I think a common reconciliation would be to say that the Bible is a mix of inspired truths from God (which are infallible), and a history (written by earnest people, but who were just writing what they knew) whose recording may have been guided by God but is not infallible.
I would have actually voted for this video if not for the atheist salespitch strewn throughout, or the sad debate with the catholic priest at the end. What he is saying is essentially correct, and in fact, he uses many of the same arguments that I use when talking to liberal Christians. This isn't the whole story, though.
First, a Christian shouldn't reject evolution. Micro-evolution, or changes below the species level, is not only a proven fact, but it also explains how the world was repopulated after the flood. There is no conflict in believing this occurs. The contentious issue is macro evolution, or the theory of common descent. If you believe all life has a common ancestor, then you cannot believe in a literal Adam and Eve. At least, you would think that, but I've heard some Christians say things like, God used evolution to bring about all of the animals, but humans He specially created in the garden. This is obviously a compromise but some people don't see that as being a big deal.
In any case, as for myself, I came into Christianity with a belief in macro evolution, and I saw no reason to doubt it was true. Like everyone here, I had been indoctrinated into that belief from a young age and I assumed it was true because it was taught as absolute fact. Because I was still young in the faith, I didn't see the logical inconsistancy in believing in macro evolution and Christianity. However, what spurred me to change my mind was not finding that there was an inconsistancy (i didnt become aware of that until later), it was simply investigating what the evidence for macro evolution actually was. I was profoundly shocked to find that it was based on nothing more than weak, circumstantial evidence, and like abiogenesis, it dwelled solely in the realm of metaphysics. It took me awhile to change my mind about it; my indoctrination was heavy, mostly because it is so ingrained in our culture. You see it in books, movies, tv shows, nature shows, newspapers, always talking about it as if it were absolutely 100 percent proven. The culture speaks with one voice about it, and that voice says it is historical fact. Yet what I found is that it is not proven, it is just assumed to be true, and then the evidence is interpreted through that lens to support the preconceived notions, which is the exact opposite of scientific reasoning.
I don't think Christians should reject macro evolution just because the bible speaks of a literal Adam and Eve. I think they should also reject it because it is not supported by the facts. I think they should understand what the data is for theory and how scientists arrived at their conclusions. I think they should be as well informed about it as possible. If the evidence were solid for macro evolution having occured, I would still believe it. This might change my ideas about what the bible says, but my faith isn't based exclusively on interpretation of the bible; ultimately, it is based on my personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
The main premise of this video is really to shake the faith of liberal Christians, and also to say that those who are logically consistant regarding the bible are rejecting macro evolution despite the evidence. I can honestly say I rejected it because of the evidence, not in spite of it.
Rubbish. It's stuff like that that makes religious people dislike atheists.
I'm not an atheist--but neither am I Christian. Nonetheless, I think it's worth pointing out some serious flaws in the argument here.
First, the literal interpretation of the Bible has never really been primary. Actually, this is almost universally the case for sacred writings. The Greek myths were to be understood as metaphor, and the Koran is considered by many Muslims to be a repository of spiritual truths which are not necessarily on the surface, and which require study to glean from the text.
Interpreting the Bible as non-literal--as metaphorical, analogical, etc.--goes back more than 2000 years. One of the first writers on the Old Testament, the Jewish scholar Philo, wrote a treatise that regarded the sacred books as almost entirely non-literal. He viewed it as encoded with revelations about Platonic truths, the structure of the spiritual world, and not necessarily a history book.
This viewpoint was carried through to the Christian period. The Church Father Origen famously interpreted the book non-literally. The 4th century Church Father St. Augustine even wrote a tract called "On the literal interpretation of Genesis," in which he excoriated the Creationists of the day, who believed the world to be flat and the sky to be a literal blue dome--and who believed, contrary to all observation, that the world was only a few thousand years old, when anyone with eyes could tell that it was clearly much older. Augustine cautioned the Christians against such interpretations because they were clearly wrong, and because they made Christians look like idiots.
Augustine instead proffered the interpretation that the world had been made all at once, in one instant. The "days" referred to in Genesis he instead took as referring to the distinct logical elements of the instantaneous act of Creation. Incidentally, Augustine claimed that this was, indeed, a "literal" interpretation--the term "literal" meant something very different in those days.
Of course, the ancients also viewed the world in a very different way. In those days, it made perfect sense to see an actual, physical object as also metaphorical or analogical in some way. A temple or a statue of a god could be, in a very real way, the instantiation of the god in the physical world. According to Aristotle, every object had its natural goal, its "telos." An object fell because it was its "telos" to be at its natural resting point on the ground. And so on. There was no such thing as dead matter, devoid of an intimate relationship to mind or spirit, in the view of the ancients.
It was not until the rise of the scientific worldview in the 17th and 18th centuries that the literal interpretation of the Bible became popular. Matter came to be viewed in Cartesian or corpuscularian terms, as pure mathematical extension in space, entirely passive unless moved from the outside. In Cartesian terms, things like the "telos" were unthinkable for physical objects.
Seeing the popularity and utility of this new viewpoint, the Protestant preachers began devising literalist interpretations of the Bible. Their goal was to vindicate the Bible in scientific terms. Their effort might have been laudable, but it became occasionally silly. Some theologians argued that Jesus hadn't actually died on the cross--he had just fainted, and then woke up in the tomb later and walked out.
Nonetheless, their efforts were genuinely honest and took the newest and best science to heart as they worked on their interpretations. Some of these theologians were scientist in their own right, making important contributions to biology and geology. However, as time went on, their efforts proved ultimately futile, leading the best theologians to gradually abandon the literalist approach the Bible.
Unfortunately, there are still a number of Christians who cling to 19th century literalist approach. So-called "creation science" comes out of this tradition, for instance. It should be remembered, though, that these Christians are not only rejecting genuine science--they are also rejecting centuries-old traditions within their own religion.
@HadouKen24 - All that you say is very dandy and very well may be true, but you'd be shocked at how widespread it is to cling to 19th century literalist beliefs. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in the US it's remarkably common and even presidential candidates manage to think it despite pursuing the most powerful office in the world. I grew up in a particular Christian denomination, one of hundreds, and we had an official statement of faith that stated the absolute, literal, inerrant nature of the bible. This particular flavor of Christianity has about 3 million adherants, and again, this is only one of hundreds - many of which are even more conservative in their biblical interpretation.
When you say that it has been common for some time to regard sacred texts in a metaphorical sense I think that's definitely true, especially in the case of liberal theologians. However, when you take away the literal interpretations and leave interpretative metaphor all that remains is an interesting and influential piece of literature that has no specific authority. And I think this is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that it lowers it to the same level as Moby Dick, Oedipus, Infinite Jest and Harry Potter - all of which are books that have interesting, moralistic metaphors just like the bible.
Let's face it, religion needs the teeth of absolute truth and the threat of moral superiority to have any privileged relevance over other interesting, moral works. I see neither in any of its texts.
@shinyblurry - Give me a non-macroevolutionary reason that junk mutations in Cytochrome C just happen follow a clear developing and branching pattern that just happens to coincide perfectly with those independently developed by scores of other disciplines (such as embryology, paleontology and so on) as well as those based on hundreds of other non-coding markers (such as viral DNA insertions and transposons, to name a few).
If you can give me an answer that can account for these coincidences, does so without macroevolution, and indicates that you actually took the time to understand the concepts I listed above, then I'll take the time to write a much more exhaustive response as to why you're wrong.
So.. these statements show you have no comprehension of the words you strung together.
"Investigating" articles published on "Christian Science" Monitor or reviewing Kurt Cameron's Banana Atheist Nightmare video does not count as research. >> ^shinyblurry:
However, what spurred me to change my mind.. ..was simply investigating what the evidence for macro evolution actually was. I was profoundly shocked to find that it was based on nothing more than weak, circumstantial evidence,
A "weak" inductive argument is one which has little evidence to support its claim.
Hence, the more evidence.. the stronger the argument. I'll let AronRa take over from here:
Not only do I live in the US, but I live Oklahoma, one of the most religiously conservative states. I don't have a great deal of respect for that brand of religion, for sure. Which is precisely why it's so galling to see a video that suggests that's just what Christians have to be like--that Christians who reject the Bibliolatry and hermeneutic cutting and pasting of those idiots somehow aren't real Christians, that rejecting the sheep-like credulity of these so-called faithful means that the thoughtful ones haven't actually thought it through. And somehow it is averred that those who cling to the ancient traditions of Biblical understanding are inauthentically Christian, since they don't accept the quasi-heretical doctrines of 19th century upstarts.
Clearly false. Yet that's the whole thrust of the video!
With regard to your last two paragraphs, I think we're starting to move away from straightforward commentary on the video. But that's alright with me, if it's okay with you.
As far as dogmatic authority goes, I think that you're partly right about some religions. Specifically, the big Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It's important to remember that this is not the entire world of religion (even if they are important), so there are a number of statements about them that will be incorrect about other religions--in fact, most other religions.
It's true that the Big Three do indeed seem to require acceding to the truth of certain propositions in order to remain in their historical form: e.g., that the Torah was revealed by God, that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead, and that Mohammad received the Qur'an from Michael. (for each religion respectively) There is certainly an important sense in which certain very liberal theologians are still Christian, but this is something very different than historical Christianity.
Nonetheless, this is something separate from moral authority. One may deny that there is anything correct about the metaphysical pronouncements of the Bible, and still accept that its moral teachings are profoundly important. This is precisely what philosophy Slavoj Zizek has done.
For most other religions, the number of specific propositions that must be accepted is few to none. Pronouncements about gods or salvation are amenable to multiple interpretations. The ancient Greek philosophers, for instance, were quite religious on the whole. Yet read a book on Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Platonism, and tell me what proposition about the gods that they agree on. You'll find it quite difficult.
The same can be said of Shinto, Hinduism, Buddhism, Western Pagan revivals, etc.
Moreover, I myself don't think that moral authority is actually essential to religion. It's certainly related to religion, but as I'm sure you've observed--there's not much of a correlation between religious belief and moral behavior. Simple observation shows most Christians to be liars. Morality is not why they are Christian.
Instead, I think it's something else--transcendence, and the promise of new states of being. Morality has almost nothing to do with this. The same man can be capable of the most holy ecstasies and raptures before the beauty of the God or gods that he prays to, a writer of the most delicately beautiful hymns and homilies--and the worst bastard on earth outside of church. Cardinal Richilieu was just such a person.
This is why we'll never get rid of religion, of course. But it's also why the monotheistic religions can be so dangerous. They incorrectly tie the ecstasies of the spirit to crude and intolerant dogmas, then demand that all others agree or face the sword or the pyre.
@HadouKen24 - All that you say is very dandy and very well may be true, but you'd be shocked at how widespread it is to cling to 19th century literalist beliefs. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in the US it's remarkably common and even presidential candidates manage to think it despite pursuing the most powerful office in the world. I grew up in a particular Christian denomination, one of hundreds, and we had an official statement of faith that stated the absolute, literal, inerrant nature of the bible. This particular flavor of Christianity has about 3 million adherants, and again, this is only one of hundreds - many of which are even more conservative in their biblical interpretation. When you say that it has been common for some time to regard sacred texts in a metaphorical sense I think that's definitely true, especially in the case of liberal theologians. However, when you take away the literal interpretations and leave interpretative metaphor all that remains is an interesting and influential piece of literature that has no specific authority. And I think this is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that it lowers it to the same level as Moby Dick, Oedipus, Infinite Jest and Harry Potter - all of which are books that have interesting, moralistic metaphors just like the bible. Let's face it, religion needs the teeth of absolute truth and the threat of moral superiority to have any privileged relevance over other interesting, moral works. I see neither in any of its texts.
@HadouKen24 - I think that our disagreement centers around our differing opinion of the utility of religion. In my opinion, these transcendental states you speak of are not in any way dependent on a religious belief. It is true that many beautiful things have been created within the confines of religious experience. But almost all of the most profound thoughts, intricately beautiful music and profound works of literature I can think of are all written or composed in absence of religious inspiration. Sure, this is certainly a matter of opinion, but I do not think there is any denying that atheists can create beauty in their lives just as I don't deny that the religious can. Which begs the question, is it necessary? Sure many people have found inspiration in religion, however the ecstasies you speak of can just as easily be created by the biochemical effects of substances or - perhaps more healthily - the close ties of relationships or the beauty of nature.
