He who makes a claim bears a burden to demonstrate the truth of his claim. Theists have a burden to demonstrate their claim that God exists, and atheists have a burden to demonstrate their claim that God does not exist. Nowadays, however, it’s common for atheists to claim that the theist alone bears a burden of justification. They try to escape their own burden of justification by redefining atheism from a “belief that God does not exist” to “the absence of belief in God.” Since only positive beliefs can be defended, they are off the hook. All the pressure lies with the theist.
While I think their attempt to redefine atheism is intellectually dishonest, let’s grant the validity of their redefinition for a moment. Greg Koukl observed that while it’s certainly true atheists lack a belief in God, they don’t lack beliefs about God. When it comes to the truth of any given proposition, one only has three logical options: affirm it, deny it, withhold judgment (due to ignorance or the inability to weigh competing evidences). As applied to the proposition “God exists,” those who affirm the truth of this proposition are called theists, those who deny it are called atheists, and those who withhold judgment are called agnostics. Only agnostics, who have not formed a belief, lack a burden to demonstrate the truth of their position.
Are those who want to define atheism as a lack of belief in God devoid of beliefs about God? Almost never! They have a belief regarding God’s existence, and that belief is that God’s existence is improbable or impossible. While they may not be certain of this belief (certainty is not required), they have certainly made a judgment. They are not intellectually neutral. At the very least, they believe God’s existence is more improbable than probable, and thus they bear a burden to demonstrate why God’s existence is improbable.
So long as the new brand of atheists have formed a belief regarding the truth or falsity of the proposition “God exists,” then they have beliefs about God, and must defend that belief even if atheism is defined as the lack of belief in God.
Thinking to Believe 
January 16, 2014 at 11:38 pm
Maybe with the new definition can come a new branding?
Maybe they won’t call themselves atheists. Maybe they will call themselves apistists, or something similar.
Then they won’t have to defend why they claim God does not exist; they would only have to explain their personal reasons why they don’t believe God exists.
LikeLike
January 17, 2014 at 1:23 am
Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings. For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool: but my righteousness shall be for ever, and my salvation from generation to generation. (ISAIAH 51: 7 – 8)
LikeLike
January 17, 2014 at 4:36 am
The photo image/poster at the head of this blog is not funny, but rather insulting and unnecessary. It can only set a belligerent and defensive tone.
It’s bad judgment, IMO, if you want to encourage healthy and respectful debate.
LikeLike
January 17, 2014 at 5:04 am
My belief is that the theist has not met their burden of proof.
I don’t have any beliefs about a god or gods.
LikeLike
January 17, 2014 at 5:21 am
The photo image/poster at the head of this blog is perfect, and fits the adamant ‘science-only’ mentality of the ‘Brights’ who just will not (and cannot) with their head in the hole…see the light. It is refreshing to, ‘say it’ and ‘show it’ like it is–it is intellectually stimulating, adult, and non-emotional truth-saying. Hopefully, it will instill the removal of worldly calluses from hindering (clogging up) healthy curiosity (now if we can just get our conscience to work with our curiosity and not limit ANY input to learning be it: theology, science or philosophy…) and then discern correctly with God’s input/help (Jer 33:3).
IMO, it promotes healthy and respectful and intelligent debate.
LikeLike
January 17, 2014 at 5:27 am
Oh…
Thanks, William for the basic framework to that above paragraph!
LikeLike
January 17, 2014 at 9:00 am
Aaron,
No matter what they call themselves, the bottom line is that unless they are completely neutral as to the truth value of the proposition “God exists,” then they will have a burden of justification. Very few of these people are neutral, such that they could not say that it is just as probable that God exists as it is that God does not exist. Almost all of them side with the idea that God probably does not exist. They only differ to the degree of their certainty regarding this conclusion. But the terms “atheism” and “theism” have nothing to do with certainty, and thus it is pointless to try to redefine these terms in light of one’s psychological confidence of their position.
Jason
LikeLike
January 17, 2014 at 9:00 am
Williamfrancisbrown,
I chose the image because it was the only one that really matched the “lack belief” meme, and because I think it is accurate. Atheists who only want to claim that they “lack belief” and thus do not have a burden of justification in this debate have their head in the sand.
Jason
LikeLike
January 17, 2014 at 9:00 am
NotAScientist,
You sound like a politician. They are great at ignoring the point at hand, and turning it on its head. This post is not about whether theists have a burden of proof, or whether they have or have not met that burden. This post is about whether or not the “lack a belief in God” atheists have a burden of proof or not.
You say you don’t have any beliefs about God or gods. So tell me, when it comes to the truth value of the proposition “God exists,” do you think it is just as probable that God exists as it is that God does not exist? If so, then I’ll let you slide. You are an agnostic, not an atheist. But if you lean one way or the other on the question, then you are either an atheist or a theist, and you have a burden of justification.
Jason
LikeLike
January 17, 2014 at 10:22 am
You are limiting the options to suit your premise just like the definition of an atheist definition is wrong.\
To deny n existence or to say that you do not belief in the existence is not to same the same thing.
An Atheist is a person who does “not believe” in God; not a person who denies the existence of God. “Not believe” is not a synonym of deny; if you san find there is somewhere in the thesaurus or other secular dictionary please let me know.
Believers have been trying for years to change the definition of an atheist so that it uses the concept of belief which is false.
I can say more but I need to go shopping for new pants because I believe Walmart has a size large enough to fit me. tee hee.
When I get there I shall see if I then can abandon the belief I have now with the knowledge that I have yet to acquire: if they do or do not have my size because only knowledge can set me free. To know, is freedom, to believe, is to be enslaved by non knowledge or ignorance.
LikeLike
January 17, 2014 at 11:21 am
“do you think it is just as probable that God exists as it is that God does not exist? If so, then I’ll let you slide. You are an agnostic, not an atheist.”
I don’t think we agree on the definitions of those words.
Also, the burden of proof is dependent on claims, not beliefs. I make no claims. I believe plenty of things. I know even less. And I’m fine with that.
LikeLike
January 18, 2014 at 10:02 am
notascientist:
It is more probable that God does not exist than that God does exist:
1st. If there was a God it would be self evident;
2nd. Religions would not have to proselytize;
3rd. There would not be a fractured human race with each faction promoting their own personal God Brand and making extravagant claims of the laws of nature being suspended to accommodate ludicrous claims of miracles by the clergy and their believers;
4th. Believers would not presume that God needs to be defended by a creature of his creation.
It is more probable that God(s) was created by Ego, Power and Ignorance, supported and perpetrated by ludicrous claims of miracles and deceitful magic. The Old Testament, ironically that Moses got his ministry start by performing feats of magic in the King’s court.
LikeLike
January 21, 2014 at 11:05 am
SonofMan,
Atheism has always meant the belief that God does not exist. You may want to change the meaning to something else, but don’t engage in historical revisionism. As I said, there are only three logical responses one can have to the proposition “God exists.” One can affirm its truth value, deny its truth value, or take no position at all. These responses have traditionally been labeled theism, atheism, and agnosticism. It only brings confusion to change the terms now.
Of course it’s true that denying the existence of X and and not having a belief in the existence of X are not the same thing. There are many exotic animals in the oceans and rain forests that I have never heard of, and hence I lack a belief in their existence. But when it comes to pink unicorns, I believe they do not exist. So I agree with you. What I disagree about is that someone who lacks belief in God is an atheist. That’s not what the term means. One who simply lacks belief in God is an agnostic, and they could be an agnostic because they have not explored the question before, or because they are not able to weigh the evidence for and against God’s existence in order to come to a conclusion. But if someone is not neutral on the question – i.e. they either believe God’s existence is more probable than not, or they believe God’s existence is more improbable than not – then they are not an agnostic. They are either a theist or an atheist, and thus they have a burden of justification. There are few agnostics out there. This is especially true of those who visit sites like mine. People who truly lack a belief about something usually don’t spend hours arguing with people and telling them they are wrong and stupid. I have no beliefs about which is the best rugby team in England because I don’t know anything about rugby or English rugby teams. I am agnostic when it comes to that question. And that’s why I don’t get on blogs debating the question. But don’t tell me (speaking in general, not you per se) that non-theists who frequent sites like mine are neutral. They are not. They have a point of view, and they need to defend it. They can’t hide behind the “lack of belief” moniker and pretend they have no point of view to defend.
I should also say that agnostics come in two stripes: those who claim not to know whether the proposition “God exists” is true or false, and those who claim that we cannot know whether it is true or false. The latter are often termed “hard agnostics,” and these people also have a burden of proof because they are making a claim to know something, namely that knowledge of the truth value of the proposition “God exists” is impossible. One must have reasons for that conclusion.
Jason
LikeLike
January 21, 2014 at 11:05 am
NotAScientist,
We may not agree as to the definition, but that is on you, not on me since I am defining my terms according to their historical, established meaning. It is you, not me, who is redefining words.
But even if we don’t define words the same way, it doesn’t matter to the question I asked you. My question did not use any of the terms in question. I simply asked you whether or not you think it is just as probable that God exists as it is that God does not exist? What’s your answer? I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that your answer is that God’s non-existence is more probable than His existence. If that is the case, then you have a point of view, and that point of view needs to be defended regardless what you label it.
You cannot make a dichotomy between beliefs and claims. Every belief is a claim about what one thinks is true, and every claim represents one’s belief about what is true. You, like so many other atheists, think that beliefs and knowledge are at odds with one another. What you fail to realize is that knowledge entails beliefs. We cannot know something is true without simultaneously believing that it is true. Otherwise we would have to say stuff like “I know the moon orbits the Earth but I do not believe the moon orbits the Earth.” The standard philosophical definition of knowledge is “justified true belief.” We can only know something when we believe X to be true, and have sufficient justification for that belief. I think what you mean by “belief” is “thinking X to be true without any evidence or without sufficient evidence.” That is not what belief means. That is “mere belief.” There is a huge difference between mere belief and belief. Mere belief does not rise to the level of knowledge, but all knowledge requires belief. Belief is necessary, but not sufficient for knowledge. Without the proper justification, it is “mere belief.”
Jason
LikeLike
January 21, 2014 at 11:06 am
SonofMan,
Justify your claims, please. Why think God’s existence must be self-evident? One would have to hold that everything that exists must have self-evident existence. But this is not true for most things that exist. I exist, but my existence is unknown to the vast majority of the world.
Or you must hold the proposition that God is required to make His existence known in self-evident terms. Why think that? Why couldn’t God supply evidence for His existence such that those who seek to know Him will find Him, but those who don’t care to know Him will not be bothered by Him? Unless you can justify either of these claims, or some alternative, then your first two claims are unfounded.
Basically, all you have done is state what you think God should do if He exists, and since your expectations are not met, you conclude that God does not exist. I find that humorous. What if I did the same to you? If SonofMan truly existed, then he should show up at my house for dinner tonight. He didn’t show up, thus He doesn’t exist.
Jason
LikeLike
January 21, 2014 at 1:23 pm
Jason:
Your analogy is too simplistic. And if you seek what you do not know then how would you know what you found if you found anything without knowing what you were looking for?
Why would one(Son) not expect to know the creator (Father) since everyone seems to say man was created in his image; then I suppose, we must look like God, act like God, understand like God but none of those concepts make sense when we see around the world that the creature made in the image of God:
[1] MAN created God in his own image and gave Him the Perfect Attributes of Deity.
[2] THESE are those attributes which Man must aspire to but the likes of which Man has determined is impossible to achieve
[3] MAN sets the highest standards for his God and then pre-ordains those standards to be unreachable by Man thus insuring
[4] THE justification for Man as he goes about his business of being just the opposite of the attributes he has given to his God
[5] BEING stupid, unforgiving, greedy, a liar, a cheat, a stealer, a killer, a deceiver and a most hateful and
[6] MURDEROUS character of which even among his own kind many cannot believe
[7] HE IS capable of the worse acts of atrocity on his fellow man, the environment and the life forms which support him.
And then we have ancient texts that claim to have seen God, heard God; claiming God says this and God says that, sending his wrath, destroying villages and towns and whole cities, leaving nothing and no one alive, telling the Israelites to slaughter their enemies and yada yada yada.
It’s ridiculous to attributes the atrocities of man and natural disasters to God and then say God is the God of Mankind.
You do not have a definition of God that the rest of the world to follow nor does Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism or any of the other “isms” in town.
There simply is no “Ism” on this planet that knows and all claims that God made himself known in ancient times through the senses is nonsense, through fire, through thunder, through bumper crops, through disasters, through famines, through abundance….all if it is nonsense to anyone with any sense in modern day society.
If there is a God let him show up at your dinner table tonight to sup with you…And let us know tomorrow how that worked out for you.
LikeLike
January 21, 2014 at 1:27 pm
January 18, 2014 at 10:24 am
Jason et al: There is a current case of a brain dead patient in Texas whose family wants the hospital to remove the life support system and allow her body to die too. The dilemma is the woman was 14 weeks pregnant with a second child when she was found unconscious and taken to hospital.
As the lawsuit details, the story began at 2 a.m. on November 26, when Erick found his wife unconscious on the kitchen floor. At the time, she was 14 weeks’ pregnant with the couple’s second child. Soon after that, she was taken to John Peter Smith Hospital, where Erick Munoz says he was told that his wife “was for all purposes brain dead.” The family also says the fetus may have been deprived of oxygen.
(CNN) — The family of Marlise Munoz has long said the pregnant Texas woman was brain dead, but now it has the medical records to confirm it, lawyers said Friday. “We have recently received Marlise Munoz’s medical records, and can now confirm that Mrs. Munoz is clinically brain dead, and therefore deceased under Texas law,” attorneys Jessica Janicek and Heather King said in an e-mail. Meanwhile, the judge in the case has recused herself from “all remaining proceedings” and asked that another judge be assigned, according to the order for recusal.
Munoz’s husband, Erick, asked a court Tuesday to force a hospital to take her off a respirator, ventilator and other machines, saying her wishes shouldn’t be disregarded just because she is pregnant. Erick Munoz filed an emergency motion as well as a complaint against John Peter Smith Hospital, both with the same goal: to have the hospital disconnect the machines so that her family can take her body and give her a proper burial. “Marlise Munoz is legally dead, and to further conduct surgical procedures on a deceased body is nothing short of outrageous,” her husband says in the motion. Erick Munoz — like his wife, a paramedic by training — said previously that doctors told him his wife “had lost all activity in her brain stem,” and an accompanying chart stated that she was “brain dead,” according to his lawsuit.
The hospital referred requests for comment to the Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office, which said it will defend the medical facility against the lawsuit. It is legal counsel for John Peter Smith Hospital “in a number of civil areas.” In a brief court document filed Friday, the civil defendant said simply, “Tarrant County Hospital District d/b/a JPS Health Network generally denies, each and every, all and singular, the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Original Petition and demands strict proof of the same.” At this time, no hearing has been scheduled in the case. Hospital spokesman J.R. Labbe said last month that doctors were simply trying to obey a Texas law that says “you cannot withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment for a pregnant patient.”
If the life support system is removed the fetus will also be aborted.
I am curious. What is your position about this case?
Should the hospital be allowed to go against the wishes of her family and remove the life support and at the same time kill the unborn child which is about 20 weeks old at this time or continue the life support because the fetus by extension has become the patient?
FULL STORY HERE: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/17/justice/pregnant-life-support-texas/
LikeLike
January 21, 2014 at 1:33 pm
“The standard philosophical definition of knowledge is ‘justified true belief.’ ” is a bogus argument and is not the definition of knowledge whatsoever no matter how you cut it.
Thai is nothing more than the Christian spin of saying that Atheism is a belief system, totally and utterly ridiculous.
Belief is never knowledge regardless of the descriptives you put on it.
Try the dictionary definition of KNOWLEDGE, not the theological definition:
1. The state or fact of knowing.
2. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.
3. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.
It has nothing to do with belief. Nothing whatsoever.
Belief is religion’s way of trying to infringe on territory where they do not belong.
LikeLike
January 21, 2014 at 1:37 pm
Jaso< face it:
Christians "Believe"
Atheist do not believe.
What part of KNOW do you not want to face up to?
LikeLike
January 21, 2014 at 5:17 pm
The title of this post reads: “Atheists may lack belief in God, but they do not lack beliefs about God”, in the interest of clarity;
Let’s define “belief”: 1. an acceptance of something as true. 2. in theology, faith, or a firm persuasion of the truths of a religion. 3. the body of religious doctrine held by the professors of a faith; a creed. 4. anything believed; the object of believing. 5. trust; confidence; as, I have belief in his ability. 6. an opinion; expectation; judgment; as, my belief is that he’ll come. Syn. – conviction, faith, opinion, credence, creed, trust, persuasion, confidence.
Let’s define “conviction”: 1. strong belief. 2. a convincing or being convinced.
Let’s define “convince”: 1. originally, to overcome or convict. 2. to persuade or satisfy by evidence or argument; to overcome the doubts of; to cause to feel certain; as, to convince a man of his errors; to convince him of the truth. Syn. – persuade. – To convince a person is to satisfy his understanding as to the truth of a certain statement; to persuade him is to influence his feelings or will.
Let’s define “understanding”: 1. the mental act, quality, or state of one who understands; comprehension; knowledge; discernment. “There is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth him understanding.” (Job xxxii. 8) 2. the power or ability to think and learn; intelligence; judgment; sense. 3. a specific interpretation; as, this is my understanding of the matter. 4. mutual agreement, especially one that settles differences or is informal and not made public. 5. mutual comprehension, as of ideas, intentions, etc. Syn. – knowledge, comprehension, apprehension, conception, sense, intellect, faculty, intelligence, ken, reason.
Let’s define “understand”: 1. to have understanding, comprehension, or discernment, either in general or with reference to some specific statement, situation, etc. 2. to be informed; to believe; to assume (usually parenthetical); as, he is, I understand, no longer here.
Definitions provided by: WEBSTER’S NEW TWENTIETH CENTURY DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE UNABRIDGED SECOND EDITION; WILLIAM COLLINS PUBLISHERS, INC. 1980
LikeLike
January 21, 2014 at 5:57 pm
Frank Adamick:
“Let’s define “belief”: 1. an acceptance of something as true.” whether it is true or false. While it may be false, belief accepts it as true.
One may have a belief such as trust; confidence; as, I have belief in his ability but if the ability falls flat on his face does the virtue of trust or confidence mean anything after all? Nada.
All you seem to be doing is tacking virtue to belief as though that increases the credible worth of belief but it does not.
Now here is an example of a belief that is worthy, for the end result of all belief must necessarily be the acquisition of knowledge which is the only credible reason for having a belief in anything; only knowledge can set you free, belief never can: and knowledge once had, what happens to belief? belief vanishes like disappearing darkness when the light comes on, like it never even happened.
Jonas Edward Salk (October 28, 1914 – June 23, 1995) was an American medical researcher and virologist.
Until 1957, when the Salk vaccine was introduced, polio was considered the most frightening public health problem of the post-war United States. Annual epidemics were increasingly devastating. The 1952 epidemic was the worst outbreak in the nation’s history. Of nearly 58,000 cases reported that year, 3,145 people died and 21,269 were left with mild to disabling paralysis, with most of its victims being children. The “public reaction was to a plague,” said historian Bill O’Neal. “Citizens of urban areas were to be terrified every summer when this frightful visitor returned.” According to a 2009 PBS documentary, “Apart from the atomic bomb, America’s greatest fear was polio.”
My childhood “best friend” and school buddy was a victim of polio.
When news of the vaccine’s success was made public on April 12, 1955, Salk was hailed as a “miracle worker,” and the day “almost became a national holiday.”
His sole focus had been to develop a safe and effective vaccine as rapidly as possible, with no interest in personal profit and he had a “BELIEF” that he could find it. When he was asked in a televised interview who owned the patent to the vaccine, Salk replied: “There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?”
Salk’s last years were spent searching for a vaccine against HIV.
This is the type of belief that yields benefits to mankind and for which the virtues of trust, confidence, judgment can truly be rendered but to use virtues indiscriminately by associating virtue with the supernatural belief and ludicrous claims of the ridiculous nonsense of religious insanity is ignominious to say the least and is worse than merely useless to say the most.
And I am unanimous in that.
LikeLike
January 21, 2014 at 6:03 pm
As far s the brain-dead woman in Texas being kept on life support woman to keep the 22 week old fetus alive for another couple of weeks against the wish of the husband….does anyone have an opinion about this? anyone?
The silence is deafening.
LikeLike
January 22, 2014 at 10:15 am
Interesting discussion here about knowledge and belief.
I totally understand the position of the unbeliever with respects to knowledge being separate from belief. Instead of re-iterating what was already said, I would like to make another comment, specifically about knowledge.
I think we can all agree that knowledge is the knowing of some fact of truth. I agree with the atheist that belief in something does not equal knowledge, in terms of scientific or empirical knowledge. That is obvious. I can believe I can fly but when I try it I will plummet to my death !
However, for those that believe in God like myself, the knowledge that we speak of is not the mundane scientific facts and figures of the atheist. While Christians appreciate and respect the great scientific minds and thinkers out there, when it comes to knowledge, we are setting our minds on truths that are of greater importance and scope. The knowledge we seek are the hidden things that are not obvious and ultimately the knowledge of God. This is why “belief” for a Christian is paramount and inseparable from knowledge. Through belief in God and in His Word we can learn truths that you can’t find in a test tube and ultimately these truths are the ones that are going to make a difference in the end.
I know this is intellectually unsatisfying for the atheist, but it has to be this way. This is yet another truth.
Naz
LikeLike
January 22, 2014 at 1:29 pm
There are no truths being sought after by the believer that are not being sought after by the atheist; Christians have no monopoly for seeking truths but the difference is that Christians create a Leprechaun Caricature Concept(the Supernatural) and then search for the Pot of Gold they believe will prove the Leprechaun Concept.
Atheists search for truths following natural effects and tracing their cause or observing causes and watching the effects.
An event is quickly called miraculous by the believer because the evidence for the event is not readily seen; the atheist uses reason, logic and common sense of the Laws of Physics.
To the believer it is more acceptable in the pursuit of truth of creatively imagined concepts of supernaturalism to say that “a man walked on water”; the atheist will only agree, given the laws of Nature, that “a man walked in water”. Walking “in” water is easily demonstrated any time, walking “on” water cannot be demonstrated, not even once, fornever and never unless you consult Chris Angel or David Copperfield whose services were in great demand in early civilization; every King’s court had one or more like the court jester. It is true if you “jest” believe. so lolable.
LikeLike
January 22, 2014 at 6:39 pm
“And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. They understood not that he spake to them of the Father. Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I always do those things that please him. As he spake these words, many believed on him. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” (JOHN 8: 23-36)
LikeLike
January 23, 2014 at 9:26 am
“Atheists search for truths following natural effects and tracing their cause or observing causes and watching the effects.”
Exactly my point………..
Naz
LikeLike
January 25, 2014 at 7:34 pm
I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding about Russell’s teapot (No connection to me). Is not the implication of the analogy is not “He who makes a claim bears a burden to demonstrate the truth of his claim,” but rather, the burden of proof lies upon the unfalsifiable.
A religion that makes falsifiable claims must by disproven by proving the claims false, but an unfalsifiable claim, like an undetectable teapot in outer space can be rejected out-right.
Atheism, like some religions, makes a falsifiable claim, and like those religions, it cannot be rejected on the grounds that “he who makes a claim bears a burden to demonstrate the truth of his claim,” but can be rejected on the grounds that it was tested false (tested is a vague term, but I define it to be, “incompatible with reality” the claim; the claim, I do not have a watch, is false because I have a watch.).
LikeLike
January 25, 2014 at 8:02 pm
Theists assert that they believe God exists.
Atheists assert that they do not believe God exists.
One believes and the other does not believe.
God may exist or God may not exist; you may have a watch or you may not have a watch.
One person believes you have a watch and another person believes you do not have a watch; the watch is only an issue regarding the belief. If you produce a watch the believer’s belief vanishes because knowledge disintegrates the belief. If you cannot produce a watch the belief vanishes because knowledge disintegrates belief; this is so in both cases whether you have a watch or do not have a watch. To believe without knowledge is unacceptable to an atheist.
Belief then simply means “without knowledge” in both cases.
I mean you could be hypnotized into believing that you’re a chicken but you can’t reasonable expect other people to share that belief, at least until they see a few eggs. And that’s the bottom line here. Evidence. If you show me a few eggs then I will know that you are a chicken. Or a christian or a muslim or whatever the heck you think you are.
LikeLike
January 26, 2014 at 7:39 am
For all you Christians who clamor against abortion, that a fetus is a human life to be preserved, that life begins at conception and the like, why can not anyone blogging here comment on the right or the wrong of a brain-dead woman being kept on life support in a hospital while a fetus is still alive and growing inside the dead woman?
I have put the challenge of this dilemma on this site for the fourth time and yet still await for someone to comment on this. Anyone Jason?
For those against abortion, why the silence? You all have plenty to say about something this atheist does not believe exists, like the supernatural but you remain silent on things that do exist, that do matter in the here and now, that do require resolution, positions made known, justified……..huh?
The lastest is that at Jan 24th Friday’s court procedure the judge ruled that the hospital must remove the life support system and has until 5 pm tomorrow, Monday, Jan 27, 2014 to remove the life support system of the dead woman thus aborting the child of the pregnant dead woman at the same time; or, appeal the judge’s ruling to remove the life support.
At the time of the pregnant woman’s demise on or about the Nov 26, 2013 the fetus ws 14 weeks old. The fetus is now 22 weeks old with only two weeks remaining before reaching SCOTUS definition of fetus viability outside the womb, 24 weeks……..the God debate can wait, the child’s life is in the balance.
Shall the hospital appeal the decision?
If the appeal is granted it may take two weeks or more to hear the appeal at which SCOTUS viability age could be reached?
Would the father reject the child if it survives?
Should the State even consider allowing the father access to the chld if it survives?
If the family wishes are upheld, will the dead woman be any deader in the ground than in the hospital?
What is so important about burial that it is the only way to give closure to the husband about his wife’s untimely death?
Does the dead woman have the right of “dignity of death” or is the “dignity of death” really only for the living?
If the appellant judge upholds the judge’s ruling to remove the support system should the hospital remove the fetus and attempt to sustain its life even if the 24 week threshold for viability has not been reached? Is 10 days away, 7 days away, 3 days away?
The God Debate has been going on for at least ten thousand centuries and still mankind has only a “belief” or a “no-belief” in man’s signature concept creation, The ‘Gods’ Theory, no knowledge but thousands of created Gods plenty of belief; how many more thousands of centuries are needed? How many trillions of generations will come and go, chucking one God aside for another, chucking one religion aside for another?
Is civilizing itself something of an engima achievable only in the imagination like heaven?
LikeLike
January 26, 2014 at 1:05 pm
“FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) — The family of a brain-dead, pregnant Texas woman said Sunday afternoon that she has been removed from life support following a judge’s ruling that a Fort Worth hospital was misapplying state law in the case.
A statement sent Sunday afternoon by lawyers for the husband of Marlise Munoz says she was disconnected from life support about 11:30 a.m.
It says her body was released to her husband, Erick Munoz.”
(That is, the dead body of the wife was released to the husband, with the live baby inside.)
Larry Thompson, a state’s attorney arguing on behalf of the hospital Friday, said the hospital was trying to protect the rights of the fetus as it believed Texas law instructed it to do.
“There is a life involved, and the life is the unborn child,” Thompson said.
Both the hospital and family agreed before Wallace’s ruling that Marlise Munoz meets the criteria to be considered brain-dead — which means she is dead both medically and under Texas law — and that her fetus, at about 23 weeks, could not be born alive this early in pregnancy.
It also has garnered attention on both sides of the abortion debate, with anti-abortion groups arguing Munoz’s fetus deserves a chance to be born.
I wonder how long it will take for the child to die in the dead mother’s womb? Will it kick? Will it cry? Will it be buried alive? This is what a brain dead society thinks a fetus is worth and imagine in Texas that has virtually closed down all the abortion clinics in the State to deny woman the chice to kill their unborn children but allowed this child onky one week away from the viability age of SCOTUS: 24 weeks. Huh!
“Erick Munoz described in a signed affidavit Thursday what it was like to see his wife on life support: her glassy, “soulless” eyes; and the smell of her perfume replaced………….”
