tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post4629740907858169226..comments2024-02-23T17:35:17.066+11:00Comments on Critical Mass: An Atheist Christmas Letter from Don BakerAlanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09677386225276933012noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-76782058890811722182008-12-22T08:41:00.000+11:002008-12-22T08:41:00.000+11:00Hi Don, thanks for the comment and sorry for the d...Hi Don, thanks for the comment and sorry for the delay getting back to you. I think we are the last two standing, so not sure about the point in going much further...but what the heck!<BR/><BR/>You have said, <I>”Paul was quite convinced that Christ never existed in the flesh.”</I><BR/>You have now said, <I>”This means to me that Paul thought his essential nature was god-like and that he was merely dressed up as a human.”</I><BR/>But, how can Paul think Jesus was <I>”merely dressed up as a human”</I> when you have insisted that Paul <I>”considered humans to be essentially dirty and as such the human form was completely unsuitable for a god man?”</I>?<BR/><BR/>I believe the Biblical picture of who Jesus is, is that he is the fullness of God in human form, even though the flesh was considered weak (rather than dirty). Not sure, but I think we now agree on this?<BR/><BR/>I am not going to address the whole question about whether or not Jesus died, and god sacrifices, for two reasons. One, I am not sure what your issue is! And two, this is a very late stage of the discussion to bring in a new topic, so perhaps another time?<BR/><BR/>I read the Lowdown on God’s Showdown. In it I could not find any Biblical statement that contradicted what I have said already (twice before), that Paul did not know when Jesus would return, and that this fits Jesus’ own statement that no one except the Father knows. Yes, he lived as though it would happen any day, and any true follower of Jesus today should also live the same way. I cannot hope to deal with half the stuff in that essay in this forum but would say the following briefly.<BR/><BR/>Footnote 5, the ref to Augustine...come on, he was all weird about sex anyway. He was convinced that sex was only for having kids, so what would you expect him to say in response to Paul? Of course he will agree with him!<BR/><BR/>1 Cor7:29-31 is certainly Paul’s suggestion that desperate times call for desperate measures, and he encourages people to stay un married and childless – so they have less concerns. But in verse 28 (conveniently missed in the quotes) Paul says <I>“But if you marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned.”</I> In other words – it is not that big a deal, just some good advice.<BR/><BR/>Finally, Romans 3:7 is a ripper! I certainly do not agree with everything Luther said, and with this one, Luther has been very unhelpful. You yourself admit that the verse can be taken a couple of ways, a statement more accurate than Luther’s! For starters, Paul does not believe that good will come from what is not true. Consider 1 Cor 13:6, 2 Cor 6:2-13, Ephesians 4:15 and 2 Thes 2:9-10. Paul is very much for the truth, not lies. So what does Romans 3:7 mean? Paul is simply trying to debunk the idea that just because our falseness proves how true God is, it is not an excuse to be false. This is why in verse 8 Paul says, <I>“And why not do evil that good may come? - <B>as some people slanderously charge us with saying.</B> Their condemnation is just!”</I><BR/><BR/>Hope this helps! DaveDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03739784110428028221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-9557106067957709302008-12-21T16:49:00.000+11:002008-12-21T16:49:00.000+11:00Don,That's fine- you don't need to reply to me any...Don,<BR/><BR/>That's fine- you don't need to reply to me anymore. I have no desire to reply anymore either, since, as I pointed out already, your whole argument has constantly shifted since the beginning. <BR/><BR/>If you want to argue a point, fine, argue it, but don't make one point and then try and pretend like you were arguing something else, after I've shown that you were obviously way off the mark (eg: Your massive misinterpretation of the Barna research- in that ). You're just a hater- pointing out all the things that "christianity" has supposedly done wrong, without paying any attention to all the good which has resulted from "Christianity".<BR/><BR/>I just googled "definition of philanthropy", and wiki was the first page that came up. I'll just paste the definition in here, so that next time you get into a big debate about it, you'll actually know what you're talking about:<BR/><BR/>"Philanthropy is the act of donating money, goods, services, time and/or effort to support a socially beneficial cause, with a defined objective and with no financial or material reward to the donor."<BR/><BR/>I notice that your definition completely bypassed the whole giving money and time thing, which is a key tenet of the definition. This of course allows you to conveniently dismiss all the research which measures such things and shows that Christians come way ahead of atheists in those measures. <BR/><BR/>And, dear me, you keep going on and on and on and on and on and on about some supposed link between religion and science, as if "religion" (again...whatever that is) has been the cause of all the world's evils and lack of scientific progress, when nothing could be further from the truth. <BR/><BR/>I've been ignoring this point of yours, mainly because you didn't establish the link between this and your "philanthropy" point (The only point I've been arguing from the start). Finally you've established this link, justifying a mixing of the two discussions by finally explaining your warped and incorrect definition of philanthropy, which you didn't properly spell out until now, and is patently misleading and false anyway. <BR/><BR/>But regardless of all of that, I wonder if the following people would agree with you on this point?