Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

14651Re: Re: Unposted quotes: 2002-2004 #9 (was Faith V Law ...)

Expand Messages
  • Stephen E. Jones
    Jul 21, 2005

      On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:45:27 -0000, Chris Doyle wrote:

      CD>2) Christianity *does* teach that "The man without the Spirit does not
      >accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are
      >foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually
      >discerned." (1 Cor. 2:14).

      >SJ>A classic example is so-called "Bible contradictions" that
      >>non-Christians like Chris trot out. Most of them I can see the reconciliation almost
      >>immediately without any effort but when I try to explain them to Chris and
      >>his ilk, what I say gets rejected out of hand as "nonsense", etc,
      >>which just confirms 1 Cor 2:14's "foolishness" Either because Chris, et al., don't
      >>*want* to see the reconciliation or because they *cannot* see the
      >>reconciliation, or both (since they are in the final analysis the same

      CD>It is an extremely dangerous position to dismiss all criticism of your
      >beliefs because you are convinced the critic is deluded or ignorant.

      I am not "dismiss[ing] all criticism of [my] ... beliefs". I would be
      surprised if any other Christian in the history of the Internet has spent as
      much time and effort as I have in responding to "criticism of [my] ...

      Actually it is the other way around. It is my non-Christian opponents (like
      Chris) who "dismiss" my explanations, because they simply cannot
      understand what I am saying. Thus they prove 1 Cor. 2:14 right (as Chris
      is doing in this post).

      And I am not saying "the critic is deluded or ignorant". Just that, as 1 Cor
      2:14 says (and agrees perfectly with my experience in 4+ years of debates
      with non-Christians on CED. and ~6 years befoe that) non-Christians don't
      have the indwelling Holy Spirit (the Third Person of the Trinity), and so
      cannot understand the spiritual realities of Christianity. To them they are
      "foolishness" (1 Cor 2:14).

      This is my last post on this topic. Hopefully CED can now wind down and
      we all say our goodbyes.


      PS: Here is the last of my 2002-2004 unposted quotes. Only 107K of
      another file, <http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/quotes/ceqnpstd.html>
      to go!

      "It should also be clear that moral Darwinists-those whose lives are
      defined by the gains won by the rise to ascendancy of the moral tenets of
      modern Epicureanism as culminating in Darwin-will not only fight
      passionately to keep those gains, but will throw their considerable cultural
      weight behind the materialist interpretation of science and the debunking
      and humiliation of Christianity. Advocates and beneficiaries of abortion on
      demand and the growth of cloned human beings for experimentation and
      organ harvesting must have a universe that supports that supports their
      desires and their way of life, and that means they must have a universe
      without human souls, the afterlife or God. Advocates of euthanasia must
      believe, with Epicurus, that `death is nothing to us,' for when we die, `we
      do not exist,' and therefore they must have a universe in which, again,
      immaterial entities-the immortal soul or an avenging God-cannot exist.
      Death must be the final exit, beyond which there is endless nothingness.
      Advocates of the release of sexuality from all restrictions must also have a
      universe in which nature is amoral, and nature can only be amoral if it is
      the result of chance rather than an intelligent designer. Simply put,
      advocates of moral Darwinism, whether the scientist who wishes to clone,
      the woman who defends partial birth abortion, the compassionate advocate
      of death with `dignity,' or the propagandist for pansexual bliss-all alike
      must defend the faith of the materialist, and all alike must attack the faith
      of the Christian." (Wiker B., "Moral Darwinism: How We Became
      Hedonists," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2002, pp.316-317)

