I was at Huntington Beach just after open air preaching, when a friend showed up with his eight year-old daughter. She’s a sweet little kid with a strong faith in God. Some time later I saw him conversing with an atheist named Frank. Frank had been heckling me, and seemed to consider himself to be quite an intellectual. When my friend’s little girl told the atheist that she believed in God, Frank bent down to her and in a fatherly way told her that God was just like Santa Clause--He didn’t exist. How could he do such a thing? I was horrified. He was like a poor mentally challenged man, sticking a fork into a live power outlet. I said, “Frank, do you know what a millstone is?” He did. I said, “Do you remember what Jesus said about millstones?” He said he had never read the Bible. My heart went out to him. He didn't know what he had just done. Poor Frank. The Bible is the greatest-selling book of all time, yet he had never read it. If you are tempted to follow in Frank's footsteps, here's what Jesus said: “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea” (Mark 9:41-43).
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Frank Millstone
72 comments:
Ugh. I was just reading that part in my Bible study yesterday. It really makes me take my responsibility as a parent seriously.
By the way, Ray-- I'm getting a lot out of How to Lead Your Children to Christ, especially the Spurgeon quotes. Great stuff!!
I can understand that Atheists want others to believe as they do because the exercise helps to fortify them in their own beliefs (which actually takes more faith than being a Christian), but they don't realize that their arguing for their belief is repeatedly calling God a "Liar" because His Word refutes their protestations. That is such a terrible position to be in. Sadly, they don't realize how close to the edge of the cliff of eternity they stand.... I pray that this blog is being used by Christ to draw His people to Himself. Praise God!
Blessings!
<*}}}><
I am guilty of being a millstone. In my youth, when I was 17, I met a guy in high school and had a crush on him. He was an agnostic boy, never went to church, never read the Bible and I tried to lead him to Christ to no avail. Finally, because I was either a false convert or perhaps had a lack of good church teaching, I fell away from the faith and eventually gave up my Christian faith. It has really hurt me to this day because at the time, my youngest sister was a child and I made remarks that 'after death, maybe there's nothing,' I said many things against the church, God, Christianity. It horrified my parents but now thankfully back in 1995, when I faced a divorce from the agnostic/atheist, I repented, turned to Christ for salvation and truly became born again. I thought I was saved and baptisted at age 9 and was very devout in my beliefs, but I failed the test of time, in my teen years I had no support so I fell away. Well now I am 42 and I am reaping what I sowed back then. My sister, now 34, is not in Christ, does not go to church, is living in sin with a man, committed adultery which cost her a marriage, has 2 boys who are not going to church nor being taught any Bible or gospel. I am deeply sorry now because I feel responsible for this. I have made it clear to my sister where I stand now and have tried to encourage her to repent and find a good church, but she refuses and no longer speaks to me. She has distanced herself from the family and refuses any communication. She hung up on me when I tried to call her and speak to her about 2 years ago. Well, I have been sending her tracts for the past few months and have prayed for her as much as possible. I hope to see a miracle someday. I regret my past, but I am trying to use it for God's glory now.
It was wrong for "Frank" to tell the little girl that the idea of god is the same as Santa; but it's okay to scare a child with ideas about going to "Hell". Is that how it works?
Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Don't give up carolpaints. Benny Hinn has some excellent stuff on how to pray for the salvation fo a family member.
wow! thats such a horrible thing to do but in light of scripture I feel so sorry for that man :/
And in light of this too, I need some advice..I have a four year old living in my house, he's not my son sadly but I do love him like if he were my own, he's the maid's son...They sleep here from monday through saturday and on the weekend go to their town to their family.
I'm the only Christian in the household, I live with both my parents, brother and sister.
Everyone else is catholic.
The four year old, Robert is his name, absolutely loves me and looks up to me, but likewise he looks up to his dad and an uncle of mine who lives here. He's so fixed on being a grown man and being like his dad.
So there are various problems here, i want to teach him about Christ and about God and about the bible, he's very smart, but he has all these other influences that are much stronger than mine.
We were talking the other day and he said to me that he didn't like God because his little sister told him He was going to punish him, and also that no one knew God.
And once I started to explain to him what the bible teaches about God, he ignored me completely and began telling me how his dad was going to buy him this or that.
I have no clue what to do, I know he's not my son, but he does spend a LOT of time with me and his mother doesn't mind at all, and I would very much like to see him grow up knowing about Christ, about sin, about repentance and about the bible.
Cos if you catch 'em young, they'll keep coughin' up till they croak.
G'day Ray,
I've just started your book "How to Lead Your Children to Christ" and I'm learning much... it is a very challenging read,
God Bless
@ carolpaints,
I'm sorry to hear about your sister. I have a lot of similarities with mine as well. I have a pretty good sense of the pain you feel. It's a total spiritual warfare - all the way. Your family is in my deepest of prayers. God has it all under His control, though we cannot see what His plan is all the time. We must focus our eyes on Him whenever we feel inadequate and/or unsure.
Don't feel responsible though.. (for you are a child of God now) It's the work of satan that tries to go destroy & harass the unity of families. It gives us even more of a reason to fight against him and to keep our faith strong in the Lord. Keep blessing & showing your love to her, as you are. May the power of God's blessings fall upon you & your family. In Jesus Name - with love.
@ Ray,
May God bless you! This is the exact verse I had just sent to a recent ministry that had been discussed in some earlier blogs of yours. They have obviously been forgetting about that passage.
Children are so delicate & loved by God so much! To expose evil to ears of innocent children is one of the worst things a so-called christian church could ever do! It's blasphemous! Children are so precious in God's sight. Anyone should be able to tell where the heart of the church lies, by reviewing the foundation of the children's ministry & making sure it lines up with God's word. I really pray that someone who is in charge there, will feel convicted & end the ridiculous teachings that they are poisoning onto the children & adults everywhere.
They are in my prayers.
DM wrote: My FAITH suggests that you are the "blind"!
1Believer wrote: In what do you HAVE faith? You've refuted almost everything I've said.
DM wrote: NOTHING that you would understand, I suspect. You continue to believe in the folly of God and all that that ensues.
I feel sorry for you that you can't see the truth. (as I understand it!)
the book was written by man and then compiled in such a way as to promote their method so as to control the masses...only their view was included. There were many other views available at the time.
To me, The use of the Bible to prove what one is stating is invalid and ineffectual.
The limited knowledge of men in those days contributed to the compilation of the bible. (They believed the earth was flat in those days. and that the Earth was the center of the Universe.)
Remember. the vast majority of humans were illiterate and uneducated.
Maybe you need to look at things with a more "open point of view" attitude???
I feel you should believe whatever you want to believe but; that you should allow me the same privilege.
I searched in the 60's and found basically what I believe today. nothing has occurred to change my mind.
Conversely, Many things have occurred to "cement" my feelings.
Yes, I am strongly influenced by society and that is why I respect society and "Capitalize" God and such.
But, don't misunderstand that I have MY feelings and , as such, I don't harass others to believe what I believe. They are free to believe whatever they want.
I don't expect or desire to have others believe what I believe..... I don't try to impose it on others ........Just don't impose it on me!!!!!!!!
Please!
1Believer asks: please post comments/rebuttals to this agnostic person to whom I'm related by marriage. I have tried to get through to him for 4 years now. I sent him Isaiah 40:22 in reply to his comment about people thinking the earth was flat, but he said the Bible is not true, and to use quotes from it to rebut his comment are ineffectual.
