How wonderful it is to have the hand of the Lord with us, rather than against us. Until we find peace with God through the cross, His hand is certainly against us. His wrath abides on us (see John 3:36) and we are enemies of God in our minds because of our "wicked works." But the moment we come to the Savior, everything changes. We turn from the path of sin and begin a new walk--on the path of righteousness (see Psalm 23). We want to do that which is right and good and just.
Have you ever had the unpleasant experience of having to drive towards to the sun just before it sets? You can’t see anything clearly. Every speck of dirt and slight smudge becomes a glaring obstacle on the windshield. That’s what it is like just before we repent and trust in Jesus Christ. The light of God's Law shines on and exposes every dirty little sin. Like David (when he was caught in his sin), we say "For I acknowledge my transgressions, and my sin is always before me' (Psalm 51:3).
But think of how different it is to drive with the sun behind you in the early morning. Everything looks bright, clean and clear. That is what it is like after we turn away from sin through repentance and faith in Jesus. Everything becomes new and bright. We have a new heart with new desires. We want to run to God not away from Him. No longer is life and death some cosmic mystery. We know the truth and the truth makes us free. Everything becomes clear. We know why we were born, the purpose for our existence, the reason for death, and how to find everlasting life. Not only do we have peace with God, but we have the peace of God. No long are we an enemy of God, but we are His friend. All this can happened because Jesus Christ suffered for the sin of the world and rose from death on the third day, so that the hand of the Lord could be with us.
Monday, November 9, 2009
102 comments:
Ray you said :
But the moment we come to the Savior, everything changes. We turn from the path of sin and begin a new walk--on the path of righteousness (see Psalm 23). We want to do that which is right and good and just.
endquote
However Ray how does this fit with your continually misrepresenting of scienctists positions ? You have been continually corrected and you keep doing it.
How does it fit with your continual and repeated misrepresetation of atheist's positions ?
You were corrected and you keep doing it.
How does this fit Terry Burton and his continual lies?
Starbuck and his appararently imminent psychotic breakdown?
Or are you just going to explain it away as your desire to do good but you being human are unable to actually behave civilly to your fellow human beings ?
But think of how different it is to drive with the sun behind you in the early morning. Everything looks bright, clean and clear. That is what it is like after we turn away from sin through repentance and faith in Jesus.-Ray Comfort
Quite true. God quite literally reveals himself to you. Honestly, I have no idea how I got along without him. Evidently not very well. Even though most would have judge me to be a "decent person". I didn't hurt people, I wasn't a criminal. I didn't use drugs. I had a job. I worked and paid my taxes. But there was a big hole in my heart that began to hurt. I questioned everything, and got no answers. I felt empty and had nothing to contribute. And I knew why. I wanted God to be real. I needed God to be real. I wanted the Bible to be the truth. And it was and Jesus is God.
Atheists can marginalize me and any other Christian all they want. You can ridicule me, you can destroy me if you want. But it won't change a thing. You won't change my mind, you won't make evolution true. The only thing that might surprise you is that I might fight back. Or perhaps not.
I am not really sure at this point in life. Would I fight back? Or would I let you run me over?
Hmmmm...
This is why you are so bad at analogies they just don't make sense. in your light infront of you/ behind you comparison. The dirt is there either way it's just a question of seeing it.
So if you choose the savior the sin is still be there either way it's just God no longer sees it b/c you believe what other men said about his son, who was really him?
Can we have a analogy that actually works please
Good post. Really good post Ray.
It's not quite clear what you need Luke for, if instead of offering an exegesis of the text itself, you're just going to take a couple of verses at a time and use them as a pretext for posts on some other topic only distantly related to the topic of the actual verses.
Ray thank you for keeping your blog updated so often. I appreciate that.
Starbuck said "I wanted God to be real. I needed God to be real"
This says it all.
Iago and all:
Even if Ray is wrong in every one of his posts on science, he is still right about Jesus. And as important or even more, the Bible is right about Jesus.
Well Starbuck here is your answer...
matthew 5:
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
endquote
Seems like being a "real Christian" and fighting back are mutually exclusive.
And Ray thinking of the above passage. I did send you my address but you never sent me anything.
Starbuck said:
I wanted God to be real. I needed God to be real. I wanted the Bible to be the truth. And it was and Jesus is God.
And so for you, God is real. But your experiences don't transfer over to everyone. God is based on your needs and faith not external proof.
Atheists can marginalize me and any other Christian all they want.
Atheists are more interested in preventing you from turning the United States into a theocracy and forcing your beliefs on those who aren't interested.
You can ridicule me, you can destroy me if you want.
There goes the persecution complex again. You only get ridiculed when you invite ridicule. You have no problem dishing out the ridicule yourself. And no one is trying to destroy you.
But it won't change a thing. You won't change my mind,
I for one, don't want to change your mind about God and Jesus. Get you some psychiatric help maybe.
you won't make evolution true.
Evolution is true.
The only thing that might surprise you is that I might fight back. Or perhaps not.
I am not really sure at this point in life. Would I fight back? Or would I let you run me over?
Not surprised at all. Unfortunately. Religious fundamentalism tends to bring out the violent tendencies in people. As Iago said "Starbuck and his appararently imminent psychotic breakdown?" Was that prophetic or what? I wouldn't be surprised to see you on the evening news after you've gone on a rampage with a gun.
Hmmmm...
Wait What said...
"Can we have a[n] analogy that actually works please"
Ok, since you don't like this one why don't you try coming up with one?
Starbuck (rather worryingly) said,
"Atheists can marginalize me and any other Christian all they want. You can ridicule me, you can destroy me if you want. But it won't change a thing. You won't change my mind, you won't make evolution true. The only thing that might surprise you is that I might fight back. Or perhaps not.
I am not really sure at this point in life. Would I fight back? Or would I let you run me over?
Hmmmm..."
I've noticed it always seems to come down to talk of fighting and words that could easily be taken as veiled threats of violence with you. I really think you need to relax.
No atheist is trying to 'destroy you'. The atheists here seem to be, for the most part here to explain to you why Ray is lying to you. Admittedly there are a few such as myself who are here primarily to ridicule, or rather laugh and eat popcorn while you people ridicule yourselves. It's nothing to take as any kind of personal attack, personally I've just always had a fascination with extremes of irrational behaviour in humans and this place is like a goldmine to me.
All of this 'you can't win, you can't change my mind' talk is very telling. Here's a hint, you can change my mind. If you had any real evidence you could easily change my mind. If I'd made a conscious decision not to let my opponent change my mind there would be no point engaging in debate.
I really think your equating disagreement with attack and persecution is a very serious mental problem you really should look into. I really don't say that as an insult, I say it as someone who has spent far too much time lurking on Internet forums from white supremacy sites to UFO cult communities. One thing you see in a lot of these people is that they tend to believe they are constantly under attack from an outside group and see any disagreement as an attempt to destroy them or the abstract concept they have chosen to devote their lives to.
Maybe your ponderings of 'Would I fight back, hmmmm?' had nothing to do with violence and I'm just reading too much into this. I'm simply confused because I see nobody fighting you therefore no need for you to fight back.
Nobody is even trying to force you to believe anything you don't want to believe. All we're doing is pointing out that this one person is spreading falsehoods about another group and that you should look at the facts before blindly believing everything this person says. If you can't take that without turning to talk of fighting maybe you should ask yourself what you're really looking for here, the Lamb of God or a scapegoat.
Heh, not that it matters much, but my commute takes me right through Gary IN. Even with the light behind me, it is still a nasty, dirty, smelly place.
Still waiting on that evidence for the soul, Hell, and God. Take your time.
Starbuck said:
I questioned everything, and got no answers. I felt empty and had nothing to contribute. And I knew why. I wanted God to be real. I needed God to be real. I wanted the Bible to be truth. And it was and Jesus is God.
Atheists can marginalize me and any other Christian all they want. You can ridicule me, you can destroy me if you want. But it won't change a thing. You won't change my mind, you won't make evolution true. The only thing that might surprise you is that I might fight back. Or perhaps not.
I am not really sure at this point in life. Would I fight back? Or would I let you run me over?
My enthusiasm for empirical investigation of reality does not extend to making the experiment of trying to run you over, so I suppose I will never know.
I'm quite aware that I can't make evolution true; only reproduction, inheritance, mutation, natural selection and genetic drift can accomplish that. And after a few billion years, they've accomplished quite a bit of it, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. By the same token, your desire for the Bible to be the truth seems unlikely to be able to make it so.
