Ignorance About Sexually Transmitted Diseases

peter,
these are the "3 issues" i meant.

1)how did childless abram attack his descendants, the amelekites (gen36:12 and 14:7)?

2)when was "the flood" (e.g. 2500 b.c.)? was it global or local?

3)who are some of the people who are lately challenging the "evil-utionist" paradigm? how many are named "steve"? and, most importantly, what is the evidence they are offering?

peter, you said,
"...the believer lives in that world but also lives in the unseen, unchanging, timeless, eternal, absolute, objective world of the Spirit and we, as believer's, are in Christ's kingdom."

yes, it's an (imaginary) happy magic place where miracles happen. heaven's (religion's?) ultimate purpose it to prevent you from dying.

along those lines, you said,
"We have eternal life for the Son of God resides in us, we are one in spirit with Him - He is our life!"

you often talk about god as "eternal, unchanging, etc..." but god changes his mind a lot.

pam has talked about our evolving morals and slavery and how god used to sanction jihad (e.g. joshua), but not so much anymore (unless you're muslim). you brought up jesus' abolition of sacrifices. he changed his mind about that. even i readily concede the n.t. has "better morals" than the o.t. god's stand on women's rights has improved from the o.t. to the n.t. (again, taking a step backward with the koran...). and these days women are allowed in most churches with or without a hat, with just about any hair style they want despite 1Cor11:5-6:

“But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.”

most churches allow women to speak in church, despite 1Cor14:34-35:

“Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church."

now all this doesn't fly for everybody which is why we have many many versions (denominations) of the eternal, unchanging unseen truth.

Hi Pam and Walter,

I looked briefly at the web address you gave Pam. I'm going to think about a reply to it since time is short and I work. 5:30 AM comes early.

Walter, I think Dispensationalism has had a lot to do with the way that many Christians view end times, but yes, many Christians have applied the Matthew 24 text to their specific era.

As for the figurative language aspect, there are many references that use imagry, like "Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather" or "He will gather His elect from the four winds", and some would say Matthew 24:30, Jesus' coming in the clouds (see Daniel 7:13).

WALTER: "and i appreciate you thoroughness in going all the way back to the "false prophet stuff". (rather than the 3 specific issues i recently listed. i mean, for the sake a real conversation you cna't just let something go by."

The three specific issues? There are a lot of questions that you Pam and Justacomment have challenged me for an answer. I will get down to the replies starting Friday and for the next week, from the earliest to the most recent. Then it is off to Florida for a weeks vacation, and some golf!

We might have to go searching for another forum to invade. If it happens go to Susan's more recent forum and we can take it from there. I have many challenges ahead for you to explain too as you too have challenged me. But the assuring thing about the Lord is that when the challenge is great, He is greater!

Shortly I hope to put some of your statements to the test Pam. More on that later, since I had better get to bed.

peter,
as i've mentioned before, you're a good egg for dealing with all of us "ganging up" on you. so thanks for putting up with all that. i mean 3 (sometimes 4) against one?

and i appreciate you thoroughness in going all the way back to the "false prophet stuff". (rather than the 3 specific issues i recently listed. i mean, for the sake a real conversation you cna't just let something go by.

anyway, just to continue about the ever-impending apocalypse, one thing i think i hilarious is how people for the last 2000 years have thought THEY were the ones living in the end times... THAT'S got to be one (many...) of the most egotistical thoughts ever. of course the bible's prophecies are so general (disregarding jesus' admonitions about "this generation" and "some of you standing here") they are always applicable. i mean, "plagues" "famines" wars".... puleese...when are those NOT happening. it's like a horoscope.

peter, you said,
"You'll notice time after time the admonishment to the believer's was that the time is near, it is at hand, look for the blessed appearance of Jesus, behold, He is coming quickly, this generation, etc, etc. And this expectancy was in most of the epistles also. The apostles and early believers were expecting the soon return of Christ and the establishment of the kingdom."

thank you. i consider it some kind of victory that you'd say the apostles were expecting the apocalypse soon. that's actually my point. they believed that because THAT'S WHAT JESUS TOLD THEM.

peter,
re: jesus' false end-times prophesy involving stars falling etc...:

you said,
"Some of this language is figurative, would you not say?"

well, no...
of course you say it's figurative NOW - because it didn't come true. (as i've said elsewhere, this disconnect has spawned and entire realm of interpretive gymnastics called "eschatology" - which i define as the study of "what the hell was jesus talking about when he promised the end times to people standing right in front of him." later in your response you display highly developed eschatological gymnastic skills which i'll comment on next time.)

you call it figurative, but given jesus' false cosmology, it's more likely it wasn't meant that way. they all thought it was actually possible for stars to "fall" from the sky. in addition to all that sun, moon, and stars stuff, jesus gave some concrete examples of what it would be like for us when he returned. he said,

"I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left." (lu17:34-36)

these all sound like clear, dire, urgent warnigs to the people of 1st century judea - not you and me 2000 years later.

it must be nice for you to be able to choose what's figurative and what's literal - gives you lots of interpretive flexibility. mind you, those "stars falling" verses are not couched in metaphorical terms. jesus plainly, matter-of-factly says "stars will fall". THEN as if to illustrate that "stars will fall" is NOT metaphorical, he offers the parable of the fig tree.

pam, you said,
"No "faith" involved."

maybe the faith peter is talking about is faith that god is not deceiving us. i mean, it's possible god has set this whole thing up to LOOK LIKE billions of years, abiogenesis and evolution (as proposed in that "the appearance of sextapedality" article i linked to.) i mean, you've got to admit, it's theoretically possible - he is god and can do anything, apparently.

Peter says:
"And this is what I was getting at with Pam when she said she did not have faith. Yes, she does. She has not seen how things originated, therefore she also operates on the principle of faith..."

No, Peter. it's not at all the same as religious faith. What I know of abiogenesis research is entirely evidence-based. I'm sure I've commended this article to you before:
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

I've also listened to this lecture series from The Teaching Company:
http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=1515 (on sale right now!)

The lecturer is one of the top people in the field and he explains all the various avenues of research and the latest findings.

No "faith" involved.

peter,
thanks for the replies/comments. keep it up. i know there's a lot...

pam,
that's a great website that asks important questions in a (i think) very funny clever way. the video is great too.

Peter, I know that you won't read any of the books that I recommended, but if you would read this page, I'd like to discuss it with you (at some point - you still have ground to cover).

http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/your-delusion.htm

Finally for tonight Walter,

In the here and now God's kingdom works on faith, for we don't see it, but we know for certain that it exists (Hebrews 11:1 - if you want to understand what I am saying read the Scriptures provided, if not it will go over your head). If we saw it, it would not work by faith. {And this is what I was getting at with Pam when she said she did not have faith. Yes, she does. She has not seen how things originated, therefore she also operates on the principle of faith, except it is a misplaced faith, not in what is true but in what is made up.) Only from God's perspective can we ever come to a correct understanding of what is real and true (Colossians 2:2-4)

Jesus said to Nicodemus, "I tell you the truth, no one can see" (John 3:3)... or "enter (vs. 5) the kingdom of God unless he is born" [again]. "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." (John 3:6)

You live in the earthly realm of the physical, seen, so you do not understand the things of God that are on the spiritual, eternal, unseen realm (1Corinthians 2:14). You will not because you refuse to believe what you can't see, but not in all situations for the principle of logic comes not from the empirical senses but from the intangible, immaterial, untouchable unseen. In that and many other ways you are a walking contradiction. You try to explain everything from the empirical, sense world using things that are not of that world.

You continue to search for meaning and value and substance in life, but the abundant life you seek can only be found in Christ Jesus (John 10:10). You will never have rest from your searching until/unless you find Christ. And you will never find Christ in the values of this world system. It is all foolishness. There is no backing, no foundation, no ultimate truth to this world's values, except what it borrows from the unseen, eternal realm of God's Spirit.

You are looking for ultimate answers in the temporal realm where they can only be found in the unseen, eternal, unchanging realm. The Holy Spirit is our teacher, whereas you rely on the teaching of man, but which one(s). The position of man is relative. It is constantly changing. It is foolishness compared to the unfathomable wisdom and knowledge of God.

Anyway, it is bed time.

Walter continued,

You, as an unbeliever are living life in one realm, whereas a believer is living in both realms, one physically, the temporal; the other eternal, the unseen. The realm of the unbeliever is that of the seen, changing, relative and temporal world whereas the believer lives in that world but also lives in the unseen, unchanging, timeless, eternal, absolute, objective world of the Spirit and we, as believer's, are in Christ's kingdom. Christ is our king and He is with us for we are united with Him (with His death, burial and resurrection). He is our life for eternal life is life that only God has, and God is also the Eternal Son. There is a difference between what is eternal and what is everlasting. Everlasting has a beginning and continues forever. Eternal has no beginning or no end (John 3:16). We have eternal life for the Son of God resides in us, we are one in spirit with Him - He is our life!

So in the eternal, unseen realm we are counted dead to sin, alive to God because on the cross Jesus died in our place(Ephesians 1:3: Colossians 1:20-22). In the physical realm Christ took the payment of our sin upon Himself (2 Corinthians 5:21), by becoming a man (John 1:14), living a perfectly righteous life before God in our place, then died on our behalf (Colossians 1:1:21-23), as our payment for sin to meet God's righteous standards, but He also gave us His abundant life and His righteousness - the life is in Him and is Him (Galatians 2:20)

Now you as an unbeliever, look upon everything from the side of the temporary and changing, that which is seen. Christ calls us as Christians, to look upon everything from the perspective of the unchanging, permanent, unseen, eternal.

"Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an ETERNAL glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes NOT ON WHAT IS SEEN, but what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." (2 Corinthians 4:16-18)

Hi Walter ( August 27, 2009 10:15 AM ),

So I'm digging back to those posts where you challenged prophecy. The explanation is more loaded than I have time for now but I will address it briefly concerning your statements below.

WALTER: "peter huff,
re: jesus the false prophet:
you claim that jesus was talking about the destruction of the temple when he said things like,
"But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens." (mk13:24-27 and similar verses in mt and lk)
these verses come after the "no stone left standing" parts. this is plainly NOT talking JUST about the destruction of the temple. all this "stars falling" and "coming on a cloud" and "gathering his elect" (basically, the apocalypse) was supposed to come soon - in his listeners' lifetimes. didn't happen."

Some of this language is figurative, would you not say? I'll try to separate the two in time.

So yes, Jesus was talking about the destruction of the temple in Matthew 23-24, and with the destruction of the temple came the end of the Jewish system of worship, for something far greater had taken its place (read Hebrews). That destruction ushered in the New Covenant kingdom age in which Daniel had spoken of, the eternal kingdom. The Jews no longer had a sacrificial system to atone for their sins. It was destroyed and the believer now became the temple of the Holy Spirit. Inwardly he became a new creation in Christ Jesus, the old was gone (Important: Please read Hebrews 10:12-18 or Hebrews 9:11-10:18).

You'll notice time after time the admonishment to the believer's was that the time is near, it is at hand, look for the blessed appearance of Jesus, behold, He is coming quickly, this generation, etc, etc. And this expectancy was in most of the epistles also. The apostles and early believers were expecting the soon return of Christ and the establishment of the kingdom.

Hi Justacomment,

Thank you for your last post. I have not forgotten your questions. This Friday I start another two week vacation in which I should be able to answer some of these issues. Until then I just have to fit in what I can. Pam and Walter have been very patient with me and I thank them for that!

I certainly look forward to answering some of these questions and challenging your world view further in its ability to get at truth and even where logic comes from with a view that is outside of God.

I'm about to answer one of Walter's posts but from Friday onwards I am a free man as to time constrains, except for those my wife will put on me. I usually stay up after she goes to bed and sneak in a few hours of replies.

JAC: "BTW, “unbelievers” is not the best way to describe us. We are believers in a much wider sense than a faithful believer. We believe in anything that can be proved under basic postulates of the logic, science and basic common sense. Contrary to what you think, we are willing to change what you call our “world view” as long as there is a solid argumentation to do so."

