Reflectorites
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 09:51:48 -0600, Susan Brassfield Cogan wrote:
[...]
>>SC>An entity that would condemn someone to eternal torture
>SJ>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!
SC>you are really stretching for this one :-)
Ouch! :-) But no.
>SJ>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".
SC>the NIV is, according to a Christian friend of mine, one of the most
>dishonest translations of the bible. Many of its passages have been
>completely rewritten and do not reflect the original. I have no personal
>knowledge of this, but that's what he said.
This would support my point. I also have no personal knowledge of
this, but I doubt it. Something like this has been said of every major new
translation that I can recall. Translating is not just literally reproducing the
words, but trying to express what the original *thought* was in its modern
day equivalent. This might *seem* like dishonesty to some who think that
translating should be *transliterating*.
SC>my answer is "so what?" burning forever in hellfire is torture.
Not if the torment is *self*-inflicted. Not if it will be finally getting what
one has wanted all along -freedom from God:
"I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful,
rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the *inside*.
... They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded,
and are therefore self-enslaved .... In the long run the answer to all
those who object to he doctrine of hell, is itself a question: what are
you asking God to do?" To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs,
to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering
every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive
them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am
afraid that is what He does." (Lewis C.S., "The Problem of Pain,"
1977, p.101. Emphasis in original)
>SJ>If any unbeliever wants to know how they can become a Christian, please
>>email me privately.
SC>I'm sure you have been deluged with replies.
No. Not *one* reply! But the invitation is still there.
>>>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:
>>SC>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?
>SJ>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"?
SC>this is from a philosophy of religion site:
>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
>
>"Wagering for God superdominates wagering against God: the worst outcome
>associated with wagering for God (status quo) is at least as good as the
>best outcome associated with wagering against God (status quo); and if God
>exists, the result of wagering for God is strictly better that the result
>of wagering against God. (The fact that the result is much better does not
>matter yet.) Pascal draws the conclusion at this point that rationality
>requires you to wager for God. "
Where does this "recommend ... lying about belief in God just to appease
God"?
>>>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)
>>SC>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.
>SJ>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*.
SC>I don't think Christianity is any different from any of the many hundreds
>(perhaps thousands) of religions that humans have involved themselves in. I
>think my point above was that the evidence for the reality of the Hindu
>gods isn't any more compelling that the evidence for the reality of the
>Christian gods.
How does Susan know? Has she personally studied "the evidence for the
reality of the Hindu gods" and "the evidence for the reality of the Christian"
God?
>>>>>ideas-called neo- Darwinism-seems inadequate in many respects."
>>>>(Leith B., "The Descent of Darwin..." 1982, p.10)
>>SC>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. . . .
That's funny because I just did a search on AltaVista for the words "Leith"
AND "Descent of Darwin" AND "inadequate in many respects" and it did
not turn up *one* site where this was quoted. It isn't yet on my own site
BTW.
>SJ>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!
Thanks to Susan for these URLs below, which apart from one of them (see
below) I didn't know about. I have checked them out (see below) but they
seem pretty limited.
SC>http://www.creationists.org/quote005.html
Seems pretty limited. It has a search engine which did not turn up anything
by Leith.
SC>http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/philoevolquotes.htm
Most of these quotes are copies from my pages. I know the young author
Casey Luskin and I approve of him using them.
SC>http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/chapter9/index3.htm
Again fairly limited from what I could see.
SC>http://www.wealth4freedom.com/biggestLIE.html
Only about a page of quotes from what I could see. Has a Leith quote but
from page 11.
The author claims that: "As owner of this domain I reject the theory of
evolution. I also reject what is being taught in the church, so do not think I
am a bible thumper, I am far from it."
SC>http://www.biblegems.org/additional_resources.html
Again only about a page of quotes and a Leith quote from page 11.
SC>http://users.erols.com/csoon/evonev.html
Again only about a page of quotes. The author says "The source of most of
the material on this page will be W.R. Bird's excellent book, The Origin of
Species Revisited." Has Leith quotes from pages 10 and 11.