I'm not quite sure why you so desperately want evolution to be false. You seem quite content with the Earth being a sphere and orbiting the sun, for all the problems one encounters reconciling those ideas to the literal words of Genesis and the other Old Testament books. And you've never quarrelled with modern meteorology, which attributes rain and drought not to God's sovereign decision to open or close the windows in the sky, but to purely physical processes operating in a purely natural way. You ought to be able to reconcile evolution to creation in the same way that you reconcile the TV weather report to the biblical statement that God sends the rain on the just and the unjust.
So little said with so many words.
Have you ever had the unpleasant experience of having to drive towards to the sun just before it sets? You can’t see anything clearly. Every speck of dirt and slight smudge becomes a glaring obstacle
Do you know what you've just described Ray? How Iago must feel everytime he tries to leave his willfully blind, skeptical caccoon and take a half-hearted stab at intellectual honesty.
Meh, if you're not going to listen to what you say, don't expect me to listen to what you say.
Don't quote the bible to a bunch of atheists. We don't accept the authority of what it says. You may as well be quoting passages from The Lord of the Rings for all the notice we take of it.
Well done Ray! As an English major I must pause to compliment you on finally writing an original, pleasing metaphor, as well as crafting a simple analogy that flows well and conveys understanding. I think you over did it a little bit toward the end but this is still a huge improvement over your usual writing.
(PS - There's a typo in the quoted passage. It should say "What kind of child will this be?" but it says "HAT kind of child will this be?" Amusing but obviously not what you meant to write.)
The main issue I take with this entry is that the feeling you describe is equiviliant to any kind of religious devotion or even non-religious devotions, such as science.
"Honestly, I have no idea how I got along without him. Evidently not very well. Even though most would have judge me to be a "decent person". I didn't hurt people, I wasn't a criminal. I didn't use drugs. I had a job. I worked and paid my taxes. But there was a big hole in my heart that began to hurt. I questioned everything, and got no answers. I felt empty and had nothing to contribute."
Starbuck, I'm no doctor but what you've described sounds like clinical depression. You're not alone, it's very common. And if believing in a God helps in some way, I won't begrudge you that belief. But chances are you could have gone the therapy, life-coaching even medicinal route and got the same results. Just saying.
"And I knew why. I wanted God to be real. I needed God to be real. I wanted the Bible to be the truth. And it was and Jesus is God."
Wanting something to be true does not make it true. Any child knows that.
"Atheists can marginalize me and any other Christian all they want. You can ridicule me, you can destroy me if you want. But it won't change a thing. You won't change my mind, you won't make evolution true."
OK, there's some agression here. I'm sensing your reading this blog is causing a bit of internal conflict. If so, don't read anymore. If your faith keeps you out of a deep dark hole, I don't want to take it away from you. MOst other atheists would agree.
"The only thing that might surprise you is that I might fight back. Or perhaps not."
That doesn't surprise me. You're starting to sound a little bit cuckoo.
"I am not really sure at this point in life. Would I fight back? Or would I let you run me over?
Hmmmm..."
Don't really know what to say. I felt sorry for you at the start of this post, but then it steadily slipped into madness.
You're more interesting than Terry.
Yes, I have had that unpleasant experience of looking at a windshield at sunset or sunrise.
The glare blinds you along with the blurry vision on the horizon.
I know what your driving at with being 'born again' in the spirit.
Repenting of our sins, putting our trust in Jesus Christ.
Baptism is a act of faith, as it represents the Savior's death, burial, and resurrection.
So many people confuse it with the 'sprinklings' in Catholicism. As you know, it is Not the same meaning. The Roman Catholic church will not save anyone.
The blood of Jesus Christ washes away the sins, and we become a new creation in Christ.
=================================
Reader, You can learn more about it at: NeedGOD website.
In His Love,
Terry Burton
WayoftheMasterMinute
Monday, November 9, 2009
'The Scales of Justice'
Unregenerate humanity is "found lacking" on the scales of God's Justice. Yet, to speak of any thought of Judgment Day is offensive to them.
They say within their sinful hearts, "God has forgotten: He hides His face; He will never see it"( Psalm 10:11)
But as surely as God is faithful to all His promises of blessing for the obedient, so is He faithful to His promise of justice for the disobedient.
He will fulfill His Word.
The Scriptures warn sinners that in accordance with their hardness and impenitent hearts, they are treasuring up for themselves wrath "in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each one according to his deeds ... to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness-indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil ..."(Romans 2:5-9)
There goes another minute.
Gone forever. Go share your faith while you still have time.
"Iago said...Well Starbuck here is your answer... matthew 5:
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
endquote
Seems like being a 'real Christian' and fighting back are mutually exclusive.
And Ray thinking of the above passage. I did send you my address but you never sent me anything."
Iago...my sincere appologies. It looks like it didn't get through. Could you try again? Write to Mark@livingwaters.com
Put in the subject line "Ray said to send this." Thanks.
Deaer Iago, you wrote:
"Seems like being a 'real Christian' and fighting back are mutually exclusive."
Not at all. I personally believe we are not now to take eye for eye and tooth for tooth, or to resist with fist or weapon any evil man, but we are to expose and reprove
sin and to cast down vain imaginations and thoughts which exalt themselves against God.
Ephesians 5:11
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
2 Corinthians:
3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
4( For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
Revenge? Yep, I'll spill all the blood I'm bidden to spill on this day:
Revelation 19:
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
Starbuck,
Is your faith dependent on evolution being false? Honest question.
Dear Michael,
The default response to a life outside of God's salvation is depression.
The unsaved who are not in depression to one degree or another are likely seared of heart and beyond possibility of change. At the least they are blinded to the truth and awaiting their divine appointment.
I add without fear of contradiction that your comments on Starbucks confession of faith are the sayings of an intellectual SNOB. That is not ad hominem it is simply true.
I love your testimony, Starbuck.
Vera
Steven
It's not quite clear what you need Luke for, if instead of offering an exegesis of the text itself, you're just going to take a couple of verses at a time and use them as a pretext for posts on some other topic only distantly related to the topic of the actual verses.
How is saying that the hand of the Lord is with us "improper exegesis?" I am really growing to hate that word. Anytime I talk to someone who wants to make their point seem superior to his opponent, he uses the word exegesis as though exegesis and his point are synonymous terms. IOW, if you disagree with the person, you aren't using "proper exegesis." That would be fine except you don't explain yourself at all. Give us an example or a counterargument. That and hermeneutics. Who comes up with this stuff?
Vera
"The Roman Catholic church will not save anyone."
I agree with Terry.
JD Curtis, what is with you obsession with me ? Do you like the name ? The skeptical attitude ? Do you want to be like me ? Do you want to actualy have an intelligent original thought in your head ? Or would you like me to tell you how many angels are dancing on your head ?
Hi Ray,
I made a suggestion on another post and I want to make sure it doesn't get lost. To recap - you have admitted that you have at times misrepresented the views of evolutionists. You even posted an apology about this a few days. And it's true that many people hear often feel that your views of evolution are based on a strawman.
I made the suggestion that it would be a good idea for you to critique one of the many good books on evolution. I suggested Donald Prothero's "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters". Somebody else suggested Neil Shubin's equally excellent "Your Inner Fish".
I think this is a great opportunity to directly critique an actual scientists writings about evolution. You could then publish your review on this blog (preferably a chapter-by-chapter review).
So far you haven't responded but I know you get a lot of comments.
I think if you're serious about the evolution debate and feel strongly that evolution is incorrect, this is an opportunity you would want to take advantage of.
Looking forward to your response.
Atheists say in their hearts “No God!” God is not in
all their thoughts. They have sublime thoughts of nature, but hate the One him who made nature. They think much of time, and sense, and of the things that are below; but as to Eternity and its realities. The things that are unseen and everlasting, these things the Atheist scarcely thinks upon. “Beware, ye that forget God.” The Atheist goes to the beach and to the mountains and has many wonderful thoughts about the beauty of creation. But they have vile and hateful thoughts toward their Creator. You want to go to Heaven, trust Jesus Christ's shed blood, you want to go to Hell, just trust something else.
http://jeff-mckennie.blogspot.com/
Starbuck... You're marginal. Anyway... I keep my windshield clean and wear sun glasses. Everything is beautiful no matter which direction I'm driving.
Ray,
Thank you for this method to finally ask these 3 questions and give you 3 more bits of ammo to fire. This question is for the atheists that respond to Ray.
Question1: What did the first organism eat? The question is simple. Science teaches us that organic life lives off of other organic material (either the waste, flesh or some byproduct of other living things). When the chemical soup got struck by electricity and created life, what did it eat as there was no other life previous to sustain it?
