Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

PasserBy11’s comment — well said, even though I disagree

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

[I was incredibly impressed by the testimony of PasserBy11 in the thread Are dinosaurs the real reason young Christians in college desert their faith.

He had the opposite journey that I had in some respects. I have to say however I can so relate to the effect of bad behavior in the Church and the friendship and warm welcome that some can receive in atheist and agnostic circles relative to the judgmental and presumptuous abuse some parishioners subjected me to when I struggled with my questions. (When I say atheists and agnostics, I’m not referring to the internet variety like PZ Myers, that’s almost a whole nother species. These were people I know personally.)

Some may argue, “Sal why are you defending this guy?” My response, I’m not defending his final conclusion, I am saying, for the creationist community, even though the choice of what people accept is true is theirs, the creationist community might consider where they can do better in light of what PasserBy11 is saying. If the creationist community believes there is no room for improvement, and is unwilling to even consider that some of the ways the conduct business are hurting their own cause, well that’s already a problem…

Let me say this. When I had creationist college students dealing with doubts, I tried to answer them. When they wanted to hear a contrary opinion, I referred them to PZ Myers website. I was confident the bad behavior by PZ Myerists would be quite convincing to creationist college students. I can say the strategy works incredibly well.

The behavior of some creationists isn’t exactly welcoming of questions and expressions of doubt, instead, sometimes abuse and ridicule. I don’t mind getting in the face of someone like Nick Matzke for his sophistry, but I don’t treat sincerely expressed reservations about creation or ID with ridicule or contempt.

You’ll see in this account the way that PasserBy11 was persuaded to his current view. That is something creationists would do well to consider, imho, vs. pointing fingers and saying “who are you sleeping with?” when someone expresses sincere doubts about the Christian faith and the doctrine of creation.

I welcome comments of the variety, “In light of what PasserBy11 has said, creationist can improve the way they do business by ….”

Comments of the variety, “PasserBy11 is obviously not understanding…..” That won’t be consistent with the purposes of discussion, it might make you feel better, but that’s not why I’m hosting this discussion.

For example, one could say, “it seems that to many, common descent looks strongly in evidence, why is that? And why do humans perceive or misperceive the evidence this way?” That is a constructive comment. [FYI I gave examples of how to deal with this issue as best as I could when dealing with questions raised by Nick Matzke. See: Two faced Nick Matzke.]

There is a time for everything under the sun, and I think this is a time to confront and a time to console. In this discussion, I encourage us to be welcoming to PasserBy11, not so much to dissuade him, but to consider hyppothetically, what creationists could have done differently if we had the chance. ]

I was reared as a fundamentalist Baptist in the Upper Midwest. On Sundays, my family attended Sunday School and Bible Study, paired with morning and evening services, respectively. (Both of my parents taught SS classes, and my father led the morning Children’s Church service.) Wednesday night meant both Bible Study and Prayer Meeting, and some Thursday evenings found me participating in soul-winning and visitation events with my father. The church took a firm stance on Biblical literalism and inerrancy, distancing itself even from the GARBC, which it called “hypocritical” and “left-leaning.”

I also attended the church-run school, complete with daily Bible Studies and Friday Chapel services, for the first nine years of my education. I was pressured during all of that time to become either a pastor or missionary, just as the girls my age were pressured to become the wives of pastors and missionaries.

One could say that, as a youngster, I had a little bit of Bible — or at least a particular pastor’s interpretation of it — thrown my way. 🙂

After four years of a public education at the local high school, however, I was leaning more toward Literature or Biology, and my decision to ignore the “warnings” of my church and to attend a public Division II university, also in the Upper Midwest, had nothing to do with evolution. On the contrary, I was a staunch YEC who had read Gish, Denton, et al, and as an eleventh-grader had written a research paper proposing that the Genesis Flood had ultimately been responsible for exterminating the dinosaurs.

While earning a B.S. in Zoology, I never once heard a professor or fellow student badmouth a Creation Scientist, as we called ourselves in those days. Everyone always answered my questions patiently, attentively, and seriously. After graduating, I worked as a TA for some Comparative Chordate Morphology dissection labs before transferring to the Communications department (and eventually finishing my M.S. with them).