      "Some two-thirds of the way from the galactic centre, where the stars thin
      out, there shines an ordinary, yellowish star. It has plenty of room to move
      around in, for its nearest neighbour in the Milky Way galaxy lies 24
      million million miles away-a distance of more than four light-years-and its
      next neighbour after that is about two light-years beyond. This lonely star
      that glows, from far off, as weakly as a firefly, is our sun. Among its own
      attendant family of faithfully circling planets, satellites, asteroids,
      meteoroids and comets, one oddly matched pair (third from the sun, in
      terms of distance) is the earth and its moon. A minor planet bound to an
      ordinary star in the outskirts of one galaxy among thousands of millions
      such is the earth. Approached in this way, from the chill reaches of infinite
      space, it would be all too easy to miss, a speck almost beneath notice
      except for one thing: of all the places that conceivably could support
      human fife, the earth is the one and only place we know of that does. Its
      interior and its skin, its atmosphere and its climate and even its behaviour
      in space-all of which, together with other attributes, will be examined in
      this book-form in combination a salubrious environment in which life, and
      especially intelligent fife, flourishes. Until proved otherwise, the earth is
      the wonder of the universe, a unique sphere with an infinity of its own,
      encompassing everything from the busy world of the atom to the limitless
      mind and spirit of man. It may not be insignificant in the cosmic scheme
      of things after all." (Beiser A., "The Earth," [1962], Life Nature Library,
      Time-Life International: Netherlands, 1964, reprint, pp.9-10)

      "The `warm little pond' scenario was invented ad hoc to serve as a
      materialistic reductionist explanation of the origin of life. It is unsupported
      by any other evidence and it will remain ad hoc until such evidence is
      found. Even if it existed, as described in the scenario, it nevertheless falls
      very far short indeed of achieving the purpose of its authors even with the
      aid of a deus ex machina. One must conclude that, contrary to the
      established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on
      earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of
      fact and not faith has not yet been written." (Yockey H.P., "A Calculation
      of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory,"
      Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 67, 1977, p.396)

      "We are survival machines-robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve
      the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me
      with astonishment. Though I have known it for years, I never seem to get
      fully used to it. ... We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth
      ... We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we
      have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel
      against the tyranny of the selfish replicators." (Dawkins R., "The Selfish
      Gene," [1976] Oxford University Press: Oxford 1989, New Edition, pp.vii,

      "Things have continued in much the same way to the present. There is
      professional evolutionary biology: mathematical, experimental, not laden
      with value statements. But, you are not going to find the answer to the
      world's mysteries or to societal problems if you open the pages of
      Evolution or Animal Behaviour. Then, sometimes from the same person,
      you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an
      explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major
      problems, from racism to education to conservation. Consider Edward O.
      Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional
      evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of
      straight science. In his On Human Nature, he calmly assures us that
      evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity. And, if this
      is so, "the final decisive edge enjoyed by scientific naturalism will come
      from its capacity to explain traditional religion, its chief competition, as a
      wholly material phenomenon. Theology is not likely to survive as an
      independent intellectual discipline" [Wilson E.O., "On Human Nature,"
      Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1978, p.192] ... there is indeed
      a thriving area of more popular evolutionism, where evolution is used to
      underpin claims about the nature of the universe, the meaning of it all for
      us humans, and the way we should behave. I am not saying that this area is
      all bad or that it should be stamped out. ... I am saying that this popular
      evolutionism-often an alternative to religion--exists. ... we who cherish
      science should be careful to distinguish when we are doing science and
      when we are extrapolating from it, particularly when we are teaching our
      students. If it is science that is to be taught, then teach science and nothing
      more. Leave the other discussions for a more appropriate time." (Ruse M.,
      "Is Evolution a Secular Religion?" Science, Vol 299, 7 March 2003,
      pp.1523-1524. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5612/1523)

      "But there is barely beginning to emerge a new generation of creationists
      with legitimate and relevant credentials who are undertaking to actually do
      some of the painstaking, detailed drudgery that underlies any genuinely
      live scientific program. This emergence has begun to produce a separation
      in the creationist movement-an upper and lower tier, so to speak. I think
      that what ultimately separates the two tiers is different levels of respect for
      accuracy and completeness of detail, and different levels of awareness that
      a theory's looking good in vague and general form is an enormously
      unreliable predictor of whether in the long run the theory will be
      disemboweled by recalcitrant technical details. That appreciation is
      something that typically comes only with a legitimate scientific education,
      which some of the creationist popularizers and many in their audiences
      lack. " (Ratzsch D.L.*, "The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is
      Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate," InterVarsity Press: Downers
      Grove IL, 1996, p.82)

      Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol). http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones
      Blog: http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/ Book, "Problems of
      Evolution" http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/PoE00ToC.html