Question 2: What gave the first organism the coding to tell it to reproduce, eat and compete for survival? Science teaches us that nature passes down our instincts and habits through DNA. The first organism wouldn't have had the benefit of anything else to tell it it would die or need to eat or need to reproduce to continue on it's species. Science tells us that nature learns these things through competition and survival of the fittest. But with only one organism to start with, what did it compete with and why did it wish to survive? How did nature give these basic instincts before it learned of their necessity?
Question 3: Basic scientific theory tells us their can be no void or perfect vacuum. So how did all the matter of the universe make it to the center? The big bang is essential for current scientific theory. But science teaches us that if a void exists in space, matter will race to fill it. So how did all the matter get to the center in the first place and violate this law? If all of the matter got to the center, it would have created a huge vacuum/void in the all of the rest of space. The power of this void would have collapsed the very fabric of space and per many scientific theories created rifts and problems that would have inhibited the skillful execution of the big bang.
Please understand the depth behind the 3 questions before answering and thank you for your time.
Hi Ray. How about you skip ahead to Luke 6: 29-30?
Starbuck said:
"I wanted God to be real. I needed God to be real. I wanted the Bible to be the truth. And it was and Jesus is God."
There have been instances in the past of women married to paedophiles (that is the correct way to spell the word), and they knew about the abuse of their own children but chose to ignore it.
You are like a wife who knows that their partner is abusing their own child but you think if you ignore it it can't be true.
No one would like to admit that their partner was capable of such a disgusting thing but ignoring it makes them party to the activity. Ignoring it won't make it go away. I didn't want to admit I had no evidence for God, but I had to be honest, and so do you!
This goes for Ray as well; just admit you have no proof for God's existence, you can believe it all you like, you can mouth off as much as you like about God, just don't say you KNOW God exists when you don't. Or you should kick out that abusive spouse, and make the most of your life with out hiding behind your God.
David asked:
Question1: What did the first organism eat? The question is simple. Science teaches us that organic life lives off of other organic material (either the waste, flesh or some byproduct of other living things). When the chemical soup got struck by electricity and created life, what did it eat as there was no other life previous to sustain it?
Science teaches us that some living things are chemotrophs (literally, chemical eaters) that can survive by oxidizing nonbiological chemicals in their environments. Some of these are "autotrophs," needing no biochemical compounds that they cannot make themselves; others need biochemical compounds like sugars.
Recall that, as a matter of necessity, whatever chemical processes gave rise to life (current theories center around undersea vents, where lightning strikes are rather implausible and the necessary energy would be geothermal) would in the process have produced plenty of simple organic compounds: amino acids, sugars, phosphates, nucleic acids, etc. That is, after all, what the life is made of, and, unlike life, they seem pretty easy to synthesize. So quite possibly the first life survived by munching on the spare parts (non-biologically-formed organic molecules) of living cells manufactured in these undersea vents, and on other chemicals in the vents.
Question 2: What gave the first organism the coding to tell it to reproduce, eat and compete for survival? Science teaches us that nature passes down our instincts and habits through DNA. The first organism wouldn't have had the benefit of anything else to tell it it would die or need to eat or need to reproduce to continue on it's species. Science tells us that nature learns these things through competition and survival of the fittest. But with only one organism to start with, what did it compete with and why did it wish to survive? How did nature give these basic instincts before it learned of their necessity?
Even single strands of RNA can "compete" for components and replicate themselves. They are driven by physics and chemistry, not instincts. Being able to reproduce is central to any definition of life, and self-replication probably emerged before actual cells and distinct organisms. Note that a replicator can "compete" with copies of itself: other species are not needed (they arise as mutants arise that can make a living in new ways or new places).
Question 3: Basic scientific theory tells us their can be no void or perfect vacuum. So how did all the matter of the universe make it to the center? The big bang is essential for current scientific theory. But science teaches us that if a void exists in space, matter will race to fill it. So how did all the matter get to the center in the first place and violate this law? If all of the matter got to the center, it would have created a huge vacuum/void in the all of the rest of space. The power of this void would have collapsed the very fabric of space and per many scientific theories created rifts and problems that would have inhibited the skillful execution of the big bang.
First, the Big Bang is central to modern cosmology; it's pretty irrelevant to abiogenesis or evolution. Abiogenesis doesn't depend on where the universe came from, or even where Earth came from; evolution doesn't even depend on how abiogenesis took place.
Second, the Big Bang, despite the name, doesn't refer to matter expanding into space, as in an explosion; the contents of the universe have always filled the universe, but originally the universe itself was very, very small: there was almost no space for all that (extremely hot, extremely dense) "stuff" (at those temperatures it would not have been made of particles of matter as we know it) to be stuffed into.
Verandoug replied to me:
It's not quite clear what you need Luke for, if instead of offering an exegesis of the text itself, you're just going to take a couple of verses at a time and use them as a pretext for posts on some other topic only distantly related to the topic of the actual verses.
How is saying that the hand of the Lord is with us "improper exegesis?"
Because the text isn't about the hand of the Lord being with us, it's about the hand of the Lord being with John the Baptist, the son of Zebedee. I am not saying that the Bible nowhere teaches that the hand of the Lord is with believers generally; I am only pointing out that this hardly seems to be the point of these verses.
I am really growing to hate that word.
Remember: when you hate a good English word, that's the same as murdering the English language in your heart.
Anytime I talk to someone who wants to make their point seem superior to his opponent, he uses the word exegesis as though exegesis and his point are synonymous terms. IOW, if you disagree with the person, you aren't using "proper exegesis."
I'm not demanding proper exegesis; I'd settle for any exegesis of the actual passage. I didn't complain that Ray's commentary was wrong; I just noted that it was at best very tenuously connected to the passage it was supposedly a commentary on. It's as if you asked me to explain how speciation was supposed to work, and I gave you an essay on the internal combustion engine.
That would be fine except you don't explain yourself at all. Give us an example or a counterargument. That and hermeneutics. Who comes up with this stuff?
They're perfectly good English words of long standing: "exegesis" is an attempt to recover what the author meant when he wrote the passage, and "hermeneutics" is an attempt to apply the passage's lessons to the lives of listeners today. I just have this quirk: I think that if you promise a commentary on a passage, you should exegete that passage and draw lessons from it, not from some other passage or passages entirely.
JD Curtis...
When mocking someone's intellectual honesty, it helps if you spell cocoon correctly. Why do you hate him so much?
I am not really sure at this point in life. Would I fight back? Or would I let you run me over?
If you let someone run you over, you'll get to be with Jesus that much sooner.
Even if Ray is wrong in every one of his posts on science, he is still right about Jesus.
Not according to every other religious leader who disagrees with him...
If we cannot see the dirt on the window, how will we know where to clean the car?
-We know why we were born, the purpose for our existence, the reason for death, and how to find everlasting life.-
What if i don't want everlasting life. Sounds terribly dull. What if I don't think much to the "purpose" forced upon me? Can I choose a different one or am I just a prisoner to my gilded purpose?
-The cake is a lie said "Admittedly there are a few such as myself who are here primarily to ridicule, or rather laugh and eat popcorn while you people ridicule yourselves."-
I am here to poke Ray's theology....and steal your popcorn.
Ok, since you don't like this one why don't you try coming up with one?
Why so angry Peter? And why would you want an unbeliever to come up with an analogy? I doubt it would help your cause.
Anyway.... The way I see it, Starbuck was kneeling in the corner of his Grandma's kitchen, hunched over squinting and clenching and repeating over and over; "It has to be true, it has to be true, it has to be true, etc...."
When all of a sudden he remembers that he left the loaded handgun he was going to use to shoot Richard Dawkins with, was sitting in the playroom along with seven toddlers. He runs into the playroom, grabs the gun and declares it a sign from God. God saved all those kids to show Starbuck that he was real...
Starbuck starts witnessing to others about his miraculous conversion and is picked up by the FBI for conspiracy to murder...
Ray...
It's time for you to to curb the Terry again.
Off topic, and has been said before, but please take down the picture of Einstein. It is more distressing than you can possibly realize to see such a brilliant and principled man used for such vile ends.
Revenge? Yep, I'll spill all the blood I'm bidden to spill on this day:
Watch out folks. We have another bedrock crazy on our hands. Willing to "spill blood" to appease the inner voices in his head. And he's a drummer, no less.
These willing, blood thirsty creeps who get their instructions through an old piece of fiction are more worrisome than the Ted Bundys and Jeff Dahmers of the world. You never know when a specific verse will trigger that "inner" voice that tells them to seek out the one called Iago and cut off his head for Jesus...