SC>http://members.aol.com/txchurch/sound/t0202.htm
Once more only a page of quotes. Has a Leith quote from pages 10-11.
>SJ>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.
SC>and out of the entire book you started your quote at exactly the same point
>that all the other creationists did. An *amazing* coincidence!
I still haven't found where "all the other creationists" are who quoted *exactly* the
same passage I did, which they would have to do if I copied them. But assuming
they do exist, I can't answer for them. I presume they may have got the quote from
Bird's "Origin of Species Revisited", Vol. 1, pp.3-4, which has the start and
most of the quote that I posted from Leith.
While my quote from Leith started at the same place as Bird: "It is
therefore of immediate concern to both biologist and layman that Darwinism is
under attack", I included words (in square brackets) that Bird had ommitted
with elipses: "With a growth in the appreciation of the philosophy of science
[-largely due to the influence of the philosopher Karl Popper-] has come a doubt
about whether Darwinism is, strictly speaking, scientific."
I have not scanned Bird, Vol. 1, pp.3-4, and if I did I would have cited
Bird as the secondary source. For me, it seemed a logical place to start and
finish the quote.
>>SC>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.
>SJ>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:
SJ>thank you! No, I didn't believe that you had a copy of it.
Why does Susan need to believe that I am a liar? Is her position so shaky it
can't stand on its own but must depend on liquidating any opposition?
Leith's book is listed on my books G-L page:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.iinet.net.au~sejones/cebooksg.html
[...]
Leith B., "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism,"
Collins: London, 1982.
[...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the books listed in these 4 pages I *own* and have immediately on hand. I
actually own more books which I have not listed yet. I also own a lot of
theological books which I have no plans to list, since they do not all deal with
creation/evolution issues, or only marginally.
BTW to prove I own and have on hand every book on my lists, I am happy to
at any time to answer a test question of any book I have listed (e.g. what
is the first line on page 99? etc). The catalogue of all books in our State
public library system is at http://www.liswa.wa.gov.au/ so a book that is
not on it can be picked. Leith's book is not on that catalogue.
>SJ> 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)
SC>BTW, in "Finding Darwin's God" Miller does a job on the people who think
>evolution explains *everything*. I think it explains the wide ranging
>flexibility of human behavior but not the details of that behavior.
I haven't got that book yet. But the title sounds misleading. Darwin didn't
have a God:
"I suspect that most of Miller's materialist colleagues ... may also
wonder what Miller could possibly mean by his quest to "find
Darwin's God," when it is so widely known in the scholarly world
(and even to Miller himself) that Darwin in his later years was an
agnostic... In his biology textbook Miller makes the preposterous
claim that Darwin "remained a devout Christian all his life" ... On
the contrary, Darwin was never more than a lukewarm believer, and
by the time of his death described himself as an agnostic." (Johnson
P.E., "The Wedge of Truth, 2000, pp.91,182n).
>>>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?).
>SJ>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:
SC>Ah! my mistake!
Whew! That's a relief. :-)
SC>When I begin a history of Unitarianism I always ask my audience "ever
>wonder what happened to the Pilgrims?" I answer the question by telling
>them that they evolved into the Congregationalists who then evolved into
>several denominations including the Unitarians.
That might be true of the USA but Unitarianism goes back further than
that, to at least the 16th century:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/9/0,5716,117349+5+109455,00.html
[...]
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
Unitarianism and Universalism
Transylvanian Unitarianism
Blandrata encouraged Ferenc David (1510-79), a Transylvanian theologian,
to deliver anti-Trinitarian sermons. Study at Wittenberg had led David to
convert from Roman Catholicism to Lutheranism. As superintendent of
Transylvanian Lutheran churches David had engaged in debates with Peter
Melius, leader of the Transylvanian Reformed Church, with the result that
David had joined the Reformed Church, of which he soon became
superintendent. Cooperation between David and Blandrata led to the
publication of two Unitarian books, De falsa et vera unius Dei Patris (1567;
"On the False and True Unity of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit")
and De regno Christi . . . (1569; "On the Reign of Christ"), which showed
the influences of Servetus and Laelius Socinus.