So seeing as how beauty is not exclusively inspired by religion, I prefer my art to be entirely reality-based. And I think it's better that way. To me, knowing that that painting I am looking at, the music I am hearing or the book that I am reading has a long lineage of innovation and creativity traceable through the efforts of countless individual minds throughout time is far more interesting to me than the simple notion that someone contemplated an extremely ambiguous and enigmatic all powerful being and decided to write something about it.
Again, this is all a matter of opinion, but my point is that religion is not necessary for this transcendentalist beauty.
Which brings me to the video. I agree with you that religion is diverse and individuals typically lie along a continuum of adherence levels within each religious tradition. I also agree with you that it is far nicer when a Christian chooses to take most of the bible metaphorically, and as such has no reason to oppress homosexuals, shun scientific understanding and so on. What I do think, however, is that the step between calling yourself religious and taking most of the bible as metaphorical teachings with moral value and calling yourself an atheist and taking the entire bible as metaphorical teachings with moral value is a small and painless one.
Which is the whole point of this video.
This video is not directed at the fundamentalist Christians who hold to the literal teachings of the Bible. It is far too great a leap for them. It is directed towards people who have thought about their faith and concluded that they can not take certain parts of the bible as literal and authoritative, but still give biblical teachings some sort of privileged authority over other ideas put forth. There are many, but one of the main problems I see with this type of religion is that the privileged authority given to the bible tends to cause ignorance of other those other ideas that in reality have an equal opportunity at validity.
Which is why I posted the video.
Because it points out that applying a logical, reality-based analysis of the bible's claims (in this case, one that accepts the fact of evolution) will lead you to the conclusion that the overarching religious point of the bible is invalid. And it is simply attempting to nudge the liberal Christians who attempt to interpret the bible with a huge grain of salt just a little bit closer to atheism.
The fact is that an absence original sin means we don't need to be saved from it. Sure, we do sin and we need to do something about it, but if you are going to take the original sin as metaphorical (because evolution discredits the concept) then why should you take the biblically proposed remedy as literal? And if you're going to take the resurrection as a metaphorical assertion that you need to do this or that to improve your life and the lives of others, than why pay particular attention to that metaphorical assertion. To me, a someone who takes a vast majority of the bible as metaphorical but lives his or her life by it, is about the same as someone saying that they favor a Zizekian outlook on life - which is great and all, but again, it's limiting. There are plenty of ideas out there, go discover them and decide if they should shape your worldview!
Whether or not you think the above proposition is a better way of doing this or not, is up for debate. I think it's the way forward and videos like these help people move in that direction. They did for me.
>> ^shveddy: @HadouKen24 - All that you say is very dandy and very well may be true, but you'd be shocked at how widespread it is to cling to 19th century literalist beliefs. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in the US it's remarkably common and even presidential candidates manage to think it despite pursuing the most powerful office in the world. I grew up in a particular Christian denomination, one of hundreds, and we had an official statement of faith that stated the absolute, literal, inerrant nature of the bible. This particular flavor of Christianity has about 3 million adherants, and again, this is only one of hundreds - many of which are even more conservative in their biblical interpretation. When you say that it has been common for some time to regard sacred texts in a metaphorical sense I think that's definitely true, especially in the case of liberal theologians. However, when you take away the literal interpretations and leave interpretative metaphor all that remains is an interesting and influential piece of literature that has no specific authority. And I think this is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that it lowers it to the same level as Moby Dick, Oedipus, Infinite Jest and Harry Potter - all of which are books that have interesting, moralistic metaphors just like the bible. Let's face it, religion needs the teeth of absolute truth and the threat of moral superiority to have any privileged relevance over other interesting, moral works. I see neither in any of its texts. @shinyblurry - Give me a non-macroevolutionary reason that junk mutations in Cytochrome C just happen follow a clear developing and branching pattern that just happens to coincide perfectly with those independently developed by scores of other disciplines (such as embryology, paleontology and so on) as well as those based on hundreds of other non-coding markers (such as viral DNA insertions and transposons, to name a few). If you can give me an answer that can account for these coincidences, does so without macroevolution, and indicates that you actually took the time to understand the concepts I listed above, then I'll take the time to write a much more exhaustive response as to why you're wrong.
Hmm, your statement is littered with all sorts of inaccurate information.
Okay, first of all, this idea of "junk dna" is dying a slow death:
Contrary to your assertion, so-called junk dna is functional. And the idea of viral DNA insertions is completely ruled out when this "random" DNA turns out not to be so random after all, and serving very specific purposes. The idea, created in ignorance, exists mainly as a fudge factor for the evolutionary paradigm. The problem for evolutionists is that natural selection cannot produce enough mutations to account for the millions it needs in the 300,000 generations it took for humans to evolve. It's a lot easier to come up those numbers when 95 percent of the genome is "junk".
Second, molecular and morphological phylogenies are often wildly divergent. This is from an Article in nature magazine subtitled:
"Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology. Can the two ever be reconciled, asks Trisha Gura"
"When biologists talk of the ‘evolution wars’, they usually mean the ongoing battle for supremacy in American schoolrooms between Darwinists and their creationist opponents. But the phrase could also be applied to a debate that is raging within systematics. On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the best way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history. . . .
Battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life. Perhaps the most intense are in vertebrate systematics, where molecular biologists are challenging a tradition that relies on studies of fossil skeletons and the bones and soft tissue of living species. . . .
So can the disparities between molecular and morphological trees ever be resolved? Some proponents of the molecular approach claim there is no need. The solution, they say, is to throw out morphology, and accept their version of the truth. “Our method provides the final conclusion about phylogeny,” claims Okada. Shared ancestry means a genetic relationship, the molecular camp argues, so it must be better to analyse DNA and the proteins it encodes, rather than morphological characters that can end up looking similar as a result of convergent evolution in unrelated groups, rather than through common descent. But morphologists respond that convergence can also happen at the molecular level, and note there is a long history of systematists making large claims based on one new form of evidence, only to be proved wrong at a later date"
They are so divergent that two camps have emerged in systematics, each claiming their phylogenies are more accurate. So your claim that Cytochrome C matches "scores" of different phylogenies is patently false, since hardly any of them agree. If want to say that isn't true, please provide the evidence. Note that "scores" means at least 40.
Third, creation theory predicts a hierarchical pattern, so finding one isn't going to falsify creationism or prove common descent. Especially in the case of the phylogeny of Cytochrome C, which has no intermediates or transitionals to be found. You do also realize that a common design can be explained by a common designer? It could simply be the case that Cytochrome C was tailored for different groups according to individual specifications, which then diverged futher by mutations. If your response is that Cytochrome C functions the same way in all life, my response is that the differences could be for coding other proteins.
Before I go any further, I would ask you to support your claims. Show me the specific data you're talking about so I can rebut it.
My characterization of the theories of abiogenesis and macro evolution as based on weak, circumsantial evidence, thus regulating them to the realm of metaphysics is entirely accurate and a proper usage of those terms. Posting a couple of videos which you feel substantiates both theories, even if they did substantiate them, does not prove I used the terms incorrectly. At best it would mean I was mistaken about the sufficiency of the evidence. In any case, clearly you feel I am mistaken, so rather than rebut other peoples videos, I am interested to hear what you personally feel substantiates those theories.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick: So.. these statements show you have no comprehension of the words you strung together. "Investigating" articles published on "Christian Science" Monitor or reviewing Kurt Cameron's Banana Atheist Nightmare video does not count as research. >> ^shinyblurry: However, what spurred me to change my mind.. ..was simply investigating what the evidence for macro evolution actually was. I was profoundly shocked to find that it was based on nothing more than weak, circumstantial evidence,
A "weak" inductive argument is one which has little evidence to support its claim. Hence, the more evidence.. the stronger the argument. I'll let AronRa take over from here >> ^shinyblurry: and like abiogenesis, it dwelled solely in the realm of metaphysics..
Again, your ignorance is showing man. The term "Metaphysics" is the study of existence and relies on Ontology, the study of entities that exist or don't exist. Not only is abiogenesis possible.. there's more evidence to prove the existence of abiogenesis than there is to prove Adam Eve or Yahweh exist(ed). That is to say. Yahweh & Adam are purely metaphysical. Abiogenesis is not.
Not only do I live in the US, but I live Oklahoma, one of the most religiously conservative states. I don't have a great deal of respect for that brand of religion, for sure. Which is precisely why it's so galling to see a video that suggests that's just what Christians have to be like--that Christians who reject the Bibliolatry and hermeneutic cutting and pasting of those idiots somehow aren't real Christians, that rejecting the sheep-like credulity of these so-called faithful means that the thoughtful ones haven't actually thought it through. And somehow it is averred that those who cling to the ancient traditions of Biblical understanding are inauthentically Christian, since they don't accept the quasi-heretical doctrines of 19th century upstarts.
Your characterization of bible literalists as "idiots" and people with "sheep-like" credulity and the "so-called" faithful, not-withstanding, I will agree that a disagreement on origins doesn't necessarily make someone less Christian. It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that you must agree on a literal interpretation of Genesis to follow Jesus Christ.
Calling the literal interpretation of Genesis a "quasi-heretical" doctrine of "19th century upstarts" is completely ridiculous, though. Almost as ridiculous as quoting Origen and Augustrine and claiming they represented the majority viewpoint of the early church. If you think the early church didn't believe in a literal Genesis, how do you explain Ephraim the syrian, or Basil of Caesarea? What about Ambrose of Milan, who was the mentor of Augustine? They all believed in a young earth, as did many others throughout the centuries.
Let us not also forget that Christ Himself was a bible literalist, who spoke about the narrative in the Old Testament, including Genesis, as literal history, and literally fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah.
As far as dogmatic authority goes, I think that you're partly right about some religions. Specifically, the big Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It's important to remember that this is not the entire world of religion (even if they are important), so there are a number of statements about them that will be incorrect about other religions--in fact, most other religions.
It's true that the Big Three do indeed seem to require acceding to the truth of certain propositions in order to remain in their historical form: e.g., that the Torah was revealed by God, that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead, and that Mohammad received the Qur'an from Michael. (for each religion respectively) There is certainly an important sense in which certain very liberal theologians are still Christian, but this is something very different than historical Christianity.
In regards to Christianity, there is a mimimum requirement of belief, such as that Jesus was raised from the dead, to be a Christian.
Moreover, I myself don't think that moral authority is actually essential to religion. It's certainly related to religion, but as I'm sure you've observed--there's not much of a correlation between religious belief and moral behavior. Simple observation shows most Christians to be liars. Morality is not why they are Christian.
Simple observation shows most people, probably near the 99.9 percent mark, to be liars. There is no claim in Christianity that Christians are perfect. Far from it. Jesus was the only perfect man to ever live. Christians still sin, but hopefully they sin much less than usual. Christians living sanctified lives are comparitively rare, unfortunately. When you consider that half of the American church does not believe in a literal Holy Spirit or Satan, it isn't surprising.
Instead, I think it's something else--transcendence, and the promise of new states of being. Morality has almost nothing to do with this. The same man can be capable of the most holy ecstasies and raptures before the beauty of the God or gods that he prays to, a writer of the most delicately beautiful hymns and homilies--and the worst bastard on earth outside of church. Cardinal Richilieu was just such a person.
In Christianity, it is to know God personally. Christianity is about Jesus Christ and nothing else. If you subtract Jesus, you don't have anything. You automatically get a new state of being; when you accept Christ you are a new creature, and you receive the Holy Spirit. You also have your sins forgiven and obtain eternal life.
This is why we'll never get rid of religion, of course. But it's also why the monotheistic religions can be so dangerous. They incorrectly tie the ecstasies of the spirit to crude and intolerant dogmas, then demand that all others agree or face the sword or the pyre.
Which spirit? Satan can make you feel ecstacy and love; it wouldn't be a very good deception if it wasn't deceiving. The question you should ask is, where is this coming from, and who gave me a spirit in the first place?