I want to point out that evolution wasn’t the only reason I walked away from my faith. Here are a few others:

* Anthropology
* Comparative folklore / mythology / religion
* Scholarly approach to Old and New Testaments
* GOTG
* Personal experience with agnostics and atheists practicing humility, compassion, and moderation without fear of suffering supernatural disfavor
* Personal experiece with self-proclaimed Christian men abusing their wives, with self-proclaimed Christian parents abusing their children, and with self-proclaimed Christians acting so un-Christ-like

But evolution was one of the most important to me, mostly because of my childhood fascinations with — geek alert! — taxonomy and paleontology. And after studying both Scientific Creationism and evolution in pretty detailed fashion, this former Born Again Christian honestly concluded that a Dobzhansky paraphrase was in order: Nothing in Biology makes more sense than evolution, at least at the level I was studying it. While dissecting cats, sharks, salamanders, etc, I personally never saw common design; instead, I saw descent with modification, a concept supported by the ideas outlined in “Origin” — comparative anatomy, biogeography, artificial selection, homology, etc.

Naturally, this change in my worldview forced me to reject a literal interpretation of some passages of Genesis, but I still attended a more modern Baptist church for two years before finally walking away from it all (for the reasons listed previously). That was twenty years ago, and it was a move I’ve never regretted.

Since then, endogenous retroviruses, human chromosome 2, and the prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik have all provided additional support for evolution. The details and mechanisms will undoubtedly be revised over and over again as new facts are uncovered, but the ideas that populations change over time, and that all life on Earth is descended from a single common ancestor (or a small number of common ancestors), are most likely here to stay.