<BR/><BR/>- Isaac Newton<BR/><BR/>- Louie Pastuer<BR/><BR/>- Georges Lemaître<BR/><BR/>- Galileo<BR/><BR/>What do these guys have in common? All were Christians, and all were responsible for some of the greatest scientific discoveries of the past few hundred years. <BR/><BR/>Find out more here:<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_scienceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-1243797163665594212008-12-21T06:09:00.000+11:002008-12-21T06:09:00.000+11:00Dave,You are right that I was remiss in not respon...Dave,<BR/><BR/>You are right that I was remiss in not responding to your earlier postings.<BR/><BR/>In one of your first postings, you said:<BR/><BR/><I>3 – The statement “Paul was quite convinced that Christ never existed in the flesh” is very had to assert. Even with the ref given in the comments to Phil 3:20 (which does not state that Christ never existed in the flesh). In fact, in Phil 2:8 Paul says about Jesus, “And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.” Paul obviously believed that Jesus died a physical death (in human form), which means he would have had to have a physical body.</I><BR/><BR/>The greater context of Phil 2:6-8 is that Paul is saying that Jesus is was a god in the likeness of a man. This means to me that Paul thought his essential nature was god-like and that he was merely dressed up as a human. I think this supports my case, actually.<BR/><BR/>According to Paul, as you have pointed out, he is/was supposedly able to experience death, but is Jesus dead? Not according to Christians. Temporary "death" of a god is not a sacrifice.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that if Paul thought Jesus was human, he would be dead now and there would not be much point to Christianity. Since there is a claim he's a god, then I have trouble empathizing with the sacrifices of gods. Do you feel sorry for Prometheus or Sisyphus?<BR/><BR/>I'll give you that my original statement was a bit too strong. I'll see about correcting it on the ACA web site (the original).<BR/><BR/>On the subject of whether Paul's a liar, consider the article <A HREF="http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=86" REL="nofollow">The Lowdown on God's Showdown</A> which talks about Paul's comments in 1 Cor, (quoted in the article). See especially footnote [5]. Paul thought Jesus was going to return so soon that having children would only complicate things. Are you a father? If so, then you implicitly believe Paul's a liar.<BR/><BR/>Another great quote from Paul is Romans 3:7 "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?" While the context renders the meaning a little ambiguous, Martin Luther picked up on it and expanded it: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church? [...] a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."<BR/><BR/>The creationists here in the US are fond of saying that Darwin was a racist, therefore evolution is inherently racist. By that "logic" Protestantism is inherently false because its author admitted that he was happy to lie for god.<BR/><BR/>Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-23723730714424280402008-12-21T05:30:00.000+11:002008-12-21T05:30:00.000+11:00Trav,Philanthropy is the betterment of mankind. Te...Trav,<BR/><BR/>Philanthropy is the betterment of mankind. Technology has been the main source of human philanthropy. Technology is the fruit of science and reason, both of which have been actively suppressed by religions. If you don't think technology is philanthropic, I'll make you a deal. I'll live my entire lifetime without religion and you live a month without any technology whatsoever. You can keep your charitable giving-with-strings-attached and I'll keep pretty much everything else. Deal?<BR/><BR/>Religion, by the way, is focused on promotion and worship of (make believe) gods, which is often at odds with the benefit of humanity. You cannot serve two masters. <A HREF="http://www.atheist-community.org/library/articles/read.php?id=747" REL="nofollow">What is your faith number?</A> Mine is zero.<BR/><BR/>As far as charitable giving, you're measuring the coins changing hands and I'm measuring the overall impact. I'm saying whatever money is being spent is squandered. I've already given you credit for good intentions. <BR/><BR/>Take a look at <A HREF="http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html" REL="nofollow">this study</A>. (You will need to click on the links net to the graph to change it.) Notice how religious belief (and presumably charitable giving in those countries) is POSITIVELY correlated with a variety of objectively measured social ills: murder, suicide, STDs, abortion, teen pregnancy, infant mortality, etc. I understand that secular countries also score very high on happiness scales.