Creationists - Ignorant or Brainwashed?

[Gaspode]

Polycarp
While I can understand why North Americans would assume all creationists hold to a Judaeo/Christian view of creation I find the assumption to be extremely small-minded and ethnocentric. I particularly can’t understand why you would do such a thing. In light of the fact that I have informed you in no uncertain terms in another thread that IANAC, and in light of the fact that you accepted that I find your post somewhat odd. I suspect you are using me to engage in a bit of witnessing and/or to distance your own self-professed ‘compassionate, conservative Christian’ views from my own, in which case well done. Or it’s possible you just forgot. However I will certainly give you my reflections though I think you are going to be disappointed if you are looking for disagreement…

*Originally posted by Polycarp *Okay, Gaspode says he has evidence against “Darwinian Evolution.” Then he posts material based on fungal research.

And what makes you think Darwinian evolution doesn’t apply to fungi? Or that the processes controlling fungal evolution can’t be equally true of other kingdoms, which is what the authors discussed? If you had read the extract from Brookfield you would have noticed this “For True and Lindquist, the simultaneous activation of genetic changes at many loci is relevant to the evolutionary enigma' that new functions may require several independent genetic changes”. True and Lindquist refers, if you note, to the material on fungal research. Similarly Brookfield notes “a switch of a yeast protein to a prion’ state triggers diverse phenotypic changes has prompted re-examination of the processes of evolution.” The yeast protein resarch being referred to is of course the work of True and Lindquist.
These two statements quite clearly state that the research is relevant to the evolutionary question and the validity of current evolutionary theory. That’s why it was posted.
The same fungal research is referred to by Jablonka et al and. Carroll, also cited. Dr. Spetner refers to even more research along the same lines suggesting similar mechanisms may well be at work in other kingdoms.

There are quite a few studies, over the years, that show influences on genetic variation not attributable to strict evolution as conceptualized in the typical textbook.

Correct. Some, as shown above, show influences not in keeping with Darwinian evolution which requires that “the engine of evolution is differential reproduction of different genetic stocks.” The work above suggests the engine may be something very different indeed.

Most of the evidence from geology, paleontology, biology in general, cosmology, radioisotope physics, points to a universe in excess of 12 billion years in age, with an earth of 4.6 billion years, having had multicellular life for approximately the past 1 billion years and having had it change according to modern evolutionary theory – based roughly on Darwin’s pioneering work but with much refinement in the 140 years since.

The age data I will agree with entirely though to be perfectly honest I’m mostly taking the word of others. I’ve never really studied it. As for ‘and having had it change according to modern evolutionary theory’ that’s debatable. To quote Carroll “Patterns and rates of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by Darwin or the evolutionary synthesis.” The evolutionary synthesis being of course modern evolutionary theory. So at least one ‘authority’ would argue your assumption, and there are others. This is one of my reasons for rejecting Darwinian evolution. That was why I cited Carroll, it constitutes evidence against Darwinian evolution. The actual paper goes into greater detail.
Even without this of course you would accept that just because the facts fit one theory it doesn’t mean they can’t fit another theory equally well or better?

Such evidence must be superseded by clear evidence of the actions of an all-powerful god creating the world in six 24-hour days.
Such a god, however, would not be one who loved the world enough to give His only-begotten Son that whoever believed in Him might not perish but have everlasting life. He would be a trickster god who plants false evidence in sufficient quantity to confuse all leading students of the subject and those who follow their authority.
In short, he would be the Divine Weasel – the term I created here some months ago for this fictive deity.
The idea that Genesis 1 is to be interpreted as literal cosmology is based on the demand that the Bible be understood as literally true – one that not even “Biblical literalists” carry to the extreme.
As a literary work, Genesis 1 is clearly a myth. This says nothing about its truth, just speaks of its literary genre. As such, it ought to be interpreted as a myth – a simplified easy-to-remember assertion of the idea that it is God Who created everything.
People who insist on giving total certitude to the Bible taken literally are often people who worship the Bible – instead of the God Who gave it. Any good Christian should examine his own heart and mind to see if that is what he or she is in fact doing – because it’s one of the subtlest temptations in the Tempter’s armory, and therefore one of the easiest to fall into.

