will sue if they find out; and most school districts cannot afford to tangle with the political influence and deep pockets of the ACLU. It is a rigged system against Christianity and the traditions of our Founding Fathers.
*****************
>>Joey said: "So I have no problem if they wish to teach evolution in science classes, but I think they should also have classes where they are not afraid to begin with a Bible reading and prayer."
Then I believe you are not a good keeper of the traditions of our Founding Fathers, Joey.
Mr. Kalamata
Danny Denier:
"No, Joey. My statement was perfectly biblical and gives glory to God." Sorry, Danny boy, but you are not giving glory to God when you call Him "natural", just the opposite.
The Bible does use words like "nature" and "natural" typically as in:
Jude 1:19 (NIV): "These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit."
Now it's important to notice that what the NIV translates as "natural instincts" King James calls "sensual".
God also has a nature, but it is the opposite of human natural instincts:
Romans 1:20 (NIV): "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
Again, what NIV calls "divine nature" King James translates as
"his eternal power and Godhead".
So God's nature is vastly different from human natural instincts.
Danny Denier: "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."
Nonsense, that is just your own fantasy, projected onto me.
Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.
Danny Denier: "Show us that definition in the scripture, Joey.
In the meantime, chew on this verse, again: "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"
First, "us"? Who's "us"?
Second, actually, Paul tells "us" in verse 9 of that chapter:
"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.
Danny Denier on Gaia & Pele: "Is that called a straw man, or a red herring? I forget."
Neither, it's simply a logical conclusion from your calling God "natural", because such a term equates Him to mythological nature gods.
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:"
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".
Danny Denier: "God can do as he pleases, Joey.
He is not subject to your rules:"
Nor is He subject to Danny boy's idiotic definitions.
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."
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.
But long before Galileo, St. Augustine of Hippo warned against misusing text to make the Bible look ignorant:
"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..."
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." Child. Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.
As Protestants we believe in what's called the Universal Priesthood of Believers (see 1 Peter 2:9) 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.
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".)"
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.
Further, it's you Danny boy, who's trying to redefine God's natural processes as "godless".
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.
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.' "
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.
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:"
Liar.
Danny Denier: "You deny the Lord when you dismiss this statement:"
Liar.
Danny Denier: "Those are not idle words, Joey; they are spirit:"
Your words here are too often lies.
Danny Denier: "God can do as he pleases, Joey.
He is not subject to your rules: "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." -- Luk 18:27 KJV"
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."
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.
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."
Child. That is pure Denier Rule #12: divert, distract & dissemble.
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."
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.
Danny Denier: "BTW, have you ever heard of the Church Father Alexander of Alexandria?
He seemed to think Christ is God's natural son:"
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.
Danny Denier: "This is Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, reminding us that Christ has a "natural rank and dignity":"
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.
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.
Neither the Bible nor any "ECF" ever claimed that Jesus was only "natural" or only man.
Even in human form Jesus had supernatural powers to perform miracles.
So your efforts here, Danny boy, to mix natural and supernatural together and call them both "natural" are just... false.
Danny Denier: "Since the time the two Charlie's wrote their civilization-destroying books, the era of "The Darkening" is more realistic."
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:
- Renaissance circa 1400 to 1700.
- Enlightenment circa 1700 to 1800.
- "Romantic" ~1800 to 1850.
- Victorian ~1850 to 1900.
- Modern ~1900 to 1970.
- Post Modern after ~1970.
Any number of other "ages" are also identified i.e., "scientific revolution", "industrial revolution" "Napoleonic era", "machine age", etc.
A "Darkening Age" is not one.
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. "
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.
Danny Denier: "By making that claim, you are ignoring the misery the "enlightment" contributed to the Europeans."
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.
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?"
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.
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."
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.
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."
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.
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.
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."
Nonsense, Denier Rule #8.
Danny Denier: "Child."
That's Denier Rule #12.
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?"
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.
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.
Danny Denier: "Then I believe you are not a good keeper of the traditions of our Founding Fathers, Joey."
Oh, Danny boy, your nonsense just never stops.
{sigh}
![]()
Danny Denier: "Those are some pretty powerful endorsements of Isaac Newton, Joey; and you rarely even mention him, if at all.