Christians, I am asking for your help. Agnostics and atheists need not reply. Thank you.
Ray,
What an immature post, full of characatures. I especially like the cartoon of the atheist being flung into the ocean with a giant rock around his neck and sharks eagerly awaiting him. This is simply sadistic. I do attack your arguments, but I would never wish ill will of you. This is just sick.
I posted on this thread recently and I haven't seen it. Just wondering.
"rufus said... I posted on this thread recently and I haven't seen it. Just wondering."
Rufus, posts get deleted that accuse me of things that aren't true, are blasphemous, have cuss words (even commonly used words) or that touch on issues that are sexually explicit. Philippians 4:8 is the standard.
"JM Ridlon said... Ray, What an immature post, full of characatures. I especially like the cartoon of the atheist being flung into the ocean with a giant rock around his neck and sharks eagerly awaiting him. This is simply sadistic. I do attack your arguments, but I would never wish ill will of you. This is just sick."
JM. It's not "a giant rock" (did you read the post?). It's a millstone. Read what Jesus said and it may make sense. I think that you may be skim-reading and writing back before you have thought about it. I would never wish ill of you either. That's why I wrote this post.
"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."
That is your standard for deciding whether or not to delete replies to your often inflammatory, sometimes inaccurate, occasionally misleading and always slightly disturbing blog entries?
OK... That narrows the field a little.
"JM. It's not "a giant rock" (did you read the post?). It's a millstone. Read what Jesus said and it may make sense. I think that you may be skim-reading and writing back before you have thought about it. I would never wish ill of you either. That's why I wrote this post."
Ray,
And millstones are made out of limestone or buhrstone, which are rocks. Have you looked at the cartoon, Ray? It is a giant "millstone" or "rock" around "Frank's" neck or some other hypothetical non-believer. And yes I read your post and what Jesus said. Basically, you are telling Frank that it is better for him to drown himself than to be an atheist. Then you have a nice little cartoon with eagerly awaiting sharks. I still think this message is sadistic. I would argue that it is better to not believe in Jesus than to be drown. When I see Jesus, I will believe in him..this doesn't seem like asking too much, and I can't see how killing yourself is "better". When he is claimed to have said things like this, he doesn't come across as very loving, and as sincere in you message as you seem, neither do you. Ray, you have claimed that atheists mis-quote the bible and take snippets. Maybe it is you who should think about much of the Bible's message and the evidence we have to go on. It may not seem all that reasonable once you have done this.
@JM Ridlon
"Maybe it is you who should think about much of the Bible's message and the evidence we have to go on. It may not seem all that reasonable once you have done this."
I love how you assume that Ray hasn't done this. Maybe he's looked at the same evidence that you have and come to a different conclusion than you. Do you believe that to be possible?
“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea”
Shouldn't we teach kids to weigh the evidence and think critically? This is clearly a verse, similar to the "doubting Thomas" parable in that it attempts to prevent any questioning; particularly important when considering children.
JM Ridlon said...
"And yes I read your post and what Jesus said."
JM, I don't think you grasped the seriousness of your problem of sin. You are still arguing from a point of view that you are good and that there is no God. Therefore anything that Jesus said, 1) doesn't make sense to you, and/or 3) you don't care because you don't believe Jesus ever existed and certainly don't think he is God.
That is your whole problem, and all atheists problem.
Atheists don't understand the gravity of their situation.
What Frank told that little girl was the most horrible thing. To tell her that God doesn't exist. Out of willful ignorance on their part, atheists will die in their sins and spend eternity in hell. No one can argue anyone into Salvation. Salvation comes from the Holy Spirit. But of course you refuse to understand anything that your eyes cannot see.
That little child has a better grasp of reality than athe atheist. She see's all that God has created and has concluded that, yes God is the creator. To her it makes perfect sense.
Santa Clause and God cannot be put on the same level, ever.
JM, if you are calling Ray a sadist, why not go further and call Jesus one too. I'm sure you already do, atheists have called God almost every single thing in the book, except for what He really is - Lord.
And yes Lord over you. whether you like it or not, Jesus is Lord.
He is either a liar, a lunatic or Lord as C.S. Lewis described. Lewis, an ardent atheist finally had a knock of sense into him by God.
Jesus said that if you cause a little child (innocence) to stumble, to sin, it's better for you to drown yourself, and do it quickly by strapping on a millstone.
These aren't pansy words. This is serious business that Jesus spoke about. Jesus is serious and mad ss hell about causing the young in faith and stature to sin.
I would take Jesus' command seriously. You won't get any second chances when you die. Oh, and when you do see Jesus He will throw you into hell for all your blatant disobedience, pride, arrogance, and countless other sins that you have not repented from. Including the sin of disbelief. He will have to because He is a just God, He will not allow wickedness to prosper, He is a very very just judge. One who uses righteousness (purity) as His standard.
All wicked people will perish in Hell.
Those God has saved from wickedness (which every Christian was once one) will be saved from hell, not because they are good, but because He is good.
JM, it is pointless trying to place blame on others when you are so full of sin yourself.
jm_ridlon said:
" I still think this message is sadistic."
jm -
Let's say you were walking down the street. You saw a burning house, and there was a crowd watching as the fire department tried to put it out.
All of a sudden, you saw a grown man pick up a small girl, run toward the building and throw her into the burning building.
What do you think should be done to that man?
- L.
JM Ridlon said:
"Ray, What an immature post, full of characatures. I especially like the cartoon of the atheist being flung into the ocean with a giant rock around his neck and sharks eagerly awaiting him. This is simply sadistic. I do attack your arguments, but I would never wish ill will of you. This is just sick."
On what do you base your decision that this is "sick and sadistic."I thought you took on a post modernist point of view that states right or wrong is relative. Your statments insinuate that you think Mr. Comfort's depiction is somehow morally wrong or unfair. However, the standard for right and wrong is taught in the Bible. Being an atheist and all that you claim, I thought that right and wrong was relative.
Just for the record I am not attacking you. I am just confused by how you claim to believe one thing but speak another. Just a thought not a debate request
As a part of my friend's employment, he once had to inform a fellow employee that the fellow employee ... well, stunk. If the fellow employee did not exercise better hygene, then he would ultimately be fired.
My friend told his fellow employee - who then began to bathe more regularly and consequently, was not fired.
Is there a difference between warning someone against causing a child of God to stumble and explaining to a fellow employee that he stinks? Each has the opportunity to repent before it is too late.
JM Said:
"Let's say you were walking down the street. You saw a burning house, and there was a crowd watching as the fire department tried to put it out.
All of a sudden, you saw a grown man pick up a small girl, run toward the building and throw her into the burning building.
What do you think should be done to that man?"
You see it is not of your best interest to ask me, because I believe what the Bible says. So my sense of right and wrong are footed in Truth. However, you would have no valid argument as to how you would feel., because your point of view is it would be relative to how the person throwing the child into the fire felt about it LOL!
Some people are getting very confused about who said what...
Just as well this is on a website somewhere where we can check back and work out who said what and when...
Imagine if it were some fragments of documents of hazily recollected stories... Or worse still imagine those hazy stories were translated, changed, edited and modified... We wouldn't know where the juicy-fruit we were.