Thanks for showing your true colors...
The default response to a life outside of God's salvation is depression.
What would you know. You're a drummer who writes awful third grade poetry about lambs....
"I step down from the throne my heart has claimed,
I smash down the idols I have raised,
I declare Your death, I immerse my soul
In all Your faith and promise of Your glory and Your Life.
You are meek and lowly in heart, I put You on,
O clothe me, Your servant, in Your righteousness,
Teach me Your Way, let me ever live for You."
Reminds me of the joke about the last thing a drummer says to his band... "Hey guys, I just wrote a song...."
The unsaved who are not in depression to one degree or another are likely seared of heart and beyond possibility of change. At the least they are blinded to the truth and awaiting their divine appointment.
Again... You're a drummer with a web page that rivals Terry for insanity. Maybe you two should get married.
I add without fear of contradiction that your comments on Starbucks confession of faith are the sayings of an intellectual SNOB. That is not ad hominem it is simply true.
Why is it that one has to become willfully dense to accept the Lord? You should have stated; "I add with willful ignorance and super heated hubris..."
You are a real dork, and probably are as bad at drumming as you are at writing hack love songs to your lamb.
Iago...
I think JD is sweet on you, but he's going through an emotional moment as he weighs the benefits of coming out and on to you against eternal damnation....
Please understand the depth behind the 3 questions before answering and thank you for your time.
As I see it the depth behind your questions is so minuscule as to be unmeasurable. You are a dunce. I'm sure someone will bite, but it's not going to be me.
I don't know exactly how life began. I don't really care. It doesn't affect me. However, crazies with blood lust on their mind like Starbuck and David the duhrummer, scare me. What do you think about that?
Here are three questions for you.
Why does your mythology so closely resemble the solar myths of so many religions that came before yours?
Why does your mythology so closely resemble the solar myths of so many religions that came before yours?
Why does your mythology so closely resemble the solar myths of so many religions that came before yours?
-David said..-
1) What did the first organism eat? It would probably "eat" the same things it was made of. It didn't appear in a vacuum.
2)What gave the first organism the coding to tell it to reproduce, eat and compete for survival?
Chemicals string together sometimes. The fact that certain string combinations cause copying is hardly magical given the way amino-acids work. The best copying patterns will continue on and on. No "eating" is required at this point.
3) So how did all the matter of the universe make it to the center? Gravity probably.
These are mostly speculation, my point is that none of this is particularly impossible which is really what you are trying to prove. All you have really shown is that you don't have much imagination, or understanding of what fantastic things can happen under the basic laws of physics and chemistry.
Apologies to Starbuck for the out-of-place comment that I have now deleted DELETED, I got you mixed up with Ethan.
Here is the revised comment:
Starbuck complained:
"Atheists can marginalize me and any other Christian all they want. You can ridicule me, you can destroy me if you want. But it won't change a thing. You won't change my mind, you won't make evolution true."
Yeah I'm strapping you down in front of the PC and forcing you to read my responses to Ray's nonrepresentational claims about my beliefs.
You are also being forced to read the replies to creationists who have questions about evolution.
So yes, my sympathy for this torture that you endure is boundless. You poor, poor victimized soul. I cannot express my admiration that you refuse to hurt atheists in return. It would be so easy to get out there and TEACH them ALL a lesson, wouldn't it?
Dave AKA lambsey wrote:
A big pile of vengeance. And this nugget:
"Revenge? Yep, I'll spill all the blood I'm bidden to spill on this day:"
If you take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, what is your prescribed 'revenge' on people who don't follow your religion or believe in your deity?
You have strengthened my opinion that your religion is largely a revenge fantasy cult that seeks to 'punish' fellow humans, those that you label 'non-believers' by marking them as 'the enemy', marking them as 'wicked', as 'fools', as 'evil'.
See also Islam.
@Dave aka lambsev: Don't all those verses from Revelations make you feel good? Knowing all of us nasty atheists will get our payback in the end? Excites ya, doesn't it?
So am I the only one who remembers Starbuck admitting that he's been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic? Did I imagine this, or did everyone else just forget?
Starbuck: Calm down, sweetheart. None of us nasty atheists want to hurt you. Just relax, find a hobby, and if this blog gets you riled up, don't read it. Oh, and it might not be a bad idea to get back on the meds. They work. Just give 'em a chance.
'atheist Memory Verse'
for 11/10/09
John 3:36 (Amplified Bible)
"36 And he who believes in (has faith in, clings to, relies on) the Son has (now possesses) eternal life.
But whoever disobeys (is unbelieving toward, refuses to trust in, disregards, is not subject to) the Son will never see (experience) life, but [instead] the wrath of God abides on him.
[GOD's displeasure remains on him; His indignation hangs over him continually.]"
Fear Him who has the power to cast you into Hell. Food for thought!
In His Love,
Terry Burton
*Free mp3 downloads on my profile webpage.
"The big bang is essential for current scientific theory"
"We think"
"We speculate that...."
"Possibly"
"Probably"
"Most probably"
"It could be that...."
"Maybe"
Rufus, are you taking your meds from VA Medical?
you said "How about you skip ahead to Luke 6: 29-30?"
27 “But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you.
29 To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. 30 Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back.
31 And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise. "
What is your point? Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron operate a Non-profit ministry to the general public. No one is excluded.
Ray and Kirk have given so much money to charities, the atheists, and so many worhty causes.
The accounting books are open for viewing during normal business hours, M-F.
In fact, you have a library of books, compliments of Ray Comfort!
You should be "thanking" the Man instead of making loose accusations. For shame Rufus!
We realize you are a wounded veteran, and wish you a speedy recovery! Sincerely.
As a fellow veteran, I say "Thank You" for your service, and I pray that GOD will have mercy on your soul when Judgement Day comes.
Praying for you Rufus and the other atheists. Semper Fi!
God Bless!
NeedGOD website is a great way to make your way back, to GOD and His Son Jesus Christ!
In His Love,
Terry Burton
JD Curtis said...
Have you ever had the unpleasant experience of having to drive towards to the sun just before it sets? You can’t see anything clearly. Every speck of dirt and slight smudge becomes a glaring obstacle
Do you know what you've just described Ray? How Iago must feel everytime he tries to leave his willfully blind, skeptical caccoon and take a half-hearted stab at intellectual honesty.
Seriously what is your problem with Iago? He asks perfectly reasonable questions and is ignored over and over again and you see this as justification to attack him and claim he is not being "interllectually honest".
Maybe if you actually tried to answer some of the questions he raises then he would stop asking them? Or maybe you know you can't and that is why you choose to attack him instead?
Just wondering.
Starbuck and his appararently imminent psychotic breakdown?
You are either marginalizing me, or you have no idea what you are talking about, or you are just a jerk.
Personally I figure you as being a jerk.
Now, why don't you stop telling lies about me and talk to us as a decent human.
I won't hold my breath.
Wait What said...
This is why you are so bad at analogies they just don't make sense. in your light infront of you/ behind you comparison. The dirt is there either way it's just a question of seeing it.
So if you choose the savior the sin is still be there either way it's just God no longer sees it b/c you believe what other men said about his son, who was really him?
Can we have a analogy that actually works please
The question of salvation has been answered more times then I can count. And yet you get the "I don't understand you because you are an idiot" line out everytime.
No you do this because you think Christ is a joke, and his followers should be ridiculed.
However, you are making yourself into a joke because you cannot comprehend what Ray is talking about. You claim high intelligence because you believe (BELIEVE) that evolution is true. You have no proof, you have no evidence. You have a pile of bones and other idiots coming up with theories.
All in the name of being able to reject God and not have to put up with that nagging doubt that he is real. So now you can sear your conscience so as not to be bothered with God.
But look, you are here. You haven't seared it enough yet. Kepp working on it, you will find it.
Maybe you only have to ridicule one more of God's servants one more time and you will be completely free. Maybe 2 huh?
Ryan Anderson said...
Starbuck said "I wanted God to be real. I needed God to be real"
This says it all.
What is wrong with that?
Iago said...
Well Starbuck here is your answer...
matthew 5:
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
endquote
Seems like being a "real Christian" and fighting back are mutually exclusive.
And Ray thinking of the above passage. I did send you my address but you never sent me anything.
You seemed to miss the part about Jesus telling his disciples to take a sword with them. And if they didn't have one to sell their cloak and to buy one.
The context was for self defense purposes, not military conquest.
yes I know, some people will twist it. But they are wrong as well.
David said...
Question1: What did the first organism eat? The question is simple. Science teaches us that organic life lives off of other organic material (either the waste, flesh or some byproduct of other living things). When the chemical soup got struck by electricity and created life, what did it eat as there was no other life previous to sustain it?