My $2E-02…

Comments
PasserBy11:
Do you have a alternate explanation re: the nearly identical DNA sequences found on HC2 and ape chromosomes?
Yes. It's called genetic engineering and design. Just because two designs are similar does not mean they evolved via random mutations and natural selection. Intelligent designers reuse and modify existing designs all the time time. Why? Because it's the intelligent thing to do. Intelligent designers are not considered intelligent just for grins and giggles.Mapou
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
PasserBy11: I will second Querius' statement: "While you make some good points, please understand that a lot of IDers don’t reject Darwinism because of Christianity, they reject Darwinism because it’s lousy science." I have no personal religious/philosophical reason to reject Darwinism. Furthermore, I don't have an issue with the minor micro-evolutionary changes that come under Darwinism (granting, just for purposes of discussion that they in fact result from Darwinian evolution, many of which probably do not) -- finch beak sizes, changes in percentage of dark colored moths, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, etc. What I do reject are the broader claims of Darwinism and evolutionary theory: that life arose and developed to its current state of diversity and complexity through purely natural processes, that the systems we see in the cell came about through a series of accidents and mutations and drift, that functional specified information arose from random mutations, and so on. I reject it because it is an absolute joke. It flies in the face of the evidence we do have.Eric Anderson
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
PasserBy11, While you make some good points, please understand that a lot of IDers don't reject Darwinism because of Christianity, they reject Darwinism because it's lousy science. Darwinism made a lot of sense in the 19th century when gross morphology, simple protoplasmic blobs called cells, and selective breeding was about all anyone had to go on. The battle against spontaneous generation had barely been won, and Lamarck had been successfully smeared. Unfortunately, there have been so many mythologies perpetuated by the Darwinist paradigm that have turned out to be false---"vestigial" organs, evolutionary competition between the higher and lower human "races" (along with the Eugenics movement), non-coding DNA being labeled as "junk," mysterious "living fossils" that somehow avoided evolving while the species around them did evolve, ontogeny doesn't recapitulate phylogeny after all (but nice try), stunningly complex cellular organelles and chemical cycles formed ex nihilo, the overwhelming complexity of DNA code (also formed ex nihilo), connective and vascular tissue miraculously surviving millions of years of radioactive cooking (remember that the bones are also radioactive), that the region around the supposed human chromosome 2 fusion site doesn't provide evidence of correspondence with chromosomes 2A and 2B in chimpanzees, that supposed shared ERVS between humans and some apes, have been found to perform critical functions, and so on. Here's a rough analogy to illustrate the compelling but synthetic stories that can be generated by a mind looking for a pattern: When I was in Junior High, there was an art project where we smashed colorful glass bottles, and then created lovely stained glass mosaics by fitting the pieces tightly together to form various images. The small spaces between the pieces were filled with a clear epoxy. The result was not a reconstruction of the original bottles, but a picture from my imagination. The same is true for any imaginative theory that collects supporting data rather than following the data where it leads. In this case, instead of a God-of-the-gaps story, we have a more scientific sounding Darwin-of-the-gaps story, which is no more scientific or satisfying than the previous one. -QQuerius
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT
Joe Human chromosome 2 is human lineage specific and has nothing to do with any alleged common ancestry with chimps.
Please elaborate. Your brief reply doesn't provide readers with any reasons why we might want to reject the scientifically accepted conclusion that HC2 formed when two ancestral chromosomes fused together. Do you have a alternate explanation re: the nearly identical DNA sequences found on HC2 and ape chromosomes? How about why HC2 is the only human chromosome with a pair of centromeres that bookend vestigial telomeres?PasserBy11
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT
Human chromosome 2 is human lineage specific and has nothing to do with any alleged common ancestry with chimps.Joe
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
origin_surgeon No serious biologist would deny that Homo Sapiens have 46 Chromosomes and the great apes have 48. However, to say this is 'proof' of common descent is completely misleading, because to believe that 46-48 chromosomes of close human to apes relationship as ancestry would mean that potatoes,Tobacco and gray tree frogs are direct descents as well for they also have 48 chromosomes.
I think most people who have followed this topic are familiar with Kent "Dr. Dino" Hovind and how, before his incarceration, he promoted this particular meme during his sermons. "Evolutionists think we're related to apes becuase we have 46 chromosomes and they have 48. Wanna know what else has 48 chromosomes?" Pause, then smile. "A tobacco plant." Titters from the audience. "According to evolution, we're just as closely related to a tobacco plant as we are to an ape." Guffaws all around, especially among the children in attendance. In reality, the actual genes that comprise a genome affect an organism significantly more than the number of chromosomes over which those genes are divided. It's useful to compare the number of human chromosomes to those of other apes mostly because so much evidence suggests a recent divergence between us. On the other hand, plants diverged from animals (or vice versa) so long ago that science classifies each group in its own kingdom, the highest taxonomic level available. If humans noticed their children being born with an increasing number of tobacco-like traits over successive generations, scientists would be forced to discard almost everything they thought they knew about evolution -- not to mention genetics, heredity, etc. Human chromosome 2 implies descent with modification because its DNA sequence is nearly identical to sequences found on two different chromosomes in the genomes of chimps, gorillas, and orangutans. Additionally, HC2 possesses a telomere sequence between its not-one-but-two centromeres(!). As a result, the scientifically accepted conclusion is that HC2 formed when two ancestral chromosomes fused together. Also, I replied to the regular Tiktaalik questions at Post #66.