I’d have to agree with most of that. Noting of course that I don’t believe in such a God, nor do I have a belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible. I do not believe in an omnipotent God. I do not believe in a 6 day creation nor am I a last-Thursdayist.
Address your argument at Randy if you want any argument on that lot but I’d like you to keep in mind that the OP requested that this be discussed without debating creation/evolution. I fairly much agree, though I would never assume anyone’s faith depended on a ‘divine weasel’ until I had a full understanding of it, and I’m afraid I don’t even begin to understand last-Thursdayism. I’d never presume to state what a good Christian should believe any more than I would presume to state what a good Jew should believe. You are in a far better position to do that Polycarp being Christain yourself. I certainly wouldn’t presume to understand the will of a god willing to sacrifice his own son to save a world when I can’t understand the necessity of the action. I might get you to explain that one on another thread Poly, but on this one I think the only thing we have to argue about is an interpretation of the evidence.

Originally posted by Lemur866
Now. Gaspode, don’t you think there’s a difference between discovering the possible role of prions in evolution and deciding that evolution doesn’t occur?

Lemur if you could find anywhere on any thread where I said that evolution doesn’t occur I’d be less cranky about this. Why in the world does everyone immediately assume that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive. As I have already pointed the majority of the worlds creationists probably have no problem with evolution. DITWD seems to support it. I assume Polycarp is a creationist because he is a Christian and he seems to have no problem with evolution. Darwin himself was a creationist for crying out loud. There is a world of difference between being a fundamentalist Christian and being a creationist.
What I was doing with my cites was filling the request of Hardcore for a portion of my ‘mountain’ of evidence against Darwinian evolution. That’s all. If I can reject Darwinian evolution on grounds other than ignorance then the whole OP falls to pieces simply because accepting either creation, evolution or a hybrid does not require ignorance or brainwashing but can be done in an intelligent and free thinking manner. People do accept creationism due to brainwashing and ignorance, just as Satan and Ben have demonstrated that they have accepted a brand of evolution in complete ignorance of the latest evidence to the contrary, but that doesn’t make all evolutionists ignorant or brainwashed. Ignorance and brainwashing plays a vital part in most people’s acceptance of either theory. No problem.
Or to put it another way “don’t you think there’s a difference between discovering the possible role of prions in evolution and deciding that creation doesn’t occur?”
If you think I don’t accept or understand evolution then I suggest you do a search of my name and ‘evolution’ in Great Debates. You’ll be surprised.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

*Originally posted by Ben *
**

*Originally posted by Randy *
**
That’s a loaded question, full of argument. I know that the Bible says that God “loved Jacob and hated Esau”. Whether that can be interpreted literally, I’m not sure about. But I do know this, no one loves more fairly and more strongly than God.
**

Wait a minute- the Bible says the earth was created in 6 days, and you know that’s supposed to be taken literally, despite mountains of evidence that the Bible was speaking metaphorically in that instance. But when the Bible says God hated Esau from even before he was born, you’re not sure if it should be taken literally?

Let me ask you a few more questions:

What was the sin for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed?

How do you know if someone is a false prophet? Do false prophets come from Satan, or from God?

-Ben **

Ben, once you get done shooting that carp in the keg full of buckshot, could you just maybe get back on the OP? WTF do these interrogations have to do with the creation?

Randy- you CAN ignore these thread hijacks if you like, you know.

[Satan]

*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden *

**Ben, once you get done shooting that carp in the keg full of buckshot, could you just maybe get back on the OP? WTF do these interrogations have to do with the creation?

**
They have everything to do with the OP.

When he comes in here and maintains that the reasons he is a Creationist (which is exactly what the OP talks about) and his reasoning can be shown to be faulty by using his reasoning for parallel and perepheral (but very similar) as example, I’d say it has EVRYTHING to do with the OP.

**Randy- you CAN ignore these thread hijacks if you like, you know. **

They are not hijacks, they show exactly the lack of consistancy in Randy’s argument because he is using the same evidence (“the Bible is the inerrant literal word of God”) and then doubling back on himself with it.

Of course, given how often your failure to grasp the obvious rears its ugly head, I don’t foresee this logic to penetrate that thick skull of yours either.

I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: They invented the :rolleyes: smilie for the likes of you.