I am off to pray to Google.
@ray:
"You see it is not of your best interest to ask me, because I believe what the Bible says."
Ray, Ray... hold on here... Look again.. see who the post is FROM (me) and see to whom it is addressed.
I am asking this of JM.
- L.
Mr. Comfort:
Just checking back. My bad, as they say. Those posts showed up right after I posted about not seeing them. My apologies. You're still a quote miner, though:-).
"JM, I don't think you grasped the seriousness of your problem of sin. You are still arguing from a point of view that you are good and that there is no God. Therefore anything that Jesus said, 1) doesn't make sense to you, and/or 3) you don't care because you don't believe Jesus ever existed and certainly don't think he is God."
You claim I have a serious problem with "sin", I assume deriving from my "sin" of non-belief. This is an imaginary crime. You have just as much "sin" not believing in the existence of fairies.
Much of what Jesus said, or what his character said is moral. I do not dispute this. Not everything he said was, in my opinion all that moral. The current brutal pronouncement for what non-believers should do rather than telling a child to think for themselves and weigh evidence, which might end in not believing Jesus was divine seems ridiculous given current evidence. I hear preachers and apologists, including Ray, and many of you telling the rest of us to suspend our critical faculties and "just believe with your heart", this isn't a rational thing afterall. What?!? Why shouldn't we demand evidence, particulary when several others claimed to be saviours in a similar manner? Why should we be punished or feel compelled to kill ourselves rather than teaching children to question everything?
Mr. Comfort:
Is it always absolutely wrong, or is it always absolutely right, to slaughter all the adults of your enemies; all of the male children; all of the females who have had sex; and keep all of the females who haven't had sex to have sex with yourself? Elsewhere in your post; I could actually see the house on fire and the man trying to throw the child into it. They actually exist. Since I'm directing this post at you, I'll continue on some other subjects. On abortion; not whether it's right or wrong. For the sake of argument, we'll say it's wrong. If life begins at conception, well, some percentage, the numbers vary, of fertilized eggs fail to embed in the uterine wall and are discharged. Who is responsible for all of those abortions? Intelligent Design(er)? Since you believe the flood actually happened in spite of the geological evidence; how many pregnant women died in the flood, taking with them their "unborn babies"? Another thing that has caught my eye is the anti-Catholic bias here. I know you'll say it's because you all have the true faith. Fair enough. The Catholic Church was pretty much all there was for about 1500 years. Why did God allow it to dominate for so long? What happened to the souls of all those "false converts"? I think I could come up with your replies, but I'd like to hear them from the horses mouth, so to speak. I know you're busy. Take your time. Thanks.
Since when is telling people they are in danger 'cruel'?
Is it wrong to tell a child to look both ways, and use scare tactics like 'you might get hit by a car'?
"JM Said:
"Let's say you were walking down the street. You saw a burning house, and there was a crowd watching as the fire department tried to put it out.
All of a sudden, you saw a grown man pick up a small girl, run toward the building and throw her into the burning building.
What do you think should be done to that man?"
You see it is not of your best interest to ask me, because I believe what the Bible says. So my sense of right and wrong are footed in Truth. However, you would have no valid argument as to how you would feel., because your point of view is it would be relative to how the person throwing the child into the fire felt about it LOL!
LOL! True! So True! You're right, how on earth could I know that young girls shouldn't be thrown into fires by grown men? If I didn't have my trusty bible I could only ask the man for some relative point of view. Man, I gotta git me a bible so I kin no how to akt.
"On what do you base your decision that this is "sick and sadistic."
On the bas[is] that if we don't teach children to think rationally, you get website like this.
Hey, Tell me if I'm wrong but I think I've noticed something here. The atheists don't comment on the Charles Spurgeon posts. Is it because he's dead?
Hey, Ray,
This comment is not on-topic at all, but I know you'll read it since you moderate and all that...
I just got home from my first-ever instance of street-evangelism. I've been listening to WOM Radio on SIRIUS for a couple of months and your "street fishing" segments really inspired me.
My previous witnessing attempts had been so frustrating, in part because (a) all I seemed to run into was people who thought they were too good to deserve to go to hell, and (b) because I was operating under the common evangelical demand to "close the deal" at the end with a Sinner's Prayer.
So, needless to say, I found the method you modeled to be an answer to prayer, and it seemed totally biblical to me. (Still does, btw.)
That's what I did: I just listened and learned what you were doing, and today I finally got time off and went with my teenage daughter and stood out in front of the County Courthouse and witnessed with a "survey" and a poster, that sort of thing.
Everything you and Todd always talk about was true, especially the change in their countenance once you've gone through the law and then ask them if they'd be innocent or guilty. Wow. And, the sad part, how many who claimed to be Christians were totally unable to articulate an answer to "What must I do to be saved?" Shameful.
Anyway, I'm writing to share with you my thankfulness to God for your faithfulness and for using you as He has to get one more Southern Baptist pastor off his backside and actually out there doing the real stuff!
Ray Said:
You see it is not of your best interest to ask me, because I believe what the Bible says. So my sense of right and wrong are footed in Truth. However, you would have no valid argument as to how you would feel., because your point of view is it would be relative to how the person throwing the child into the fire felt about it LOL!
Ray, come on! That's absolutely absurd.
Let's look at the base of the situation and I'll show you how using situational ethics (something that everyone uses... yes, even you) we can demonstrate a positive and a negative outcome.
The root of your ridiculous analogy is burning a child. Your position is that there is never an instance where burning a child would be "morally justified", correct?
If you witnessed a child go head-first through a plate glass window receiving very serious lacerations to his or her body, it might very well be an ethical decision to burn that child. After all, the child could possibly bleed out from these lacerations if deep enough and in the right place while cauterizing the wounds would greatly increase his or her chance for survival with proper medical treatment.
Would you attempt to press charges if I took such actions if it were your child? Would you rather have a living child with a few scars or a corpse?
Please knock off the "bible as the only objective morality" arguement. It is patently ridiculous.
--Nathan
"Former Follier"
I don't particularly agree with the way Frank behaved, on the grounds that I don't approve of using children as tools to provoke their parents. In any case, children shouldn't be axiomatically told that there is no god; they should be encouraged to think about the issue for themselves.
If I had the opportunity to share my thoughts on religion with that little girl, this is what I'd tell her:
"There are many different religions in the world. Some people believe in lots of gods, some people believe in one god, and some people don't believe in any god at all. Some people believe that their religion is the only right one. Other people believe that different religions all lead to the same truth.
The people who believe that their religion is the only right one aren't just Christians; they can be Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, or so forth. And they all believe just as strongly as your father does that they are the ones who are right.
Personally, I don't believe that there is any god. I came to this conclusion after a lot of thought and study. You may come to a very different conclusion, but whatever you do, you should be sure to think and study a lot before you make up your mind. Read what people who believe in different gods have to say about their own religions. Read what people who don't believe in god have to say about what they don't believe in god.
"Just because somebody - even somebody you love - tells you something doesn't mean they're automatically right. No one else can make up your mind for you."
. . . So, millstone and sharks for me, huh?
On a semi-related note: who on earth takes an eight-year old girl out "open air preaching" (or whatever your cute euphemism for unsolicited evangelism is)? Using a child as a prop in one's spiritual sales pitch is just as reprehensible as anything this "Frank" character did. And even if she wasn't being used as a prop per se, I can't help but think it's sad that a father would choose to spend his free time with his daughter by making her stand next to him on the sidewalk while he harangued strangers. Ten bucks says the girl would much rather have been at the zoo or the playground or just about anywhere else.