<BR/><BR/>As far as other examples of negative philanthropy, I've mentioned:<BR/><BR/><BR> - All of technology, which you are anxious to dismiss because it kills your case<BR/><BR> - Calculus<BR/><BR> - Medicine (If you're over 35, you are alive despite religion)<BR/><BR> - the Library of Alexandria<BR/><BR> - Hitler's influence of Martin Luther's antisemitism. Antisemitism was part and parcel of Christianity for centuries<BR/><BR> - The fact that Christian philanthropy isn't given freely but in part as a mechanism to help the "giver" in the next life. This alone DISQUALIFIES most of Christian philanthropy<BR/><BR> - The oppression of the middle ages at the hands of religion<BR/><BR> - Newton wasting his time on religious-based alchemy<BR/><BR> - Bans on stem cell research<BR/><BR> - Treating women like (Christian) baby factories<BR/><BR> - Contraceptive suppression and misinformation -- an admission by religious nuts that their god cannot make humans<BR/><BR> - active suppression of gay rights<BR/><BR> - suppression of the teaching of evolution by ID proponents when evolution has contributed more to the benefit of mankind than religion ever will<BR/><BR> - The Catholic church's decades-long running pedophile ring with NONE of the ringleaders brought to justice. That alone should make people aware how evil Christianity is. Why can't Christianity clean its house? If your god exists, he must LOVE watching boys be screwed by priests. Sick.<BR/><BR> = Torture devices in the middle ages invented to convince people to convert to their evil religion<BR/><BR> - Religion has actively sabotaged our understanding of mental illness (I mentioned this briefly)<BR/><BR/>So I did give many examples. Do you need more?? You've answered almost none of them, dismissing some of them as "debatable". What an amazing bunch of crap. You epitomize what I find so distasteful about Christianity. You ultimately don't give a shit about how your religion has harmed the world or feel any sense of responsibility for it. Your ego and your need to "market" the crap is far more important. You are happy to sell out your fellow man for the fantasy of your own perpetual orgasm. I consider you a traitor to humanity, like so many of your brethren. <BR/><BR/>As for blaming Christianity. if a bunch of people calling themselves Christians groups together to do something based on their belief system, I think I'm justified in calling that a Christian effort. The fact that there are 20,000 Christian denominations and they can't agree on basic premises is not my problem. It's just evidence that Christianity is incoherent nonsense. When one group screws up, the other groups just blame the sect or pretend everything is ok. There is absolutely no mechanism to clean house. God certainly isn't doing it. The holy ghost is going along with the evil. Nothing fails like prayer. Yet when it's time to claim credit (as in the Barna study) or perpetrate some act of thuggery, Christians are all about ecumenicism.<BR/><BR/>If your church isn't teaching you about Christianity's evil history, then your church is lying to you to get your money. Duh. The question is whether you want to be a dupe or wake up to the facts.<BR/><BR/>I think this will be my last response to you. Perhaps you can try to take some responsibility for your beliefs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-64841885356744280212008-12-19T09:26:00.000+11:002008-12-19T09:26:00.000+11:00I'm assuming you may be referring to Osiris, Adoni...I'm assuming you may be referring to Osiris, Adonis etc etc. <BR/><BR/>Yes, I've heard of those stories.<BR/><BR/>In fact, I was watching a short debate last night between Gary Habermas and Tim Callahan. Callahan could not name one piece of evidence which clearly showed a resurrection story which predates Jesus. <BR/><BR/>But even if you could, it's a still a huge stretch to jump from there, to claiming that Jesus resurrection was a complete myth based on those prior stories.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-67644344387011143962008-12-18T19:55:00.000+11:002008-12-18T19:55:00.000+11:00Trav,If you think the resurrection story is a simp...Trav,<BR/><BR/>If you think the resurrection story is a simple one you can always do a self test. Can you name other ancient near east bodily resurrected god-men and tell what were their relation to Christianity? Can you name serveral non-Biblical religions (belief systems) that believed that something miraculous happens three days after the death and what were their relation to Christianity? Can you name other religions which had weeping/searching (embarrassment?) women going look for their [saviour-]god and what were their relation to Christianity? All your primary sources should of course be ancient not modern mythists. No need to answer here, but if you are not familiar with above questions you might not fully appreciate the Jesus' resurrection story.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636524117308077140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-69561102205644375812008-12-18T17:48:00.000+11:002008-12-18T17:48:00.000+11:00I never made any claim that you should take any cl...I never made any claim that you should take any claim that anyone made about taxonomy seriously. You keep mentioning taxonomy in unrelated discussions, I have no idea why! <BR/><BR/>Are you asking me to accept a non sequitur like this? John Lennox made a claim (Note: I'm not necessarily conceding this, I haven't even looked at any links you posted) that is wrong, therefore we shouldn't accept anything he says?<BR/><BR/>Yet, quite a rational claim.<BR/><BR/>Peter, I'm not convinced that anyone needs to do "years of study" to understand the resurrection story. It's a fairly simple story with a fairly simple message, and a good historical basis. <BR/><BR/>You obviously disagree, but unless you elaborate on why, I can't really accept or dismiss (or even consider) your claims.