That Which is Offensive
So Zarqawi is dead. Yeah, I heard about it. Sitting in a doctors waiting room I was. Can't say he didn't have it coming, can't say he didn't deserve it, but neither can I say I'm overcome with joy at his passing. I wouldn't have said that a year ago, but today, I can't help but think of the verse ER mentioned in another post... "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." There's no hope for him now. There's no paradise. No virgins. Nothing but pain, and torment. I am glad his reign of terror is ended. But I am not happy that he is now lost forever. It is unlikely-- in human terms --that he ever would have come to Christ. But then, anything is possible with God... until death claims the unsaved soul.
There is something most people find offensive: the idea that someone such as Zarqawi could commit as many atrocities as he did, and still find forgiveness in Christ, and STILL be spared the punishments of hell.
Mohammed Atef, Yasser Arafat, Dahmer, Bundy, Mussolini, Hitler.... all these men could have avoided their just punishments, and found a place in heaven as one of God's children... had they only accepted Christ. And who knows for certain if they did not? Time will tell. All I can say is their fruit, their works, do not bear out that possibility... to my mind, at least. Which is why I said, 'Time will tell.'
What of the man who raped and buried Jessica Lunsford alive? All he need do is hear the call of the Gospel to repent, and though he suffer his just fate in this life, he gains forgiveness and eternal life with God.
Does that sound unfair? Especially if Jessica herself was not saved? Was she old enough to have heard the Gospel and rejected it? I don't know the anser to that. Time will tell. But the fact is, God's ways are not our ways. He is unwilling that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Even John Couey, Jessica's killer.
And yes, even Abu Mus'ab al Zarqawi. A man to be pitied, but feared no more.
There is something most people find offensive: the idea that someone such as Zarqawi could commit as many atrocities as he did, and still find forgiveness in Christ, and STILL be spared the punishments of hell.
Mohammed Atef, Yasser Arafat, Dahmer, Bundy, Mussolini, Hitler.... all these men could have avoided their just punishments, and found a place in heaven as one of God's children... had they only accepted Christ. And who knows for certain if they did not? Time will tell. All I can say is their fruit, their works, do not bear out that possibility... to my mind, at least. Which is why I said, 'Time will tell.'
What of the man who raped and buried Jessica Lunsford alive? All he need do is hear the call of the Gospel to repent, and though he suffer his just fate in this life, he gains forgiveness and eternal life with God.
Does that sound unfair? Especially if Jessica herself was not saved? Was she old enough to have heard the Gospel and rejected it? I don't know the anser to that. Time will tell. But the fact is, God's ways are not our ways. He is unwilling that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Even John Couey, Jessica's killer.
And yes, even Abu Mus'ab al Zarqawi. A man to be pitied, but feared no more.
from the mind of... Eric | 2:39 PM
63 Comments:
The biggest lie in the world today is that "Good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell". Everybody thinks he or she is "good" compared to others - but God says none of us are good - and compared to His perfect holiness, we aren't. That's why people are offended by the Gospel - because they think they're "good". It's not until we are convicted of our deeply rooted sin nature and admit to ourselves that we are capable of doing the same atrocities that the Sadam Husseins of the world have committed that we realize that we truly do need a Saviour.
Good post. Stumbled on it while random scrolling through blogs.
Thank you, and come back any time.
Pray for the peace of Jerusalem!
(Makin' sure you've seen this. Edited to fit the present circumstances...)
Zarqawi made his way to the pearly gates. There, he is greeted by George Washington. "How dare you oppose the nation I helped conceive!" yells Mr. Washington, slapping him in the face.
Patrick Henry comes up from behind. "You wanted to end the Americans' liberty, so they gave you death!" Henry punches Zarqawi on the nose.
James Madison comes up next and says, "This is why I allowed the Federal government to provide for the common defense!" He delivers a kick to Zarqawi's knee.
Osama is subjected to similar beatings from John Randolph, James Monroe, and 65 other people sharing the same love for liberty and America.
As he writhes on the ground, Thomas Jefferson picks him up and hurls him back toward the gate where he is to be judged. As Zarqawi awaits his journey to his final very hot destination, he screams, "This is not what I was promised!"
An angel replies, "I told you there would be 70 Virginians waiting for you. What did you think I said?"
Very nice. I've heard this before, hence your preface. Thanks for sharing it.