[Polycarp]

Gaspode, two confessions:

1. Quite bluntly, I had completely forgotten that you were not a Christian of any stripe (stupidly, but I’ve been busy – I hope you won’t take that memory lapse in the Izzy/SM mode), and tailored my response to a combination of your comments and Randy’s. I accept fully that you simply refuse to buy into “what everybody knows is true” when you see possible evidence against it. And I respect that view.

2. I need to apologize for what was actually scoring off you, though you’d presumably have no way of knowing that. Explanation:

In the fall of 1999, this board was “graced” by a poster who took his name from the title character of a Platonic dialogue. By common consent, his nick is not posted here, on a “mention the devil, and he’ll appear” sort of attitude. This person invented a very complex fake persona to protect his own identity from getting involved online. His screen personality was the blunt, argumentative, less-than-concerned-for-others’-feelings one you have often adopted. Some of the following facts about him are true, and some are part of his persona, and effectively none of us knows which are which: He was proud of his Native American heritage. He was a successful lawyer. He was a survivor of child sexual abuse and testicular cancer. He was a widower. He was a researcher into mycology (the biology of fungi, for those not familiar with the term).

Most importantly, he hijacked a thread that began as a rant against people who believed the earth to be flat into a debate against evolution that went well over ten pages. And his modus operandi was to announce that he would in the near future post a refutation of evolution, as soon as he completed some of his mycological researches.

I trust you can see where the parallels between your online persona and his caused me some amusement, and, giving in to a totally tacky attitude which I do regret, I played off that at the beginning of my post. I hope you will forgive my doing so; in retrospect, it was unconscionable, albeit it was a near-perfect “spin”.

[Danimal]

*Originally posted by Gaspode *
** Now to answer the question ‘Are there evolutionary theories that don’t incorporate Darwinian evolution’ the answer is yes. Most alternatives reject its importance as a driving force in evolution. **

Theoretically, this thread was about the mindset of creationists (ignorant, brainwashed, or neither of the above). Subscribers to these non-Darwinian theories of evolution, be they right or wrong, are clearly not creationists, so I’m not sure what light this sheds on the question.

The simple fact is that disagreement with any theory cannot be held to be evidence of ignorance or brainwashing until either all non-ignorant, non-brainwashed people can be demonstrated to believe the theory or until the theory is proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Any given theory of evolution fails to meet either of these criteria and as such the OP has a serious logical error and cannot be discussed objectively as it stands.

The question was not whether non-believers in a specific theory of evolution were brainwashed, but whether creationists were. Failing to subscribe to Darwinian evolutionary theory or any other evolutionary theory does not make one a creationist - a positive believer that the species were created by an omnipotent deity by some means so far unexplained by any falsifiable scientific theory.

** Let me provide some examples. Let me begin with the most controversial one of all ¯¯ Darwinian evolution, or the claim that life evolved spontaneously, by chance (i.e., macro- and not micro-evolution). **

If this is what Cornelis van Kooten wrote, he literally doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Specifically, he doesn’t know the difference between abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution. Theories of evolution (Darwinian or otherwise) explain the origin of multiple species from a common ancestor; they do not propose to explain how life first arose.

[Randy]

quote by Satan
**quote by Randy “Anyone opposing Darwins theory is met with ridicule by most of the scientific community and considered enemies of Science.”

Provide some evidence that is actually real. Oh wait you can’t. That is why it’s ridiculed. Because it’s lies. Lies for God.**

When Mortimer J. Adler of the University of Chicago, referred to evolution as a “popular myth”, the well known materialist and critic Martin Gardner actually included him in his study of quacks and frauds in Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science

Dr. Rousas Rushdoony, a Philosopher and Historian said in his book The Mythology of Science, “To question the myth (evolution)or to request proof is to be pillard as a modern heretic or fool”.

Dr. Jerry Bergman has documented that there are thousands of cases of discrimination against creationists-or competent science teachers being fired merely because they taught a “two model aproach” to origins, and or students being expelled from class for challenging the idea that evolution is a fact. The Criterion, Onesimus Publishers 1984

Of course, none of which Satan will believe or take seriously.

quote from Ben
**

Wait a minute-The Bible says the earth was created in 6 days and you know thats supposed to be taken literally…But when the Bible says Got hated Esau …you’re not sure if it should be taken literally?