There is a lot more to be said about your comments but as for your statement about unbeliever's, I use the term because the Bible also uses the term to make a distinction and I find it true as to the distinction between the two realms (I will discuss that with Walter next).

Peter,

I sincerely want to thank you for bringing out all what you have in your mind and heart about your religion. It creates the opportunity for unbelievers like me to learn more about religious people like you.

Also we all benefit from reading the clear and well supported comments that posters like PAM and WALTER make to the arguments you present to defend your beliefs.

BTW, “unbelievers” is not the best way to describe us. We are believers in a much wider sense than a faithful believer. We believe in anything that can be proved under basic postulates of the logic, science and basic common sense. Contrary to what you think, we are willing to change what you call our “world view” as long as there is a solid argumentation to do so.

JUSTACOMMENT, you said,
"One critical point about prophesies in the bible is that there is not a clear chain of custody of the documents that originated what today is considered the word of a god."

chain of custody, shmain of custody. for the inerrantist, this is a non-problem. "internal evidence" (the bible) clearly tells us who wrote what when.

you are using your thinking cap, JUSTACOMMENT. cut it out.

In regard to prophesies and a non-biased framework to evaluate if the bible really have fulfilled prophesies, I found a good reference in http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081005104535AAlFApG:

“I often hear Christians refer to "fulfilled prophecies" as proof of the veracity of the Bible, or of Christ as the Messiah, etc.

The problem is, if you cannot verify that the prophecy has been fulfilled, you can't reasonably claim it as evidence, let alone proof. So I propose to give Christians a fair chance to show some verifiably fulfilled prophecies.

However, some reasonable parameters are in order. For a prophecy to be verifiable as having been fulfilled, it must meet the following criteria (if you think these are unreasonable, please explain why).

1. The event which is the fulfillment must be verifiable as having happened, in the way that the story relates. It must be verifiable that the story of the event has not been altered to fit the prophecy. It must be shown that the event was not engineered to fit a known prophecy.

2. The prophecy must be verifiable as to authorship, age, and integrity. It must be verifiable that the prophecy was made, in the current form, before the event prophesied. It must be shown that the prophesy has not been altered to fit the event.

3. The prophecy must be specific enough to only apply to the event prophesied. It must be unambiguous enough that it could not apply to any other event, or eventuality.

4. The prophecy must be extraordinary. Prophesies that apply to things that nobody would doubt, such as the sun rising in the east, or some nation coming to power by the sword, are not prophesies. Good guesses do not count.

5. The prophesy, and its fulfillment, must conform to ALL four preceding parameters. Failure on any one disqualifies any candidate.”

One critical point about prophesies in the bible is that there is not a clear chain of custody of the documents that originated what today is considered the word of a god.

as you may know, hilariously, there are several DIFFERENT creationist "theories" for the creation date based on a LITERAL reading of the bible:

Ussher (4004 BC),
Bede (3952 BC),
Scaliger (3949 BC),
Johannes Kepler (3992 BC),
Sir Isaac Newton (c. 4000 BC),
John Lightfoot (3929 BC).

these are based on stringing together biblical genealogies, kings lists and "it was X years from Y to Z" statements.

Peter says,

“The question of life is, did it start from time, chance and struggle or from plan, purpose and God's special act of creating?”

The question of life is more ample: is it possible to know without any doubt how life started? The answer not based on faith is we don’t know yet and more likely will never know. If you can live not knowing without doubt what is going to happen to you tomorrow, you should be able to live not knowing how life started.

PH: “Did life spontaneously generate itself - i.e. - self-creation - an impossible task for it would first have to be before it could create?”

Do you have any background at all in chemistry or physics? Many things self-generate when certain elements come together under the right conditions. Like it or not, we are chemical and electrical in nature.

PH: “According to most evolutionary scientists life and the universe had an origin. That was in the Big Bang…”

You insist on conflating the BB and the origin of life, in spite of being told over and over that they have nothing to do with one another. That they’re separated in time by many billions of years. That the BB could easily have been the origin of a universe in which no life ever appeared.

PH: “First you need a plausible explanation of where life comes from, of how it got here, before you can frame in your world view.”

I have a plausible explanation, just not all the details – YET. And it doesn’t matter. Fields of science are separate parts of the whole. The study of evolution begins one second after life begins – it doesn’t matter where it came from, evolution deals with what happens once it's here.

Peter, you have already copped to evolution. You said you recognized that animals had the ability to adapt according to changes in their environment. That is evolution in a nutshell. The only element you’re not recognizing is time. Small changes accumulate over unimaginably vast periods of time to make large changes. That’s all it is. So maybe the age of the Earth is where we need to start. Present your evidence for a young Earth. Nowhere in the bible does it say that the Earth is young. Bishop Ussher might just be mistaken, no?

More later.

PH: “And you (evolutionary scientists) will protect the institutions and sources that support your framework at all costs, especially when scientists start raising questions about its viability.”

‘Scuse me? The scientists will protect it at all costs even when they (the scientists) are raising questions about its validity?? Do you realize how little sense this statement makes? Oh, yeah, the ones who aren’t named “Steve.” The ones who are *creation* scientists. Which is to say, not scientists at all, by any accepted definition of the term. I assure you that there is no movement among real scientists to discredit evolutionary theory, because they know that would be impossible. This is just a creationist wishful pipe dream.

PH: “There is no grounds for the supernatural in your world view. But this is where your framework breaks down. You have admitted you don't have the answers for the origin of life and that it doesn't matter to you.”

Didn’t say I wasn’t interested. I know of several very promising avenues of research. I know that many of the puzzle pieces are already there. I fully expect that we will know in my lifetime (unless I’m hit by a truck tomorrow).

PH: “The question of life is, did it start from time, chance and struggle or from plan, purpose and God's special act of creating?”

The former makes all kinds of sense, the latter none at all.

PH: “Observe everything around you. There is plan and purpose. Did this all just happen?”

OK, I’m observing. I see a lot of man-made things that were clearly made with plan and purpose. I see some natural things that don’t appear that way at all. What’s the “plan and purpose” for nematodes (one of the most numerous life forms on the planet)?

PH: “I have nothing against science, just evolutionary science. It is the atheists mantra.”

No, it’s the religionist’s bugbear. Evolution is a fact. This has been known for at least two centuries. Darwin didn’t discover it; he just proposed a hypothesis to explain how it took place. This has been borne out by many fields of knowledge since his time. Darwin wasn’t (at least at first) an atheist. He was planning to make the clergy his profession when he got back from his voyage on the Beagle!!

Many scientists come to atheism because when they discover how things work, they see no need for a god in the equation. They aren’t atheists first, who then go looking for a way to prove that there are no gods. They don’t have an agenda – nor do most atheists.

I told you that I couldn’t remember a time when I had been a true believer (I suppose I accepted, in no particularly devout way, before I was old enough to question), yet for most of my life, I never tried to convince anyone that they were wrong to believe. I was perfectly content to have them think whatever they wanted to, no matter how deluded they seemed to me. It was only with the rise of the “Religious Right” in my country, with their political agenda, trying to force their particular brand of religion into the laws that affect us all, that I became a bit militant.

PH: “If evolutionary science is proved to be a hoax then the whole framework that has been built from it crumbles. So naturally you will look at all the evidence from a naturalistic framework.”

No one is the least bit worried that evolution will be proved to be a hoax – the very idea is absurd. What – you think someone sculpted all those millions of fossils out of plastic and buried them? You think all the DNA labs are in a conspiracy to falsify their data? You think God specially created dachshunds? You do make me laugh, Peter! And by the way, you should write off geology, too, because it firmly establishes that the Earth is billions of years old. And anthropology, archaeology, and anatomy, which establish that humans are mammals and that they’ve been around for 10s of thousands of years in their present form. Oh yeah, and embryology, too – it clearly shows the evolutionary development of the fetus. Remember those whale limb buds and hair coats? And how about human gill arches and tails?

Gee, Peter, this doesn’t leave you too much science to have nothing against. Chemistry, maybe? Nope – that led to Miller-Urey and other abiogenesis experiments. (Sidebar: Miller-Urey has not been “overturned” – it is still a valid part of the ongoing quest to understand life’s origins. Astronomy? Physics? Uh-oh – these produced the Big Bang theory.

As for a “naturalistic framework”, you do realize that science deals only with the natural, don’t you? Since there is no evidence for anything supernatural, there is no way to test it for validity, therefore science just doesn’t speak to it at all.

Hi Peter,
PH: “Truth has to have an objective basis for it to be true. .. what you have stated does not have anything but a relative measure. It is always shifting.”

And yours isn’t? What about the differences between OT and NT – God goes from angry and punitive to loving and caring. And if the bible is your absolute, what about slavery? Fine, according to the bible. How do *you* feel about it? Do you think we should stone adulterers to death?

PH: “… either there is an absolute, objective way of looking at history that is outside ourselves, or it is all relative to who can provide the evidence that suits their framework in what they think is the most convincing facts and manner. Naturally you are going to side with your framework.”

Framework?? You’re entitled to your own opinions, but you don’t get to make up your own facts (thank you, Daniel Moynihan). Truth is truth, facts are facts, evidence is evidence. “Framework” has nothing to do with it.

Me: But I submit to you that mainstream historical, scientific, and other knowledge-based sites have nothing to gain by skewing their information, and should therefore be considered the most reliable.

PH: “They would have to be objective to be unbiased. The ‘facts’ are constantly changing.”

Precisely my point. They *are* objective, because they have no skin in the game. Facts don’t change.

peter,
'preciate the replies. let's move on from tyre/ezekiel.

some things i have "hanging out there" are:

1)how did childless abram attack his descendants, the amelekites (gen36:12 and 14:7)?

2)when was "the flood" (e.g. 2500 b.c.)? was it global or local?

3)who are some of the people who are lately challenging the "evil-utionist" paradigm? how many are named "steve"? and, most importantly, what is the evidence they are offering?

It has been a long day. I'll have to finish up with this.

WALTER: "peter:
...there's no mention of "100s of years later" (to include alexander).

Eze. 26:3 - many nations, starting with Neb.

WALTER: "...this whole delineation between the "he" and the "they" is just silly. in the context of the text "they" means neb's army and/or horsemen.

Well, very specifically the text talks about King Neb and his merry men, then all of a sudden it changes to "they" when in talks about plundering yet in Eze. 29:17-19 we are told that Neb did not get any reward for his campaign against Tyre. That would logically infer that "they" refers to someone else, would it not?

WALTER: "there's nothing about a causeway...out to a new trye.... when the text says something like "thrown into the sea", plainly, that's figurative for "wiped off the map."

Is it? First we know that the Tyre that King Neb attacked was on the mainland (vs. 8), yet we know from history that Alexander the G used the debris from the mainland to construct a causeway out to the island and that the rocks were scraped bare. We also know that fishermen have cast their nets into the sea where the city rubble was thrown into the sea. We know that another city has not been built in the spot were Tyre used to be on the mainland, but down the coastline. That city was never rebuilt in this location.

As for Pam's comments:

"First, "Tyre" was the island itself, with it's strategic seaports and walled city. The mainland settlements were just suburbs, and were called originally "Ushu", later "Palaetyrus", by the Greeks (check Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica). So destroying the mainland settlements hardly counted as destroying Tyre, which, in fact, every source other than apologist ones, counts as a failure for Neb."

God said, "They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a baron rock. [i.e. put it into the sea] Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. She will become plunder for the nations, and her settlements ON THE MAINLAND will be ravaged by the sword. Then they will know that I am the LORD...He [Neb] will ravage your settlements on the mainland..." Eze. 26:4-6, 8)

PH: "Why is it true? Because you happen to believe it? Because you believe the evidence most strongly points to your particular brand of belief? What about those who disagree?"