I don't know EL. You all could be wrong. Perhaps Zarqawi is right now enjoying himself in all the carnality that his religion denies itself upon earth. Perhaps everyone gets what they expect after death. Maybe you are right and Zarqawi at this moment is suffering agony as if every atom of his being is burning in flame, which will continue until an uncountable moment after the sun has turned to dust, while a loving benevolent god looks on. Or maybe those last moments Zarqawi begged for god's forgiveness, but because no one heard him confess his sins publicly, or baptised him, his change of heart was refused. Or possibly Charon is explaining that credit cards are not accepted at the river styx. Possibly the great light at the end of the tunnel burned away his individuallity and he joined in the eternal gestalt mind of god.
The truth is like you said no one knows. Death is a one-way door that all go through alone, and none return to bear the tale of the other side.
...Unless you believe otherwise.
Heaven as an ala carte menu... Hmmm... Interesting concept.
As we all have a common ancestor... somewhere in the mists of time, our bodies all die the same death-- figuratively speaking. There is therefore a single God to which men should worship. And since there is but a single God, there is but one heaven, and one set of rules that determines who gets in and who does not.
Man has a great imagination. He is capable of conceiving just about anything-- limited only by his humanity. But the things he imagines are phantoms; without substance, or physical truth, unless he shapes them with his own minds, and hands. Ancient man sees lightning spark from one end of the heavens to the other, but with no knowledge of the natural world, he invents Zeus.
The same cannot be said for the Lord God, the great I AM. There's too much evidence to the contrary.
Islam is a perversion of the truth of God. A lie. A fabrication of Satan. But before anyone starts to snicker, consider that if there is indeed absolute Good, there must at present be Evil in the universe. One need only read or hear of the deeds of the late Mr. Zarqawi to see the truth in that.
There is but one universe. One God. One Truth. And Truth always wins. If in the end I am wrong-- and we are not all absorbed into an eternal gestalt mind --feel free to laugh, I won't hold it against any of you. But what if I'm right? What will happen after you stumble across the threshold of eternity unprepared?
It's easy to look at the culture fostered by the religion of Islam, compare it to western culture, and say our differences are nothing more than the differences in our ideologies. This is the polar opposite of True. Each us, from birth, instinctively knows what is right and what is wrong. It's written in our DNA. It doesn't have to be taught to any child that telling a lie is a bad thing. They do one of two things when caught, defiantly defend their lie, or hang their head in shame. Either way, in their heart they know they've been caught in something wrong. It's called conscience... "With Knowledge"... that's what sin is-- Doing what one knows to be wrong.
But the conscience can be seared; burned beyond any ability to feel. The conscience can be tricked into believing just about anything. That's what Islam-- perhaps Satan's greatest perversion --does; it perverts conscience, and changes the truth of God into a lie.
Do I believe Zarqawi is enjoying the fruits of his labor? Absolutely! But it is fruit I do not wish upon anyone.
"Man has a great imagination. He is capable of conceiving just about anything"
Very true.
"Ancient man sees lightning spark from one end of the heavens to the other, but with no knowledge of the natural world, he invents Zeus."
Yep, and this is a good analogy for the great monotheistic religions as well. The role of religion should be to provide an ethical and moral compass, yet before science began to untangle the mysteries of our universe and our origins, our religious tradition tried to explain that as well- incorrectly.
"The same cannot be said for the Lord God, the great I AM. There's too much evidence to the contrary."
I'm sorry EL, but I grew up with this stuff, and believed it for quite a long time. But there is no evidence, only ancient (and often contradictory) stories and arguments based on man's great imagination.
And since then I have been exposed to much evidence that flatly and irrefutably contradicts many of the stories in the Bible- like the age of the earth and the flood and our origins. This evidence is empirical, repeatable, and based on rational inquiry and logic. The same cannot be said for belief in the God of the Bible.
I respect your beliefs, and would defend your right to believe them to the death. But you cannot claim they are evidence based. And you surely cannot claim the Bible is literally true, especially when it requires that one dismiss voluminous evidence to the contrary amassed over the last several centuries.
And the reason I believe this is important is that we now have a large portion of the population that literally believes Jesus will come down out of the clouds sometime soon. This is loony and dangerous. It encourages apathy toward solving our real problems. Why try to build a durable and sustainable society when the world is about to end anyway?
The world will never end, Solomon
...but it will go through some changes.
On that we certainly agree.
EL in your reply, you make several assumptions that I have to take issue with.
There is therefore a single God to which men should worship. And since there is but a single God, there is but one heaven, and one set of rules that determines who gets in and who does not.
Just because you think there is only one diety does not give your view credence or veracity. Millions of hindus would take exception to your viewpoint. Also I have to quibble with your assumption that a being that created not only the earth and oceans, but also the horsehead galaxy and the black hole at the center of the milky way would particulary care about the self-interested wishes of humanity.