LikeLike
January 27, 2014 at 8:34 pm
An unbeliever is not necessarily an atheist.Thus it is erroneous to claim to be an atheist ,while then defining it as being an unbeliever.
LikeLike
January 27, 2014 at 8:54 pm
Sonny:
An atheist is someone who does not believe in God(s)
I do not believe in God(s)
I am someone; therefore, I am an atheist.
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 5:05 pm
Just realized I had written out responses to some of the comments, but never posted them. Doing so now…
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 5:06 pm
SonofMan,
Regarding the brain dead woman, that had nothing to do with this thread. Why think everyone should respond to whatever new topics you want to bring up in the comments section? If you want to discuss an issue unrelated to the post, you are free to discuss it at your own blog. The silence only means that everyone else understands what it means to stay on point in the comments section.
Jason
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 5:08 pm
SonofMan,
Really? You want to dispute the standard definition of knowledge now? And I’m supposed to raise my hands in surrender simply because you say it’s bogus and contradict the claim? Newsflash everyone: “The hundreds of years’ old definition of knowledge no longer applies because SonofMan says so!” I’ll get this to the NYT as quickly as possible so all the epistemologists can update their philosophy textbooks.
While you may want to define belief as the lack of knowledge, that is not what philosophers mean by the term, and that is not what Christians mean either.
Jason
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 5:08 pm
SonofMan,
Atheists do have beliefs. Beliefs are dispositions one has regarding the truth value of propositions, and atheists believe that the proposition “God exists” is false.
Jason
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 5:09 pm
Frank,
Knowledge is justified true belief. While one can have beliefs that are not justified, and hence never rise to the level of knowledge (but are mere belief), all knowledge requires that one believe what they claim to know. It makes no sense to say “I know X” but not believe X. Again, don’t impose the false “no evidence” definition of belief on belief. That’s not what philosophers mean by belief, and it’s not what the Bible means by belief. Mere belief is not the same as belief.
Jason
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 5:09 pm
Naz,
I think the point you are trying to make is that justification for religious beliefs is not the same kind of justifications used for scientific beliefs. However, both have beliefs, and both can be justified. They are simply justified in different ways. But I would not say that what religious people mean by belief is something different than non-religious. All knowledge is justified true belief. Anything we know must be believed. The only question is the nature of the justification.
Jason
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 5:10 pm
Russell,
Unfalsifiable claims should not be rejected out-right. For example, there is no way you could falsify my claim that I exist, but clearly I should not reject that claim, and I don’t think you would be warranted in doing so either. There are even scientific claims that cannot be falsified, but should be accepted. For example, I blogged not too long ago about the evidence for other galaxies, an expanding universe, and the age of the universe. Many eons from now, there will be no way to falsify the claim that the universe is eternal, and that the Milky Way is the only galaxy in the universe (which is what it will appear like to observers in that day). But if those observers discovered ancient scientific evidence to the contrary, they should believe it, though they cannot confirm or falsify it.
Jason
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 5:12 pm
SonofMan and NotaScientist,
While I obviously consider the proper definition of “atheist” to be important, when it comes to the question of who bears a burden of proof, it’s really just a distraction. You can define “atheism” as “someone who likes going to the circus” for all I care. What matters is whether you have a position or not on the truth value of the proposition “God exists,” because anyone with a position – whether positive or negative – has the burden of proof to defend their position. When it comes to the question of God’s existence, neither of you are intellectually neutral. You both have a position. You believe it is more likely that God does not exist than that He does exist. So call yourself what you will, but defend your position you must.
Why do you think God’s existence is unlikely? That is your burden of proof. Quit pretending that atheism is the default position unless and until the theist can demonstrate God’s existence, and that all the onus is on the theist. You can’t just sit back, fold your arms, and relax while you wait for the theist’s evidence. That luxury only belongs to soft agnostics, of which you are not. You have the responsibility to justify your position, which is that God’s existence is unlikely. Even if I, nor any other theist, failed to present any evidence for God’s existence, the fact remains that you are not justified in concluding that God does not exist. That conclusion is only warranted if there is evidence to think God doesn’t exist. So pony up your burden.
Jason
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 5:39 pm
Jason:
Theists believe
Atheists do not believe.
No matter how many times you try to spin atheism to say they belief you are trying to twist language definition to suit your idea that atheist believe. No they do not believe in a God, not that they believe that god’s existence is false; they do not believe in God to start with.
You have been debating the existence of god for ten thousand centuries; you are flogging a dead horse, regurgitating the same nonsense over and over, sideways, upside down, inside out and all you have accomplished for all that time is nothing, a big fat nothing and that’s all the argument is about your big fat belief in nothing. We do not believe in nothing.
You have never and will never be able to prove that god exists; if you or your ancestors could have they would have and you should have by now but you cannot, Why? because atheists believe god(s) never existed, does not exist and never will exist. We do not have to prove no thing does not exists; that’s impossible.
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 6:31 pm
Jason:
About the brain dead woman; it seems to me that was very relevant as a real life topic to discuss in the life of the moment. I simply asked why not mention the matter since you refused to respond to the matter on your abortion thread: SCOTUS refuses to hear case for AZ’s 20+ week abortion ban”
If you would have answered the matter on the thread where abortion was the topic I would not have had to try and inject that important topic into this thread. AS IT TURNED OUT , YOU OFFERED NOTHING ABOUT IT AND EVEN THOUGH THE COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF KILLING THE LIVING FETUS, you still remain silent and then blame me for bringing in a topic on this thread because you refused to talk about when you had the chance; or, maybe you just didn’t have the gonads of your convictions. And then blame me now about not being on topic, in spite of your nonsense debates about things you simply rant on about in speculative philosophy about the invention of the god myths so many weak minds are in thrall about. Regardless of how much you study theology and how many degrees you try to accumulate, you will always be an expert in the unknowable.
Tell me why you did not repond to the brain dead woman and her unborn child when I asked about the matter on the Post:
“SCOTUS refuses to hear case for AZ’s 20+ week abortion ban”
where abortion was plainly talked about. I addressed the issue in the following post and then commented in anothr thread that the silence was deafening:
“SCOTUS refuses to hear case for AZ’s 20+ week abortion ban”
Posted by jasondulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics, Politics
[4] Comments
POST 4:
SonofMan Says:
January 18, 2014 at 10:24 am
Jason et al:
There is a current case of a brain dead patient in Texas whose family wants the hospital to remove the life support system and allow her body to die too. The dilemma is the woman was 14 weeks pregnant with a second child when she was found unconscious and taken to hospital.
As the lawsuit details, the story began at 2 a.m. on November 26, when Erick found his wife unconscious on the kitchen floor. At the time, she was 14 weeks’ pregnant with the couple’s second child.
Soon after that, she was taken to John Peter Smith Hospital, where Erick Munoz says he was told that his wife “was for all purposes brain dead.” The family also says the fetus may have been deprived of oxygen.
(CNN) — The family of Marlise Munoz has long said the pregnant Texas woman was brain dead, but now it has the medical records to confirm it, lawyers said Friday.
“We have recently received Marlise Munoz’s medical records, and can now confirm that Mrs. Munoz is clinically brain dead, and therefore deceased under Texas law,” attorneys Jessica Janicek and Heather King said in an e-mail.
Meanwhile, the judge in the case has recused herself from “all remaining proceedings” and asked that another judge be assigned, according to the order for recusal.
Munoz’s husband, Erick, asked a court Tuesday to force a hospital to take her off a respirator, ventilator and other machines, saying her wishes shouldn’t be disregarded just because she is pregnant.
Erick Munoz filed an emergency motion as well as a complaint against John Peter Smith Hospital, both with the same goal: to have the hospital disconnect the machines so that her family can take her body and give her a proper burial.
“Marlise Munoz is legally dead, and to further conduct surgical procedures on a deceased body is nothing short of outrageous,” her husband says in the motion.
Erick Munoz — like his wife, a paramedic by training — said previously that doctors told him his wife “had lost all activity in her brain stem,” and an accompanying chart stated that she was “brain dead,” according to his lawsuit.
The hospital referred requests for comment to the Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office, which said it will defend the medical facility against the lawsuit. It is legal counsel for John Peter Smith Hospital “in a number of civil areas.”
In a brief court document filed Friday, the civil defendant said simply, “Tarrant County Hospital District d/b/a JPS Health Network generally denies, each and every, all and singular, the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Original Petition and demands strict proof of the same.”
At this time, no hearing has been scheduled in the case.
Hospital spokesman J.R. Labbe said last month that doctors were simply trying to obey a Texas law that says “you cannot withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment for a pregnant patient.”
If the life support system is removed the fetus will also be aborted.
My position is that the woman should be kept on life support and continue as an “incubator” for the child for another 4 weeks so that the child may then be removed at the time deemed that a fetus is viable at that time.
I am curious. What is your position about this case?
Should the hospital be allowed to go against the wishes of her family and remove the life support and at the same time kill the unborn child which is about 20 weeks old at this time or continue the life support because the fetus by extension has become the patient?
FULL STORY HERE: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/17/justice/pregnant-life-support-texas/
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 6:45 pm
Jason:
Can’t you see the way you frame your questions or make your statements so that you inclued the term believe?
You say: “You believe it is more likely that God does not exist than that He does exist. So call yourself what you will, but defend your position you must.”
And okay you frame the comment to suit your idea of belief but here is my position; I cannot speak about notascientist position
Here is the truth value in defense of my position regarding “the truth value of the proposition “God exists,”
As an Atheist I do not believe in god(s) and as an Atheist I do not believe, regarding “the truth value of the proposition “God exists,”, that “God exists,”
You see it is not a case of believe at all; it is a case of “do not believe”, no matter what you believe atheists should believe, the simplicity is, they do not believe. Theists, are the believers.
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 7:48 pm
You are right Jason: Surrender, is your only option! But fear not for I will be quick to forgive when you confess.
You have been defeated. You want belief to be based on the ridiculous myth that “justified belief” is knowledge. The NYT would lol at your position; only philosophical academia and theology of the unknowable would agree with you; after all, anyone holding that belief is evidence of the existence of something simply because you wish for it to be true shows the deluded mind who wrote it in the NT: Hebrews 11: 1 “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen;” and the deluded mind that accepts it.
Try taking that evidence into a court of law and request to have “standing” in a trial to prove the truth value of the proposition that “God exists.”
Belief vanishes with knowledge like the darkness vanishes when the light is turned on. Now if you have knowledge why would you need to believe anymore. If you turned on the light and the darkness remained what would be the value of light? Your position is without logic, without reason and in a word, untenable.
LikeLike
March 7, 2014 at 10:28 am
The definition of atheist as someone who lacks a belief in any God or gods goes back to at least the seventeen hundreds. It’s how atheists have always defined ‘minimal atheism’ despite the attempts of theists to impose their definition on us. A theist is perfectly welcome to present believing in God as their personal estimation of the probability of God, it’s not our fault many of them prefer to make outlandish claims about how certain they are or how obvious it is. If you don’t make a postive claim that God does exist, you don’t bear the burden of proof either. Go figure. People who are atheists because they are skeptics tend to be measured in their claims. I can’t prove leprechauns exists, I think it’s unlikely that they exist because of lack of evidence and presence of likely alternative explanations for claims of their existence, but I don’t KNOW they don’t exist, so I don’t say so. This is similar to my position on God, for exactly the same reasons. Theists can certainly claim they think God is likely but admit they don’t know. The complaint seems to be that we’re refusing to claim certainty when we’re only claiming that we don’t think the null hypothesis has been overcome.
LikeLike
April 10, 2014 at 7:51 pm
Hello There. I found your weblog the usage of msn.
This is an extremely well written article.
I will make sure to bookmark it and come back to read extra of your useful
info. Thanks for the post. I will certainly return.
LikeLike
January 12, 2015 at 3:23 am
Before you can make or reject any claims about God you need to define what God is. Without a coherent definition it is impossible to even debate the issue. This is the one thing that almost every theist takes for granted when trying to discredit what atheism is. Christians all reject Zeus. Do they have a burden of proof to fulfil that Zeus does not exist? Why not…they believe that Zeus does not exist..so why does the same rules not apply to them?
This article is a lot of twaddle, trying to sound intellectual but lacking any real depth of understanding about the issue at hand. Do you dismiss the claim that faries exist? Can you demonstrate they don’t?
Pah!
LikeLike
February 4, 2015 at 1:02 am
Dean, please provide me any old philosophy dictionary that defines atheism as the simple absence of belief in a deity. Or, provide me quotes of ancient thinkers that used the word in this sense.
You seem to think, wrongly, that unless you can be certain of some X, that you do not know X. This is a false epistemology, and one that you surely do not employ in your daily life for any other subject. Knowledge is justified true belief. We can have knowledge of X if we have justification for believing X is true. But our level of certainty regarding the truth of X will come in degrees depending on the level of justification we have for believing X is true. Neither theism nor atheism (in the traditional sense of the word) requires certainty.
Jason
LikeLike
February 4, 2015 at 1:08 am
Khawar Asif,
Theists do define what God is, so I don’t know why you would even bring this up.
As for Zeus, if one is going to say that Zeus does not exist, they do have a burden of proof to justify that claim, so no one is changing the rules here. The only person who has no burden of proof is the agnostic who makes no claims to know at all. They are neutral. But if you have a position on the issue (God exists, God probably exists, God probably doesn’t exist, God doesn’t exist), then you have a burden of proof.
As for Zeus and fairies, yes, one can demonstrate that they do not exist by either (1) assessing the evidence we would expect there to exist if Zeus/fairies exist and then compare it to the actual evidence, or (2) compare it against our background knowledge of other established truths, or (3) showing that the very concept of Zeus/fairies in incoherent.
Jason
LikeLike
February 4, 2015 at 2:26 am
“Theists do define what God is, so I don’t know why you would even bring this up”
No, they just do what you did and simply say “God”.
Why don’t you define “God” for us and then we can see whether the definition is coherent enough to debate or just dismiss out of hand because it uses attributes that are incoherent.
“…and atheists have a burden to demonstrate their claim that God does not exist”
“As for Zeus and fairies, yes, one can demonstrate that they do not exist by either (1) assessing the evidence we would expect there to exist if Zeus/fairies exist and then compare it to the actual evidence, or (2) compare it against our background knowledge of other established truths, or (3) showing that the very concept of Zeus/fairies in incoherent.”
Well if it’s that easy then I can demonstrate that God does not exist.
(1) If there was a God I would expect to see some evidence of His interaction with reality. None has been forthcoming.
(2) Thousands of contradicting religions and Gods demonstrate that there is not “one true God” but whatever people happen to make up according to their culture and level of understanding about reality.
(3) The concept of a timeless, spaceless being [which has no cause for its own existence] spoke the entire universe into existence [ex nihlo], created dust so he could fashion a living human out of it, cloned a rib-woman, drowned the whole planet except for a few favoured humans and animals, wants you to cut off your foreskin and helps you find your lost car keys….is incoherent.
Therefore God does not exist.
LikeLike
February 4, 2015 at 9:40 am
Parable of Name Usage:
There was a case that came before the judge against a woman, “whose name was Mary Doe,” said the claim. The Defendant provided a birth certificate with the name Marion Dolby and requested the claim be dismissed. The claimant said that the woman introduced herself as Mary Doe, telephoned and talked to the claimant as Mary Doe and that is how the Claimant communicated with the Defendant. The Judge decided that the Claimant knew the Defendant as Mary Doe and that Marion Dolby did in fact use a nickname in her communication with the Claimant but for the court in hearing this case, the name the Claimant new the Defendant by and the usage of the name, by the Defendant, legally constituted “Mary Doe” as the name of the person so named in the Claim. The Claim was allowed.
Atheism carries two definitions in my reference dictionary: one that denies the existence of and one that disbelieves the existence of as follows: It seems to me that one uses the definition in the way its usage is known by; if then, two can agree on one definition, the debate is on; if not, neither will accept the other’s definition for in so doing their case is dismissed or upheld accordingly. It’s like one almost has to preface their comment by defining the terms before the argument begins.
THEISM:
the view that all limited or finite things are dependent in some way on one supreme or ultimate reality of which one may also speak in personal terms with revelation (A personal God that can and does intervene in human affairs such as answering prayers)
Deism: belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ).
ATHEISM:
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
BELIEVES:
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so:
DISBELIEVES:
to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in.
LikeLike
February 4, 2015 at 5:34 pm
What’s in a name?:
LikeLike
February 4, 2015 at 6:16 pm
Frank A:
What’s in a name?: maybe not much……….maybe a hit song……can strike the imagination and elicit awesome emotions.
………..unless there’s a cartoon attached to it; JESUiS CHARLIE speaks volumes to that…………………………………and; JESUS C another volume
Here’s one for you Frank: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHGV3PhEg5c
LikeLike
February 4, 2015 at 6:19 pm
LikeLike
February 4, 2015 at 7:23 pm
Amazing what a comma can do for ya. “She’s My Girl, Bill. My my girl, Bill. Can’t say ‘nough about the way I feel! She’s miiiy girl, Bill!!”
I think he might have had a few tokes prior to going before the camera too.
LikeLike
February 4, 2015 at 8:29 pm
Frank:
Jim stafford wrote and released this song in 1974, 41 years ago. The idea was to write something funny and harmless. Actually what Jim did was exploit the fear that America still had against homosexuals in 1974. Their spokesman, Archie Bunker, was confirming that fact for them for Sunday night on CBS. So when a song like My Girl Bill was released, it ended up causing more of a stir than was intended.
“A Boy Named Sue” is a song written by Shel Silverstein that was made popular by Johnny Cash. Cash was at the height of his popularity when he recorded the song live at California’s San Quentin State Prison at a concert on February 24, 1969. 5 years earlier than Stafford’s song.
I listened to the interview of http://www.exploit.com regarding the Hebrew version of Matthew; I was hoping the girl would stop interrupting the interviewee and let him speak, he was very interesting to listen to regarding the history of Pharasaical laws and customs, Torah etc, which prompted Jesus to go into his rant against them in Matt 23. Then I realized why you posed the question what’s in a name. Yeshua, Jehovah. Lol But the take away I got from it really left me wondering why the uttering of the name seems to be so over significant as I am not inclined to agree with that idea. But thanks for the new information.
LikeLike
February 5, 2015 at 2:23 pm
You’re welcome, Leo. YHVH commands we don’t take His Name in vain. We should never use it abusively, shallowly or in any way which would misrepresent His character. Undoubtedly though, for Jews much of the compulsive obsession surrounding the uttering of the name comes from their notorious experiences with this individual:
http://www.prophecyforum.com/antiochus.html
LikeLike
February 6, 2015 at 11:51 am
Khawar Asif,
Are you actually confused about the kind of God theists or Christians theists believe in? Do you really not know? Of course you do. Do I have to define what I mean by God every time I use the word? Language doesn’t work that way. We use words without defining them all the time. We aren’t walking dictionaries. In certain contexts, when the definitions are not known, it is appropriate to define our terms, but we don’t define our terms every time we use them. Otherwise, all we would do is spend our time defining every word we use, including defining every word in the definitions we site, ad infinitum.
As for your argument, let’s assess it:
“(1) If there was a God I would expect to see some evidence of His interaction with reality. None has been forthcoming.”
What kind of evidence are you expecting? Indeed, I would argue that there is lots of evidence: the evidence from the contingency of the universe, the evidence from the beginning of the universe, the fine tuning of the universe, our apprehension of a realm of objective moral values, etc. This is not to mention the numerous reports of miracles that have been substantiated by eyewitness and medical accounts.
“(2) Thousands of contradicting religions and Gods demonstrate that there is not “one true God” but whatever people happen to make up according to their culture and level of understanding about reality.”
Another bad premise. This assumes that an absence of consensus means an absence of truth. Fallacious indeed. When 20 people give 20 different answers to a calculus problem, does it follow that there is no right answer? Of course not. All that follows is that they can’t all be right. The same with religion. Not all religious claims can be true, but it doesn’t follow that none are true.
“(3) The concept of a timeless, spaceless being [which has no cause for its own existence] spoke the entire universe into existence [ex nihlo], created dust so he could fashion a living human out of it, cloned a rib-woman, drowned the whole planet except for a few favoured humans and animals, wants you to cut off your foreskin and helps you find your lost car keys….is incoherent.”
To be incoherent means the parts are incompatible by nature. They do not cohere together in a logical fashion. Square circles are incoherent, but none of the parts you listed above are incoherent.
“Therefore God does not exist.”
This doesn’t even follow logically from your three premises, even if each of your three premises were sound.
Jason
LikeLike
April 12, 2015 at 10:27 pm
[…] • What exactly does it mean to be an “atheist”? • The New Definition of Atheism is Compatible with God’s Existence • Atheists may lack belief in God, but they do not lack beliefs about God […]
LikeLike
January 25, 2016 at 2:07 am
[…] one an agnostic, not an atheist. Besides, while most of these atheists lack belief in God, they do not lack beliefs about God. They think he (probably) doesn’t exist, and that belief must be […]
LikeLike
February 4, 2016 at 5:05 pm
In faith there is enough light for those who want to see and enough shadows to blind those who don’t.
-Blaise Pascal
The father of the scientific method was a Christian, Sir Francis Bacon. The spiritual lives of Mozart, Bach, Handel, Haydn, Brahms, Schubert, Liszt and many others had absolutely everything to do with their successes and almost every one of them has at least a few quotes you can find to confirm that fact.
Christianity is self-sacrificial love and is the cornerstone of countless masterpieces in art, music and all regions of human achievement.
Christianity ministers to africans who are deprived of water and other needs, to the Untouchables who are not treated as humans, care for sex trafficking victims, widows, the homeless, orphans and many others. This is the heart of the gospel. John 3:16. What you do to the “least” of these you do to the Creator of all things and the Redeemer of all man.
Atheists use suffering as ammuntion to attack Christians while Christians use the gospel to conquer suffering.
God is love!
There are many cool testimonies of atheists who came to know the truth. Also the same with ex-homosexuals, ex-transgenders, ex-drug-addicts and many many other stories like that.
It rarely ends up making sense why people are threatened by Christianity. Islam wants to conquer the world and behead all who dont believe and frequently pray for the destruction of America and Israel so as to bring in the caliphate and await their Al Mahdi, which ironically fits perfectly with Christianitys description of the antichrist. Atheists wont go against Muslims because they don’t turn their cheek and love their enemies like Christians. It’s easier to do and get away with. People want to take the benefits on western civilization Christianity has established while simultaneously rejecting its source. It will create massive instability in culture and has historically shown that.
Many Muslims, Hindus and even Americans have encountered the one true living God through dreams and visions, which fulfills an ancient prophecy found in Joel 2. It is something to consider when someone who has never read the bible can have experiences through these dreams and visions, they have a sudden desire to read the bible and their experiences which expressed messages, truths or a presence, lines up perfectly to the perfectly preserved Holy Scriptures. Lives are changed and given infinite hope and, despite being persecuted and even killed for the sake of Christ cannot overcome the love which came from the grace of God shed abroad in their hearts.
Reading Isaiah 53 (which was also in the Dead Sea Scrolls) describes nothing other than what Jesus did 700 years before he did so. Lies have no such power and that is one of 300+ prophecies.
You cannot expect to find God if you do not want to believe that he is and is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. He’s not going to corrupt free will so that no one has do any work to come to know him. We cant box him up into our tiny finite minds and expect him to be worthy of worship or even accurately understood. When we humble ourselves and seek him, then we can come to understand him.
He has made all things and they express his invisible qualities. God will always be just, but also merciful. His heart and visible image is Christ, who suffered agonies in our place so he can reconcile us with God. He humbled himself into the form of a servant and took the punishment of sins for us. We all fall short of our own standards, so how much more of an Holy God’s?
He has made a way for all to come to know God, be you a high level ivory tower specimen, an nobel prize winning physicist, a homeless drug addict, an orphan or a prisoner, he loves all and his word will reach every person eventually and then after will come the end. It is the Good News (gospel) that give wings to the souls of all man. He makes wise the simple.
It’s not an elitist armchair philosophically position that requires degrees and achievements, or a silly sorcery school where only those who have been reincarnated a million times can truly know the truth.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. He died to give us life and peace and to have it abundantly and I know this to be true. I don’t need to refer to a scientist to confirm the truths that my soul knoweth right well. Confirmations always come.
In faith there is enough light for those who want to see and enough shadows to blind those who don’t.
-Blaise Pascal
There are people who do not want there to be a God and if that were not so, there would be no atheists.
The father of the scientific method was a Christian, Sir Francis Bacon. The spiritual lives of Mozart, Bach, Handel, Haydn, Brahms, Schubert, Liszt and many others had absolutely everything to do with their successes and almost every one of them has at least a few quotes you can find to confirm that fact.
Christianity is self-sacrificial love and is the cornerstone of countless masterpieces in art, music and architecture.
Christianity ministers to africans who are deprived of water and other needs, to the Untouchables who are not treated as humans, cares for sex trafficking victims, widows, the homeless, orphans and many others. This is the heart of the gospel. John 3:16. What you do to the “least” of these you do to the Creator of all things and the Redeemer of all man.
Atheists use suffering as ammuntion to attack Christians while Christians use the gospel to conquer suffering. God is love! There are many cool testimonies of atheists who came to know the truth. Also the same with ex-homosexuals, ex-transgenders, ex-drug-addicts and many many other stories like that.
It doesn’t make sense why people are threatened by Christianity. Islam wants to conquer the world and behead all who dont believe and frequently pray for the destruction of America and Israel so as to bring in the caliphate and await their Al Mahdi, which ironically fits perfectly with Christianitys description of the antichrist. Atheists wont go against Muslims because they don’t turn their cheek and love their enemies.
Many Muslims, Hindus and even Americans have encountered the one true living God through dreams and visions, which fulfills an ancient prophecy found in Joel 2. It is something to consider when someone who has never read the bible can have experiences through these dreams and visions, they have a sudden desire to read the bible and their experiences which expressed messages, truths or a presence, lines up perfectly to the perfectly preserved Holy Scriptures. Lives are changed and given infinite hope and, despite being persecuted and even killed for the sake of Christ cannot overcome the love which came from the grace of God shed abroad in their hearts.
Reading Isaiah 53 (which was also in the Dead Sea Scrolls) describes nothing other than what Jesus did 700 years before he did so. Lies have no such power and that is one of 300+ prophecies.
You cannot expect to find God if you do not want to believe that he is and is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. He’s not going to corrupt free will so that no one has do any work to come to know him. We cant box him up into our tiny finite minds. When we humble our selves and seek him, then we can come to understand him.
He has made all things and they express his invisible qualities. God will always be just, but also merciful. His heart and visible image is Christ, who suffered agonies in our place so he can reconcile us with God. He humbled himself into the form of a servant and took the punishment of sins for us. We all fall short of our own standards, so how much more of a Holy God’s?
He has made a way for all to come to know God, be you a high level ivory tower specimen, an orphan, a prisoner, he loves all and his word will reach every person eventually and then after will come the end. He makes wise the simple. It’s not an elitist armchair philosophically position that requires degrees and achievements. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
He died to give us life and peace and to have it abundantly and I know this to be true. I don’t need to refer to a scientist to confirm the truths that my soul knoweth right well. I could share my testimony or refer an atheist to another one, but when the transformative power of the gospel upon the hearts of man is not compelling, there’s no point. I pray for all to know just how sweet the Lord is.
For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.
LikeLike
February 4, 2016 at 5:14 pm
My “smart” phone was having difficulties with copy/paste. Here:
In faith there is enough light for those who want to see and enough shadows to blind those who don’t.
-Blaise Pascal
There are people who do not want there to be a God and if that were not so, there would be no atheists.
The father of the scientific method was a Christian, Sir Francis Bacon. The spiritual lives of Mozart, Bach, Handel, Haydn, Brahms, Schubert, Liszt and many others had absolutely everything to do with their successes and almost every one of them has at least a few quotes you can find to confirm that fact.
Christianity is self-sacrificial love and is the cornerstone of countless masterpieces in art, music and architecture.
Christianity ministers to africans who are deprived of water and other needs, to the Untouchables who are not treated as humans, cares for sex trafficking victims, widows, the homeless, orphans and many others. This is the heart of the gospel. John 3:16. What you do to the “least” of these you do to the Creator of all things and the Redeemer of all man.
Atheists use suffering as ammuntion to attack Christians while Christians use the gospel to conquer suffering. God is love! There are many cool testimonies of atheists who came to know the truth. Also the same with ex-homosexuals, ex-transgenders, ex-drug-addicts and many many other stories like that.