As far as intolerance goes, Jesus made it clear:
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Those are His words, not mine. A Christian is only telling you what He said, which is that you will face judgment for your sins. If you reject Jesus, you are telling God you want to stand trial for your sins on your own merit. If you are rejecting Jesus, it's for a reason that has nothing to do with anything you have written here.
What happens, typically, is that a person born into a Christian home grows up with their parents religion, and believes in it because they were taught it as truth. They have no foundation for their own faith, and they look at Christianity as a sort of checklist. As in, go to church, follow certain rules, read the bible, etc. If they've got all of those checked off, they're a Christian.
These people typically start to fall away in their teenage years, when they start encountering the skepticism of the world towards Christianity and the bible. Lacking any internal reasoning for their own faith, probably never even having deeply considered it, they are vulnerable into indoctrination into other belief systems, like secular humanism. Particularly secular humanism, since it has the most sophisticated arguments against Christianity.
These were people who had a religion; they were not born again. They never knew Jesus Christ personally. To know Jesus is to be supernaturally transformed and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Christianity is not a religion, it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. If you don't know Jesus, you are not a Christian, and never were.
Ok, you need to understand two different concepts. The first, is the notion that science is constantly refining itself. It is never 100% correct, and there is near constant debate about what is the best method of determining something to be factual. In this case, we're talking about whether molecular systematics or morphological characteristics are the most accurate means of determining phylogeny. The second is the notion of statistical significance. Now I'll admit that in saying that they "coincide perfectly," I failed to adhere to a more accurate and rigorous description of what is actually happening, so I'll rectify that now. The correlation between the different trees constructed by different fields within biology have an extremely statistically significant amount of correlation. This means that while we can expect disagreement and there will be debate about the best method to refine the results, the odds of getting so much similarity by accident is exceedingly small.
So in light of this reality where science is never 100% correct and there is a constant debate over the relative effectiveness of varying methods of phylogenetic determination, there will be a huge excess of material for you to quote mine in an effort to distort the significance of the minor disagreements that are common in science to a scale that can supposedly bring down evolution.
If only you were a bit better at it. Even the quotes you chose to mine serve to undermine your point. I think my point can be summarized by the following quote from your reference:
“On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the BEST way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history.”
The relevant part here is the word “best.” These people are clearly just trying to decide what the most accurate method of phylogenetic determination is and this article represents nothing more than a discussion of one of the many battles that go on in the constant refinement of science. And this disagreement does nothing at all to disprove evolution.
There are analogous debates going on in nearly all branches of academic study. Taking an example with fewer existential implications for religion, look towards the Holocaust. There is an ongoing effort by Yad Va Shem, a jewish organization, to catalogue all those who died under the Nazi regime as well as those who aided jews in various ways (http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/remembrance/hall_of_names.asp). Now at the moment they have verified only three million names and something like 24000 people who helped, and details on each vary. But wait, oh no! We all know that there were roughly six million victims! And we don’t even have complete information about the paltry three million we’ve catalogued. Does this mean that the Holocaust did not happen? Of course it doesn’t. You need to take the internal debate in context and realize that the total sum of evidence is overwhelming. Creationists, however, can not be so objective with such a threatening theory as evolution.
As for your junk DNA article, you similarly blow the relevance way out of proportion. Here’s the last sentence from the text that summarizes the relevance of the article:
“The present study suggests that some selfish DNA transposons can instead confer an important role to their hosts, thereby establishing themselves as long-term residents of the genome.”
Here it states simply that some of the junk DNA, not all of it, can become useful to the cell. This sentence proves you wrong in two ways. First, it admits that they have only found a few instances of utility for this junk DNA, which is a far cry from the evidence that would be necessary for the slow death you speak of. Second, the acknowledges that this as an instance of Junk DNA incorporating itself into the genome and taking on novel and useful roles. In other words, evolution!
The genome is huge and nowhere in biology does it say that all of the DNA we have designated as junk is most certainly junk. Again, this is just another example of incrementally refining our understanding about how things work, but it is not revolutionary and it still demonstrates a clear framework.
And regardless or whether or not your article shows that a lot of Junk DNA has function (which is common knowledge, by the way), it does not at all disprove the fact that junk DNA shows typically exhibits much higher rates of mutation because its specific sequence is less rigidly constrained than coding DNA (http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v12/n11/full/nrg3098.html?WT.ec_id=NRG-201111). It is not a complete lack of function that demonstrates evolution, but simply a higher rate of mutation that results in sequences that will be more varied the more distantly related two species are.
And finally, read these articles if you want a more complete understanding about how the comparisons between phylogenetic trees are indeed imperfect, but well supported and constantly refined:
There are literally hundreds of thousands of these articles detailing what is essentially a whole, distinct area of study. Just search the term “consensus trees” and you’ll see what I mean.
Oh yea, and I'm sick and tired of Christians always excusing themselves from the need for behavioral and moral superiority by saying that only Jesus is perfect, thinking that it will alleviate all of my complaints about Christianity.
I have no more problem with the hypocracy of Christians than I do with anyone else who makes mistakes and does bad things while generally saying that he or she is a good person. Which is to say that I don't stress over it very much because we all do it.
What drew me away from religion is that the Father, Jesus and particularly the Holy Spirit are especially vile concepts that are in no way deserving of my respect. So stop trying to defend Christians when I don't care to condemn their behavior very much.
Explain to me how a just god can create a world that, upon close examination of its workings, clearly disagrees with nearly all of the specifics claimed by that god's supposed divine revelation. Tell me then, how a good god can come up with a rather ambiguous way to save his sinning inhabitants (that he created) that can be summarized in an arbitrary phrase that does nothing but allow people to shirk responsibility for actions. And then, despite having the power to move everyone to accept this gift, decides to give it only to a select few based mostly on geography.
Oh, and by the way. Christianity is a religion by definition. According to the Oxford dictionary, a religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
For you to claim that Christianity is not a religion than in order to not qualify under the accepted definition, you would have to deny the following:
1. That you believe in God and Jesus 2. That you worship God and Jesus 3. That God is superhuman and capable of controlling 4. and that God or Jesus are personal to you
Somehow I doubt that you deny those. If you feel like denying the authority of the oxford dictionary, then feel free to look ridiculous.
"Ok, you need to understand two different concepts........the odds of getting so much similarity by accident is exceedingly small.
So in light of this reality.....supposedly bring down evolution."
Minor disagreements? I'm having a hard time believing that you've seriously investigated this subject if you are now claiming (scaled back from your prior claim of perfect agreement between "scores" of them) that molecular and morphological phylogonies typically have a high level of agreement. They don't. Agreement is the exception, not the rule. Even worse, molecular phylogonies don't agree with eachother either:
As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology. . . .
Partly because of morphology’s long history, congruence between morphological phylogenies is the exception rather than the rule. With molecular phylogenies, all generated within the last couple of decades, the situation is little better. Many cases of incongruence between molecular phylogenies are documented above; and when a consensus of all trees within 1% of the shortest in a parsimony analysis is published (e.g. 132, 152, 170), structure or resolution tends to evaporate
Congruence Between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies
"If only you were a bit better at it. Even the quotes you chose to mine serve to undermine your point. I think my point can be summarized by the following quote from your reference"
“On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the BEST way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history.”
The relevant part here is the word “best.” These people are clearly just trying to decide what the most accurate method of phylogenetic determination is and this article represents nothing more than a discussion of one of the many battles that go on in the constant refinement of science. And this disagreement does nothing at all to disprove evolution""
Your charge of quote mining is false. Quote mining is the logical fallacy of quoting something out of context, distorting its intended meaning. The quote I provided was very much in context, and showed support for the assertion that molecular and morphological phylogenies do not have "perfect" agreement, and now I have further supported that assertion (and disproven your scaled back claim of very statistically significant agreement) that their agreement is actually very superficial. It is far more significant how little agreement there actually is.
The very reason there is a contention about which is the "best" method is precisely because there is so little agreement. In any case, molecular homology appears to be winning the battle, perhaps because the evolutionists are getting tired of never finding any evolution in the fossil record.
Which brings us to the many issues with molecular homologies, specifically, their lack of falsifiability:
"We believe that it is possible to draw up a list of basic rules that underlie existing molecular evolutionary models:
All theories are monophyletic, meaning that they all start with the Urgene and the Urzelle which have given rise to all proteins and all species, respectively.
Complexity evolves mainly through duplications and mutations in structural and control genes.
Genes can mutate or remain stable, migrate laterally from species to species, spread through a population by mechanisms whose operation is not fully understood, evolve coordinately, splice, stay silent, and exist as pseudogenes.
Ad hoc arguments can be invented (such as insect vectors or viruses) that can transport a gene into places where no monophyletic logic could otherwise explain its presence.
This liberal spread of rules, each of which can be observed in use by scientists, does not just sound facetious but also, in our opinion, robs monophyletic evolution of its vulnerability to disproof, and thereby its entitlement to the status of a scientific theory.
The absolute, explicit and implicit, adherence to all the monophyletic principle and consequently the decision to interpret all observations in the light of this principle is the major cause of incongruities as well as for the invention of all the genetic sidestepping rules cited above."
A Polyphyletic View of Evolution
Schwabe and Warr
This is why Schwabe, a biochemist, wrote:
Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to paleontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist I should be elated. Instead it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so many, in fact, that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message
It's a shell game where virtually any kind of data can be accomodated, and at no point is the theory questioned. Ad hoc explanations can be invented for any kind of discrepency.
""There are analogous debates going on in nearly all branches of academic study. Taking an example with fewer existential implications for religion, look towards the Holocaust. There is an ongoing effort by Yad Va Shem, a jewish organization, to catalogue all those who died under the Nazi regime as well as those who aided jews in various ways (http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/remembrance/hall_of_names.asp). Now at the moment they have verified only three million names and something like 24000 people who helped, and details on each vary. But wait, oh no! We all know that there were roughly six million victims! And we don’t even have complete information about the paltry three million we’ve catalogued. Does this mean that the Holocaust did not happen? Of course it doesn’t. You need to take the internal debate in context and realize that the total sum of evidence is overwhelming. Creationists, however, can not be so objective with such a threatening theory as evolution.""
A mountain of weak, circumstantial evidence (much of which contradicts itself) does not prove macro evolution. "We're working on it" does not somehow validate that evidence. We know the holocaust happened; there is no proof for macro evolution.
""As for your junk DNA article, you similarly blow the relevance way out of proportion. Here’s the last sentence from the text that summarizes the relevance of the article:
“The present study suggests that some selfish DNA transposons can instead confer an important role to their hosts, thereby establishing themselves as long-term residents of the genome.”
Here it states simply that some of the junk DNA, not all of it, can become useful to the cell. This sentence proves you wrong in two ways. First, it admits that they have only found a few instances of utility for this junk DNA, which is a far cry from the evidence that would be necessary for the slow death you speak of. Second, the acknowledges that this as an instance of Junk DNA incorporating itself into the genome and taking on novel and useful roles. In other words, evolution!
The genome is huge and nowhere in biology does it say that all of the DNA we have designated as junk is most certainly junk. Again, this is just another example of incrementally refining our understanding about how things work, but it is not revolutionary and it still demonstrates a clear framework.
And regardless or whether or not your article shows that a lot of Junk DNA has function (which is common knowledge, by the way), it does not at all disprove the fact that junk DNA shows typically exhibits much higher rates of mutation because its specific sequence is less rigidly constrained than coding DNA (http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v12/n11/full/nrg3098.html?WT.ec_id=NRG-201111). It is not a complete lack of function that demonstrates evolution, but simply a higher rate of mutation that results in sequences that will be more varied the more distantly related two species are.""
There are numerous sources showing that junk dna is not junk:
Based on your earlier argument, "we're working on it", you should realize that what some scientists consider to be junk dna stems entirely from ignorance. The idea that it got in there by "viral dna insertions" and the like is simply another ad hoc explanation among many.
""And finally, read these articles if you want a more complete understanding about how the comparisons between phylogenetic trees are indeed imperfect, but well supported and constantly refined:
There are literally hundreds of thousands of these articles detailing what is essentially a whole, distinct area of study. Just search the term “consensus trees” and you’ll see what I mean.