Ok I am going to assume you are being genuine, even though these are really basic school level questions, and so will try to answer them for you.
The first forms of life probably didn't eat anything in the way you imply. They probably got energy from the sun or in some other way. Even today plants get the majority of their energy directly from the sun.
Question 2: What gave the first organism the coding to tell it to reproduce, eat and compete for survival? Science teaches us that nature passes down our instincts and habits through DNA. The first organism wouldn't have had the benefit of anything else to tell it it would die or need to eat or need to reproduce to continue on it's species. Science tells us that nature learns these things through competition and survival of the fittest. But with only one organism to start with, what did it compete with and why did it wish to survive? How did nature give these basic instincts before it learned of their necessity?
I'm really not sure I understand the wording of this question. Life doesn't need someone to tell it to reproduce, eat etc. Life is pretty much defined as things that can reproduce themselves.
Self replication started long before it evolved to the leave of something that you would call "life". Things that didn't reproduce or eat in some way didn't survive. They didn't need to be told they had to die, dying is simply a fact of life.
As for what the first life competed with, well probably with clones of itself. When it replicated it would compete with those replications.
I've not answered that very well but as I said I didn't really understand your wording.
Question 3: Basic scientific theory tells us their can be no void or perfect vacuum. So how did all the matter of the universe make it to the center? The big bang is essential for current scientific theory. But science teaches us that if a void exists in space, matter will race to fill it. So how did all the matter get to the center in the first place and violate this law? If all of the matter got to the center, it would have created a huge vacuum/void in the all of the rest of space. The power of this void would have collapsed the very fabric of space and per many scientific theories created rifts and problems that would have inhibited the skillful execution of the big bang.
Ok this is a common misunderstanding. The big bang did not expand into space, it was an expansion OF space. There was no void for it to expand into, space and time itself expanded from the initial sigularity.
Please understand the depth behind the 3 questions before answering and thank you for your time.
I really think you need to spend a few minutes searching on the internet. These questions are in no way new and have been answered many times before. I'm sure others on this blog will answer them better than I have.
Milo said...
Starbuck said:
I wanted God to be real. I needed God to be real. I wanted the Bible to be the truth. And it was and Jesus is God.
And so for you, God is real. But your experiences don't transfer over to everyone. God is based on your needs and faith not external proof.
That is true. But if you don't seek God, he won't come and get you. Unless he has chosen you for a special purpose. Like the last Apostle - Paul.
Atheists can marginalize me and any other Christian all they want.
Atheists are more interested in preventing you from turning the United States into a theocracy and forcing your beliefs on those who aren't interested.
You know, I don't want the USA to be a theocracy either. But I also don't want it to be socialists (a different arguement...) I prefer the USA to be a constitutional republic. Like it was intended to be. I would resist the idea of no freedom of religion as well.
This country will not be a theorcracy, despite some people's efforts. Not enough of them. It can become a socialist state, like many of the european countries.
You can ridicule me, you can destroy me if you want.
There goes the persecution complex again. You only get ridiculed when you invite ridicule. You have no problem dishing out the ridicule yourself. And no one is trying to destroy you.
Not persecution. Ridicule isn't persecution. It is a form of dehumanizing so that the larger number of people will not take that persons arguements serioulsy.
Everyone uses this technique. I do as well. But I usually save it for when they start in on me... tit for tat.
But it won't change a thing. You won't change my mind,
I for one, don't want to change your mind about God and Jesus. Get you some psychiatric help maybe.
Thanks, but I don't need psychiatic help. I don't "play" with guns. I have a healthy respect for them. I never had any in the home until my kids grew up and moved out.
Oh by the way. All 3 of my boys became Christians and are very strong with it. And no I didn't force them. I let them make up their own minds. Much better that way.
So you have your work cut out for you.
you won't make evolution true.
Evolution is true.
Prove this assertion of yours. And no I won't go searching all over the internet, because I have tried. The proof isn't there. The proof is in your head and it is a deception.
The only thing that might surprise you is that I might fight back. Or perhaps not.
I am not really sure at this point in life. Would I fight back? Or would I let you run me over?
Not surprised at all. Unfortunately. Religious fundamentalism tends to bring out the violent tendencies in people. As Iago said "Starbuck and his appararently imminent psychotic breakdown?" Was that prophetic or what? I wouldn't be surprised to see you on the evening news after you've gone on a rampage with a gun.
There you go marginalizing someone again. So now you think you have diminished my effectiveness on the internet (atleast with this handle) in the debate forum.
Well, perhaps you have. And if you have I can always create a new handle.
For your information, I am not close to a psychotic breakdown. No where near it. I am quite stable, although I have a bad day once in a while. I have not turned my back on God and seared my conscience into a form of workable insanity.
But that is just me trying to feign ridicule.
So, if you are terrible affraid I am going to go on a shooting rampage, why aren't you turning me into the police, fbi, or homeland security?
The cake is a lie said...
I've noticed it always seems to come down to talk of fighting and words that could easily be taken as veiled threats of violence with you. I really think you need to relax.
From where I come from fighting in school always started out as back talking someone, then insults, then when someone can't take it anymore they stand up for themselves. At that time a fight always was the end result.
Now, who is the agressor here? From what I have seen, the atheists seem real bent on discrediting Ray and anyone else who believes in God. No matter if they argee with Ray or not. Just an observation.
No atheist is trying to 'destroy you'. The atheists here seem to be, for the most part here to explain to you why Ray is lying to you.
If Ray is lying, he isn't lying to me. I was a Christian long before I stumbled onto this website. I am sure Ray has been there many times when a person has been born again and accepted Jesus as our savior. Of that I have no doubt.
Admittedly there are a few such as myself who are here primarily to ridicule, or rather laugh and eat popcorn while you people ridicule yourselves. It's nothing to take as any kind of personal attack, personally I've just always had a fascination with extremes of irrational behaviour in humans and this place is like a goldmine to me.
Well, I am glad we could entertain you. I bet you would rethink that mental road if you found out God is for real.
And as for atheists not wanting to do harm? Get real. If this country turned to atheism, Christians in this country would learn what physical persecution is.
Couldn't happen you say?
Think about this... You know not all people are like you or the other atheists in this country. But like Russia, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba and several countries I don't even know of. There are extremeists. And extremeists want power. And power does come from "might makes right", atleast human fors of power.
In atheistic countries, Christians are persecuted unmercifully. (This isn't up for debate because you know it is true..) And in some places muslims are persecuted as well.
People have a tendency to surround themselves with people that agree with them, and attack people who disagree with them. Verbally, or physically. That is one of the human natures dark behaviors.
If a country came under a Christian theocracy, then atheists, muslims, hindus and anyone else who was NOT Christian would be persecuted. That is proven as well.
All humans are guilty. Not just one group of them.
OutlawGirl said...
Starbuck,
Is your faith dependent on evolution being false? Honest question.
No it doesn't. My faith is based upon God revealing himself to me. And upon hearing his word. And upon reading his word.
I must admit, I struggled with that when I first became a Christian. It wasn't easy to struggle with the doubts. But I had (HAD) a Grandmother who taught me through the years on faith. She wasn't a scholar, or a theologan, but she was a hard worker and God blessed her works. I am one of many of her results.
(Please, don't insult my Grandmother... She was one of a kind. And she made the best food... I will always LOVE her with all my heart. I still can't believe she is gone.)
Starbuck, I'm no doctor but what you've described sounds like clinical depression. You're not alone, it's very common. And if believing in a God helps in some way, I won't begrudge you that belief. But chances are you could have gone the therapy, life-coaching even medicinal route and got the same results. Just saying.
Really? Have you tried it? Those places are littered with many sad stories of peoples lives being trashed. And few good results. I finially walked away from those hacks. They don't even know they are ineffective.
Starbuck: "Maybe you only have to ridicule one more of God's servants one more time and you will be completely free. Maybe 2 huh?"
Maybe you only have to ridicule one more atheist before you will TRULY know The Lord, hmm?
Look, Starbuck, you and I both know that you have way too much anger and doubt in your heart to be a True Christian. You are a False Convert. You don't truly know The Lord, and you aren't truly Saved. You're fooling yourself, because you want Salvation so badly, but you are still in your sins, and you're in danger of going to Hell.
Repent, and follow Christ. And for real this time; no more lying to yourself and to The Lord. Remember: He knows when you're lying to Him in your heart.
I'll be praying for you.
Andy Duchemin said...