[...]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darwin himself came from a long line of Unitarians on his mother's
(Wedgewood) side.
SC>The Pilgrims came here to escape religious oppression. Then, in fine
>Christian style, they turned around and oppressed anyone who disagreed with
>them.
That is regrettable. But does Susan think that Christians have a monopoly
on oppression? What about the atheists in Russia, China, Cambodia, and
Nazi Germany-in this century?
SC>The Founding "Fathers" tried to make sure that it couldn't happen again.
And now that Susan's crowd are in charge, it *is* happening again!
But that is the nature of oppression. Those doing it don't think of it as
oppression. They think of it as `ensuring that the truth triumphs', etc.
>SJ>Jefferson, Thomas ...
>>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), ...
>>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>I am extremely familiar with Jefferson. He once said in a letter to a
>friend that he would be a Unitarian if there were any Unitarian churches in
>his neighborhood. Also he said he believed that all young men of his day
>would grow up to become Unitarians. He obviously was not a candidate for
>the Psychic Hotline and was not actually a Unitarian, but we claim him
>anyway. *And* we are well aware of his human failings. I, myself, try not
>to judge historical people by modern standards.
Says Susan just after having judged the Pilgrim Fathers and indeed all
Christians ("Then, in fine Christian style ...")!
But then that's *different*. The people who agree with Susan are OK. They
wouldn't oppress anyone. Only those nasty Christians - but they *deserve*
to be oppressed!
>>SC>And they had seen the horror of what could happen when
>>>Christians had control of the government.
>SJ>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>Hitler considered himself a Christian. But ignore that. He looks good on
>the list.
Note that Susan ignores "Communist Russia, China, Cambodia" and tries
the old red-herring about Hitler being a Christian.
The fact is that Hitler was *not* a Christian, although he was baptised a
Catholic as an infant and the pro-Nazi Pope Pius XII never
excommunicated him. Here are some quote from a biography of Hitler by a
leading historian, Allan Bullock, which show that: a) Hitler was not a
Christian; and b) in fact he was a scientific materialist and evolutionist:
"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light, and serene
was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and
Christianity." (Bullock A., "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny," 1964,
p.672)
and
"In Hitler's eyes Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he
detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a
rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the
survival of the fittest. ... The truth is that, in matters of religion at
least, Hitler was a rationalist and a materialist. `The dogma of
Christianity,' he declared in one of his wartime conversations, `gets
worn away before the advances of science.... Gradually the myths
crumble. All that is left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier
between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the
universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know
that the stars are not sources of light, but worlds, perhaps inhabited
worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of
absurdity.... The man who lives in communion with nature
necessarily finds himself in opposition to the Churches, and that's
why they're heading for ruin for science is bound to win." (Bullock
A., "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny," 1964, pp.389-390)
>>SC>They wrote the 1st Amendment very deliberately.
>SJ>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:
SC>the "public life" thing is propaganda and is a lie. No body has ever tried
>to ban religion in public life. What is banned is religion in government
>institutions where citizens are *compelled* to participate in Christian
>religious life. That includes prayer in school, prayer before
>school-sponsored events, and of course, creationism in science classes.
That sounds like banning it in public life! I agree that citizens should not be
"compelled to participate in Christian religious life" but I can't understand
why a compromise can't be reached.
Here in Australia non-Christian school Principals are *asking* for Christian
chaplains to come back into their schools. I know this for a fact because
one of the chaplains goes to our church and the Principal of the school in
question is a well-known homosexual who was recently a President of the
State School Teachers Union! Even he can see the value of Christian
pastoral care to today's youth who have been taught by Darwinism that
they are the accidental offspring of a blind, impersonal, mechanical process.