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-34051271048076452332008-12-18T17:36:00.000+11:002008-12-18T17:36:00.000+11:00Trav, I freely and cheerfully admit that my argume...Trav, I freely and cheerfully admit that my argument was ad hominem. I have absolutely no time for Lennox and his idiocy.<BR/><BR/>If you insist on a rational rebuttal of his claim that god invented taxonomy in the Garden of Eden (and Lennox is sometimes not a creationist, I hasten to add), I would ask for some evidence from outside the Genesis fairy-tale.<BR/><BR/>Good little rationalist that I am, I offer you Carolus Linneas as a more credible originator of alpha taxonomy.<BR/><BR/>Now, remind me why you think I should take John Lennox seriously ever again?Dave The Happy Singerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04354789426804069179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-52825454061508117602008-12-18T15:25:00.000+11:002008-12-18T15:25:00.000+11:00Trav,A lot of religious people are defending the f...Trav,<BR/><BR/>A lot of religious people are defending the faith they first stumble upon without ever really understanding it or studying any thousands of other live religions.<BR/><BR/>Most of your "facts" on this blog are heavily biased toward Christianity. If you want to become a Christian apologist please study widely and do a lot of fact checking from at least neutral sources. People dismiss apologists quickly if they don't get their facts straight and you will not represent your faith well by spreading misinformation. If you want to find real facts you will have to put your apologist hat aside for a while and study other religions, non-religion, history, archeology, psychology, science, philosophy etc. for a long time to get a good overview of the all the view points. Extreme bias towards one religion will probably not give you a good result. Once you have a well rounded view it is easier to try to find the truth (or understand the it is hard to find).<BR/><BR/>Regarding resurrection. A lot of people claim the truth of the resurrection after reading McDowell and Strobel type of books, but if you really want to know the resurrection story you need years of study of ancient religions, other resurrection stories, myths, early Christianity, ANE culture, history etc. You also need to understand why atheists, Muslims or people of other religions reject it. For example why atheists reject William Lane Craig's and Gary Habermas' popular defenses. Because so much discussion has gone to that subject I would recommend steer away from that debate until an extensive study.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636524117308077140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-32359447283229418982008-12-18T10:35:00.000+11:002008-12-18T10:35:00.000+11:00Peter"Finding the truth is more interesting than d...Peter<BR/><BR/>"Finding the truth is more interesting than defending or debunking something."<BR/><BR/>I agree. And I'd suggest that the truth of Christianity, if it can be found, is to be found in the resurrection of Jesus. Rather than the intricacies of whether or not two passages contradict themselves if interpreted in one way or another etc etc. It's good to see you recognise this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-80793323851375279192008-12-18T10:32:00.000+11:002008-12-18T10:32:00.000+11:00Dave Happy- Ad Hominem. Don, two things:1. Don't j...Dave Happy- Ad Hominem. <BR/><BR/>Don, two things:<BR/><BR/>1. Don't join together two lines of discussion here which are clearly separate (despite your efforts to join them). Philanthropy (charitable donations) is a seperate subject to science and technology. <BR/><BR/>2. Now, philanthropy. The vast majority of aid organisations are either explicitly Christian or were started by Christians are are now officially not, in the interests of political correctness and inclusivity. Are you going to try and claim that most aid organisations are doing "negative philanthropy"!? Your definition of negative is flawed anyway, and based on your own biases and philosophical presuppositions. <BR/><BR/>As far as I can see, you claim to give "many examples", yet you've only mentioned intelligent design and California Gay rights. Both are very much debateable but I won't waste my valuable time doing so, mainly because your entire contention is flawed so it's easier for me to just point that out- If you want to claim "many" examples...go on, I'm waiting. Then to prove your point, you'll need to List those many examples and then explain to me how they prove that the total "negative" outweighs the positive, even despite the fact that the millions of Christians donate more than twice as much as atheists on a per head basis. <BR/><BR/>Oh and thirdly, stop blaming "Christianity" for everything under the sun. Before you say "Christianity" is to blame for something one more time, provide a clear definition of what Christianity actually is- I haven't seen you do so yet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-48161399695101487352008-12-18T09:33:00.000+11:002008-12-18T09:33:00.000+11:00Don, I was not going to respond to your comment,“M...Don, I was not going to respond to your comment,<BR/><BR/><I>“My comment about 1 Gal was evidence that Paul didn't believe that Jesus was flesh and blood in his vision. Paul directly says his vision was not that of a human. I also claimed that Paul would not have thought Jesus to be human as flesh is inherently dirty/sinful. You seemed to agree.”