Starbuck said:
"I wanted God to be real. I needed God to be real. I wanted the Bible to be the truth. And it was and Jesus is God."
There have been instances in the past of women married to paedophiles (that is the correct way to spell the word), and they knew about the abuse of their own children but chose to ignore it.
You are like a wife who knows that their partner is abusing their own child but you think if you ignore it it can't be true.
No one would like to admit that their partner was capable of such a disgusting thing but ignoring it makes them party to the activity. Ignoring it won't make it go away. I didn't want to admit I had no evidence for God, but I had to be honest, and so do you!
This goes for Ray as well; just admit you have no proof for God's existence, you can believe it all you like, you can mouth off as much as you like about God, just don't say you KNOW God exists when you don't. Or you should kick out that abusive spouse, and make the most of your life with out hiding behind your God.
You are right. I cannot prove God's existence to you. God is the one that does that. But you have to seek him. Honestly seek him. He reveals to those who seek.
Seek and ye shall find. God doesn't owe you anything. You sinned against him. He offers salvation. You have heard of salvation. It is now up to YOU to seek God and find out if it is true.
That is all Ray is doing. He is trying to warn you. He has told you about salvation. He is not responsible to convince you. You are.
I'd actually reverse the sun's position in your metaphor, Ray.
If anythinig, the Judeo-Christian, as well as all the other religions of the world, is the sun in front of drivers, that blinds them to obscure the reality that surrounds them. It distorts their reality, makes everything harder to understand and causes disaster.
However, rational thinking and free thought represent the sun behind you, creating a clear picture so we can all have understanding and safety.
Here is a lesson, Ray. If I can take your analogy and swap some of the elements in it, or change them in my favor, and if my alteration wouldn't convince you, why would you expect anyone to be convinced of your analogy?
Think about it and you'll learn your lesson.
If it wouldn't convince you, don't say it unless you don't mind using weak arguments.
Harry, I'm not angry.
Starbuck said :
Now, why don't you stop telling lies about me and talk to us as a decent human.
endquote
So Starbuck how many of you are there ?
Seems like you are back sliding and need to take the meds again so you stop hearing the voices.
next thing you know you will be foaming at the mouth like Terry.
Or experiencing a fixation to me like JD Curtis.
Now all we need is Mark W. Laine and his evil demon that looked like Mussolini.
Starbuck, I would NEVER hurl a petty insult at your sweet grandmother. I've lost both of my grandmothers and I loved them as much as you loved her. I'm sorry you think I'd do that just because I'm an atheist.
I want to ask another question. Is your faith dependent on the inerrancy of the Bible?
Dave aka lambsev said, “The default response to a life outside of God's salvation is depression. The unsaved who are not in depression to one degree or another are likely seared of heart and beyond possibility of change. At the least they are blinded to the truth and awaiting their divine appointment.”
Total baloney. There’s not one shred of evidence to support any one of these arrogant self-righteous statements.
If you have neutral statistics that show depression is greater amongst non-believers, please share. Then I will present neutral evidence that the opposite is the case.
Personally as an ex-Christian, oh, excuse me, False Convert, I am far happier not trying to justify the worship of a God that would murder His own creation including innocent babies, savor the aroma of burning flesh, and create the most morally bankrupt concept ever, a place of eternal torment for those incapable of worshipping such a tyrant.
Starbuck, I didn't realise you were paranoid schizophrenic. I'm not here to laugh at you, I'm here to laugh at the hypocrites who cling parasitically to these tales to feed their own egos while ignoring the core messages the tales teach.
You really should understand that all of these visions you have of a violent takeover stem from your mental illness. I can provide you with many examples of famous paranoid schizophrenics who talk often of an imminent violent takeover of the country in which they live. They also think they're under constant attack from some group, be it the 'Commies' or the 'Scientologists' or the 'FBI'.
I could easily explain to you that these 'atheistic' regimes you mention were all based around different concepts and not driven solely by a lack of belief in God. Lumping all regimes not based around worship of the Christian God together is like lumping all regimes not based around Communism together. You'll find that non communists have done far more damage throughout history than communists.
You can't group people by beliefs they lack, you can only group them by positive beliefs they hold. If I do not hold the same positive beliefs as the people of those regimes I can hardly be lumped in with them. Would it be fair to talk about you and Hitler as one and the same since neither of you held the belief that Black Sabbath totally rock?
I know I won't change your mind, heck you've even told me so in those exact words. I'm not going to mock you though since you're mentally ill. I don't mean that in a dehumanising way. Some of the historical figures I respect and love the most have had diagnosed mental illnesses. I just want to tell you that these specific thoughts of an imminent violent atheistic takeover and violent persecution, they all stem from your ilness. Some of the things you say really are quite worrying.
You need to take some time away from this place. Whether Ray is sincere in his beliefs or not, he's hurting you. His stigmatizing of a group of people as 'the enemy' is feeding your paranoid tendencies. For your own safety and the safety of those around you it's very important that you realise Ray is peddling nothing but hateful propaganda here and it's not good for you. Take some time away from here. Seek help for your mental illness in any way you feel is right, stop thinking about 'the atheist' for a while and get some perspective.
@ Starbucks
There you go marginalizing someone again. So now you think you have diminished my effectiveness on the internet (atleast with this handle) in the debate forum.
Well, perhaps you have. And if you have I can always create a new handle.
I apologize if I marginalized you with my words. I found your comment about fighting back a not so veiled threat. Maybe I misunderstood you, but I went back and re-read your original comment and it still sounds paranoid. It was not my intention to diminish your effectiveness (whatever that means) here on this forum. My intention was to make you think about what you were saying. Relax, nobody is going to run you over. Maybe you need a break from this blog.
Starbuck said:
"You know, I don't want the USA to be a theocracy either. But I also don't want it to be socialists (a different arguement...)"
Starbuck, I hate to tell you but socialist isn't the opposite of theocratic, as the history of theocratic socialism attests (see early Mesopotamia)...
How do you feel about a secular constitution?
And what is the economic system that you consider to be most Christ-like?
Ray - When are you going to respond to the request that you review a modern book on evolution (e.g., Dawkins, Shubin, Prothero, Carroll,Coyne etc)?
Given that you have just written an introduction to Darwin's Origin, we know that this is within your ability to write such a review.
I think it's one thing to respond to a 150 year old book, but what we'd really like to see is how you would critique a modern book that reflects all of the findings and research since Darwin's day.
Again, you have apologised for properly representing the views of evolutionists. This is your opportunity to correct this with some actual action.
Please respond.
(What do other commenters think of this idea? Any other suggestions for books Ray should review?)
Raoul wrote: "If you take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, what is your prescribed 'revenge' on people who don't follow your religion or believe in your deity?
You have strengthened my opinion that your religion is largely a revenge fantasy cult that seeks to 'punish' fellow humans, those that you label 'non-believers' by marking them as 'the enemy', marking them as 'wicked', as 'fools', as 'evil'."
My opinion is that believers should not take part in the civil governments, nor in foriegn wars, not fistfights, gun fights knife fights fights period. It is a minority view in the North American church. BUT
When Jesus rides out of Heaven to judge the earth, I hope to be riding in the Army he leads. As we obey the gospel today but "not resisting evil (men)", in that day we will obey the Lord in His judgment. I'm not sure it will mean bloodywarfare, it may just mean terrifying the unsalvagable inhabitants of eart to death with Him and His appearing.
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
"@Dave aka lambsev: Don't all those verses from Revelations make you feel good? Knowing all of us nasty atheists will get our payback in the end? Excites ya, doesn't it?"
I'm excited to be on the side that goes to heaven and lives with the Messiah Creator Yeshua. But it is no pleasure to see the other side side lose. God is very High and exalted and His ways are strange. The first time I read Revelation I nearly poohed in my pants. But as God has continued to rear me as His child and perhaps even now as His young man, the thought of vengance is not so troublesome. Vengance does belong to the Lord, and it is His right to take it when, where and from whom He will. If he wants to make me instrument of His JUST vengance I dare not disobey. Will your blood and death be on my hands? No, for you have been warned by me of the wrath to come against the unrepentant. Your opportunity is now, and is the same as mine: to obey God's gospel and live. Does you demise excite me? I try to avoid sin, and I am not holier than thou. Jesus in my heart is holier than thou, but not I. But for the grace of God, someone might be spilling your blood and mine on the same ground and day.
A visitor to the blog-site of a ministry, whose purpose is to publish the message of salvaton that is in the bible, actually said this...
"Don't quote the bible to a bunch of atheists. We don't accept the authority of what it says. You may as well be quoting passages from The Lord of the Rings for all the notice we take of it."