OldArmy94 Even if chimps exercise "morality" by beating and ostracizing other chimps for their alleged "trespasses", that still fails to justify the atheist viewpoint that we should behave in a moral manner. WHY should I be compelled to act morally? By what standard do I take a moral stance and say that you SHOULD do something? There are no "should" with atheism, only preferences. I am sorry that you rejected The Way, passerby11, and I can only hope for peace and ultimate redemption in your life before you discover Truth beyond the grave.
The Chinese didn't require input from a deity to implement Confucianism or Taoism, two vastly different yet successful schools of morality. And even if you were you able to get away with it, would you truthfully insist that your individual wants always trump everybody else's needs, even to the degree of causing others pain? Or might you naturally find yourself following a personal version of the Golden Rule? Maybe even subscribe to a mutually agreed-upon code of law? Ethologist Frans De Waal said, "I am wary of anyone whose belief system is the only thing standing between them and repulsive behavior." I tend to agree. Also, I explained in Post #66 why no one needs to feel sorry for me. Thanks!
OldArmy94 IF you believe that there is no god and that life is only a parsimonious result coming from nothing and headed toward nothing, then I offer you the only logical alternative–grab hold of the nearest 9mm and pop the cap on your brain. Based on your worldview, the ONLY truth that means anything is to avoid suffering. It is foolish to continue living only to suffer and fade into oblivion.
Unless you're suggesting that I kill myself because you disagree with me, and I'm hopefully certain you're not, I'm afraid I don't understand the logic behind your challenge, mostly because death isn't the only available mechanism for avoiding suffering. Can one be born into suffering the way that he can allegedly be born into sin? If so, then perhaps mindful detachment provides a means for overcoming suffering, much in the way that a belief in Jesus' sacrifice provides a means for overcoming sin. Nirvana could be tantamount to Heaven, and the enlightened just might be one with the holy.
scordova how did you find our humble weblog?
I was reading an Amazon book review (or possibly a discussion thread?) about a year and a half ago when someone posted a link that went to a site with a link that went to another site with a link that went to... After a few clicks, I ended up at UD. The predictable hatchet-jobs on Darwin and all things Darwin-esque were on display -- no offense intended -- but one article alerted me to a recent development in a field of interest, and another made a genuinely funny joke at the expense of people like myself. I bookmarked the site and typically visit every three or four weeks. When I saw the current topic, I thought, "Given my history, I might consider posting..." :)
tjguy Child abuse is not what Jesus or the Bible teaches. I do hope you realize that. And I hope that is not the only reason you have rejected Christianity.
Blaming Christianity for child abuse makes as little sense IMO as blaming evolution for the Holocaust. No, the version of Jesus that I have in my head would never condone child abuse. However, humans have a strong, evolutionary need for a lot of what many churches have to offer, and when populations grow as large and culturally diverse as they've become in the U.S., the spiritual landscape becomes peppered with niche churches that use Jesus, the Bible, and the pulpit to sell and justify almost anything. I don't really want to emphasize the abuse, though, because it represents merely one facet of only one reason why I personally walked away from Christianity without regret. And also because this is a crevo forum, not an emotional recovery forum. ;)
bevets you are a stranger on the internet — no one can authenticate your biography.
By extension, nearly everyone in nearly every Web forum is a stranger on the Internet. Most people are undoubtedly aware of this fact, so your public reminder that my words are impossible to verify indicates a distrust of posters who you feel might portray your religion in an unfavorable light. People who abuse others, particularly their spouses and children, are IMO tragically affected by genes that promote unhealthy behaviors. Thousands of years ago, the feelings that prompted such behaviors might have saved lives or delivered food to the tribe. In 2014 AD, however, they often produce behaviors that, by most modern definitions, border on savagery. Everyone's peace of mind is victimized by the world our intelligence has created, a world that's changing too fast for the genes that regulate our emotions to keep pace. When everyone's a victim, though, then no one really is. We're all in this together, six billion prehistoric brains tying to co-exist peacefully in a space-age world...PasserBy11
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
Sal
I began to look up how the notion of “faith” in the original language of the new testament was used. It was not used in the sense of “absolutely proven belief in an idea”, but rather loyalty and fidelity toward something, it is associated I suppose with taking on a vow or making a promise for better or worse.