It doesn’t make sense why people are threatened by Christianity. Islam wants to conquer the world and behead all who dont believe and frequently pray for the destruction of America and Israel so as to bring in the caliphate and await their Al Mahdi, which ironically fits perfectly with Christianitys description of the antichrist. Atheists wont go against Muslims because they don’t turn their cheek and love their enemies.
Many Muslims, Hindus and even Americans have encountered the one true living God through dreams and visions, which fulfills an ancient prophecy found in Joel 2. It is something to consider when someone who has never read the bible can have experiences through these dreams and visions, then have a sudden desire to read the bible, and then their experiences (which expressed messages, truths or a presence) lines up perfectly to the perfectly preserved Holy Scriptures. Lives are changed and given infinite hope and, despite being persecuted and even killed for the sake of Christ, the love which came from the grace of God shed abroad in their hearts is given to their enemies as they proclaim the Good News.
Reading Isaiah 53 (which was also in the Dead Sea Scrolls) describes nothing other than what Jesus did 700 years before he did so. Lies have no such power and that is one of 300+ prophecies. Psalm 22 was 1,000 years before Christ and 500 years before a cross was used.
You cannot expect to find God if you do not want to believe that he is and is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. He’s not going to corrupt free will so that no one has to have any desire to come to know him. We cant box him up into our tiny finite minds. When we humble ourselves and seek him, then we can come to understand him.
He has made all things and they express his invisible qualities. God will always be just, but also merciful.
His heart and visible image is Christ, who suffered agonies in our place so he can reconcile us with God. He humbled himself into the form of a servant and took the punishment of sins for us. We all fall short of our own standards, so how much more of a Holy God’s?
He has made a way for all to come to know God, be you a high level ivory tower specimen, an orphan, a prisoner, he loves all and his word will reach every person eventually and then after will come the end. He makes wise the simple. It’s not an elitist armchair philosophically position that requires degrees and achievements. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
He died to give us life and peace and to have it abundantly and I know this to be true. I don’t need to refer to a scientist to confirm the truths that my soul knoweth right well. I could share my testimony or refer an atheist to another one, but when the transformative power of the gospel upon the hearts of man is not compelling, there’s no point. I pray for all to know just how sweet the Lord is.
For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.
LikeLike
February 27, 2016 at 5:45 am
I do not buy your premise that a defense of one’s positions as an atheist must be defense able. I can not prove the non existence of God nor likewise with unicorns or witches. If I say there’s a unicorn in the woods and you say bullshit. It’s not your burden to prove I’m wrong.
LikeLike
February 27, 2016 at 9:10 am
Let’s go tell the world, send out the preacher into the public square and market, let’s put action and responsibly to our beliefs. Until that time when our streets are congested with faithful preachers I’ll not believe there are any significant number of regenerate. Our churches are packed with falsely assured heathen pew warmers.
LikeLike
February 27, 2016 at 9:20 am
Robert Bucy states he cannot prove the non existence of God. Naturally. As I cannot prove the non existence of words without using them. He cannot prove the non existence of God without first existing as an Imago Dei, conscience, moral and logical agent, taking from God the intellectual preconditions in an absurd effort to pretend our Lord, the creator of all things, doesn’t exist. The Fool believes in his heart there is no God. Psalm 14 and 53.
LikeLike
February 27, 2016 at 9:20 am
The burden lies on the theist to prove his claim.The atheist need not prove his claim of non belief, the word of non belief is sufficient to prove his non belief; not that there is no God.
LikeLike
February 27, 2016 at 10:23 am
Words are just concepts. Just as God is a concept. Neither of them exist in any reality. Thanks for pointing that out.
LikeLike
February 28, 2016 at 1:28 am
Do concepts require a mind Khawar?
LikeLike
February 28, 2016 at 1:36 am
Revelator, the issue is not burdens of proof. God is not a claim by man, God is the necessary pre-condition for intelligibility. We do not provide evidence to conclude God, for God is the one we cannot have evidence without. Proof presupposes facts, facts presuppose truth, and you cannot have truth apart from God. John 14:6, Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth and the life”… What sin is preventing you turning to him in repentance and faith today?
LikeLike
February 28, 2016 at 3:02 am
Let’s just cut to the chase. In the epic failure of Christianity to provide any actual evidence for your particular deity (as with every other monotheistic religion) you fall back on presuppositional apologetics. The weakest defence. Conflation and equivocation are your best friends. You might have convinced yourself but that’s just wishful thinking. Quoting the Bible will not get you flyers far as you have not been able to demonstrate it’s veracity and neither the diving of your messiah. In short you have nothing. Good luck with that.
LikeLike
February 28, 2016 at 3:16 am
Also no one is obligated to justify their beliefs but only what they claim to know. My belief is my acceptance of the truth value of a calm. My reasoning as to why I accept the claim may differ from someone else who also accepts it. Knowledge on the other hand is demonstrable. Agnosticism/ Gnosticism address what you know or claim to know and are not mutually exclusive to atheism / theism. I personally done think theists have a burden if proof. You just believe that there is God and it’s the one your scripture tell you about. Without having a working definition of God it’s not worth wasting any time on the subject. If however you made a claim that your God actually exists and manifests it our reality and can influence tangible things and the outcome of sporting events then I would expect you to fulfil your burden of proof. Until then I remain unconvinced. I have no obligation to justify why I don’t believe your claim…except to say that I don’t find your evidence compelling enough to change my mind (assuming you provided some). Telling me that God exists as a necessity is a non answer that evades the question. So do you *believe* that God exists or do you *know* that He does?
LikeLike
February 28, 2016 at 5:47 am
Have you arrived at your conclusion after much research into Christianity? What criteria are you seeking for that you have not found? What is the evidence you are looking for? If you have not found it, where have you been looking? What have you found?
Science would have no pillars to stand on without Christianity, the same with Western Civilization. The 16th and 17th centuries are evidence in the explosion of scientific progress being caused by Christianity. The father of the scientific method was Christian and his faith had everything to do with it, the same with the father of modern science: Sir Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton.
The greatest composers were all authentic Christians: Bach, Handel, Haydn, Brahms, Schubert, Liszt, Mozart and many others. If their worldview was hazardous to logic, science or the one truth we face here, why has it led to their chief muse and then to such masterpieces that atheists today cannot approach? I know most believe that atheists are somehow smarter on principle, but have never seen evidence for it.
Give this a read:
http://www.christianheritageedinburgh.org.uk/content/spiritual-lives-great-composers
Also, Beethoven was not a christian, but he had the intuition to know the universe was created.
Psychiatry’s best kept secret is that religion is healthy for the mind and if it were not so, it would be on the front page of every newspaper in the land. Also, if it were not so, many historic geniuses in science, art and music would have had no ground to stand on. History proves that Christianity is healthy for science too. If it were proven atheism was indeed not healthy for the mind or for science, any journalist that would publish that in a newspaper would be permanently defamed and attacked. Such is the world we live in.
The quote in question is from a head of the Psychiatric industry and he mentions “religion” as being healthy, but after much research through them all, only Christianity can be logically correct. Lies are not healthy and one cannot be grounded in them, nor can a composer like Bach be enpowered by it. Atheism can be a greater cause of depression than most other worldviews, in my opinion and experience. Cognitive dissonances distract us from the wellspring of life and our true purpose here.
I used to repeat the worldview that is forced upon us in our youth, which is belief that rationality comes from the non-rational, everything came from nothing (abiogenesis), that we are to empower our pointless hatred for Christianity with arrogant ignorance, precise order comes from explosions, intelligence, conscience, morality and love comes from unguided mutations and humans are not humans but are of a common ancestry as that of chimps and are essentially a bag of chemicals.
I always come across atheists who never want to study Christianity, most often because they see it as beneath themselves to do so. The assertions and judgements I hear from atheism, not only confirms they know so little about Christianity, but confirms they usually don’t even know what the word “God”, by definition in Christianity, actually means.
Quote from a good site:
In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don’t.
-Pascal
Even if one would contend that worldview has no bearing on the works of a genius, the common, universal grace of God accounts for it perfectly. Intelligence must come from intelligence. The longest word ever written must’ve been written. Logos..
Aldous Huxley who wrote:
“For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust.”
Czeslaw Milosz: “A true opium of the people is a belief in nothingness after death—the huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders, we are not going to be judged.”
The true opium is religion-hating atheism.
Scripture never has been proven wrong for a good reason. It is impossible to make up a 2,700 year old prophecy about Christ that was so precisely fulfilled. Then there’s some that are over 3,000 years old. In total there is over 300 prophecies that Christ fulfilled. If the entire book as written in one sitting with one human author, then there would be grounds to declare it as false, but it is written by over 40 authors spanning across thousands of years and they all testify perfectly of one another to the core.
Every credible historian knows Jesus existed. Have encountered so few atheists who respect history, but it makes sense when we realize that it is a conflict of interest to pay close attention to history and to try and disprove Christianity at the same time.
I am curious why there is no actual criterion to meet for most atheists to believe. I find it is a concrete position that is opposed to reasonable inquiry, unbiased research and respect of history and the lives of man.
Judging atheism by its abuse is not a stretch, rather, it is a logical conclusion of its stance towards the universe, the worth of life and ultimate meaning.
Atheism is not blameless for Mao, Pol Pott, Hitler, Stalin and many others unless atheism has ancient, infallible scriptures and doctrines that say to love your enemies as yourself.
In 70 A.D. the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed exactly as Jesus prophesied and, for good reason, the sacrifices ceased and the High Priest position went into such a shuffle. Christianity is married to historic facts.
LikeLike
February 28, 2016 at 6:10 am
Argumentum ad populam? Are you serious? I can play that game. Almost every scientist who works in biological sciences accepts that Homo Sapiens share a common ancestor with the great apes and that we evolved over millions of years. Your book says that we are made from dirt. I go with the scientists and so conclude that your book is wrong from the very beginning…hence there is no God. You clearly hold this book to be inerrant. Do you pray when you become ill or do you seek medical advice from a trained professional? Religion had a use but there is no place for it anymore. It’s divisive and retards humanities progress. If you can’t see that then I feel sorry for you.
LikeLike
February 28, 2016 at 6:12 am
PS Can you demonstrate that Jews were enslaved in Egypt and helped build the pyramids? Evidence seems to refute the idea.
LikeLike
February 28, 2016 at 6:32 am
Never met an atheist who doesnt read the whole of anything and takes things out of context with pride.
Latin terms dont impress me. Truth only does. Honesty and humility are more praiseworthy.
If I were an atheist, I sure wouldn’t want to imagine I’m wrong about anything either.
It is not about popularity. It is about knowing a tree by its fruits. It is about knowing the truth of a worldview by what it does to mankind.
It is commonly known that if anyone speaks against the dogmatic, oppressive religion known as Darwinian Evolutionism, they will be systematically defamed and attacked by the atheistapo. It is never about truth, science or curiosity. It is about power, control and man despising his maker. Scientists have to wait until they retire before they voice their dissent against evolution or other black magic like abiogenesis. There is nothing that requires more blind faith. The blind keeps leading rhe blind. Not one good thing actually is caused by these crackpot theories besides giving teachers the right to mock young christian students. It is about knowing a tree by its fruits, not boasting about popularity, which is all atheism can do. Their historical accusations against Christianity all smolder before the light of the truth. Hatred should fail, so its meet that it indeed does in the utter emptiness of atheism.
Let me leave you with some thoughts:
Isaac Newton wrote more about theology than anything else.
“The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” – Charles Darwin 1902 edition.
“…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) pp. 456, 475.
“Nowhere was Darwin able to point to one bona fide case of natural selection having actually generated evolutionary change in nature….Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.” Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crises (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, 1986) pp. 62, 358.
“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” Søren Løvtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), p. 422.
“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.” Dr. T. N. Tahmisian Evolution and the Emperor’s New Clothes by N.J. Mitchell (United Kingdom: Roydon Publications, 1983), title page.
“The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.” Albert Fleischmann. Witnesses Against Evolution by John Fred Meldau (Denver: Christian Victory Publishing, 1968), p. 13.
“[T]he theory suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts…No one can demonstrate that the limits of a species have ever been passed. These are the Rubicons which evolutionists cannot cross…Darwin ransacked other spheres of practical research work for ideas…But his whole resulting scheme remains, to this day, foreign to scientifically established zoology, since actual changes of species by such means are still unknown.” Albert Fleischmann, “The Doctrine of Organic Evolution in the Light of Modern Research,” Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute 65 (1933): pp. 194-95, 205-6, 208-9.
“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” Louis Bounoure. The Advocate, 8 March 1984, p. 17.
“And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred.” Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion (Rockford., Ill.: Tan Books, 1988), pp. 5-6. Dr. Smith, taught at MIT and UCLA.
“With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the inevitable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not prove to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.” Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199.
“If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous.” R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute (1943), p.
” `Creation,’ in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation.” Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903). 63.
“Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas wither without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.” L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967.
“What is at stake is not the validity of the Darwinian theory itself, but of the approach to science that it has come to represent. The peculiar form of consensus the theory wields has produced a premature closure of inquiry in several branches of biology, and even if this is to be expected in `normal science,’ such a dogmatic approach does not appear healthy.” R. Brady, “Dogma and Doubt,” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 17:79, 96 (1982)
Philosophical Basis and Faith
[Evolution]“…a full-fledged alternative to Christianity…Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” Michael Ruse. Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians. National Post (May 13, 2000). pB-3.
“As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.” Will Provine, No Free Will. Catching Up with the Vision, Ed. By Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999) pS123.
“…evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.” L.H. Matthews, “Introduction to Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin (1971 edition), pp. x, xi.
[The theory of evolution] “forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature.” Harrison Matthews. Introduction to Origin of Species (1977 edition) p. xxii.
“In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin’s book, Origin of Species], evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend’ their observations to fit with it. . To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all . . If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? . . I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” H.S. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980) [emphasis his].
“The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of appearances, no one any longer believes in it….Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer believe, but which they maintain for their people.” Paul Lemoine. Encyclopedie Francaise 1937 edition. (President of the Geological Society of France and director of the Natural History Museum in Paris.)
[The Big Bang] “…represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle—transcending physical principles….” Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p161.
“We have all heard of The Origin of Species, although few of us have had time to read it…A casual perusal of the classic made me understand the rage of Paul Feyerabend…I agree with him that Darwinism contains ‘wicked lies’; it is not a ‘natural law’ formulated on the basis of factual evidence, but a dogma, reflecting the dominating social philosophy of the last century.” Kenneth J. Hsu, “Sedimentary Petrology and Biologic Evolution,” Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 56 (September 1986): p730.
“I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.” Rocket scientist Wernher von Braun as quoted by James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (Arlington, Massachusetts: Refuge Books, 1999), p. 253.
[The Big Bang] “…is only a myth that attempts to say how the universe came into being….” Hannes Alfvén “The Big Bang Never Happened,” Discover 9 (June 1988), p. 78.
“This evolutionist doctrine is itself one of the strangest phenomena of humanity…a system destitute of any shadow of proof, and supported merely by vague analogies and figures of speech….Now no one pretends that they rest on facts actually observed, for no one has ever observed the production of even one species….Let the reader take up either of Darwin’s great books, or Spencer’s ‘Biology,’ and merely ask himself as he reads each paragraph, ‘What is assumed here and what is proved?’ and he will find the whole fabric melt away like a vision….We thus see that evolution as an hypothesis has no basis in experience or in scientific fact, and that its imagined series of transmutations has breaks which cannot be filled.” Sir William Dawson, The Story of Earth and Man. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1887, pp. 317, 322, 330, 339.
[Darwin, speaking about Huxley:] “My good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospel, the devil’s gospel.” Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales, “Why Scientists Accept Evolution”, 1988, p. 45.
“Darwin wrote in his autobiography: `I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true …” M. Grano, “The Faith of Darwinism”, Encounter, November 1959, p. 48
“The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory – is it then a science or faith?” L.N. Matthews, “Introduction” to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, pp. x, xi (1971 edition)
“… post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. Colin Patterson, The Listener (Senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London.)
“[Karl] Popper warns of a danger: ‘A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched dogma.’ This has certainly been true of evolutionary theory.” Colin Patterson, “Evolution”, 1977, p. 150.
“The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity – omnipotent chance.” T. Rosazak, “Unfinished Animal”, 1975, p. 101-102.
“Evolution is sometimes the key mythological element in a philosophy that functions as a virtual religion.” E. Harrison, “Origin and Evolution of the Universe”, Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropaedia (1974) p1007.
A Belief in Evolution is a basal doctrine in the Rationalists Liturgy.” Sir Arthur Keith. Darwinism and its Critics. (1935), p53
“It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence of what did happen is not available.” G.A. Kerkut. Implications of Evolution (1960), p150.
“… evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit with it … H.S. Lipson. A Physicist Looks at Evolution. Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p138 (1980)
“The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone … exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion.” Louis Trenchard More, quoted in “Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur”, p33
“The doctrine of evolution is a newly invented system, a newly concerted doctrine, a newly formed dogma, a new rising belief, which places itself over against the Christian faith, and can only found its temple on the ruins of our Christian confession.” Dr. Abraham Kuyper, “Evolution” speech delivered in 1899.
“It is a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds over men’s minds.” Encounter, November 1959, p48 .
“Given the facts, our existence seems quite improbable—more miraculous, perhaps, than the seven-day wonder of Genesis.” Judith Hooper, “Perfect Timing,” New Age Journal, Vol. 11, (1985), p18
“The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith.” J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p95.
“Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith.” M. Grene, Faith of Darwinism,” Encounter, November (1959), p49.
“Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist’s arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator.” R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.
“The facts must mold the theories, not the theories the facts . . I am most critical of my biologist friends in this matter. Try telling a biologist that, impartially judged among other accepted theories of science, such as the theory of relativity, it seems to you that the theory of natural selection has a very uncertain, hypothetical status, and watch his reaction. I’ll bet you that he gets red in the face. This is `religion,’ not `science,’ with him.” Burton, “The Human Side of the Physiologist: Prejudice and Poetry,” Physiologist 2 (1957).
“Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors.” S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).
“By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls `objectification,’ the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power.” T. Lessl, Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).
LikeLike
February 28, 2016 at 6:57 am
Christianity ministers to africans who are deprived of water and other needs, to the Untouchables who are not treated as humans, care for sex trafficking victims, widows, the homeless, orphans and many others. This is the heart of the gospel. John 3:16. What you do to the “least” of these you do to the Creator of all things and the Redeemer of all man.
Atheists use suffering as ammuntion to attack Christians while Christians use the gospel to conquer suffering.
God is love!
There are many cool testimonies of atheists who came to know the truth. Also the same with ex-homosexuals, ex-transgenders, ex-drug-addicts and many many other stories like that.
It rarely ends up making sense why people are threatened by Christianity, especially because they will not believe anything about it apart from what raving people like Dawkins say. They abuse their positions of influence to make assertions in fields they have no authority or credibility in.
Consider: Islam wants to conquer the world and behead all who dont believe and frequently pray for the destruction of America and Israel so as to bring in the caliphate and await their Al Mahdi, which ironically fits perfectly with Christianity’s description of the antichrist. Atheists wont go against Muslims because they don’t turn their cheek and love their enemies like Christians. It’s easier to do and get away with. Never seen atheism inspire courage, especially a self-sacrifical courageous love, which is what Christianity is all about.
People want to take the benefits on western civilization Christianity has established while simultaneously rejecting its source. It will create massive instability in culture and has historically shown that.
We will eventually find the historical evidence of things today atheists complain about, as we are never ahead of the bible. See how we used to believe the bible wasnt true because we once believed there were never any called the Hittites, that Nazareth existed, that Hezekiah didnt live.. etc.
We are always behind it and yet some miraculously muster up the short sighted arrogance to defy it, even though they cannot bring themselves to even open up the book and learn to read things in context.
So many prophecies… atheists havent read a single one and go on to say the bible isnt true because their priests who wear labcoats think for them. There are today people who believe they are Christ and have followers. This was prophesied 2,000 years ago. And those who cannot face resistance will of course refuse to acknowledge observable truths so as to hold their vain, pointless worldview in tact.
Many Muslims, Hindus and even Americans have encountered the one true living God through dreams and visions, which fulfills an ancient prophecy found in Joel 2. It is something to consider when someone who has never read the bible can have experiences through these dreams and visions, they have a sudden desire to read the bible and their experiences, which expressed messages, truths or a presence, lines up perfectly to the perfectly preserved Holy Scriptures. Lives are changed and given infinite hope and, despite being persecuted and even killed for the sake of Christ cannot overcome the love which came from the grace of God shed abroad in their hearts.
Reading Isaiah 53 (which was also in the Dead Sea Scrolls) describes nothing other than what Jesus did 700 years before he did so. Lies have no such power and that is one of 300+ prophecies.
You cannot expect to find God if you do not want to believe that he is and is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. He’s not going to corrupt free will so that no one has do any work to come to know him. We cant box him up into our tiny finite minds and expect him to be worthy of worship or even accurately understood. When we humble ourselves and seek him, then we can come to understand him.
He has made all things and they express his invisible qualities. God will always be just, but also merciful. His heart and visible image is Christ, who suffered agonies in our place so he can reconcile us with God. He humbled himself into the form of a servant and took the punishment of sins for us. We all fall short of our own standards, so how much more of an Holy God’s?
He has made a way for all to come to know God, be you a high level ivory tower specimen, an nobel prize winning physicist, a homeless drug addict, an orphan or a prisoner, he loves all and his word will reach every person eventually and then after will come the end. It is the Good News (gospel) that give wings to the souls of all man. He makes wise the simple.
It’s not an elitist armchair philosophical position that requires degrees and achievements, or a silly sorcery school where only those who have been reincarnated a million times can truly know the truth.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. He died to give us life and peace and to have it abundantly and I know this to be true. I don’t need to refer to a scientist to confirm the truths that my soul knoweth right well. Confirmations always come.
I know that my redeemer liveth and I know from experience that prayer is answered and miracles have indeed happened and it surprisingly doesnt hinge on the prideful hatred of closeminded atheists before itis acknowledged as truth.
LikeLike
February 28, 2016 at 12:49 pm
Adrian:
By quoting one song in the book of Psalms, 14 & 53 does not double your argument; they are exactly the same song with the same words repeated.
And your argument that you cannot prove the non existence of words is ridiculous because we know words exist by sensory perception; we know words by their sound, meaning, in the hearing and in the writing.
Now, if you said you cannot prove the non existence of the flying pasghetti monster, the Leprechaun and the tooth fairy, you would make more sense.
Your problem is that you cannot define God so you believe what you cannot see, hear, define or know; that’s what makes the belief in your God no different in today’s society, than the believers in Zeus, Saturn and Ra of Roman and Greek mythology.
God mythology has always been with mankind because we humans think about where we came from, why we are here, where we are going, what makes the world tick and then imagine a description, as humans do, about all of the above.
But to imagine that your notion of God is Absolute Certainty is utter nonsense regardless of how many Holy Books have been written about the thousands of Gods created to represent everything we can know through sensory perception. It is too great a leap and knowledge seekers of a cosmos in flux will not accept dead-end religions created by egotistical men doing deceitful magician tricks to dupe believers , the masses of non knowledge, for the last ten thousand centuries.
LikeLike
February 28, 2016 at 1:08 pm
creditaction::
Concepts need a mind to create and a mind to receive in the same way that a tree that falls in the forest needs a conductor, a recipient ear or recorder, or it cannot be heard. But a crow’s mind that creates the concept of understanding that throwing rocks in a small pool of water will raise the tasty morsel of a meal floating on the surface without which the tasty morsel will remain out of reach of the crow. This concept would not need a human mind to create or understand since the crow is not human.
LikeLike
February 28, 2016 at 1:20 pm
Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth and the life”… (of the Father that dwells within me; I in him; he in me.) That’s what those words prove.
But that does not prove the concept of your ancient-man-created mythological supernatural God of magic tricks at the burning bush and Pharaoh’s Court anymore than it proves that Zeus was the King of Gods which is all your comment alludes to.
LikeLike
February 28, 2016 at 1:38 pm
PIlgrim:
You could not be further from the truth than your commentary reveals.
In a land where non belief in God is punishable by death it is no small wonder that the society of the 16th & 17th century was Christian oriented but think of the Galileo Heresy Trial / Galileo was part of the scientific explosion and was condemned by Christianity, put on trial, forced to recant to save his life and then after recantation forced to live the rest of his live under house arrest from orders of the Vatican. Galileo was a christian he admits that but it was certainly not his Christianity that made him accept the copernican theory of the earth revolving around the sun compared to the religious stance that the earth was unmovable and everything went around the earth.
Despite your argument that Christianity was responsible for the explosion of science; on the contrary, Christianity was a repressive force and argued against science every single step of the way. They banned Galileo’s books for 200 years after his death before they were willing to admit Christendom was wrong in its tail wagging dogma. It is an insult to humanity to claim Christianity or any religion for that matter was responsible for anything but persecution, prosecution, death and destruction of the human spirit. Islamic believers claim that Islam was the science generator in the Golden Years of Islam. Especially ironic when you can still be for denying their God…..The first four of the Ten Commandments were religious capital offenses, punishable by death, for refusing to obey prevailing church dogma.
LikeLike
February 28, 2016 at 1:51 pm
Pilgrim:
“Christianity ministers to africans who are deprived of water and other needs, to the Untouchables who are not treated as humans, care for sex trafficking victims, widows, the homeless, orphans and many others. This is the heart of the gospel.”
Okay, okay, we get it. Atheists may not believe in god but at least religious organizations do a lot of good work especially in the third world. Surely you can’t knock that? So what are you telling me? If they weren’t religious, they wouldn’t be doing this work? It’s not really coming from their hearts? They’re just doing it because they’re following orders? Is that what you’re saying?
LikeLike
February 28, 2016 at 1:57 pm
Christianity, as do all religions, have a habit of claiming all good deeds by all good men as religion’s influence. You got to be kidding; religion doesn’t make a man good religion steals the deeds of all good men and try to claim it for their own. It is the same way they hijacked the Christmas Bandwagon which was practiced long before Jesus was born; nevertheless, they jumped on the bandwagon and hijacked it for the Christian cause by claiming the biggest Festival in Town was a celebration of the birth of Jesus. It’s a lolable farce.
You can even read about the Christmas Festival and the decking of tinsel and decorations on the tree and the gifts and presents being exchanged in the Old Testament Scriptures. Most Christians don’t know this or if they do they never, ever talk about it or even mention it in passing because that would shatter one of their most obvious hoaxes.
LikeLike
February 28, 2016 at 9:05 pm
“To Him who loves us, and released us from our sins by His blood, and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father; to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever” (Rev. 1:5-6 NASB)
*Introduction ~ A. The Source of Knowledge
Section 1
Luke 1:1-4
Luke the historian wrote to Theophilus, who is usually regarded as an individual. “Theophilus” may refer to a class of persons, however, for the word means “a lover of God.” Luke is writing “so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:4).
The knowledge of the events in the life of Christ, His words and His works, was widely disseminated. Believers had been taught the important truths of what transpired during the years of our Lord’s earthly sojourn. Luke felt it necessary to write in order to give assurance concerning the truth that was already widely circulated and believed. He is not writing to inform but rather to convince. Events that had transpired “were handed down . . . by those who from the first were eyewitnesses” (Luke 1:2). This knowledge was transmitted by oral tradition following the accepted Jewish practice.
Our Lord Jesus Christ was a Jew according to the flesh, and the story of His life and teaching was preserved after the Jewish method. That method was oral transmission, and its efficiency is attested by the amazing fact that it was not at the earliest until the fifth century of our era that the Rabbinical literature was reduced to writing. It was at least a century before the birth of Jesus that the Halacha and Haggada came into existence, and during all those centuries that voluminous and ever-growing literature was carried in the memories of the Rabbis and their disciples and orally transmitted from generation to generation. . . . The diligence of the Rabbis was directed to the immaculate transmission of the Oral Law. “Raise up many disciples” was their motto, and their disciples were drilled in the multitudinous precepts of that interminable tradition until they had them by heart. The lesson was repeated over and over till it was engraved upon their memories, and hence the term for Rabbinical instruction was Mishnah, “repetition.”
