Luke 6:41 NIV

Luke 6:41 NIV
"Why do [I] look at the speck of sawdust in [my] brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in [my] own eye?"

1.16.2009

What Who?


Some Christian friends and I have been involved in some very interesting discussions with some atheist/agnostics here and here. (Consider yourself warned) I'd like to clarify some things: Not all atheists are 'ignorant' and not all 'atheists' are 'atheists'. Now that I've made that clear as mud, I'll move on.

It's never good when you have to open a blog with a disclaimer: I will probably come under fire for even saying this. Thank you.

I think God can be found in everything. Attributes of God. He can teach us in whatever ways we are willing to learn. He's like a diamond, which has different facets. You look at it one way, you see a collection of sides; you turn it a different way, you see yet other sides. He uses the "foolish things to confound the wise." That's not an excuse to say you need to go to the bar, get drunk and witness to the other drunks. They aren't wise and you aren't confounding. Sorry. Bottom line is, He shows up in different ways. I like to try to find Christian themes in movies and the overall message being delivered by them. The Star Wars series is a good place to reflect on the fallen nature of man and the struggle of his dual nature, a Christ-type figure, salvation and free will, etc.; though you have to sort through the Buddhist and New Age undertones.

This brings me to my ultimate topic. Horton Hears A Who. Though not totally engaged, I was in the room as this movie played in my home last night. There was a striking resemblance between this movie and many of the discussions I've been having with my new atheist/agnostic friends that kept repeating itself. It's basically summed up in a phrase from the movie made by Kangaroo. "If you can't see it, hear it, or feel it, it doesn't exist." It breaks my heart that people feel this way, but they do. This is not a slight or indictment on non-believers. But the one thing I realize, and I keep realizing, is that no matter what anyone else tells me, no amount of supposed 'proof' is going to take away from the things God has done in my life. Nothing. NOTHING.

All proof I'm shown against God is things of the world. This fallen earth. Our fallen nature. Well, if I constantly look at things of the world, then it should be expected my view of God would be dim, at best.

The movie revolves around Horton, who is an elephant, and the Mayor of Who-ville, who is a...Who. Horton hears screaming on a floating speck and saves the speck because he believes there is life on the speck. As he talks to the speck, only the Mayor hears Horton. He tries to convice others that Horton is real, but none believe him and attribute it to other things. Naysayers.

The struggle is how the Mayor deals with his newfound "friend." He knew what he knew. As he attempted to explain it to others, he knew it sounded crazy, but he still tried. I sometimes feel that way when attempting to explain God to atheists. I know it sounds crazy. In my conversations I've even left out some of the details just for how bizarre it sounds. But God does bizarre things. Things I can't figure out on a calculator or petri dish. And that's just the way things are.

The tough part for me came last night. I consider myself fairly well educated in the Word and confident in my relationship with Christ. I was at a food bank and I saw some people in there that I had never seen before. In fact I saw a LOT of people I had never seen before. Things are not what they used to be and people are becoming more dependent upon things "outside themselves." They're looking for a hope elsewhere because the government and the banks are no longer providing the services we've become accustomed to. The food bank director asked if anyone had any prayer requests. As I listened to the requests that were offered up they were varied: plain sickness to pregnancy to broken bones and gunshot wounds. It was then that I realized the emptiness that some people seemed to carry. They have little hope in their circumstances and are looking to the church, to Jesus, to ANYTHING that offers promise. I begin to think about these conversations with my new friends and the potential of one of these empty, hurting people coming in contact with someone like them. These 'hopefuls' are searching and the atheists attempt to destroy any hope that may exist.

I'd like to add here, I honestly do not think any of the atheists I've met recently would intentionally force their opinions on someone who didn't want to hear it. In fact I believe the opposite. They are typically responding to people they KNOW are already Christians. They are not going out (that I know of) seeking to further smash the dreams of the hopeless. However not everyone is as "considerate".