I have already demonstrated that the consensus is very weak. What you need to provide is data backing up your claims regarding cytochrome c. I am awaiting the "scores" of phylogonies that will match that data.
""Oh yea, and I'm sick and tired of Christians always excusing themselves from the need for behavioral and moral superiority by saying that only Jesus is perfect, thinking that it will alleviate all of my complaints about Christianity.
I have no more problem with the hypocracy of Christians than I do with anyone else who makes mistakes and does bad things while generally saying that he or she is a good person. Which is to say that I don't stress over it very much because we all do it.""
Christians, in general, should stand out from the rest of the world if they are living according to what Christ taught. If they are indistinguishable from everyone else, they are definitely not following His teachings. I wasn't excusing anyone however, I was simply stating that Christians are still human and will make mistakes.
""What drew me away from religion is that the Father, Jesus and particularly the Holy Spirit are especially vile concepts that are in no way deserving of my respect. So stop trying to defend Christians when I don't care to condemn their behavior very much.
Explain to me how a just god can create a world that, upon close examination of its workings, clearly disagrees with nearly all of the specifics claimed by that god's supposed divine revelation.""
When God created the world, it was "very good". It had no death, and no pain. It was a paradise and humans enjoyed direct fellowship with God. The reason that the world is embroiled in evil today is because God gave human beings free will, to obey or disobey His commands. It is because of our disobedience towards God that sin and death entered the world. Creation fell because of the sin of man, and we became spiritually separated from God.
""Tell me then, how a good god can come up with a rather ambiguous way to save his sinning inhabitants (that he created) that can be summarized in an arbitrary phrase that does nothing but allow people to shirk responsibility for actions. And then, despite having the power to move everyone to accept this gift, decides to give it only to a select few based mostly on geography.""
God hasn't chosen a select few to be saved. He desires all to come to repentence and receive eternal life. God gives everyone the opportunity to be saved, but people choose to suppress the truth God has revealed to them because of wickedness. When you look at someone across the world, locked into false religion, what you don't see are all the choices that God has offered that person to draw near to His Son. You don't see what could have been, you only see what is. The gospel is preached in every country in the world, and where it hasn't reached, people receive dreams and visions. God can reach anyone.
Neither is salvation based on an "arbitrary phrase". You say you left religion..so were you a Christian? If so, how is it that you don't know how people are saved? Do you understand the gospel?
You are saved when you accept Jesus Christ into your life as Lord and Savior, when you believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, and confess Him as Lord. It has nothing to do with words, it has to do with the sincere intent of your heart.
Neither is an effort to shirk personal responsibility. On the contrary, we are personally responsible to God for all of the sins we have committed. God has commanded that all people everywhere *repent* of their sins, and trust in His Son. That is a total fulfillment of personal responsibility, as we are accountable to God and not men.
God does not force anyone to come to Him; He gives you a choice. Neither is it a bunch of words, where you simply believe what the bible says. The gospel comes by the *power* of the Holy Spirit. When you believe, you are born again as a new person, and you receive the Holy Spirit, who lives within you. It is a supernatural transformation of your entire being.
""Oh, and by the way. Christianity is a religion by definition. According to the Oxford dictionary, a religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
For you to claim that Christianity is not a religion than in order to not qualify under the accepted definition, you would have to deny the following:
1. That you believe in God and Jesus 2. That you worship God and Jesus 3. That God is superhuman and capable of controlling 4. and that God or Jesus are personal to you
Somehow I doubt that you deny those. If you feel like denying the authority of the oxford dictionary, then feel free to look ridiculous.""
Under that definition, it is technically a religion, but not as you understand it. When you think of religion, you think of dogma and rituals. That isn't what Christianity is; at its foundation, it is nothing more or less than a personal relationship with the Creator of the Universe. That is not religion as how an atheist understands the word.
Quote: "Morphologists achieved much during that time, and none of their well supported phylogenies is overthrown by molecular data. So far, molecular sequences have contributed most significantly in areas where morphological data are inconclusive, deficient, nonexistent or poorly analyzed."
If anything it supports my point, but there are better sources out there. Which is why I chose to limit my literature sources to those that were at least after the year 2000. Why, you ask? Because the first bacterial genome was sequenced in 1995, about two years after that article. We've learned a lot since then, though, according to that abstract, even then they understood that molecular systematics were capable of elucidating many areas of the fossil record we didn't understand. Just read to the end of it.
I knew you would jump on the whole part where I conceded that it is not absolute agreement. Look, I took 30 seconds to write a sarcastic response on an internet forum. So what that I didn't bother to delve into the nuances of consensus trees and whatnot. Argue with the damn articles, not me.
You also just ignore it when I say that the fact that junk DNA has a function has nothing to do with it's evolutionary relevance and continue to claim otherwise without giving a reason. It is the relative mutation rates, not the functionality - maybe you didn't catch that the first time around.
Yada yada yada, I've got better things to do. Anyone who reads this little exchange can see your evident dishonesty and unwarranted extrapolation and that's all that matters. Because if someone is willing to plug their ears and yell loudly whenever something contradicts absolutely held beliefs like you are clearly willing to do, then there will be no convincing. This exchange is for those who are on the fence, and you're little display of anti-intellectualism speaks for itself even without all the scientific proof.
And trust me, I was a Christian. I was deriding salvation by grace as an arbitrary thing, doesn't mean I don't understand what you guys think.
The discussion began when you challenged me with spurious claims that were proven to be false. After that, you scaled back your claims and abandoned your assertions about cytochrome c, never providing any evidence for them , despite being asked twice. That is what people are going to see. The discussion about junk DNA is tertiary to the point, which was, regardless of how it may mutate, is that the more we know about it, the more we see it has function; ie, it isn't junk. The point was really to counter a more sophisticated argument that I thought you were going to make,, but it apparently wasn't in your repitoire. The reality about this conversation is that you've failed to make a coherent argument in support of macro evolution.
As far as being a Christian goes, you never knew Jesus Christ. That's what makes you a Christian. You had a head knowledge, but you weren't born again.
John 3:3
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
This is why you never saw it. You think it's just something you read about and believe in, because that's all it was to you. Words in a book. You never came to know God personally. I don't blame you for walking away from that, honestly, and it isn't entirely your fault; your parents failed to teach you how to be saved. That's a tragedy.
Listen, God loves you deeply, and wants you to know Him. If you will turn your life over to Him, He will show you that He is more than words in a book; He will show you that He is alive. Pray and ask Him what the truth is. God bless.
Your characterization of bible literalists as "idiots" and people with "sheep-like" credulity and the "so-called" faithful, not-withstanding, I will agree that a disagreement on origins doesn't necessarily make someone less Christian. It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that you must agree on a literal interpretation of Genesis to follow Jesus Christ.
Calling the literal interpretation of Genesis a "quasi-heretical" doctrine of "19th century upstarts" is completely ridiculous, though. Almost as ridiculous as quoting Origen and Augustrine and claiming they represented the majority viewpoint of the early church. If you think the early church didn't believe in a literal Genesis, how do you explain Ephraim the syrian, or Basil of Caesarea? What about Ambrose of Milan, who was the mentor of Augustine? They all believed in a young earth, as did many others throughout the centuries.
Let us not also forget that Christ Himself was a bible literalist, who spoke about the narrative in the Old Testament, including Genesis, as literal history, and literally fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah.
Could you perhaps refer me to some documents wherein St. Ephrem or St. Basil averred that the literal interpretation of the Bible is primary? Ephrem appears to have struck a middle ground between literalism and pure metaphorical interpretation, and St. Basil was a student of Origen's writings. Granted, St. Basil assiduously avoided the bizarre flights of fancy that plagued some of the Christian writers in the 4th century, but he was hardly a literalist in a strict sense--the literal sense was only one important sense in which to take the sacred writings.
If you want to support your point, a particular reference to Genesis will do best.
As far as Ambrose goes, it stretches the truth to say that he was a "mentor" of Augustine. Certainly, Augustine speaks rather highly of Ambrose in the Confessions. But Augustine writes with rather rose-colored glasses. A sober-minded approach to the life of Ambrose reveals that he was as much a political animal as he was spiritual. And even in the Confessions it is not recorded that Ambrose paid much attention to Augustine. If I recall correctly, Augustine doesn't record a single word that Ambrose said to Augustine outside of a public sermon in which Augustine was a member of the congregation.
In regards to Christianity, there is a mimimum requirement of belief, such as that Jesus was raised from the dead, to be a Christian.
In the traditional sense, certainly. There are other senses by which one might claim to be Christian--pointing out the tradition from which one derives one's moral compass, for instance. In this sense, many atheists can probably claim to be Christian atheists, rather than, e.g., Muslim atheists.
Simple observation shows most people, probably near the 99.9 percent mark, to be liars. There is no claim in Christianity that Christians are perfect. Far from it. Jesus was the only perfect man to ever live. Christians still sin, but hopefully they sin much less than usual. Christians living sanctified lives are comparitively rare, unfortunately. When you consider that half of the American church does not believe in a literal Holy Spirit or Satan, it isn't surprising.
Do they sin much less than usual? I haven't seen any sign of it. The statistics don't seem to bear it out. Nor does my personal experience. Of the best and most morally astute people I know, only one was Christian. The rest were Buddhist, Muslim, or Pagan.
In Christianity, it is to know God personally. Christianity is about Jesus Christ and nothing else. If you subtract Jesus, you don't have anything. You automatically get a new state of being; when you accept Christ you are a new creature, and you receive the Holy Spirit. You also have your sins forgiven and obtain eternal life.
To worship and devote yourself to a single God, like Jesus Christ, has a specific term in Hinduism--bhakhti yoga. It is the path of love and devotion.
No matter which god you pursue with this ardent and holy love, you will achieve the same result--sanctification, rebirth, and the descending dove of the Holy Spirit.
The forgiveness of sins is a psychological projection. Eternal life is yours regardless of what any god says.
Which spirit? Satan can make you feel ecstacy and love; it wouldn't be a very good deception if it wasn't deceiving. The question you should ask is, where is this coming from, and who gave me a spirit in the first place?
As far as intolerance goes, Jesus made it clear:
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Those are His words, not mine. A Christian is only telling you what He said, which is that you will face judgment for your sins. If you reject Jesus, you are telling God you want to stand trial for your sins on your own merit. If you are rejecting Jesus, it's for a reason that has nothing to do with anything you have written here.
As far as deception goes, I will quote to you the Gospels, Luke 11:17-19: 'But He knew their thoughts and said to them, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and a house divided against itself falls. If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? So they will be your judges.'
How can a demon bring holy ecstasy? How can a devil cast out division and hatred, and bring in such divine love?
And with regard to intolerance, it's almost entirely pointless to quote to me the first apocryphon of John--the so-called Gospel of John. I'm well aware of what it says. I've spent a lot of time considering it. That's why I think it's incorrect.
It does no good at all to suggest that it's someone else who's being intolerant. On the one hand, it looks like you're blame-shifting, too much the coward to take responsibility for the statement. On the other hand, you are providing no reason to think that the quotation provides any authority whatsoever, and undermining your position by your own indolence.
19 Comments
jmzerosays...I think a common reconciliation would be to say that the Bible is a mix of inspired truths from God (which are infallible), and a history (written by earnest people, but who were just writing what they knew) whose recording may have been guided by God but is not infallible.
shinyblurrysays...I would have actually voted for this video if not for the atheist salespitch strewn throughout, or the sad debate with the catholic priest at the end. What he is saying is essentially correct, and in fact, he uses many of the same arguments that I use when talking to liberal Christians. This isn't the whole story, though.
First, a Christian shouldn't reject evolution. Micro-evolution, or changes below the species level, is not only a proven fact, but it also explains how the world was repopulated after the flood. There is no conflict in believing this occurs. The contentious issue is macro evolution, or the theory of common descent. If you believe all life has a common ancestor, then you cannot believe in a literal Adam and Eve. At least, you would think that, but I've heard some Christians say things like, God used evolution to bring about all of the animals, but humans He specially created in the garden. This is obviously a compromise but some people don't see that as being a big deal.