Continueing our exploration of basic christian assumptions lets look at this idea that there is only one after-life. How do you account for all the varying stories from those that have died and been revived. This assumption goes hand-in-hand with the idea that ther is only one set of rules for determining your after-death resort package for ALL ETERNITY.
..consider that if there is indeed absolute Good, there must at present be Evil in the universe.
Another assumption. If you go as far out into space as you can you will still not find a pure vacuum. There is nothing pure in this universe. The clearest diamond still has inclusions of other minerals, and those differences are what make each diamond unique. So is the same with people, and the universe, and possibly dieties.
Each us, from birth, instinctively knows what is right and what is wrong. It's written in our DNA. It doesn't have to be taught to any child that telling a lie is a bad thing.
Another assumption that is wrong. Children do not come with christian, american morality writ on their DNA. Two babies put into a playpen will fight over toys. Two toddlers talking with each other will embroider the stories they tell. It is only cultural conditioning that teaches embarassment, when caught out in a lie.
EL your assumptions shackle both your intellect, and your faith - Preventing you from entertaining ideas that might expand your understanding of your own beliefs.
I've never read so much self-gratifying crap--anywhere, before! Except maybe over at the Reverend's place.
Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto your own understanding...
The opposite, BenT, I would say is true. You're confidence in your own intellect keeps you from embracing simple, uncomplicated Biblical truth.
So just check your mind at the door, Dad?
So much for critical thinking.
Had the 9/11 hijackers been willing to use their intellects a little more, rather than accepting simple, uncomplicated religious dogma, maybe a tragedy and a war would have been averted.
And had earlier Christians done the same, maybe fewer people would have been burned at the stake for questioning "simple, uncomplicated biblical truth."
Your logic is the logic of the Taliban. It flies in the face of evidence and reason.
The "earlier Christians" you refer to, had they followed simple Biblical truth, would not have burned people at the stake.
It was man's intellect that led to people accepting the atrocities performed by the "church".
Not Biblical truth, dude.
Talk about lack of critical thinking!
Kinda like--it's the person that kills another, not the gun.
But you folks haven't accepted that fact, either, have you? You're still "thinking" it out, huh?
It doesn't take a rocket-science intellect to discern God's truth from the Bible. Only an open heart.
"Christian" Elitists--that's a good term to describe the "Christian" Left.
"You can't discern truth unless you're smart like me. Since you can't discern it for yourself because your such an ignorant dumb-ass ('Scuse, please?), I'll show you what a good person I am by telling the truth to you....you ignorant person! I'm brilliant, follow me to Jesus!"
Well, I disagree on the stake burnings. It wasn't science or the enlightenment that caused those burnings, it was religious ferver and dogma.
And did I call you a dumbass anywhere? I'm only saying that an argument against rationality and reason is no argument at all.
What exactly is your definition of an "elitist?" Someone who disagrees with you?
I am constantly amazed at how some people attempt to distill religion down into a system of rules, regulations, and practices that can be followed, and dismiss Faith altogether, and then proceed to tell me that MY religion can be no better than anyone else's, because I believe things that cannot be proven.
You cannot explain a real, true Christian Relationship with God to people who label you a Kook for listening to voices in your head.
These guys have already decided to reject any evidence they will be presented.
Christianity is not a checklist that I follow, checking off each thing that Jesus told me to do as I do them.
It is a personal, interactive Relationship with my Heavenly Father which affects my every-day decisions, and the more I follow the Guidance that I recieve from this relationship, the happier, healthier, and more successful I am.
I am sorry that I cannot draw you a diagram to explain it, and since some of you have decided to take absolutely nothing on Faith, then you will never be able to understand it.
Re, "Except maybe over at the Reverend's place." Thank you for not forgetting about me, D.dad. Bless you. Bless you for spitefully using me.
Re, "The earliest Christians ..."
The earliest Christians had no Bible. They had only Jesus and the memories of His words -- some, but only some, of which can be found in the Bible.
Tugboatcapn has nailed it. Sorry folks, but there's nothing really to say after that. Except this:
Anyone, if you look back far enough, will have some skeleton in the closet. To point to crusades, inquisitions, and witch burnings as proof that Christianity is no better than, say, Islam, illustrates a lack of... hmmm, how to be nice... understanding? no that doesn't fit... no, on second thought, it does fit... A lack of understanding... in terms of comparison.
Christianity got off on the right foot, but by the 3rd century it began to stray from the path. The Church-- the organized ROMAN church --seized power for itself, not for God. The crusades fly by... the inquisition... and then someone by the name of Martin steps up as says... "Hey, that's not what the bible says!" Christianity struggles a bit more... trying to re-acquire the purity it had at the first... return to its first love, so to speak... only to discover, yet again, that man is woefully prone to idiocy.