Then the conviction hit me. How much help have I offered to the lost and broken? What have I done to ease someone's pain and spread the news of Jesus? In a sense, all and none. But it made me do something. As I came to the foodbank to receive, I looked around the room and began to serve. I helped some frail people carry their food to the car, helped another guy find a Bible, etc. etc. So many times I look for God in the massive things that are far from my reach but don't find Him until I look down right in front of my nose. I see the thanks that these broken people have in receiving what little or great amount of food they get. I see the hope, the smiles, hear the thanks they give to the workers, but mostly to God. At that brief moment in time God is as real to them as the ground they walk on. When they are handed a box of food, no questions asked, the love of Jesus is acted out. Is that reason to believe in God? No. But it gives them a sense of hope and, if only for a few moments, the affirmation that there is something outside ourselves that we can put our hope in. How dare anyone try to take that away.

I think that's a lesson to be learned for all of us. God is looking for humility, not knowledge. He's looking for heart and character, obedience and integrity. If God is going to bring in a few atheists into my life to help me realize that, then bring 'em. They'll never take my heart.

Do not be afraid of those who can kill the body, but not the soul..."
-- Matthew 10:28a

23 comments:

  1. Well done! What a great testimony. (not sure if it was a testimony wrapped in your post or your post wrapped in your testimony) Either way: A resounding Amen. I believe that's what's WATCHED: humility, heart & character more-so than what's LISTENED TO: our knowledge. And as a sidebar, I found it very interesting the type picture they tried to paint of "pouch-schoolers". Narrow minded and fearful of experiencing "life"? whatever! That was a lame attempt.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Amen and thank you to. Not sure of the reference to pouch schoolers...again, I didn't watch it too closely! But if you're referring to Kangaroos son, I did get an interesting analogy from that.

    Matthew 10:35 - "For I have come to turn " 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--" regarding the final scene where the baby jumps out of the pouch!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, I guess it just hit a little too close to home for me. The "mother kangaroo" made comments about the joey being "pouch-schooled" amid many rigid overprotective unrealistic comments that justified her preserving her child from such "craziness" as Horton hearing a Who. (it's been a while since we watched it, but I remember being amazed at what a strong statement they were trying to make with it)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ahh! I see. Yeah, I didn't see it that way simply because she was so mean...I didn't really see her as a religious figure, but since kids movies in our house seem to be on a constant loop, I watched part of it again. I understand what you mean.

    I love the contrast used between Horton and the speck. It's so contrary, yet still blows our concept of God out of the water. You look at the speck and then at Horton and you think, "Man, he's HUGE"...then relate that with God to us and God's like, "Yeah, you can't even get your head around ME!"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Your assertion that atheists are trying to take hope away is completely unjustified and mean spirited.

    On the other blog, you seem to have comfortably rejected the conclusions of science (theory of evolution to explain biological diversity etc) and yet are happy to make use of the fruits of these conclusions.

    CF: How dare anyone try to take that away.
    How dare anyone try to reduce ignorance and superstition!

    In rejecting the conclusions of science, you are also rejecting the method by which those conclusions are reached.
    This method, which for you is inferior to an ancient text written by a people who were ignorant of much that we now know, is responsible for increasing the quality of life for vast sections of the globe, reducing the dangers of child birth to the stage where the death of a child or mother during is a tragedy instead of common place, massively increased the average life expectancy, cures for disease and illness as well as greatly increased crop yields so that, at least in developed nations, few go hungry.

    The scientific method continues to increase our knowledge of reality, and the technological spin offs continue to increase the duration and quality of our lives.
    If the advances in science, looking at what it has done in the past, and extrapolating to see what it may provide in the future, is not cause for hope, then I'm afraid I don't know what you mean when you use the word.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi CF,

    Only just found your blog... sorry it took so long.

    "If you can't see it, hear it, or feel it, it doesn't exist."

    I cannot see, hear or feel an electron... but they can be detected.

    Now, if something cannot be detected in anyway... please tell me how such an object/thing is any different from something that doesn’t exist?