**

quote from Satan
**

his (Randy) reasoning can be shown to be faulty by using his reasoning for parallel and perepheral as example…

**

Ben and Satan
If you are saying that EVERYTHING the Bible says has to be taken EITHER literally or symbolically than you are wrong. Some things are to be taken literally, Do not Kill and some are to be taken figuratively, If your eye offends you, pluck it out. Which will bring about no doubt, a whole onslaught of comments that I am arrogant to think myself able to interpret, when or where to take either way. That, however, is also in the Bible when it says God will give us “wisdom and revelation” if we ask.

There’s no way that I want to continue debating any points, like the one directed toward me about dinosaurs. That would only bring about more debate and ridicule. I don’t mind the ridicule, I just don’t see any reason to debate things with people who are no more interested in understanding my beliefs than I am in understanding theirs. And, I am not interested in debating evolution at all, especially with anyone who’s claim is that their is NO scientific opposition to Darwins theory. Satan, you seem intelligent enough, you know how to use a computer, you can find all the DEBATE you want to on the subject of evolution. Look for it, their is scientific opposition. I have found it, so can you. But the fact is, you said in the OP you didn’t want to debate evolution. I answered your original question, I hope.

One thing I will give you Bub, (Short for Beelzelbub, heh heh) my methods of debate are lacking. I just know how to post here what I know and believe, as far as being educated in the ways and methods of formal Debate, I’m lost.

Polycarp I have very often found reason to question your personal “theology” or “doctrine” over the months that I have read your posts here on the SDMB but resist on an open forum like this. I don’t appreciate your comments directed at me about what a “Good Christian” should do, or believe. If you claim yourself to be a “Good Christian”, than you should read the Bible more often. Feel free to tell me what you believe, but you are crossing the line in telling me that what I believe is wrong.

Danielinthewolvesden Thanks bro.

[Polycarp]

Randy, two quick points:

Is the Dr. Rushdoony whom you quote the man who founded the Chalcedon Foundation and is considered the father of Reconstructionist theology? I seem to recall another first name, but would welcome your feedback on this.

People who insist on giving total certitude to the Bible taken literally are often people who worship the Bible – instead of the God Who gave it. Any good Christian should examine his own heart and mind to see if that is what he or she is in fact doing – because it’s one of the subtlest temptations in the Tempter’s armory, and therefore one of the easiest to fall into.

I was not condemning intelligent literalism per se though I can easily see how that could be read as that. You furnish a good example of how an intelligent literalist reads Scripture. I was condemning “total certitude” in such a reading – because it leaves no room for God. Read that paragraph carefully, and see if you do not agree with my comment, given that. If you personally believe that the Bible text gives you the best access to God’s mind and will, I have no problem with that – but if you put your absolute on the Bible instead of its Author (or Publisher, if someone prefers that metaphor, given that there were human authors), then you have set it in God’s place. And in such a case, I think “any good Christian” ought to repent of that stance. I was not condemning you in particular on that, but rather anyone who sets the Bible, Mary, Church tradition, the latest politically correct social stance, or anything else in the place of God.

[super_head]

*Originally posted by Randy *
If you are saying that EVERYTHING the Bible says has to be taken EITHER literally or symbolically than you are wrong. Some things are to be taken literally, Do not Kill and some are to be taken figuratively, If your eye offends you, pluck it out. Which will bring about no doubt, a whole onslaught of comments that I am arrogant to think myself able to interpret, when or where to take either way. That, however, is also in the Bible when it says God will give us “wisdom and revelation” if we ask.

So, since different Christians have different interpretations, should we figure that a) they are lying or b) God is handing out varying (and sometimes contradictory) wisdom and revelation to those who ask?

Just curious…

[jab1]

*Originally posted by Randy *
That, however, is also in the Bible when it says God will give us “wisdom and revelation” if we ask.

And if we ask but do not receive, it means…?

[Danielinthewolvesden]

*Originally posted by Satan *
Of course, given how often your failure to grasp the obvious rears its ugly head, I don’t foresee this logic to penetrate that thick skull of yours either.

I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: They invented the :rolleyes: smilie for the likes of you. **

Could you just maybe, just once, finish a GD thread without resorting to childish personal attacks?