Thus events in the life of Christ as well as the words He said were widely circulated by following this Jewish form of transmitting knowledge. Luke also calls this to our attention, saying, “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us” (Luke 1:1). “Fulfilled” may be rendered “surely believed” or “on which there is full conviction.” Again we see that Luke is dealing with matters that are widely accepted by the Christian community. Luke tells us that, in the face of so much orally transmitted truth and in the face of so much written record, he felt it good after careful investigation to write to give believers an assurance concerning what they had heard. Oral tradition may accurately transmit truth but is not itself authoritative. Written records may accurately record truth but they are not, apart from inspiration, authoritative. Luke purposes to give to believers an authoritative record that may surely be believed of all that Jesus “began to do and to teach” (Acts 1:1).
Without doubt, believers had been instructed by catechizers. David Smith says:
Ere the story was written, there was a class of teachers in the primitive Church whose function it was to go about instructing the believers in the oral tradition and drilling it into their minds after the fashion of the Rabbinical schools. They were named the Catechizers . . . and their scholars the catechumens . . .–an expressive name, since . . . the root word signifies to din a thing into a person’s ears by incessant iteration. . . . It was a most necessary service at a time when there was no written record and believers were dependent on oral instruction for their knowledge of the Gospel history.
Now Luke purposes to gather together that catechetical instruction and deliver it authoritatively to Theophilus. Luke is writing approximately a generation after the death of Christ to believers who have been instructed by itinerant teachers who taught on the basis of written records and oral tradition but without an authoritative Gospel to expound.
The synoptic Gospels were written in response to the need of early believers. According to the Book of Acts, the church for a decade was composed exclusively of Jews or those who were proselytes to Judaism. The first need for an authoritative record of the words and works of Jesus, therefore, arose among the Jews. Matthew, himself an apostle, met that need by writing the Gospel of Matthew to Jewish believers to instruct them concerning Jesus, Israel’s Messiah. Matthew wrote to record Christ’s offer of Himself to that nation as their Messiah, who was to be both Savior and Sovereign. He recorded the authentication of the offer of the kingdom, Israel’s debate over the kingdom, and Israel’s rejection of Messiah and His withdrawal of the offer of the kingdom. Matthew wrote not so much to convince the unbelieving nation that Jesus was the Messiah as to explain to believers why the kingdom that had been genuinely offered was not instituted and, in the light of Israel’s rejection, to explain the kingdom program.
The second need for a Gospel arose among the Romans, for Paul, in his missionary journey to the Gentiles, reached into the Roman province of Asia and brought the gospel to the Roman world. Mark, his companion, in response to this need wrote the Gospel that bears his name. In it he presented Jesus, the Servant of the LORD. “Servant” (of the LORD) was an Old Testament title for the Messiah who was to redeem and to reign (Isa. 42:1, 49:3, 5-7; 52:13). Mark, like Matthew who had preceded him, traced for us the offer of the Messiah, the rejection of the Messiah, the ministry of the Servant to God’s people, and the obedience of the Servant to His Father in heaven.
The need for a Gospel also arose among the Greeks, for Paul, in his second missionary journey, had penetrated the Greek world. Consequently there was a need to instruct the Greeks concerning the life and ministry of the Lord Jesus. This need was met by Luke, Paul’s companion in his missionary journeys through the Greek world, by writing the Gospel of Luke. Luke presented Jesus as the Son of Man, which again was an Old Testament messianic title. Luke traced the events in the presentation of the Son of Man–the debate over His person, His rejection, and His ultimate death and resurrection.
In the introduction to his Gospel, Luke made certain inferences concerning the materials he used in his careful historical research. First, he used the material that came from the apostles, who were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word. The apostles were commissioned to go into all the world and preach the gospel (Matt. 28:19-20). These apostles were told that they would bear witness to Jesus Christ (John 15:26-27). This prophetic commission was repeated in Acts 1:8. The apostles communicated the truth that they had seen and heard. This truth concerning Jesus Christ was formalized into oral tradition and passed from the apostles to the succeeding generation (cf. Heb. 2:3). Luke certainly would have used this formalized source.
In the second place, Luke told us that he had available the many written records of the oral traditions that came originally from the apostles. Since both Matthew and Mark were written before Luke, the question arises as to whether Luke used these Gospels in his research. Luke seems to imply that he did not, for as Arndt points out,
At once the question arises whether Luke includes Matthew and Mark among the “many” writers to whom he refers in 1:1. The answer, so it seems to me, must be an emphatic no. What our first two Evangelists present would be regarded by Luke as a part of the Apostolic testimony, the testimony given by those who from the beginning had been eyewitnesses and servants of the Word, and not as belonging to the products of the numerous authors who tried to reproduce the accounts of the Apostles. Matthew was himself an Apostle, and Mark in his Gospel, according to the unanimous report of antiquity, wrote what another Apostle, Peter, had preached. Hence, because Luke sharply differentiates between the witness of the Apostles and the literary ventures of others based on the Apostolic narrative, we cannot look upon our Matthew and Mark as belonging to the “many” of 1:1.
We thus conclude that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark are viewed by Luke as distinct from the writings of the many whose material he had available.
There is a third source that Luke had available: those who were still living who were eyewitnesses to what Jesus did and who had heard what He said, or at least those who had personal contact with the apostles themselves.
Arndt states,
What almost unrivaled opportunities he . . . possessed for obtaining authentic information on the Life of lives! . . . Luke, the companion of Paul, who is mentioned in Col 4:14 and Phlm 24, is the author of the “we” sections in Acts and of the Book of Acts in general, and likewise the author of our Gospel . . . we see at once that he was advantageously situated for obtaining information on the work and teaching of Jesus. Not only was he with Paul, who had seen the risen Christ and who had had frequent contacts with the original Apostles and other early Christians, but he himself met at least one of these original Apostles, James the Less (Ac 21:18), and in all probability several others. We next think of his companionship with Mark (cf Col 4:10-14; Phlm 23f), who hailed from Jerusalem; with Barnabas, who had been a member of the first Christian congregation in its early stages (Ac 4:36); with Silas, who was a prophet of the Jerusalem church before he allied himself with Paul (Ac 15:22, 27, 32); with Philip the Evangelist (Ac 21:8); with Agabus the prophet (Ac 21:10); with Mnason, “an old disciple: (Ac 21:15ff). Original witnesses of Jesus’ life, and persons who had had intimate contacts with original witnesses, were among the people whom Luke could call his friends and associates. Thus he was in an extraordinarily advantageous position for obtaining information about Jesus.
Certainly the intimate details concerning the conception and the birth of Christ, which were details not widely known because Mary “kept all these things . . . in her heart” (Luke 2:19 KJV), must have been learned from Mary herself. Likewise the details concerning the birth of John must have been learned from Elizabeth. We see then that Luke had a wide array of material from which he could do his research in order to compile the events into the Gospel that would bear his name.
What may be derived from Luke’s prologue may be summarized in the words of Arndt:
A little analysis of these words yields the following points for our present purpose: (1) The early followers of Jesus had not remained silent about their Master’s work, but had handed on to others the blessed knowledge which they themselves possessed. (2) A number of people had endeavored to put down in writing what the early witnesses proclaimed. (3) Luke resolved to compose a work about the deeds and teachings of Jesus. (4) He wrote it only after the most careful and painstaking researches, having investigated everything from the very beginning. (5) He decided to present his material in proper order. (6) His work was intended to make Theophilus certain that the Christian instruction which he had received was true. *
*The Words & Works of Jesus Christ by J. Dwight Pentecost
pp. 25-28.
LikeLike
February 29, 2016 at 2:56 am
Stating what one cannot do is a universal truth claim, you need to have conducted a universal examination of the evidence. Stating what will not happen is a forecast into a future of supposed chance interacting with matter over time. Your worldview does not allow such absolutist claims. Your diatribe against God in your narrative displays the wickedness of the human heart. Your appetite for justice, albeit to your standard, demonstrates you are Imago Dei. You cannot hide. The best you could do to try to be consistent is to walk away from this conversation and any like it. Remove yourself to a place where you cannot demonstrate your appeals to evidence, facts, truth, logic, and moral agency. But you can’t because the Bible says you can’t and accurately records your nature and proclivities, Romans 1:18-20. This is why you must repent and turn to Christ.
LikeLike
February 29, 2016 at 2:58 am
Do concepts require a mind Khawar?
LikeLike
February 29, 2016 at 3:05 am
Thank you. I pray others will read your carefully crafted and researched prose.
LikeLike
February 29, 2016 at 3:42 am
“Do concepts require a mind Khawar?”
Yes. And a mind requires a physical brain. In the history of humanity there has never been a case of a mind existing without a brain. Does your God have a brain?
LikeLike
February 29, 2016 at 4:06 am
“It is commonly known that if anyone speaks against the dogmatic, oppressive religion known as Darwinian Evolutionism, they will be systematically defamed and attacked by the atheistapo”
This sentence alone demonstrates you have lost all credibility on this thread. So you are saying that although the vast MAJORITY of the world is religious that somehow the atheist MINORITY somehow control the WHOLE of global biological sciences and keep the theist (with ALL of their evidence to refute evolution) from taking down the underpinning theory of biology.
You are an idiot.
What’s next? You are going to fight against the Theory of Universal Gravitation? According to mainstream astrophysics the stars and planets were formed by the action of gravitational forces on discrete lumps of matter – according to your book the starts and planets were formed instantaneously by a magical incantation. So clearly science is WRONG yet again.
“Isaac Newton wrote more about theology than anything else”
Source please. Yet another appeal to authority, sigh!
What’s with all the quote mining? Why quote Darwin – do you think he has the last word? 160 years of science has passed since his day and we now know that he was mistaken about a few things as well. Get with the times dude.
So I am still waiting for you to demonstrate that the Jews were enslaved in Egypt and they built the pyramids. Also how long after the Great flood of Noah did this happen exactly? The pyramids date back 4,600 years and God’s act of loving genocide took place when??
The FACTS are against you son, be honest and just say it how it is. You WANT to believe it’s all true…because you can’t handle not knowing what happens when you die. Boo hoo!
LikeLike
February 29, 2016 at 7:28 am
Click to access israel_an_archaeological_journey.pdf
LikeLike
February 29, 2016 at 2:22 pm
Khawar, excellent, you grant a concept needs a mind. Are the laws of logic concepts? Are they immaterial, universal and invariant?
LikeLike
February 29, 2016 at 2:55 pm
Dude, answer my question before trying to rush down that particular rabbit hole. Does your God have a brain?
LikeLike
February 29, 2016 at 3:12 pm
You can also have a read of this if it tickles your fancy: –
https://absoluteirony.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/laws-of-logic/
“On this transcendental understanding, when we say that, even in a world where life never came about, the laws of logic would still apply, we are saying something about a possible world as we could make sense of such a world. Insofar as this latter part is added, it is clearly true that the laws of logic would still apply in a lifeless world (even though there wouldn’t be things that would become aware of them). If one wants to reject this latter condition, then I can’t say I even know what they’re talking about when they bring up this possible world! When we talk about any other possible world, we have already made sense of it, making it intelligible, conceiving of it as conforming to the laws of logic.” –
This is where you were heading right, to make an argument that the author of the laws of logic must be some transcendent being…blah blah blah.
Been there, done that.
LikeLike
February 29, 2016 at 3:48 pm
creditaction:
Sorry but the bible cannot be used to prove the bible; that’s the wolf guarding the henhouse or the Police investigating themselves
But I am prompted to ask you the question since you so forcefully demonstrate your non-knowledge.(aka belief)
Of all the things you lost, do you miss your mind the most?
Something cannot exist and not exist.
Tell me what Jesus said about Romans 1:18-20. Quoting a preacher who never met Jesus means nothing to me and it should mean nothing to you. Don’t seek the approval of everybody in the bible…Jesus is the way the truth and the life, okay but everyone else not so much. You quote Jesus but without understanding what Jesus mean by being the way….by being the truth…by being the life….. what did he mean by, the way, the truth, the life…..Jesus did not believe in your supernatural God and debunked your supernatural God so tell me what he meant by way, truth life and why?
LikeLike
March 1, 2016 at 12:31 am
I’ve taken the time to explain to the Imago Dei atheist that the best he can do to support his atheistic position is walk away and stop employing immaterial, invariant and universal logical laws, stop making universal moral truth claims of what one should do and cannot do. Coming on here and claiming you somehow don’t know God exists when all the time employing the very senses and reasoning he gives you, suppressing the evidence within your own conscience of his laws and standards exposes the absurdity of atheism. You want to cut to the chase Khawar, Revelator? Okay here goes: “Do you want to know God?” It’s very simple. Do you want to understand the evidence as presented? Do you desire to learn and grow? Do you want to know your Creator? If you do then please let us know. If you don’t then stop wasting your time. Go get your best life now while you can. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die.
LikeLike
March 1, 2016 at 12:55 am
As expected you have no answer and ignored my post discussing the naturalist explanation of the laws of logic. I didn’t expect much from you to be honest. Be happy in your delusion…for tomorrow you might wake up. 🙂
LikeLike
March 1, 2016 at 3:18 am
Your statement, “To be honest” presupposes a standard of truth, and truth presupposes a universal, and invariant standard. Every time you take to your keyboard you display you are Imago Dei. You demonstrate your knowledge of God and suppression of truth seen in human history and testified to throughout the Bible. Thank you for staying engaged and not walking away. I appreciate the degree of intellectual inquiry you demonstrate. The question stands. Do you want to know God?
LikeLike
March 1, 2016 at 4:11 am
Why are you so reticent to answer my simple question? You want to engage in an intellectually honest debate right?
Tell me does your God have a brain?
Define what you mean when you use the term “God”.
Is God knowable?
Do you believe everything written in the Bible even though there is little or no evidence to support its accuracy?
Why does God allow innocent children to die of malaria when He could easily negate the disease-causing effect of plasmodium bacteria?
Do you pray when you are sick or do you seek medical advice?
Do you think that the decalogue is a useful moral code?
You can stop with the pre-sup…it doesn’t work on non-believers. Your confirmation bias was hard at work if you found it convincing. Just be truthful…you just WANT God to exist so you can look forward to eternal existence because you are afraid of dying. I won’t judge you for that.
LikeLike
March 1, 2016 at 6:30 am
Thank you for your question. Because it’s the fool who believes in his heart there is no God, Psalm 14. I don’t want to be embroiled in foolish debate with truth suppressors. Because the Bible exhorts the believer not to answer the fool according to his folly and your questions about the immaterial, eternal Creator, 1 Timothy 6:11ff, who created all things ex nihilo, having a material brain is foolish. I will answer your question though if you want to know God because the Bible also says answer the fool according to his folly, but your responses indicate you’ve a strong conviction to pretend God doesn’t exist. You see I’m not trying to be rude but it’s not ignorance that is the cause of your rebellion but sin. You don’t have an intellectual problem, you’ve all the evidence necessary, you’ve a sin problem. You seem eager to have your questions answered. Many are good questions, answers are available for God has not abandoned us to arbitrary opinion, however, first things first. Do you want to know God?
LikeLike
March 1, 2016 at 7:04 am
It’s difficult to have an honest debate with a child who believes a man can live inside a whale for 3 days simply because he read it in a story. I am finished with you. I was expecting some intellectual stimulation but all I get is a load of copy/paste babble. You are not even a “true” Christian. You are meant to defend your position ( 1st Peter 3:15 ) but you can’t even do that. See you in Hell bro! 🙂
LikeLike
March 1, 2016 at 8:54 am
“There is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth him understanding.” (Job xxxii. 8)
John 16:7-15; Jude 1:5-25.
LikeLike
March 1, 2016 at 9:38 am
Our contributor did not get the dog and pony show he desired and has vacated our conversation. The bible explains that the message of the Cross is folly to those who are perishing, 1 Corinthians 1:18. Fascinating though to see the unbeliever appealing to God’s Word. I was of course content to give a reason for the hope that is within, he’d just have to ask. For those watching it’s worth noting he refused to engage with the substance of the matter being that concepts need a mind. I suspect he knew where that leads, to the acknowlegment that we live in a governed, guided universe, with laws of science, morality and logic and these matters are impossible without God. He certainly did not want to be led there. Furthermore, he refused to say if he wanted to know God, a simple question, but one that exposes the condition of the heart. These exchanges testify to the veracity of the bible that explains. “We demolish arguments and every pretention that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ”. 2 Corinthians 10:5.
LikeLike
March 1, 2016 at 11:03 am
Sorry I didn’t give you the “dog and pony” show you wanted. I did however demonstrate that the invariant laws of logic have a naturalistic explanation, you seem to have missed that post. Interesting that you keep asking me to answer a blatantly ridiculous question “Do you want to know God?” when you know that I do not believe that such an entity exists in a non-conceptual sense. It’s like asking you “Do you want to know Santa Claus?” when you do not believe that Santa is a a real person. Can you not see that the question makes no sense to me?
Furthermore you keep quoting the Bible. While you might find it’s contents enlightening and helpful, I clearly do not. It has the same effect on me that me cutting and pasting portions of Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion would have on you.
You like the sound of your own voice, that goes without saying. I ask you simple questions and you cannot or will not take the time to provide an answer. These exchanges serve no purpose when one party ignores the other and continues to steam ahead with their carefully rehearsed script.
You ask me “Do you want to now God?” – I ask you to define what you mean by the term God and you have nothing! How can we have a meaningful conversation when I don’t know what you are talking about? You talk about minds and i ask you does God have a brain – again a deafening silence. Your indoctrination seems to be complete – you cannot lift yourself out and see things from my point of view. You will never convince anyone with that attitude, and so again you have failed as a true Christian. I sincerely feel sad for you, on the face of it you seem like an intelligent person but your scepticism and critical thinking skills have deserted you.
How old do you believe the Earth is? (and why do you believe that?)
Now this is a very simple question – you can Google the answer from any credible scientific website. If you cannot even bring yourself to answer this then I will know that you are fighting your cognitive dissonance and do not want to embarrass yourself in front of anyone here.
You may have the final word, but I implore you to use the opportunity wisely and refrain from the meaningless (to me) Biblical quotes.
Thanks for your time, have a good week.
LikeLike
March 1, 2016 at 12:27 pm
You’re welcome, thank you.
LikeLike
March 2, 2016 at 2:01 am
Now Khawar has moved on we can consider how the Christian might respond to these classic atheistic questions. First of, we answer in the context of knowing even asking the questions acknowledge the Christian worldview because without God there is no standard.
Age of the earth. Answer: Wiki tells us 13.6 billion years. It tells the transition from millions to billions years old was 19th century and then there was a transition around the early 20th century from a constant universe to one with a beginning, the Big Bang. Recently the age changed up by a few million. Therefore, as with secular science I don’t know the age of the earth. However, like secular science, I understand the earth had a beginning because the bible tells me so and it’s helpful that secular scientists have eventually caught up with the scientists who are Christian.
He also asked me to define the God I am asking if he wants to know. I’m happy to, it’s my fearful privilege: It’ll be the God who you are arguing against, the one whose heart beats and air you take each day without gratitude, who created the heavens and earth, Colossians 1:16. It is He who fashioned you in your mother’s womb fearfully and beautifully, gave you a conscience so you may know right from wrong, justice from injustice and discern beauty from that which is ugly. The God who commands you to repent, Acts 17:30 and who you will stand before when you die to give an account for every sin, even those done in darkness when you’re alone. The same God who gave his Son to take the punishment you deserve for those crimes against a holy and righteous God so that in repentance and faith you may know Him, be reconciled to Him, redeemed and forgiven. Thank you for asking. I hope this helps all readers, believers and unbelievers alike.
LikeLike
March 2, 2016 at 3:07 am
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Religion/2006/08/God-Is-Not-Threatened-By-Our-Scientific-Adventures.aspx
“Francis Collins, a medical doctor, is director of the National Human Genome Research Institute and passionate about science. But the self-described Bible-believing Christian is just as passionate about his faith, which he came to after reading C.S. Lewis and seeing how religion sustained his gravely ill patients. Collins recently spoke with Beliefnet about his best-selling book”
“As someone who’s had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I’ve had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before.
It’s also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming”
So basically you are claiming to be more of an expert on evolution than Francis Collins. Oh the arrogance!!
LikeLike
March 2, 2016 at 11:41 am
That’s great. You asked a question, I gave you an answer from the Bible and referenced secular science ( as you suggested) . Your response is interesting, PhDs are impressive aren’t they, but you asked about the age of earth and I said I didn’t know. However, it certainly looks old. However, the matter is far from settled within the scientific community. I also responded to your question about God. Now, do you want to know God?
LikeLike
March 2, 2016 at 1:35 pm
Are you trolling me? Serious question.
OK, let’s take this one step at a time.
1. I asked you to define “God”. You have not done so. Telling me that it’s the God of the Bible is NOT a definition. I want to know what attributes this God has – you know all the Omni’s etc.
2. I asked you how old do you believe the Earth is. You did not answer this question either. You claimed you did not KNOW, but I asked what you believe. You referred to secular science (whatever that means) and the commonly accepted age of the Earth is 4.6 Billion years – so you either accept what the conclusion based on the evidence or you don’t. I also asked you WHY you believe what you believe about the age of the Earth, but you have evaded these questions. You are trying to be smart but it makes you look like you know the answer but don’t want to say because it conflicts with your religious beliefs.
“However, the matter is far from settled within the scientific community” –
Really? Can you cite a neutral scientific source that claims the Earth is not 4.6 Billion years old?
“Now, do you want to know God?”
OK, I will play your game. Let’s say that there is a God and it’s the character portrayed in your Bible. The one who allegedly killed almost every living thing on the planet because a small group of people were not doing as he wanted them to, despite the fact that he gave them the free will to do so. The same God who ordered his chosen people to kill unborn children in their mothers wombs and commanded two female bears to maul to death some misbehaving youths. The same God who ordered that unruly children should be taken to the edge of town and stoned to death….
Do I want to know that God?
No, not really. Why only a few years ago He deliberately caused a giant tsunami to kill 250,000 people…I think he likes killing. He lets thousands of children die every day from an infectious disease caused by a bacteria that He designed and that is carried by a small creature He also designed.
Oh but that’s all OK, it’s part of the grand plan that we are too dumb to fathom, for who are we to judge God. It’s ironic that meme of the atheist burying his head in the sane, but I guess you don’t see the irony do you?
I hope that answers your question.
(I can see the response…deh..typical atheist cherry picking the bad stuff from the Bible and not understanding the context blah blah blah…)
You know what’s really funny? Even the Jews know that there is no evidence to support the idea that the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt or that there was any mass migration across the Saini Peninsula of 600,000 families – and that’s THEIR history. But alas you still think the Bible is inerrant and inspired by God.
http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/1106/features/were-the-israelites-enslaved-in-egypt/
https://www.quora.com/What-archeological-evidence-exists-to-show-that-the-Hebrews-were-ever-slaves-or-even-just-lived-in-Egypt
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/the-jewish-thinker/were-jews-ever-really-slaves-in-egypt-or-is-passover-a-myth-1.420844
http://www.reformjudaism.org/were-jews-slaves-egypt
LikeLike
March 3, 2016 at 9:00 pm
Khawar,
Thanks for posting the Beliefnet article on Francis Collins. He certainly presents a singular perspective on resolving seeming conflicts between faith/trust in God & trust/faith in science. In witnessing how religion sustained his gravely ill patients it had to demonstrate to him the lovingkindness, mercy and provision of the Almighty. I’d think that Collins’ expertise which enables him to recognize & understand the evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming also fortifies the reasonable conclusion that God in His wisdom, as would any masterful designer, employs duplicate successful bioengineered features throughout His creation. Here’s another wondrous example of commonality:
http://www.goldennumber.net/category/theology/
http://www.goldennumber.net/bible/
http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html
http://www.goldennumber.net/music/
– Frank
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 9:55 am
Khawar,
Thanks for sharing Beliefnet’s article on Francis Collins. I can readily appreciate his singular perspective regarding what could be considered a conflict between faith/trust in God and trust/faith in science. Evidently he has come to know the lovingkindness, mercy and provision of the Almighty. Indeed even seeing the myriad commonalities throughout life in the biosphere as the Divine signature of the wisdom attributable only to our Supreme Creator.
http://www.goldennumber.net/category/theology/
– Frank
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 11:38 am
Khawar:
Leave it to the Christian creditaction to tell you exactly what your sins; isn’t that just so last century and just so perpetuated this century and so on and so forth and scubby dooby dooby. But I can tell you, sin like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. And they are always quick to stone you just like the Pharisees wanted to stone Jesus when Jesus tried to open their eyes with logic.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 12:59 pm
You don’t need me to show you sin, I’m unqualified, a filthy wretch, deserving of condemnation for my rebellion, Romans 6:23. You have a God given conscience, as do all the followers of this dialogue. You can wriggle and squirm, under the mighty hand of God but soon you will die to give an account.for every sin, even those done when you’re alone, those you prefer to keep private. Your conscience is firmly on the side of any preacher of God’s righteousness. Jesus Christ himself did use logic as you rightly note. He said, “He who sins is a slave to sin”, John 8:34. Your nature is subordinate to your will folks, enslaved to its proclivities. You admire Jesus’ use of logic? That’s interesting. Do you believe the laws of logic exist, law of contradiction, identity, excluded middle?
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 1:33 pm
I wrote a long response the other day but it didn’t post and so I left it. So I am going to address multiple posts in this one.
Do I want to know God?
If it’s the character described in the Bible then the answer is NO. What kind of God would kill 10 children to win a bet?
We all share a common ancestor, and it’s not Adam & Eve – that’s what science tells us and that’s what I am inclined to accept.
Sins? A concept made up by religions to control followers. Wearing mixed fabrics is a sin and so is murder, so there’s a lot of room in between to say that almost everything is a sin. You call yourself a “unqualified, filthy wretch deserving condemnation” – wow you have some serious self-esteem issues. It’s disgusting that Christians tell their children that they are worthless sinners when they should be building up their confidence to face the world.
There is no evidence that the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt or that they built the pyramids – even the Jewish historians accept this and it’s THEIR history. So Exodus is a made up narrative describing events that never happened. Still despite this lack of evidence you will still continue to believe, otherwise the whole story falls apart.
It’s sad that otherwise intelligent people have been indoctrinated into religion and have to abandon logic and reason in order to feel like they belong. Their overwhelming arrogance sickens me – humanity will never reach it’s potential as long as divisive tools like religion are convincing people they are worthless, that everyone else is wrong, that theirs is the ONLY true path and that empiricism and naturalism are tools of the devil.
The universe is 93 Billion Light Years in diameter and you believe that it was created by magic incantation JUST for US?? Wow – just wow.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 8:08 pm
But by a prophet YHWH brought Israel from Egypt, and by a prophet he was kept. (Hosea 12:13)
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 9:24 pm
Khawar asks what kind of god would kill 10 children for a bet? I’m not sure the verse he’s referencing but I know the God of the Bible he’s blaspheming. The same God who wiped the earth of men, women and children, less Noah and his family. Who killed all the Egyptian first born. Who sent a bear to kill the youth who dared mock his prophet, and, who allowed Herod, in his effort to kill the Messiah, to murder many children under 2 years old. God who will one day soon kill him.:
The one he is arguing against, the one whose heart beats and air he takes each day without gratitude, who created the heavens and earth, Colossians 1:16. It is He who fashioned him in his mother’s womb fearfully and beautifully, giving him a conscience so he may know right from wrong, justice from injustice and discern beauty from that which is ugly. The God who commands him to repent, Acts 17:30 and who he will stand before when he dies to give an account for every sin, even those done in darkness when alone. The same God who gave his Son to take the punishment we deserve for those crimes against a holy and righteous God so that in repentance and faith we may know Him, be reconciled to Him, redeemed and forgiven.
However, as a brain washed atheist his appeal to logic must be to him another evolutionary miracle. His indoctrination into naturalistic materialism seems complete and leads to poor argumentation; suggesting I am concurrently arrogant and have low self-esteem. To suggest logic is abandoned indicates he believes immaterial, universal and invariant logic exists. Of course determinism, or strict empiricism cannot even account for logic or morality. Khawar borrows from the Christian worldview to argue. Moreover, he’s confessed he doesn’t want to know God. The Bible says, “none seek after God,” Romans 3:11. Every time he comes on here he demonstrates he’s Imago Dei, an image bearer of God. He would support his convictions by walking away but I’m glad he doesn’t. It’s my prayer that God is drawing him to Christ, John 6:44.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 11:37 pm
Rebel With A Cause:
You are a modern day Pharisee using stock phrases to try and support your position but you can’t do that I’m afraid.