    I'd like to add here, I honestly do not think any of the atheists I've met recently would intentionally force their opinions on someone who didn't want to hear it. In fact I believe the opposite. They are typically responding to people they KNOW are already Christians. They are not going out (that I know of) seeking to further smash the dreams of the hopeless. However not everyone is as "considerate".

    Firstly, I will discuss my ideas with anyone who is interested... but I do not go out of my way to thrust my ideas onto others. I discuss with those who wish to discuss. (Seems fair?)

    To give you an idea on where I come from... I will be teaching my sons about Jesus... and Allah, and Zeus, and Apollo. Oh, and of course science.

    I will not force my ideas on them. I want them to decide for themselves.

    Now, can the Christians here with families say similar? Do you teach your children about science, evolution, the Big Bang, Allah, Zeus, Woden etc etc?

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
  7. HAVOK: On the other blog, you seem to have comfortably rejected the conclusions of science (theory of evolution to explain biological diversity etc)
    I have not rejected the conclusions of science. I agreed early on that I can (and do) accept certain aspects of small evolutions, mutations, genetic changes, etc. In fact, you guys have enlightened me to these facts. Facts I didn't know before I met you guys.

    It's the unconfirmed of science (i.e. what exactly happened at the exact moment of the creation of life); I'm sticking with God.

    and yet are happy to make use of the fruits of these conclusions.
    I don't understand this comment.

    In rejecting the conclusions of science, you are also rejecting the method by which those conclusions are reached.
    I don't reject the conclusions of science. I don't reject the scientific method. I hope that would be evident to you in my "Prayer Experiment".

    As I wrote before, we can dig up evidence/contradiction all day long. And we have. I'm still reading some of yours!

    LEE: Firstly, I will discuss my ideas with anyone who is interested... but I do not go out of my way to thrust my ideas onto others. I discuss with those who wish to discuss. (Seems fair?)
    Yes, it's fair. And I hope that is what you understood me to say.

    I do not specifically teach science. As I alluded to, I'm not a scientist. I wouldn't really know where to begin. However, I did sit down with my daughter and watch Expelled. AND went through some of the major points and paused the movie and told her what some of the opposite views are. Objectively.

    I explained the small details in evolution to her. Did I teach genetic mutations? or quantum physics? No. Sorry...hope I haven't let you down! She's somewhat familiar with Allah on a very, (VERY) basic level. I've never even heard of Woden.

    LEE: I will be teaching my sons about Jesus
    Can I ask what you may be teaching them?

    ReplyDelete
  8. CF:accept certain aspects of small evolutions, mutations, genetic changes, etc.
    But the conclusions of science are more than this. Common descent and speciation are "confirmed" science, btw.

    CF: it's the unconfirmed of science (i.e. what exactly happened at the exact moment of the creation of life); I'm sticking with God.
    You're introducing an unnecessary hypothesis. While the exact mechanism of abiogenesis is not known, and there are likely a number of ways it could have happened so we'll probably never know which exactly occurred, a natural explanation is possible, and much more probable than the god hypothesis. Even with the God hypothesis, you're still left with a "how".
    Why go with God in this instance, especially as "God" has consistently been found lacking as an explanation in the past?

    CF: I don't understand this comment.
    Evolution (including speciation and common descent) is important for a whole host of technologies (viral inoculation for example). You seem to reject common descent (though accept "micro evolution") but you're probably happy to get a flu shot. This is what I'm talking about.

    CF: I don't reject the conclusions of science. I don't reject the scientific method. I hope that would be evident to you in my "Prayer Experiment".
    But you reject the conclusions of that method when they conflict with the bible (common descent for example, or the likely event of abiogenesis).
    Why is the method so successful everywhere else, and yet so wrong when it comes to something like origin of species or abiogenesis?