Well, ignoring that plea, and being "not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes..."(Rom. 1:16), I can only say to the spokes-person for "a bunch of atheists" that we are well aware that our message will be rejected by most. That is how it has been from the start.
St. Paul, though having apostolic authority, and commissioned by Christ to preach the word, found that "Some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not". (Acts 28:24)
We trust God who said, "...My word which goes forth from My mouth...will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire." (Isa 55:11)
Believing that Jesus alone has the power to save, and that he is pleased to use the words that we speak from the scriptures, we point people to Christ crucified, and tell them of God's promise that those who trust in Jesus will be forgiven of their sins and have life that never ends.
Jesus said, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." (John 6:37)
NASB
Craig B
Dear Harry Reasonable,
Did you know that Ted Bundy repented and was saved in prison? I heard his testimony myself on tape. Jeffery Dahmer is said to have been saved too, and even the Son of Sam David Berkowitz. God delights in saving the basest sorts, I ough to know I was very base myself.
1 Corinthians 1:27-29
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
Thanks for visiting my blogs. Do you know what a tabret is?
31 For through the voice of the LORD shall the Assyrian be beaten down, which smote with a rod.
32 And in every place where the grounded staff shall pass, which the LORD shall lay upon him, it shall be with tabrets and harps: and in battles of shaking will he fight with it.
33 For Tophet is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared; he hath made it deep and large: the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the LORD, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it. Isaiah 30
Starbuck said: "You are right. I cannot prove God's existence to you. God is the one that does that. But you have to seek him. Honestly seek him. He reveals to those who seek."
The one who said "attutude is everything" said a mouthful. The Bible says "as a man thinks so he is."
I lament this: that the truth, the absolute truth is not comprehensible to the atheists, nor it seems to the evolutionists. They have been steeped in moral relativity which rejects truth entirely. That is why proofs, be they proofs of God or of science always elude their grasp. Proof and truth are nearly synonyms. Proof, final proof require that that proof be true, the truth and nothing but the truth. Without the acknowledgment of truth, of final absolute truth can a man be honest?
Moral relativity makes no room for truth or proof and a final judgment is impossible, therefore no decisions made can be binding. It is simply a roaring chaos. Like the oceans which never stops moving, yet never goes past its limits, man without God can never rest, never have peace, nor will he ever exceed the limits placed on him by God. Wars are fought, governments rise, they are corrupted and fall. They will never adhere to the truth, and the change sought today will be thrown down tomorrow.
I thank God for the love affair with truth he gave me at an early age. I found out later that the truth was a person: Yeshua (Jesus). It is no wonder that truth is so lovely. Truth is the strongest thing and the strongest man, and the greater strong One: the great I AM. Secure forever in His eternally self-existing Being He is able to save and secure for ever those who humble them selves and learn to Love His Way. He is the Way also and the Life.
If man believes in no certainty, no proof, no truth, no absolute, no God, his life goes into moral dissolution.
Harry, I'm not angry.
Sorry Pete. It was your choice of words. I used to get flak all the time for harsh emails. It didn't sound like your normal writing style.
Dave...
Just like Jeffy, Teddy and Dave, you are a false convert.
I can smell them a mile away. Even over the internets....
Starbuck here the the pertinant verse from Luke Chapter 22:
36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
37For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
endquote
In it Jesus is indicating that he needs to be found among transgressors to fulfill prophecy.
Nothing in there about self defense.
Don't yoou get tired of being so very wrong all the time and having an atheist point out things in your holy book ?
Dave B has left a new comment on the post "66 And all those who heard them kept them in their...":
Dave aka lambsev said, “The default response to a life outside of God's salvation is depression. The unsaved who are not in depression to one degree or another are likely seared of heart and beyond possibility of change. At the least they are blinded to the truth and awaiting their divine appointment.”
Total baloney. There’s not one shred of evidence to support any one of these arrogant self-righteous statements.
Dear Dave B, The evidence is in the Bible. I guess your peers won't review the Bible, so sorry it is not an approved book for you. (I do my own approving and disapproving too presups you know) If the wrongdoing of other toward you, your neighbor, your nation or mankind does not disturb you and depress you, I guess nothing will, not even your own wrong doing.
I want to ask a question of all the atheists: Has any one of you ever done anything wrong?
dave aka lambsev:
If he wants to make me instrument of His JUST vengance I dare not disobey.
endquote
Well at least since you will have messed youself in excitement before hand we will be able to tell that you are around.
Ray you do seem to be attracting the pyschos lately.
As a fellow veteran, I say "Thank You" for your service, and I pray that GOD will have mercy on your soul when Judgement Day comes.
Please explain why your claim of being a veteran should be believed given that you are a demonstrable serial liar.
You are right. I cannot prove God's existence to you. God is the one that does that. But you have to seek him. Honestly seek him. He reveals to those who seek.
Seek and ye shall find. God doesn't owe you anything. You sinned against him. He offers salvation. You have heard of salvation. It is now up to YOU to seek God and find out if it is true.
Are you able to reference any evidence in support of these assertions?
First I would like to thank RabbitPirate and Steven J. for trying to answer my 3 questions. I truly appreciate the effort. In both cases I feel you both missed the mark though and so I thought I would generically respond and give you the opportunity to improve the answers if you'd like. Answering RabbitPirate, I am serious and these questions are not elementary. They tug at the ways that science argues with itself. it is important to not dismiss these questions out of hand. If you truly wish to believe in A. Evolution and B. the big bang then you must have a grasp of what you are believing in.
On question 1, you both basically stated sunlight and or spare chemicals in the soup. What we fail to explain here is mechanism and desire. This life needed to eat...why? Why did it reach out to the spare part and eat and why and how did it have the necessary parts to accept sunlight and convert it to energy. it did not eat sunlight but only synthesized chemicals using it's energy...but again, without knowing the makeup of the first organism we can only assume this. That makes this an unprovable theory. I'm not even suggesting you are wrong, I'm only suggesting you do not know but are only guessing. Moreover, you are guessing at something occuring that is beyond the same chance as winning the lottery.
Question 2: You either said you didn't exactly know or that it just exists. Science tells us that everything is learned behavior. nature fails, learns and replicates by passing on that knowledge through DNA...that is the core of evolution. You've answered that it exists...I agree. Our DNA has these lessons in them. But this is the Chicken and the Egg argument. That lesson could not have been implanted without a lesson learned. But that lesson is death and death would break the learning chain immediately. How did it learn this? If you can not honestly answer that it learned and how it learned then you can not honestly say that all things learn through DNA and that is how things evolve.
Question 3: Basically you both said, the big bang was an expansion of space, not into space. What is on the other side of Space then? The answer is a void or there would be nothing for Space to expand into. This violates this scientific law. There can be no void. This question is the most difficult connundrum. Try to answer it beyond what you've been instructed. Answering that there was nothing outside of space and it just expanded into the nothing is the same as a pastor on Sunday saying to his congregation, "Because I'm a man of God and I know". Both are silly. There has to be something outside of space. Space could not expand into nothing because nothing is a void and per scientific law there can be no vacuum, no void, no absolute nothing. The universe would then have had to push something else out of the way to expand. If so, why can we not see this other thing...what is it expanding against? The universe can not be super small and then expand without there being a space to fill. It has a size and if that size was once smaller, what was in that size that it now fills?
David replied to RabbitPirate and me:
On question 1, you both basically stated sunlight and or spare chemicals in the soup. What we fail to explain here is mechanism and desire. This life needed to eat...why?
Science tells us that everything is learned behavior. nature fails, learns and replicates by passing on that knowledge through DNA...that is the core of evolution. You've answered that it exists...I agree. Our DNA has these lessons in them. But this is the Chicken and the Egg argument. That lesson could not have been implanted without a lesson learned.
Science does not tell us many of the things you preface with the phrase "science tells us." Not everything is learned behavior. Not everything is a choice. Not every living thing has or needs desires. In the lab, given the right chemicals and the right conditions, RNA spontaneously self-organizes, even though the right chemicals don't initially include any of the nucleotides and sugars in RNA. The molecules don't "learn" to combine in certain ways, nor do they decide to: they just do, behaving according to their chemical nature.
If you happen upon the right sequence of RNA, the RNA will spontaneously make new copies of itself. Again, it doesn't learn to do this or decide to do it: chemistry and physics, not learning or deciding, cause this to happen. Even a bacterium seems very unlikely to have anything resembling a real desire: it metabolizes and takes in nutrients for purely mechanical, chemical reasons.