Ray, that's actually not funny. It's heart-breaking.
There's really nothing wrong with him expressing his belief in atheism to the child. Certainly, Ray, you'd be happy to gently commend belief in God to any child who told you he didn't believe in God. I'm sure you'd do it in an appropriate and caring way. So there's really nothing objectionable about it--an expression of atheism, in itself, is not necessarily obscene. I'm not sure why children should need to be sheltered from these ideas. My daughter is 7 and she is well aware that there are atheists in the world. She has a rudimentary grasp of arguments against theism--as expressed in certain arguments from evil or against the coherence of theism. I don't have any doubts that her faith in God is strong. I'm happy she's not ignorant that there are people who think belief in God has the same epistemic status as belief in Santa Claus. It's a bit too late to warn her after she leaves. Daddy won't be around to coddle her then. Rather than shelter children we should properly train them to think Christianly.
"Johannes DeSilentio said...
There's really nothing wrong with him expressing his belief in atheism to the child."
Johannes . . . I'm not concerned for the child. God can take care of her. I'm concerned for the atheist. Read it again, and it should be clear.
@LivingAsOneFreed:
I was posting in reply to JM as well. the post order just showed up wierd. Sorry for the Confusion.
Now a question to the atheist:
Where exactly do you get your morals? If you were created out of a big cosmic accident On what basis are your morals learned?
As Christians, all basis of morality is dictated by God and His Word. When rejecting God, we make ourselves the final authority in matters of morality, and there is no basis for consistent morality applied to everyone. (This is not to say that people who do not believe the Bible are all criminals; most are not, but they have no basis for their morality—no real justification for why people should be moral.)
But following the moral guidelines the Bible gives is not done solely out of fear—though, certainly, there is a recognition of God’s judgement. Rather, people can act morally when they understand why morals exist, have a relationship with the Foundation behind them, and realize that morality exists to protect us, not to restrict us. We do not avoid murder just because we fear God’s judgement, but also because the Bible shows us why all human lives are valuable, and why murder is truly wrong (and not just “undesirable”). And, of course, this all stems from understanding the creation account in Genesis, and that God made us in His image. Additionally, a personal relationship with Christ frees us from bondage to the sin nature we all inherited through Adam and indwells us with the Holy Spirit. We possess this sinful nature until we are freed from our bodies—which is why we, as Christians, still sin. Sadly, this is gleefully pointed out when a prominent Christian leader succumbs to the lust of the flesh. But it is God’s desire for His people to be set apart (sanctified) and conformed to His perfect Son (Romans 8), and it is God who works in us “both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13).
@JM Ridlon
"Shouldn't we teach kids to weigh the evidence and think critically? This is clearly a verse, similar to the "doubting Thomas" parable in that it attempts to prevent any questioning; particularly important when considering children."
I completely agree with you, we should teach our kids to think critically. But I'm confused about what you mean. Are you saying that we allow our kids to think for themselves when all we teach them in school is evolution? If you really wanted them to think critically, you would allow kids to hear both sides of the "God Hypothesis" (as you put it) and make their own decision. But that's not what you want at all is it?
Also, our kids should be taught to make their own decision with a right view of their standing in the world. They are human, and God is a God who just might have something to say about their existence (why, what and how). If they decide otherwise, then fine, they're responsible for their own actions, but lets give them evidence for both causes/reasons for being alive.
"...which might end in not believing Jesus was divine seems ridiculous given current evidence."
There is plenty of evidence that Jesus lived, died and was divine, not to mention all the evidence for the beginning of creation and life. Email me if you dare.
"I hear preachers and apologists, including Ray, and many of you telling the rest of us to suspend our critical faculties and "just believe with your heart","
When has Ray or myself ever suggested that? I can't speak for every Christian speaker, and I've heard what you're talking about alot, but don't lump us all in there JM.
"...teaching children to question everything?"
So your position is that they should question evolution too?
trkent said--
I can understand that Atheists want others to believe as they do because the exercise helps to fortify them in their own beliefs...
Actually, I kind of agree with Ray on this, but not for the reasons he says. I think it's wrong to try to mess with someone else's kid's beliefs in principle. If somebody wants their child raised Christian, that's their right. Of course, if I want to raise my kid as an atheist, that should be my right also.
Mr. Comfort:
You get your morals from the Bible and God. So, is it always absolutely right to slaughter all the adults of your enemies; all of the male children; all of the females who have had sex; and keep all of the females who haven't had sex to have sex with yourself? Is all of that always absolutely right? Thanks.
Kids, kids. Please. We should all recognize by now that the disagreements between non-Christians and Christians can't really be resolved on these terms. (I say non-Christians, though most of the disagreements seem to be between Christians and atheists. Nevertheless, much of what I am about to say is pertinent to the conflicts of perspective between followers of Christ and followers of other paths.)
First we have a fundamental misunderstanding in how we're using the term 'belief.' Likewise, we tend to use the word 'religion' in ways that confuse rather than clarify discussion.
What I have come to understand is that Christianity is not about belief at all. A Christian, as I see it, is not defined by what he believes, but by what he is. This is coming from a non-Christian, true, but it seems accurate to me. A Christian is one who has experienced, and continues to experience, a relationship with Christ. (Or, for non-Christians, what she understands to be Christ.) A fireman isn't a fireman because of what he believes about fighting fires, but because that's what he does. This isn't an exact analogy, but I hope my meaning is clear enough.
Problems arise when we confuse the experience with the beliefs and customs that have become attached to the cultures of people who have these experiences in common. Quite frankly, I see that most of our disagreements come about because of words and beliefs. It's pointless to argue over whether or not it's necessary to believe that the Flood really happened, or that God made the sun stand still (or stopped the earth turning, though the writer of Joshua didn't express it or understand it that way), or even that an individual called Joshua Ben Joseph fed a multitude with five barley loaves and two small fish, as reported in John 6:1-15.
Beliefs are distractions from the direct experience that is, as I see it, the core of being a follower of Christ. It would help both Christians and non-Christians to understand this. Non-Christians would have a better understanding of why Christians are so sure of themselves as people who have been transformed. And Christians can stop wasting their time trying to defend words, like Pharisees arguing endlessly in the temple over who is right and who is wrong about interpreting this little phrase and that.
Believing this or that is not essential to having a connection with Christ; being part of the relationship with Christ is what is essential. The Bible can be a tool for enhancing and deepening the relationship, but it's mistaking the messenger for the message to cling to every verse. Be brave enough and clear enough to recognize what is vital.
As the zen saying has it: "Zen is not the moon. Zen is the finger pointing to the moon."
Again, I'm not a Christian myself. Nevertheless, I hope that this perspective is a helpful one, and one that resonates with Christian followers.
Here's another example. A Buddhist is similarly defined by actions, not by beliefs. A Buddhist has felt the truth that life is inevitably bound up with suffering; has seen that the root of this suffering is attachment (that is, trying grasp at what we desire, and trying to avoid what we fear); has realized that there is a release from suffering; and has acted in a way to attain the release from suffering by living a life in accord with the Eightfold Path, the path to Enlightenment (that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration). A Buddhist doesn't believe this; a Buddhist has lived this.