    CF: I've never even heard of Woden.
    He's also know as "Oden", Thor's father, head of the Norse pantheon of gods :-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. CF: It was then that I realized the emptiness that some people seemed to carry. They have little hope in their circumstances and are looking to the church, to Jesus, to ANYTHING that offers promise. I begin to think about these conversations with my new friends and the potential of one of these empty, hurting people coming in contact with someone like them. These 'hopefuls' are searching and the atheists attempt to destroy any hope that may exist.

    Because false hope is such a worthwhile thing to cultivate.
    I suppose you condone ministries of Hinn and Bennke?
    These "faith" healers give (false) hope to millions. We should leave them to their (very lucrative) work, right?

    The rest of the series can be found here

    ReplyDelete
  10. Link above may not work. Use instead:

    http://au.youtube.com/results?search_query=question+of+miracles+faith+healers&search_type=&aq=f

    ReplyDelete
  11. Just notice my blog is linked

    Strawmen Cometh (you've been warned...)

    Glad you made the warning :-)

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
  12. CF: I've never even heard of Woden.

    Where do you think we got the name Wednesday?

    "The name comes from the Middle English Wednes dei, which is from Old English language Wēdnes dæg, meaning the day of the English god Woden (Wodan) who was a god of the Anglo-Saxons in England until about the 7th century. Wēdnes dæg is like the Old Norse Oðinsdagr ("Odin's day"), which is an early translation of the Latin dies Mercurii ("Mercury's day"), and reflects the widespread association of Woden with Mercury going back to Tacitus."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wednesday

    ReplyDelete
  13. HAVOK: I suppose you condone ministries of Hinn and Bennke?
    HAHA! Heaven's and resounding NO! I don't trust those guys any further than I can throw them. I've never had a good feeling about either...I can't explain it...and I have a lot of friends who enjoy them, believe them and support them. I've done some "snooping" on them and I just don't buy it. But as for me, and this does not reflect the views of any of my friends or my church, I can't watch them without getting...well, just sad and disgusted. I thought you knew me better than that! ;-)

    HAVOK: Common descent and speciation are "confirmed" science, btw.
    That is correct, as seen here
    No wait, it's wrong, as seen here.
    No, I'm sorry...never mind. It's right.
    Oh, no...nope. It's wrong. What's a guy to do?

    HAVOK: but you're probably happy to get a flu shot.
    I wouldn't say, happy is the right word. ;-) (Actually, I'm in the Air Force Reserves so they force me to get the shot anyway...) But I know what you're saying! I am grateful that they give me the flu for three days instead of a whole week!

    HAVOK: But you reject the conclusions of that method when they conflict with the bible in regard to the Prayer Exp.
    I see. That was more tongue-in-cheek than anything else, and I knew it would get shot up. But I had wanted to put it out there anyway.

    HAVOK: He's also know as "Oden", Thor's father, head of the Norse pantheon of gods :-)
    Oh that guy! Thanks for clearing that up! (Uhh......(?))

    LEE: Glad you made the warning :-)
    Yeah...sorry! This (mine) is a 'family blog', so a couple more 'disclaimers' may be necessary at some points! No offense! You guys are cetainly welcome here.

    LEE: Where do you think we got the name Wednesday?
    I thought it was from the daughter on the Addams Family TV show. No?**curses...foiled again.**

    ReplyDelete
  14. This (mine) is a 'family blog', so a couple more 'disclaimers' may be necessary at some points!

    I promise not to swear if that helps...

    If you don't want me to comment on religion or God here I am happy for that also... we can do it at my blog

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
  15. CF: I can't watch them without getting...well, just sad and disgusted. I thought you knew me better than that! ;-)
    Good, so you agree that addressing and exposing false hope and fraud is a good thing, something we should work towards? :-)
    Or do you think that, even though the program I directed you to showed these guys to be frauds (though possibly pious frauds) we should let them continue because they bring hope to millions?
    CF: They are not going out (that I know of) seeking to further smash the dreams of the hopeless.
    The previous comment, from your original post leads me to believe you think these guys should continue pedalling their fraud, so as not to smash the dreams of the hopeless. Would that be correct? :-)

    What makes the "healings" of Hinn and Bennke any different to the "healing" you witnessed (apart from that it happened to you, and therefore it was "true")?