In the USA this could not happen even if most people wanted it to happen.
This is straight out oppression by those on Susan's side riding roughshod
by force over the wishes of the majority. Even on " creationism in science
classes" polls show that most people want *both* to be taught in schools.
Of course Susan does not *see* it as oppression. Those doing the
oppression never do.
SC>If Christianity is so powerful and true it doesn't *need* the force of
>>government behind it.
Actually it doesn't. Oppression can be good for the church.
But then what about Susan's position? Why does it "*need* the force of
government behind it" if it is "so powerful and true"?
>>SC>It's [teaching religion in science class] the consuming passion of most
>>creationists.
>SJ>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>nope! we just want science taught in science class--not religion.
I didn't say anything about "science class". Would Susan accept of
"scientific naturalism and theism" that "both positions should be admitted
to public discussion, in the schools [not "in science class"] and elsewhere,
and protected from `viewpoint discrimination'"?
>>SC>What do you think all those Supreme Court decisions were about?
>SJ>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.
SC>the states cannot pass a law that contradicts the federal constitution. Nor
>can they engage in behavior that violates the constitution.
That is not what the Constitution says. It says that "Congress shall make no
law ...". I repeat that "in none of those cases AFAIK had *Congress* made
any law." It seems to me that what has happened is that Susan's crowd
have *usurped* the Constitution. This seems to this outsider as straight-out
judicial oppression worthy of a banana republic.
One day hopefully the people will wake up that they were better off when
Christian teaching was allowed in schools and Christianity was the
unofficial State religion rather than scientific naturalism.
>>SC>Most of the "problems" that Johnson cites are phony.
>SJ>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).
SC>bullshit. High schools science classes are NOT debate societies. If there
>are "problems" they can and are debated in the open by *adults* without the
>force of government behind them. What ever mainstream scientists say is
>scientific fact needs to be taught in school classrooms.
See above. I have not mentioned "science classes"!
SC>The fringies can debate the mainstream somewhere else.
The "fringies" far outnumber the "mainstream" in this case. The vast
majority of the *general public* (i.e. not just the Christians) in the USA
believe that God had something to do with creating. Only a small minority
agree with Susan's position.
Would Susan accept the "someplace else" to be in the public schools but
not in "science classes"?
SC>And there is more and more of a
>movement among scientists to take on the creationist and debate them in
>public forums--a movement which I applaud.
So do I. So does the ID movement.
SC>Because it would get the *real*
>evolution out there and not the false creationist version which is almost
>all that the poorly educated public knows about.
Great! But the evolutionists have had a monopoly on teaching "*real*
evolution" for over 40 years and the creationist have lost every court battle
and have been almost completely marginalised. So why does the public
only know what Susan calls "the false creationist version" of evolution?
Either evolutionists are poor teachers, or more likely the theory depends
crucially on one holding a prior materialist-naturalist philosophical position,
which the majority of the public don't share.
How is this "*real* evolution" going to be different from the `unreal'
evolution that evolutionists have been teaching these last 40+ years? Maybe
without the fraudulent `icons' of evolution like the Peppered Moths glued
on tree trunks where they never rest naturally, and Haeckel's forged
woodcuts exaggerating similarities between animal and human embryos?
Maybe acknowledging the many problems of evolution and laying bare its
underlying materialistic and naturalistic philosophical assumptions? That
kind of "*real* evolution" would be very interesting to see taught and it is
in fact what the ID movement is calling for to be taught!
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So Darwin's assumption that the tree of life is a consequence of the
gradual accumulation of small hereditary differences appears to be without
significant support. Some other process is responsible for the emergent
properties of life, those distinctive features that separate one group of
organisms from another, such as fishes and amphibians, worms and insects,
horsetails and grasses." (Goodwin B., "How The Leopard Changed Its
Spots: The Evolution of Complexity," [1994], Phoenix: London, 1995,
reprint, p.x)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Nov 26 2000 - 16:59:00 EST