Actually, there are two meanings of the word "faith" as it relates to the New Testament. The first meaning, as you indicate, refers to a total commitment or loyalty to an idea and the willingness to live for it, or, as the case may be, die for it. It's love working through faith. The second meaning refers to an an intellectual assent to a Divinely revealed truth. It is the willingness to accept a doctrine even if you don't fully understand it. That is why the term "by faith we are saved" is meaningless unless we know which definition is being used. Everyone, Catholics and Protestants alike, agree that we are saved by faith and grace in the first sense. The problem lies in the claim that we are saved by faith "alone" in the second sense (by mere intellectual assent or acceptance.) St. Paul tends to use the word "faith" in the first sense, meaning that we are saved by love working through faith. Both Catholics and Protestants agree with that formulation. Indeed, St. Ambrose of antiquity was using faith in that first sense. That is why Catholics and Lutherans could come together a few years ago with a mutual statement of faith. At last both sides recognized the differences in meaning and the unnecessary division caused by the misunderstanding. St. James, however, uses the word "faith" in the second sense. That is why he says that we are "not" saved by faith alone, that is, we are not saved merely by accepting Christian doctrine as true. His teaching is perfectly consistent with Paul. We are saved by faith expressed in works of love, not merely by accepting Divinely revealed truths. Luther, of course, would have none of it. He simply decided, on his own authority and whim, to change Christian doctrine into something more to his own personal preferences. He taught that we are saved by merely accepting Christ as our personal savior regardless of whether or not we incorporate that faith into our lives--regardless of whether or not our faith is expressed in works of love. This was, and still is, a heresy.StephenB
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
I said "True. The second law of thermodynamics will prevent any hopes of immortality for any organism, considering that we rely on energy to survive." Better version (I think): "Science tells me that the second law of thermodynamics will prevent any hopes of immortality for any organism, considering that we rely on energy to survive."seventrees
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
Greetings Socrdova at 51:
I thank God for science, I have 4 science degrees, but I know it cannot give me eternal life.
True. The second law of thermodynamics will prevent any hopes of immortality for any organism, considering that we rely on energy to survive. About faith, there is a translation which says:
Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen.(Hebrews 11:1, Holman Christian Standard Bible)
King James Version uses the phrase
...the evidence of things not seen.
Many of us do not see electromagnetic waves out of the visible light spectrum, but we know they exist. So, I can say the definition of biblical faith as "believing something without evidence" is not true in a Biblical sense. That's how I see it. I got the translations from here: http://biblehub.com/hebrews/11-1.htm Add to it the fact that the word "hope" does not mean wishing something you desire happens. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/06/14/biblical-view-of-hope Werriam Webster dictionary reveals the same thing when talking about the archaic definition of "hope": http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hope Language really changes.seventrees
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
I began to look up how the notion of "faith" in the original language of the new testament was used. It was not used in the sense of "absolutely proven belief in an idea", but rather loyalty and fidelity toward something, it is associated I suppose with taking on a vow or making a promise for better or worse. The English version of the Greek word psitis fails to capture the whole notion of the meaning of faith. When the US Marines say "Semper Fidelis" it means "always faithful", here being faithful doesn't mean believing but loyalty. I entrust my life to God, sometimes with doubts, but I surely will not entrust my life to evolutionary theory. My belief, faith, my loyalty, my trust is in Jesus, and that trust was possible because of the evidence of Design. After that it was consideration of the effect of Jesus on people's lives as Querius described (not one such instance of an immoral person being transformed by acceptance of atheism can I find any documentation or testimony of!), evidence of miracles in my life and that of others, the archaeological evidence. So much! My favorites: 1. the 5 columns that support the authenticity of John 2. the various discoveries that converted Ramsey from atheist to believer regarding the writings of Luke and subsequent finding in his field work in Archaology 3. inscriptions that confirmed names of people in the New Testament on buildings 4. discovery of the lost cities of Sodom, Gomorah, Admah, Zeboim, Zoar along with the active brimstone (sulpher) that is a particular unique allotrope that burns with high temperature! 5. discovery of the read sea crossing with Egyptian chariot remains for the entire length of the underwater landbridge 6. genetic entropy and other genetic evidence affirming the the recency of man 7. C14, DNA, unracemezied amino acids in dinosaurs, and objects all the way to the jurasic and possibly the Cambrian (we need to try to date the Cambrian). 8. Geological column more in line with rapid formation than slow sedimentation, 9. lack of saturation of the seas with minerals and salts (puts a limit on the age of the Earth's surface). 10. The Taylor Prism found in Assyria written by the Assyrians that confirm Hezekiah's account 11. The Assyrian tablets that list the 5 cities mentioned in the book of Genesis and Pentateuch: Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, Zoar 12. Imhotep that seems so obviously the Joseph of Genesis 13. The tower of Babel is a very good explanation for the origin and explanation of language There are unresolved problem is long-term and intermediate term radiometric dating, but I hold out hope a solution will be discovered. So many evidences. The fact that an agnostic like Richard Milton sees these difficulties in geology tells me the creationists may be on to something. We may not know for sure about the Bible, but I know for sure there is no salvation for the human soul in science and Charles Darwin. I thank God for science, I have 4 science degrees, but I know it cannot give me eternal life. Thus even without all the facts, but enough facts that make belief in Jesus promising, I have entrusted my faith and loyalty to Him, the Intelligent Designer of life. By the way, there may be out of place fossils as Nye demanded. We just aren't realizing it. The coelacanth is an example. It is NOT found in an intermediary level from one it was presumed extinct 65 million years ago. It is like a pre-Cambrian rabbit in reverse! We should be able to find more, God willing!scordova