    CF: That is correct, as seen here
    No wait, it's wrong, as seen here.
    No, I'm sorry...never mind. It's right.
    Oh, no...nope. It's wrong. What's a guy to do?

    A guy should try to look at the arguments objectively and see what the evidence supports. Either that or he should stay ignorant of the details (not a bad thing - time is in short supply after all) and accept the consensus of experts (who overwhelmingly accept evolution including common descent).
    CF: But the one thing I realize, and I keep realizing, is that no matter what anyone else tells me, no amount of supposed 'proof' is going to take away from the things God has done in my life. Nothing. NOTHING.
    The above comment, also from your original post, makes me think that looking at the evidence objectively would be difficult for you. Would you agree?

    This is very compelling genetic evidence for chimps and humans sharing a common ancestor. Similar lines of evidence show it likely that all species share a common ancestor.
    Remember, all conclusions of science are provisional, and could be shown mistaken upon new evidence being found. While they stand, however, they represent the best explanation currently know, for some phenomena.
    On the "I don't have enough faith..." thread, I think billy posted a video of Ken Miller, which would also be useful to watch.

    Scientists are not out to disprove god or Christianity, they're out to do scientific research. "Creation scientists" are out to prove their beliefs. It's usually an expressly stated purpose of the institutes they belong to (ie. "The Institute for Creation Research"). The archaeological links you cited on a previous thread were published by organisations whose express purpose is to support the inerrancy of the bible.
    Would you expect these people, with aggressively stated ideological agenda's to handle the evidence in an objective manner?

    CF: But I know what you're saying! I am grateful that they give me the flu for three days instead of a whole week!
    Actually, that sounds more like a "common" cold than the flu (which is much worse than a cold, far more debilitating, and kills many people every year), but regardless, the technology which provides those shots relies upon evolutionary theory, which has as a conclusion common descent. This is exactly what I mean that you accepting the fruits of research without accepting the conclusions.

    CF: This (mine) is a 'family blog', so a couple more 'disclaimers' may be necessary at some points! No offense! You guys are cetainly welcome here.
    I'll try to keep my indignation to a manageable level :-)

    Lee: If you don't want me to comment on religion or God here I am happy for that also... we can do it at my blog
    Same here :-)

    ReplyDelete
  16. HAVOK: What makes the "healings" of Hinn and Bennke any different to the "healing" you witnessed
    It's Bonnke. I am in no position to judge those healings. I wasn't there. However this is my opinion. There's no reverence. There's no respect. There's no appreciation for the Healer. That, in itself, disgusts me. We are to come before the Lord with awe and trembling, not pomp and circumstance. It's all numbers. It's all about people, not God. There's no (or little) concern for the presence of God in these services. I believe God can move in tremendous and powerful ways. I don't doubt that one bit. But it goes back to reverence. Where is the reverence?

    HAVOK: The above comment, also from your original post, makes me think that looking at the evidence objectively would be difficult for you. Would you agree?
    I don't know man. I talked about this elsewhere, about how our worldviews affect the way we interpret information. This is evident even in science, where some people attribute the scientific evidence to a designer, others attribute the same evidence to natural causes. So I don't know if I can even answer that question objectively.

    HAVOK: Either that or he should stay ignorant of the details (not a bad thing - time is in short supply after all)...
    Wait a minute, what?! Lee told me to ask him a question in 5 billion years!! What are you talking about short supply? ;-)

    and accept the consensus of experts (who overwhelmingly accept evolution including common descent).
    So in essence we should "just have faith"? Sounds like fairy tales to me.