PAM: "They are either 1) abysmally ignorant, or 2) utterly brainwashed. I’ve been trying to think of a third possibility, but I haven’t come up with one. Why does science resonate with me more than the bible does? Well, for starters, it doesn’t talk about talking snakes (nor feathered flying ones), virgins giving birth, people rising from the dead, people walking on water, giants, people living to be 900 years old, people turning into pillars of salt, people being swallowed by whales (and living to tell the tale), stars hanging on a firm shell between the Earth and the “waters above”, people made from clay, the sun stopping its motion across the sky, burning bushes that aren’t consumed, parting waters, magical beanstalks (oh, sorry, that’s a different fairy tale), or any other magical, mystical nonsense."

Your life view is built on naturalism. What do you expect? You look at empirical evidence by using something that is not empirical - logic. If all we are is biological bags in motion, each responding to the environment as our individual chemicals react, how does one come up with logic? How do you come up with uniformity of nature. In other words why should something that reacted to the stimulus of its environment in one way yesterday and today act uniformly in the same manner tomorrow and in one hundred tomorrows after that?

PH: "Your faith is also built on a tautology - you believe in science because it's the revealed word of scientists, and you know their word is true because they are learned and they believe it is true."

PAM: "No, Peter, I don’t have “faith”, and I don’t depend on “revelation.” Science is evidence-based. I can (and do) read about the evidence and how the conclusions were reached. I can read about the testing of the evidence. If I were so inclined, I could repeat the research myself."

No Pam, you do have faith. You rely on, depend on and trust in something that is not proved. You take the evidence and you form conclusions on something that you were not there to witness. Therefore you interpret the evidence to fit your world view. The facts do not come with a stamp on them stating that this fossil is pre-human and it is related to these other fossils by this and that link. That is something you draw from your own personal bias. You "feel" that these conclusions are the best possible explanation for the way things actually happened, but you or I did not witness life emerging from the primordial soup.

PAM: "I know that others have. Yes, I expect that this system will turn up sound conclusions – it has for as long as it’s been in place. Look around you Peter – you can’t look in any direction (especially not straight ahead) without seeing the fruits of scientific inquiry and the technology that proceeds therefrom."

There is a difference between true science and evolutionary science. I have no qualms against science.

Hi Pamsm (August 26, 2009 7:13 PM),

PH: [In answer to the sciences’ correct predictions] "Is that why they are always changing their conclusions as more and more "evidence" is brought to light? Very accurate on things they were not around to witness and very good how they interpret the evidence to fit their world view. As if they see every aspect of every fact and how each fact relates to the other."

PAM: "That’s the beauty part of science, Peter, as opposed to religion - nothing is engraved in stone."

Exactly my point. It is always changing. What you thought was true one hundred and fifty years ago is now considered false in so many areas of science. And in another 150 years the same will be true again So the evidence that you believe supports certain conclusions today will be overturned as more is learned.

So what do you know that is true today? It is all relative. There is no fixture or measure that doesn't constantly change.

PAM: "Any postulation can be overturned by new evidence that refutes past hypotheses. That’s why the conclusions are so accurate – they’re subject to refinement, testing, and review by others."

That is one the biggest understatements you have made to date. If the conclusions are "so accurate" there is no need for refinement; the conclusions cannot be logically refuted if they are accurate.

PAM: "Experiments must be repeatable; evidence must be available to the entire community. Evolutionary theory (since that is the one we were discussing) has only gotten better and stronger with time."

Once you start building on the wrong foundational premises your whole view point is wrong.

PAM: "Since Darwin’s day, many of the predictions of his theory have panned out (e.g., that the earliest human fossils, and the pre-human fossils, would be found in Africa)."

Pre-human? That is exactly what I mean by a clouded way of looking at life. You build from a theory that has not been proved.

PAM: "Every new discovery that has allowed us to extend our knowledge (e.g., genetics, DNA) has strengthened the theory. Other sciences, such as geology, have added to it."

Do you support Uniformatarianism?

PAM: "But I submit to you that mainstream historical, scientific, and other knowledge-based sites have nothing to gain by skewing their information, and should therefore be considered the most reliable."

They would have to be objective to be unbiased. The "facts" are constantly changing. The times they are a changing.

I submit that they do have so much to gain. Since the 18th century your framework has been the one that has gained the most favorable response. I have nothing against science, just evolutionary science. It is the atheists mantra. They have everything to lose. If evolutionary science is proved to be a hoax then the whole framework that has been built from it crumbles. So naturally you will look at all the evidence from a naturalistic framework. And you (evolutionary scientists) will protect the institutions and sources that support your framework at all costs, especially when scientists start raising questions about its viability.

There is no grounds for the supernatural in your world view. But this is where your framework breaks down. You have admitted you don't have the answers for the origin of life and that it doesn't matter to you.

The question of life is, did it start from time, chance and struggle or from plan, purpose and God's special act of creating?

Observe everything around you. There is plan and purpose. Did this all just happen? Either chance or purpose. "I don't know" just puts the question one step further back. If you don't know then how can you be certain of anything? So don't tell me God is impossible or unlikely. With Him and only Him all things are possible.

Did life spontaneously generate itself - i.e. - self-creation - an impossible task for it would first have to be before it could create?

According to most evolutionary scientists life and the universe had an origin. That was in the Big Bang, or Big Dud in your opinion for you say there was no bang, no "explosion."

So you, in your field are constantly putting the cart before the horse and wanting the cart to pull the horse.

First you need a plausible explanation of where life comes from, of how it got here, before you can frame in your world view.

You need to answer how an inanimate object, the cart, has the ability to pull anything unless something outside itself puts it to use.

Are we just chemical reactions that respond to the environment or spiritual beings that are created in the image and likeness of the Creator?

Hi Pam,

PAM: "A word about competing "experts"..."

That is what we are going to be exchanging unless you first establish the more fundamental and important issues.

PAM: "When considering which of two sources to give more weight to when they are at odds, it should be asked whether either or both has an axe to grind."

That is my point all along. We both do, but only one can be true because our frameworks are so contradictory. "The man [woman] 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 Corinthians 2:14)

Neither one of us are neutral. You will look at the evidence, the facts, and interpret them in the way that suits your rosy world view. You have invested 1000's of hours filtering things according to your basic foundational starting points - i.e. there is no God, and you are good at it.

But in the end, your framework fails to make sense of anything. Truth has to have an objective basis for it to be true. Something cannot both be true and not true at he same time and in the same relationship. That would be absurd.

I am about to go into your answers for morality because what you have stated does not have anything but a relative measure. It is always shifting. More later.

Since neither one of us were there to witness history [His story - sorry, could not resist] we draw from one of two slants, either there is an absolute, objective way of looking at history that is outside ourselves, or it is all relative to who can provide the evidence that suits their framework in what they think is the most convincing facts and manner. Naturally you are going to side with your framework.

PAM: "Surely we can stipulate that apologist sources have an agenda - they want to make us believe. Frank atheist sites can also be said to have an agenda."

Exactly.

A word about competing "experts"...

When considering which of two sources to give more weight to when they are at odds, it should be asked whether either or both has an axe to grind.

Surely we can stipulate that apologist sources have an agenda - they want to make us believe. Frank atheist sites can also be said to have an agenda. But I submit to you that mainstream historical, scientific, and other knowledge-based sites have nothing to gain by skewing their information, and should therefore be considered the most reliable.

Well, Peter, I can only echo Walter's "wow". The hoops that you're willing to jump through to make the bible inerrant are nothing short of astounding.

First, "Tyre" was the island itself, with it's strategic seaports and walled city. The mainland settlements were just suburbs, and were called originally "Ushu", later "Palaetyrus", by the Greeks (check Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica). So destroying the mainland settlements hardly counted as destroying Tyre, which, in fact, every source other than apologist ones, counts as a failure for Neb.

And as for "never" being rebuilt - well, that's just not the case - for island (now isthmus), or mainland. But don't take my word for it - satellite maps are a great modern source. Feel free to zoom in as closely as you like:

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=tyre+lebanon&revid=1051170798&resnum=0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&split=0&gl=us&ei=GqOlSv-BBJGL8QaQq9XlDw&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1

peter:
wow...well if that all "works" for you, great. a plain reading (i.e., one not specifially contrived to match the prophesy) of the text make it seem like it didn't come true. there's no mention of "100s of years later" (to include alexander). there's no mention that the ultimate destruction would be 1500 yrs later (by muslims). this whole delination between the "he" and the "they" is just silly. in the context of the text "they" means neb's army and/or horsemen.

there's nothing about a causeway...out to a new trye.... when the text says something like "thrown into the sea", plainly, that's figurative for "wiped off the map."

anyway, i really appreciate your efforts. i hope you'll contimue to work your way (up or down) the list of posts/questions/comments.

Hi Onofrio,

ONO: "Thee:

"Naturally you will not take the historical documents that are the Bible for what they are, the very revelation of God."

THEN

"People are already denying the Holocaust, that has documented evidence that is undeniable."

ONO: "So, in Peter Huff's moral compass to doubt *Daniel* is comparable to Holocaust denial."

That is not the point I was making. The point I was making is that even though we have actual film footage of the Holocaust, people today deny it. In the same way, so many of the historical documents that have been transcribed from the original documents are also going to be denied as historical evidence of God's supernatural preservation of His word and revelation to us.

I know you don't look upon it as God's word to us. Your world view will not allow that, because then you would have to bow the knee. Instead your reasoning stands supreme to you. You are in control, you call the shots. There is no higher court of appeal in your world, at least not for now. You decide what will be true for you. It is all relative without God, and may the strongest, fastest, fittest win the battle. That is the stakes in a world view without absolutes, and that is what you are playing for, your view of truth.

Continuing Walter,

WALTER: "you asked where it says tyre will never be rebuilt: ez26:14: “I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD."

Yes, but not in King Neb's time. There is a distinction made that you would do well to pay attention to,

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/Proph08.html

Quote:

Beginning in verse 7, we are given a more detailed picture of the destruction that will come against Tyre in the person of Nebuchadnezzar. However, in verse 12, there is a change as Ezekiel turns from what "he" will do to those whom he simply refers to as "they."

"Also THEY will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses, and throw your stones and your timbers into the water.

"So I will silence the sound of your songs, and the sound of your harps will be heard no more.

"And I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You will he built no more, for I the Lord have spoken," declares the Lord God. (Ezekiel 26:12-14).

There are a number of points to this prophecy. Let's list them:

* Many nations will come against Tyre (26:3).

* Her walls and towers will be broken down (26:4).

* The debris of the city will be removed (26:4).

* Nebuchadnezzar will attack (26:7).

* Stones and timbers thrown into the water (26:12).

* Tyre will be a bare rock and a place for spreading of nets (26:14).

* The city will not be rebuilt (26:14)."

End of quote.

You are trying to make it all fit Neb, which it does not do. You have to pay attention to the subject being addressed.

Continuing Walter,

WALTER: "the "mainstream" opinion is that tyre, which has to include the island...i mean...that's the defining quality of tyre, was not destroyed by neb."

There again, there was the mainland city and the island city. The mainland city was destroyed by Neb and the island city by Alex the G by using the debris from the mainland city to build the causeway. He actually had to scrape the rocks to get enough materials.

WALTER: "some say alexander destroyed half of it, but no one says neb destroyed it (except, apparently fundamentalists)."

So what makes you think your experts are the correct interpreter's of history. It is a question of "He said, she said", the very reason that I do not usually get into classical or evidential apologetics with unbeliever's. Everyone brings their own agenda to the table. Rather let the unbeliever give a sensible reply to the fundamental questions of any world view, "why we're here, how do you know and what difference does it make.