Witch burnings... Christianity matures... And now, what Christianity is today is not what it was 300, 500, 1600 years ago.
Islam on the otherhand, hasn't changed at all. It is still a 6th century religion; barbaric and diseased to its core.
Pointing out the sins of Christianity's past without acknowledging its maturity, and using this argument to say Christianity is no better than Islam... Well, that's just plain dishonest.
It could honestly be said that many of the attitudes within the organized Roman church of 500, and 1600 years ago, were thoroughly steeped in ignorance, and corruption. As little as 300 years ago, the reformed church showed more than a bit of ignorance itself. Even today's church exhibits a severe lack of understanding. But anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of what real Christianity is, cannot say that Christianity is flawed or failed as a faith because of its past sins. Christianity remains to this day, from its very inception, a pure and undefiled religion. The mistakes of the Church are just that, mistakes made by the Church... which was and still is comprised of imperfect men and women.
Now, I would never try to convince anyone here that there are not adherents of the peaceful religion of Islam that do not desire peace with the rest of the world. I could never win that argument because I personally don't believe it. But these peaceful Muslims are not at issue here. It's the Mullah's and murderers who have all but stolen the limelight within greater Islam. Islam still needs to mature. Without that maturity, she will never be seen as anything other than a barbaric religion, slavishly practiced by barbarians.
THAT is the difference between Islam and Christianity.
I often point out the sins of past Christians not in an attempt to prove that Christianity is wrong. Just to show that pointing to the sins of Muslims isn't sufficient to prove that Islam is wrong.
But, in all honesty, Islam is actually a good bit higher on my shit list than is Christianity. If I was debating muslims instead of Chrstians that would be very clear. But I don't think anyone here needs to hear more arguments about how dangerous Islamic radicalism is.
Your argument about a mature Christianity is an interesting and powerful one. I would argue that some of that maturity comes from an embrace of modernity, secular society, and reason. Or at least learning to coexist with these things. I would also argue that some folks- too many- seem to be reacting against just those things. They seem to want to turn the clock backwards, especially when they reject clear scientific truths. These folks are the mirror image of radical Muslims.
Along the lines of religous maturity, is it not relevant to note that Christianity has a good 600 years or so on Islam? To compare the two side by side, perhaps we should be looking at the Islam of today vs. the Christianity of the 1400's.
Or, more hopefully: maybe some day Christianity's little brother will also grow up a little.
"reject clear scientific truths."--Sol
Whwn you can explain your "clear" scientific truth, Sol, I'll worship at the feet of your superior intellect!
I don't expect to be bowing to you, though.
Rev, I only "spitefully" use you as you spitefully use Christ's name in vain!
I felt that judging Christianity today based on the sins of the church of yesteryear was unfair, but failed, in my estimation, to make clear my reasoning. Maturity is one thing, that only goes so far, but consider also the following...
It is unfair to judge me by the actions of my father. For a judge and jury to award damages to a third party for the deeds my father committed before I was born, is both unjustified, and quite frankly, insane.
Another illustration: A lot of people (certainly not a majority, but a whole lot of people nonetheless) would like to see America pay reparations to the descendants of black slaves. While intellectually, I see-- if not completely understand --the reasoning behind this it, the unfairness of it is beyond my ability to be civil... but I will attempt it.
Firstly, no "African" American, currently living, or born in the United States of America today was, or is, a slave. They have suffered the crimes of racism, yes, but they were not slaves. Secondly, no American living, or born in the United States today, has owned a slave. Why then should one segment of our society be forced to give to another for crimes it has not committed? And why should one segment of our society receive reparations for crimes it did not suffer? [The native American issue is different in my estimation]
By the same token, the Church today is not responsible for the Salem witch trials, the inquisition, the crusades, the persecutions of Jews, and religious sects, or the forced conversion of native Americans in south, central and north America.
Islam, likewise in not responsible for the crimes of it's past. But Islam is virtually unchanged today from its sixth century beginnings. Truthfully, in comparing Christianity and Islam... there is no comparison.
Dad, you're jeering again.
El,
" But Islam is virtually unchanged today from its sixth century beginnings"
All due respect, El, I don't think any of us here know enough about Islam to claim this.
And I think a lot of historians of Islam would disagree. Islam has actually been far more peaceful at times in the past- it was also a repository for higher learning during Christianity's Dark Ages.