    This is very compelling genetic evidence for chimps and humans sharing a common ancestor.
    --Wait a minute? This says that 98.5% of our DNA lines up with a chimpanzees and I need to accept that? But the fact that the Bible is 99% textually pure is a bogus statement? O.k.
    --I find this amusingly ironic. I remember on Ryans blog we had a serious discussion (and you raised serious and valid arguments) about God telling the Jews to kill specific people groups, yet there are tribes of chimpanzees and apes in danger of going extinct, wiped out entirely, because of the "advancements" of man. This is not to mention the thousands of "experiments" that are in captivity today (mainly in America) subjected to the pokes and prods of our braniac scientists. But, oh yeah...God is evil and it's all about "survival of the fittest." I forgot.

    HAVOK: Scientists are not out to disprove god or Christianity, they're out to do scientific research.
    This is true. Most of them anyway.

    Would you expect these people, with aggressively stated ideological agenda's to handle the evidence in an objective manner?
    If they are true professors of their vocations, then yes. Just as I expect a doctor to do the same.

    This is exactly what I mean that you accepting the fruits of research without accepting the conclusions.
    Ah. I understand now. Again, please do not misunderstand...it is not the issue of evolving I have issue with. It is the foundational issue that I do not agree that everything started by "randomness" or "accident".

    ReplyDelete
  17. CF: It's Bonnke.
    Slip of the fingers, whoops :-)

    CF: I am in no position to judge those healings. I wasn't there.
    So if we weren't there, we are in no position to judge things? Surely you don't mean that?
    If you do mean it, you're being very gullible.
    Does Sai Baba heal and raise the dead in the name of Vishnu? ;-)

    CF: However this is my opinion. There's no reverence. There's no respect. There's no appreciation for the Healer.
    Fair enough, though why I don't see why your opinions are worth more than the millions who attend these things. The family of the child with a brain tumour seemed very sincere, and seemed to revere "god" quite highly.

    CF: That, in itself, disgusts me.
    The abuse of power and authority, coupled with the manipulation of the ignorant and hopeful are more what disgusts me. When confronted with evidence that his whole shtick is a "hypnotists act", Hinn dismisses it saying "the spirit is there" or some such waffle. Such arrogance and willful ignorance should be met with scorn and derision, not adulation and respect
    The lack of reverence for Yahweh|Jesus doesn't even enter the picture :-)

    CF: We are to come before the Lord with awe and trembling, not pomp and circumstance. It's all numbers. It's all about people, not God. There's no (or little) concern for the presence of God in these services.
    How do you know that? Benny Hinn obviously believes in what he is doing (assuming he's a pious fraud and not a knowing one), as do his millions of adherents.
    The people gathered, as well as Hinn and Bonnke seem pretty concerned with God. They "feel" him all around them. If you take it at face value (which you seem to do somewhat), then the healings and "anointing"s are evidence of the presence of your God, aren't they?

    CF: I believe God can move in tremendous and powerful ways. I don't doubt that one bit. But it goes back to reverence. Where is the reverence?
    It seems that every instance of "god" moving can be more simply explained as coincidence, or the workings of the minds of those involved. Why don't you doubt?

    So do you think Hinn and Bennke should be praised or at least supported because they bring people hope (though they've been outed as frauds, pious or not)?
    Is false hope a thing to be avoided, or should hope in general be encouraged?

    CF: I don't know man. I talked about this elsewhere, about how our worldviews affect the way we interpret information.
    True, but we need to look at our presuppositions to see how they might be affecting how we see things. You need to try to look at things objectively.

    CF: This is evident even in science, where some people attribute the scientific evidence to a designer, others attribute the same evidence to natural causes. So I don't know if I can even answer that question objectively.
    ID has made no testable predictions to my knowledge, nor has it made a positive case for itself.
    The entirety of the ID/creationism movement seems to be positioned to discredit the theory of evolution, which is the currently favoured explanation (by a massive majority, btw). Even if the theory of evolution was discredited, a subsequent theory would need to prove it's worth to be accepted - ID/creationism do not simply win by default. As yet neither of them has managed to make a positive case.
    There is no controversy in science concerning evolution (though there are details needing to be worked out, about which there are disagreements). ID/creationism seems to be nothing more than a public relations exercise.
    You should look into the Wedge Strategy from the Discovery Institute (the home of ID) for their motivations.