I invented this thread “for the likes of you”:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=57835

[Gaspode]

Originally posted by Polycarp
I trust you can see where the parallels between your online persona and his caused me some amusement, and, giving in to a totally tacky attitude which I do regret, I played off that at the beginning of my post. I hope you will forgive my doing so; in retrospect, it was unconscionable, albeit it was a near-perfect “spin”.

Ahh, that would explain the ‘he who is not to be named’ references to Ph******.
I can understand your drawing parallels. It’s quite eerie now I actually know the history. The personality is certainly similar in some respects. My refusal to give cites because I couldn’t find my notes must have made it look even stranger. (In answer to JDeMobray’s comment, yes I’m a terrible housekeeper, so terrible in fact that I can’t be sure if the notes are somewhere in my house, at my GF’s house or in a lockup. It’s been a long time.). Following this with a mycological research paper really did give you a near perfect spin. For an even closer parallel I’m of Aboriginal descent. Aside from that the rest of the life history doesn’t match though.
Hey, just maybe Ph****** ** is** either True or Lindquist. He has finally finished that mycological research and if you hadn’t all been so mean to him he would have been back here to post it as evidence against evolution now that it’s done?
How he found time to be a research microbiologist and a successful lawyer and still post here is beyond me though. I thought MattMcl was impressive enough.

Originally posted by Danimal
Theoretically, this thread was about the mindset of creationists (ignorant, brainwashed, or neither of the above). Subscribers to these non-Darwinian theories of evolution, be they right or wrong, are clearly not creationists, so I’m not sure what light this sheds on the question.

Actually Dr. Spetner is devoutly Jewish as you could probably guess from the title of his latest book. He is a creationist, he is demonstrably not ignorant and is a mainstream and legitimate scientist by any workable definition I can think of. The others I couldn’t tell you about, but saying that all those who accept non-Darwinian evolution are not creationists is no more based in fact than Satan’s claim that only creationists use the term ‘Darwinian evolution’

The question was not whether non-believers in a specific theory of evolution were brainwashed, but whether creationists were. Failing to subscribe to Darwinian evolutionary theory or any other evolutionary theory does not make one a creationist - a positive believer that the species were created by an omnipotent deity by some means so far unexplained by any falsifiable scientific theory.

Can I have a cite for that definition of creationist? I’m not a creationist by that definition, yet I believe in creation. Polycarp also appears to be an evolutionist who believes in creation. Dr. Spetner doesn’t meet that definition, yet is a self-proclaimed creationist. How can that be? I think we have a problem with the concept that creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive beliefs.

The question is indeed whether evolutionists are ignorant or brainwashed. However with no other supporting evidence forthcoming to support this broad assertion we must look for it in the OP and assume it is implicit in rejecting the alternative theory. If we can demonstrate that non-ignorant people fail to subscribe to any given alternative then the entire OP has got a serious logical flaw and can’t be discussed.

To sumamrise:Q) Are creationists a) ignorant of the facts concerning evolution or b) brainwashed?
Since many people reject any given theory of evolution while demonstrating full possession of the facts we have no reason to conclude that creationists have not done likewise. Added to this the likes of Dr. Spetner have demonstrated that at least some creationists have accepted creationism while being in full posession of the facts and exercising free will. The OP is a leading question with a serious logical flaw. That flaw is highlighted by the evidence and no evidence or modification has been forthcoming to repair or lesson that flaw. In light of these facts the question is invalid in it’s current construction in two-answer multiple-choice format. To be acceptable as a legitimate debate topic in a forum where all facts are not only allowed but encouraged the question must be rephrased and resubmitted allowing the following answers:

A.) a), b), both, neither.

Oh and Randy there’s a generally accepted ‘practice what you preach’ policy around here. Since I have asked Satan three times now for cites to back up his stupid and ignorant claims and he has failed to even respond you are no longer obliged to respond to his requests for similar. Simply point him to my requests. We cannot win a debate when we a forced to rely on facts and the opposition simply relies on assertion so that’s a fair enough response and one well in keeping with the spirit of the board. Of course you are free to do whatever you wish, but fighting ignorance and assertion with facts and cites is like wrestling with a pig in mud. Maybe he can pin you but there’s no way you can pin him, it’s dirty, it’s tiring, and after a while you’re going to realise the pig isn’t trying to win; he likes it.
Oh yes and if you want to add my reference to van Kooten posted above to your lists of cites for Satan’s last request feel free. This is particularly relevant: “As a scientist, what bothers me most about the debate is the ideological stand that some scientists take regarding any opposing views ¯¯ all opponents are labelled religious fundamentalists.”