Today, Islam is a very diverse religion. There are many very different sects, beliefs, and practices. Compare Islam as practiced in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kurdistan, Afghanistan, and Indonesia (the largest Muslim country). They are tremendously different.
So if Islam hasn't changed from its beginnings, how did all these different traditions come about?
Bless you, D.dad.
I'm not worthy of the hem of YOUR garment, Rev.
God grant D.dad peace. Amen.
God let D. Dad grow up and stop acting like an 8-year old. Amen.
Only someone who has been redeemed by the Blood of Christ can possibly understand the difference between evidence, which can be manipulated and hence, faulty, and in faith, whis is defined as belief in things unsees.
Good post EL. And thanks for reminding us that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, but the gift of God is eternal life through faith in His son, Jesus Christ. Not in man, lest any man, like Solomon and bent (Solomon is a perfectly inappropriate name for him since the original Solomon was blessed by God with wisdom and this Solomonm obviously was not, Bent, however is perfectly appropriate since he is, indeed, bent) should boast.
Zarqawi no doubt got what he deserved, but as you say, it's a pity it had to end that way for him, or for anyone else, for that matter.
Just because I disagree with you, Mark, does not mean that you are wiser than me. Attack my arguments, fine, but I'm a little tired of commentators making it personal when they'd rather not take the time to formulate a coherent argument.
And are you suggesting that faith is not subject to manipulation? That faith is never flawed?
The heart and the mind play tricks, Mark, especially when one does not think critically and test their beliefs with observable facts. When the evidence points to flaws in one's beliefs, they should be amended.
Mark are you willing to stand your name against the accomplishments of all the other Marks out there? Are you as saintly as Pope Mark (336 ad)? Do you think you're as witty as Mark Twain (1835 ad)? Are you as strong as Mark McGwire (1963 ad)? That's not even mentioning the guy who wrote the Biblical Gospel.
I believe Mark has done took to drinkin'.
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Faith, more often than not, defies observable fact
El,
"Faith, more often than not, defies observable fact."
Can you elaborate on what you mean by that please?
Prayers in public---to get noticed...for personal glory--I guess that's another bible-truth contained in scripture you folks have decided to reject.
As God is my Witness, this I do pray:
Father, please allow these sinners who you love so dearly come to understand the truth of your Word. Pease let them see their own pious hypocrisy. And Lord, please--above all--let them one day know your salvation!
In Christ's Holy Name,
Amen.
From Hebrews 11:3-40
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.
21 By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff.
22 By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones.
23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment.
24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;
25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.
27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.
28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.
29 By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.
30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.
31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.
32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:
33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions.
34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.
35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:
36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:
37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;
38 (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
That is as concise a definition of faith and why "observable facts" can rarely be considered applicable when defining faith.
You probably think my response is a cop out. But it is, if fact, perfect. Don't look at the words, look instead at the implication of each example. Faith acts believing its action will accomplish the desired outcome.
No, I don't think that's a cop out at all. Thanks for the clarification.
To clarify my own earlier points, I bring up "observable facts" when claims made by the bible contradict hard evidence- the age of the earth and evolution are good examples.
By contrast, the faith described in Hebrews falls outside of that category- it deals with matters beyond the observable realm.
So in this light I have no quibble with your statement that faith defies observable fact.
How does electricity work, Sol?
Heck, how does gravity work? Can you explain these two commonplace observable natural phenomenon?
You can't. You can theorize--but you'll never be able to explain them.
Evolution is nothing but a theory--that's all. The obseravtions--uncountable observations--from multitudes of individuals--can be put together to make an excuse for anything at all.
Sinful, wicked humankind has developed a deceptive,ultra-complicated, and evil excuse to continue in their own filthy sin--to be their own god.
That's a main difference between the progressive right and the "progressive" left, you know. The left complicates simple things in such a way as to justify their actions--regardless of how irresponsible those actions might be.
Conservatives analyze complicated matters and find the simple truth and justice, then apply it.
Dad:
"Evolution is nothing but a theory--that's all. The obseravtions--uncountable observations--from multitudes of individuals--can be put together to make an excuse for anything at all."
Wrong. It's testable, and makes concrete predictions that are borne out over and over again. And just like how our knowledge of electricity makes that computer of yours work, our knowledge of evolution is being used to cure disease and is the bedrock of all biology.
"Sinful, wicked humankind has developed a deceptive, ultra-complicated, and evil excuse to continue in their own filthy sin--to be their own god.
What a bizarre conspiracy theory! Are all of the scientists in all of the universities in the world in on this?
"The left complicates simple things in such a way as to justify their actions"
It only looks that way because you haven't taken the time to really try to understand the science you routinely denounce. Go read a book!