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
MF RE 48
Whether you label them as false Christians or not is rather irrelevant. They exist.
To be clear I am not labeling anyone as a false Christian because they exhibit self-righteousnes, for sure they are inconsistent. I know this I am in no position to judge.
It does not follow from lack of belief that you are in any way better than a believer.
I understand that the sophisticated thinking atheist adheres to the position of "lack of belief" rather than "unbelief" but I am not sure that it is a distinction that makes a difference. One will say that " I lack a belief in the tooth fairy, or pink unicorns, etc, don't you?" Sure I lack a belief because there is no evidence of their existence. But because of my lack of belief I believe they do not exist. I am probably missing something here. Vividvividbleau
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
PasserBy11 My brother was a multiple witness, though, so you might be in luck, should you truly seek to communicate with him for the sole purpose of disproving a stranger’s word on the Internet. If it is true, then I can see how that would color your perceptions of Christianity. And you have my sympathy. But you are a stranger on the internet -- no one can authenticate your biography.bevets
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT
#36 VB
The true Christian recognizes the total lack of self-righteousness and the depravity of their nature. We are not good and we are so bad that we must rely upon the work and righteousness of Christ. This is not to say that there are not many self-righteous people who claim to be Christian but by their very actions deny the Gospel. You can scour the NT and you will find that the only group that Christ had utter distain for were those who thought they were righteous. He was constantly criticized because of who He hung out with, tax collectors (hated by all) prostitutes and those who knew they were sinners
I am sure that the NT tells you not to think you are righteous.  So in this sense anyone who believes in Christ and thinks they are righteous is not a true Christian. As you say that still leaves many people that believe in Christ and who think they are righteous.  Whether you label them as false Christians or not is rather irrelevant. They exist.
It is the unbeliever that thinks they are healthy, that their righteousness is satisfactory, that they are better than the unbeliever.
It does not follow from lack of belief that you are in any way better than a believer. There are many atheists  who think they are righteousness and better than the unbeliever. There many others that do not. I could label the first group as false unbelievers as they do not accept the logic of their beliefs and the second group as true unbelievers.  Mark Frank
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT
One of them spent 18 years in prison, the other 12 years between county jail and prison. Going in, they were violent drug and alcohol abusers, and the first was also a drug dealer. In prison, they accepted Christ, immersed themselves in the Word of God, and have changed dramatically! They are kind, loving, hard working, and dependable guys deeply ashamed of their histories and grateful for the smallest blessing or kindness. I’m humbled by them, trust them more than many other people I know, and honored to have them as friends. Their personal relationships with God through the power of Jesus Christ has had an amazing effect on their relationships, values, and their lives. They tell me that phonies and hypocrites are quickly exposed in prison.
Wow, Querious, that rocks! My father in law is a Gideon and he often visits men and has Bible studies with men in prison as well. Keep up the good work. I live in Japan and there is nothing I enjoy more than seeing God change the lives of people when they come to know Him!tjguy
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT
Wow, Passer, you really had a tough family life. So sorry about that! The good news is that your parents, although perhaps they thought they were well intentioned and were doing what they should, were actually NOT following the teachings of Jesus. Child abuse is not what Jesus or the Bible teaches. I do hope you realize that. And I hope that is not the only reason you have rejected Christianity. It certainly would be a good reason though to reject your parent's style of Christianity and probably their church as well.tjguy
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT
Vividbleau @36 noted
This is a common misconception held by many and what I am going to say may offend some. The facts are it is not the Christian that thinks they are righteous and better it is the non-believers who are the ones who think they are righteous and better than the Christian. Let me explain.
Nicely put! On weekends, I spend time with some guys that have recently come out of prison, helping them adjust to being out. One of them spent 18 years in prison, the other 12 years between county jail and prison. Going in, they were violent drug and alcohol abusers, and the first was also a drug dealer. In prison, they accepted Christ, immersed themselves in the Word of God, and have changed dramatically! They are kind, loving, hard working, and dependable guys deeply ashamed of their histories and grateful for the smallest blessing or kindness. I'm humbled by them, trust them more than many other people I know, and honored to have them as friends. Their personal relationships with God through the power of Jesus Christ has had an amazing effect on their relationships, values, and their lives. They tell me that phonies and hypocrites are quickly exposed in prison. Is it any coincidence that Jesus himself associated himself with the "dregs of society" over the religious snobs, the wealthy, and the politically powerful? -QQuerius