Christians, understand this. Those who do not see life as you do are not necessarily deluded; they have experienced something different than you have. They too have said, "Ah yes, I see it. I recognize that that's how it really is." They too have experienced transformational encounters with Truth. It is just not exactly your Truth.
Of course, the huge difficulty, the source of so much conflict, comes from Christians holding on to the view that their experience is the only valid one. I cannot help you here. Other frameworks of experiences tend to be wider than that, and can see yours as one valid way of living life, but only as part of a bigger picture. The Christian framework doesn't seem to be able to do the same.
To be clear, I don't subscribe to the flabby, weak philosophy that says, "Oh, all religions are really just saying the same thing." They most certainly are not. Some are exclusive. Some are not. Some insist on certain cultural practices and rituals. Some have become encumbered with rituals and practices that have nothing at all to do with the meaning of the religion. Some are more like philosophies or ways of seeing life. Some are more like political systems than anything else.
Here is the source of another difficulty -- the use of the term 'religion.' Human beings have done themselves a terrible wrong by trying to put all of these different cultural, experiential and perceptual frameworks in one all-encompassing category. It's as if Religion was the general term for something generic like ice cream, and each so-called 'religion' was simply a different flavor. Or that a 'religion' was a trait that everyone had, like nationality, and that everyone belonged to one variety of nationality or another. This is not so. It's like comparing bicycles to rabbits. Being a Christian is about the connection with Christ. Being a Hindu is about being born into a certain people and culture. (Someone very perceptively once told me that one could no more convert to being a Hindu any more than one could convert into being a cat.) Being a Pagan is about living a life that draws meaning from a relationship with the natural world and participating in rituals that celebrate and deepen that relationship. (So no, it's not about casting spells and riding on broomsticks.) And so on. These are all different things.
Ah, and what about the atheists? I would venture to say that an atheist is someone who sees how the natural world works and understands that God is not necessary for the world to function and to make sense. Again, this is not a belief; this is an understanding arising from experience.
Many atheists come from scientific and scholarly backgrounds, although one certainly doesn't need a PhD to understand the physical world well enough to see that it can be explained quite well without including god in the equation. Atheists have come to their way of thinking by close study of the evidence available to them.
An atheist doesn't hate God. (I discount children of any age who are saying that they hate God and that all religion is a lie just to be rebellious.) For an atheist, god is simply absent. Or at least there is no personal god, the sort of interventionist, historical god that is central to what are referred to as the religions of the book: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
What does tend to get atheists riled up, understandably so, is a history of religion being used by human beings are a rational for committing the worst kind of atrocities on each other. (Yes, people motivated by their belief system have also done wonderful things, but religions, and Christianity in particular, don't have a very good record here.)
Atheists also tend to come into conflict with Christians (and in this country, it's almost exclusively Christians) who are very insistent on creating a Christian nation or even a Christian world. This insistence makes sense from the Christian point of view. As I've pointed out elsewhere, if you see that a relationship with Christ is the only possible way to enjoy heaven and avoid eternal torment in the afterlife, then of course the only responsible thing is to make every effort to get others to see this. However, evangelization commonly takes the form of someone saying: "Believe this!" Well, as I've tried to point out, these things really aren't about belief at all. So someone who has had a different experience of the world, an experience that can be just as meaningful and enlightening and revealing of truth, isn't going to find it easy or desirable to say that this experience of the world is wrong. Belief, which is about words and ideas, doesn't have the power of experience. Christians don't enjoy being called deluded, no more than atheists do. (I suppose a Buddhist would just say, "I suppose so, but I'm working on it.)
A nation, or any group of people, that is dominated by a particular faith , and derives its civil laws in accord with that faith, by definition takes it upon itself to legistlate how its citizens think. And that is committing a great crime. Thus atheists, and other non-Christians, are insistent on letting our nation be one in which all are free to find Truth on their own terms. No reponsible atheist should try to force a Christian to invalidate their experience of a Christ-led life. (Although some would like to offer you facts that contridict your beliefs, which isn't the same tihng.)
No one is trying to burn churches or keep you from praying or teaching your children how to relate to God. It's ridiculous to say that Christians are being oppressed if they can't get on the loudspeaker and ask everyone in the stadium to pray before a football game. What non-Christians are right in doing is resisting the imposition of Christian beliefs (and of course here's where we get into trouble again) on those who do not choose that path. And making Christianity a compulsory part of national life is exactly that sort of unjust imposition.
I hope that I haven't lost the main point that I was trying to make amid all these words. Words are guides, but word are not the things themselves. I say, respect those who act from the truth they have worked for, even if that truth is not yours. It never hurts to really try to figure out why the other guy knows that he's right.
Oh, and cypress christian, trying to teach children to "question evolution" and to "teach the controversy" is nonsense.
Evolution and the theory of Natural Selection is quite properly the only theory of the development of life that that should be taught because it's the only theory that has any real science behind it. There is quite simply NO CREDIBLE RESEARCH OR EVIDENCE that contridicts this theory, probably the most tested and supported theory in modern science. A responsible educational system wouldn't "teach the controversy" about evolution any more than they would "teach the controversy" about whether or not the earth goes around the sun or visa versa, or give equal time to medieval alchemy when teaching chemistry.
Show me one single, peer-reviewed, evidenced-based study, published in a legitimate scientific journal, that contridicts the essential theory of evolution (and I don't mean papers that include minor dissagreements with details of how the mechanism of natural selection and evolution works), and then we'll talk. That's it. One single paper that meets accepted scientific standards.
And don't give me the lame excuse that there's a vast conspiricy of "Darwinists" that stifle all conflicting research. That's nonsense. Real scientists live for the chance to make major changes in the accepted body of knowledge. If anyone could submit a real study that showed new evidence to challenge any major theory, they'd get their work published everywhere. To say otherwise is to say you don't understand how real science works.
Sorry I got so aggitated with this one, but this argument just goes round and round. Creationists lose on the facts every single time, but just keep on trying.
But the challenge remains. One. Single. Credible. Study. Just one. I await the cite.
Just saw you in DE Ray and in PA last year. Your ministry has encouraged me greatly, thank you.
And to all the atheists: I can understand where you're coming from I can understand your point of view and I have actually said many of the same things. I even told the pastor that I'd come to church but that I didn't want to be brain washed into believing anything.
Acutally I remember thinking how can I be expected to believe in a resurrection that occured 2000 years ago? I was nowhere nearby to witness the event so how can I be required to stand firm on this belief? It blew my mind.
It got to the point where I was still perplexed with this question and I was ready to make an honest assesment, I could either choose to say this is all balogni or choose to step towards Jesus in faith as my personal Savior and Lord.
It was at that crossroad when I excersised that faith that I was changed...I'm afraid beyond concepts I can relate to you with.
I wasn't forced into it, I wasn't having difficult times, actually things couldnt have been going better for me. It wasnt hard times that caused me to reach out to Jesus.
And now years later things arentt so good. I've lost my house to foreclosure, I've moved in with family (very crampt), income is at 25% and uncertain and I could care less because nothing can take away my joy of knowing Jesus Christ, the Almighty God, The Creator of this Universe and all that's in store for me.
and I know there isn't evidence that you're likley to accept and so you will need to rely on FAITH as the access to all this.