    CF: So in essence we should "just have faith"? Sounds like fairy tales to me.
    Not the same as faith without evidence (fairy tales), however.
    These people have spent their lives studying the topic. Unless you're willing to educate yourself, what other option do you have?
    Aligning with a small minority of (often discredited) scientists who have an ideological agenda to pursue, simply because their conclusions support your own deeply held faith, doesn't seem to be a justifiable position to me. Would you agree?

    CF: --Wait a minute? This says that 98.5% of our DNA lines up with a chimpanzees and I need to accept that?
    That the DNA of humans and Chimps is ~98% identical is empirical fact.

    CF: But the fact that the Bible is 99% textually pure is a bogus statement? O.k.
    That the bible is (relatively) textually pure (from around 200-300CE) is historic fact.

    The evidence shows chimps and humans have a common ancestor. The evidence shows that after 200-300CE the Christian bible has not been seriously altered. I don't see any argument with either of those. What do you have a problem with?

    What did you think of the evidence presented?

    CF: --I find this amusingly ironic. I remember on Ryans blog we had a serious discussion (and you raised serious and valid arguments) about God telling the Jews to kill specific people groups, yet there are tribes of chimpanzees and apes in danger of going extinct, wiped out entirely, because of the "advancements" of man.
    This is certainly a cause of concern, especially as there are very good arguments concerning the great apes being sentient and therefore worthy of classification as people. See The Great Ape Project for details.
    Why is this ironic, btw? Neither Lee nor myself has ever claimed that man is perfect, which Christians do claim the moral perfection of Yahweh|Jesus.
    Would a morally perfect being explicitly condone slavery, genocide, infanticide, subjugation of women, rape, murder, visiting ill upon the descendants of those who did evil and eternal torture?

    CF: This is not to mention the thousands of "experiments" that are in captivity today (mainly in America) subjected to the pokes and prods of our braniac scientists.
    There are standards of ethics (which may not be adequate) which govern experimentation on other animals. These standards may not be sufficient, but they can be (and have been) amended.
    You seem to be angry or dismissive of scientists and science in general above. Why do you think that is?

    CF: But, oh yeah...God is evil and it's all about "survival of the fittest." I forgot.
    If God is defined, as you seem to do, as all "good" then he can't be evil.
    The actions of your deity, however, do not accord with my understanding of the term "good" (or, as we discussed "Just", "Merciful", "Loving") and therefore I don't see how these attributes can be assigned to this being, hence my request that we use an alternate term without definitional baggage.
    I don't think you ever addressed the questions regarding these attributes on Ryans blog (nor the question as to whether God could do anything which was wrong/evil) :-)

    Survival of the fittest is actually a misnomer. It's more about "survival of the most able to pass on genes". This statement (and all of science, btw) is descriptive, not prescriptive. It tells us the way things are, not the way things should be. The theory of evolution cannot tell us how we ought to behave, but it can tell us why we do behave the way we do, and how we came to be the way we are. Do you see the difference?

    CF: This is true. Most of them anyway.
    And most of them accept the conclusions of that research, including Common Descent (see Billy's links to Ken Miller, a devout Christian, who is also a proponent of the theory of evolution).

    CF: If they are true professors of their vocations, then yes. Just as I expect a doctor to do the same.
    If their specific agenda is to support some conclusion which they already have prior to assessing the evidence, how can you expect them to be objective?
    The history of "biblical" science is a history of misrepresentation and error, all in an effort to support the foregone conclusion that the bible is inerrant (or without significant error).

    CF: Ah. I understand now. Again, please do not misunderstand...it is not the issue of evolving I have issue with.
    Great. So common descent is the only reasonable explanation for the evidence, as scientists have found? :-)

    CF: It is the foundational issue that I do not agree that everything started by "randomness" or "accident".
    Are you saying there must be a teleological "purpose" behind life/everything?