In any case, as for myself, I came into Christianity with a belief in macro evolution, and I saw no reason to doubt it was true. Like everyone here, I had been indoctrinated into that belief from a young age and I assumed it was true because it was taught as absolute fact. Because I was still young in the faith, I didn't see the logical inconsistancy in believing in macro evolution and Christianity. However, what spurred me to change my mind was not finding that there was an inconsistancy (i didnt become aware of that until later), it was simply investigating what the evidence for macro evolution actually was. I was profoundly shocked to find that it was based on nothing more than weak, circumstantial evidence, and like abiogenesis, it dwelled solely in the realm of metaphysics. It took me awhile to change my mind about it; my indoctrination was heavy, mostly because it is so ingrained in our culture. You see it in books, movies, tv shows, nature shows, newspapers, always talking about it as if it were absolutely 100 percent proven. The culture speaks with one voice about it, and that voice says it is historical fact. Yet what I found is that it is not proven, it is just assumed to be true, and then the evidence is interpreted through that lens to support the preconceived notions, which is the exact opposite of scientific reasoning.
I don't think Christians should reject macro evolution just because the bible speaks of a literal Adam and Eve. I think they should also reject it because it is not supported by the facts. I think they should understand what the data is for theory and how scientists arrived at their conclusions. I think they should be as well informed about it as possible. If the evidence were solid for macro evolution having occured, I would still believe it. This might change my ideas about what the bible says, but my faith isn't based exclusively on interpretation of the bible; ultimately, it is based on my personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
The main premise of this video is really to shake the faith of liberal Christians, and also to say that those who are logically consistant regarding the bible are rejecting macro evolution despite the evidence. I can honestly say I rejected it because of the evidence, not in spite of it.
speechlesssays...<iframe src="http://www.myvidster.com/embed/316851" width="640" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
edit: bleh, guess I can't do that.
Here's the missing link.
HadouKen24says...Rubbish. It's stuff like that that makes religious people dislike atheists.
I'm not an atheist--but neither am I Christian. Nonetheless, I think it's worth pointing out some serious flaws in the argument here.
First, the literal interpretation of the Bible has never really been primary. Actually, this is almost universally the case for sacred writings. The Greek myths were to be understood as metaphor, and the Koran is considered by many Muslims to be a repository of spiritual truths which are not necessarily on the surface, and which require study to glean from the text.
Interpreting the Bible as non-literal--as metaphorical, analogical, etc.--goes back more than 2000 years. One of the first writers on the Old Testament, the Jewish scholar Philo, wrote a treatise that regarded the sacred books as almost entirely non-literal. He viewed it as encoded with revelations about Platonic truths, the structure of the spiritual world, and not necessarily a history book.
This viewpoint was carried through to the Christian period. The Church Father Origen famously interpreted the book non-literally. The 4th century Church Father St. Augustine even wrote a tract called "On the literal interpretation of Genesis," in which he excoriated the Creationists of the day, who believed the world to be flat and the sky to be a literal blue dome--and who believed, contrary to all observation, that the world was only a few thousand years old, when anyone with eyes could tell that it was clearly much older. Augustine cautioned the Christians against such interpretations because they were clearly wrong, and because they made Christians look like idiots.
Augustine instead proffered the interpretation that the world had been made all at once, in one instant. The "days" referred to in Genesis he instead took as referring to the distinct logical elements of the instantaneous act of Creation. Incidentally, Augustine claimed that this was, indeed, a "literal" interpretation--the term "literal" meant something very different in those days.
Of course, the ancients also viewed the world in a very different way. In those days, it made perfect sense to see an actual, physical object as also metaphorical or analogical in some way. A temple or a statue of a god could be, in a very real way, the instantiation of the god in the physical world. According to Aristotle, every object had its natural goal, its "telos." An object fell because it was its "telos" to be at its natural resting point on the ground. And so on. There was no such thing as dead matter, devoid of an intimate relationship to mind or spirit, in the view of the ancients.
It was not until the rise of the scientific worldview in the 17th and 18th centuries that the literal interpretation of the Bible became popular. Matter came to be viewed in Cartesian or corpuscularian terms, as pure mathematical extension in space, entirely passive unless moved from the outside. In Cartesian terms, things like the "telos" were unthinkable for physical objects.
Seeing the popularity and utility of this new viewpoint, the Protestant preachers began devising literalist interpretations of the Bible. Their goal was to vindicate the Bible in scientific terms. Their effort might have been laudable, but it became occasionally silly. Some theologians argued that Jesus hadn't actually died on the cross--he had just fainted, and then woke up in the tomb later and walked out.
Nonetheless, their efforts were genuinely honest and took the newest and best science to heart as they worked on their interpretations. Some of these theologians were scientist in their own right, making important contributions to biology and geology. However, as time went on, their efforts proved ultimately futile, leading the best theologians to gradually abandon the literalist approach the Bible.
Unfortunately, there are still a number of Christians who cling to 19th century literalist approach. So-called "creation science" comes out of this tradition, for instance. It should be remembered, though, that these Christians are not only rejecting genuine science--they are also rejecting centuries-old traditions within their own religion.
shveddy@HadouKen24 - All that you say is very dandy and very well may be true, but you'd be shocked at how widespread it is to cling to 19th century literalist beliefs. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in the US it's remarkably common and even presidential candidates manage to think it despite pursuing the most powerful office in the world. I grew up in a particular Christian denomination, one of hundreds, and we had an official statement of faith that stated the absolute, literal, inerrant nature of the bible. This particular flavor of Christianity has about 3 million adherants, and again, this is only one of hundreds - many of which are even more conservative in their biblical interpretation.
When you say that it has been common for some time to regard sacred texts in a metaphorical sense I think that's definitely true, especially in the case of liberal theologians. However, when you take away the literal interpretations and leave interpretative metaphor all that remains is an interesting and influential piece of literature that has no specific authority. And I think this is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that it lowers it to the same level as Moby Dick, Oedipus, Infinite Jest and Harry Potter - all of which are books that have interesting, moralistic metaphors just like the bible.
Let's face it, religion needs the teeth of absolute truth and the threat of moral superiority to have any privileged relevance over other interesting, moral works. I see neither in any of its texts.
@shinyblurry - Give me a non-macroevolutionary reason that junk mutations in Cytochrome C just happen follow a clear developing and branching pattern that just happens to coincide perfectly with those independently developed by scores of other disciplines (such as embryology, paleontology and so on) as well as those based on hundreds of other non-coding markers (such as viral DNA insertions and transposons, to name a few).
If you can give me an answer that can account for these coincidences, does so without macroevolution, and indicates that you actually took the time to understand the concepts I listed above, then I'll take the time to write a much more exhaustive response as to why you're wrong.
GenjiKilpatrickSo.. these statements show you have no comprehension of the words you strung together.
"Investigating" articles published on "Christian Science" Monitor or reviewing Kurt Cameron's Banana Atheist Nightmare video does not count as research.
>> ^shinyblurry:
However, what spurred me to change my mind.. ..was simply investigating what the evidence for macro evolution actually was. I was profoundly shocked to find that it was based on nothing more than weak, circumstantial evidence,
A "weak" inductive argument is one which has little evidence to support its claim.
Hence, the more evidence.. the stronger the argument. I'll let AronRa take over from here:
>> ^shinyblurry:
and like abiogenesis, it dwelled solely in the realm of metaphysics..
Again, your ignorance is showing man.
The term "Metaphysics" is the study of existence and relies on Ontology, the study of entities that exist or don't exist.
Not only is abiogenesis possible.. there's more evidence to prove the existence of abiogenesis than there is to prove Adam Eve or Yahweh exist(ed).
That is to say. Yahweh & Adam are purely metaphysical. Abiogenesis is not.
Please don't used a vague knowledge of sciency terms to support your bullshit faith in an invisible skydaddy.
Thanks.
HadouKen24says...Not only do I live in the US, but I live Oklahoma, one of the most religiously conservative states. I don't have a great deal of respect for that brand of religion, for sure. Which is precisely why it's so galling to see a video that suggests that's just what Christians have to be like--that Christians who reject the Bibliolatry and hermeneutic cutting and pasting of those idiots somehow aren't real Christians, that rejecting the sheep-like credulity of these so-called faithful means that the thoughtful ones haven't actually thought it through. And somehow it is averred that those who cling to the ancient traditions of Biblical understanding are inauthentically Christian, since they don't accept the quasi-heretical doctrines of 19th century upstarts.
Clearly false. Yet that's the whole thrust of the video!
With regard to your last two paragraphs, I think we're starting to move away from straightforward commentary on the video. But that's alright with me, if it's okay with you.
As far as dogmatic authority goes, I think that you're partly right about some religions. Specifically, the big Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It's important to remember that this is not the entire world of religion (even if they are important), so there are a number of statements about them that will be incorrect about other religions--in fact, most other religions.
It's true that the Big Three do indeed seem to require acceding to the truth of certain propositions in order to remain in their historical form: e.g., that the Torah was revealed by God, that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead, and that Mohammad received the Qur'an from Michael. (for each religion respectively) There is certainly an important sense in which certain very liberal theologians are still Christian, but this is something very different than historical Christianity.
Nonetheless, this is something separate from moral authority. One may deny that there is anything correct about the metaphysical pronouncements of the Bible, and still accept that its moral teachings are profoundly important. This is precisely what philosophy Slavoj Zizek has done.
For most other religions, the number of specific propositions that must be accepted is few to none. Pronouncements about gods or salvation are amenable to multiple interpretations. The ancient Greek philosophers, for instance, were quite religious on the whole. Yet read a book on Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Platonism, and tell me what proposition about the gods that they agree on. You'll find it quite difficult.
The same can be said of Shinto, Hinduism, Buddhism, Western Pagan revivals, etc.
Moreover, I myself don't think that moral authority is actually essential to religion. It's certainly related to religion, but as I'm sure you've observed--there's not much of a correlation between religious belief and moral behavior. Simple observation shows most Christians to be liars. Morality is not why they are Christian.
Instead, I think it's something else--transcendence, and the promise of new states of being. Morality has almost nothing to do with this. The same man can be capable of the most holy ecstasies and raptures before the beauty of the God or gods that he prays to, a writer of the most delicately beautiful hymns and homilies--and the worst bastard on earth outside of church. Cardinal Richilieu was just such a person.
This is why we'll never get rid of religion, of course. But it's also why the monotheistic religions can be so dangerous. They incorrectly tie the ecstasies of the spirit to crude and intolerant dogmas, then demand that all others agree or face the sword or the pyre.
>> ^shveddy:
@HadouKen24 - All that you say is very dandy and very well may be true, but you'd be shocked at how widespread it is to cling to 19th century literalist beliefs. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in the US it's remarkably common and even presidential candidates manage to think it despite pursuing the most powerful office in the world. I grew up in a particular Christian denomination, one of hundreds, and we had an official statement of faith that stated the absolute, literal, inerrant nature of the bible. This particular flavor of Christianity has about 3 million adherants, and again, this is only one of hundreds - many of which are even more conservative in their biblical interpretation.
When you say that it has been common for some time to regard sacred texts in a metaphorical sense I think that's definitely true, especially in the case of liberal theologians. However, when you take away the literal interpretations and leave interpretative metaphor all that remains is an interesting and influential piece of literature that has no specific authority. And I think this is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that it lowers it to the same level as Moby Dick, Oedipus, Infinite Jest and Harry Potter - all of which are books that have interesting, moralistic metaphors just like the bible.
Let's face it, religion needs the teeth of absolute truth and the threat of moral superiority to have any privileged relevance over other interesting, moral works. I see neither in any of its texts.
shveddy@HadouKen24 - I think that our disagreement centers around our differing opinion of the utility of religion. In my opinion, these transcendental states you speak of are not in any way dependent on a religious belief. It is true that many beautiful things have been created within the confines of religious experience. But almost all of the most profound thoughts, intricately beautiful music and profound works of literature I can think of are all written or composed in absence of religious inspiration. Sure, this is certainly a matter of opinion, but I do not think there is any denying that atheists can create beauty in their lives just as I don't deny that the religious can. Which begs the question, is it necessary? Sure many people have found inspiration in religion, however the ecstasies you speak of can just as easily be created by the biochemical effects of substances or - perhaps more healthily - the close ties of relationships or the beauty of nature.