"Conservatives analyze complicated matters and find the simple truth and justice, then apply it."
Or maybe they just go ahead and apply whatever uninformed bias they had in the first place. It's simpler that way, and no messy facts required.
"evolution is being used to cure disease"
Explain this to me. How could "evolution" be used in curing disease?
Are we talking "macro" or "micro", here?
"What a bizarre conspiracy theory! Are all of the scientists in all of the universities in the world in on this?"
No! A significant number are not!
Are you saying they all ARE?
Microevolution over time adds up to macroevolution. Small changes + small changes = big changes.
Understanding how pathogens evolve, how virulence of those pathogens changes, and how pathogens and their hosts coevolve all help us to develop therapies and medicines.
Understanding why some animals are immune to diseases helps us develop therapies to combat similar diseases in humans. For example many cat species are immune to FIV, the feline equivalent of HIV, because they have evolved resistance over time. We haven't had the time to evolve resistance, but looking at FIV in lions can help us figure out how to leap frog that evolutionary time.
Understanding when certain beneficial mutations occurred and tracking their spread through the human population helps us understand why some people are immune to disease (like plague) and others aren't.
Understanding the evolutionary history of humans helps us overcome limitations placed on us by that history. Or which animals will be better models for drug trials since they are more closely related to us than others.
Understanding how diseases evolve resistance to antibiotics, how mosquitoes evolve resistance to insecticides, etc, all helps us better combat these pests.
That's 2 minutes off the top of my head. Scholar.google.com would tell you a lot more.
My soul objection to evolution is the belief that at some distant point in time inanimate material leaped the chasm of impossibility to take up the mantle of life. It begs me to believe I could take a tin can, add 2 multivitamins, a half cup of distilled water, a teaspoon of salt, and a tablespoon of garden soil, shake it all up, and wait for life to happen.
I can accept as fact that organisms, over time, mutate and change-- viruses are very adept at this. What I cannot accept is that man was once akin to apes, who evolved from a lower order of life, all the way down the ladder to a single-celled organism, which inturn rose from the proverbial primordial soup that consisted of a few amino acids or some such, that themselves sprang from the recipe I described in the above paragraph.
That man was designed, with intent of purpose, makes far more sense to me than "Primordial Soup".
How many "pathogens" have become anything more than "pathogens" in all these "evolutionary" steps, Sol?
Ever have an ape leap forth off the slide?
See, you even distort the clear distinction between "macro" and "micro". You're viruses will never become anything other than viruses.
Evolution is a myth perpetuated by tactics such as you have just used! Your theory that "can be tested"--BAH!
Evolution has never been observed. And if the world lasts a billion-freaking-years, be sure, it will likewise never be observed.
You could sit in your lab for eons and the best you would do would have a mutation that made the subject become extinct.
But you would NEVER create some NEW organism!
Instead of letting someone else think for you--all your books and all--why don't you use a little simple logic and stop complicating things to fit your view, Sol?
"over time"
What a pathetic excuse!
Have you ever seen a "pathogen become anything more than a "pathogen", Sol?
Have you observed an ape leaping from the slide?
the "evolution" myth is perpetuated by tactics like you have just used.
If the world lasts another billion years and you had the ability to sit in your lab during the entire time you would only achieve the extinction of your viruses through harmful mutations.
You would never observe anything more than a virus under your microscope.
For someone as confident in his intellect as you seem to be, surely you would agree.
"Time" is the evolutionists only friend when their hypotheseis is put under scrutiny. Always has been, always will.
You told me to read some books, Sol. I have. I've read many. But I've never read where one organism self-transformed into another organism. Never been duplicated, pal!
I ask you--why must you let someone else do your thinking for you? Seriously, the more CRAP you put into your mind the more CRAP is going to be there to complicate things.
That's a comforting thought to liberals...and atheists!
For some reason, my first post in this series of posts did not show when I re-navigated my way over here. I attempted to say the same thing in a new post.
Sorry for the clutter, EL!
Dad,
It was the Pharisee in Jesus' parable who said "God, I give you thanks that I am not dishonest, corrupt or perverted like other people. I especially thank you that I am not like that (Redneck) over there."
Mouse,
I don't believe Daddio has ever prayed such a thing. Daddio is well aware of his faults.
I do, however, see the Reverend Redneck's glorification of himself almost every time I encounter him.
Elashley,
"My soul objection to evolution is the belief that at some distant point in time inanimate material leaped the chasm of impossibility to take up the mantle of life."