Super_head/

So, since different Christians have different interpretations, should we figure that a) they are lying or b) God is handing out varying (and sometimes contradictory) wisdom and revelation to those who ask?

Bearing in mind IANAC my interpretation would be that different Christians having different interpretations reflects a lack of knowledge or lack of ability to interpret that knowledge. That doesn’t mean that God is lying, just that the knowledge is handed out as required based on personal need and can be interpreted according to the experiences and knowledge of the person concerned.
It’s a bit like saying “So, since different Scientists have different interpretations, should we figure that a) they are lying or b) Science is handing out varying (and sometimes contradictory) wisdom and revelation to those who ask?"
Like the OP the answer is going to be a), b), both or neither depending on the individual case. Some scientists are lying, some Christians are lying. Science and God hand out wisdom in the form of facts and truth. They are not contradictory or varying, we’re just asking the wrong questions/performing the wrong experiments and so getting answers to questions we thought we asked but didn’t. Getting contradictory answers should tell us something about the phrasing of the question that resulted in the facts observed. How you choose to interpret those facts and truths depends on how wish to apply them and what is important in your life/research. Both scientists and theists are a long way from a grand unified theory of everything so it’s open to the individual to apply those facts we have the way we believe will best serve ourselves or our cause. If we apply them correctly they aid us in our search for ‘truth’. The difference is Christians have a set of basic guidelines that prevent them from applying them to wildly “Love thy neighbour…”, “Love God” “Do unto others…”
How’s that sound from a non-Christian?

[Protesilaus]

*Originally posted by Randy *
**There’s no way that I want to continue debating any points, like the one directed toward me about dinosaurs. That would only bring about more debate and ridicule. I don’t mind the ridicule, I just don’t see any reason to debate things with people who are no more interested in understanding my beliefs than I am in understanding theirs. **

So, Randy, how do you know I have no interest in understanding your beliefs? How do you even know what my interests are? My entire post addressed towards you was “Randy, how do you explain dinosaurs?” That’s it. It’s pretty impressive that you can tell all about my opinions on the subject from just those six words. What makes you think I had planned to ridicule you? How do you know I’m not genuinely curious about your views? I’d like you to show me exactly was it was I said that enabled you to discern my opinion on this issue. In fact, I’d like to hear your take on what my position is, and how you arrived at that conclusion. I’m really very curious.

[Ben]

*Originally posted by Randy *
**
If you are saying that EVERYTHING the Bible says has to be taken EITHER literally or symbolically than you are wrong.

**

Well, I’m not.

** Some things are to be taken literally, Do not Kill and some are to be taken figuratively, If your eye offends you, pluck it out. Which will bring about no doubt, a whole onslaught of comments that I am arrogant to think myself able to interpret, when or where to take either way. That, however, is also in the Bible when it says God will give us “wisdom and revelation” if we ask.

**

It sounds to me like this means that whatever your interpretation of the Bible is, it’s automatically infallible since it comes from God. Am I reading you correctly here?

**
If you claim yourself to be a “Good Christian”, than you should read the Bible more often. Feel free to tell me what you believe, but you are crossing the line in telling me that what I believe is wrong.

**

Then I take it you make it a point never to convert anyone to Christianity?

**
Danielinthewolvesden Thanks bro. **

I think I should offer a word of explanation at this point.

DITWD is waging a rather petty vendetta against me. Everyone who has been on this list for a while knows that his accusations are without merit, so he tries to convince new people who aren’t aware of the whole story. FWIW:

• DITWD has openly declared his intention to harass me.

• DITWD periodically lies in order to further his argument. When someone catches him in a lie, he accuses them of being part of a vast and sinister conspiracy which he believes me to be some sort of evil mastermind of.

• In pursuit of his vendetta, DITWD has even gone so far as to falsely accuse me of having Nazi sympathies.

DITWD’s behavior towards myself and others has at times been so hurtful and bizarrely irrational that the Moderators actually gave serious consideration to kicking him off. If you are going to give anything he says any serious consideration at all, I suggest you read the threads in which people have exposed his lies and his harassing behavior. I’ll provide the relevant links in the Pit thread which DITWD linked to.