That may be too hard for you to accept and you'll end up choosing the balogni.
DZHENOU
Laura said...
On a semi-related note: who on earth takes an eight-year old girl out "open air preaching" (or whatever your cute euphemism for unsolicited evangelism is)? Using a child as a prop in one's spiritual sales pitch is just as reprehensible as anything this "Frank" character did. And even if she wasn't being used as a prop per se, I can't help but think it's sad that a father would choose to spend his free time with his daughter by making her stand next to him on the sidewalk while he harangued strangers. Ten bucks says the girl would much rather have been at the zoo or the playground or just about anywhere else.
I happen to know this little girl and can say that, whenever she joins her Dad and our evangelizing team, it is strictly HER CHOICE. (Her sister chose to stay at home with Mom on this particular day.)
Her father does not "make her stand next to him", nor does he "use her as a prop". She and I took a walk out to the end of the pier, while handing out tracts. We also played Tag, and watched a group of break dancers performing. As long as she is within eyesight of a responsible adult, she is free to do whatever she chooses-be it playing like any 8 year old, handing out tracts, watching Dad Open Air preach, or, yes, standing next to him as he witnesses One-to-One. (Since she had heard him do this often, she will usually just stay for a few minutes then, like any other child, she goes off to play.)
Looks like you owe somebody $10.
keep going Ray.
God bless.
Cypress,
I'll take the last question first:
"So your position is that they should question evolution too?"
Yes. However, there is really no evidence to the contrary. We should present it so that they can be skeptical. For instance by presenting certain key hypotheses used by researchers that were based on predictions of evolution. There are several "transitional forms" that were predicted to the geological stratum that were predicted as being intermediate between two known forms. They were then found. One key test for evolution had to wait for the genomic era. Chimps and other primates have 47 chromosomes while humans have 46. Where was this extra chromosome? Higher mammals do not have the genome plasticity of say plants so this genetic material has to be accounted for or we are not related to primates. This was a key test, and the hypothesis was that two chromosomes fused. This makes very specific predictions because there are two regions at the tips of the chromosomes known as "telomeres" and one region at the center known as a "centromere" with signature sequences. When human chromosome 2 was sequenced as part of the Human Genome Project, this chromosome had one telomere on each end, two in the center and centromeres inbetween the set of telomeres in the center and the ones on the end. The sequence demonstrated conclusively that each half of the human chromosome 2 were separate homologous chromosomes in other primates. This even gave a mechanism-a Robertsonian translocation-for speciation. Absolutely, question the theory, but every time you do the evidence smacks you in the face that it is right. I encourage people to be skeptical of evolutionary, and indeed all theories, because scientists are and this is how we determine whether they are rigorous and correct.
"If you really wanted them to think critically, you would allow kids to hear both sides of the "God Hypothesis" (as you put it) and make their own decision. But that's not what you want at all is it?"
There is not much to teach because there is no evidence. There is no way to test this either because "god" is defined as being "outside of nature" so he might as well not exist. "Intelligent design" is incoherent nonsense that is logically flawed in its formulation, makes no predictions, has produced no data, and cannot conceivably obtain data. All we would tell kids, as pushed by the Discovery Institute would be a disclaimer: "Life is too complex to have been produced without design". Basically "something" did "something", "somewhere", "sometime", "somehow"....but we can't identify the designer or his methods. So how is this science? I am not presenting a strawman either, I have been reading ID lit for several years and have spoken with ID advocates. This is their current state. I'm not even going to touch on young earth creationism because this is just lunacy.
"But that's not what you want at all is it?"
Teach your kids about god at home, it does not belong in science because it is not science. Once we have some evidence we can consider teaching it.
Irrespective, life evolved whether god exists or not.
"They are human, and God is a God who just might have something to say about their existence (why, what and how). If they decide otherwise, then fine, they're responsible for their own actions, but lets give them evidence for both causes/reasons for being alive."
We do present them with a reason for being alive...it's called biology class. If you want to tell them that they are made in gods image at home, fine, they will have to reconcile this with reality..or not. Either way, our nation was founded with freedom of religion...which must also mean if we pay taxes for something there must be freedom "from" religion. If we teach the god hypothesis we will have to teach them about all sorts of gods because there is just as much evidence for each of them. Biology will become mythology.
"There is plenty of evidence that Jesus lived, died and was divine, not to mention all the evidence for the beginning of creation and life. Email me if you dare."
Yeah, in the gospels. Josephus was born in 37 AD so was not a contemporary and thus even if it wasn't exposed as a forgery, would only count for hearsay. You have any other evidence please present it. Shroud of Turin maybe?
"When has Ray or myself ever suggested that? I can't speak for every Christian speaker, and I've heard what you're talking about alot, but don't lump us all in there JM."
I've read it numerous times on this website.
Hey Ray,
Why did my question to the bloggers about "Being slain in the Spirit" go un-posted. Just curious mind you. Is this un-appropriate in some way?
Thanks
-SM
"As Christians, all basis of morality is dictated by God and His Word."
Assume humans wrote the Bible and god does not exist. Your statement becomes:
"As Christians, all basis of morality is dictated by humans and his word."
This is almost certainly the case.
For Everyone:
I didn't mean to cause such confusion with my post of the little girl being thrown into a burning building.
To F.F. (Nathan) -
Why do you have to confuse a simple question with plate glass windows, and cauterizing, etc.? What has that got to do with it? If it were your child being thrown into a burning building 'through a plate glass window', would you hold back from rescuing here, saying to others "I'm just waiting, in case she has wounds that need to be cauterized!"
And you call US stupid and ignorant?!?!? (imply, at least).
What I was trying to illustrate was pretty much the opposite. Wouldn't you consider the fact that the person who threw her is subject to punishment? Do you think that perhaps, if you catch this person before he throws the child, that you may want to tell him/her 'You're going to suffer some consequences.'
To think that you can't even grasp that simple analogy, or that you have to delude and confuse people by throwing in that plate glass factor shows that you really DON'T understand.
'Burning' and 'cauterizing', although both based on fire and heat are different. 'Burning' is used in a destructive sense in this case; 'cauterizing' would be a medical procedure.
And here's a question for you and other non-believers on this post: Why are 'free-thinkers' so prone to try to force others to only think like them?
And do 'free-thinkers' have meetings, seminars and blogs to discuss their ideas?
Think about it.
- L.
"And here's a question for you and other non-believers on this post: Why are 'free-thinkers' so prone to try to force others to only think like them?
And do 'free-thinkers' have meetings, seminars and blogs to discuss their ideas?"
The only difference is that "free-thinkers" are defined as people who demand evidence for propositions. It is we who expose charlatans who prey on people. You are being preyed on. It should trouble you that you invest your lives to these ideas...yet you have no evidence that they are true. You are then bombarded with fear tactics that tell you "believe or you will burn". All that I read on this blog is strict warnings about "what will happen to you after you die". The wonderful thing about religion-other than all the money taken in is tax-free-is that there can be no disillusionment; once you are dead thats it. People can't come back and tell you that this is false. The point is, don't you want evidence that it is true? All you have is a book. Are you telling me that humans couldn't have written a book? I keep hearing about "prophecies" being fullfilled. How hard would it be to confirm the predictions of a previous book? When you look at the prophecies and the evidence of their "fullfillment", the argument becomes extraordinarily weak. I will entertain ANY of them if you'd like. I haven't seen anything convincing yet. I think most of you have convinced yourselves because you are afraid of death and want to continue living on forever with loved ones. This doesn't make it true, as much as we might want it to be.