Now, here's a funny thing about replicators (like bacteria or those special RNA sequences): they make copies of themselves. Sometimes the copies have bad mutations or bad luck, and die. But other copies, with better genes or better luck, survive. Death happens to individuals; evolution (and increasing fitness for the environment) happen to the entire population.
That makes this an unprovable theory. I'm not even suggesting you are wrong, I'm only suggesting you do not know but are only guessing. Moreover, you are guessing at something occuring that is beyond the same chance as winning the lottery.
We're pointing out that there are answers to what you apparently regard as an insurmoutable "chicken-and-egg" problem. The general form of the answers is obvious, if you actually know anything about biology. The details are unknown (which means, of course, that you cannot know that the odds are "beyond the same chance as winning the lottery;" how can you calculate the odds of an unknown process producing a given sort of result?)
David replied to RabbitPirate and me:
Question 3: Basically you both said, the big bang was an expansion of space, not into space. What is on the other side of Space then? The answer is a void or there would be nothing for Space to expand into. This violates this scientific law. There can be no void. This question is the most difficult connundrum. Try to answer it beyond what you've been instructed. Answering that there was nothing outside of space and it just expanded into the nothing is the same as a pastor on Sunday saying to his congregation, "Because I'm a man of God and I know". Both are silly. There has to be something outside of space. Space could not expand into nothing because nothing is a void and per scientific law there can be no vacuum, no void, no absolute nothing.
Thousands of physicists disagree with you.
Why does there have to be something outside of space? What can "outside of space" even possibly mean?
If you like, you could think of the Big Bang as a change in the properties of space: it suddenly became a whole lot roomier. You're trying to apply your intuition to a problem that your intuition didn't evolve to deal with, and you're thinking of space as being like a balloon inflating in some huge room, and thinking that the universe has to be like that.
But in point of fact, there's nothing in mathematics or known physics that says the universe has to be like that, no reason that space has to expand into anything. There can just be a finite amount of space in the universe, and that finite amount of space can grow, and it doesn't need to even have an outside that anything could be on. Space can be curved without any sort of higher space to curve in: "curvature" is just a property of the laws of physics in certain parts of the universe. The expanding balloon (which expands into a larger space) is just a model that captures some but not all of the properties of expanding space.
Remember that much of modern physics is nerve-wrackingly counter-intuitive. It's been said that if quantum physics doesn't strike you, the first time you're introduced to it, as deeply weird, you didn't understand it. Even relativity contains many affronts to common sense. Science sometimes teaches us that common sense is untrustworthy and wrong.
Dimensio said...
You are right. I cannot prove God's existence to you. God is the one that does that. But you have to seek him. Honestly seek him. He reveals to those who seek.
Seek and ye shall find. God doesn't owe you anything. You sinned against him. He offers salvation. You have heard of salvation. It is now up to YOU to seek God and find out if it is true.
Are you able to reference any evidence in support of these assertions?
Are you able to demonstrate that you have the mental or spiritual ability to recognize the evidence that does support the above facts? If not, your question, as usual, is disingenuous and you’re still a demonstrable fraud.
Your blog is very informative and very helpful. Thanks for this.
Web development
After answering David's questions I can only say "David, please come back with the goal posts.".
You asked what the first creature ate, not why it ate. When we pointed out what it "could" eat you then said that we couldn't prove it therefore you win. Trust me. you don't.
-Moreover, you are guessing at something occuring that is beyond the same chance as winning the lottery.-
You mean that thing which happens about twice a week in England?
@Ethan
Since according to the most common interpretation of Romans 1 all atheists know that there is a God. And since it is a precept of the Christian faith or at least most sects that the false believers and non believers can be brought to Christ Dimensios ability to comprehend the evidence of God should any ever be presented is implicit in the Christian religion.
Therefore his inability to do so would falsify your particular mythos. There are certain brands of Christianity which believe that God has chosen in advance who will and will not be saved and in such a system a reasonable theological case could be made that those who are not chosen have not been given the capacity to understand the things put forth in the mythological texts. However since this would apply only to those chosen not to be save why reach out to them. Witnessing is meaningless if the outcome is predetermined.
So either Dimensio implicitly has the capacity you are requesting he demonstrate and you are wasting your time asking or your deity has chosen him for damnation in which case you are wasting your time reaching out with the gospel at all.
Steven
I just have this quirk: I think that if you promise a commentary on a passage, you should exegete that passage and draw lessons from it, not from some other passage or passages entirely.
I agree. What about you? Have you reconsidered the Lord?
Vera
Steven J responds to David and RabbitPirate
Science does not tell us many of the things you preface with the phrase "science tells us." Not everything is learned behavior. Not everything is a choice. Not every living thing has or needs desires. In the lab, given the right chemicals and the right conditions, RNA spontaneously self-organizes, even though the right chemicals don't initially include any of the nucleotides and sugars in RNA. The molecules don't "learn" to combine in certain ways, nor do they decide to: they just do, behaving according to their chemical nature.
Don't misrepresent the facts, Steven. The work by Craig Venter required a great deal of intelligence and intervention. This is totally predictable because Mr. Venter is created in the image of God and would therefore, possess the resources to copy some of the basic things that God can do. He didn't put together the RNA but took elements already in place and then added the necessary enzymes and catalysts to get this process going. So it was therefore, not purely natural. It demonstrates clearly that God Almighty created life here.
Vera
Ryk said...
@Ethan
Since according to the most common interpretation of Romans 1 all atheists know that there is a God. And since it is a precept of the Christian faith or at least most sects that the false believers and non believers can be brought to Christ Dimensios ability to comprehend the evidence of God should any ever be presented is implicit in the Christian religion.
Therefore his inability to do so would falsify your particular mythos. There are certain brands of Christianity which believe that God has chosen in advance who will and will not be saved and in such a system a reasonable theological case could be made that those who are not chosen have not been given the capacity to understand the things put forth in the mythological texts. However since this would apply only to those chosen not to be save why reach out to them. Witnessing is meaningless if the outcome is predetermined.
So either Dimensio implicitly has the capacity you are requesting he demonstrate and you are wasting your time asking or your deity has chosen him for damnation in which case you are wasting your time reaching out with the gospel at all.
November 12, 2009 8:03 AM
Ryk, I am surprised at you;-). You were the first to sign on as a follower of my blog, and the first to leave a comment on my lead off post. I thought you would have a better understanding of this brand of Christianity than that which is evidenced in your comment to Ethan.
Don't tell me that your visit to Stranger in a Strange Land was just a one time stop. ;(
Craig B
Verandoug replied to me:
Science does not tell us many of the things you preface with the phrase "science tells us." Not everything is learned behavior. Not everything is a choice. Not every living thing has or needs desires. In the lab, given the right chemicals and the right conditions, RNA spontaneously self-organizes, even though the right chemicals don't initially include any of the nucleotides and sugars in RNA. The molecules don't "learn" to combine in certain ways, nor do they decide to: they just do, behaving according to their chemical nature.
Don't misrepresent the facts, Steven. The work by Craig Venter required a great deal of intelligence and intervention. This is totally predictable because Mr. Venter is created in the image of God and would therefore, possess the resources to copy some of the basic things that God can do. He didn't put together the RNA but took elements already in place and then added the necessary enzymes and catalysts to get this process going. So it was therefore, not purely natural. It demonstrates clearly that God Almighty created life here.
To which work of Craig Ventner are you referring?
I was describing the work of John Sutherland at the University of Manchester, England, where he managed to put together RNA using simpler compounds likely to be formed spontaneously in undersea vents. And yes, he didn't create the chemicals ex nihilo (but then, neither would the undersea vents have done so).
He did indeed intelligently set up the experiment and control the introduction of the chemicals. On the other hand, note that biochemists do this sort of thing because chemistry can get really, really complicated and they like the simplify the reactions so they can track and understand what's going on. There's no reason whatsoever to suppose that the chemicals involved couldn't come together spontaneously in nature.
On the other hand, a demonstration that particular sequences of RNA can replicate themselves without the aid of any protein or other complex molecules was undertaken by Tracey Lincoln and Gerald Joyce at the Scripps Institute in La Jolla, CA. This did involve much more human intervention in getting at a particular sequence of RNA. Again, though, the relevant point is that such sequences would have that property regardless of how they were assembled: "intelligence" is not some additional property that deliberate assembly bestows on the RNA molecules.
Steven
chemistry can get really, really complicated
No foolin'.
"intelligence" is not some additional property that deliberate assembly bestows on the RNA molecules.
Uh huh. So why can't we put one together under natural conditions in harsh inhospitable environment without intelligence? It fits our model better than yours.
I don't see how you can't see this.
Vera
Post a Comment