See the quote from starting,
"The city of Tyre in Ezekiel 26 and its fulfillment."

http://www.thoughts.com/mckenzie2467/blog/fulfilled-prophecy-in-history-352517/

Hi Walter,

WALTER: "neb DID NOT destroy it. he apparently gave up after trying for years... i know that earlier in our conversation you said something about "your experts" and "my experts" etc... "

Quotes from John MacArthur's webpage,

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1349.htm

B. The Fulfillment

1. The prophetic call

a) To Nebuchadnezzar

Not long after the prophecy given by Ezekiel, Nebuchadnezzar did exactly what had been predicted--he laid siege against the city in 585 B.C. For thirteen years Nebuchadnezzar cut off the flow of supplies into the city. In 537 B.C. he finally succeeded in breaking the gates down, but found the city almost empty.

During the thirteen-year siege, the people of Tyre moved all their possessions by ship to an island one-half mile offshore. So Nebuchadnezzar gained no plunder (Ezek. 29:17- 20). [As a result of no plunder God promised him that He would give him Egypt for plunder (Eze 29:17-19). - my insertion - P.H.]

Although he destroyed the mainland city (Ezek. 26:8), the new city offshore continued to flourish for 250 years. The prophecy of Ezekiel 26:12--"they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water"--remained unfulfilled.

Please see the rest of the webpage for the rest of the explanation.

peter,

take your time answering, but i can't just let this hang out there.

you said, "Although Neb destroyed it where does it say that it would never be rebuilt after he destroyed it?"

neb DID NOT destroy it. he apparently gave up after trying for years... i know that earlier in our conversation you said something about "your experts" and "my experts" etc... but here is a link to a christian website that frankly acknowledges that this prophesy DID NOT come true.

http://www.crivoice.org/ezekieltyre.html

it goes on to invent a clever excuse as to why it was "ok" in this case that the prophesy didn't go well, and even issues a new (improved?) prophesy.

the "mainstream" opinion is that tyre, which has to include the island...i mean...that's the defining quality of tyre, was not destroyed by neb. some say alexander destroyed half of it, but no one says neb destroyed it (except, apparently fundamentalists). again, there is a "christian fundamentalist" view of facts, and an "everyone else" view.
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/middle_east/tyre.html
http://www.middleeast.com/tyre.htm

you asked where it says tyre will never be rebuilt: ez26:14: “I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD.”

Peter Huff,

Thee:

"Naturally you will not take the historical documents that are the Bible for what they are, the very revelation of God."

THEN

"People are already denying the Holocaust, that has documented evidence that is undeniable."

So, in Peter Huff's moral compass to doubt *Daniel* is comparable to Holocaust denial.

Disgusting...

peter,
ok, i'll wait. you DO have a lot to address...

I'm eager to discuss the link you posted, Peter, but I'm trying to restrain myself until you catch up. I know that three (or four?) against one is a little overwhelming.

A couple more fun facts about whales while you're working - embryonic whales grow hindlimb buds, and later resorb them. They also (later) grow a coat of hair, and then lose it.

Hi Walter,

WALTER: "ez26, ezekiel prophesies in no uncertain terms that babylonian king "neb" will take and destroy tyre (make it a "bare rock" he says) and that it will never be rebuilt.
well, whoever wrote that got that last part right - it WAS never "rebuilt" because it was never destroyed... "neb" failed to take it, much less destroy it. it was later taken by alexander. it is still occupied today."

In 332 B.C. Alexander destroyed the city and scraped the debris into the sea to make a causeway to the island fortress. Although Neb destroyed it where does it say that it would never be rebuilt after he destroyed it? God said He would bring many nations against it starting with Neb (Eze. 26:3) until it is finally destroyed for good by one of these nations. I don't have time now to search for references. Please wait 'til next week. Things are busy and I have to get ready for work this evening.

Hi Onofrio,

Of course critics of the Bible would draw those conclusion that the prophecies were written after the events. There again, it boils down to where your source of information comes from and the disposition of your world view.

Naturally you will not take the historical documents that are the Bible for what they are, the very revelation of God. So you need an human source to tell you what your itching ears so want to here - "I am the one who determines truth." The problem with historical data is that someone centuries removed has to rely at times on two or more conflicting accounts of what happened. And it is all relative to your subjective authority, since there are conflicting truth claims that neither you or I were there to witness.

People are already denying the Holocaust, that has documented evidence that is undeniable.

Anyway I am almost out of time for today. This is a busy weekend. Except for a few sporadic posts I'll have to wait for next week to do the majority of replies. Sorry everyone.

peter,

false prophecy:

ez26, ezekiel prophesies in no uncertain terms that babylonian king "neb" will take and destroy tyre (make it a "bare rock" he says) and that it will never be rebuilt.
well, whoever wrote that got that last part right - it WAS never "rebuilt" because it was never destroyed... "neb" failed to take it, much less destroy it. it was later taken by alexander. it is still occupied today.

wrong in so many ways.

peter, just to further clarify.

"good" [mutations] in my statement below means "more likely to reproduce".

peter, you quoted from that website for pam:

"evolutionary “progress” is like erratic motion on a frictionless surface infinite in all directions. There are no guidelines to what constitutes “better” or “worse” in Darwinland. Why? Because the core belief that underlies all Darwinian thinking is that evolution must be unguided."

"evolution must be unguided"?! huh?

you guys really hate words like "random" and "chance" and ... "unguided", dontcha?

anyway, again, as we've explained, genetic mutations are random, but their survival is SELECTED FOR (i.e. not random). "bad" (evil...?) mutations will not survive. "good" mutations (like cooperative characteristics) will.

onofrio, re: VATICINIUM EX EVENTU

"Daniel's "predictions" of events up to the desecration of the Temple in 167 BC and the beginning of the Maccabean revolt substantially came true--yet its predictions of a new invasion of Egypt by Antiochus and the Resurrection of the Dead soon thereafter totally failed. The author correctly "predicted" the rise of Alexander the Great, and the history of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kings, but he fared far worse in his predictions that God would supernaturally slay Antiochus Epiphanes, raise the dead, and inaugurate the messianic age in 163 BC. The most likely explanation of this strange pattern is that these prophecies were first composed just before the time they started to fail by an author who had no genuine talent for predicting the future."
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/chris_sandoval/daniel.html

peter: "And last comes Rome whose kingdom was the last before Messiah would set up His kingdom that will never be destroyed, for it is an everlasting kingdom. His kingdom is described in Daniel 2:34-35; 44-45."

well, first, you and i have different ideas about when daniel was actually written. i (and most non-fundamentalists, and many "mainstream" christians) say it was written in the 2nd or 3rd century b.c., you probably say 6th or 7th. for the sake of this post, i'll assume it was written when you say it was and will assume the fourth and final kingdom was rome.

it is my understanding that rome was to be the "last" world kingdom before god's kingdom. (first, none of those were "world" empires...) how about the 12th century islamic empire? they occupied all "biblical lands". how about the ottomans? not only that, they expected "it" to come soon after the last empire. (i know about 2Pet3:8 and Ps90:4, but 2000 years is not soon to anyone reading the bible.)

people often talk about the biblical "prophecies" that were fulfilled, but gloss over the unfulfilled ones.

Peter, based on 1 Corinthians 2:14 you said “Faith is a gift for those who believe. You need God's help in seeing things as they really are (1 Corinthians 2:14)”. To believe on something I need solid reasons. If you say that first I need to believe, then God will help me to see the things as they really are, this doesn’t make any sense. For example, if the faith you refer to is the faith that God exists, and if I already have faith in God, why I need help from God to see the things as they really are?

Another example. My natural self was supposedly created by God. Based on Romans 8:7,8 you said that “Your natural self, the one that believes that evolutions is the answer to the riddle of life, is at enmity with God”. This doesn’t make sense. There is part of me that God created that is an enemy with God. This do not compute in my mind.

Peter, some of your phrases sound good and comforting, but they are utterly confusing or non meaningful. What I pray and beg for is for you to provide an unequivocal proof that God exists. A proof that is not based in what God tells you in your dreams or what God says trough the bible. Once you prove this, then the second step will be to prove unequivocally that God is asking something from me in order for me to receive something from Her/Him.

Regarding *Daniel's* suspiciously detailed 6th century BC insights into the power politics of the 3rd-2nd century BC Ptolemies and Seleukids:

Two terms:

PSEUDEPIGRAPHY

VATICINIUM EX EVENTU

Hi Pam,

PAM: "OK, Peter, I’ve answered some of your questions. Your turn. What about those atavistic whale legs and extra horse toes? What about all those fossils (third link on the Religious Tolerance site)?"

As you can see, I am swamped again with replies, just to you and Walter alone. I still haven't caught up with your last set and will answer them as I get time and some will take some prayer and research for I haven't the foggiest idea on where to begin. I am working this weekend so any lengthy time on the computer is out. I will plod along until then. In two weeks I will be taking a vacation in which I will have ample time to sit down and go at it. Maybe we can hijack another forum that is in its dying embers if this is worn out. We can go to Susan's latest forum when this one dies and announce our intentions from there.

PH: "How do you know that evolutionary pressure will not turn the majority into a tribe of New Guinea headhunters who see someone else's pain as their gain?..."

PAM: "I have no doubt that it will. You see, that cooperative instinct – the reciprocity thing – arose as a feature of small groups – tribal or familial, or both. It’s a very old development...."

Please see the Evolution of Morality on the following link,

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200801.htm#20080120a

Please pay particular attention to the paragraphs that start "Did you catch the flaw in Pinker’s reasoning that makes his whole case collapse? For some of you who are getting good at baloney detecting, it was a no-brainer. The core of his argument was that competing (selfish) parties are better off if they cooperate rather than compete, and that this can become a standard for morality. Let’s ask the eminent Hahvahd professor a simple, two-word question: “Define better.”
As we explained in our 12/19/2007 commentary, evolutionary “progress” is like erratic motion on a frictionless surface infinite in all directions. There are no guidelines to what constitutes “better” or “worse” in Darwinland. Why? Because the core belief that underlies all Darwinian thinking is that evolution must be unguided."

That same flaw operates in your reasoning. Good or bad as you like to term them (instead of evil which I am not afraid to use) has no ultimate guidelines that constitutes what they are. It is all relative to the individual and culture.

Anyway, good night!

When Jesus set up His kingdom the old temple and sacrificial system were destroyed, because Christians are the temple the Holy Spirit resides in. So when Jesus bought condemnation and judgment on the Jews for rejecting Him by destroying the temple and sacrificial system (Matthew 23-24) He said "this generation shall not pass before these things are accomplished."

You'll notice that none of the New Testament books mentions anything about the destruction of the temple and the end of the age of temple worship because upon the writing of the New Testament, none of these things had yet taken place.

This is an indication of how soon after the death of Jesus the books of the New Testament were written and circulated throughout the churches of the time, some of which are mentioned in the Book of Acts.

These prophecies in the Old and New Testaments are just two indications of how accurate prophecy is.

WALTER: "on the other hand, regarding internal evidence, i'll just point out one of many expamples of internal evidence that discredits the bible:

gen36:12 explains that the "amelekites" are descendents of abram’s great-great-grandson "amalek". given this, how do you explain the amalekites’ biblical debut in gen14:7 when abram, STILL CHILDLESS, attacks the "amalekites"?

I'm not familiar with this discrepancy so give me a bit of time to sort it out. Obviously you are bringing many issues to bear so I will not have time to answer all.

Here is a page that might help answer some of your questions.

http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties.htm

So in the internal witness of the Bible, let's take for instance the prophecies of Daniel of the four kingdoms in King Neb's dreams. It starts with a statue with a head of gold, chest and arms of silver, belly and thighs of bronze, and legs of iron and feet partly of iron and partly of clay.

Daniel explained the dream to the king as Neb. being the head of gold, the Medes and Persians being the chest and arms (also as being the bear in the dream of Daniel in Daniel 7). Daniel then names the third kingdom to reign over the earth, which we know as Greece, a kingdom that did not become united until Alexander the Great (who in leopard like speed conquered - Daniel 7:6), over two hundred years after Daniel explained the prophecies.

The four horn's in Daniel's dream (Daniel 8:21) that come up out when the goat's first horn is broken - i.e. when Alexander dies in 323 B.C. in Babylon - are when Lysimachus controls Thrace and Bithynia; Cassander controls Macedonia; Ptolmy Soter controls Egypt and; Seleucus controls Syria.