So seeing as how beauty is not exclusively inspired by religion, I prefer my art to be entirely reality-based. And I think it's better that way. To me, knowing that that painting I am looking at, the music I am hearing or the book that I am reading has a long lineage of innovation and creativity traceable through the efforts of countless individual minds throughout time is far more interesting to me than the simple notion that someone contemplated an extremely ambiguous and enigmatic all powerful being and decided to write something about it.
Again, this is all a matter of opinion, but my point is that religion is not necessary for this transcendentalist beauty.
Which brings me to the video. I agree with you that religion is diverse and individuals typically lie along a continuum of adherence levels within each religious tradition. I also agree with you that it is far nicer when a Christian chooses to take most of the bible metaphorically, and as such has no reason to oppress homosexuals, shun scientific understanding and so on. What I do think, however, is that the step between calling yourself religious and taking most of the bible as metaphorical teachings with moral value and calling yourself an atheist and taking the entire bible as metaphorical teachings with moral value is a small and painless one.
Which is the whole point of this video.
This video is not directed at the fundamentalist Christians who hold to the literal teachings of the Bible. It is far too great a leap for them. It is directed towards people who have thought about their faith and concluded that they can not take certain parts of the bible as literal and authoritative, but still give biblical teachings some sort of privileged authority over other ideas put forth. There are many, but one of the main problems I see with this type of religion is that the privileged authority given to the bible tends to cause ignorance of other those other ideas that in reality have an equal opportunity at validity.
Which is why I posted the video.
Because it points out that applying a logical, reality-based analysis of the bible's claims (in this case, one that accepts the fact of evolution) will lead you to the conclusion that the overarching religious point of the bible is invalid. And it is simply attempting to nudge the liberal Christians who attempt to interpret the bible with a huge grain of salt just a little bit closer to atheism.
The fact is that an absence original sin means we don't need to be saved from it. Sure, we do sin and we need to do something about it, but if you are going to take the original sin as metaphorical (because evolution discredits the concept) then why should you take the biblically proposed remedy as literal? And if you're going to take the resurrection as a metaphorical assertion that you need to do this or that to improve your life and the lives of others, than why pay particular attention to that metaphorical assertion. To me, a someone who takes a vast majority of the bible as metaphorical but lives his or her life by it, is about the same as someone saying that they favor a Zizekian outlook on life - which is great and all, but again, it's limiting. There are plenty of ideas out there, go discover them and decide if they should shape your worldview!
Whether or not you think the above proposition is a better way of doing this or not, is up for debate. I think it's the way forward and videos like these help people move in that direction. They did for me.
shinyblurrysays...>> ^shveddy:
@HadouKen24 - All that you say is very dandy and very well may be true, but you'd be shocked at how widespread it is to cling to 19th century literalist beliefs. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in the US it's remarkably common and even presidential candidates manage to think it despite pursuing the most powerful office in the world. I grew up in a particular Christian denomination, one of hundreds, and we had an official statement of faith that stated the absolute, literal, inerrant nature of the bible. This particular flavor of Christianity has about 3 million adherants, and again, this is only one of hundreds - many of which are even more conservative in their biblical interpretation.
When you say that it has been common for some time to regard sacred texts in a metaphorical sense I think that's definitely true, especially in the case of liberal theologians. However, when you take away the literal interpretations and leave interpretative metaphor all that remains is an interesting and influential piece of literature that has no specific authority. And I think this is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that it lowers it to the same level as Moby Dick, Oedipus, Infinite Jest and Harry Potter - all of which are books that have interesting, moralistic metaphors just like the bible.
Let's face it, religion needs the teeth of absolute truth and the threat of moral superiority to have any privileged relevance over other interesting, moral works. I see neither in any of its texts.
@shinyblurry - Give me a non-macroevolutionary reason that junk mutations in Cytochrome C just happen follow a clear developing and branching pattern that just happens to coincide perfectly with those independently developed by scores of other disciplines (such as embryology, paleontology and so on) as well as those based on hundreds of other non-coding markers (such as viral DNA insertions and transposons, to name a few).
If you can give me an answer that can account for these coincidences, does so without macroevolution, and indicates that you actually took the time to understand the concepts I listed above, then I'll take the time to write a much more exhaustive response as to why you're wrong.
Hmm, your statement is littered with all sorts of inaccurate information.
Okay, first of all, this idea of "junk dna" is dying a slow death:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/
Contrary to your assertion, so-called junk dna is functional. And the idea of viral DNA insertions is completely ruled out when this "random" DNA turns out not to be so random after all, and serving very specific purposes. The idea, created in ignorance, exists mainly as a fudge factor for the evolutionary paradigm. The problem for evolutionists is that natural selection cannot produce enough mutations to account for the millions it needs in the 300,000 generations it took for humans to evolve. It's a lot easier to come up those numbers when 95 percent of the genome is "junk".
Second, molecular and morphological phylogenies are often wildly divergent. This is from an Article in nature magazine subtitled:
"Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology. Can the two ever be reconciled, asks Trisha Gura"
"When biologists talk of the ‘evolution wars’, they usually mean the ongoing battle for supremacy in American schoolrooms between Darwinists and their creationist opponents. But the phrase could also be applied to a debate that is raging within systematics. On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the best way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history. . . .
Battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life. Perhaps the most intense are in vertebrate systematics, where molecular biologists are challenging a tradition that relies on studies of fossil skeletons and the bones and soft tissue of living species. . . .
So can the disparities between molecular and morphological trees ever be resolved? Some proponents of the molecular approach claim there is no need. The solution, they say, is to throw out morphology, and accept their version of the truth. “Our method provides the final conclusion about phylogeny,” claims Okada. Shared ancestry means a genetic relationship, the molecular camp argues, so it must be better to analyse DNA and the proteins it encodes, rather than morphological characters that can end up looking similar as a result of convergent evolution in unrelated groups, rather than through common descent. But morphologists respond that convergence can also happen at the molecular level, and note there is a long history of systematists making large claims based on one new form of evidence, only to be proved wrong at a later date"
They are so divergent that two camps have emerged in systematics, each claiming their phylogenies are more accurate. So your claim that Cytochrome C matches "scores" of different phylogenies is patently false, since hardly any of them agree. If want to say that isn't true, please provide the evidence. Note that "scores" means at least 40.
Third, creation theory predicts a hierarchical pattern, so finding one isn't going to falsify creationism or prove common descent. Especially in the case of the phylogeny of Cytochrome C, which has no intermediates or transitionals to be found. You do also realize that a common design can be explained by a common designer? It could simply be the case that Cytochrome C was tailored for different groups according to individual specifications, which then diverged futher by mutations. If your response is that Cytochrome C functions the same way in all life, my response is that the differences could be for coding other proteins.
Before I go any further, I would ask you to support your claims. Show me the specific data you're talking about so I can rebut it.
shinyblurrysays...My characterization of the theories of abiogenesis and macro evolution as based on weak, circumsantial evidence, thus regulating them to the realm of metaphysics is entirely accurate and a proper usage of those terms. Posting a couple of videos which you feel substantiates both theories, even if they did substantiate them, does not prove I used the terms incorrectly. At best it would mean I was mistaken about the sufficiency of the evidence. In any case, clearly you feel I am mistaken, so rather than rebut other peoples videos, I am interested to hear what you personally feel substantiates those theories.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
So.. these statements show you have no comprehension of the words you strung together.
"Investigating" articles published on "Christian Science" Monitor or reviewing Kurt Cameron's Banana Atheist Nightmare video does not count as research.
>> ^shinyblurry:
However, what spurred me to change my mind.. ..was simply investigating what the evidence for macro evolution actually was. I was profoundly shocked to find that it was based on nothing more than weak, circumstantial evidence,
A "weak" inductive argument is one which has little evidence to support its claim.
Hence, the more evidence.. the stronger the argument. I'll let AronRa take over from here
>> ^shinyblurry:
and like abiogenesis, it dwelled solely in the realm of metaphysics..
Again, your ignorance is showing man.
The term "Metaphysics" is the study of existence and relies on Ontology, the study of entities that exist or don't exist.
Not only is abiogenesis possible.. there's more evidence to prove the existence of abiogenesis than there is to prove Adam Eve or Yahweh exist(ed).
That is to say. Yahweh & Adam are purely metaphysical. Abiogenesis is not.
shinyblurrysays...Not only do I live in the US, but I live Oklahoma, one of the most religiously conservative states. I don't have a great deal of respect for that brand of religion, for sure. Which is precisely why it's so galling to see a video that suggests that's just what Christians have to be like--that Christians who reject the Bibliolatry and hermeneutic cutting and pasting of those idiots somehow aren't real Christians, that rejecting the sheep-like credulity of these so-called faithful means that the thoughtful ones haven't actually thought it through. And somehow it is averred that those who cling to the ancient traditions of Biblical understanding are inauthentically Christian, since they don't accept the quasi-heretical doctrines of 19th century upstarts.
Your characterization of bible literalists as "idiots" and people with "sheep-like" credulity and the "so-called" faithful, not-withstanding, I will agree that a disagreement on origins doesn't necessarily make someone less Christian. It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that you must agree on a literal interpretation of Genesis to follow Jesus Christ.
Calling the literal interpretation of Genesis a "quasi-heretical" doctrine of "19th century upstarts" is completely ridiculous, though. Almost as ridiculous as quoting Origen and Augustrine and claiming they represented the majority viewpoint of the early church. If you think the early church didn't believe in a literal Genesis, how do you explain Ephraim the syrian, or Basil of Caesarea? What about Ambrose of Milan, who was the mentor of Augustine? They all believed in a young earth, as did many others throughout the centuries.
Let us not also forget that Christ Himself was a bible literalist, who spoke about the narrative in the Old Testament, including Genesis, as literal history, and literally fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah.
As far as dogmatic authority goes, I think that you're partly right about some religions. Specifically, the big Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It's important to remember that this is not the entire world of religion (even if they are important), so there are a number of statements about them that will be incorrect about other religions--in fact, most other religions.
It's true that the Big Three do indeed seem to require acceding to the truth of certain propositions in order to remain in their historical form: e.g., that the Torah was revealed by God, that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead, and that Mohammad received the Qur'an from Michael. (for each religion respectively) There is certainly an important sense in which certain very liberal theologians are still Christian, but this is something very different than historical Christianity.
In regards to Christianity, there is a mimimum requirement of belief, such as that Jesus was raised from the dead, to be a Christian.
Moreover, I myself don't think that moral authority is actually essential to religion. It's certainly related to religion, but as I'm sure you've observed--there's not much of a correlation between religious belief and moral behavior. Simple observation shows most Christians to be liars. Morality is not why they are Christian.
Simple observation shows most people, probably near the 99.9 percent mark, to be liars. There is no claim in Christianity that Christians are perfect. Far from it. Jesus was the only perfect man to ever live. Christians still sin, but hopefully they sin much less than usual. Christians living sanctified lives are comparitively rare, unfortunately. When you consider that half of the American church does not believe in a literal Holy Spirit or Satan, it isn't surprising.
Instead, I think it's something else--transcendence, and the promise of new states of being. Morality has almost nothing to do with this. The same man can be capable of the most holy ecstasies and raptures before the beauty of the God or gods that he prays to, a writer of the most delicately beautiful hymns and homilies--and the worst bastard on earth outside of church. Cardinal Richilieu was just such a person.
In Christianity, it is to know God personally. Christianity is about Jesus Christ and nothing else. If you subtract Jesus, you don't have anything. You automatically get a new state of being; when you accept Christ you are a new creature, and you receive the Holy Spirit. You also have your sins forgiven and obtain eternal life.
This is why we'll never get rid of religion, of course. But it's also why the monotheistic religions can be so dangerous. They incorrectly tie the ecstasies of the spirit to crude and intolerant dogmas, then demand that all others agree or face the sword or the pyre.
Which spirit? Satan can make you feel ecstacy and love; it wouldn't be a very good deception if it wasn't deceiving. The question you should ask is, where is this coming from, and who gave me a spirit in the first place?
As far as intolerance goes, Jesus made it clear:
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Those are His words, not mine. A Christian is only telling you what He said, which is that you will face judgment for your sins. If you reject Jesus, you are telling God you want to stand trial for your sins on your own merit. If you are rejecting Jesus, it's for a reason that has nothing to do with anything you have written here.