@jm_ridlon:
"There is not much to teach because there is no evidence. There is no way to test this either because "[G]od" is defined as being "outside of nature" so he might as well not exist. "
Or, God can be defined as being outside (beyond) human intellect, or outside the 'dimension' humans live. Or, outside the boundaries of your pitiful 'knowledge'.
Actually, we all have 'pitiful' knowledge if you consider we don't know everything there is to know, so please don't be offended by this, jm.
-L.
@jm_ridlon:
"Assume humans wrote the Bible and god does not exist. "
jm - that's your 'assumption'.
We believers 'presume' that you will go to hell if you don't believe in God.
- L.
Atheists-
What will you do if your child becomes a Christian?
Don't know which of you have kids, but hypothetically speaking...
:)
Thoughts on the Morality issue:
HERMENEUTICS!
- Historical Books
- Doctrinal Books..
Enough Said.
"Livingasonfreed
Why are 'free-thinkers' so prone to try to force others to only think like them?"
Because freedom of expression and of religion is closed down/unavailable/unexistent when it comes to Christianity.
Very true, Rita. Free thinkers want everyone (themselves) to think freely but don't want Christians to think for themselves. Very hypocritical.
@seedsowerjs:
So, the eight year-old girl hands out tracts to passers-by? It sure sounds to me like she's getting used. And as for the fact that she "chose" to do it . . . well, I strongly suspect that she made this "choice" because (a) like virtually all kids that age, she craves parental approval, and (b) she's been brainwashed into believing that if she doesn't want to spread God's word, if she'd rather stay home and play with her friends, she's a sinner and in imminent danger of going you-know-where.
(I'm not claiming that anybody said this to her in so many words, but given what I've read of this blog, I'm guessing she's being raised in an environment conducive to that sort of thought pattern.)
@ JM Ridlon
"However, there is really no evidence to the contrary."
So your position is that evolution is true absolutely and has NO problems with it?
"They were then found"
Name them and what they are transitional to and from.
"Chimps and other primates have 47 chromosomes while humans have 46."
This only proves similarity, not a common ancestor.
"Absolutely, question the theory, but every time you do the evidence smacks you in the face that it is right."
Ironically, that's how I feel about creation.
"There is not much to teach because there is no evidence."
You can say this over and over again but it doesn't make it true. And why don't you just say, "I don't believe it so that's why we shouldn't teach it." Cause that's what you mean.
" I have been reading ID lit for several years and have spoken with ID advocates. This is their current state."
There are many Ph.D's who disagree with this. The singularity and fine-tuning of the universe point to a creator with intelligence and purpose, not some diestic and unknowable entity. Wether you agree with it or not, it's a valid argument. To say otherwise is just dishonest.
"Once we have some evidence we can consider teaching it."
I have personally presented you with alot of arguments to the contrary. You wouldn't see any of it as evidence no matter how obvious it was. You'd read some naturalist scientist arguing in the opposite and agree with him, no matter how valid or invalid the logic.
"You have any other evidence please present it."
Challenge accepted. But you won't believe it's evidence no matter what I say but I'll try anyway.
The bottom line is JM, when it comes to teaching children, athiests are just as dogmatic as Christians. And they think they are just as right.
"Or, God can be defined as being outside (beyond) human intellect, or outside the 'dimension' humans live. Or, outside the boundaries of your pitiful 'knowledge'.
Actually, we all have 'pitiful' knowledge if you consider we don't know everything there is to know, so please don't be offended by this, jm."
Right, we can't possibly comprehend. Please, this is the worst response intended only to wiggle out of a corner you have been backed into. You base your entire life on what you think god will get mad at and yet you have no reason to even think he exists. Your entire basis for belief is fear. that is truly a sad state.
"jm - that's your 'assumption'.
We believers 'presume' that you will go to hell if you don't believe in God."
It is a valid assumption. Again, you have stated your key reason for this lifestyle you call Christianity, you are scared of death and more importantly you are scared to death of what a book and a bunch of apologists tell you will happen to you if you don't believe every word in it. Fear is your master, you are a slave to it. Evidence is a much better guiding light.
"Atheists-
What will you do if your child becomes a Christian?
Don't know which of you have kids, but hypothetically speaking..."
They are their own person.
@jm_ridlon:
"Fear is your master, you are a slave to it. Evidence is a much better guiding light."
I obey God's word out of fear,that is true. I don't consider it my master, more likely that I've mastered it, as I don't fear death.
We all do things out of fear. It's just that some of us face that fear and accept them.
Others don't want to face fear and deny that the consequences of their actions exists.
Moving on...
-L.
"However, there is really no evidence to the contrary."
So your position is that evolution is true absolutely and has NO problems with it?
"They were then found"
Name them and what they are transitional to and from.
Tiktaalik roseae...was discovered in a project that was specifically launched to find a predicted intermediate form between a distinctly fish-like organism, Panderichthys, and the distinctly tetrapod-like organisms, Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. From the review article by Ahlberg and Clack, we get this summary of Tiktaalik's importance:
First, it demonstrates the predictive capacity of palaeontology. The Nunavut field project had the express aim of finding an intermediate between Panderichthys and tetrapods, by searching in sediments from the most probable environment (rivers) and time (early Late Devonian). Second, Tiktaalik adds enormously to our understanding of the fish-tetrapod transition because of its position on the tree and the combination of characters it displays.
This was an excerpt from a scienceblog article entitled "Tiktaalik makes another gap" which you can search and see the evidence yourself.
Dinosaur-to-bird transitions are so well connected that there are NO morphological gaps anymore. They include:
Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba
Read the article entitled 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution which provides a referenced and thoroughly researched argument for reptile-mammal evolution among other things.
I could go on and on, particularly with humans. You have to work pretty hard not to know about this stuff when you ask the question.
""Chimps and other primates have 47 chromosomes while humans have 46."
This only proves similarity, not a common ancestor."
Actually, it does. These "homologous" chromosomes are clear indication, when taken in context of all organisms on earth, indicate that primates are our closest relatives. Indeed, we share many of the same pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses...this doesn't make sense unless we share common ancestry. You also failed to address the meat of my argument about chromosome 2. How does this make sense if designed?
"There are many Ph.D's who disagree with this. The singularity and fine-tuning of the universe point to a creator with intelligence and purpose, not some diestic and unknowable entity. Wether you agree with it or not, it's a valid argument. To say otherwise is just dishonest."
If you look at any of these "Ph.D's" who favor the intelligent design stance, you will notice that they aren't publishing any research...anywhere. The values of the constants are only evidence that the constants are at that value. I've heard the argument, "if you change this by 1/billionth, life wouldn't be here". Ok, maybe that is true. Or maybe life evolves to its environment and not the other way around. Almost all of these "PhD's" are using scientific language in a cynical manor in order to push a religious agenda. This is true of Dembski, Behe, Gish, et al. I will entertain any data or argument.
"I have personally presented you with alot of arguments to the contrary. You wouldn't see any of it as evidence no matter how obvious it was. You'd read some naturalist scientist arguing in the opposite and agree with him, no matter how valid or invalid the logic."