You see, your problem is that you preach more about retribution than about the love and gentleness of Jesus.
You think you are doing good because you say:
The same God who wiped the earth of men, women and children, less Noah and his family. Who killed all the Egyptian first born. Who sent a bear to kill the youth who dared mock his prophet, and, who allowed Herod, in his effort to kill the Messiah, to murder many children under 2 years old.
You are in the abyss and unless you repent and reset your brain into modernity you will remain like a frozen computer that lost its ability of memory.
You can quote all the dastardly deeds of men who credit God with the stupidity of his people but you can’t hide from the fact that you are incompetent to preach what you don’t know about Jesus.
Jesus was an example of how you should live and love one another but all you can do is drum up the atrocities of mad men from the ancients which the God of Jesus had absolutely nothing to do with; what you espouse is a legacy of man-made, ego-centric, wannabe messengers who wouldn’t know Jesus if they tripped over me. You are one of those types, thinking you have a cause but you don’t have a cause, you have a hobby.
LikeLike
March 5, 2016 at 2:24 am
Hmmm..so just to get this right…I claimed that no evidence of the Jews having been enslaved in Egypt (or any mass migration out of the Sinai Peninsula) exists…and the rebuttal is a YouTube video by Ron Wyatt…and man described as: –
“Ronald Eldon Wyatt (2 Jun 1933 – August 4, 1999) was an adventurer and former nurse anesthetist noted for advocating the Durupınar site as the site of Noah’s Ark, among other Bible-related pseudoarchaeology. His claims were dismissed by scientists, historians, biblical scholars, and by leaders in his own Seventh-day Adventist Church, but his work continued to have a following among some fundamentalists[who?] and evangelical Christians.”
“Archaeologist Joe Zias of Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) has stated that “Ron Wyatt is neither an archaeologist nor has he ever carried out a legally licensed excavation in Israel or Jerusalem. In order to excavate one must have at least a BA in archaeology which he does not possess despite his claims to the contrary. … [His claims] fall into the category of trash which one finds in tabloids such as the National Enquirer, Sun etc.”[14]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt
Are you serious?? Oh man…I thought this was a serious site for intellectual debate, but it’s worse than YouTube comments. 😦
LikeLike
March 5, 2016 at 2:29 am
“Khawar asks what kind of god would kill 10 children for a bet? I’m not sure the verse he’s referencing but I know the God of the Bible he’s blaspheming. The same God who wiped the earth of men, women and children, less Noah and his family. Who killed all the Egyptian first born. Who sent a bear to kill the youth who dared mock his prophet, and, who allowed Herod, in his effort to kill the Messiah, to murder many children under 2 years old. God who will one day soon kill him”
And that’s the God you worship? I bet you would have supported Hitler had you been around at that time. The sad thing is that you think all of the acts described above are morally good – now that’s scary 🙂
LikeLike
March 5, 2016 at 8:07 am
Khawar,
“Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won’t come in.” – Isaac Asimov
– Frank
LikeLike
March 5, 2016 at 8:13 am
Khawar,
Start by defining your terms.
– Frank
LikeLike
March 5, 2016 at 3:58 pm
Khawar,
You wrote, “We all share a common ancestor, and it’s not Adam & Eve – that’s what science tells us and that’s what I am inclined to accept.”
I say, “each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work.” (1 Corinthians 3:13)
– Frank
LikeLike
March 5, 2016 at 4:44 pm
So Frank, your rebuttals consist of creationist YouTube videos? You find these convincing do you? It’s called confirmation bias. Maybe you should take the time to learn what the rest of the scientific community has concluded about the age of the universe, evolution and our matrilineal MRCA. Then think to yourself why 99% of scientists favour one model and the creationists don’t. Now this is not a fallacious appeal to popularity or to authority as these are people who are experts in their field.
Secondly, if I started quoting the Quran to you would you find it convincing in any way? Use your brain just a tad and think who you are responding to – Bible quotes are meaningless to me. Why don’t you just be honest with yourself?
This is how I see I. You want to believe that you have the answers because that’s what you have been told from a young age. You might have read the Bible and deep down you know that it conflicts with our model of reality – no man has ever lived inside a whale for 3 days, no donkey has ever talked nor a burning bush. Intuitively you know this is all a work of fiction that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny – but you cannot accept it because it has been repeated to you over and over as being the TRUTH. This is why you cannot present any facts to show that the Universe is not billions of years old, that humans and chimpanzees share a don’t common ancestor or that the Jews built the pyramids. I don’t expect you to suddenly change your beliefs about any of this, no matter how many facts I am able to produce. Belief perseverance is a strong bias – in the face of contradictory evidence people often hold on tighter to theist existing beliefs.
Let’s call it a day, thanks for your time and trouble to respond. I wish you all the best, take care.
Khawar
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 7:06 am
Khawar,
Your assumptions constrict & corrupt your evaluation. You are enlisting a fallacious one-sided view, that is, scientism in defense of your conclusions. Your methodology smacks of peer pressure. Submit to the majority opinion. You engage in bomb-throwing and lame third party hearsay in an insipid attempt to validate your speculations. I’ll leave you with this; on the pedigree of Darwinism:
Stay safe,
– Frank
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 9:34 am
Frank:
Re: Post 118
Why do I get the distinct impression that you are a Paul-inist and not a Christ-ian; maybe because most of your quotes are from Paul or other writers of Acts?
The truth is that Paul was the first great Christian missionary, but he never met Jesus personally. Did this give him more of a right to define Christianity than Jesus?
Are Paul’s thoughts binding on all followers of Jesus, for all time?
When you give remarks to Khawar about what Paul says, to refute scientific evidence; remember, Paul knew nothing about science knowledge but everything about belief including his Pharisaical upbringing which he staunchly used as a defense when he was arrested:
“From the time of my youth, my life has been lived among my own people in Jerusalem. Practically every Jew in town who watched me grow up—and if they were willing to stick their necks out they’d tell you in person—knows that I lived as a strict Pharisee, the most demanding branch of our religion. It’s because I believed it and took it seriously, committed myself heart and soul to what God promised my ancestors—the identical hope, mind you, that the twelve tribes have lived for night and day all these centuries—it’s because I have held on to this tested and tried hope that I’m being called on the carpet by the Jews. They should be the ones standing trial here, not me! For the life of me, I can’t see why it’s a criminal offense to believe that God raises the dead.
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 2:11 pm
Observe scientific research as opposed to scientism:
http://creation.com/historical-adam-biologos
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 2:15 pm
The Bible:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 2:19 pm
The Septuagint:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/septuagint.html
http://ebible.org/eng-Brenton/
https://archive.org/details/interlinearliter00ber
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 2:23 pm
The Septuagint:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
http://ebible.org/eng-Brenton/
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 2:27 pm
The New Testament:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament
https://archive.org/details/interlinearliter00ber
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 2:29 pm
The Quran:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 2:32 pm
The Septuagint in relation to the KJV:
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/septuagint.html
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 2:39 pm
Revelator,
Paul did meet Yahshua personally. Remember, the Scripture: Acts 9 on the road to Damascus.
– Frank
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 2:44 pm
The Hebrew Scriptures:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 2:55 pm
About the Moon:
http://creation.com/the-moons-recession-and-age
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 3:18 pm
Why did God create the moon Frank? There are no humans living on it.
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 3:44 pm
Paul did not meet Jesus; dogma says Paul heard the name , Jesus that’s the best you can do Frank……so inconclusive……
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 3:57 pm
Listen to this logic Frank; it is the same logic you use.
I am the Son of Man.
I am the Son of Man because it is written in Post 133; therefore it is absolute that I am the Son of God.
In addition to that,
Psalm 82 says ..I said you are Gods therefore you ARE the sons of god.
JESUS SAID : If God claimed they were Gods unto whom the word of God came then why would you be upset if I claim to be the Son of God.?
You see Frank you are pre-programmed by Preachers who are even less informed than you have the ability of being, yet you are a proselyte unto them
Stop quoting Paul for things Jesus espoused. Stop Please, as it does you no good support as far as Jesus goes..
Yes I know you love to use Paul’s philosophy so you can suport your doctrine association but get out of the gutter…and use Jesus as your support, not Paul, not Peter, not stephen, not any of the Acts disciples….USE Jesus. why do you have a problem with that?
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 4:13 pm
Dealing with a sacred cow:
This article introduces Barry Setterfield and his work concerning the constancy of the speed of light:
http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/423/
This link brings you to his website:
http://setterfield.org/
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 4:29 pm
Khawar,
Why would you ask me that question when you’ve already stated, “Bible quotes are meaningless to me.”? For I’ll refer you to Genesis 1:14-18. He reveals Himself to us through His Word. Is there a relation between no humans living on it and God creating it?
– Frank
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 4:38 pm
Revelator,
Not dogma but Scripture – Acts 9:1-22.
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 4:52 pm
My point was “why” create a moon at all…or any of the other planets or the other 100,000,000,000 galaxies if the whole point was to have a relationship with “man”? There’s no need for any of it…not even the sun. If everything can be explained by miracles then anything is possible right? There’s no uniformity in nature because God can change anything at any time. The God explanation raises far more questions than it answers. Just curious that’s all. So the answer is that God created the moon but no one knows why. Fair enough.
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 5:00 pm
Khawar,
Define what you mean by “uniformity in nature”.
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 5:17 pm
Uniformity of nature is the something we have to assume if anything is to make sense. The scientific method relies on this to get meaningful results. Take the local gravitational constant for example (g). It’s 9.8ms^-2 on Earth. How could we use this number in calculations if it could change at any moment on the whim of this God you believe exists? I mean according to your theology there was no such thing as a rainbow before the flood. We understand how rainbows form in nature…so God must have changed the refractive index of water or something similar to make rainbows appear. He also made animals talk and allowed a man to live inside a whale. If that’s the reality you believe then who is to say that tomorrow the value of g will still be the same? How do you reconcile these two views?
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 6:49 pm
Khawar,
I’m glad you explained. That’s the very reason I asked you the question. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not capricious or unpredictable or even unknowable. He’s immutable, completely reliable and dependable. He’s gracious, righteous, holy, merciful and full of lovingkindness. He’s Almighty. He deals with humanity by way of covenants and all His dealings with us are motivated by His love for us. As I said, He reveals Himself to us through Scripture and through nature and He is totally consistent. YHWH does not change. Does this strike you as unbelievable and incomprehensible? That the God of the universe would descend from heaven; take the form of a man and enter His creation to deal with humanity’s sin out of love for the world. That He would suffer and die and rise again the third day to redeem His fallen creation. That He ascended into heaven and mediates on our behalf against the Accuser. If what I’m telling you makes no sense to you then you answer me. How are humanity’s sins to be dealt with?
Now you’ve expressed familiarity with some Scripture but you haven’t demonstrated understanding. And you tell me you have no desire of obtaining any. And you obviously have knowledge regarding certain aspects of nature as we all do. But none of us knows it all. How do you reconcile that? We all need to seek His kingdom first and foremost. You’re an intelligent man. I’m sure you know the expression, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.” This is true. No one but God can change your heart as He’s changed mine. Keep searching, keep asking, keep learning to know more of Him. Start from the beginning.
Click to access BibleHistoryOldTestament-Edersheim.pdf
– Frank
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 10:04 pm
Frank:
You keep talking about God did this and God did that…but the reality is that man in his imagination, imagined God to account for the things man could not understand and therefore this is how Man created God:
[1] MAN created God in his own image and gave Him the Perfect Attributes of Deity.
[2] THESE are those attributes which Man aspires to but the likes of which Man has also determined to be impossible to achieve
[3] MAN sets the highest standards for his God and then pre-ordains those standards to be unreachable by Man using the phrase “God Willing” thus insuring
[4] THE justification for Man as he goes about his business of being just the opposite of the attributes he has given to his God
[5] BEING stupid, unforgiving, greedy, a liar, a cheat, a stealer, a killer, a deceiver and a most hateful and
[6] MURDEROUS character of which even among his own kind many cannot believe
[7] HE IS capable of the worse acts of atrocity on his fellow man, the environment and the life forms which support him
LikeLike
March 7, 2016 at 6:08 am
Khawar,
Returning to your question concerning the Moon, again God reveals Himself and His purposes in two primary ways; i.e., through nature and through Scripture. So in considering your question, “Why did God create the moon?” it’s necessary to think about it from two aspects. First, from nature:
http://creationwiki.org/Moon
– Frank
LikeLike
March 7, 2016 at 6:13 am
Khawar,
And second, from the Scriptural perspective:
LikeLike
March 7, 2016 at 6:57 am
Revelator,
You asked that I quote Jesus/Messiah Yahshua, so I will. He taught this:
“Blessed are those who are not spiritually arrogant, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.”
“Blessed are the humble, for they shall inherit the earth.”
“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.”
“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.”
“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”
“Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.”
“Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
“Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.”
“Therefore you shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
(Matthew 5:3-12, 16, 48)
– Frank
LikeLike
March 7, 2016 at 9:25 am
Khawar,
In light of our discussion consider the information & instruction provided herein:
– Frank
LikeLike
March 7, 2016 at 12:06 pm
FRANK:
No results found for “Blessed are those who are not spiritually arrogant, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
What Bible version did you drum this one up from, the “A Dam Ick” translation?
You are obtuse to think I was asking you to quote random passages from Jesus.
You said Paul met Jesus acts 9…I said tell me what Jesus said about that meeting if their was a meeting.
You said: ““each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work.” (1 Corinthians 3:13)
I said tell me what Jesus said about that, not what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 3:13, JESUS, NOT PAUL.
“……Jesus Christ appeared to him. “I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head,” he wrote, “above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.” Within that light, he saw two personages — one of whom spoke his name, pointed to the other, and said, “This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!”
Does this sound familiar to you? It was the description of Joseph Smith the Founder of the Mormon Church; he claimed a similar apparition as Paul that changed his life and direction…what’s the difference, any?
You are a literalist, so indoctrinated by the interpretations of others but have none yourself other than the “A Dam Ick” imagination.
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 6:06 am
Leo,
It’s the NASB.
– Frank
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 11:07 am
Khawar,
In the course of my inquiry I investigate the abstract and the practical:
– Frank
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 11:47 am
Hi Frank. Thanks for making the effort to post the various YouTube videos which support your particular beliefs. I assume that you have also watched videos by various other cosmologists and astrophysicists which contradict your beliefs? When mainstream science does not support the creation account in Genesis then what do you do? Do you think there is a reason that the evidence does not point to a 6000 year old universe or is it simply that all those people who have devoted their careers to the advancement of knowledge are just plain wrong? If I posted several videos which demonstrated evolution for example, would you be swayed at all? Are you expecting me to be influenced by your videos? We seem to be diametrically opposed on the issue so I don’t see any point in continuing. ..what do you think?
Khawar
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 1:39 pm
You make your position clear, thank you. Jesus says, “on the day of judgment you will give an account for every careless word spoken for by your words you will justified and by your words you will be condemned.” Matthew 12:37. You make truth claims while denying God’s existence. You believe that you are an arbitrary bag of molecules, you make no sense. This is why you must repent. Death is inevitable, please, Chrst commands you, do not reject his gracious offer. I’m not trolling, I’m appealing, imploring, and pleading with you. Please, your worldview is empty, vacuous, fruitless, and meanibglesss. You must abandon it and put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ. Every word you type brings upon you further condemnation, for you know God exists and admit you don’t even want to know him. You’re imago dei and know it.
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 1:53 pm
Khawar,
My standpoint is not monolithic. Surely core complex questions as to the formation of the entire universe, not merely the age of the universe, to say the least are unsettled ones. For example, scientists still disagree on the constancy of the speed of light (as I pointed out in post # 137 dated March 6, 2016 at 4:13 pm). Scientists still don’t know how stars are made and no one has ever witnessed one “being born”. If you have show me your evidence. The web provides access to reach the virtual Alexandria’s library of world knowledge. I give no credence to majority opinions. Even after Nicolai Copernicus did his research the “scientific community” thought/assumed/believed the sun revolved around the earth based on Ptolemy. http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/tharriso/ast105/Ast105week04.html Many medical doctors derided the original concept of germs and that they should wash their hands before treating patients. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis However some issues are firmly credibly resolved. We now know by space-time theorems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Hawking_singularity_theorems http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012 that the universe is indeed finite and has a causal agent. It doesn’t surprise me that in the face of that direct reality there are still those who are either ignorant of the fact or unwilling to contend with this evidence’s existence while shrinking from its implications’ challenges to latent purposes within their own agendas. It’s not a matter of whose opinion holds sway but rather much more importantly; who’s grounded in truth. As I’ve made clear to you; I don’t believe in know-it-alls. And I believe even less in those who would suppress truth.
So the choice is yours. I see opposition as a good thing. It tests the spirits and strengthens conviction. I don’t know enough about you or your evidence to conclude that we won’t find any common ground. Should you decide to inquire further; I am here.
Be well,
– Frank
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 2:15 pm
Jason,
There’s a recurring problem posting comments to this blog. I just tried sending a reply to Khawar and it didn’t post. If possible would you please retrieve it and see that it does post. This has happened numerous times previously. He asked for a direct reply and I want him to be able to read the one I made. Khawar also said he tried sending a post the other day and couldn’t do it.
Thanks
– Frank
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 2:35 pm
Khawar,
Can you see the lesson(s) to be learned here?:
http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/tharriso/ast105/Ast105week04.html
– Frank
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 3:37 pm
Khawar,
And what do you see as the principal lesson of this account?
http://semmelweis.org/about/dr-semmelweis-biography/
– Frank
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 7:24 pm
Frank:
NASB STATES: Matthew 5New American Standard Bible (NASB)
The Sermon on the Mount; The Beatitudes
2 He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying,
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
The NASB is not what you stated. What you stated was:
“Blessed are those who are not spiritually arrogant, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
You are being disingenuous: insincere, dishonest, untruthful, false, deceitful, duplicitous, lying, mendacious; hypocritical.
It’s like Ted Cruz who holds the bible high; then, lies and lies and lies about his opponents.
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 8:58 pm
Khawar,
You wrote, “When mainstream science does not support the creation account in Genesis then what do you do?” I don’t place my faith/trust in anything “mainstream”. That’s the chief lesson in post #s 155 & 156.
You also wrote, “Are you expecting me to be influenced by your videos?” No Khawar, I’m not. I expect you to attempt to refute my claim by proving your assertions. Provide convincing evidence in support of your claim. Simple declarations fail.
“No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.” – Albert Einstein / What Life means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck
– Frank
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 9:15 pm
Khawar,
Explain your reconciliation of space-time theorems to your worldview.
http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/did-the-universe-begin-ii-singularity-theorems/
http://creationwiki.org/Borde-Guth-Vilenkin_singularity_theorem
– Frank
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 9:26 pm
Leo,
You’re so pedantic & punctilious; a real drama queen.
– Frank
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 9:35 pm
Leo,
Take it up with blueletterbible.org
– Frank
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 5:03 am
Hello Frank
You said: ” I expect you to attempt to refute my claim by proving your assertions. Provide convincing evidence in support of your claim. Simple declarations fail”
But I am confused. I have asked you plenty of questions and all I seem to get back are links to clearly biased YouTube videos and web articles. You are showing me things that you personally found convincing (confirmation bias?) and expect me to refute or prove my own assertions (did I make any?)
Firstly, there is no such thing as epistemic “proof” outside of logic and math – inductively speaking we can only talk about probability/likelihood or degrees of certainty. From that perspective I am more certain that cosmology and astrophysics (in which I actually have an honours degree) are a more reliable way to learn about the universe than interpreting an ancient tome. Materialism is the reason why we have managed to progress from the dark ages to the level of technology we have now. We are generally living longer and a enjoying a better quality of life. As far as I am aware there has been no input into this from God or “spirituality” – as neither of these can be demonstrated empirically.
Secondly, I could respond to each of your videos with a video or article of my own choosing – but to what end. You would dismiss it anyway, as you have already decided you know the answers.
You said: ” I don’t place my faith/trust in anything “mainstream””
But you do. Is it not the majority view in the world that there is a God? You are following along are you not? When you are sick don’t you seek the advice of “mainstream” medicine – or do you sit at home and pray?
“Worldview”? – I do not really subscribe to the concept of such things, life is too complex to ascribe your interpretation of in by a single category.
I suggested that there was no pint in continuing but you clearly think there is. If you want to do that then pick a topic and discuss it in depth. How about Morality? Do you have any particular views or thoughts about morals and what it means to make good or bad moral decisions?
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 5:34 am
khawar, you said, “Firstly, there is no such thing as epistemic “proof” outside of logic and math – inductively speaking we can only talk about probability/likelihood or degrees of certainty.”
Are you certain about that Khawar? Do you know why you cannot grasp the epistemological difficulty you are in? Do you know why your willful suppression of the truth continues despite the body of evidence pressing against your atheistic position? Each time you take to the keyboard, to display your thinking you show the futility and absurdity of unbelief. You keep coming back and like your quote above, reinvigorating and reinforcing my faith in the Bible because you behave and think as the bible says you will. Look at your words, you there is no certainty with a certain claim! This is why you are commanded to repent, Acts 17:30, that you might come to a know of the truth. Jesus Christ is your only hope, come to him today. It is the Gospel which is the power unto salvation, Romans 1:16.
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 7:12 am
Khawar,
My standpoint, unlike your own, is not monolithic. As I referenced in the above presentations (and which you have yet to address) concerning the fall of geocentrism and the rise of heliocentrism + the biography of Dr. Semmelweis there is no basis for placing one’s trust/faith in the zeitgeist/predominant current spirit of opinion. Presumption doesn’t constitute truth of argument. You claim to be unaware of any input from God. You’re actually in denial and prove yourself so by your evasive condescending responses. You presume I’ll dismiss your evidence before you even present any of it. Are you a self-defeatist? You can’t be taught anything? I’ll reiterate it to you, I give no credence to know-it-alls. None of us knows everything. Those who suppress truth are utter failures. You claim to be learned in cosmology and astrophysics. I’m testing your claim. Explain your understanding & reconciliation regarding singularity theorems. Use your best evidence in providing your explanation; whatever you consider that to be (other than feeble declarations & assertions of “confirmation bias”). When you claim I’m biased substantiate your charge by presenting direct evidence not feckless suppositions. Demonstrate the validity of your claims. Do you think the universe had a beginning or is it infinite? Is there more than one universe? Has the recent discovery of gravitational waves altered your cosmological interpretations? And what about the issue of moon recession which you have yet to address – how do your reconcile the inconsistencies in the matter? Do you think they’re real or not? Do you know how stars are made? Has any scientist ever witnessed this event? Document your contentions.
So Khawar, make your own choice. I see honest opposition as a clear benefit. It tests the spirits & strengthens conviction serving to expand the information base. I don’t know enough about you as an individual or your constitutional framework to conclude we cannot find some measure of common ground. Should you decide to reply frankly to my inquiries; I am here.
Be well,
– Frank
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 8:00 am
Frank:
“None of us knows everything.”
That’s a wonderful sentiment Frank; now tell me, is there one thing in the bible, anywhere, you do not understand? Just one thing you can’t grasp? Is there anything you don’t know about Jesus?
If there is one thing or several things that elude you, bet you won’t be able to think about. Bet you can’t tell me one thing you don’t know, or understand. And please don’t send me a video from 119 Ministries.
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 8:25 am
Atheism releases the minds of the downtrodden from the tyranny of religion and opens the thought processes.
Everything in the cosmos is external except the concept of God. The only God man can know is the Father within; God cannot exist externally, Jesus proved that over and over again in his three and a half year ministry campaign.
Dear Jesus:
I think I know what you tried to say to me,
How you suffered for your sanity,
How you tried to set the supernatural believer free.
They would not listen, they’re not listening still.
Perhaps they never will…
Yet, we cannot give them up to the tyranny kill.
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 6:48 pm
Evidence for the Israelite Sojourn in Egypt –
http://creationwiki.org/Evidence_for_the_Israelite_Sojourn_in_Egypt
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 7:09 pm
Imhotep/Joseph saves Egypt according to the Famine stele:
http://creationwiki.org/Famine_stele
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 7:18 pm
The only Ancient Egyptian document generally accepted as mentioning Israel. The Merneptah stele is, by far, the earliest known attestation of Israel.
http://creationwiki.org/Merneptah_stele
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 7:32 pm
Biblical archaeologists such as David Down and Bryant Wood have concluded that Kahun was occupied by Israelite slaves that were laboring in Egypt prior to the Exodus of Israel.
http://creationwiki.org/Kahun
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 7:47 pm
Moses was the prophet, legislator, judge, historian and leader of the Israelites from the Exodus of Israel from slavery in Egypt to the doorstep of Canaan.
http://creationwiki.org/Moses
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 7:53 pm
Egyptian plagues –
http://creationwiki.org/Egyptian_plagues
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 7:57 pm
Passover –
http://creationwiki.org/Passover
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 8:04 pm
The Exodus of Israel is the abrupt embarkation of the people of Israel after a long period of slavery in Egypt.
http://creationwiki.org/Exodus_of_the_Israelites
LikeLike
March 9, 2016 at 8:21 pm
Joseph and Imhotep –
http://creationwiki.org/Joseph_and_Imhotep
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 8:14 am
Thank you, Jason, for resolving the issue by posting my comments to Khawar dated March 8, 2016 at 1:53 pm.
Faithfully,
Frank
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 8:20 am
Khawar,
How would you integrate the following information with your conception of “uniformity of nature”?:
– Frank
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 9:06 am
Conjecture, speculation, probabilities and suppositions are not evidence anymore than someone claiming to speak to and hearing the commands of God in the mountain mists.
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 11:39 am
Hi Frank. I watched this video already, but I am not sure what you are driving at with your question. The principal of uniformity of nature basically states that “identical antecedent states or causes to be uniformly followed by identical effects ” [also broadly linked to the problem of induction]. For example if you throw an object into the air it will fall back to earth (unless you launched it with a velocity which exceeded the escape velocity of the earth).
Science relies heavily upon this premise of uniformity because, without it, it would not be possible to infer from past events what we can expect to happen in the future. Scientific prediction and scientific theorizing would simply not be possible without uniformity.
That was the point I was trying to make. In your worldview I imagine that you do not accept this principal because your God can (and has) interfered with natural laws and processes (like stopping the sun, creating rainbows, allowing a man to live in a whale, making an animal talk etc.). You live your life by induction and inference though, it’s an assumption you have yo make in order for anything to make sense, no?
I will address your other posts in time, but for now I just want to ask you why you chose CREATION WIKI as a credible source of evidence to support your arguments? When we are examining historical events we have to consider what is most likely to have happened, given the evidence. Do you think that your source is historically neutral or biased towards proving the Bible?
I tried to set my biases aside by providing you with the quote from Francis Collins about DNA and common ancestry. As an expert in his field we should take his opinion more seriously than Ken Ham for example. The fact that he is also an evangelical Bible believing Christian does not seem to be a factor when it comes to what the evidence is showing. But you don’t accept his view on common ancestry? All life evolved from a single cell during the last 3.5 Billion years as opposed to having been spontaneously created a few thousand years ago by divine miracle. Do you think that there is a possibility that there was no Adam and Eve as written in the Bible? Do you think that if you accept evolution that the whole Genesis account will fall apart along with the rest of your theology? If that’s the case then we are at an impasse – you will believe what you believe no matter what evidence is presented to you. It’s not a case of showing you something – like a start being born. I mean that question is in itself meaningless, you believe that 100 trillion stars just popped into existence all at once, all at different stages of stellar evolution, all the black holes, quasars, nebulae, proto-stars, planets and their satellites…basically everything in the cosmos. So if I presented to you evidence of stars at various stages of evolution – from proto stars through to supernovae how would that effect your belief? It wouldn’t, you would simply claim they were “created” that way.
This is why I have a problem with these discussions. It’s human nature to try to make sense of things and be in a position to be able to explain why you believe certain things. Theistically speaking that puts you at a disadvantage – your natural inclination is to find evidence to support your beliefs, and that evidence has to come from naturalism/materialism. You look to archaeology to provide evidence of Biblical events and at the same time you decry naturalism and materialism. You look to scientific theorems and formulas to support the creation account, but when the same science contradicts something you hold to be true you just dismiss it. But this is quite normal.