Well put. This actually isn't something we need argue about. Although the study of evolution has established very well that all living creatures known to science share a common ancestor, it says nothing about what created that common ancestor. What you describe is the origin of life-- there are a handful of people who have looked into this, but it's not a major focus of research. Strangely enough, it's not something that interests scientists all that much or has many real-world (medical, conservation, agricultural, etc) applications. It's also very, very hard to do research on- it happened billions of years ago, and maybe only once.
If one wants to believe that God started it all in motion, or even helped it along with the end goal of people and koala bears in mind, I have no objection to that belief. I don't share it, but I can't object because I have no evidence to the contrary. (And Daddio, don't worry- science can never prove there is no God, and anyone who claims otherwise is a fool.)
It's only when people say the earth was created some 6,000 years ago or that we haven't evolved that I take issue. We know otherwise.
... and I don't mean the "wants to believe" to sound patronizing. I'm well aware that my own experience is limited....
Daddio, Nice rant. More tomorrow...
Sol, have your "scientists" ever observed a pathogen becoming anything other than a pathogen?
Come on! Surely you can answer this one!
No, why should we? It's not like a bacterium suddenly becomes a mouse. Or a cat becomes a person. Your ape leaping off a slide is a silly caricature, and I'm pretty sure you know better.
I'm starting to figure you out. Science is just one more kind of magic to you. Just one more God to worship or not worship. Well, to the rest of us, it doesn't work that way. It's a methodical, powerful way to discover how the world works. It makes your car run and your lights turn on and treats your kid's throat infection and tells you the next time Haley's comet will come by. But no magic and no worship involved.
So, why don't you answer me this: all dogs are the same species , right? They all descended from a single wolf ancestor, right? A little selective breeding over at most a few thousand years did that.
If a chihuahua and a St Bernard can be produced by a few thousand years of selective breeding, think what natural selection over millions of years can do.
We have seen species evolving in real time in nature. And huge changes over longer periods in the fossil record- why do fossil whales have tiny little useless legs that shriveled up and disappeared over millions of years?
You've just written 2,000 words and said nothing.
"We have seen species evolving in real time in nature."
Huh?
"If a chihuahua and a St Bernard can be produced by a few thousand years of selective breeding, think what natural selection over millions of years can do."
A dog always returns to his own vomit! Always has--always will!
Let me ask you this: Will you admit that the leap from "micro" to "macro" is absolute epculation?
By the way,
I've had you figured out since the first time we rode this merry-go-round, Sol!
Oh- and why do modern whales occasionally sprout a leg or two?
And to respond to your comments yesterday:
"Seriously, the more CRAP you put into your mind the more CRAP is going to be there to complicate things."
That's it, just stick your head in the sand and believe what you're told. Is that what you tell your kids? Isn't that what they teach at the madrasas in Pakistan?
"I ask you--why must you let someone else do your thinking for you? "
Dude, I don't. I've reconstructed evolutionary trees from DNA that I extracted from animals myself. It's not that hard when you work in a genetics lab- we had undergrad techs do this all the time. Changes in DNA and changes in species we studied matched evolutionary events- like population expansions into new ranges and new environments- that coincided with historical events like the glaciations. The theories worked just exactly like they were supposed to (your silly caricature of apes leaping off of slides notwithstanding).
It's repeatable across species and using different methods. The DNA record of countless species- including humans- matches events recorded in the fossil and geological records. Like how the fossil split between new world and old world monkeys matches the geological date of when the continents
split apart, and how these dates match dates derived from DNA analyses.
And in the fossil record we do see species changing, giving rise to new species while others die out, like clockwork. Sometimes the process is jump-started- like when a mass extinction caused by an asteroid impact opens up new ecological niches to be filled. Best known but relatively mild example: the demise of dinosaurs and the subsequent adaptive radiation of mammals into the niches they dominated.
Or when a chain of islands, like Hawaii, forms from a volcanic eruption, allowing a few
species that arrive first to evolve into diverse flora and fauna, filling what were once empty niches. That's why so many islands have species found nowhere else, and why they have so many species that are closely related to each other but have evolved to fill entirely
different roles (like Darwin's
finches ).
And all the fossil evidence, all the DNA evidence, matches the Geological
record.
Check it out.
You keep avoiding my pointed question and resort back to pure speculation!
A crystal-ball would be more valuable to you than your text-books of humanism.
You can't admit that EVERYTHING you hold as evidence is based upon speculation--hopeful desires.
(Sigh). It's not speculation, Dad. The evidence is there, in the fossil record and in our DNA, and it's entirely consistent with what the theory predicts.