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT
PasserBy11, Thanks, Sal. :)
You are welcome, and by the way, how did you find our humble weblog? Salscordova
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT
And, one other challenge offered to you: IF you believe that there is no god and that life is only a parsimonious result coming from nothing and headed toward nothing, then I offer you the only logical alternative--grab hold of the nearest 9mm and pop the cap on your brain. Based on your worldview, the ONLY truth that means anything is to avoid suffering. It is foolish to continue living only to suffer and fade into oblivion. Your anger and indignation that you feel at this moment betray the truth of what life is really about. Think about that feeling carefully tonight, and you may again discover the meaningfulness of life.OldArmy94
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
Even if chimps exercise "morality" by beating and ostracizing other chimps for their alleged "trespasses", that still fails to justify the atheist viewpoint that we should behave in a moral manner. WHY should I be compelled to act morally? By what standard do I take a moral stance and say that you SHOULD do something? There are no "shoulds" with atheism, only preferences. I am sorry that you rejected The Way, passerby11, and I can only hope for peace and ultimate redemption in your life before you discover Truth beyond the grave.OldArmy94
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
Thanks, Sal. :) Posting a link to the Tiktaalik reply that I mentioned in my last post...PasserBy11
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
PasserBy11, It is so kind of you to relate your story, and I sincerely hope people won't try to criticize you or argue with you as to your decision. I've been in these debates long enough to realize when it is better to simply exchange views and experiences free of confrontation and judgment. These are things I think creationists need to hear. I want to hear. I hope those reading here will learn something from hearing your account. Thank you very very much for taking the time to relate it. Salscordova
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
vividbleau:
What did He say to those who criticised Him? He told them that He came for the sick not the healthy. Those that think they are healthy have no need of Him, it is the sick ( like me) that need Him. It is the unbeliever that thinks they are healthy, that their righteousnes is satisfactory, that they are better than the unbeliever.
Although I agree with the spirit of your comment, my experience as a Christian is that self-righteousness is rampant in Christianity, probably more so than elsewhere. I grew up in a Christian environment that took pride in being better than non-Christians and looked down on those who did not go church. Prostitutes, atheists, homosexuals, drunks, drug addicts, thieves were all seen as the scum of the earth. It took me a while to realize that I was no better than anyone else and I'm still struggling with that. Then I noticed that the same self-righteousness that I experienced growing up among Christians was also alive and well among atheists and Darwinists. This is why I say that everyone is responsible for their own salvation. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Sure, you can learn from others but, in the end, you should make up your own mind. Don't rely on others to do your research for you and don't take their word at face value. Question everything and everyone, including the Bible itself.Mapou
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
scordova I don't completely understand the objection [re: comparative folklore / mythology / religion], and I hope PasserBy11 will elaborate.
After studying the myths and literature of ancient Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Norse, Greek, and Roman cultures, it was impossible for me not to classify sizable portions of the Bible as mythology. When one doesn't believe in an afterlife, the primary allure of a religion-as-a-worldview or theory-of-human-nature must provide something of value to him or someone he cares about, now or at least sometime before they die. The Christian churches that I used to attend emphasized how things would be so much better in the afterlife, while Buddhism and Taoism, for example, offer practical ways for living in the here and now. FWIW... I find that certain verses from Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, and some of the words of Jesus, offer the same type of wisdom re: living one's life in a mindful and fulfilling way.
geoffrobinson Atheists have to steal from theism to trust their own rationality, believe in morality, and believe in induction.
IMO... The works of Lao-Tzu, Chuang-Tzu, et al, disprove this statement. Also, chimpanzee troops demonstrate what might be called a basic form of morality when they beat and ostracize a chimp whom they suspect of stealing or withholding from the group.
bevets I would like to hear what the villains in your story have to say for themselves.
My mother is dead, so she won't be able to confirm the countless times she smacked me around with objects like belts and wooden spoons, often across the face, and sometimes so hard and out of control that a spoon would fracture in her grasp. My brother was a multiple witness, though, so you might be in luck, should you truly seek to communicate with him for the sole purpose of disproving a stranger's word on the Internet. Or how about with my father, whom I witnessed beating on my brother with a 2' x 4'? Naturally, you don't deserve such access to my life. But my brother and I might have had it easy compared to a few of our friends and classmates. Their parents called them "Stupid" and "Dummy" to their faces, and the men in their homes would ridicule and belittle their wives nonstop. Important Note: I blame only the abusive and enabling members of that particular local church for the abuse that I and my brother endured. I don't consider it the fault of religion in general or Christianity in particular.