I will come back to your other posts.
Best Wishes,
Khawar
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 9:08 pm
Khawar,
Contrary to how you imagine; I don’t rely on generalizations and presuppositions. I adhere to the Biblical principal: But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
The PROBLEM OF INDUCTION is the philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge understood in the classic philosophical sense, since it focuses on the alleged lack of justification for either:
(1) Generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for example, the inference that “all swans we have seen are white, and, therefore, all swans are white”, before the discovery of black swans) or
(2) Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the principle of uniformity of nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
This is what I’ve been driving at in postings about Barry Setterfields’s work and the PBS SpaceTime video on the c constant. “Always expect the unexpected” serves well as opposed to “uniformity of nature”. Hence, the Lorentz Transformation.
Your methodology’s akin to the blind men and the elephant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
I ask you, why are you a bomb-thrower? Why do you make incendiary accusations and insinuations of prejudice, bias & bigotry concerning those who hold the Bible as true? You brought up the subject of Jews never being slaves in Egypt or building pyramids so I tested to see if your claim is falsifiable and found significant evidence that clearly states otherwise. Aren’t Jacob, Joseph & Moses figures from the Bible? Why wouldn’t their testimonies be considered in the discussion? Why would you exclude their experiences? Look Khawar, if you have problems thinking any of the organizations or individuals I cite or reference are biased or dishonest or trying to push a hidden agenda then you man-up; go straight ahead and bring it to them directly. I’ll tell you right up front I don’t detect anything of the sort. I understand them to be presenting complete, open, above board and direct results from the investigations they’ve made. You presented Francis Collins. I presented Dr. Robert Carter, Phillip E. Johnson, Dr. Hugh Ross, Michael Rood, Albert Einstein, Alexander Vilenkin, PhD and Robert Jastrow among others. Much of this evidence relates in great measure to your supposed area of expertise. Aren’t you the self-professed honor student of cosmology and astrophysics? You say it doesn’t matter if you can’t rationally and verifiable explain how stars are formed and produce eyewitness testimony to that effect. Then I say how do I give credence to whatever you claim about the origin of the universe when you’re unable to account for one of its primary essential components? If you can’t deal with this then where does that leave you? I don’t expect you to know much about the Bible given your previous posts but I don’t accept you as playing censor-in-chief either.
I look forward to your future posts.
Truly,
Frank
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 9:12 pm
“The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.” – Isaac Asimov
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 7:12 am
Frank:
You said to Khawar: “You presented Francis Collins. I presented Dr. Robert Carter, Phillip E. Johnson, Dr. Hugh Ross, Michael Rood, Albert Einstein, Alexander Vilenkin, PhD and Robert Jastrow among others.
A hypocrite is a person who accuses another person and does exactly the same thing that he accused the other of doing:
For example: post 290 In an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God incoherent?
Frank: You are talking to yourself again.
“It is this same erroneous reasoning you used, trying to link my post to a validation of Penn & Teller, which could not be further from the truth. I do not know anything about Penn & Teller and I don’t care to know anything about Penn & Teller; I only referenced the references the writer of the article used but I didn’t write the article nor did I endorse or validate the references and neither did Jesus in so many of the listed scriptures you gleaned written by somebody else, and why you regurgitate that which you yourself did not compose.”
One should keep his words both soft and tender, because tomorrow he may have to eat them.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 10:20 am
Your should statement is a problem. As Hume says, “you cannot get an ought from an is”. Hume’s Law or Guillotine.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 10:58 am
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).” – Mark Twain
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 12:37 pm
Rebel With A Cause:
Your quote is like a bible verse given with no explanation or context, without which understanding it is not easy. Ought to be; but is not.
LTG’s Easy Quotes:
All correction is grievous to be borne but the righteous learn and grow in peace. Even while we speak the words of correction, we know instinctually that we speak of ourselves yet that must not deter chastisement. LTG
It is not obvious how we know what has moral value but what we do know is that we ought to prevail as though we do and admonish intuitively our brethren in humanity without losing sight that we too are members. LTG
Though we ought not to behave like bears behind the steering wheel, we know the bear is driving still. LTG
Who is the better?
Again we are mindful that pedestrians are drivers without a vehicle to operate and drivers, merely pedestrians operating a vehicle. LTG
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 8:01 am
On rates of change & uniformity:
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 10:03 am
Geological time & the Genesis Flood:
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 6:18 pm
On Archaeological Evidence & Scriptural Integrity:
LikeLike
March 12, 2016 at 10:04 pm
“My covenant I will not violate,
Nor will I alter the utterance of My lips.” (Psalm 89:34)
LikeLike
March 13, 2016 at 6:03 pm
Measuring Cosmic Dimensions:
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 11:02 am
On the Default Worldview:
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 11:06 am
“Always expect the unexpected” serves well as opposed to “uniformity of nature”.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 11:14 am
FRANK:
Your comments section is like shearing a pig, some squeals but little wool but your links are well within the range of human imagination because God spoke to nobody but imagination overwhelms when talking about that to which no man could possibly witness and no man can possibly know. Who was even there with Nicodemus and Jesus to hear the conversation they had…some christian fly on the wall that whispered and did a bee dance for the authors of the gospels. And who was with Jesus in the desert when Satan talked to him and he with Satan? NOBODY.
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 8:50 am
“Never regard study as a duty but as an enviable opportunity to learn to know the liberating influence of beauty in the realm of the spirit for your own personal joy and to the profit of the community to which your later works belong.” – Albert Einstein
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 8:52 am
Let’s consider “confirmation bias” – philosophical and otherwise.:
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 9:21 am
Creationism poof poof is to believers what metamorphosis is to the evolution observer.
Creationism of the adult man to the believer is what genesis from conception, birth, growth to adulthood is to the evolution observer.
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 11:18 am
Zero Point Energy (ZPE) – Its history and cosmological effects:
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 3:28 pm
The God of Scripture:
LikeLike
March 16, 2016 at 12:09 am
Frank, I read, “Theists have a burden to demonstrate their claim that God exists, and atheists have a burden to demonstrate their claim that God does not exist.” This is not a rational statement. You may as well say wordsmiths have a burden to demonstrate words exist and awordsmiths have the opposite burden. Both sides have to use words to support their claim. Equally, the God of all the earth, who gave us his word, is the necessary precondition for intelligibility. Given that we have all the evidence in conscience, and creation no further evidence is required, it is self evident to all people, in all times. This is supported throughout Scripture, not least of all in Romans 1:18-20. My counsel is to call the unbeliever to repentance. It is only through bending the knee, and confessing Christ as Lord, through repentance and faith that anyone can come to an understanding. Atheism is dribbling nonsense, it is a spent force, with no grounding in reason, science or morality, being held on to by men and women who hate God and who will get what they deserve if they die apart from Jesus Christ, “the wages of sin is death, the gift of God eternal life”. Romans 6:23
LikeLike
March 16, 2016 at 7:05 pm
Rebel With A Cause,
God Himself tells us few shall enter His Kingdom (Matthew 7:13-14). But it is remarkable when we see someone go from a statement like this: “In the ordinary, everyday understandings of the words involved, to say that someone survived death is to contradict yourself; while to assert that all of us live forever is to assert a manifest falsehood, the flat contrary of a universally known truth: namely, the truth that all human beings are mortal. For when, after some disaster, the ‘dead’ and the ‘survivors’ have both been listed, what logical space remains for a third category?”; to this: “The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.”; and this: “I now believe there is a God…I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.” – Antony Flew
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
– Frank
LikeLike
March 16, 2016 at 7:10 pm
Without knowledge the believer will grasp at many straws to try and come up with absolute certainty but straws have never worked and will never work fornever and never amen..
LikeLike
March 16, 2016 at 7:21 pm
“Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature. But it is not science alone that guided me. I have also been helped by a renewed study of the classical philosophical arguments.” – Antony Flew
LikeLike
March 16, 2016 at 8:10 pm
“Who has given to Me that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is Mine.” (Job 41:11)
LikeLike
March 16, 2016 at 9:00 pm
“I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite intelligence. I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science.” – Antony Flew
LikeLike
March 17, 2016 at 8:07 am
CONTEXTUAL PREFACE not based on evidence or fact
“Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to (the Believer’s belief in a term coined by ancient man to describe what ancient man had no science or knowledge about and could not understand, which he therefore imagined and conceptualized as a personal, human creator thing, called) God.”
LikeLike
March 17, 2016 at 9:00 am
Revelator Says:
March 17, 2016 at 8:07 am
NEEDS CONTEXTUAL PREFACE (not based on evidence or fact but belief)
“Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to (the Believer’s belief in a term coined by ancient man to describe what ancient man had no science or knowledge about and could not understand, which he therefore imagined and conceptualized as a personal, human creator thing, called) God.” Antony Flew
LikeLike
March 17, 2016 at 11:39 am
Flew gets you to theism. Repentance is the path to Jesus Christ and the fear of the Lord which is the beginning of wisdom.
LikeLike
March 17, 2016 at 1:53 pm
Belief gets you to theism; theism gets you to tyranny, Jesus gets the downtrodden out of the ritual religious shackles of tyranny and onto the path of reconciliation by knowledge of the “give and take” of forgiveness and compassion as a repentant member of a common humanity. A Humanity Uniting Humans (HUH) LTG
LikeLike
March 17, 2016 at 6:14 pm
That’s a claim however, as an unbeliever all you have is subjective preference. You’ve no foundation for claims of tyranny versus virtue, it’s nothing but chance acting on matter over time. Jesus Christ said, you must repent. You’re in denial of all that us set before you; creation, induction in nature, scientific laws, and moral laws. You can make claims but your worldview is ultimately meaningless, it doesn’t really matter. However, your God gifted conscience is on my side. Respond to it, repent, seek God’s forgiveness, turn to Jesus Christ, He died, gave his life as a ransom, for all who would forsake their life, pick up their cross and follow Him.
LikeLike
March 17, 2016 at 8:04 pm
Human knowledge and human power meet in one; for where the cause is not known the effect cannot be produced. – Francis Bacon
Considering morality: Does might make right?
LikeLike
March 17, 2016 at 11:17 pm
Do you have a question Frank?
LikeLike
March 18, 2016 at 7:25 am
Rebel With A Cause,
How do you evangelize the Gospel of Messiah to someone who adheres to the following: “Now, if anything at all can be known to be wrong, it seems to me to be unshakably certain that it would be wrong to make any sentient being suffer eternally for any offence whatever.”?
– Frank
LikeLike
March 18, 2016 at 9:26 am
Help me out please Frank. What church do you attend?
LikeLike
March 18, 2016 at 10:02 am
I have attended the Assembly of God. At present I am unaffiliated with any denomination in particular.
LikeLike
March 18, 2016 at 10:13 am
“The beginning is from God: for the business which is in hand, having the character of good so strongly impressed upon it, appears manifestly to proceed from God, who is the author of good, and the Father of Lights.” The New Organon – Francis Bacon
LikeLike
March 18, 2016 at 12:31 pm
I see Frank thank you. You caused me concern when you referred to Jesus Christ as Jesus Messiah, it’s terminology I hear from the cults. However, Assemblies of God is within orthodoxy so you’ve reassured me, thank you. I attend Spirit of Life Church in Bristol, UK, a small independent protestant assembly. What’s with you posting all the videos?
LikeLike
March 18, 2016 at 1:38 pm
I was in Bristol in October buy my car.
“You’ve no foundation for claims of tyranny versus virtue, it’s nothing but chance acting on matter over time”
Two things I would say to that.
(1) It’s pure chance that the sperm fertilised the egg which would grow up to become you (Rebel With A Cause), or do you think that divine intervention guided that particular sperm out of the 300,000,000 that were also in the race?
(2) Who cares whether or not anyone has a foundation to justify doing good? I would rather live in a world where people were kind to each other and didn’t care whether they had some “foundation” for their altruism than a world where people didn’t do good because they could not justify their actions.
Let’s face it – presup apologetics is only for believers and it makes them feel good that they picked the right religion/cult. It seems to have worked on you quite well, to the point that you actually believe all the stuff you have been posting. Aren’t you embarrassed?
LikeLike
March 18, 2016 at 3:04 pm
Next time you’re in Bristol I’d love to answer that question and buy you lunch. Let’s say at Star Coffee Stapleton Rd.
LikeLike
March 18, 2016 at 4:02 pm
Rebel:
A simple sermon about Jesus for your weekend wakeup call.
Jesus had as much unbelief as I because Jesus didn’t operate with the ritualisms you are stuck in religious tyranny. You think Jesus was religious like you? No siree; as a matter of fact the reason he started his mission was to get the religious indoctrinated out of their miserable religious ditch that the elite clergy who think they know everything put them in. The simplicity of Jesus was to counter all the religious bullish in society by his quoting of Isaiah about why he came to the masses:
He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”
The people that Jesus was talking to was the religious believers whom he characterized as did Isaiah: the poor, the brokenhearted, the captives, the blind, the oppressed; the poor, brokenhearted, captives, blind and oppressed of what? OF RELIGION and climaxed that campaign with his indictment of the religious Elite who made them that way to suck out of the people all they could suck while the sucking was good, and all along filling them full of nonsense about the supernatural stupidity of religion’s miracles, myths and magic. And to those corrupt clerics said he of them Woe to you in Matthew 23 the INDICTMENT and it applies today as much as yesterday 2000 years ago.
Oh we’ve repented, we’re sorry for what we’ve done, anybody can be sorry for what you’ve done, especially if you’ve been found out. That isn’t repentance. Repentance recognizes that divine logic so engineered me that apart from the presence of divine logic of the way you are made, I am nothing, have nothing and can do nothing; that’s why we’re told Philippians chapter 2, verses 5 onwards, “When the Lord Jesus came into this world, he though recognizing the divine logic and not considering it robbery to claim total equality with divine logic in that form made himself nothing; he emptied himself and accepted that he was born a human being. He made himself, Old English Bible. “All that a man is without divine logic, nothing”. So that his Father, Divine Logic, as God in the man, can be everything.
That’s why the 5th verse of the second chapter of the epistle to the Philippians says, “let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus”, that word mind seems attitude. It means disposition. Let this disposition be in you that was in Christ. He playing the role of man let the Father, divine logic be everything; you playing the role of men let Christ be everything. As he derived everything he ever did, said or was from the Father in the son so now you derive everything you say and do and are from the son who revealed the divine logic, the Father living in you. It’s called sanctification. But you don’t understand the concept of divine logic in the man, “within you” as Jesus put it in Luke 17:21: “Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”
You are thinking too much about religion’s nonsense of the religious box outside that you are constantly being bombarded by that is nothing but a BIG lie, instead of within yourself.
Listen to the truth about Jesus for a change and forget clergy interpretations:
You see he was altogether too ordinary, they’d known him as a little baby, nursed in his mother’s arms, that seen him clinging to her skirt, they’d seen him romping in the streets with his village pals, he was the one who as an apprentice at the bench was learning his trade, he was the man who came and fixed the window when it jammed, “this man”. And they tried to rationalize. You see, it would have been so much easier if he of had sort of a genius for a father or a mother, if he’d been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, everything that money could buy, he’d come back from this university and the other having gathered every kind of academic distinction and degree but he was too ordinary, “this man”.
Is not this the carpenter’s son, is not his mother called Mary and his brethren James and Joses and Simon and Judas and his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath “this man” all these things?
Now why were they astonished? You might quite sincerely say,
“Well they were astonished because they did not know that he was God”. But I think you’d be wrong. They were not astonished because they did not know that he was God; they were astonished because they did not know that he was……man.
Not man as they were, not man as you and I are….but man as he is God, created man to be. Real man. That’s what made him astonishing. You see, you and I can derive an immense amount of comfort from the fact that when the Lord Jesus came into this world he didn’t come into this world to behave as God; though God he was. He came into this world as man; he stepped out of eternity into time; he came from heaven to earth and he was born, conceived of the holy spirit and fashioned in the borrowed womb of that virgin girl in the city called Bethlehem, the house and city of David. It behooving him in all points to be like unto his brethren, he assumed our flesh and blood; he was born a human being. And he came to be the truth. Not just to preach the truth, not just to proclaim or explain the truth; he said, “I am the truth”, I preach.
Remember that, John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth and the life”. In other words, I’m the truth about the way, the truth how to become a Christian. Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself, the hallmarks of my savior. Says the Lord Jesus, if you’re lost, if you’re groping in the dark; if you’re still trying to find your way home, if you feel dirty, if you want to be clean, if you know you’re lost and a sinful person and you want to be saved, you want to be redeemed, if you want to know forgiveness, said the Lord Jesus, “Come to me, I am the way” how to become a Christian but I’m not only the way to become a Christian, I am the Life. If having become a Christian and you want to know how to live the Christian life, well, said the Lord Jesus, very simple: “Come to me; I am the life”. I’m the truth not only as to how to become a Christian, I’m the truth how to be the Christian you have become. Because having given myself for you to be the way on the grounds of redemption whereby you can be reconciled to a holy God, be accepted in the beloved and know that your sins are forgiven, acquitted. Having given myself for you in redemption, I rose again from the dead to give myself to you in spiritual regeneration to re-invade your humanity in the person of my other self, the other Comforter, the Holy Ghost to credit you with my divine presence so that by virtue of who I am, God, living where I do, in your heart as a redeemed sinner I can impart to you all divine dynamic of my indwelling and give you what it takes.
Now that’s the gospel, not the gospel plus, not the Lookist Edition. The fact that the Lord Jesus rose again from the dead, ascended to be with his father, glorified at his right hand, to invade the humanity of every forgiven sinner, and share his life with them on earth and communicate that life through them to their fellow man, this isn’t for the fanatical, this is normality, this is a man being restored to his true humanity. Because you see, it takes the life of the Lord Jesus in you, to be in the process of time what the CRUCIFIXION of the Lord Jesus for you gives you the right to become in the crisis of the moment. All that’s comprehended in the remedial measures that God has introduced in the person of his son to get us back as men to where we belong. The life of the Lord Jesus in you imperative to the process of time in being the Christian that you became in the crisis of the moment on the basis of what he did for you. He’s the truth, about the way, how to become a Christian, the truth about the life, how to be the Christian that you have become. And you discover that you need not only what he did because of what you’ve done, you need who he is, living within you to take the place of what you are.
But he wasn’t only the truth about the way and the truth about the life, he was the truth about God, and the truth about man. You see anything you and I can know about God we see magnificently magnified in the person of his incarnate son. As we have already reminded ourselves, said the Lord Jesus, he that has seen me has seen the father.
“Show us the father said Philip, it sufficeth us”.
Said the Lord Jesus, “have I been so long time with you hast thou been so long time with me and not known me Philip? He that has seen me has seen my father”.
We remind ourselves that for the very first time since Adam fell into sin God in heaven could look at his son and see in him a man, a real man, could see himself, perfectly reflected. The word was made flesh, said John, and we beheld his glory. The reflected glory of his father, indwelling his humanity, manifesting himself, as God, through Jesus Christ as man. John 12:45: He that has seen me has seen him that sent me. So he was the truth about God. He interpreted deity. In the physical, visible body of his humanity he gave not only a physical, visible expression of his own invisible self but an invisible self intimately identified with his invisible father who indwelt his humanity in the person of the holy spirit and whom he allowed from within his human spirit gain total access to his human soul so that the father through the holy spirit could teach his mind, so control his emotions that the father in the son would direct his will and govern his behavior. So the Lord Jesus constantly testified: John 5: 19; John 5:30; “Without my father I can do nothing”.
Don’t you believe Philip that I am in my father and my father is in me? And the words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself; the father who lives in me; he does the work; everything I do, he does; everything I say, he says; everything I am, he is. That’s why when you look at me you see him. Because you see, the Lord Jesus was not only the truth about God.
Now if ever there was a man who walked this earth who knew the truth about a man’s humanity and that relationship that must govern that man’s humanity, with God and God with him, that man was Jesus Christ. He just happened to be God who engineered man and who deliberately, though never himself never less than God stepped out of eternity into time and insisted of his own free volition, something he need never ever have done, being never ever less than God came into this world to behave as though he were never ever more than man. As opposed of course to man, who being never ever more than man, struts across this planet and behaves as though he were never ever less than God. That’s the essential difference. Jesus Christ never ever less than God behaved as though he were never ever more than man; man never ever more than man behaves as though he was never ever less than God.
The truth about God and the truth about man; in other words, the Lord Jesus, as our creator and the one who assumed the office of the man he made knew exactly what that relationship would be that would govern his humanity on earth and his father, as God in heaven and deliberately submitted himself to those criteria of our humanity to the limitations that make man, man.
So here are two very simple points to establish: Jesus Christ in whom was seen the total glory of the divine logic was the truth about God. But being the creator who made man, assuming his office, to fulfill his role was the truth about man. Now what is equally obvious is that the Lord Jesus was the truth about God because he was the truth about man because the truth about man is that man was created to be the truth about God. In case I said that too fast, let me say it again. You see, all I’m doing is making the obvious, obvious; the tragedy is that obvious by and large is so obvious it ceases to be obvious. It’s the simplicity that is in Jesus. You see we are past masters at complicating the issue and turning our Christian faith into a complicated procedure when in point of fact, it derives from a person; it’s of him, through him, to him, all things to whom alone be glory. He’s the beginning and the end; he’s the author and the finisher of our faith; he’s the source and the sustenance; he’s the root and the fatness; Christ himself. And he came into this world to be the truth about God and the truth about man and he was the truth about God because he was the truth about man, because the truth about man is that man was created to be the truth about the divine logic within the man, the divine logic that Jesus continuously called the Father.
You see the Lord Jesus came magnificently to demonstrate the proposition, the divine logic of which is absolutely imperative to a man’s humanity. And in explaining this to you, I’m simply preaching the gospel. Don’t please imagine that the gospel is simply come to Jesus and have your sins forgiven; that isn’t the gospel. You will only have your sins forgiven if you are prepared for the guilty sinner that you are, come to the Lord Jesus and accept him into your life for the savior he came to be but THAT IS NOT GOSPEL. That simply lets you off the hook; that simply changes your destination; that simply trades hell for heaven but Jesus Christ didn’t come into this world simply to get you and me out of hell and into heaven; he came into this world supremely to God out of heaven in to you and to me.
You don’t imagine that God takes any pleasure in having a heaven filled with men and women redeemed in the blood of his incarnate son who will be as useless in heaven as they were on earth? Stacked in bundles of 10, dusted with DDT once a week by a bunch of angels, do you imagine that’s what heaven’s going to be like? Heaven is going to be populated with men, women, boys and girls, who’ve been restored to their redeemed and now true humanity because in the day that the Lord Jesus comes John in his 1st epistle 3rd chapter first 2 verses: beloved what manner of love the father has bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God; we never ever deserved it, we were guilty men, members of a fallen race, nasty caricatures, telling by what we do and say and are, nothing but lies about our maker and yet in his infinite mercy reached a hand from heaven ….pierced with nails upon a cross that he might receive us back to himself, acquitted and forgiven that we might be restored to our true humanity and become by adoption members of his family. Beloved what manner of love the father has bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God and he goes on in that 2nd verse of the 3rd chapter of his 1st epistle to say: We do not yet know exactly what we will be but this at least we do know that when we see him we’ll see him as he is and we’ll be like him, we’ll be like him, forever.
Well, in the day that you see him as he is and you’re like him what have you got back to? Genesis chapter 1, for you were made in his likeness. Simply means that salvation’s gone full cycle.
And the religious world misses this point entirely because they cannot SEE HIM AS HE IS!
Sound like anyone you know?
LikeLike
March 18, 2016 at 4:24 pm
Have dinner with a religious fundamentalist?
Better take heed of the words of Jesus in John 2:23-25: KJV
But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.
In other words, as the New Living Translation says it:
Because of the miraculous signs Jesus did in Jerusalem at the Passover celebration, many began to trust in him. But Jesus didn’t trust them, because he knew all about people. No one needed to tell him about human nature, for he knew what was in each person’s heart. He was human after all, operating with divine logic!
And the Message translation renders it most succinctly very well:
“…….many people noticed the signs he was displaying and, seeing they pointed straight to God, entrusted their lives to him. But Jesus didn’t entrust his life to them. He knew them inside and out, knew how untrustworthy they were. He didn’t need any help in seeing right through them.”
The religious fundamentalist, that is.
LikeLike
March 18, 2016 at 4:32 pm
Frank can’t express himself so he constantly uploads videos; he needs to use the approval of every cleric who are as blinded by pharisaical supernaturalism as all fundamentalists of absolute certainty, marked by hypocritical censorious self-righteousness.
Except when he goes on a rant about certain posters.
LikeLike
March 18, 2016 at 9:43 pm
Rebel With A Cause,
I’m happy to allay your concern. My relationship with the Eternal Almighty is defined by Scripture and securely rooted in Messiah. I post videos because they’re a clear ready means of communication. Faith comes through hearing the Word of God. I’m better able to present my thoughts multidimensionally through a range of historic & contemporary sources.
Regarding the question I asked you; we need to see ourselves for who we are with respect to God. It’s truly all about His Righteousness and our fallenness. Only He can change our hearts. Pride so often gets in the way. It’s then that if it serves His purpose He’ll humble us so we might realize our true condition, turn from sin and toward His Son asking for forgiveness. Think of King Nebuchadnezzar or the prodigal son.
“THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; . . . THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.” Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ/Yahshua Messiah for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus/Messiah Yahshua; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus/Yahshua. (Romans 3:10-26)
Faithfully,
Frank
LikeLike
March 18, 2016 at 10:05 pm
I have chosen the faithful way; I have placed Your ordinances before me. (Psalm 119:30)
LikeLike
March 19, 2016 at 12:24 am
Thank you. A most illustrative piece. One simple question for you, “Do you want to know Jesus Christ as your Lord?”
LikeLike
March 19, 2016 at 7:39 am
Rebel:
“Do you want to know Jesus Christ as your Lord?”
I can confirm and assure you, you cannot tell me anything about Jesus; you can’t see him or know him for who he is and why he did what he did and for whom he did it.
To ask such a question shows that you can’t see Jesus for what he is and you can’t know him for what he is so how can you attempt to exercise the moral authority to ask such a question, the answer to which you yourself do not know? Other than what has been drilled into that part of your brain, the residual reptilian brain, which by ritual default accepts, after repetition over and over and over, that a lie is the truth like the reptile lizard waiting to engage in flight or fight for fright at the twig leaf blowing down his path by the wind; he is mesmerized by the ignorance of not knowing if the twig leaf is alive in its movement and out to get him for lunch.
You are at a dead end about truth I’m afraid. Which reminds me of a few notable quotes :
“A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth.” — Albert Einstein, letter to a friend, 1901
“They must find it difficult…those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority.”—Gerald Massey
Error is being preached all the time, and not just by a few, but by the multitude. In the Press and Encyclopaedias, in Schools and Universities,(churches) everywhere Error holds sway, feeling happy and comfortable in the knowledge of having Majority on its side.”—-Goethe
What does school/church really teach children?
1. Truth comes from authority.
2. Intelligence is the ability to remember and repeat.
3. Accurate memory and repetition are rewarded.
4. Non-compliance is punished.
5. Conform: intellectually and socially.
Rebel, I submit you are well schooled.
Truth never penetrates an unwilling mind.
J. L. Borges
The man who is seeking truth is free of all societies and cultures. –Krishnamurti
When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker, a raving lunatic. –Dresden James
LikeLike
March 19, 2016 at 10:05 am
All I asked is do you want to know the Lord Jesus Christ. You answered by then claiming to know what I know. You cannot know what I know it’s logically impossible. We have not met, and besides you’re an unrepentant sinner. That’s not meant as an insult it’s simply how the Bible explains your position before Almighty God. Am I to take it from your response that you do not want to know Jesus Christ?
LikeLike
March 19, 2016 at 7:32 pm
You do not know anything about Jesus; therefore you are outsider….blow it in your ear.
LikeLike
March 19, 2016 at 9:14 pm
“I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins,” – Antony Flew
http://www.jesusplusnothing.com/studies/online/Habakkuk2.htm
LikeLike
March 20, 2016 at 12:09 am
Again you make another unsubstantiated claim Frank. At least you are being consistent with the atheistic worldview. However, you remain unable, or unwilling to give a clear answer, further evidencing the vacuous nature of any philosophical system of thinking that denies the one who is the necessary precondition for intelligibility,our Lord Jesus Christ. Please, I am imploring you, are you going to continue, or do you want to know Christ, Acts 13;48, 16:30 and 17:30.