And last comes Rome whose kingdom was the last before Messiah would set up His kingdom that will never be destroyed, for it is an everlasting kingdom. His kingdom is described in Daniel 2:34-35; 44-45. God's kingdom is likened to a rock that became a huge mountain and filled the earth (figurative language). And at present that is what God's kingdom is doing. It is becoming that mountain as people from every tribe and tongue and nation are added to this kingdom that lasts forever (Revelation 5:9) as God makes Jesus' enemies His footstool (Hebrews 1:13, 10:13). Jesus is the Rock that fills the earth.

"Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death." (1 Corinthians 15:24-25)

Hi Walter,

Now to get back to the serious business at hand.

WALTER: "i can't speak to the "witness of god's spirit...." part - that seems like a personal experience(s) you've had, which translates to me as "i just know."

That is right, you don't know (1 Corinthians 2:14).

WALTER: "as far as the internal evidence, i don't put any weight on that either, as every religious book has internal "evidence" claiming it is true."

Sure, but how does it relate to what is real? Logically they are all making truth claims that all cannot be true, for all contradict the others.

Ask yourself these questions, did these people of the Bible really live, are these places historically real, are the events historically real? Does the Bible really contradict itself, or can these apparent contradictions be explained?

Some things are beyond finding out because some of the ancient records that mirror the Bible have not survived.

But considering that we have 66 different books, written by over 40 different authors who were led by the Spirit that took place over thousands of years there is a unity to the Bible that is not in any other religious book. It speaks of Jesus Christ in shadows and types throughout. It makes claims that these other religions do not make and sources outside the Bible can verify that these people, places and events did happen. The Bible also makes prophetic statements in advance of when they actually happened.

My friend and I have been delving into the Book of Daniel for the past two to three months and we are not definite as to how to reconcile some of the issues between it and the New Testament yet. That may take some time, so I speak as one who is being persuaded to view things not in a Dispensatioalist light, a system of belief that came into wide acclaim during the time of Scofield in the 1800's.

So I am looking at it differently from what the majority of Christian's have bought into because I believe Dispensationalism makes claims that it cannot support.

PH: “ How do you know that evolutionary pressure will not turn the majority into a tribe of New Guinea headhunters who see someone else's pain as their gain? Looking back through history and into the current age and I can point to many examples of cultures and groups that do not think the same way that you do… Many, many dictators and tyrants have tried to change the course of human history to their way of thinking. How do you know that will not happen again?”

I have no doubt that it will. You see, that cooperative instinct – the reciprocity thing – arose as a feature of small groups – tribal or familial, or both. It’s a very old development. Insects such as ants and bees were practicing it long, long before the first hominid walked the Earth – or even the first mammal. It was a feature of our ancestors going back well beyond the last common ancestor that we have with the chimpanzees and bonobos. We know this, because the gorilla line split off earlier than that, and they, too are social animals.

So, for the first 6 million or so years of the line that led directly to humans, and in some cases (those New Guineans, Amerindians, etc.) right up to the present time, we lived in smallish hunter-gatherer tribes of more or less related individuals, and our cooperative instincts extended only to tribe members. There have probably always been “wars” between tribes – making that as much of an instinct as the altruism among tribe members. Chimps do it too. Bonobos not so much – they’re lovers, not fighters.

This tribal thing is what’s behind most of man’s inhumanity to man – conflicts between countries, races, football teams… Tribes also have hierarchies and leaders – thus our tendency to follow strong people – not always so wisely. Our evolution has failed to keep pace with our population and technological growth. We aren’t yet at the point where most of us can instinctively feel that our “tribe” is the family of man. It is happening. Many of our laws reflect this, as do people who participate in organizations like Doctors Without Borders, Habitat for Humanity, and others too numerous to mention – including, of course, faith-based charities. But we’re not there yet.

But, please! Don’t hold up the bible as an anti-war treatise! Don’t tell me that believers are better than atheists in this regard! The bible is full of bloody atrocities and God-directed slaughters. And the Religious Right in my country never saw a war they didn’t like.

PH: "You certainly (as certainly as you can) believe you are. You want God on your terms, not as He is."

No Peter, I don’t want God at all. I don't believe there is any such being.

OK, Peter, I’ve answered some of your questions. Your turn. What about those atavistic whale legs and extra horse toes? What about all those fossils (third link on the Religious Tolerance site)?

PH: “But if it is just one group or culture deciding for itself without any reference to a fixed standard who makes it right? It it just so because they say it is so? And why do these standards change. Surely we know innately that murdering the unborn human being is wrong?”

Asked and answered (oh, so many times…), but I’ll pick up the gauntlet very briefly on abortion. “Murder” is an emotionally loaded word, but surely you must know that NO ONE is *for* abortion. I believe strongly in keeping it legal and safe, but that doesn’t mean that I wish more people would get abortions every year. On the contrary, I’d love to see the incidence drop to zero. Where we differ is in how to accomplish that goal. Religious “pro-lifers” (as if the rest of us were pro-death) want to make it illegal. I’m old enough to remember when that was the case, and I’m here to tell you that abortions happened at the very same rate – the difference being that many women and girls died horrible deaths as a result.

My side would like to end abortion by making it unnecessary, through good public sex education and ready access to contraception. Realistically, these measures wouldn’t completely obviate the need (yes, *need*) because there will still be women who get pregnant happily and willingly, and then find that their lives are at stake if the pregnancy continues. Others are raped (sometimes by a family member) and can’t bear the idea of raising their rapist’s child. Some of these are little more than children themselves. But at least it would make it possible for those who can’t afford children, or who aren’t mentally or physically capable of raising them, or who simply don’t *want* them, to avoid pregnancy.

Please don’t bring up abstinence. It doesn’t work, never has, never will. The sex drive is one of nature’s most powerful instincts, perhaps second only to the will to survive. People *will* have sex – no matter what they promise…

Me: It is refined by the teachings of parents and other authority figures, but most is innate, put there by evolutionary pressures upon social animals. The “golden rule” is built in, and begins to work as soon as we are able to recognize that others have the same capacity to feel pain and pleasure as do we.

PH: “Why are parents and authority figures necessarily right in their understanding?”

I didn’t say they were. Quite often they aren’t. But they do have some influence, for good or ill, on the innate cooperative instinct.

peter: "It reminds me a bit of the Lee Strobel's story."

yes, wife is christian, but not YEC. i have read strobel's "case for faith" and "case for christ". i was very disappointed in them.

he reports on his "journalistic" investigation into the historical jesus. he portrays his book as a balanced rational analysis of the “evidence.” to that end, he calls witnesses to the stand – experts in archaeology, cosmology, roman history, church history, theology, scripture and ancient documents. it is disappointing that the witnesses are ALL christian apologists. they are ALL biased, and there is no cross-examination, no rebuttal. only one side was allowed to present its case.

strobel weakly plays devil’s advocate and brings up a few common criticisms, which the witnesses easily dismiss by assuming that which they are asserting. it was frustrating for me as i was expecting a thorough treatment. i'm sure it's reassuring for those already convinced, who may not trouble to check up on strobel's assertions about the "evidence".

if interested, see
http://www.bidstrup.com/apologetics.htm ,

and
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/CTVExcerptsOne.htm .

peter: "your beginning suppositions that the Bible is a fairy tale."

well, no. actually it didn't start out that way at all. being raised by "western" parents, i pretty much assumed the bible was mostly true. i didn't really know the details of what was in there, but i feared god. one thing that "converted me" AWAY from the bible was reading it as an adult (come to me a little children....). "and the days of adam were 930 years"... ?!? talking snakes?! and the horrible god-inspired, no, god-ASSISTED massacres. is THAT the best plan he could come up with?! he just didn't seem so worthy of worship anymore.
the more i learned about other culture's gods - especially the gods believed in 1000s of years ago, the more i saw they're all like that! ancient mesopotamian gods all seem to be war gods, helping the locals defeat rivals (and rivals' gods).

and, from what i've learned about other local mesoptamian gods they were ALL doing miracles, apparently. even exodus has pharaoh's magicians doing magic (of course not as well as moses). so did god(s) stop doing miracles? why are we reduced to calling someone recovering from cancer a miracle? why won't god heal amputees?

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/10questions.htm

where are all the fabulous miracles of the old days? pam proposed something like him giving you a tip on a horse race. forget that! he should have a website! he's being WAY too subtle these days...

WALTER: "our family is very involved in all the social affairs of the church too. we go over to each other's houses all the time. these are the nicest people (as a group) i've ever met."

I hope one day that the Lord's words strike a cord with you. You seem more open to discussion than many atheists.

WALTER: "the pastors and i have had long extremely frank discussions about scripture and science and they're all aware of my atheism (ooohhh) and we're still friends."

We don't have all the answers, but we know the Source who does (Colossians 2:3). Many times when the challenge is greater than I am I turn to the Lord in prayer. Sometimes I forget and depend on my own feeble resources. Sometimes God brings a point home after many years of searching the Scriptures, asking Him to reveal the truth in a certain matter, or bone of contention, with an unbeliever or another Christian. This has been the case in my life.

WALTER: "they understand that i think they're crazy to believe what they do, but we still treat each other with respect. most congregants don't know my dirty little secret, and i never undermine my daughter's faith. blah blah blah..."

Sure, truth can be very strange, especially when you have always looked at life from a naturalistic philosophy. As I have mentioned, it has no answers to the tough questions. That is what I strive to show on these forums. There is no neutrality. I press for these people to make sense of what they believe and Pam has giving some tough answers, but they still have no substance. Onofrio, I feel for his pain, but let him try to explain evil from his world view as he resists God's will.

I admire you for not undermining your daughter's faith. I bet you she prayer's for you too. I wonder how many people where praying for me to come to saving faith?

Hi Walter,

WALTER: "peter, i don't want to be harsh and snarky. sorry if you took (or take) it that way. i just find thunderf00t's videos funny, and always factual."

No, I did not take it that way. You made the comment that the video was harsh and snarky. Sometimes sarcasm can make a point at how absurd something really is. I use it and irony all the time. It just emphasises the ludicrousness in some beliefs.

The young lad was definitely not a top caliber heavyweight in his understanding of God's creation. Neither am I. We learn as God teaches and confirms from Scripture and by His Spirit. What He reveals does not go against what is.

I supplied a Christian video which some would perceive as having the same attitude as your evolution one, harsh and snarky, that pokes fun at the atheist position. I thought it was funny myself. I love the upside down face with the chipped tooth.

Found your comments on your daughter very interesting. I would hazard a guess that your wife is also a Christian then if you attend church and your daughter goes to a Christian school. It reminds me a bit of the Lee Strobel's story. He was an avid atheist and journalist for the Chicago Tribune I believe. His wife came to faith and he noticed a remarkable change in her that sparked his curiosity. I pray that the Sovereign Lord will make His face to shine upon you, that you may come to a saving faith and living relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ!

Anyway, thanks for sharing and being so frank!

WALTER: "we also go to church there and i usually attend, so i'm extremely familiar with scripture. i daresay i know it better than most christians..."

Yes, that is quite possible that you have an intellectual understanding that supersedes that of many Christians, but do you don't know the Lord. He is not walking with you, so to speak, as He did with Adam and Eve before they sinned in the Garden, and as He walks with and guides those who come to faith in Him. Knowing Him requires repentance and humility instead of the attitude of opposition (James 4:6-10).