</I><BR/><BR/>But I changed my mind! I agreed with you that Paul would have seen the flesh as inheritantly sinful/dirty. I think I would prefer to change the words sinful/dirty to the word ‘weak’. This lines up with Jesus’ words to the disciples in the garden (“The spirit is willing, but the body is weak”), and also Paul’s words in Romans 7.<BR/><BR/><B>But I have not agreed</B> with you that Paul then thought that because of this Jesus did not have a bodily form, in fact I have given scriptural references to the contrary which you have continued to ignore (as well as other scriptural ref to the God/man). The point of what I said is that Jesus was in bodily form, but did not succumb to the weakness of the body. He was also fully God in human form, and so Paul is also right to say he did not receive his info from a man, as Jesus is more than simply ‘a man’.<BR/><BR/>Don, I assume you are a very busy man, but this debate is frustrating in the sense that you do not appear to be reading all of it (not closely anyway). If you would like to assert that “I admit my case isn't airtight, but I think it's just as good as any Christian apologetic.”, then please respond to the Christian apologetic that has been offered in this debate, because you have not responded to it. Otherwise, all you offer is your opinion (which is fine), but this is then not a conversation or a debate or even a discussion, but simply your soapbox!Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03739784110428028221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-70822729179270335242008-12-18T08:24:00.000+11:002008-12-18T08:24:00.000+11:00Hi Don! I just wanted to comment on your statement...Hi Don! I just wanted to comment on your statement, <BR/><BR/><I>“You claimed that Christianity isn't about getting a "perpetual orgasm". I suppose it's also about avoiding eternal torture, too. Without heaven, hell, and the souls that will be getting infinite punishment or reward, there is no point to Christianity at all. <B>It's all about doing the right things to get that reward</B>--either in this lifetime or the next. The rest is just (finite) window dressing.”</I><BR/><BR/>I certainly do not blame you for thinking this is all Christianity is about. Many people in the church do not see beyond this, and a big part of our hope in Jesus is the future. But! I would suggest that you read 1 John 4:7-21 (again?) to gain another perspective of Christianity that has to do with the here and now. Simply, we have been loved by God, and this love changes us to be better equipped to love others, even our enemies (1 John 4:19).<BR/><BR/>The problem is that many Christians still see God as the big bogey man who is going to get them, and this hampers any hope of us loving God, or growing in our love for others (1 John 4:18). (Please note that I do not think love is finite, nor is it window dressing. Love is real, here and now, and able to change us and those we love well into eternity). This is just one perspective of Christianity that you (and also many Christians) appear to have failed to recognise. In fact, if you believe that Christianity is simply about eternal punishment or perpetual orgasm, then you do not understand what Christianity is about.<BR/><BR/>I have read some atheist’s writings who say Christianity (along with all religions) are harmful. I agree that religion has done more harm than good, but as I have tried to explain, being a follower of Jesus (as described and explained in the NT) is a means by which we grow in love. This, I cannot see the harm in!Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03739784110428028221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-13198514082360595552008-12-18T08:15:00.000+11:002008-12-18T08:15:00.000+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03739784110428028221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-16488329534109515482008-12-18T02:08:00.000+11:002008-12-18T02:08:00.000+11:00Dave,My comment about 1 Gal was evidence that Paul...Dave,<BR/><BR/>My comment about 1 Gal was evidence that Paul didn't believe that Jesus was flesh and blood in his vision. Paul directly says his vision was not that of a human. I also claimed that Paul would not have thought Jesus to be human as flesh is inherently dirty/sinful. You seemed to agree.<BR/><BR/>These points were addressing Trav's question of evidence for Paul's belief that Jesus never existed in the flesh. I admit my case isn't airtight, but I think it's just as good as any Christian apologetic.<BR/><BR/>You claimed that Christianity isn't about getting a "perpetual orgasm". I suppose it's also about avoiding eternal torture, too. Without heaven, hell, and the souls that will be getting infinite punishment or reward, there is no point to Christianity at all. It's all about doing the right things to get that reward--either in this lifetime or the next. The rest is just (finite) window dressing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-59823751822999040672008-12-18T01:57:00.000+11:002008-12-18T01:57:00.000+11:00Trav,You're pointing out how Christians donate a l...Trav,<BR/><BR/>You're pointing out how Christians donate a lot of money to save their own souls (not really charity). Here in the US, the various Christian "charities" used their tax free money to spread lies and emotionally manipulate voters in the state of California in order to take away the (California) constitutional rights of gays. I've given you a large number of examples where Christian "charity" did harm. That is the OPPOSITE of philanthropy. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.<BR/><BR/>I think most Christians would view ID as some sort of worthy "educational" cause and it sucks up large amounts of Christian "charity" money. Read the "<A HREF="http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html" REL="nofollow">wedge document</A>" to learn about the religious purpose behind ID. I've never heard of the people you're mentioning. What about the main ID people: Wells, Dembski, and Behe? Wells dedicated his life to God AND the destruction of the theory of evolution. I'm sure those others are just tokens so that people like you can claim it's not about religion. <BR/><BR/>The Catholic church molesting children IS NOT charity, though the religion calls itself that. So much of that money goes to silence the victims. God clearly loves watching children be molested and Christians are happy to pay the bill for the show. All of that money flows tax free for the greater glory of God and ripping off non-believers.<BR/><BR/>I'm saying the net "charity" of Christianity is very negative--especially when you take into account how religion has actively sabotaged science and technology. The only technology I can think that Christianity has advanced is the <A HREF="http://www.corkscrew-balloon.com/misc/torture/29.html" REL="nofollow">torture devices</A> they created in the middle ages.<BR/><BR/>You then go on to try to steal credit from scientists who are educated in the process of science and working their field making scientific discoveries because some portion of their brain clings to their childhood indoctrination. Why not credit their work as scientists and not their irrelevant belief in Santa Claus? You do know that intelligence is negatively correlated with religious belief, don't you? Do you have any examples of non-scientist religious nuts giving us revealed truth that turned out to be factual and changing the world in a positive way? (And don't say "Jesus" because more people have been killed in his name than helped.)<BR/><BR/>I asked you how many diseases have been cured by Christianity or any other religious belief? None. How many cures have been inhibited by religious belief: any having to do with the anatomy of the body, genetics (evolution), and psychology--which is to say most. They are still actively interfering based on bogus "bioethics" related to nonexistent souls.<BR/><BR/>I asked you how Christianity intends to fund the children it causes to exist. I didn't see an answer. They should all receive proper care, nutrition and eduction. This is not a small amount that Christianity is robbing from others.<BR/><BR/>Oh, I get it: You want Christianity to take credit for the good things, but when it comes to responsibility, it's time to run!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-41679043725126268742008-12-18T00:10:00.000+11:002008-12-18T00:10:00.000+11:00What?Did you just say John LennoxThe talking egg?H...What?<BR/><BR/>Did you just say <I>John Lennox</I><BR/><BR/>The talking egg?<BR/><BR/>He's my <I>favourite</I>. After McGrath, of course (he used to be an <I>atheist</I>).<BR/><BR/>Seriously, though. <I>Lennox</I>?<BR/><BR/><I><A HREF="http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=g4B1s454P1Q#t=8m02s" REL="nofollow">God actually started science, by encouraging human beings to name the animals at the beginning of Genesis, which is what we call taxonomy</A></I>.Dave The Happy Singerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04354789426804069179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-46087811796556638982008-12-17T23:05:00.000+11:002008-12-17T23:05:00.000+11:00Don Baker. Dear me...I'm not sure whether there's ...Don Baker. Dear me...<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure whether there's much point continuing with this. You're embarrassing yourself here- you keep backsliding time and time again. Your argument would have to be the one of the worst types of argument around. "Hey, if my argument was different to the argument I started with, I might actually have a point". <BR/><BR/>Well, no, you still don't have a point. <BR/><BR/>Let's recap our discussion. You started off claiming that "religious belief sabotages philanthropy" in "many ways". I pointed out that, no, Christians are FAR more philanthropic than athiests, by quoting two seperate studies which show this.<BR/><BR/>Then you claimed to be familiar with the Barna research, and asked "How much of that "charity" went to perpetuate Christianity?"<BR/><BR/>This showed that you were not familiar with the Barna research at all, because Christians still more than DOUBLE the giving of atheists, EVEN WHEN church related giving is taken out of the equation. <BR/><BR/>Now you're trying to claim that despite the fact that Christians give more than twice as much as atheists, somehow this still isn't evidence enough, because you need me to provide you with examples of where the giver "harmed their chances of getting to heaven". And much like the rest of your post, your opening question makes no sense. According to the bible, whether or not a Christian gets to heaven does not depend on how much they give to charity at all. I believe Dave has already covered this point in his reply. <BR/><BR/>You then started talking about intelligent design, without giving any real indication of how it relates to the