I'm not disagreeing with you because you are a Christian or agreeing with a "naturalist scientist" because they are such...I disagree with creationist claims because they are distortions of data and logic. You are forcing a conclusion of "god" based on complexity in nature. We know that emergent properties produce complexity and understand, in many cases how these properties work, but many still want to attach "god" where we already have a physical mechanism. The only places left for you to add "god" are places we just don't have answers for such as "how did the laws of the universe originate" or "how did life begin" or "what happened before the big bang". Adding "god" is not a scientific explanation, and further adds an even more difficult question: where did god come from? You then claim that he "has always existed" based on no data. You are simply labelling our ignorance "god".
"They are their own person."
Yes, but I asked what would YOU do?
Would you try to disuade them? Would you mock them? Would they be talked about behind their back? Would you think less of their intelligence?
Would you allow your child to attend church with a friend?
Just curious.
:)
JM Ridlon,
I want to challenge your comments about Evangelical Ph.D.s who are defending ID.
You put "Ph.D." in quotes as if they don't have actual Ph.Ds. I wish I didn't have to point out that this is disingenous. The leading lights of the ID movement are real Ph.D.s. Dembski has 2 doctorates--one from Chicago and one from UI. Johnson has his JD from Michigan, Budziszewski went to Yale, and Meyers has his doctorate from Cambridge.
Now, I'm not trying to compare Ph.Ds. I just want to make it clear that the ID leaders did go to real schools and many of them have tenured positions in academia.
There are, I think, two reasons why there has been little published on ID in peer reviewed scientific journals.
The first is that articles that have anything positive to say about ID are censored. Frankly, anything that smells of ID admiration is simply not permitted by the mainline. Secondly, evolution vs. ID is not properly a "scientific" debate. It is a philosophical debate over scientific issues. It is a debate about the status of naturalism and, really, people in the hard sciences have no business being in the debate. So the fact that the ideas relevant to ID are being published in philosophy journals is actually a point in its favor.
Johannes DeSilentio:
I'm slow. I don't understand your line about "It is a debate about the status of naturalism and, really, people in the hard sciences have no business being in the debate. Is ID science or philosophy? If it's philosophy, what are they doing in the hard sciences? And something I wonder about these leading lights of ID; why are they so dishonest? In public, in court, they say it's all about science and they are not saying who the Intelligent Designer is. In private, they say it's all about their Christian faith and their Biblical idea of God. What's up with that?
Rufus,
There is confusion about this issue because of what naturalists and people in the hard sciences (most of whom have no training in metaphysics) say about the nature of science.
The reigning view among scientists in the evolutionary establishments is that there is a single scientific method and things can only be scientifically known if they are produced by this method.
The problem is that there is clearly no single method. Science proceeds by method as much as it does by hunches, guesses, conclusions drawn from analogy, and rough anti-realist descriptions. Science is an inductive discipline and cannot be as cleanly differentiated from other disciplines as naturalists claim (and hope) that it can.
It is well understood that evolution/ID is a discussion under the purview of philosophy of science. So ID (and evolution) is "about" science and it is scientific (in that there can be, in principle, empirical evidence for design or evolution--that is, physical evidence that is consistent with either theory) but it neither is the product of some neutral scientific method. Both are grounded in underlying metaphysical notions.
I think that naturalism (the philosophical view behind atheistic evolution) and scientism (the epistemic view that precludes "non-scientific" disciplines from yeilding knowledge) are clearly false.
Whether ID proponents are disingenious may depend on who you're referring to. It is true that some ID advocates overemphasize the neutrality of ID toward theism, but it seems to clearly suggest theism though, strictly speaking, theism doesn't necessarily follow from design. Naturalism, however, is worse in that it precludes theism--it assumes atheism--without justification.
That's hardly the way to acquire an accurate view of nature. I mean, it's possible that God created the world. If so, why should that option be proscribed before the discussion begins?
Johannes DeSilentio:
Of course it's possible that there was a creator. But how do you know which creator it was? And how do you test that idea? What about Michael Behe's admission at the Dover trial that his criteria that makes ID a science also makes astrology a science? Is that what you mean by another method? Sometimes it seems as if everyone at the Discovery Institute is dishonest, but that can't be true. And Mr. Comfort says he has a book coming out titled Evolution: The Fairy Tale for Grown Ups, full of quotes. I can't wait to see it. I'm rambling. Sorry.
Hi Rufus,
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the comment by Behe that you're referring to.
While I don't know what he said, it is clear enough to philosophers of science (but not most scientists, unfortunately) that there is no single scientific method.
There are sound inductive methods, but no simple set of steps that are taken to construct a scientific theory. Many relevant factors are included. Moreover, evidence doesn't interpret itself. That's why two rational, intelligent, informed well-intentioned individuals can disagree on what the evidence for any particular thing indicates.
Some theories, for example, are preferred over others because they're mathematically elegant! Most proponentes of String Theory will say something to the effect that, "There's no empirical evidence for such a thing. I don't know what methods we'd use to discover such evidence. But it makes such mathematical sense that it must be true!" (I've actually heard a physicist say this.)
Mathematical evidence may be a good criteria in some circumstances, but I have no idea if it's good evidence for string theory. It all depends on how much you admire mathematical elegance.
Similarly, some aspects of probably true theories are clearly false. Take the physics of atoms, for example. One entailment of atomic theory is that if a moving atom crashes into a static atom, the momentum will be instantly transferred from the moving atom to the static atom. The moving atom will become static, instantly, and the static atom will move at the same rate as the one that moved it, instantly. That's a rather odd notion. It doesn't seem to be physically possible because in that instant both atoms would have to be simultaneously moving and not moving. Maybe we just swallow hard and accept this oddity or maybe we say, "The theory might be close but maybe there's something really wrong somewhere."
That's how these things go and many considerations become relevant. In the first example I cited, how we value certain aesthetic qualities actually comes into play and in the second our modal intuitions (which is a philosphical consideration) are relevant.
Yet both of these are scientific questions, aren't they?
Now if there is a God (and that's certainly possible) why are theological considerations not permitted? I mean, if he does exist it's more than possible that he has something to do with the provenance and physics of our world, it's quite likely.
So, for we who don't approach the world as atheists (and again, theism is at least possible) it would seem that making reference to theological postulates in science is not altogether verboten.
I have personally spoken with a number of Discovery Institute fellows. Let me assure you, they are not being dishonest. They are not trying to deceive anyone. Their reasons and conclusions are quite public and they are open to discussion and debate. Their views are presented in all earnestness and they encourage scholarly response. They may be utterly wrong, but you should consider that possibility that you don't fully understand these issues before you accuse them of lying. I don't say this with condescension. It's an important reminder for anyone when we encounter individuals that espouse ideas that we simply cannot fathom.
Mr Comfort food (the stuff fat people eat for quick fixes btw) does seem to have an infatuation for people that don't believe in his gods (yup, all three).
This bigotry seems to give him much delight and he loves entertaining the thoughts of bear mauling, millstone drowning and burning torture. Ahhh, that'll teach 'em not to bow to my beliefs.
Religion... what is it good for? (insert Bruce springsteen lyrics). From what I can see it instills the desire to see antagonists tortured and killed. God loves us unconditionally, but if we don't love him back he'll allow us to burn forever. It's no small wonder why atheists pwn all over the rantings of hell-bent mythologers.
Post a Comment