Unfortunately many Christian's and those professing Christ do not take the Lord's words to heart for what they really are, the light in which we see truth. That only happens through His grace.

part 2:

first, notice the miller-urey experiment is not about the evolution, but the origin of life – the leap from inorganic to organic chemistry. evolution is not about the first life form on earth, but the second. nonetheless, wells is quick (and correct) to point out that miller and urey made some wrong assumptions about exactly which chemicals were present on the early earth. ALL SCIENTISTS KNOW THIS, and it’s not the dirty little secret they don’t want you to know about. Wells doesn’t mention that most textbooks even explain this in the NEXT paragraph, and explain how the experiment has been performed many times since, with the proper (we think) chemicals and it still works.

in textbooks, the miller-urey experiment is presented in its historical context, as a eureka moment – like the steam engine – a conceptual breakthrough, not modern cutting-edge biology. it was just the first time scientists had created organic molecules of any kind by any means. yet wells portrays scientists as clinging to miller-urey, indeed building an entire field of biology on this fraudulent experiment, thus malevolently indoctrinating generations of wide-eyed children into the materialist paradigm.

http://www.nmsr.org/text.htm#life
Haeckel’s embryos: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

wells is highly educated. he has a masters degree in religious education, a phd in religious studies from yale, and has been a seminary professor.

but what makes him relevant in this discussion is his phd in molecular and cell biology. you might wonder why a theologian would get a degree in biology, or how an academic, a professor with two doctorates no less, could be so sloppy, selective and deceptive with the facts. what’s going on here? wells explains his agenda:

"Father's [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists [Moonies] had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle."

--Jonathan Wells, Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.

didn't really approach things with an open mind, did he?

peter: "It is the problem with human reasoning of "he said, she said." Who do you trust?"

"he said, she said" is THE ONLY EVIDENCE you have - in the form of the bible.

peter: "Finally we, as Christian, are mounting an attack on [evolution]".

funny you should say it that way: and attack. it brings be back to jonathan wells' "icons of evolution" i mentioned earlier.

hi sbook is subtitled “Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong.” naturally, wells presents no new science. he examines the mainstream textbook presentations of ten “pillars” of the evilutionist myth and “shows” how they are all false, disproved or even hoaxes.

he points out that the famous dark-moth-on-a-dark-tree photo (from the 1950s, recreating an experiment from the 1890s) was “staged!” the scientist put a dead dark moth on a dark tree and took the picture... (as if this contradicts the experimental findings). the picture is meant to demonstrate the camouflage effect, i.e., that nature would “prefer” dark moths on dark trees, yet wells portrays the entire experiment as an elaborate ruse. and so it goes. he similarly exposes darwin’s finches, haeckel’s embryos and archaeopteryx as frauds.

The first icon (i.e., pagan idol) he smashes is the Miller-Urey primordial soup experiment. In 1953, scientists applied electrical charges (simulating lightning) to a soup of chemicals (simulating early Earth’s oceans) and were able to produce a few organic molecules. Nearly all biology textbooks cite this experiment as a seminal moment in our understanding of the origin of life on Earth.

http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/index.htm
http://www.ncseweb.org/pdf/QRBreview.pdf

to be continued

peter: "Now that we are learning more about the micro as well as the macro world and universe people are starting to question the prized and well guarded theory of evolution..."

fist, the theory is ALWAYS being "questioned". the discovery of DNA answered a great "question" about evolution (how are traits passed on?). sequencing the genomes of plants and animals (including human animals) answered many other "questions" about evolution.

so, who are some of the people (and what are the questions) you're talking about who are "starting to question "prized" and weel-guarded theory of evolution"?

i'll bet you EVERY SINGLE ONE of them is either

1)not really questioning evolution

or

2)a creationist, most likely a YEC, and most likely a christian creationist. (i'm sure there are many muslim YEC's who "doubt" evolution too.) how many of these "questioners" are named "steve"? ;-)

for category 1, you mentioned stephen j. gould. he's not saying evolution didn't happen. sheesh. he's the "steve" the of the "list of steves" is named for. one could possibly "mine" a few quotes of his to make it sound like evolution is a "theory in crisis", but that would be dishonest.

so, people who really are "questioning" evolution turn out to be creationists. there are plenty of religious people on the "steves" list but NO atheists on the "questioners" list. this doesn't in and of itself prove anything, except possible that evolution is not INHERENTLY an atheistic theory. don't you think there would be ONE atheist scientist who could see through the evolution conspiracy you think pervades the scientific community? one? just one?

peter: "God has told us how He has done it, in six days. Nothing is impossible or too difficult for Him. If you want the Biblical argument of why six days is the correct interpretation I am well versed on it."

i totally agree that the biblical authors meant things literally (except in specifiic instances where something is "couched" as metaphorical). one thing i'll give to fundamentalists is they don't go in for all that day/age stuff and try to twist the bible to "fit" the science. when the devil took jesus to a "very high mountain" where they could "see all the kingdoms of the world" - that's what they meant. they thought it was possible for a mountain to be tall enough that one could see the whole earth....

re: michael behe/"god did it"/intelligent design,

you said, "I'm sorry, I don't follow your whole argument,"

i'm saying "intelligent design" amounts to a criticism of evolution. there's no new science there - there's no science there at all. michael behe can't figure out how "bacterial flagella" evolved - it's one of his examples of how "evolution is impossible". because he can't conceive of how it happened, he immediately jumps to "god did it". he fills that "gap" in evolutionary theory with "god did it". this is dangerous because if/when scientists DO figure it out god will be shoved out of that gap - like he's been relieved of his duties of making rain and seasons and eclipses etc...

This is a great and important topic -- covering STD's and removing the negative stigma relate to them. STD's are simply too common and too easy to get and pass along under completely normal behavior. Glad to see this covered specifically, so we can avoid many of the negative consequences for men and women, but especially women. Our goal at www.getSTDtested.com is to provide useful information and easy access to testing services for STD's, including a home test kit for Chlamydia and gonorrhea.

peter,
i don't want to be harsh and snarky. sorry if you took (or take) it that way. i just find thunderf00t's videos funny, and always factual. i know people like the creationists he "rebuts". some of them are my best friends. until this year (7th grade) my daughter has been going to a small christian school where they teach creationism. they laugh at "billions of years" and take seriously "all the animals (and people) on the ark". they are loving, nurturing and great at teaching math and english and social studies (science, not so much...). this has caused some emotional stress for me, an atheist.

we also go to church there and i usually attend, so i'm extremely familiar with scripture. i daresay i know it better than most christians... our family is very involved in all the social affairs of the church too. we go over to each other's houses all the time. these are the nicest people (as a group) i've ever met.

the pastors and i have had long extremely frank discussions about scripture and science and they're all aware of my atheism (ooohhh) and we're still friends. they understand that i think they're crazy to believe what they do, but we still treat each other with respect. most congregants don't know my dirty little secret, and i never undermine my daughter's faith. blah blah blah...

peter: "You have not seen it happen, so you must believe, trust, depend that your theory adequately accounts for these origins.
Faith - 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
6. A set of principles or beliefs."

i think there is a difference. you say i have "faith" in things i have not seen. first, same to you, but more of it! ;-) second, isn't that a good thing? (jn20:29). and third, according to def.2, mine is not faith.

given the sequence of fossils found in the geologic column, it is logical to assume that over time life evolved "from simple to complex". that's just logical. now fossils don't necessarily, or at first, tell you HOW LONG (that's a whole other question), but it is logical to assume the evolved over time.

there are even certain assumptions implicit in that. i have "faith" that the rocks were "laid down" sequentially. i have "faith" that deposition, erosion, volcanos, plate tectonics, astronomy etc...used to operate the same way they do today. i have "faith" that your (made up) god did not intervene and "plant" these fossils in this beautiful and sequential array. ( http://lordibelieve.org/appr_age.htm )

the creation story (gen1) as told by science is not the one i would have imagined were i living in mesopotamia in 1000 b.c.. but today it is logical to have "faith" that life on earth evolved over time. i suppose i have faith in logic...

peter: "It is only possible to know what happen if God revealed what happened."

you mean, if god "did not conceal" what happened.

it is a pleasure, and i will continue working my way up the ladder... btw, don't you wish these comments would run with new ones at the bottom?! much easier to follow the conversation that way...

peter: "What makes you think they have it "right" now?"

my point is that scientists are open to new evidence, whereas religionists are not. as clever as aristotle (pick your favorite old smart guy) was, i don't trust his opinions on science. new theories are not just random "stabs" in the dark. they are guided, created, by new evidence.

peter: "...they have no plausible answers...From the one, the Big Bang, evolutionary scientists believe the other, simple life forms graduating into more complex life forms, emerged."

all scientific theories are held with varying degrees of certainty. of these 3 theories (BB, abiogenesis, evolution), evolution is on the firmest footing.

peter,
continuing,
now regarding "external evidence" (that makes the biblical authors credible):

i'm not sure what external evidence you're talking about. there's no archaeological evidence for the flood, exodus, joshua, judges or even the "united maonarchy" of saul/david/solomon. the famous "solomon's gates" date to the time of omri and ahab.

1Ki14:25-26 says, “It happened in the fifth year of King Rehoboam that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem. And he took away the treasures of the house of the LORD and the treasures of the king’s house; he took away everything. He also took away all the gold shields which Solomon had made.”

the NIV concordia study bible adds a deceptive note informing curious readers that shishak’s invasion is “attested in a victory inscription found on the walls of the temple of Amun in Thebes, where numerous cities that Shishak plundered in both Judea and the northern kingdom are listed.”

this is true. “numerous cities” are listed, just NOT “jerusalem” (or hebron or samaria or judea or rehoboam or jeroboam solomon or anything associated with israel). you'd think shishak would have mentioned jerusalem.

omri is the first "biblical" king to actually appear in a contemporary account.

peter, you said,
"Do you want harsh and snarky?"

and linked me to a video. i watched the video. it was just silly, and devoid of any content. "thunderf00t" is filled with content. he may not be polite, but his arguments are backed by facts and the latest scientific evidence.

re: what makes you think they [biblical authors] are any more credible than witnesses for zoroastrianism, baalism, mormonism, "elvisism" etc, etc, etc..?"

you said,
"Because of the internal (Bible) and external (other historical sources) evidences and because of the witness of God's Spirit in my life, answer to prayer and growing in a deeper relationship with Him through Jesus Christ."

i can't speak to the "witness of god's spirit...." part - that seems like a personal experience(s) you've had, which translates to me as "i just know." as far as the internal evidence, i don't put any weight on that either, as every religious book has internal "evidence" claiming it is true.

on the other hand, regarding internal evidence, i'll just point out one of many expamples of internal evidence that discredits the bible:

gen36:12 explains that the "amelekites" are descendents of abram’s great-great-grandson "amalek". given this, how do you explain the amalekites’ biblical debut in gen14:7 when abram, STILL CHILDLESS, attacks the "amalekites"?

P.S. Thanks for sharing part of your life with me. It is interesting. It seems that you have channeled your life towards understanding science from an evolutionary perspective.

Remember Andy and Timmy?

It is good to know how the WaPo operates. It puzzled me until you explained it. The unfortunate thing is that to continue a conversation sometimes you have to barge in on a new forum that is not related to the conversation you are having. It would be nice if there was a way you could take it to another board or forum when such situations happen that you want to continue. I offered to do so with Timmy and a few others by giving my email address to the Post if they would not disclose it to the general public, just those specific few, if they would do the same. Nothing came of it. I did not want my computer getting sabotaged by those who hate what I have said. That would be costly.

Hi Pam, I can't resist a few more snagits,

PAM: "Aahh, Peter, that applies much more to you than me. I’m actually much more open-minded than you imagine."

You certainly (as certainly as you can) believe you are. You want God on your terms, not as He is.

PAM: "If one of you believers can talk to God and get, say, a really specific prediction that will come true in the near future, I’m willing to re-examine my ideas. Tell me the name of the horse that will win the Kentucky Derby in 2013 (he’s not foaled yet), who his breeder and trainer will be, who will be up, what color silks he’ll be wearing, what post-position the horse will break from, and by what margin he’ll win. The bible predictions are way too vague – every generation since it was compiled has thought that the end would clearly come in their lifetimes."

You forget who is the Sovereign and who is the creature. God could do that but He has given you evidence. Since you are not open-minded enough to believe that He is not likely to give you more.