LikeLike
March 20, 2016 at 12:14 am
I’m sorry, my mistake, the posting above was addressed to Revelator. Please forgive me Frank and thank you for your response above. I’m sorry.
LikeLike
March 20, 2016 at 12:20 pm
Rebel With A Cause,
Not to worry, Brother; no harm done.
Please consider the following:
“If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul. I would also want a God who would not allow a Hell. Infinite torture can only be a punishment for infinite evil, and I don’t believe that infinite evil can be said to exist even in the case of Hitler. Besides, if most human governments are civilized enough to try to eliminate torture and outlaw cruel and unusual punishments, can we expect anything less of an all-merciful God? I feel that if there were an afterlife, punishment for evil would be reasonable and of a fixed term. And I feel that the longest and worst punishment should be reserved for those who slandered God by inventing Hell.” – I. Asimov: A Memoir (1994)
Answering Isaac Asimov:
God doesn’t save people based upon their own works but upon their faith/trust/belief in His Son who was crucified, died after living a sinless Life as propitiation for the sins of the entire world & whom God raised from the dead according to Scripture. The term “righteous atheist” is an oxymoron because our righteousness is as filthy menstrual rags in the sight of God and an atheist rejecting God is under condemnation. The Almighty Judge, Christ Jesus/Messiah Yahshua, judges humanity in perfect Righteousness. God offers us in Love the gift of eternal life or in perfect equity judgement for the wages of sin which is death. He is Eternal pure Holiness thus sets the standard for Righteousness. It is always He who is offended whenever we sin. Ultimately, the unregenerate shall be consigned to the third resurrection.
* “This third resurrection will comprise those who are unwilling to live by God’s Laws and refuse to repent. These incorrigible people will be cast into the Lake of Fire and completely burned up. They can never be resurrected again, having rejected God’s wonderful offer of salvation and eternal life.”
https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/5782/Gods-Standard-Righteousness.htm
* https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BS/k/517/Basic-Doctrines-Eternal-Judgment.htm
– Frank
LikeLike
March 20, 2016 at 3:11 pm
REBEL & FRANK:
Ahh but for the audacity of literalist religious fundies none would be saved!
In her radio show, Dr. Laura Schlesinger (a popular conservative radio talk show host in the USA) said that homosexuality is an abomination according to the Bible Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, and was attributed to a James M. Kauffman, Ed. D.
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… end of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.
Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual unseemliness – Lev. 15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by
Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman, Ed. D.
Professor Emeritus Dept. of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
LikeLike
March 20, 2016 at 3:46 pm
New vision on the horizon; there may indeed come a day when we can actually see those stars formed by God. “Is not God in the height of heaven? Look also at the distant stars, how high they are!” (Job 22:12)
LikeLike
March 20, 2016 at 3:55 pm
It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom; and by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens. (Jeremiah 10:12)
LikeLike
March 20, 2016 at 3:59 pm
On orbital resonance & plasma physics:
LikeLike
March 20, 2016 at 4:06 pm
“Behold, I belong to God like you; I too have been formed out of the clay.” (Job 33:6)
LikeLike
March 20, 2016 at 4:51 pm
So you think that “evolutionism” is a religion? Please can you define the word “religion” and then elaborate on what “evolutionism” is. I am interested to see how this blatant equivocation will be justified in your own words Frank. Thanks in advance.
LikeLike
March 20, 2016 at 7:07 pm
What is Hell? Think truth discovered too late, suffering for sin, resentment, bitterness, eternal regret without remedy and everlasting remorse without hope. Abandon all hope – Ye Who Enter Here.
LikeLike
March 20, 2016 at 7:30 pm
Khawar,
You’re still throwing bombs. What are you referencing by “blatant equivocation”? Religion is defined in James 1:27 of New Testament Scripture. Evolutionism is a subset of scientism. In your next post (if you make one) start answering the questions I put to you before you bailed out of the discussion. Begin at post # 181 dated March 10, 2016 at 9:08 pm. Otherwise you can consider the conversation’s come to an end. I don’t deal with bomb throwers either, especially the condescending kind.
– Frank
LikeLike
March 20, 2016 at 8:02 pm
What is HELL asks Frank. It’s very simple Frank and Rebel needs to know this as well:
HELL is non-knowledge……… which is exactly why Jesus began his campaign. You don’t suppose for a moment he was not talking about the religious fundamentalists do you?
The HELL Jesus came to abolish began with the preaching of the gospel to the poor to let them in on the secret the Pharisees kept from them (“How terrible it will be for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door to the kingdom from heaven in people’s faces. You don’t go in yourselves, and you don’t allow those who are trying to enter to go in.
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, (those who despair because religion offered nothing to the brokenhearted but sacrifices and offerings which were as useless as tits on a bull)
To proclaim liberty to the captives (of religion)
And recovery of sight to the those blinded (by the religious falsehoods of the Clergy),
To set at liberty those who are oppressed (by the religious insanity of supernaturalism;
That’s what Hell is, non-knowledge and that’s the hell abolished by Jesus’ common sense that gave men knowledge of the Kingdom and where it is and that the true Kingdom is so different from the message of nonsense by clergy and the religious retardates today, who do nothing but regurgitate text and who may just as well recite “Three Blind Mice” as their ancestors did when Jesus walked among us.
That is why I use these parables, For they look, but they don’t really see. They hear, but they don’t really listen or understand.
seeing without seeing……………….
I may try and try but unless you are drawn by the spirit of father you cannot come to the son……..and cannot but fail to understand my words.
You are dark and I am light.
I am day and you are night.
You wouldn’t recognize Jesus if you tripped over me.
LikeLike
March 20, 2016 at 9:14 pm
The entrance into the Kingdom of man, founded on the sciences, being not much other than the entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven, where into none may enter except as a little child. – Francis Bacon
LikeLike
March 20, 2016 at 10:25 pm
“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31)
LikeLike
March 20, 2016 at 11:32 pm
Dear Frank and James Kauffman,
Thank you for your request. I am happy to oblige:
Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
Answer: You cannot own Canadians or enslave them because you live in 21st century United States of America. Had you lived in the Ancient Near East under the Jewish administration with its legal codes regarding slavery it would be a different situation. You would have jurisprudence for guidance that you might understand the legal codes surrounding slavery and its intent to care for and provide for slaves. You would understand that this was not the chattel slavery of the modern age but a system that precedes modern banking and employment legislation and allows for people to work to pay of debt, and employ skills in an enterprising manner. You would know that slaves could be successful managers, be wealthier than those who owned them and be an integral part of a family, helping, amongst other matters, to educate children.
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
See my answer above. Furthermore, the buying and selling of slaves was related to debt rather than buying price. The important aspect is that your daughter would be protected, unlike 21st century USA where daughters are given no protection. Unwanted pregnancy, STD, abuse and the murder of the babies’ of daughters in the womb is commonplace, matters that would have been unknown in Jewish Near East culture where women were respected, protected and treated with dignity and worth.
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual unseemliness – Lev. 15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Answer: The laws surrounding blood were fulfilled when the substance to whom those laws were pointing came, Jesus Christ. However, the law still applied that you should not commit adultery. Sex has been given as a beautiful gift, to be enjoyed in the covenant union of marriage. If your wife is taking offence because you ask her if she is menstruating then please seek biblical counsel
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
Answer, no. Leviticus 19:18 says that you must love your neighbour. Furthermore, as with my answer above the sacrificial system was fulfilled in the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. The final and perfect sacrifice, the Lamb of God. The sacrifice was a fulfilment of prophecy, history that is written before it happens, see Psalm 22, Isaiah 52 and 53, along with many other passages.
I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
Answer. The police will not kill him because Jesus Christ made it clear that the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath. He is our Sabbath rest. Sabbath ordinances were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. You can now rest in him. The Sabbath laws point forward to Christ but also back to the Created order. God rested and in love and kindness provided rest for his people, despite their sin. This is known as grace, undeserving favour from the one who created you. Furthermore, interestingly, we have no recorded incidents of that legal code ever being carried out, suggesting that mitigation was accepted.
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
Yes there are. The bible is clear, the mass murderer, the abuser, or rapist will be under greater condemnation than the petty thief. God’s punishment will be perfectly just because he is the perfect foundation of all justice. To even have a sense of justice and in justice shows you know God exists and you will be without excuse, Romans 1:20. However, he has offered the hand of mercy through his son Jesus Christ. Despite your sin, earning you rightfully the death penalty, Romans 6:23, you can receive mercy today. Repent and turn to Jesus Christ.
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
Answer: This should only be a concern if you are a member of the Levitical Priesthood. You really are clutching straws now.
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
The point is that they will die, and so will you. If you die without a substitute you will be in trouble. The Bible says that it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the Living God, Hebrews 10:31. Please repent while there is still breath. Beard trimming is the least of your problems when you have lied, stolen, looked with lust and blasphemed.
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
Answer. It is lawful to eat pigs. Those dietary laws were fulfilled in Christ. See Peter’s vision in Acts 10. Please wear gloves and enjoy bacon.
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
You are mixing the moral law with ceremonial law in this question. The separation of fibres and crops was a typology, an illustration of God’s people being separated from the pagan world. Sojourners and gentiles could be invited in but the Jewish nation were not permitted to go out and join with others (an edict they repeatedly failed to obey, see the book of Judges). Under the new covenant now God’s people, are sent out, to be in the world not of the world. They are set apart not from the law but from the inward work of the Holy Spirit. There will be an account for all blasphemy, but in the meantime you have the gracious offer of repentance, mercy and forgiveness through Christ.
LikeLike
March 21, 2016 at 6:12 am
Rebel With A Cause,
Thank you for providing insightful clarification in the aforementioned matters.
Truly,
Frank
LikeLike
March 21, 2016 at 6:47 am
“You’re still throwing bombs. What are you referencing by “blatant equivocation”? Religion is defined in James 1:27 of New Testament Scripture. Evolutionism is a subset of scientism. In your next post (if you make one) start answering the questions I put to you before you bailed out of the discussion. Begin at post # 181 dated March 10, 2016 at 9:08 pm. Otherwise you can consider the conversation’s come to an end. I don’t deal with bomb throwers either, especially the condescending kind”
Hello Frank. Let’s get some things clear please. I tried to have a “discussion” with you. In my mind a discussion is two people exchanging ideas or points of view, sometimes supported by additional documentation. Your idea of a discussion is to post video after video after video with a few quotes thrown in for good measure. What’s ironic is that you rebuked me for suggesting that you try at least recognize your confirmation bias and re-think your sources…but you still continue to use creationist videos and links.
Let’s take two of these sources that you have used and see how they stand up to scrutiny from your own camp. It would have been easy for me to discredit both using actual scientists but I would rather use yours.
Ron Wyatt – your source to support Noah’s Ark.
http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/
“I have telephone interviewed most of the people on WAR’s Noah’s Ark video. Not one single person I spoke with on that video presently believes that Ron Wyatt’s site is Noah’s Ark. Some are outraged that Wyatt is still using film clips which make them look like they are substantiating Wyatt’s claims when, in fact, the opposite is the case. Listed below are some of the individuals who appear on the video. Compare the story WAR continues to sell with the actual words written by the scientists after doing extensive research on the site. They no longer believe it is Noah’s Ark. They believe it is a natural geological formation. As to the so-called discoveries on Ron Wyatt’s video entitled “Presentation of Discoveries,” those interviewed whom Ron Wyatt presented with his “facts” put little or no archaeological value on any of the material. “Fraud” was the word most often used when discussing these so-called discoveries”
This is from “Tentmaker Ministries is Gary and Michelle Amirault and friends who have fallen in love with our Father, the Creator of the universe. We are concerned with growing up into the fullness of the stature of Christ and being about our Father’s business”
Barry Setterfield was your source to demonstrate the decay on the speed of light. Here is what the ICR had to say about his claims.
http://www.icr.org/article/has-speed-light-decayed/
Essentially they are cautioning fellow creationists like yourself to be wary of using Setterfields data as there are some irregularities with his conclusion.
Here is a less diplomatic deconstruction: –
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html
It seems like you wholeheartedly accept things that agree with your beliefs without feeling the need to investigate further – this is textbook confirmation bias. You claim to investigate things and come up with your own conclusions but in reality you are easily swayed by poor science and Biblical rhetoric. You should just be honest to yourself that you belief is based on FAITH and you really do not need to support your belief with empirical, scientific data. That approach would serve you much better, since you cherry pick which parts of science you want to believe in the first place.
With regards to your “blatant equivocation” I can say the following: –
When we use words to communicate there is an assumption that the meanings of those words are well understood by both parties. Hence we have dictionaries which give definitions of said words in order to minimize confusion. The word “religion” is widely accepted to mean: –
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion
“The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:”
“evolutionism” is described here: –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism
” In the creation-evolution controversy, creationists often call those who accept the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis “evolutionists” and the theory itself as “evolutionism.” Some creationists and creationist organizations, such as the Institute of Creation Research, use these terms in an effort to make it appear that evolutionary biology is a form of secular religion.[8][9]”
Your definition of religion is this: –
“to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
Clearly this is confusing to me and anyone else who uses dictionary definitions, and equivocation on your part as you did not clarify your meanings to start with. If you need to resort to these tactics to make your point then it is futile to engage in any discussion – you have made up your mind and not even people in your own camp will shake your view. You said: –
“Otherwise you can consider the conversation’s come to an end”
I was not aware that it had even started.
All the best,
Khawar.
LikeLike
March 21, 2016 at 6:48 am
“You’re still throwing bombs. What are you referencing by “blatant equivocation”? Religion is defined in James 1:27 of New Testament Scripture. Evolutionism is a subset of scientism. In your next post (if you make one) start answering the questions I put to you before you bailed out of the discussion. Begin at post # 181 dated March 10, 2016 at 9:08 pm. Otherwise you can consider the conversation’s come to an end. I don’t deal with bomb throwers either, especially the condescending kind”
Hello Frank. Let’s get some things clear please. I tried to have a “discussion” with you. In my mind a discussion is two people exchanging ideas or points of view, sometimes supported by additional documentation. Your idea of a discussion is to post video after video after video with a few quotes thrown in for good measure. What’s ironic is that you rebuked me for suggesting that you try at least recognize your confirmation bias and re-think your sources…but you still continue to use creationist videos and links.
Let’s take two of these sources that you have used and see how they stand up to scrutiny from your own camp. It would have been easy for me to discredit both using actual scientists but I would rather use yours.
Ron Wyatt – your source to support Noah’s Ark.
http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/
“I have telephone interviewed most of the people on WAR’s Noah’s Ark video. Not one single person I spoke with on that video presently believes that Ron Wyatt’s site is Noah’s Ark. Some are outraged that Wyatt is still using film clips which make them look like they are substantiating Wyatt’s claims when, in fact, the opposite is the case. Listed below are some of the individuals who appear on the video. Compare the story WAR continues to sell with the actual words written by the scientists after doing extensive research on the site. They no longer believe it is Noah’s Ark. They believe it is a natural geological formation. As to the so-called discoveries on Ron Wyatt’s video entitled “Presentation of Discoveries,” those interviewed whom Ron Wyatt presented with his “facts” put little or no archaeological value on any of the material. “Fraud” was the word most often used when discussing these so-called discoveries”
This is from “Tentmaker Ministries is Gary and Michelle Amirault and friends who have fallen in love with our Father, the Creator of the universe. We are concerned with growing up into the fullness of the stature of Christ and being about our Father’s business”
Barry Setterfield was your source to demonstrate the decay on the speed of light. Here is what the ICR had to say about his claims.
http://www.icr.org/article/has-speed-light-decayed/
Essentially they are cautioning fellow creationists like yourself to be wary of using Setterfields data as there are some irregularities with his conclusion.
Here is a less diplomatic deconstruction: –
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html
It seems like you wholeheartedly accept things that agree with your beliefs without feeling the need to investigate further – this is textbook confirmation bias. You claim to investigate things and come up with your own conclusions but in reality you are easily swayed by poor science and Biblical rhetoric. You should just be honest to yourself that you belief is based on FAITH and you really do not need to support your belief with empirical, scientific data. That approach would serve you much better, since you cherry pick which parts of science you want to believe in the first place.
With regards to your “blatant equivocation” I can say the following: –
When we use words to communicate there is an assumption that the meanings of those words are well understood by both parties. Hence we have dictionaries which give definitions of said words in order to minimize confusion. The word “religion” is widely accepted to mean: –
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion
“The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:”
“evolutionism” is described here: –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism
” In the creation-evolution controversy, creationists often call those who accept the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis “evolutionists” and the theory itself as “evolutionism.” Some creationists and creationist organizations, such as the Institute of Creation Research, use these terms in an effort to make it appear that evolutionary biology is a form of secular religion.[8][9]”
Your definition of religion is this: –
“to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
Clearly this is confusing to me and anyone else who uses dictionary definitions, and equivocation on your part as you did not clarify your meanings to start with. If you need to resort to these tactics to make your point then it is futile to engage in any discussion – you have made up your mind and not even people in your own camp will shake your view. You said: –
“Otherwise you can consider the conversation’s come to an end”
I was not aware that it had even started.
All the best,
Khawar.
LikeLike
March 21, 2016 at 11:42 am
Rebel With A Cause:
What your clarification shows is that sin is in the eye of the beholder and whose sins the beholder wants to retain unless one stops the perceived sin, remains retained. Parsing the biblical laws to remove some, retain others and justify the rest:
“you can’t kill people because Leviticus 19:18 says that you must love your neighbour. Wonderful so one must love homosexuals and stay out of their bedrooms
“…..because you live in 21st century United States of America. Had you lived in the Ancient Near East under the Jewish administration with its legal codes ……….it would be a different situation.”
There’s nothing you can’t read into the bible or take from it. So whatever nasty little attitude that you harbor toward your fellow man; or, whatever doctrine you jump on to demon-strate your biblical academia will find justification in scripture because, like the sands of the desert, fixed and immutable, yet, ever shifting, the words of god are infinitely versatile. Open that book and watch them dance across the page like ninjas, each one a soldier for you and your petty prejudices or your take on Absolute Certainty Viewpoints.
IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER and behold when you come under the scrutiny of the self righteous, though the self righteous declare their submission, loyalty and repentance and subsequently follows God, Jesus or Peter Popoff, that is the human experience of subjective parsing the Holy Books to suit human perception and all human perception is not the same and we are stronger to accept diversity of other perceptions….to some it is a sin to eat meat to others it is not a sin to eat meat, …………..to some homosexual relations is a sin to some it is not a sin………
“…..my work with you is living proof of my authority!”
But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
BY the same token, sexual relationships commendeth us not to God for neither, if we participate, are we the better; neither, if we participate not, are we the worse. Sexuality or celibacy has no matter with God; it matters only to church dogma and self righteousness.
But religion is more than just a belief, religion wants to impose a universal morality which is why it has always attracted the kind of person who thinks other people’s private lives are their business. And giving respect to this mentality is exactly what’s got us into the mess that we’re in.
A divided humanity with certain members demanding that humanity follow those who believe they have the answers for every aspect of the .human experience.
Jesus learned this matter well when he was following Jewish tradition and was soundly humiliated by the woman when, after calling her a dog, she embarrassed Jesus by saying that even dogs ate the scraps from the master’s table and to which Jesus to his wonderful credit immediately apologized and agreed to help her.
And there’s absolutely nothing more to read into the Woman vs Jesus exchange than that for anybody who thinks they know Jesus more than myself!
LikeLike
March 21, 2016 at 12:11 pm
Prepare to be blown away
Absolutely fascinating!
We live in a world of the unseeable so subtle and delicate that it is imperceptible to the human eye.
To bring this invisible world to light, film maker Louis Schwartzberg bends the boundaries of time and space with high speed cameras, time lapses and microscopes. At TED 2014,he shares highlights from his latest project, a 3D film titled “Mysteries of the Unseen World” which slows down, speeds up, and magnifies the astonishing wonders of nature. This is amazing photography and brilliantly explained.
LikeLike
March 21, 2016 at 2:22 pm
I answered your questions Revelator with the biblical standard. Jesus says that we will be judge for every careless word spoken, for by your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned. I have done my duty and given you the truth as found in Scripture. You now need to go to God and do business with him.
LikeLike
March 21, 2016 at 8:17 pm
The Bible is not my standard, Jesus it. I have done my duty and given you the truth by Jesus. Nobody goes to God and if you think that is the case, you haven’t understood a word Jesus said.
LikeLike
March 21, 2016 at 8:49 pm
“Blessed are those who are not spiritually arrogant, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:3 NASB)
https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/PERSONAL/k/202/The-Beatitudes-Part-Two-Poor-Spirit.htm
https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/CGG/ID/1364/Submission-God.htm
LikeLike
March 22, 2016 at 8:43 am
And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee My power; and that My name may be declared throughout all the earth. (Exodus 9:16)
“I will vindicate the holiness of My great name which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst. Then the nations will know that I am YHWH,” declares the Lord GOD, “when I prove Myself holy among you in their sight.” (Ezekiel 36:23)
LikeLike
March 22, 2016 at 9:23 am
“You’re still throwing bombs. What are you referencing by “blatant equivocation”? Religion is defined in James 1:27 of New Testament Scripture. Evolutionism is a subset of scientism. In your next post (if you make one) start answering the questions I put to you before you bailed out of the discussion. Begin at post # 181 dated March 10, 2016 at 9:08 pm. Otherwise you can consider the conversation’s come to an end. I don’t deal with bomb throwers either, especially the condescending kind”
Hello Frank. Let’s get some things clear please. I tried to have a “discussion” with you. In my mind a discussion is two people exchanging ideas or points of view, sometimes supported by additional documentation or other types of evidence. Your idea of a discussion is to post video after video after video with a few quotes thrown in for good measure. What’s ironic is that you rebuked me for suggesting that you try at least recognize your confirmation bias and re-think your sources…but you still continue to use creationist videos and links. Not only that but some of these sources are criticized by other creationists and Christians as having little or no merit, and even being frauds. Why do you persist in this “video bombing” campaign? Don’t you have any original thoughts of your own?
Let’s take two of these sources that you have used and see how they stand up to scrutiny from your own camp. It would have been easy for me to discredit both using actual scientists but I would rather use yours.
Ron Wyatt – your source to support Noah’s Ark/Great Flood
http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/
“I have telephone interviewed most of the people on WAR’s Noah’s Ark video. Not one single person I spoke with on that video presently believes that Ron Wyatt’s site is Noah’s Ark. Some are outraged that Wyatt is still using film clips which make them look like they are substantiating Wyatt’s claims when, in fact, the opposite is the case. Listed below are some of the individuals who appear on the video. Compare the story WAR continues to sell with the actual words written by the scientists after doing extensive research on the site. They no longer believe it is Noah’s Ark. They believe it is a natural geological formation. As to the so-called discoveries on Ron Wyatt’s video entitled “Presentation of Discoveries,” those interviewed whom Ron Wyatt presented with his “facts” put little or no archaeological value on any of the material. “Fraud” was the word most often used when discussing these so-called discoveries”
This is from “Tentmaker Ministries is Gary and Michelle Amirault and friends who have fallen in love with our Father, the Creator of the universe. We are concerned with growing up into the fullness of the stature of Christ and being about our Father’s business”
Barry Setterfield was your source to demonstrate the decay on the speed of light. Here is what the ICR had to say about his claims.
http://www.icr.org/article/has-speed-light-decayed/
Essentially they are cautioning fellow creationists like yourself to be wary of using Setterfields data as there are some irregularities with his conclusion.
Here is a less diplomatic deconstruction: –
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html
It seems like you wholeheartedly accept things that agree with your beliefs without feeling the need to investigate further – this is textbook confirmation bias. You claim to investigate things and come up with your own conclusions but in reality you are easily swayed by poor science and Biblical rhetoric. You should just be honest to yourself that you belief is based on FAITH and you really do not need to support your belief with empirical, scientific data. That approach would serve you much better, since you cherry pick which parts of science you want to believe in the first place.
With regards to your “blatant equivocation” I can say the following: –
When we use words to communicate there is an assumption that the meanings of those words are well understood by both parties. Hence we have dictionaries which give definitions of said words in order to minimize confusion. The word “religion” is widely accepted to mean: –
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion
“The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:”
“evolutionism” is described here: –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism
” In the creation-evolution controversy, creationists often call those who accept the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis “evolutionists” and the theory itself as “evolutionism.” Some creationists and creationist organizations, such as the Institute of Creation Research, use these terms in an effort to make it appear that evolutionary biology is a form of secular religion.[8][9]”
Your definition of religion is this: –
“to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
Clearly this is confusing to me and anyone else who uses dictionary definitions, and equivocation on your part as you did not clarify your meanings to start with. If you need to resort to these tactics to make your point then it is futile to engage in any discussion – you have made up your mind and not even people in your own camp will shake your view.
You said: –
“Otherwise you can consider the conversation’s come to an end”
I was not aware that it had even started.
All the best,
Khawar.
LikeLike
March 22, 2016 at 12:30 pm
Evolution = dead scientism.
LikeLike
March 23, 2016 at 1:02 pm
Creationism is a dead science and a dead belief unless one holds to the metaphor that Evolution = Creationism in slow motion or Creationism is Evolution in fast motion but the poof poof of creationism is just a fool’s magical miracle without any merit outside whimsical fantasy. Creationism is religions adult story of Cinderella going to the Prince’s Ball in glass slippers riding a pumpkin that poofed into a Royal Carriage hauled by mice that poofed into Galloping Horses, rats poofed into Footmen and a frog poofed into a Driver.
Man has a remarkable imagination and it was not spared when writing the bible, especially Genesis when nobody was around. Oh you had a dream wherein God visited and told you the story…right!
LikeLike
March 25, 2016 at 11:27 am
Khawar,
You’re obviously oblivious, much like useless driftwood that washes up on the beach. I never posted any videos, articles or commentaries using Ron Wyatt to substantiate ANY claims regarding Noah’s Ark. I did post two videos here concerning his work. One’s regarding the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt & the True Mt. Sinai in direct response to your hapless claim about “Jews never being enslaved in Egypt or building pyramids”. Also watch the video I posted on this subject, if you can bring yourself to it, in post # 253 dated March 22, 2016 at 8:43 am entitled “Egyptian Chronology and the Bible”. The other video details his exploration at The Garden Tomb in Jerusalem for the Ark of the Covenant. Evidently you can’t keep your arks straight. As to Barry Setterfield and any conflict (real or imagined) with ICR you should have read the article at post # 137 dated March 6, 2016 at 4:13 pm. It sheds light on the implications of his research for both YE & OE scientists. Better yet make use of the link I provided to his website and investigate a direct source for a change instead of your usual third party hear-say (once again accompanied by your bomb-throwing & mud-slinging). Although I don’t see it bringing you significant benefit as you suffer from extreme selective memory exemplified by the fact that you consistently fail to mention that the scientists in the videos I post always cite & address numerous direct quotes & claims from their opposition [Darwin, Dawkins etc.]. You also condescend. If as you write, “I was not aware that it [a conversation] had even started.” then why pretend you know my position on the matter in dispute which only serves to prove complete conceit in ignorance on your part. There’s obvious disagreement. That’s what debate is for. But try investigating the work of Dr. Russell Humphries or Dr. Jason Lisle or Dr. Chuck Missler or Dr. Thomas Kindell before serving up vapid assertions based on the last century [Article: 1997] [Links updated: July 22, 2003] to corroborate your own thick bias. Khawar, perhaps you’d benefit from an elemental course in human interface development. Then again, what can you teach dead driftwood?
– Frank
LikeLike
March 25, 2016 at 11:44 am
Hello Frank. Thanks for your post…I am head you used your own words instead of a video, so we’ll done for that. I have no interest in creationist videos which argue about anything. I am interested in actual science however but the majority of actual scientists do not accept that the universe is thousands of years old of that evolution is a hoax. If you posted a video or a link to an article which did not have a religious agenda but still supported your view then I would gladly examine it with an open mind. You might as well drag out Ken Ham or Kent Hovind to argue for you. You have shown you can think for yourself it you refuse to make any arguments of your own…but expect me to address your videos. Why? If I started posting videos which support the general scientific consensus then would you watch them and counter anything contained therein? Like I said before. ..what’s the point of trying to justify your beliefs using science when your belief system can ignore natural laws by postulating supernatural causal agencies which can perform miracles? Why not just say you have faith and end there? It’s because you have a compelling need to rationalise your beliefs but cannot disconnect yourself from the irrational foundation of the same beliefs. Let’s stop here. Thanks.