>> ^HadouKen24:
shinyblurrysays...@shveddy
What happens, typically, is that a person born into a Christian home grows up with their parents religion, and believes in it because they were taught it as truth. They have no foundation for their own faith, and they look at Christianity as a sort of checklist. As in, go to church, follow certain rules, read the bible, etc. If they've got all of those checked off, they're a Christian.
These people typically start to fall away in their teenage years, when they start encountering the skepticism of the world towards Christianity and the bible. Lacking any internal reasoning for their own faith, probably never even having deeply considered it, they are vulnerable into indoctrination into other belief systems, like secular humanism. Particularly secular humanism, since it has the most sophisticated arguments against Christianity.
These were people who had a religion; they were not born again. They never knew Jesus Christ personally. To know Jesus is to be supernaturally transformed and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Christianity is not a religion, it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. If you don't know Jesus, you are not a Christian, and never were.
shveddy@shinyblurry - No, yours is and here's why:
Ok, you need to understand two different concepts. The first, is the notion that science is constantly refining itself. It is never 100% correct, and there is near constant debate about what is the best method of determining something to be factual. In this case, we're talking about whether molecular systematics or morphological characteristics are the most accurate means of determining phylogeny. The second is the notion of statistical significance. Now I'll admit that in saying that they "coincide perfectly," I failed to adhere to a more accurate and rigorous description of what is actually happening, so I'll rectify that now. The correlation between the different trees constructed by different fields within biology have an extremely statistically significant amount of correlation. This means that while we can expect disagreement and there will be debate about the best method to refine the results, the odds of getting so much similarity by accident is exceedingly small.
So in light of this reality where science is never 100% correct and there is a constant debate over the relative effectiveness of varying methods of phylogenetic determination, there will be a huge excess of material for you to quote mine in an effort to distort the significance of the minor disagreements that are common in science to a scale that can supposedly bring down evolution.
If only you were a bit better at it. Even the quotes you chose to mine serve to undermine your point. I think my point can be summarized by the following quote from your reference:
“On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the BEST way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history.”
The relevant part here is the word “best.” These people are clearly just trying to decide what the most accurate method of phylogenetic determination is and this article represents nothing more than a discussion of one of the many battles that go on in the constant refinement of science. And this disagreement does nothing at all to disprove evolution.
There are analogous debates going on in nearly all branches of academic study. Taking an example with fewer existential implications for religion, look towards the Holocaust. There is an ongoing effort by Yad Va Shem, a jewish organization, to catalogue all those who died under the Nazi regime as well as those who aided jews in various ways (http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/remembrance/hall_of_names.asp). Now at the moment they have verified only three million names and something like 24000 people who helped, and details on each vary. But wait, oh no! We all know that there were roughly six million victims! And we don’t even have complete information about the paltry three million we’ve catalogued. Does this mean that the Holocaust did not happen? Of course it doesn’t. You need to take the internal debate in context and realize that the total sum of evidence is overwhelming. Creationists, however, can not be so objective with such a threatening theory as evolution.
As for your junk DNA article, you similarly blow the relevance way out of proportion. Here’s the last sentence from the text that summarizes the relevance of the article:
“The present study suggests that some selfish DNA transposons can instead confer an important role to their hosts, thereby establishing themselves as long-term residents of the genome.”
Here it states simply that some of the junk DNA, not all of it, can become useful to the cell. This sentence proves you wrong in two ways. First, it admits that they have only found a few instances of utility for this junk DNA, which is a far cry from the evidence that would be necessary for the slow death you speak of. Second, the acknowledges that this as an instance of Junk DNA incorporating itself into the genome and taking on novel and useful roles. In other words, evolution!
The genome is huge and nowhere in biology does it say that all of the DNA we have designated as junk is most certainly junk. Again, this is just another example of incrementally refining our understanding about how things work, but it is not revolutionary and it still demonstrates a clear framework.
And regardless or whether or not your article shows that a lot of Junk DNA has function (which is common knowledge, by the way), it does not at all disprove the fact that junk DNA shows typically exhibits much higher rates of mutation because its specific sequence is less rigidly constrained than coding DNA (http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v12/n11/full/nrg3098.html?WT.ec_id=NRG-201111). It is not a complete lack of function that demonstrates evolution, but simply a higher rate of mutation that results in sequences that will be more varied the more distantly related two species are.
And finally, read these articles if you want a more complete understanding about how the comparisons between phylogenetic trees are indeed imperfect, but well supported and constantly refined:
http://cmgm.stanford.edu/phylip/consense.html
http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/cplite/ch4.pdf
http://www.mathnet.or.kr/mathnet/paper_file/McGill/Bryant/03ConsensusAMS.pdf
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/10/423
http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/12/1556.full
There are literally hundreds of thousands of these articles detailing what is essentially a whole, distinct area of study. Just search the term “consensus trees” and you’ll see what I mean.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=consensus+trees&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=onhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=consensus+trees&hl=en
&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on
shveddyOh yea, and I'm sick and tired of Christians always excusing themselves from the need for behavioral and moral superiority by saying that only Jesus is perfect, thinking that it will alleviate all of my complaints about Christianity.
I have no more problem with the hypocracy of Christians than I do with anyone else who makes mistakes and does bad things while generally saying that he or she is a good person. Which is to say that I don't stress over it very much because we all do it.
What drew me away from religion is that the Father, Jesus and particularly the Holy Spirit are especially vile concepts that are in no way deserving of my respect. So stop trying to defend Christians when I don't care to condemn their behavior very much.
Explain to me how a just god can create a world that, upon close examination of its workings, clearly disagrees with nearly all of the specifics claimed by that god's supposed divine revelation. Tell me then, how a good god can come up with a rather ambiguous way to save his sinning inhabitants (that he created) that can be summarized in an arbitrary phrase that does nothing but allow people to shirk responsibility for actions. And then, despite having the power to move everyone to accept this gift, decides to give it only to a select few based mostly on geography.
Oh, and by the way. Christianity is a religion by definition. According to the Oxford dictionary, a religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
For you to claim that Christianity is not a religion than in order to not qualify under the accepted definition, you would have to deny the following:
1. That you believe in God and Jesus
2. That you worship God and Jesus
3. That God is superhuman and capable of controlling
4. and that God or Jesus are personal to you
Somehow I doubt that you deny those. If you feel like denying the authority of the oxford dictionary, then feel free to look ridiculous.
shinyblurrysays..."Ok, you need to understand two different concepts........the odds of getting so much similarity by accident is exceedingly small.
So in light of this reality.....supposedly bring down evolution."
Minor disagreements? I'm having a hard time believing that you've seriously investigated this subject if you are now claiming (scaled back from your prior claim of perfect agreement between "scores" of them) that molecular and morphological phylogonies typically have a high level of agreement. They don't. Agreement is the exception, not the rule. Even worse, molecular phylogonies don't agree with eachother either:
As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology. . . .
Partly because of morphology’s long history, congruence between morphological phylogenies is the exception rather than the rule. With molecular phylogenies, all generated within the last couple of decades, the situation is little better. Many cases of incongruence between molecular phylogenies are documented above; and when a consensus of all trees within 1% of the shortest in a parsimony analysis is published (e.g. 132, 152, 170), structure or resolution tends to evaporate
Congruence Between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.es.24.110193.001101
"If only you were a bit better at it. Even the quotes you chose to mine serve to undermine your point. I think my point can be summarized by the following quote from your reference"
“On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the BEST way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history.”
The relevant part here is the word “best.” These people are clearly just trying to decide what the most accurate method of phylogenetic determination is and this article represents nothing more than a discussion of one of the many battles that go on in the constant refinement of science. And this disagreement does nothing at all to disprove evolution""
Your charge of quote mining is false. Quote mining is the logical fallacy of quoting something out of context, distorting its intended meaning. The quote I provided was very much in context, and showed support for the assertion that molecular and morphological phylogenies do not have "perfect" agreement, and now I have further supported that assertion (and disproven your scaled back claim of very statistically significant agreement) that their agreement is actually very superficial. It is far more significant how little agreement there actually is.
The very reason there is a contention about which is the "best" method is precisely because there is so little agreement. In any case, molecular homology appears to be winning the battle, perhaps because the evolutionists are getting tired of never finding any evolution in the fossil record.
Which brings us to the many issues with molecular homologies, specifically, their lack of falsifiability:
"We believe that it is possible to draw up a list of basic rules that underlie existing molecular evolutionary models:
All theories are monophyletic, meaning that they all start with the Urgene and the Urzelle which have given rise to all proteins and all species, respectively.
Complexity evolves mainly through duplications and mutations in structural and control genes.
Genes can mutate or remain stable, migrate laterally from species to species, spread through a population by mechanisms whose operation is not fully understood, evolve coordinately, splice, stay silent, and exist as pseudogenes.
Ad hoc arguments can be invented (such as insect vectors or viruses) that can transport a gene into places where no monophyletic logic could otherwise explain its presence.
This liberal spread of rules, each of which can be observed in use by scientists, does not just sound facetious but also, in our opinion, robs monophyletic evolution of its vulnerability to disproof, and thereby its entitlement to the status of a scientific theory.
The absolute, explicit and implicit, adherence to all the monophyletic principle and consequently the decision to interpret all observations in the light of this principle is the major cause of incongruities as well as for the invention of all the genetic sidestepping rules cited above."
A Polyphyletic View of Evolution
Schwabe and Warr
This is why Schwabe, a biochemist, wrote:
Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to paleontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist I should be elated. Instead it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so many, in fact, that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message
It's a shell game where virtually any kind of data can be accomodated, and at no point is the theory questioned. Ad hoc explanations can be invented for any kind of discrepency.
""There are analogous debates going on in nearly all branches of academic study. Taking an example with fewer existential implications for religion, look towards the Holocaust. There is an ongoing effort by Yad Va Shem, a jewish organization, to catalogue all those who died under the Nazi regime as well as those who aided jews in various ways (http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/remembrance/hall_of_names.asp). Now at the moment they have verified only three million names and something like 24000 people who helped, and details on each vary. But wait, oh no! We all know that there were roughly six million victims! And we don’t even have complete information about the paltry three million we’ve catalogued. Does this mean that the Holocaust did not happen? Of course it doesn’t. You need to take the internal debate in context and realize that the total sum of evidence is overwhelming. Creationists, however, can not be so objective with such a threatening theory as evolution.""
A mountain of weak, circumstantial evidence (much of which contradicts itself) does not prove macro evolution. "We're working on it" does not somehow validate that evidence. We know the holocaust happened; there is no proof for macro evolution.
""As for your junk DNA article, you similarly blow the relevance way out of proportion. Here’s the last sentence from the text that summarizes the relevance of the article:
“The present study suggests that some selfish DNA transposons can instead confer an important role to their hosts, thereby establishing themselves as long-term residents of the genome.”
Here it states simply that some of the junk DNA, not all of it, can become useful to the cell. This sentence proves you wrong in two ways. First, it admits that they have only found a few instances of utility for this junk DNA, which is a far cry from the evidence that would be necessary for the slow death you speak of. Second, the acknowledges that this as an instance of Junk DNA incorporating itself into the genome and taking on novel and useful roles. In other words, evolution!
The genome is huge and nowhere in biology does it say that all of the DNA we have designated as junk is most certainly junk. Again, this is just another example of incrementally refining our understanding about how things work, but it is not revolutionary and it still demonstrates a clear framework.
And regardless or whether or not your article shows that a lot of Junk DNA has function (which is common knowledge, by the way), it does not at all disprove the fact that junk DNA shows typically exhibits much higher rates of mutation because its specific sequence is less rigidly constrained than coding DNA (http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v12/n11/full/nrg3098.html?WT.ec_id=NRG-201111). It is not a complete lack of function that demonstrates evolution, but simply a higher rate of mutation that results in sequences that will be more varied the more distantly related two species are.""
There are numerous sources showing that junk dna is not junk:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/04/28/1103894108.full.pdf+html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025112059.htm
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/transposons-or-jumping-genes-not-junk-dna-1211
Based on your earlier argument, "we're working on it", you should realize that what some scientists consider to be junk dna stems entirely from ignorance. The idea that it got in there by "viral dna insertions" and the like is simply another ad hoc explanation among many.