-Ben

[Randy]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Protesilaus *
**

So, Randy, how do you know I have no interest in understanding your beliefs? How do you even know what my interests are? My entire post addressed towards you was “Randy, how do you explain dinosaurs?” That’s it. It’s pretty impressive that you can tell all about my opinions on the subject from just those six words. What makes you think I had planned to ridicule you? How do you know I’m not genuinely curious about your views? I’d like you to show me exactly was it was I said that enabled you to discern my opinion on this issue. In fact, I’d like to hear your take on what my position is, and how you arrived at that conclusion. I’m really very curious. **

Protesilaus
That statement I made was not necessarily directed towards you. You did ask me what I thought about dinosaurs, and my thinking was that if I told you my beliefs, it would bring about debate and ridicule. I really didn’t mean that it would be from you, only that so far, what I had posted had been met with debate and ridicule and that it was getting off the subject of the thread. It should’ve been worded different so that you would not have taken it personally.

[Protesilaus]

Okay, I see what you’re saying, Randy. No hard feelings.

[Randy]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
**I was not condemning intelligent literalism per se though I can easily see how that could be read as that. You furnish a good example of how an intelligent literalist reads Scripture. I was condemning “total certitude” in such a reading – because it leaves no room for God. Read that paragraph carefully, and see if you do not agree with my comment, given that. If you personally believe that the Bible text gives you the best access to God’s mind and will, I have no problem with that – but if you put your absolute on the Bible instead of its Author (or Publisher, if someone prefers that metaphor, given that there were human authors), then you have set it in God’s place. And in such a case, I think “any good Christian” ought to repent of that stance. I was not condemning you in particular on that, but rather anyone who sets the Bible, Mary, Church tradition, the latest politically correct social stance, or anything else in the place of God. **

I can ONLY give such reading “total certitude”. I can’t distinguish between God and His word because they are the same to me. Psalm 138:2

“…for You have magnified Your word above all Your name”

How else can we know and prove God? We have to be very careful in what we THINK God is telling us, if we think He is telling us anything in any other way than through His word. I won’t disagree that He speaks to us in other ways, only that any other way HAS TO match up to His word. BTW, I totally agree with you on setting Mary, church tradition, or anything else in place of God.

qoute by jab1
And if we ask but do not receive, it means…?

It means that we should keep on asking, and keep on making sure nothing is hindering us from receiving an answer from God. Though I know what you are asking, it seems sometimes like it’s never gonna’ happen.

quote from Gaspode
Oh yes and if you want to add my reference to van Kooten posted above to your lists of cites for Satan’s last request feel free. This is particularly relevant: “As a scientist, what bothers me most about the debate is the ideological stand that some scientists take regarding any opposing views ¯¯ all opponents are labelled religious fundamentalists.”

Very good quote, thanks.

quote by Ben
It sounds to me like this means that whatever your interpretation of the Bible is, it’s automatically infallible since it comes from God. Am I reading you correctly here?

quote by Randy
Which will bring about no doubt, a whole onslaught of comments that I am arrogant to think myself able to interpret, when or where to take either way.

Told you.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

*Originally posted by Ben *

• DITWD has openly declared his intention to harass me.

• DITWD periodically lies in order to further his argument. When someone catches him in a lie, he accuses them of being part of a vast and sinister conspiracy which he believes me to be some sort of evil mastermind of.

• In pursuit of his vendetta, DITWD has even gone so far as to falsely accuse me of having Nazi sympathies.

DITWD’s behavior towards myself and others has at times been so hurtful and bizarrely irrational that the Moderators actually gave serious consideration to kicking him off. If you are going to give anything he says any serious consideration at all, I suggest you read the threads in which people have exposed his lies and his harassing behavior.
-Ben
**

The “Big Lie” continues. :rolleyes:

[quixotic78]

*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden *
**

*Originally posted by Ben *

• DITWD has openly declared his intention to harass me.

• DITWD periodically lies in order to further his argument. When someone catches him in a lie, he accuses them of being part of a vast and sinister conspiracy which he believes me to be some sort of evil mastermind of.

• In pursuit of his vendetta, DITWD has even gone so far as to falsely accuse me of having Nazi sympathies.