subject. I'm not sure that supporting intelligent design constitutes Christianity, especially given two of the biggest current proponents of intelligent design are a self proclaimed Agnostic Jew (D. Berlinski) and a philosophy professor who is a self proclaimed atheist (Bradley Monton, about to release the booked titled An atheist on intelligent design, or similar). <BR/><BR/>Then you get back to the science discussion. Galileo, I suggest you read Chapter 1 or 2 of John Lennox's God's Undertaker. That whole debacle has been grossly distorted, and Lennox's book will give you a more balance view which actually accurately looks at the historical sources involved. <BR/><BR/>Then you complain about Newton "wasting years" looking into myth. First, where's your evidence? Secondly, even if he did, what's your point? I can easily counter that by pointing out that Newton would never have had a "brilliant career" had it not been for his belief in God anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-12536383305193958162008-12-17T22:50:00.000+11:002008-12-17T22:50:00.000+11:00Dave,I think we agree on a lot more things than we...Dave,<BR/><BR/>I think we agree on a lot more things than we disagree on. It was nice chatting with you. Hopefully we get to discuss an other interesting topic again. Cheers.. Peter<BR/><BR/><BR/>Trav,<BR/><BR/>Sorry If I sounded too harsh. Talk to you again soon...Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636524117308077140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-29120086843703069022008-12-17T18:32:00.000+11:002008-12-17T18:32:00.000+11:00It is good to know where you are coming from Peter...It is good to know where you are coming from Peter. My greatest interest is also pursuing the truth. Perhaps at another time we might have a chance to debate some of the more central verses/topics - I have enjoyed our conversation as you are a gentleman!<BR/><BR/>I grew up in the Sydney Anglican scene, and so I have some idea of their teaching. I sometimes challenge some of their less thought out statements on the Sola Panel (Sydney Ang blog...). I think one of the greatest problems in the church is that so many blindly accept what they are told. This is why some Atheists have thought through issues in the Bible more than some Christians! I can assure you though, there are some Christians out there who genuinely want to love good and their fellow man.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again...DaveDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03739784110428028221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-42417973774172478352008-12-17T16:09:00.000+11:002008-12-17T16:09:00.000+11:00Dave,I don't really care if some Paul's verses con...Dave,<BR/><BR/>I don't really care if some Paul's verses contract or not, the subject just interested me. This minor point will not prove if Christianity is true or not. If I would argue about contradictions in NT I would go to different verses and topics. I am usually more concern when people make baseless claims and spread misinformation about Christianity and Atheism/ts. Finding the truth is more interesting than defending or debunking something.<BR/><BR/>Why Christians often get lumped together is when Peter/Phillip Jensen speaks/writes strong words about gays, atheists or members of other religion I don't hear many Anglicans/Christians opposing that. If you are a member of NSW Anglican Church, you get lumped with your leaders' controversial opinions if you don't speak up against it. I attend one of Peter Jensen's many Churches for Bible study, so I am fairly familiar with their teachings.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636524117308077140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-26592762181951839552008-12-17T13:41:00.000+11:002008-12-17T13:41:00.000+11:00Thanks for your comments Peter. I am a bit hopeles...Thanks for your comments Peter. I am a bit hopeless at the whole computer thing...so thanks for helping me out!<BR/><BR/>If I can first respond to your second and third paragraphs in your second last comment.<BR/><BR/>Whether Paul has received ‘of’ the Lord or ‘from’ the Lord, the point still stands. It is an assumption to put in the words ‘[oral tradition]’. (Your original point, I believe, was not that it meant ‘oral tradition’, but ‘oral tradition from man’, an even bigger stretch that I have not been able to find evidence of. I do not have a problem with it meaning ‘oral tradition’, because Jesus spoke to Paul.)<BR/><BR/>I am not saying this because I am a good apologist who can make black white and white black (something I cannot do)! With all translation there must be assumptions at some level, so please understand that I do not mind you making an assumption, that paralambano means an ‘oral tradition’ (from God). The problem I have is why you want to make this assumption. To prove Paul has contradicted himself? Why? The assumption I want to make is that the Paul who has not contradicted himself on so many theological points would not contradict himself on what is in fact a relatively minor point.<BR/><BR/>This brings me back to your first paragraph in your second last comment, and this relates to the heart of a person. Let me elaborate!