""And finally, read these articles if you want a more complete understanding about how the comparisons between phylogenetic trees are indeed imperfect, but well supported and constantly refined:
http://cmgm.stanford.edu/phylip/consense.html
http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/cplite/ch4.pdf
http://www.mathnet.or.kr/mathnet/paper_file/McGill/Bryant/03ConsensusAMS.pdf
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/10/423
http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/12/1556.full
There are literally hundreds of thousands of these articles detailing what is essentially a whole, distinct area of study. Just search the term “consensus trees” and you’ll see what I mean.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=consensus+trees&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=onhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=consensus+trees&hl=en
&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on""
I have already demonstrated that the consensus is very weak. What you need to provide is data backing up your claims regarding cytochrome c. I am awaiting the "scores" of phylogonies that will match that data.
shinyblurrysays...@shveddy
""Oh yea, and I'm sick and tired of Christians always excusing themselves from the need for behavioral and moral superiority by saying that only Jesus is perfect, thinking that it will alleviate all of my complaints about Christianity.
I have no more problem with the hypocracy of Christians than I do with anyone else who makes mistakes and does bad things while generally saying that he or she is a good person. Which is to say that I don't stress over it very much because we all do it.""
Christians, in general, should stand out from the rest of the world if they are living according to what Christ taught. If they are indistinguishable from everyone else, they are definitely not following His teachings. I wasn't excusing anyone however, I was simply stating that Christians are still human and will make mistakes.
""What drew me away from religion is that the Father, Jesus and particularly the Holy Spirit are especially vile concepts that are in no way deserving of my respect. So stop trying to defend Christians when I don't care to condemn their behavior very much.
Explain to me how a just god can create a world that, upon close examination of its workings, clearly disagrees with nearly all of the specifics claimed by that god's supposed divine revelation.""
When God created the world, it was "very good". It had no death, and no pain. It was a paradise and humans enjoyed direct fellowship with God. The reason that the world is embroiled in evil today is because God gave human beings free will, to obey or disobey His commands. It is because of our disobedience towards God that sin and death entered the world. Creation fell because of the sin of man, and we became spiritually separated from God.
""Tell me then, how a good god can come up with a rather ambiguous way to save his sinning inhabitants (that he created) that can be summarized in an arbitrary phrase that does nothing but allow people to shirk responsibility for actions. And then, despite having the power to move everyone to accept this gift, decides to give it only to a select few based mostly on geography.""
God hasn't chosen a select few to be saved. He desires all to come to repentence and receive eternal life. God gives everyone the opportunity to be saved, but people choose to suppress the truth God has revealed to them because of wickedness. When you look at someone across the world, locked into false religion, what you don't see are all the choices that God has offered that person to draw near to His Son. You don't see what could have been, you only see what is. The gospel is preached in every country in the world, and where it hasn't reached, people receive dreams and visions. God can reach anyone.
Neither is salvation based on an "arbitrary phrase". You say you left religion..so were you a Christian? If so, how is it that you don't know how people are saved? Do you understand the gospel?
You are saved when you accept Jesus Christ into your life as Lord and Savior, when you believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, and confess Him as Lord. It has nothing to do with words, it has to do with the sincere intent of your heart.
Neither is an effort to shirk personal responsibility. On the contrary, we are personally responsible to God for all of the sins we have committed. God has commanded that all people everywhere *repent* of their sins, and trust in His Son. That is a total fulfillment of personal responsibility, as we are accountable to God and not men.
God does not force anyone to come to Him; He gives you a choice. Neither is it a bunch of words, where you simply believe what the bible says. The gospel comes by the *power* of the Holy Spirit. When you believe, you are born again as a new person, and you receive the Holy Spirit, who lives within you. It is a supernatural transformation of your entire being.
""Oh, and by the way. Christianity is a religion by definition. According to the Oxford dictionary, a religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
For you to claim that Christianity is not a religion than in order to not qualify under the accepted definition, you would have to deny the following:
1. That you believe in God and Jesus
2. That you worship God and Jesus
3. That God is superhuman and capable of controlling
4. and that God or Jesus are personal to you
Somehow I doubt that you deny those. If you feel like denying the authority of the oxford dictionary, then feel free to look ridiculous.""
Under that definition, it is technically a religion, but not as you understand it. When you think of religion, you think of dogma and rituals. That isn't what Christianity is; at its foundation, it is nothing more or less than a personal relationship with the Creator of the Universe. That is not religion as how an atheist understands the word.
shveddyI don't have time to waste on your ignorance any more, but just a few quick rebuttals should be sufficient to discredit your credibility.
First off, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by this abstract:
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.es.24.110193.001101
Quote: "Morphologists achieved much during that time, and none of their well supported phylogenies is overthrown by molecular data. So far, molecular sequences have contributed most significantly in areas where morphological data are inconclusive, deficient, nonexistent or poorly analyzed."
If anything it supports my point, but there are better sources out there. Which is why I chose to limit my literature sources to those that were at least after the year 2000. Why, you ask? Because the first bacterial genome was sequenced in 1995, about two years after that article. We've learned a lot since then, though, according to that abstract, even then they understood that molecular systematics were capable of elucidating many areas of the fossil record we didn't understand. Just read to the end of it.
I knew you would jump on the whole part where I conceded that it is not absolute agreement. Look, I took 30 seconds to write a sarcastic response on an internet forum. So what that I didn't bother to delve into the nuances of consensus trees and whatnot. Argue with the damn articles, not me.
You also just ignore it when I say that the fact that junk DNA has a function has nothing to do with it's evolutionary relevance and continue to claim otherwise without giving a reason. It is the relative mutation rates, not the functionality - maybe you didn't catch that the first time around.
Yada yada yada, I've got better things to do. Anyone who reads this little exchange can see your evident dishonesty and unwarranted extrapolation and that's all that matters. Because if someone is willing to plug their ears and yell loudly whenever something contradicts absolutely held beliefs like you are clearly willing to do, then there will be no convincing. This exchange is for those who are on the fence, and you're little display of anti-intellectualism speaks for itself even without all the scientific proof.
And trust me, I was a Christian. I was deriding salvation by grace as an arbitrary thing, doesn't mean I don't understand what you guys think.
shinyblurrysays...The discussion began when you challenged me with spurious claims that were proven to be false. After that, you scaled back your claims and abandoned your assertions about cytochrome c, never providing any evidence for them , despite being asked twice. That is what people are going to see. The discussion about junk DNA is tertiary to the point, which was, regardless of how it may mutate, is that the more we know about it, the more we see it has function; ie, it isn't junk. The point was really to counter a more sophisticated argument that I thought you were going to make,, but it apparently wasn't in your repitoire. The reality about this conversation is that you've failed to make a coherent argument in support of macro evolution.
As far as being a Christian goes, you never knew Jesus Christ. That's what makes you a Christian. You had a head knowledge, but you weren't born again.
John 3:3
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
This is why you never saw it. You think it's just something you read about and believe in, because that's all it was to you. Words in a book. You never came to know God personally. I don't blame you for walking away from that, honestly, and it isn't entirely your fault; your parents failed to teach you how to be saved. That's a tragedy.
Listen, God loves you deeply, and wants you to know Him. If you will turn your life over to Him, He will show you that He is more than words in a book; He will show you that He is alive. Pray and ask Him what the truth is. God bless.
HadouKen24says...@shinyblurry:
Your characterization of bible literalists as "idiots" and people with "sheep-like" credulity and the "so-called" faithful, not-withstanding, I will agree that a disagreement on origins doesn't necessarily make someone less Christian. It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that you must agree on a literal interpretation of Genesis to follow Jesus Christ.
Calling the literal interpretation of Genesis a "quasi-heretical" doctrine of "19th century upstarts" is completely ridiculous, though. Almost as ridiculous as quoting Origen and Augustrine and claiming they represented the majority viewpoint of the early church. If you think the early church didn't believe in a literal Genesis, how do you explain Ephraim the syrian, or Basil of Caesarea? What about Ambrose of Milan, who was the mentor of Augustine? They all believed in a young earth, as did many others throughout the centuries.
Let us not also forget that Christ Himself was a bible literalist, who spoke about the narrative in the Old Testament, including Genesis, as literal history, and literally fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah.
Could you perhaps refer me to some documents wherein St. Ephrem or St. Basil averred that the literal interpretation of the Bible is primary? Ephrem appears to have struck a middle ground between literalism and pure metaphorical interpretation, and St. Basil was a student of Origen's writings. Granted, St. Basil assiduously avoided the bizarre flights of fancy that plagued some of the Christian writers in the 4th century, but he was hardly a literalist in a strict sense--the literal sense was only one important sense in which to take the sacred writings.
If you want to support your point, a particular reference to Genesis will do best.
As far as Ambrose goes, it stretches the truth to say that he was a "mentor" of Augustine. Certainly, Augustine speaks rather highly of Ambrose in the Confessions. But Augustine writes with rather rose-colored glasses. A sober-minded approach to the life of Ambrose reveals that he was as much a political animal as he was spiritual. And even in the Confessions it is not recorded that Ambrose paid much attention to Augustine. If I recall correctly, Augustine doesn't record a single word that Ambrose said to Augustine outside of a public sermon in which Augustine was a member of the congregation.
In regards to Christianity, there is a mimimum requirement of belief, such as that Jesus was raised from the dead, to be a Christian.
In the traditional sense, certainly. There are other senses by which one might claim to be Christian--pointing out the tradition from which one derives one's moral compass, for instance. In this sense, many atheists can probably claim to be Christian atheists, rather than, e.g., Muslim atheists.
Simple observation shows most people, probably near the 99.9 percent mark, to be liars. There is no claim in Christianity that Christians are perfect. Far from it. Jesus was the only perfect man to ever live. Christians still sin, but hopefully they sin much less than usual. Christians living sanctified lives are comparitively rare, unfortunately. When you consider that half of the American church does not believe in a literal Holy Spirit or Satan, it isn't surprising.
Do they sin much less than usual? I haven't seen any sign of it. The statistics don't seem to bear it out. Nor does my personal experience. Of the best and most morally astute people I know, only one was Christian. The rest were Buddhist, Muslim, or Pagan.
In Christianity, it is to know God personally. Christianity is about Jesus Christ and nothing else. If you subtract Jesus, you don't have anything. You automatically get a new state of being; when you accept Christ you are a new creature, and you receive the Holy Spirit. You also have your sins forgiven and obtain eternal life.
To worship and devote yourself to a single God, like Jesus Christ, has a specific term in Hinduism--bhakhti yoga. It is the path of love and devotion.
No matter which god you pursue with this ardent and holy love, you will achieve the same result--sanctification, rebirth, and the descending dove of the Holy Spirit.
The forgiveness of sins is a psychological projection. Eternal life is yours regardless of what any god says.
Which spirit? Satan can make you feel ecstacy and love; it wouldn't be a very good deception if it wasn't deceiving. The question you should ask is, where is this coming from, and who gave me a spirit in the first place?
As far as intolerance goes, Jesus made it clear:
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Those are His words, not mine. A Christian is only telling you what He said, which is that you will face judgment for your sins. If you reject Jesus, you are telling God you want to stand trial for your sins on your own merit. If you are rejecting Jesus, it's for a reason that has nothing to do with anything you have written here.
As far as deception goes, I will quote to you the Gospels, Luke 11:17-19: 'But He knew their thoughts and said to them, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and a house divided against itself falls. If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? So they will be your judges.'
How can a demon bring holy ecstasy? How can a devil cast out division and hatred, and bring in such divine love?
And with regard to intolerance, it's almost entirely pointless to quote to me the first apocryphon of John--the so-called Gospel of John. I'm well aware of what it says. I've spent a lot of time considering it. That's why I think it's incorrect.
It does no good at all to suggest that it's someone else who's being intolerant. On the one hand, it looks like you're blame-shifting, too much the coward to take responsibility for the statement. On the other hand, you are providing no reason to think that the quotation provides any authority whatsoever, and undermining your position by your own indolence.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
This website uses cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.