DITWD’s behavior towards myself and others has at times been so hurtful and bizarrely irrational that the Moderators actually gave serious consideration to kicking him off. If you are going to give anything he says any serious consideration at all, I suggest you read the threads in which people have exposed his lies and his harassing behavior.
-Ben
**

The “Big Lie” continues. :rolleyes:

**

I’m almost tempted to respond to this recent post of DITWD’s with links and quotes, but I wouldn’t want to rain on Ben’s parade. Each one of Ben’s points can be easily asserted with a quick quote (although I’m not sure about that “conspiracy” one… I’d be interested in seeing what Ben antes up there). I mean, isn’t the phrase “Big Lie,” capitalized and in quotes like that, a veiled Nazi reference?

Here’s the skinny about DITWD, something it took me a few months to realize. He presents himself as an expert about a wide variety of topics. His name seems vaguely Biblical, so when I first got here, I took him at face value in religious threads. However, his “expertise” is based largely on:

(1) the hope that no one with REAL expertise will call him to task,

(2) the dictionary,

(3) Hi Opal,

(4) and anthropology courses taken in the mid 70s.

I know this seems hijacky, but it’s relevant. Here’s the take home message: take everything DITWD says with a dump truck full of salt.

Quix

[Polycarp]

I’m not going to disagree with you about experiential revelation, prophecy in church, etc., having to match up with Scripture. That’s the test we’re told to give it, after all.

But the converse has some truth to it as well. First, please to remember that the Word of God, as defined in the Bible, is the activating force of the Universe, made incarnate in Jesus Christ. The Bible is the word of God only insofar as it contains His message to man and portrays Him.

So a random comment from Sanballat or Caiaphas, taken out of context, is no more the word of God than is any sentence in MPSIMS here.

As a whole, I consider the Bible the best access one can have to the full truth of God as revealed to us so far.

But “now we see through a glass darkly.”

If we read the Bible, several steps happen. We perceive words on the printed page. We read those words. They come together with meaning for us because we invest them with our understanding of what those terms mean, in that order and in that context.

So far, so good. But the meaning of words changes with time. For any given statement in Scripture, we surround it with our concepts of what is being talked about.

Example: Who were the Pharisees? Obviously, to anyone who reads the Bible, they were those evil Jews who were down on Jesus.

Totally wrong. In first century Israel, the Pharisees were the good guys, the ones who believed in the Resurrection at the last day, and in following God’s law with one’s whole heart and will. The Sadducees were the group that were trying to buy off God with sacrifices and such, and did not accept the idea of the resurrection.

Jesus was down on Pharisees because many of them were trying to be legalists, trying to figure out how to please God by following specific laws and creating all kinds of loopholes around them and onerous interpretation of them, applying the first to themselves and their friends and the second to the people they taught.

What I’m saying is that whatever the truth value of the Bible may be, one must be very careful to realize that the meaning one brings to its words may not be what God intended, or even what Paul or Luke or Isaiah intended. And therefore, what seems obvious may in fact be completely wrong.

How, then, does one read Scripture? My answer is that one looks within it for guidelines to what might be meant. And my often-repeated quoting of Jesus’s summary of the law/two great commandments/whatever you choose to call them, is for me the key point around which one interprets what he is teaching elsewhere.

He said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” – and I feel confident he would say “The Bible was written for man, not man for the Bible.”

And if that makes me a humanist, I rejoice in the title. Because I believe my Lord was one too, and it’s that much closer I can come to emulating Him.

I’m not at all interested in “saying what makes other people feel good” as Jersey Diamond commented on another thread. Except insofar as that shows love for them. But I won’t lead them astray in order to get good vibes from them; rather, I’ll affirm that they’re sons and daughters of God called by Him to be in a warm and loving relationship with Him, and that He does not judge them as disgusting sinners, but as His beloved children. And if some passage of Scripture is quoted to condemn them as individuals, then it’s being misquoted and being used as Bible-thuggery, not the word of God.

[rjung]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
First, please to remember that the Word of God, as defined in the Bible, is the activating force of the Universe, made incarnate in Jesus Christ.

Just to nitpick, but no.

Please to remember, it is your opinion the Word of God, as defined in the Bible, is the activating force yadda yadda yadda. There is no evidence to support this belief. Please do not mistake an opinion as fact.