PAM: "The difference in our views is that on your side, you start with a conclusion, and then work to find evidence to support it, discarding any inconvenient evidence along the way. On my side, we look at the evidence and see what conclusion, if any, it leads to."

Actually you start with conclusions to. As to origins of life and universe you funnel the evidence into someone else's conclusion of what supposedly happened, then you keep looking at all other evidence through the same colored or frosted lens. "Joe Darwin or Freddy the scientist says this and this fits the way that I believe things actually happened."

Do you see the way in which the facts are related and connected accurately? Since you are not all knowing you piece them together in as much as you can see the different aspects of the fact. Then you INTERPRET it into your framework. It's like one blind man building on another blind man's puzzle. It is a bloody mess, as they trip and fall over each other.

Hi Pam, can't sleep or are you in a different time zone?

I'll have to go to bed after this.

PH: “And that is what you witness today, man ruling over these other creatures God made. It is consistent with the way the Bible relates it to be.”

PAM: "Try telling that to the next grizzly you meet in the woods. :D"

It is a wild animal, but we still control it's dominion. We determine if it lives or dies, where it lives - in this sate park or that, or in the wild. If it does damage to us we hunt it down and remove or dispose of it, or decide to let it be.

Hi Walter again (August 27, 2009 9:57 AM ),

Going up the leader board post by post.

WALTER: "you claim that "Christianity is not a self-works righteous religion. It is based on the work of another, the Lord Jesus Christ. It is not what we have to do to earn our merit before God, but what His Son has done for us"
so i asked if that means i (a non-believer)get into heaven.

Only by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and what His righteousness has accomplished. He came to do the Father's will on our behalf and "finished" it. Any other means is on your merit.

WALTER: "you said, essentially, "no" - because i have chosen not to believe.
so it's NOT gift. it IS about what i "do to earn [my] merit before god." if i have to DO something (believe) to get into heaven, then it is about merit."

I don't know whether you have faith to believe. At the moment you choose not to believe. Faith comes through His message and by His Spirit. Are you willing to trust in Him alone as your only way to God? If not, and you continue upon your path, then you are an unbeliever and are destined for eternal separation from God.

Faith is a gift for those who believe. You need God's help in seeing things as they really are (1 Corinthians 2:14)

"But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." (John 3:21)

No, belief comes through the message, the Good News (Romans 10:17), and by the Spirit's working in the unbeliever's life to bring him to Christ by that very message.

Your natural self, the one that believes that evolutions is the answer to the riddle of life, is at enmity with God (Romans 8:7, 8). You choose to believe what comes as second nature to you, your beginning suppositions that the Bible is a fairy tale. You want to live in the darkness of your own mind because you don't want the evil in you to be exposed by the light of His truth (John 3:19). So it takes a supernatural act of God before you will believe (John 3:3-8; Ephesians 2:1-3). Your allegiance is to yourself and the ways of this world. That is your world view, your natural sway. It takes a supernatural act of God to change that world view, for you will not listen, you will not choose Him of your own volition. But His word and Spirit have changed many a heart, and by change I mean a totally new world view, a new way of looking at life and a new disposition towards God in which our very nature is changed.

PH: “Since you are the scientist and I am not I'll let others refute your examples, point by point by providing the link. In that way I don't confuse what they are saying to you. That will take time first finding the examples to counter your examples and then countering the examples that you counter. Is that the road you want to go down?”

It’s OK. There’s a site called “Religious Tolerance” that tries to maintain a balance by presenting arguments with rebuttals for both sides. It might save some time.

Indicators of a young earth, with rebuttals:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_young.htm#menu

Indicators of an old Earth, with rebuttals:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth.htm

Don’t miss this part:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth2.htm

See which makes the most sense – wield Occam’s Razor freely.

PH: “And that is what you witness today, man ruling over these other creatures God made. It is consistent with the way the Bible relates it to be.”

Try telling that to the next grizzly you meet in the woods. :D

Well, that wasn’t as brief as I’d intended, but at least some it doesn’t require rebuttal.

PH: “...for every piece of evidence that you say points to a certain conclusion (well, as certain as your world view ever allows), I can find an expert that believes the facts of the matter points to exactly the opposite conclusion.”

We’re probably going to disagree on our experts. I know there are a small percentage of scientists who maintain a belief in the God of the bible. Mostly they are Catholics – the Catholic Church was finally dragged, kicking and screaming, into the modern world, and now accepts evolution and other sciences – it just believes that God kick-started the whole thing , and directs it. The percentage of YECs in the sciences is minuscule, and it’s amazing to me that they can keep their heads from exploding, even if they stick strictly to inorganic chemistry and the like. They have to be *very* good at compartmentalizing.

Consensus is important. One "expert" standing against hundreds of thousands, is not going to impress me.

PH: “Since you have so much invested in your framework you are going to make it fit your conclusion, believing that all the evidence does point to that conclusion. It is your bias. You are not neutral.”

Aahh, Peter, that applies much more to you than me. I’m actually much more open-minded than you imagine. If one of you believers can talk to God and get, say, a really specific prediction that will come true in the near future, I’m willing to re-examine my ideas. Tell me the name of the horse that will win the Kentucky Derby in 2013 (he’s not foaled yet), who his breeder and trainer will be, who will be up, what color silks he’ll be wearing, what post-position the horse will break from, and by what margin he’ll win. The bible predictions are way too vague – every generation since it was compiled has thought that the end would clearly come in their lifetimes.

The difference in our views is that on your side, you start with a conclusion, and then work to find evidence to support it, discarding any inconvenient evidence along the way. On my side, we look at the evidence and see what conclusion, if any, it leads to.

Hi Peter,
I’m going to briefly reply to a couple of your points, but I don’t want to tie you up – I know Walter is waiting for your reply to him.

PH: “You realize that this could go on for ages. I remember a Sam Harris forum in which we went on for over 2000 posts.”
Yes, I too remember that one. I had to stop eventually because it was slowing my computer so much that I couldn’t navigate it. WaPo has wisely limited the comments for any one essay, as we just saw, so the only way to continue is to essay-hop. If we go endlessly in circles, I imagine we’ll all get bored before 2,000 posts.

PH: “Pam, I must say that you and Onofrio in particular are very articulate! I haven't had many dealings with Walter yet. However, as with any world view it is built, piece by piece on basic presuppositions. Is this something that you agree upon? We don't learn from a vacuum.”

Thank you. But I disagree about the presuppositions. My worldview, well…evolved. It wasn’t fed to me by anyone, but came from my interests leading to my own research. I don’t really have a formal science education (I took some biology classes, and a couple of semesters of anthropology in college). My interest in animal breeding from an early age (8 or 9 years) led to research into theriogenology, embryology, and morphology (the biological kind, not the linguistic). One field just led to another, and soon I was branching out into taxonomy, evolution, geology… on and on. I’ve always been a voracious reader, and mostly prefer non-fiction. I like to learn.

But I don’t think you can “blame” any of this for my lack of faith in God or gods. I don’t remember ever really having any – and not for lack of attempts on the part of parents and grandparents to inculcate same. I’m just skeptical by nature, and it never quite passed the smell test for me. I do remember a night when I was very young when my father, attempting to assuage my worries about monsters in my closet, told me that there were no monsters, and there was no such thing as magic. Maybe that was the catalyst. I didn’t believe in Santa Claus for very long, either.

PAM: "My point was that the bible, and therefore your god, apparently thought it was hunky-dory. Do you?"

God has made His point clear, to love Him above all else and to love your neighbor as yourself. All God's laws hinge on these two commands.

PH: "Who gets to determine that these are the finest minds? You and your particular brand of belief? If so don't call it moral, just preference."

PAM: "Nope. All of us. The social consensus."

That is a laugh. There are so many social consensus'. My innate ability to determine the correct social morals may be different from yours. But for you majority rules. Heil Hitler, Sieg Heil!

PH: "Look at society - the greed, the wars, the lust, the inhumanity of man, the murder, the hate, the striving and ill will. Why do you thing that people will adopt your way of looking at things when six thousand plus years has proved otherwise?"

PAM: "Has it? I think we’ve come a hell of a long way in the 20,000 or so years that our species has existed. Even in the last 200 years. Are we perfect? No. Will we ever be? Probably not. No reason to quit trying."

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

The twentieth century, the century of the civilized man has been the bloodiest to date. Great improvement towards perfection! We have educated ourselves into imbecility, to the point where a woman has the right to choose to murder her unborn baby with no consequences. So much for our innate ability, the collective conscience, to know the difference between right and wrong outside of God.

PH: "So there is nothing wrong about that [child labor & slavery in past times] in your opinion, right. It is just the ways certain brains responded to the stimulus around them at that particular time and now for the most part brains are responding differently. So what is moral about that? Which system is moral - then or now? What is your final reference point in determining so and what happens if other disagree? Then who is ‘right?’"

PAM: "Of course there’s something wrong with it."

It depends in what cultural, ethical, religious or political group you belong to. Why is your standard the one that "should" rule?

PAM: "I was pointing out that society has evolved beyond those things (which were reprehensible to many even at the time, but those were the ones out of power, and those *in* power had much to gain monetarily from the status quo)."

Your form or standard pretty well is determined by whom is in power. It is constantly changing just by judging from the world today. Have you watched the news?

And we as societal groups are still doing things that are reprehensible, even by our low standards. We butcher our babies before they are born, torture prisoners in inhumane ways, inject our bodies with mind numbing drugs and ways to forget our past, ignore and exploit the poor and needy, look out for our common good over that of others, in as far as we can determine what "good" is.

PAM: "The coming of democratic forms of government made it possible to write laws against such things in spite of the powerful few."

You have political grid-lock in your country. They can't agree on what is good for your country. The "powerful few" are the gatekeepers of society. They rule what "is" or what "should" be. And it depends on what your leader believes as to what the rules are. That is the case throughout history. It is only through God that any fixed, unchanging, right standard and measure can be applied, and we are too busy suppressing the truth of God to allow His standard of goodness to work. You'll never get peace on earth until God brings peace to the earth, because there are too many who make the rules.

Hi again Pam (August 26, 2009 6:07 PM),

PH: [Answering my statement that morality, as a product of the human brain, is variable from society to society, and it does evolve.] "So, if a persons brain functions differently from yours and they so decree that you are not worthy of living and they will take great pleasure in making your remaining days on earth pure pain, cause they like the joy of creating pain in others, you have no objections? It's just something their brain is doing."

PAM: "No, Peter. How you do twist things! I’m speaking of the zeitgeist – the collective consciousness, if you will - the consensus of many brains."

But if it is just one group or culture deciding for itself without any reference to a fixed standard who makes it right? It it just so because they say it is so? And why do these standards change. Surely we know innately that murdering the unborn human being is wrong?

PAM: "Believe it or not, most people know the difference between right and wrong, even those who choose not to abide by it (generally for reasons of personal power or monetary gain)."

That is because we are created in the image and likeness of God, but we suppress that truth (Romans 1:18).

PAM: "It is refined by the teachings of parents and other authority figures, but most is innate, put there by evolutionary pressures upon social animals. The “golden rule” is built in, and begins to work as soon as we are able to recognize that others have the same capacity to feel pain and pleasure as do we."

Why are parents and authority figures necessarily right in their understanding? How do you know that evolutionary pressure will not turn the majority into a tribe of New Guinea headhunters who see someone else's pain as their gain? Looking back through history and into the current age and I can point to many examples of cultures and groups that do not think the same way that you do. How do you know that they are not the most advanced mutations on the planet today and will one day replace your outdated views? By your standards you wouldn't until their views were the most commonly held. Then you would be the aberration. If radical Islam takes off then anyone who does not conform to Allah will be removed as opposition to the will of Allah. Many, many dictators and tyrants have tried to change the course of human history to their way of thinking. How do you know that will not happen again?

WALTER: "(though based on the description of creation given in genesis, it's almost certainly not yahweh.)"

That is a basic foundational presupposition of yours, not mine. As I have said, God is necessary for us to know anything with certainty, and by God I mean the God of the Bible, not the Koran or a pagan god.

WALTER: "if it helps, maybe you can think of it in terms of scientists are now trying to figure out how god did it 14,500,000,000 years ago."

God has told us how He has done it, in six days. Nothing is impossible or too difficult for Him. If you want the Biblical argument of why six days is the correct interpretation I am well versed on it.

WALTER: "a logical problem with supposing it was (your) god is that you are jumping from "scientists don't know" to "(my) god did it". this is the essence on (un)"intelligent design". michael behe goes from "i can't figure out how flagella evolved" to "god did it". it's the god of the (now molecule-sized) gaps. this is a dangerous place to put your god because the gaps keep getting smaller."

I'm sorry, I don't follow your whole argument, but I'll comment on what I do.

For the last two to three hundred years people have approached the question of origins and how life emerged from an humanistic, evolutionary, secular standpoint enlarge. Now that we are learning more about the micro as well as the macro world and universe people are starting to question the prized and well guarded theory of evolution and looking
biblically at the facts. So we don't have everything figured out and never will, but only from an objective, ultimate perspective can we be sure we are on the right track. It is the problem with human reasoning of "he said, she said." Who do you trust? Whoever it is, if they don't think God's thoughts after Him, eventually it is going to be proved wrong.

A lot of the foundations that evolution is built on are again starting to be questioned. Darwin led us down the evolutionary garden path for two hundred and fifty years. Finally we, as Christian, are mounting an attack on a lot of his faulty conclusions, one such is Uniformitarianism. Steven J. Gould even says that evolution did not happen that way but by punctuated equilibrium.

Biblical catastrophism explains very well why we have millions of fossils buried in rock layers throughout the world - the Flood.

WALTER: "new evidence could turn up tomorrow that throws that figure out the window, but that's the way it goes."

That is exactly my point. No one knows. What makes you think they have it "right" now?

WALTER: "re: supernatural origin of the universe:
no credible scientist claims to know what caused the big bang. they all acknowledge that i's speculation at this point."

Exactly, they have no plausible answers, just conjecture it came into being this way. And the point I was making with Pam was that origins and evolutions are tied together. From the one, the Big Bang, evolutionary scientists believe the other, simple life forms graduating into more complex life forms, emerged.

WALTER: "i know that's troubling for "absolutists", but again, that's how science works."

No science works on more than one level. There are the things that can be empirically observed and verified and the things that cannot. Origin of the universe and life are in the second category. So, as I said to Pam, it takes faith to believe in. You have not seen it happen, so you must believe, trust, depend that your theory adequately accounts for these origins.

Faith - 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

WALTER: "according to current theory, it is impossible to know what happened "before" the big bang, so it COULD have been caused by god."

It is only possible to know what happen if God revealed what happened. That is the Christian contention. We can know with certainty only because an omniscient, omnipotent, unchanging, eternal Being who is God has told us, and that in writing.

Hi Walter,

Do you want harsh and snarky?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9eBmmZ7sK4&feature=PlayList&p=29A798396AD739CB&index=15

WALTER: "re: credibility of biblical authors:
what makes you think they are any more credible than witnesses for zoroastrianism, baalism, mormonism, "elvisism" etc, etc, etc..?"

Because of the internal (Bible) and external (other historical sources) evidences and because of the witness of God's Spirit in my life, answer to prayer and growing in a deeper relationship with Him through Jesus Christ.

WALTER: "re: age of earth:
no credible scientist claims the earth is 13-19,000,000,000 years old. they say that about the universe (though 12.5-14.5 billion is generally the range, but what's a few billion anyway!) these are NOT the ages scientists WANTED to find. infact, most scientists historically have assumed the bible was more or less right. EVIDENCE has lately (last 200 yrs or so)led them to this incredibly huge figure. there's no apriori allegiance to 14,500,000,000 years - it's just where the evidence has led."

The evidence as looked through a certain framework. As you say the dates fluctuate. And who do you see as credible, those scientists who subscribe to your framework? The evidence leads to all kinds of speculation.

Hi Walter, Pam (and Onofrio if you are still around?),

Hope this works. You realize that this could go on for ages. I remember a Sam Harris forum in which we went on for over 2000 posts.

Pam, I must say that you and Onofrio in particular are very articulate! I haven't had many dealings with Walter yet. However, as with any world view it is built, piece by piece on basic presuppositions. Is this something that you agree upon? We don't learn from a vacuum.

You come from the current scientific view point whereas I come from a biblical, philosophical view point. You look for your answers in how you perceive the world to be through your study and training in science and the humanities. I look for my answers first from the perspective of God and then relate that to the sciences and humanities. Obviously you are much more in tune with the current fades of science.

But the point I want to make (finally) is that for every piece of evidence that you say points to a certain conclusion (well, as certain as your world view ever allows), I can find an expert that believes the facts of the matter points to exactly the opposite conclusion.

Since you have so much invested in your framework you are going to make it fit your conclusion, believing that all the evidence does point to that conclusion. It is your bias. You are not neutral.

Since you are the scientist and I am not I'll let others refute your examples, point by point by providing the link. In that way I don't confuse what they are saying to you. That will take time first finding the examples to counter your examples and then countering the examples that you counter. Is that the road you want to go down?

What you call "Natural Selection" I call "God Selection", the ability of created kinds to spread throughout this corrupted world into the different geographical and ecological zones and adapt to them, because God designed that ability into them. That does not mean that they change over time from one kind to another. That is a fundamental difference in the way we look upon them.

"So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing....according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind...God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds...Then God said, 'Let Us make man in our image and likeness, and let them rule over the fish...birds...livestock, over all the creatures that move along the ground.'" (Genesis 1:21, 24-26)

And that is what you witness today, man ruling over these other creatures God made. It is consistent with the way the Bible relates it to be.

pam,
while we're waiting for peter, have you heard of "thunderf00t" on youtube? he's relevant to our discussion, but kind of harsh and snarky. i find him funny as heck. the accent makes him sound so smart, too. try this, if interested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY&feature=related

Test

(I think) the point that the STD blogger was trying to make is that the Obama health care plan doesn't take personal choice and responsibility for one's health into account.

It's beyond obvious that some people take better care of their heath than others, but the Obama plan charges the same rates for vegetarian gym rats as for overweight alcoholic smokers. Conservatives, on the other hand, are very keen not to incentive-ize bad behavior. Unfortunately, by choosing STD's as his example, the blogger in question chose a behavior that conservatives like to attack regardless of the health consequences of it.

If everyone practiced healthy habits regardless of the availability of treatment, that would be fine. But you can't provide benefit without SOME people making those benefits part of their lifestyle.

Hi Susan,

Please would you open the Health Care forum up again. I would like to continue posting to Onofrio, Pamsm, Walter and Justacomment.

SJ,

Thanks for the facts. However, I am a little disappointed because it is really enjoyable to read lengthy threads with posters gratuitously displaying their so-called knowledge while being totally unaware of their lack thereof.

Athena,

Denying that you or SJ were attacking straw men, but then failing to address the specific reasons I gave for concluding that you both were doing it, does not help persuade anyone that you understood the concept from the beginning. But we take your word for it.

On to the rest of your post:

"Obviously, the way to avoid getting an STD is to avoid those particular behaviors." - Agreed.

"However, in the real world where most of us live, stuff happens." - Agreed, but not sure that that militates in favor of any particular response or solution. Different stuff happens for different reasons.

"This is why people who are sexually active, and have had multiple partners within a certain number of years should be tested for STDs." - Agreed that it is in their interests to undergo such tests.

"And that blogger was argueing that his tax money should not have to pay for those tests, or that treatment, because he disapproves of sex outside of marriage." - Disagree that that is what he wrote. He did object to publicly funded coverage of what he termed "self-inflicted" STDs (a term I hope, after much discussion, we now all understand). However, that logically does not apply to tests, because only after an STD is diagnosed can one form an opinion about whether it falls into the category CCNL1 wants to exclude from treatment. Also, I think you'll find that he did not offer his disapproval of pre-marital sex as grounds for that outcome - that's your own gloss.

"Although, if this blogger has health insurance, his premiums are paying for the treatment of STDs whether he knows it or not." - Agreed, though that observation doesn't seem especially relevant to the question of whether or to what extent taxes should pay for the treatment of STD infections in which the infectee's negligence or recklessness played a part.

BTW, you don't have to define "attacking a straw man". Some of us are educated people and know what it means without looking it up on Wikipedia (which my grad school professors informed us was an unacceptable source, except for the references).

Obviously, the way to avoid getting an STD is to avoid those particular behaviors. However, in the real world where most of us live, stuff happens. This is why people who are sexually active, and have had multiple partners within a certain number of years should be tested for STDs. And that blogger was argueing that his tax money should not have to pay for those tests, or that treatment, because he disapproves of sex outside of marriage. Although, if this blogger has health insurance, his premiums are paying for the treatment of STDs whether he knows it or not.

Test.

Athena4,

In the thread to which SJ is responding, I did not see where that "certain blogger" assert the contrary of what SJ is asserting above. Perhaps I missed it - that's certainly possible. But unless someone can point out where the blogger asserted a proposition refuted by SJ's post, I have to assume that SJ is attacking straw men, because that's what it means to attack a straw man - per Wikipedia, "to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the 'straw man'), and refuting it, without ever having refuted the original position."

Come to think of it, you're doing basically the same thing: you say "Even reducing the number of sexual partners, avoiding casual encounters, using condoms, and delaying sex until maturity don't always stop STDs." Well, sure - no one said they always stop STDs. What I said was that they can significantly improve an individual's STD risk profile (thereby protecting one more effectively, I would argue, than getting oneself screened regularly, which is prudent but hardly the "best way" - pace SJ - of protecting oneself from STD infection).

For the reasons I gave in the other thread, there is most assuredly such a thing as a "self-inflicted STD" (as that other blogger termed it), properly understood. One ought to adopt a reasonable interpretation of that phrase, rather than one such as "an STD you contract without any other person being involved". That's just silly. Think "contributory negligence" or "assumption of the risk" instead. If I negligently or recklessly engage in dangerous conduct and am injured as a result, most people understand what it means to describe those injuries as self-inflicted.

No, she's not knocking down straw men. She's knocking a certain blogger who comes on and spews his moral pronouncements at the rest of us, while showing how ignorant he really is.

Even reducing the number of sexual partners, avoiding casual encounters, using condoms, and delaying sex until maturity don't always stop STDs. Condoms can break. Partners can lie. Women (and men) can be raped, etc. There is no such thing as a "self-inflicted STD" - you can't get it from sitting on a public toilet seat (no matter what your Mom told you when you were growing up). And any other way that I can think of to give oneself an STD is outside the realm of a family site.

Susan, thank you for taking on this particular idiot. It's about time one of the discussion leaders smacked him down.

Did anyone in the thread actually assert that the only people who contract venereal diseases are those who engage in obvious risky behavior, or that STDs always manifest symptoms? Or are you knocking down a series of straw men here?

By "protecting oneself against STDs", I expect that most of us principally have in mind reducing one's own likelihood of actually contracting an STD – in which case it's a little counterintuitive to suggest that getting oneself screened regularly is among the best ways to go about it, since a screening will only reveal (ideally) whether or not one has already been infected.

Of course, if by "protecting oneself" you mean putting oneself in a position to mitigate the effects of one's infection (either on oneself or others), then obviously STD screenings are a very good step toward doing this. But that is basically palliative rather than preventative for the testee (although it is true that one STD, especially if untreated, can be a risk factor for another).

There is no question that the most effective way of protecting oneself against STDs is to reduce or avoid behaviors that are major risk factors for infection. That does not mean the false choice you proposed ("unless you and your only sexual partner were virgins when you met"). Reducing the number of sexual partners, avoiding casual encounters, delaying the age of sexual onset, avoiding drug/alcohol abuse – these are examples of things that can significantly improve an individual's STD risk profile.