    ReplyDelete
  18. CF: But the fact that the Bible is 99% textually pure is a bogus statement? O.k.

    "To be sure, of all of the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among our manuscripts, most of them are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance for anything other than showing that scribes could not spell or keep focussed any better than the rest of us. It would be wrong, however, to say - as people sometimes do - that the changes in our text have no real bearing on what the texts mean or on the theological conclusions that one draws from them. We have seen, in fact, that just the opposite is the case." - Bart D. Erham, conslusion of "Misquoting Jesus"

    Perhaps that 99% refers to the percentage of the hundreds of thousands of textual differences which are "immaterial"? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Finally got round to clicking on your blog CF, thanks for visiting mine.
    Lee - you do get around! (good on ya).
    Read this post and a couple of comments. Good commentary on Horton movie CF. Not seen it but know the book well, it is indeed a parable and a half.
    I've been mulling over a few gulfs of perception and understanding between those who believe and disbelieve in God of late, inluding the one Havoc expresses about the bible being 'an ancient text written by a people who were ignorant of much that we now know'. I hope to address some of these in future posts (though no promises when). And Lee, I haven't forgotten or ignored your qs and comments on my blog.
    Bye for now.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Bruce: including the one Havoc expresses about the bible being 'an ancient text written by a people who were ignorant of much that we now know'.
    I'd have thought that was a fairly uncontroversial statement which everyone could agree to. The bible was written by men, in a time when knowledge was not as "plentiful".

    A see the disagreement stemming from the Christian (and also, Judaic and Islamic) claim that various books of the bible are inspired by some all powerful deity.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi CF,

    I’ve been rather busy of late – cannot access the internet at work – plus with the 40+ C heat at the moment the trains don’t work and I am getting back late.

    Still, do you want to talk some more or have you got bored with us?

    I talked about this elsewhere, about how our worldviews affect the way we interpret information.

    I can agree to this… however the difference, as I see, it is that I know what it will take for me to change my worldview.

    How about you?

    My worldview is one of doubt... yours is of certainty.

    You are certain that there is a god, this is a problem for me to understand being a doubter.

    How can you be so certain?

    Lee told me to ask him a question in 5 billion years!! What are you talking about short supply?

    I didn’t say I would be around to hear your question :-)

    So in essence we should "just have faith"? Sounds like fairy tales to me.

    Just as much faith as you need to believe that the Sun will raise tomorrow.

    We have been down this road before.

    Don't confuse my trust in physics to someone's faith that some magic beans will cure cancer.

    But the fact that the Bible is 99% textually pure is a bogus statement?

    How can we test this ‘99% pure’ – what would falsify your belief in it?

    Oh, and any examples of what it means to be ‘99% pure’? I’ve heard several times from Christians that because the bible says “In the Beginning…” it is in perfect alignment with science.

    The problem though occurs when we read past the first 3 words – it goes down hill very fast.

    But, oh yeah...God is evil and it's all about "survival of the fittest." I forgot.

    Can you form your 'heated' speech into an argument?

    Men do bad things… we can agree on that.

    Next point?

    It is the foundational issue that I do not agree that everything started by "randomness" or "accident".

    I will let you in on a secret… I have a ‘foundational issue’ with an electron being both a particle AND a wave – it makes no sense in my head.

    Thing is, I can (well, I could) do the maths and the theory works… whether I like it or not.

    SO, just because you do not like it, or cannot understand it does NOT invalid the argument or the evidence for the theory of evolution.

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Bruce

    Lee - you do get around! (good on ya).

    Like a bad cold :-)

    I'll talk with anyone who is interested in talking. Simple really.

    Just have not got much time at the mo to do it as much.

    And Lee, I haven't forgotten or ignored your qs and comments on my blog.

    I will be waiting :-)

    Lee

    ReplyDelete