drc466 [PasserBy11's] personal experiences with "Christians' and atheists is just an excuse
What you dismiss as my "personal experience with 'Christians'" is actually the first 24 years of my life. And my experiences with atheists didn't make me want to abandon my faith so I could join the cool kids. Rather, it was like a minority child finally encountering doctors, teachers, and news anchors of the same ethnicity; he might not grow up to be a doctor, teacher, or news anchor himself -- probably won't, in fact -- but it's nice to know those options are available, and that he doesn't have to pin all of his hopes on making it as a professional athlete. BTW... I also posted a reply in the original thread to the Tiktaalik link that tjguy provided.PasserBy11
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
And misspellings!!! Vividvividbleau
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
I hate typo's and mispellings. This is a common misconception held by many and what I am going to say may offend some. The facts are it is not the Christian that thinks they are righteous and better it is the non-believers who are the ones who think they are righteous and better than the Christian. Let me explain. The true Christian recognizes the total lack of self-righteousness and the depravity of their nature. We are not good and we are so bad that we must rely upon the work and righteousness of Christ. This is not to say that there are not many self-righteous people who claim to be Christian but by their very actions deny the Gospel. You can scour the NT and you will find that the only group that Christ had utter distain for were those who thought they were righteous. He was constantly criticized because of who He hung out with, tax collectors (hated by all) prostitutes and those who knew they were sinners. What did He say to those who criticized Him? He told them that He came for the sick not the healthy. Those that think they are healthy have no need of Him, it is the sick ( like me) that need Him. It is the unbeliever that thinks they are healthy, that their righteousness is satisfactory, that they are better than the unbeliever. Vividvividbleau
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
No, you did not burst my bubble. As I stated above, "If this record is true,..." I gave it that it was not possibly authentic. So, no need for the apologies. But thanks for the link you shared.seventrees
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
Seventrees, Thanks for the link, but it seems there was some serious re-writing of the original in that "adaptation". Here is a translation of the original. You'll note it looks nothing like the one in the "adaptation": http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/octavius.html I could tell by the writing style the dialogue was nothing like classical literature, so I inferred something was amiss. Sorry to burst your bubble. Maybe there were some themes that were similar, but I wouldn't think the "adapation" is a good representation. The adaptation seemed inauthentic. Salscordova
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
The rest of that thread is just mindless cheap quote-mining of me.
New material is always great, but sometimes people just want to hear the Matzke classics. Should we go back and read what happened the last time you stated that Nicky-boy, and how you disappeared in shame?TSErik
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
“Myther’s” are in the difficult position of having to revise accepted accounts (even by non-Christians like Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger, and Josephus, and possibly Suetonious) to prove the New Testament was revised. Ah, the irony!
Sal, if you go looking you will find the absolute insane mental gymnastics the, as you say, "Mythers" go through to attempt to reason away these accounts. Many state Josephus wasn't real. Or that if he was real, he was part of the conspiracy. The less intelligent use the fact that these accounts were written 60+ years after the death of Jesus as evidence for forgery. These people lack the basic understanding of the chronicling of history. Other accounts like that of Pliny the Younger, Origen, or Tacitus are claimed to have been inserted into originally existing historical accounts in order to support the Jesus myth. It is all rather absurd.TSErik
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
CAECILIUS: Oh, aren’t you so pure and good. That’s another thing that bothers me: you all think you are so righteous and better than the rest of us.
This is a common misconception held by many and what I am going to say may offend some.The facts are it is not the Christian that thinks they are righteous and better it is the non believer who are the ones who think they are righteous and better than the Christian. Let me explain. The true Christian recognizes the total lack of self righteousness and the depravity of their nature. We are not good and we are so bad that we must rely upon the work and righteousness of Christ. This is not to say that there are not many self righteous people who claim to be Christian but by their very actions deny the Gospel. You can scour the NT and you will find that the only group that Christ had utter distain for were those who thought they were righteous. He was constantly criticised because of who He hung out with, tax collectors ( hated by all) prostitutes and those who knew they were sinners. What did He say to those who criticised Him? He told them that He came for the sick not the healthy. Those that think they are healthy have no need of Him, it is the sick ( like me) that need Him. It is the unbeliever that thinks they are healthy, that their righteousnes is satisfactory, that they are better than the unbeliever. Vividvividbleau
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply