Reflectorites
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:18:44 -0600, Susan Brassfield Cogan wrote:
>SJ>I am trying to wind down this thread too. This will be my last post on
>>it unless Susan comes up with anything new.
SB>In that case I'll trim my replies to just a few things.
Susan has raised some things that I feel I have to answer!
[...]
SB>An entity that would condemn someone to eternal torture
The Bible in the original doesn't use the word "torture" of unbelievers. The
word for "torture" [Gk. tumpanizo - to stretch on an instrument of torture
resembling a drum, and thus beat to death:--torture] only appears in the
Bible in Heb 11:35 where it is *believers* who have been tortured by
unbelievers!
The NIV translation of the Bible does translate another word as "torture"
but only once of unbelievers and that is in a parable (Mt 8:29), and is
IMHO a mistranslation. That word is Gk. basanizo which can mean
"torture" but primarily means "torment".
The difference between the two words is that torture is inflicted by others
but torment can be self-inflicted. At least that is the meaning of torment in
hell:
"Nowhere does the Bible describe it as a "torture chamber" where
people are forced against their will to be tortured. This is a
caricature created by unbelievers to justify their reaction that the
God who sends people to hell is cruel. This does not mean that hell
is not a place of torment. Jesus said it was (Luke 16:24). But unlike
torture which is inflicted from without against one's will torment is
self-inflicted. Even atheists (see SARTRE; ATHEISM) have
suggested that the door of hell is locked from the inside. We are
condemned to our own freedom from God. Heaven's presence of
the divine would be the torture to one who has irretrievably
rejected him Torment is living with the consequences of' our own
bad choices. It is the weeping and gnashing of teeth that results
from the realization that we blew it and deserve the consequences.
Just as a football player may pound on the ground in agony after
missing a play that loses the Super Bowl, so those in hell know that
the pain they suffer is self- induced." (Geisler N.L., "Baker
Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," 1999, p.312)
SB>for mere unbelief
The point is that "unbelief" is not "mere" from God's perspective:
"UNBELIEF. Expressed by two Greek words in the New
Testament, apistia and apeitheia. According to MM [Moulton &
Milligan], the word apeitheia, together with apeitheo and apeithes,
'connotes invariably disobedience, rebellion, contumacy'. so Paul
says that the Gentiles have obtained mercy through the rebellion of
the Jews (Rom. xi. 30). See also Rom. xi. 32; Heb. iv. 6, 11. This
disobedience springs from apistia, 'a want of faith and trust'. Apistia
is a state of mind, and apeitheia an expression of it. Unbelief
towards Himself was the prime sin of which Christ said that the
Spirit would convict the world (Jn. xvi. 9). Unbelief in all its forms
is a direct affront to the divine veracity (cf. 1 Jn. v. 10), which is
why it is so heinous a sin. The children of Israel did not enter into
God's rest for two reasons. They lacked faith (apistia, Heb. iii. 19),
and they disobeyed (apeitheia, Heb. iv. 6). 'Unbelief finds its
practical issue in disobedience' (Westcott on Heb. iii. 12). (Swann
D.O., "Unbelief," in Douglas J.D., et al., eds., "The New Bible
Dictionary," 1967, p.1304)
SB>isn't worth worship.
Susan's faulty assumption here is that God has a choice not to punish
unbelievers eternally:
"The fact that hell, as often understood, seems to be incompatible
with God's love, as revealed in Scripture, may be an indication that
we have misunderstood hell. We should note, first, that whenever
we sin, an infinite factor is invariably involved. All sin is an offense
against God, the raising of a finite will against the will of an infinite
being. It is failure to carry out one's obligation to him to whom
everything is due. Consequently, one cannot consider sin to be
merely a finite act deserving finite punishment. Further, if God is to
accomplish his goals in this world, he may not have been free to
make man unsusceptible to endless punishment. God's omnipotence
does not mean that he is capable of every conceivable action. He is
not capable of doing the logically contradictory or absurd, for
example. He cannot make a triangle with four corners. And it may
well be that those creatures that God intended to live forever in
fellowship with him had to be fashioned in such a way that they
would experience eternal anguish if they chose to live apart from
their Maker." (Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology," 1988, p.1239)
In the end, Hell is just God leaving unbelievers in the state that they are
now in and want, i.e. to be left alone by God:
"We should also observe that God does not send anyone to hell. He
desires that none should perish (2 Peter 3:9). God created man to
have fellowship with him and provided the means by which man can
have that fellowship. It is man's choice to experience the agony of
hell. His sin sends him there, and his rejection of the benefits of
Christ's death prevents his escaping. As C.S. Lewis has put it, sin is
man's saying to God throughout life, "Go away and leave me
alone." Hell is God's finally saying to man, "You may have your
wish." It is God's leaving man to himself, as man has chosen. "
(Erickson M.J., 1988, p.1240)
So in a sense unbelievers *already are* in Hell and the "torture" of Hell is
*self*-inflicted:
"The principle here seems to be, the greater our knowledge, the
greater is our responsibility, and the greater will be our punishment
if we fail in our responsibility It may well be that the different
degrees of punishment in hell are not so much a matter of objective
circumstances as of subjective awareness of the pain of separation
from God. .... To some extent, the different degrees of punishment
reflect the fact that hell is God's leaving sinful man with the
particular character that he fashioned for himself in this life. The
misery one will experience from having to live with one's wicked
self eternally will be proportionate to his degree of awareness of
precisely what he was doing when he chose evil." (Erickson M.J.,
1988, p.1240).
But there is no need for any unbeliever to remain in Hell (now and in the
future). God has, at great cost to Himself, made it possible for man to avoid
Hell (now and in the future) and experience Heaven (now and in the future)
by simply believing in His Son, Jesus Christ:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,
that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world,
but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not
condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned
already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and
only Son." (John 3:16-18)
If any unbeliever wants to know how they can become a Christian, please
email me privately.
Note that this invitation is only for those who want to become Christians,
not for those who want to have a private debate about becoming a Christian.
If anyone wants to debate becoming a Christian they can do that publicly.
>>SB> afraid it
>>>would take a similar level of evidence for me to admit the same thing.
>SJ>The problem is not "evidence" but *attitude* to the "evidence". As Pascal
>>pointed out there is enough evidence for those who are willing to accept it,
>>but not enough evidence to force those who are unwilling to accept it:
SB>Isn't he the guy who recommended lying about belief in God just to appease
>God just in case he existed so you wouldn't go to hell?
I am not aware of it, but if he did, he would be wrong on that point.
Perhaps Susan can post where exactly it is that Pascal "recommended lying
about belief in God just to appease God"?
SB>And it would work,
>too, except you would be a life-long liar--lying to an omniscient being, no
>less, who has habit of burning people in Hell forever for lying.
Agreed it wouldn't work. The Bible says that God knows our innermost
thoughts, so lying wouldn't fool Him. That is why I doubt that Pascal
said that.
>SJ>"There is enough light to enlighten the elect and enough obscurity to
>>humiliate them. There is enough obscurity to blind the reprobate
>>and enough light to condemn them and deprive them of excuse."
>>(Pascal B., "Pensees," 1966, p.73)
SB>exactly the same thing could be said about Hinduism or any of the other
>hundreds of human religions. All of them have "evidence" that the Sky
>Lizard really, truly (no *really*) exists.
Well Susan clearly agrees with me that in the case of "Hinduism or any of
the other hundreds of human religions" that they are based on *false*
"evidence" otherwise she would believe one of them! So the only thing we
need to concern ourselves with is what we both disagree on, namely the
"evidence" for *Christianity*.
>>SB>Darwinism:
>>>The evidence supporting it is overwhelming. I'll probably believe it
>>>until the Theory of Gravity is proved untrue and things start
>>>floating up off the ground.
>SJ>Even some biologists don't find "The evidence supporting it is
>>overwhelming":
>>
>>"...From within biology the doubts have come from
>>scientists in half a dozen separate fields. Many palaeontologists are
>>unconvinced by the supposed gradualness of Darwinian evolution;
>>they feel that the evidence points to abrupt change-or else to no
>>change at all. Some geneticists question Darwin's explanation for
>>the 'origin of species', feeling that natural selection may have
>>virtually nothing to do with the events that lead to the appearance
>>of new species. Among other scientists, for example among
>>immunologists, embryologists and taxonomists, the same feeling
>>seems to be growing: there is a lot more to evolution than Charles
>>Darwin envisaged, and even the modern synthesis of evolutionary
>>ideas-called neo- Darwinism-seems inadequate in many respects."
>>(Leith B., "The Descent of Darwin..." 1982, p.10)
SB>Interesting. I did searches with several search engines and found literally
>*dozens* of pages of creationist sites stuffed with the usual out of
>context quotes including this one, but no hint of who this guy is. From
>Amazon.com I got his first name ("B." is all the creationists ever used).
Here is what it says about him:
"Brian Leith is a producer in the Natural History Unit of the BBC in
Bristol. A biology graduate of the University of London, he served
his evolutionary 'apprenticeship' studying variation in the banded
snail, Cepaea, in its European population. He has produced several
documentary programmes for BBC Radios 3 and 4, featuring the
current debates about evolutionary theory, and has an undying
admiration for Darwin, if not for some of his disciples." (Leith B.,
"The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about
Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982, rear inside cover)
SB>Stephen's quote is the longest I could find but every one starts at exactly
>the same point and is attributed in exactly the same way. Since Stephen
>always reads at least portions of the books he quotes,
I am pleased that Susan finally admits that these are my own quotes from
books I have read, and not from one of those mythical quotes sites she is
always talking about but never providing their URLs!
And, as I have stated before, I do not claim to have read from cover to
cover every book I quote from. But in the case of Leith's book I have read
it from beginning to end.
SB>I'd like for Stephen
>to provide us with a few paragraphs above the one presented and a few
>paragraphs below and the title of the Chapter.
Why? Does Susan after all doubt that I own the book? Or does she have a quote
that is does start before my quote? Whatever, Susan's wish is my command! Here
is the entire Chapter up to the words quoted:
"Introduction
No scientific theory arouses so much interest among the non-scientists as
Darwinism. This is hardly surprising; Charles Darwin's simple proposal-that
life has evolved through time by means of natural selection-is bound to
influence a great deal of our day-to-day life. Darwin's theory purports to
explain a staggeringly large part of the world about us: from the delicate
balance of a tropical rain forest, to medical questions about the origins of
disease, to the motivation behind the intricate behaviour patterns of man.
Darwinism is not only an ambitious theory of organic nature-it is virtually a
philosophy of life in itself. What is more, the philosophy implied by
Darwinism, that life may have no 'purpose' in the traditional religious sense,
and that life is ultimately a random process, is certain to provoke attention
or even hostility among the non-biologists.
In this way Darwinism is unique among scientific theories. Because it
attempts to explain not only events in the outside world but also man's
origins and his place in those events, Darwinism straddles the gap between
philosophy and science, between faith and reason, in a way no other
scientific theory does. If we were to discover tomorrow that Copernicus
was wrong, that the sun actually does go round the earth rather than the
reverse, what would happen? Obviously the physicists and astronomers
would have headaches trying to reconcile the discovery with their other
observations, but would it change your life or mined Would we think of
ourselves, or the purpose in our lives, in a different way? Probably not.
Not so with Darwinism. If we were suddenly to discover that life had not
evolved after all, or that it had evolved in a fundamentally non-Darwinian
way, the effect on our lives would be tangible. Not only would the
biologists have to rethink their observations of nature, but theologians,
philosophers and probably even politicians would be forced to look afresh
at man's place in nature. In the one hundred and twenty years or so since
the publication of The Origin of Species Darwinian principles have seeped
into every corner of our 'world-view'. Why does a baby cry? To ensure its
survival. Are all men born equal? No, some are fitter and more competitive
than others. Why is there such a thing as altruism so that the altruist may
ultimately be the benefactor. Like it or not, many of the central issues of
Darwinism are also the central issues of our culture and politics: over-
population, the struggle for existence, the sensible use of resources, and so
on. A theory about man's origins is bound to entail more than
straightforward science.
(Leith B., "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about
Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982, pp.9-10)
>>SB>Christianity:
>>>Christian morality with its Middle Eastern emphasis on blame/shame
>>>and its neurotic dualism will probably always turn me off.
>SJ>Is Susan suggesting that feeling "blame" and "shame" is not *real*? There
>>is a name for those who feel no "blame" or "shame" - psychopaths.
SB>And people who feel illegitimate shame and who must fix blame at all costs
>are . . . neurotic.
Agreed.
SB>It would be just as easy to teach that morality flows
>from compassion (which it does) and that people naturally wish to be good
>(which they do)
Disagree that "people naturally wish to be good." It is *hard* for people to
be "good". That's why there have to be laws to force people to be good.
SB>than to use shame and blame as a way to force morality.
No Christian minister that I have ever encountered in 30+ years of being a
Christian in a variety of evangelical churches, uses "shame and blame as a
way to force morality". In my experience, ministers are sensitive that
people already have a deep sense of "shame and blame" because they have
not lived up to their own standards of "morality". Such ministers are
therefore careful not to make people feel more guilty because guilt itself
does not help them.
What does help people the Bible's message that God loves them and
accepts them as they are, but commands them to "sin no more" (Jn 8:11).
>SJ>The democracy that Susan enjoys in America owes itself to the
>>congregational democracy of its founding *Christian* Pilgrim Fathers.
>
>about 60% of them were Deists, not Christians (have you ever heard of the
>Jefferson Bible?).
Susan needs to learn her US history! :-) She seems to be getting mixed up
with the "Pilgrim Fathers" and the "Founding Fathers". The "Pilgrim
Fathers" were in the early 17th century:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/3/0,5716,61533+1+60020,00.html
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
Pilgrim Fathers
in American colonial history, settlers of Plymouth , Mass., the first
permanent colony in New England (1620). Of the 102 colonists, 35 were
members of the English Separatist Church (a radical faction of Puritanism)
who had earlier fled to Leiden, the Netherlands, to escape persecution at
home. Seeking a more abundant life along with religious freedom, the
Separatists negotiated with a London stock company to finance a
pilgrimage to America. Approximately two-thirds of those making the trip
aboard the Mayflower were non-Separatists, hired to protect the company's
interests; these included John Alden and Myles Standish.
These first settlers, initially referred to as the Old Comers and later as the
Forefathers, did not become known as the Pilgrim Fathers until two
centuries after their arrival. A responsive chord was struck with the
discovery of a manuscript of Gov. William Bradford referring to the
"saints" who had left Holland as "pilgrimes." At a commemorative
bicentennial celebration in 1820, orator Daniel Webster used the phrase
Pilgrim Fathers, and the term became common usage thereafter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
whereas Thomas Jefferson was President in the early 19th century:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/4/0,5716,109554+1+106454,00.html
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
Jefferson, Thomas
[...]
b. April 2 [April 13, New Style], 1743, Shadwell, Va., U.S.
d. July 4, 1826, Monticello, Va.
draftsman of the Declaration of Independence, first secretary of state
(1789-94), second vice president (1797-1801), and, as the third president
of the United States (1801-09), responsible for the Louisiana Purchase. An
early advocate of total separation of church and state, he also was the
founder and architect of the University of Virginia and the most eloquent
American proponent of individual freedom as the core meaning of the
American Revolution.
Long regarded as America's most distinguished "apostle of liberty,"
Jefferson has come under increasingly critical scrutiny within the scholarly
world. At the popular level, both in the United States and abroad, he
remains an incandescent icon, an inspirational symbol for both major U.S.
political parties, as well as for dissenters in communist China, liberal
reformers in central and eastern Europe, and aspiring democrats in Africa
and Latin America. His image within scholarly circles has suffered,
however, as the focus on racial equality has prompted a more negative
reappraisal of his dependence upon slavery and his conviction that
American society remain a white man's domain. The huge gap between his
lyrical expression of liberal ideals and the more attenuated reality of his
own life has transformed Jefferson into America's most problematic and
paradoxical hero.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC>And they had seen the horror of what could happen when
>Christians had control of the government.
Anytime Christianity is mixed with politics the result will be bad. But as I
have pointed out in our own century, atheist governments (e.g. Nazi
Germany, Communist Russia, China, Cambodia, etc) has been *far* worse.
About *100 million* people have been executed by atheist governments in
our own century alone.
SC>They wrote the 1st Amendment very deliberately.
I agree with "the 1st Amendment" that: "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof...."
(http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/2/0,5716,127112+1+116843,00.html)
But I do not agree with the modern interpretations of it which try to ban
any *expression* of religion in public life, and therefore, in effect leaves
naturalism:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/6/0,5716,56426+1+55048,00.html
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
naturalism
in philosophy, a theory that relates scientific method to philosophy by
affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent
character may be) are natural. Consequently, all knowledge of the universe
falls within the pale of scientific investigation. Although naturalism denies
the existence of truly supernatural realities, it makes allowance for the
supernatural, provided that knowledge of it can be had indirectly--that is,
that natural objects be influenced by the so-called supernatural entities in a
detectable way.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
as the defacto religion of America, as Johnson points out:
"The decisive question for First Amendment religious law, then, is
one of metaphysics rather than legal doctrine. Is the Constitution
genuinely neutral between scientific naturalism and theism? In that
case both positions should be admitted to public discussion, in the
schools and elsewhere, and protected from "viewpoint
discrimination. Or is naturalism the established constitutional
philosophy? In that case naturalism will have a monopoly in the
public arena, while theistic dissent will be restricted to private life.
If the latter alternative is taken, then the Supreme Court will in
effect have established a national religion in the name of First
Amendment freedoms." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance,"
1995, pp.33-34)
>>SB>Creationism:
>>>An attempt to use the force of the Federal government to require
>>>teaching the mythology of one of the many religions practiced in the
>>>US in public schools. No thanks!
>SJ>I doubt that any major creationist organisation wants "to use the force of
>>the Federal government to require teaching" of "creationism" (in an overtly
>>Christian Biblical sense) "in the US ... public schools."
SB>You must have missed The Wedge document posted here a while
back.
I didn't miss it as Susan well knows, since I commented on it. But nowhere
does it say that it "wants `to use the force of the Federal government to
require teaching' of `creationism' (in an overtly Christian Biblical sense) `in
the US ... public schools.'"
SB>It's the consuming passion of most creationists.
It is the "consuming passion of most creationists" to have the original
intention of the Constitution that the State should be "genuinely neutral
between scientific naturalism and theism" and that "both positions should
be admitted to public discussion, in the schools and elsewhere, and
protected from `viewpoint discrimination.'"
What Susan (and her ilk) want is for *their* secular religion (i.e.
naturalism) to have an absolute monopoly in the public square.
SB>What do you think all those Supreme Court decisions were about?
They were about a number of things. If they were about "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof...." then few would disagree with them. But in none of
those cases AFAIK had *Congress* made any law. They were IMHO
illegitimate extensions of the First Amendment into matters of State law,
and in fact where there was not even a law at all.
>SJ>The ID Movement's position is to "teach the controversy", i.e what the
>>dissenting views about evolution and its evidentiary problems *actually
>>are*:
SB>I would nave no problem with that if it was not the same tired creationist
>nonsense supported by the standard out of context quotes harvested from
>hither and yon.
Susan is fooling herself if she really believes this.
SB>Most of the "problems" that Johnson cites are phony.
Then they should be able to be answered *properly*. But what happens is that
evolutionists usually resort to "propaganda and legal barriers to prevent relevant
questions from being asked", "rely on enforcing rules of reasoning that allow
no alternative to the official story" and "rely on the dishonorable methods of power
politics." (see tagline).
This indicates that the *evolutionists* arguments are "phony"!
SB>Neither Creationists nor IDists want to teach evolutionary controversies
>like "did birds evolve directly from a dinosaur?" or "Is Homo Habilis
>actually a separate species?"
Neither "Creationists" (even YECs) "nor IDists" would have a problem
with those (or any) of the "evolutionary controversies" being taught.
The point is if "Neither Creationists nor IDists want to teach evolutionary
controversies" why don't the evolutionists take the ID Movement up on its
"position ... to `teach the controversy', i.e what the dissenting views about
evolution and its evidentiary problems *actually are*?
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the final analysis, it is not any specific scientific evidence that convinces
me that Darwinism is a pseudoscience that will collapse once it becomes
possible for critics to get a fair hearing. It is the way the Darwinists argue
their case that makes it apparent that they are afraid to encounter the best
arguments against their theory. A real science does not employ propaganda
and legal barriers to prevent relevant questions from being asked, nor does
it rely on enforcing rules of reasoning that allow no alternative to the
official story. If the Darwinists had a good case to make, they would
welcome the critics to an academic forum for open debate, and they would
want to confront the best critical arguments rather than to caricature them
as straw men. Instead they have chosen to rely on the dishonorable
methods of power politics." (Johnson P.E., "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting
the Foundations of Naturalism," Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove IL.,
2000, p.141)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 16 2000 - 21:45:54 EST