LikeLike
March 25, 2016 at 12:38 pm
Khawar,
You gripe that I make no arguments of my own and yet you claim to know “my beliefs” & “compelling need”. Your ignorance belies your arrogance. Is Sigmund Freud one of your “scientists” that you hold in such high esteem? You’re a most inadequate even toy-analyst of any sort. In debating any issue it’s the same old story of put-up or shut-up. You put up nothing other than paltry diatribes decrying my use of visual media. Try being straightforward instead of hiding behind your smokescreen. If you have genuine scientific evidence for example proving the universe is eternal-static or validly explaining the Moon recession conundrum or proving the origin of humanity on planet earth [Is there a monkey in your family tree?] than lay it on the table and be done with it. Better still, respond responsibly to the various points of evidence I’ve presented to you. Too dim-witted or unwilling to do so? Then don’t take the opportunity to smear those who read the Bible as true. Isn’t science the honest search for truth? Or is it as you maintain; who has the greatest number in their camp at any given moment? Khawar, haven’t you gotten the message yet: Censors need not apply.
– Frank
LikeLike
March 25, 2016 at 1:15 pm
We share a common ancestor with old world monkeys. Humans are apes. We have genes to grow tails though…a vestige of our monkey heritage. Most educated people accept this fact. You choose to believe an omnipotent omniscient being made us with the ability to grow tails…that’s your choice. As for the Bible…if you believe everything in there then perhaps you can tell me why only one of the gospels tells how the rocks split open and long dead holy men rose from their graves and we’re seen by many in Jerusalem. Seems like a noteworthy occurrence worth mentioning. Keep throwing insults. ..it really strengthens your case.
LikeLike
March 25, 2016 at 2:02 pm
Khawar,
You’ve got a quick trigger-finger. The video in my last post to you is 1:01:19 in duration. According to this site’s clock you sent your reply only 37 minutes after I posted the video. How did you watch the entire video in the allotted time? Or maybe you’ve seen it all before? I doubt it. Who’s kidding who, Khawar? If you want to continue believing that you and your family members descended from worthless pond scum and developed from ape-men based on vacuous, dead, scientism/evolutionism then by all means be my guest so long as you realize you’ll live with the consequences of that decision. I know we as human beings were created by an infinitely supreme mighty Creator God named Jesus Christ/Yahshua Messiah. How do I know? By two great books, i.e., the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature. You’ll find a lesson in Scriptural Source of Knowledge at post # 83. dated February 28, 2016 at 9:05 pm. You’ve got it wrong again if you think my purpose is to insult or offend you. It’s to wake you up so you don’t remain stained by this fallen world. And I do urge you to watch the video by Dr. Kindell in its entirety free of any preconceptions & bias.
– Frank
LikeLike
March 25, 2016 at 3:09 pm
You make me laugh Frank. It must feel good to know that by pure chance you ended up with the one true religion. Imagine if you had been unfortunate enough to have been born in Saudi Arabia and ended up believing a false religion. Oh wait…I think over a billion Muslims think your religion is false. How am I meant to make the right choice out of ALL the different religions and cults out there? They can’t all be right. If the Bible is the only thing to go by then you need to provide some compelling evidence that this collection of stories written by 40 authors over decades and then compiled by committee is somehow the work of divine intervention. You can start by answering my question as to why contemporary historians as well as the other anonymous gospel writers (aside from Matthew) did not think it worthwhile recording the fact that people rose from their graves and wandered around Jerusalem. That being the case why should the resurrection of Jesus be any more conspicuous…seems like it was a common occurrence at the time. Do you believe this actually happened? If so then why do you think no one else has written about thus highly unlikely event?
LikeLike
March 25, 2016 at 5:55 pm
Khawar,
It’s really quite simple. Who died for the sins of those millions of Muslims in Saudi Arabia [surely not Muhammad], Buddhists, Roman Catholics, Israelites, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Orthodox Jews, Calvinists or any other religious group, cult, sect or denomination. It positively wasn’t Confucius or Buddha or the Dali Lama or Jim Jones of Jonestown, Guyana infamy. There’s only One Messiah, One Savior, One Redeemer and One LORD who died for the sins of the world. In case you’re unaware His disciples commemorate that event this very day. That’s what the blind such as yourself fail to see. How does the Righteous Lord GOD of the Universe deal with humanity’s sin? Certainly you don’t deny that we all commit sin from petty lies and jealousies to horrific murders, atrocities and idolatries? That would be truly gullible and severely naive on your part. You do recognize we all have a sin nature? Or are you too full of yourself to think you could ever be found unworthy by the LORD of Creation? Have you not read or have you not heard that, “A man’s pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble in spirit.” (Proverbs 29:23) And the Bible isn’t the only thing to go by [there goes your selective memory again]. I said two great Books: the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature. Get your head out of the sand, Khawar. Start a genuine search for truth. Stop giving your attention to those “scientists”/charlatans who would suppress it for their own personal agendas which usually involves loving their sin and hating God because He knows their sin and will one day judge them accountable for it. You can choose to open your eyes to the Way the Truth and the Life or continue to scoff & mock. If you choose the latter then ultimately, your soul will perish so you’ll die in your sins. But wait, you evolved from pond scum didn’t you? That’s what your evolutionism figure-heads say of you. According to your belief you and your kin believe you have no soul and therefore aren’t accountable to anyone once you depart from this life. You can trash over everyone and get over big time with nary a consequence, murmur or complaint. “Do as thou wilt”, as some like to say. Look over your options carefully or keep looking into the sand. Think thrice before you consider continuing to put your faith into the machinations & manipulations of men. It’s recorded in Scripture that despite extreme duress, “But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God, rather than men.” (Acts 5:29) Maybe one day you’ll do the same.
– Frank
LikeLike
March 25, 2016 at 6:01 pm
So you can’t answer my question. OK fair enough. Quoting the Bible to prove the Bible is circular reasoning Frank. Thanks anyway.
LikeLike
March 25, 2016 at 7:10 pm
The only thing going in circles here Khawar, is you. Good luck to you & yours.
LikeLike
March 26, 2016 at 1:01 am
Is acrimonious dialogue, caustic language, and discourtesy the purvue of the unbelieving or believing worldview?
LikeLike
March 26, 2016 at 1:14 am
Khawar, should we be logical in our answers and responses to your questions?
LikeLike
March 26, 2016 at 11:58 pm
Terminal censorship:
LikeLike
March 27, 2016 at 1:40 pm
Khawar,
In reference to your post #254. dated March 22, 2016 at 9:23 am in which you hurl several repugnant disparaging remarks concerning Ron Wyatt’s Expedition to Turkey’s DoomsDay Mountain in search of Noah’s Ark I include the video entitled The Real Noah’s Ark Found in Turkey: Phenomenon Archives Documentary (ReUpload) which provides history of the site plus first hand accounts of Wyatt’s and his team of professional researchers’ efforts and results accomplished there.
“But there is nothing covered up that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.” (Luke 12:2)
http://www.jesusplusnothing.com/studies/quick/genesis8.htm
– Frank
LikeLike
March 27, 2016 at 2:10 pm
Frank, my dear friend please. I’m with Khawar on this. Searching for a wooden vessel on a mountain from1000s of years ago does seem bonkers. Jesus rebuked his disciples for their folly and slow minds for failing to heed the scriptures, not for their neglect of particular evidences. Searching for Noah’s ark seems like the purvue of the KJV onlyist, dispensational pre-millennial cookie crowd (I trust you’re not one of them). Please can we get back to the biblical approach. The unbeliever has no epistemological foundation for their truth claims, or ontological explanation for the logic and morality they borrow from the Christian worldview. let’s press them on the absurdity rejecting the God they know exists, Romans 1:18-20. Let’s not watch them perish while arguing over evidences that they’re going to dismiss as bonkers (quite reasonably IMO). Do you want Khawar to be saved?
LikeLike
March 27, 2016 at 3:24 pm
Rebel With A Cause,
If you’re intending to take a biblical approach you’ll need to establish & convict with biblical veracity. You might recognize inerrancy of Scripture but as you can see with Khawar at this point he gives it no regard whatsoever. I present the information to counter his distortions. Firmly establishing the historicity of the Bible is one more way that demonstrates God’s Word is Truth. And that’s what it’s ultimately about: as it also speaks about in Romans – the consequences of suppressing the truth by unrighteousness. If God wills may Khawar receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.
– Frank
LikeLike
March 27, 2016 at 5:26 pm
Frank:
It seems to me that Kawar is merely providing a website that refutes Ron Wyatt’s claims and the disparaging remarks therefore need to be re-directed to the website tentmaker.com an excerpt of which follows:
“Since the magazine “Dew from Mount Hermon” published the article “A Great Christian Scam” exposing the so-called discoveries of Ron Wyatt as nothing more than a great hoax perpetrated upon the Christian community for money and fame, Joel Davenport, the manager of WAR’s Internet site has published an article located at their web site accusing me, Gary Amirault, of not telling the truth. In the article I did not disclose the names of my sources since the article only went to a few hundred subscribers who trusted my reporting. I didn’t feel providing names and addresses was necessary. But since Mr. Davenport’s extremely distorted assessment of the accuracy of “A Great Christian Scam,” and since WAR and associates are continuing to defraud the Christian community by selling videos, books, speaking engagements, trips to Israel, enticing investors in further digs, etc., all based upon discoveries which were never made, I feel it is time to lay out enough evidence to make it perfectly clear to any sane individual that we are dealing here with nothing short of an outright scam.”
LikeLike
March 27, 2016 at 7:11 pm
Khawar,
He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? (Romans 8:32)
If He so wills may you receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.
Truly,
Frank
LikeLike
March 28, 2016 at 1:08 pm
Frank:
“……..how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Romans 8:32
Very simple answer. Because Romans 8:32 is a philosophical rationalization based on a supernatural fantasy about a non existent mind meme of religious fabrication.
If you do not recognize that the God of Jesus is the spirit living in human beings you will forever ask question to which you will never get an answer your fantasy desires to accommodate.
You are welcome if you can receive this and pitied if you can’t.
LikeLike
March 28, 2016 at 1:57 pm
Frank:
With all gentleness please do not dismay I implore you.
Rom 8:32: Without the caveat of “the Father living within and the Son living without”, It’s like saying:
He who created the Leprechaun, how will he not freely give you his Pot of Gold?
If He in you so wills (and he does); if you let him, may you receive the love for the truth so as to be saved by knowledge and set free from the shackles of belief, belief that has never set, nor can ever set, anybody free fornever and never. Amen
And a servant of the Lord (within) must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will (by the deceitful teachings of religion’s hoaxes)
LikeLike
March 28, 2016 at 3:14 pm
“Declare and set forth your case; indeed let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, YHWH? And there is no other God besides Me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none except Me.” (Isaiah 45:21)
We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. (1 John 4:14)
LikeLike
March 29, 2016 at 10:30 am
“But for all this, you did not trust YHWH your God, who goes before you on your way, to seek out a place for you to encamp, in fire by night and cloud by day, to show you the way in which you should go.” (Deuteronomy 1:32-33)
http://blog.biblia.com/2014/04/which-old-testament-book-did-jesus-quote-most/
LikeLike
April 1, 2016 at 12:24 pm
Drawing distinctions concerning Intelligent Design, the Origin of Life & the DNA Enigma:
http://stephencmeyer.org/
LikeLike
April 3, 2016 at 1:38 pm
Time as the 4th dimension of the universe we experience presents some perplexing anomalies to come to grips with in trying to understand just how long we’ve been here.
LikeLike
April 5, 2016 at 6:48 am
Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus/Yahshua answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them, “I find no guilt in Him.” (John 18:37-38)
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/jfb/Jhn/Jhn_018.cfm?a=1015037
LikeLike
April 5, 2016 at 3:07 pm
Hello Frank. I hope you are keeping well.
I wanted to ask you some questions regarding God’s plan, just generic stuff – I have often thought about it some things didn’t make sense to me so I wanted another opinion. Usually in these conversations we tend to look at the way things are and try to rationalise them by asserting that there is a God (or not, whatever the case may be). I want to go back to the very beginning and try to understand what the objective of creating Adam & Eve was.
From my limited understanding, God wanted to create “man” in his image in order to have a “relationship” (we are like His children I suppose). Previous to this He had already created Angels, but I don’t understand the back story to their creation. Apparently there were only “male” angels and their role was to serve God and do His bidding. I don’t understand why this was the case, God could do absolutely anything He wanted by just thinking of it – maybe you can shed some light on this.
Anyway, eventually God decided to create Adam from dirt/earth, after He created the universe, the Earth, animals and plants etc. After some time He realised that Adam would be lonely so He cloned a woman from Adam’s rib while he slept – again I am not sure why it had to be that way, but that what the Genesis narrative says. I use the word “clone”, as Eve was made from Adam’s rib and obviously had the same genetic material. I have been told that their DNA was perfect so their children would not have had any genetic mutations or replication errors as we do now.
Also at this time there was no “death” in the world, that came only after “the fall” (correct me if I am wrong), also Adam and Eve had no sense of right or wrong (good and evil) as they only gained this from eating of the tree of “knowledge of good and evil”. Is it safe to say then that Adam and Eve were amoral?
Here’s where my understand fails completely.
God created Adam and Eve, he created the animals (millions of species if you don’t accept common ancestry) so that “man” could have dominion over them. There were plants (which I think are considered to be living organisms), but Adam and Eve could not eat them as it would mean “killing” them and there was no “death” in this paradise of the Garden of Eden (right or wrong?). So what was the actual plan? Adam and Eve would procreate and populate the Garden with genetically identical children, who would wander around naked and have no sense of right and wrong? No one would EVER die so the population would just increase ad infinitum. There would be no “10 commandments” and no morality (as we understand the term). This is what I struggle with.
Or was it the plan all along that Eve would “sin” by disobeying God (and obviously God knew this would happen) so that the basis for your religion could be put into place? If Eve did not know right from wrong then was it fair to punish no only her but ALL of their descendants for the rest of time…billions upon billions of people tarred with the same brush and destined to be “born sinners”? It seems to go against the “omnibenevolent” God that we hear about. Does it makes sense to you? I can’t wrap my head around it at all.
I am not being facetious, I genuinely do not understand what God’s intention was in creating a scenario which would lead to the death of billions of people because of the act of one person. You might respond by saying that we are not smart enough to understand what God’s plan was, and you could be right – I am looking at it from my limited human view point. If that’s the case then I don’t think I will ever get my answer. I just wondered what you were told or what conclusion you came to about this.
Thanks for your time.
Khawar
LikeLike
April 7, 2016 at 2:11 am
Hello Khawar,
I am keeping well. Thank you for asking. I trust you are well also. I do believe you are earnestly seeking answers to profound puzzlement. From my viewpoint here’s what God tells us concerning such situations:
“For I know the plans that I have for you.” declares the LORD/YHWH, “plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.” (Jeremiah 29:11-13)
God is indeed the True Father ready, willing and able to accept us into His family once we turn from our transgressions toward Him in humility & contrition just as in the parable of the Prodigal Son.
When I think about God’s plan it’s His plan of Redemption that I’m thinking about. At present God’s Creation is fallen and cursed. We see this in the angelic realm and in the human realm. Why did it become this way? We know when God finished His creation it was very good. But entropy/decay was introduced. In examining God’s revelation to us through His Word we learn that pride spawned rebellion amongst heaven’s angels (messengers) led by Lucifer who took one third of them with him against God [Isaiah 14:3-27; Ezekiel 28:12-19]. Lucifer becoming Satan (the Adversary) then tempted Eve & Adam to disobey God by enticing them with the deceitful prospect of becoming gods. Once Adam ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil disobeying God’s command he brought the curse upon the ground from God and condemnation for all his descendants through his passing of the sin nature. Anyone of his descendants [including you & me] would have made the very same choice he made in those circumstances being bound by our carnal/unspiritual nature.
As to why God decided to create in the first place; His revelation indicates His purpose sets in manifestation of His Holiness in glory/preeminence/splendor. Upon completion of His redemptive work all those faithful/trustful in Him shall be holy as He is holy: The nations will see your righteousness, and all kings your glory; and you will be called by a new name which the mouth of the LORD/YHWH will designate. You will also be a crown of beauty in the hand of the LORD/YHWH, and a royal diadem in the hand of your God. (Isaiah 62:2-3) There will no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb [Messiah] will be in it, and His bond-servants will serve Him; they will see His face, and His name will be on their foreheads. And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever. (Revelation 22:3-5)
Humanity voyages from Paradise Lost to the New Jerusalem, New Heaven & the New Earth. While we were banished from access to the Tree of Life because our progenitor, Adam, partook of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil; the Only Begotten Son of God has ensured by His Atoning Sacrifice that the Eternal State will provide for us: Then He showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month, and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. (Revelation 22:1-2)
How does God accomplish all this? He does so by His Son, His Lamb, His Messiah, i.e., His Almighty Arm of the LORD/YHWH upon Whom is the Spirit of the Lord GOD/YHWH beyond measure. Throughout Scripture the Son of God works to execute the will of our Father in Heaven & destroy the works of the Adversary. From the Preincarnate Christ/Messiah manifesting as the Angel of the LORD/YHWH first to Hagar, mother-to-be of Ishmael [God hears], to counsel & console her when she fled despondent from Sarai [Genesis 16]; to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre bringing news of the son of promise, Isaac [Genesis 18]; to Moses at Horeb from the midst of a burning bush bringing the promise of deliverance for the nation of Israel [Exodus 3]; truly the Angel of His Face/Presence, the Messenger of the Covenant who ultimately manifests as Jesus Christ/Yahshua Messiah [and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)]
https://bible.org/series/series-christology
I’ll try to respond to your questions specifically.
As to the backstory concerning the creation of the Angels: They were created before humanity. They were created as spiritual beings with varying degrees of power, authority & dominion to serve the Almighty in varying capacities & functions. For example, the Angel Gabriel serves as the Communicator of prophesy & Annunciator of God’s news to humanity. He delivered the 70 Weeks Prophesy to Daniel (Daniel 9:20-27) which announced several hundred years in advance when Messiah would come in His First Advent to Israel. Gabriel made the Annunciation to Miriam/Mary that she would be the mother of the Son of God/Messiah [Luke 1:26-38]. Michael the archangel serves as a Warrior Prince for God by challenging Satan directly [Jude 1:9]. God at the east of the garden of Eden stationed powerful cherubim with the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life [Genesis 3:24]. When Messiah endured His temptation in the wilderness by Satan angels came to minister to Him after the ordeal [Matthew 4:1-11]. And as aforementioned the Angel of the LORD/YHWH who is the Supreme Messenger of God. Angels like humanity serve to worship God [Psalm 103:20] but unlike humanity do not procreate. They’re immortal [Matthew 22:30; Luke 20:36]. They observe the relationship between God and humanity with keen interest [Luke 15:10] while serving a crucial role in God’s final judgment [Matthew 13:49, 16:27, 24:31]. Angels testified to Messiah’s Resurrection [Luke 24:23; John 20:12; 1 Timothy 3:16]. Humans shall judge angels [1 Corinthians 6:3]. As we see they serve a multitude of highly responsible diverse positions in service to the LORD/YHWH. I can’t rule out the possibility of female angels simply because they haven’t been observed. I think that would be analogous to the situation regarding black swans. I stand ready to be corrected but I don’t know of anyplace in scripture where it says categorically there are no female angels. I do know it says Satan can employ a disguise as an angel of light perhaps in this way Satan can appear as female [2 Corinthians 11:14].
Once the Fall occurred Adam & Eve became subject to the Bondage of Decay so their DNA would also have begun to degenerate. This happened prior to their having any children so from the outset of their reproduction they would have been passing on defective DNA along with the passing on of sin nature to all their offspring. In fact this was Eve’s punishment for her disobedience by eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The LORD/YHWH says to Eve, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children; yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16) We then see further deterioration between Cain & Abel and it just gets worse with successive generations from thereon.
The wages of sin is death according to Romans 6:23. Now does that preclude recycling of flora & fauna prior to the Fall? The first mention involving loss of life for animals occurs in Genesis 3:21 where it records that the LORD/YHWH God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them. This is the Creator God providing atonement for Adam & Eve’s unrighteousness. The next verse has the LORD/YHWH God warning that the man has become like one of Us [Father/Son/Spirit of God] knowing good and evil. Consequently, he must under no circumstances take from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever in this corrupted state. So God banishes Adam & Eve from the garden of Eden for their own protection that humanity might be redeemed in accordance with Genesis 3:15.
Atonement: http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/atonement/
I wouldn’t agree that it’s safe to say that Adam & Eve were ever amoral. For Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:26-27) God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. (Genesis 1:31-2:1) And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:25) In these early verses from Genesis before the Fall we see God creating humanity in His own image & likeness with the express purpose of charging them with being responsible stewards of His creation. He instructs them to be fruitful and multiply. He makes ample provisions including plants for food [Genesis 1:28-30] for them to carry out this responsibility. Then God definitively states after doing so that He’s seen that all that He has made is indeed very good. Would Adam & Eve be truly very good if they were lacking genuine ability for moral discernment and sound judgment? For one thing how do you successfully hold a marriage together and raise a family without clearly defined morals and discipline to maintain them? Finally the man and his wife, Adam & Eve were both naked and were not ashamed. All this informs me that God was thoroughly satisfied with Adam & Eve, that they were totally capable to carry out His plan for them to fill the earth, subdue it and rule over it and all therein. That they themselves recognized their righteousness as having integrity and being completely intact not only in their sight but more importantly in God’s sight as well. Hence, although both were naked; they were not ashamed. Contrast that self-assessment with how they viewed themselves in Genesis 3:7-11 after the Fall when they realized the corrupt condition into which they had become ensnared.
To be sure God knows the end from the beginning [Isaiah 46:10]. One thing you can’t do is surprise God. This is why first act by God after the Fall is to pronounce judgment’s curse on the crafty serpent while promising redemption for humanity through the Seed of the Woman/Messiah [Genesis 3:14-15]. We rebelled against God’s lovingkindness and all the bounty He provided for us. Our pride got in the way leading us to fall right into Satan’s trap set with the lust of our own ambition to be as gods. If we deliberately utilize a faulted point of view seeing myopically, distortedly, minus the benefit of clarity afforded by God’s revelation to lead us to repentance through the work and person of His Son, Jesus Christ/Yahshua Messiah, whom He sent to bring deliverance & forgiveness from bondage to sin, salvation & grace in His holy name and paid in full the price of our redemption with His own blood that we may become heirs with Him of God’s Everlasting Kingdom because God raised Him from the dead [Acts 17:24-31] then responsibility for all our misery lies directly with us. And Isaiah is very bold and says, “I WAS FOUND BY THOSE WHO DID NOT SEEK ME, I BECAME MANIFEST TO THOSE WHO DID NOT ASK FOR ME.” (Romans 10:20) And He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” And He said, “Write, for these words are faithful and true.” Then He said to me, “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost. He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son.” (Revelation 21:5-7)
Cordially,
Frank
LikeLike
April 7, 2016 at 11:41 am
Frank:
The Genesis creation reads from a time ancient and irrelevant, of which the downtrodden speak with forlorn, of the days when old school paragraphs were indented long, long after the hammer and chisel etched the laws of man made gods in stone.
Chief Seattle’s Speech
The son of the white chief says his father sends us greetings of friendship and good will. This is kind, for we know he has little need of our friendship in return, because his people are many. They are like the grass that covers the vast prairies, while my people are few, and resemble the scattering trees of a storm-swept plain. There was a time when our people covered the whole land, as the waves of a wind-ruffled sea cover its shell-paved floor. But that time has long since passed away with the greatness of tribes now almost forgotten.
Our great father in Washington sends us word that he will protect us. His brave armies will be to us a bristling wall of strength, and his great ships of war will fill our harbors so that our ancient enemies far to the northward, the Simsiams and Hydas, will no longer frighten our women and old men. Then he will be our father and we will be his children.
But can this ever be? Your god loves your people and hates mine; he folds his strong arms lovingly around the white man and leads him as a father leads his infant son, but he has forsaken his red children. He makes your people wax strong every day, and soon they will fill the land; while my people are ebbing away like a fast-receding tide, that will never flow again. The white man’s god cannot love his red children or he would protect them. They seem to be orphans and can look nowhere for help. How then can we become brothers? How can your father become our father and bring us prosperity and awaken in us dreams of returning greatness?
Your god seems to us to be partial. He came to the white man. We never saw him; never even heard his voice; he gave the white man laws, but he had no word for his red children whose teeming millions filled this vast continent as the stars fill the firmament. No, we are two distinct races and must ever remain so. There is little in common between us. The ashes of our ancestors are sacred and their final resting place is hallowed ground, while you wander away from the tombs of your fathers seemingly without regret.
Your religion was written on tables of stone by the iron finger of an angry god, lest you might forget it. Our religion is the traditions of our ancestors, the dreams of our old men, given them by the great Spirit, and the visions of our sachems, and it is written in the hearts of our people.
Your dead cease to love you and the homes of their nativity as soon as they pass the portals of the tomb. They wander far off beyond the stars, are soon forgotten, and never return. Our dead never forget the beautiful world that gave them being. They still love its winding rivers, its great mountains and its sequestered vales, and they ever yearn in tenderest affection over the lonely-hearted living and often return to visit and comfort them.
We will ponder your proposition, and when we have decided we will tell you. But should we accept it, I here and now make this the first condition: That we will not be denied the privilege, without molestation, of visiting at will the graves of our ancestors and friends. Every part of this country is sacred to my people. Every hillside, every valley, ever plain and grove has been hallowed by some fond memory or some sad experience of my tribe.
Even the rocks that seem to lie dumb as they swelter in the sun along the silent seashore in solemn grandeur thrill with memories of past events connected with the fate of my people, and the very dust under your feet responds more lovingly to our footsteps than to yours, because it is the ashes of our ancestors, and our bare feet are conscious of the sympathetic touch, for the soil is rich with the life of our kindred.
The sable braves, and fond mothers, and glad-hearted maidens, and the little children who lived and rejoiced here, and whose very names are now forgotten, still love these solitudes, and their deep fastnesses at eventide grow shadowy with the presence of dusky spirits. And when the last red man shall have perished from the earth and his memory among white men shall have become a myth, these shores shall swarm with the invisible dead of my tribe, and when your children’s children shall think themselves alone in the field, the store, the shop, upon the highway or in the silence of the woods, they will not be alone. In all the earth there is no place dedicated to solitude. At night, when the streets of your cities and villages are silent and you think them deserted, they will throng with the returning hosts that once filled and still love this beautiful land. The white man will never be alone. Let him be just and deal kindly with my people, for the dead are not altogether powerless.
WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS:
The past continues to live within the human spirit as all past genesis does but which we can never know, as the first sparks of consciousness and memory unite when the first breath of air heralds independence day for the infant, any more than the child can know s/he’s birth by events alone when the first spark activates. Consciousness, placed as a web within the human spirit, to know, activates and begins its life journey to record the events into what we call Memory. Consciousness and Memory are companions and neither can live without the other; they are a necessary duality like the wings of flying creatures through the winds.
LikeLike
April 7, 2016 at 6:30 pm
“Experience has shown, and a true philosophy will always show, that a vast, perhaps the larger, portion of truth arises from the seemingly irrelevant.”
– Edgar Allan Poe, The Mystery of Marie Roget
LikeLike
April 8, 2016 at 8:32 am
Hi Khawar,
Good day, I hope everything’s going fine for you. Regarding our last couple of posts I’m offering this talk in which the gentleman speaks to many of the questions, issues and concerns that we’ve expressed to each other to expound. He’s a Christian believer with an incisive understanding of several matters pertaining the impact God (whether you’re a believer or not) has on our lives, particularly that matter you reference as being beyond your grasp; i.e., “I genuinely do not understand what God’s intention was in creating a scenario which would lead to the death of billions of people because of the act of one person.” I realize this can become a daunting objection to any attempt at establishing a reconciled relationship with the Almighty; therefore perseverance & resolve prove most effectual in overcoming the obvious (and not so obvious) challenging difficulties.
Best Regards,
Frank
LikeLike