I've given you enough links to begin looking into how evolution works and the evidence for it. If you want to blow it off, well, I did my best. I never expected to convince you of anything, but at least I've made an honest effort to explain my position.
I wrote so many words so we wouldn't have to do this again. EL has been pretty darn patient here (thanks EL), but I'm sure he'd rather not see his comment sections continually go off on tangents about evolution. Now we can just say we both know where each other stands.
The truth is complicated. We used to think the Earth sat motionless at the center of the universe and that the sun, moon, and all the stars revolved around it on heavenly spheres. The laws of planetary motion and physical cosmology are much more complicated, and it was an uphill battle to get some people to accept those too.
To wrap up, I'll never get why you're so threatened by evolution. After all, I can't imagine a more wonderful and subtle way for a patient, eternal, and all-knowing God to fill a world with an endless and beautiful array of living creatures.
Solomon, re: "I'll never get why you're so threatened by evolution."
In a nutshell:
If there were no perfect creation, then there could be no Fall; if no Fall, then no need for a saviour; if no need for a savior, then the Gospel is a joke and Jesus was either a liar or a lunatic.
That is the fundamentalist line of thinking -- but to be honest, I don't know many fundies who actually articulate it that way; evolution just feels icky to them.
HOWEVER, some of us see that evolution does *not* bankrupt Christianity, and that the main thing Jesus saves us from is ourselves, and that following Jesus itself can be seen as an extension of evolution, since by doing so we become fully human, which we have to do before we can become fully spirit. That's not a very good explanation. Sorry.
There's a section of a book I have at home that explains it much clearer. I'll try to input it tonight or tomorrow over at my place.
"If there were no perfect creation, then there could be no Fall; if no Fall, then no need for a saviour; if no need for a savior, then the Gospel is a joke and Jesus was either a liar or a lunatic." Reverend Redneck
Thanks for speaking for me, My Advocate--my....cough, cough...Saviour!
I believe in literal, six-day creation because I believe the Bible.
Reverend Redneck, you condemn me for that. I am opposed to evolution because it is less concievable to me than the creation scenario.
Sol, I have read page after page of links provided by people just like you. You're right, you're attempt won't change my mind.
Call me when that ape jumps off the slide.
Logic and evidence are wasted on you, Dad.
But you can't say I didn't try.
Head, meet sand.
I don't know how old the earth is-- no one truly does. Estimates after all are nothing more than "educated" guesses. But I do know that when God creates something, he doesn't create it "formless and void". The world may not be 6,000 years old, but this present age certainly is in the neighborhood of 6,000 years old. Before 5,000 years we are hard-pressed to find any record whatsoever that any civilization existed prior.
I agree that mutations can and do occur. But Chihuahuas and St. Bernards.... there's no reason not to believe that these are simply different species of dogs, capable of producing mixed offspring. I understand the appeal of wanting to tie it all up nice and neat, and say that these two particular species had a common ancestor. But if we're willing to believe that then it's not much of a stretch to say they are different species capable of producing offspring.
Quite frankly, Evolution, be it the scientific variety or the god that many do in fact worship, doesn't in the least bit make me question my faith. I'm not the least bit threatened by it.
Daddio. I understand your opposition. I also agree that not enough balance is given in public schools and society in regards to these two opposing "faiths"... and yes, I believe it takes a lot of faith to believe in evolution as it is generally perceived by the average person-- as opposed to Solomon who, it would seem, has some experience in certain scientific fields.
Having said all that. Might I again sue for peace on this issue. It doesn't help my cause-- Christianity --if the arguments here appear petty and uncivil to the casual passerby.
I'm reminded of the old movie "Poltergeist"... Remember the little woman calling out to the spirits...
"Go into the light, all are welcome"
That's not quite the spirit I want to foster here, but it comes close.
On a final note. Daddio and I both believe what we believe. We defend it, albeit poorly-- speaking strictly for myself on that point. I simply do not have the knowledge base to competently defend my beliefs on this. I know the information is out there, but I just don't have time to dig it all out, besides which, what time I do have is spent getting deeper into my own faith. Challenging the faith of others will come when God says it's time.
And that's as straight forward and honest as I know how to be.
Thanks one and all.
You're right. Your kind of skewed logic and questionable evidence IS lost on me Sol!
But if you want to keep trading these little quips, go right ahead!
Head, meet as....oh, well.
D.dad. I do NOT "condemn" you for anything!
I do not like you because you have never ever been anything but rude and dismissive of me.
And you don't care whether I like you or not. So why don't you get. off. my. ass.?
Um, I mean "butt."
And on that note, I think we've said all that needs saying... and then some.
<< Home