<BR/><BR/>Yes, other Christians do challenge me all the time – some think I am a ‘liberal’ (polite word for heretic!). But the church is full of people filled with pride, hate and selfishness. These characteristics go well with religion – just look at the Pharisees in the NT. Catholics are big on works (most of them), and many people in the church are a long way from where the early Christians were at. But! Why lump those of us who are not like this in with the whole lot. My experience of Athiests is that some are very angry, some have been very hurt, some (even many!) are very intelligent, some are just out to prove religion wrong at all costs, and some are genuine, loving people who just want to live the life they have now. I cannot talk about you guys in universal terms, it would not be fair, and I believe I have been able to converse thus far without doing so.<BR/><BR/>If you want to insist that paralambano is always a reference to oral tradition (even though it really is an exegetical assumption), then fine, but our ability to have a conversation is hampered. What I would encourage you to do is ask yourself why you want to make the assumption you are making. I do not know, nor do I pretend to know. One thing I know is that an exegetical assumption certainly does not prove a point. If I was trying to make a point I would look for more than this to state my case!Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03739784110428028221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-41813088959271409652008-12-17T12:57:00.000+11:002008-12-17T12:57:00.000+11:00How to get italics?Please check the instructions b...How to get <I>italics</I>?<BR/><BR/>Please check the instructions below the comment box on the top right hand side.<BR/>(use < > not [ ])<BR/><BR/>Note that below your each post is a tiny garbage can and by clicking it you can remove your post (keep a copy of your post if you want to modify your posts later...)Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636524117308077140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-70810039239874571812008-12-17T12:53:00.000+11:002008-12-17T12:53:00.000+11:00Dave,Thanks for looking in to this and sorry to di...Dave,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for looking in to this and sorry to disappoint you. Nice comment in the end about the "heart of a person doing it", but other Christians might challenge you what "true Christianity" is. Catholics are big on this works thing and modern Christians seem to be so far away from the 1st/2nd century Christianity.<BR/><BR/>Dave wrote:<BR/><I>Phillipians 4:9 has a clear reference to paralambano for what the Philippians had received from Paul, but 1 Cor 11:23 uses paralambano to describe what Paul has received <B>from</B> the Lord. It is a very weak argument to suggest that paralambano is only used in ref to what we receive from man</I><BR/><BR/>I think the better translation is "I have received <B>of</B> the Lord that which also I delivered unto you" (KJV). The Greek word apo is can be translated both of and from. Half of the Bibles have "of" half "from". I would think the more likely reading of "paralambanō apo kyrios" is "received [oral tradition] of the Lord".Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636524117308077140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-695335977725601132008-12-17T12:36:00.000+11:002008-12-17T12:36:00.000+11:00Thanks for the comment Don.Not sure what your poin...Thanks for the comment Don.<BR/><BR/>Not sure what your point is with Gal 1:11-12. I have responded to what Peter said (“The question is from where did Paul got his information.<BR/>1 Corinthians 15:3 "...which I also received (paralambanō)..." <BR/>Galatians 1:12 "...I neither received (paralambanō) it of man.."”)<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you are suggesting that Paul is saying Jesus was not a man? He certainly does not state that Jesus is not, but rather, as I mentioned earlier in Phil 2 specifically says that Jesus was in human form.<BR/><BR/>Yes, Paul would have seen the ‘flesh’ as inherently dirty, but this is what makes what Jesus did so incredible (Read Phil 2:1-9). God did in Jesus what no Jew expected him to do...even Paul before his conversion...which is why he was on the road to Damascus, to persecute the believers who had suggested such a thing.<BR/><BR/>I guess you could use Jesus being human and divine to your own ends...but I prefer to accept the fact that I just do not understand it! I certainly cannot think of how I might have put a “self serving spin” on it.<BR/><BR/>You said, “The main point is that the only first person account of the god-man is from Paul...”<BR/><BR/>What about John chapter 1 (and 1 John 1)? John knew Jesus very well, is mentioned in the other gospel accounts, and makes it clear that Jesus was God, and was with God, that is the same as God, and yet separate from God the Father.<BR/><BR/>You said, “He (Paul) later goes on to claim how Jesus was going to return in the lifetimes of the disciples...”<BR/><BR/>I have already responded to this in an earlier comment. Paul never claims to know when, and this is in line with what Jesus said, that no one knows except God the Father. I think it great that Paul thought the return of Jesus (at any moment) was important enough to change your plans and the way you live.<BR/><BR/>I have really enjoyed the conversation, but I am wondering if we are moving anywhere. I still have comments about the original post that I think demonstrate a genuine lack of understanding by Don in what he wrote, that have had no response. Obviously you do not have to respond, but just let me know and I will go back to life as normal for me!<BR/><BR/>Cheers DaveDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03739784110428028221noreply@blogger.com