A “gun owner and pastor at a bible believing megachurch” recently posted an article entitled:
You Cannot Be A Christian And Support The NRA
After a bit of research, I can confidently post the following update:
You actually CAN be a Christian and support the NRA!
I’m neither a gun owner OR pastor at a bible believing megachurch BUT
…I do know how to read.
A study of both Old and New Testaments revealed the following:
The Bible doesn’t mention gun ownership or the NRA.
Bible does mention that Christians be on the lookout for puffed-up, grandstanding false teachers.
So in case you stumble across this blog and accidentally read some of it:
You Cannot Be A Christian And Read Brian Jones’ Blog*
If you support his ‘ministry’, you are either ignorant of what his organization is doing to this country, or you have no clue what it means to be an actual Christ follower.*
Brian Jones ministry is easily the most damnable, divisive, ungodly, anti-Christ-like ministry organization in our country. All Christians everywhere must unite to stop its influence.*
As far as I know, NRA members have never been responsible for terrorist shootings.
To be fair…
…neither has Brian Jones.
So they’re equal in that regard.
But the NRA website contains no disparaging remarks about Brian’s ministry.
The NRA isn’t suggesting gun owners boycott Jones’ sermons…
…So I will.
Read a book.
Visit this website.
Turn on Cartoon Network.
Or just pound your head on a desk.
Any of these is a superior alternative to Jones’ sophomoric rants.
“But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers… 2 Peter 2”
——–
*This is a matter of pure, speculative opinion and can be ignored with no adverse affect upon your standing as a Christian.
132 Responses
John,
WOW! I had no idea. But I clicked the link to see what you were talking about, so I didn’t accidentally stumble across pastor Jones’ blog, I intentionally went there and looked around.
Two things caught my eye, beside the rant about the NRA. First I noticed his statement of purpose: “I love helping Christians live thoughtful, courageous lives.” That’s a really good statement for a pastor.
Then I noticed an article about “Why You Don’t Have To Forgive To Be Forgiven (part 2).” Maybe you missed this one. Or maybe I missed your response to it. Either way, it’s golden.
Pastor J thoughtfully explains why “believing that God’s forgiveness is dependent upon our forgiving others is a lie spread by Christians.” Well, maybe it’s a lie spread by Christ, since he’s the one that taught us to pray for forgiveness “as we forgive our debtors.” Then, Jesus also told a story about a guy who wouldn’t forgive. “And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.”
But P J has a brilliant answer: “Most Christians don’t realize that Jesus lived under and taught from the perspective of the Old Covenant.” The Old Covenant, of course, is passed away, and we live under a NEW, improved Covenant with 47% less condemnation (unless you’re a member of the NRA). If only Jesus had known that his every word would be obsolete as soon as he uttered it, he might not have wasted so much time teaching under the Old Covenant. If he had had any foresight, he might have tried to teach a new way instead of the old way. But, alas, he apparently had no clue that his own death and resurrection would render all his sermons moot.
Oh, well. So much of what he talked about was really in poor taste anyway. It’s a good thing he only taught the old. Leaves plenty of leeway for us to make up the new in our own image. Look at us! We’re already living more thoughtful, courageous lives.
PS I’m not so sure the Bible doesn’t hint at the NRA. Check out the book of Esther, which never actually mentions God, but does foreshadow the 2nd Amendment. When the Jews are targeted for genocide and plundering, the King eventually gives Esther & Mordecai permission to do whatever they like to prevent that, though he has little hope of success. The Jews are saved by the simple proclamation that if anyone comes against them, they have the explicit right to defend themselves.
I checked out his blog and he seems pretty confident that he’s telling us God’s truth about the NRA. I am however, not convinced. Mostly because I know that I am a Christian and I am also a gun owner and support the NRA. His insistence seems to be that only Christians who believe as he does, are actually Christians, which is ridiculous. I don’t care how many books he writes for Intervarsity Press or how big his church is.
For goodness sakes! If more people had your attitude, Brian wouldn’t HAVE a megachurch to speak at.
John,
From your mouth to God’s ears!
Dave
2 Pet 2:1-3 (ESV) – But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
John,
Mr. Megachurch Pastor (he takes care to mention that in the blog… makes me wonder why he does. Does that fact mean that he has the authority to speak for all Christians? Methinks not.) would be better using his time, and being more accurate, had he written a blog entitled “You Cannot Be a Christian and be Pro-abortion.” At least there are Biblical prohibitions against murder to point to if you want to make a declaration of what would be considered Christian behavior.
Sidestepping the NRA membership issue, Scripture does not give a pastor the right or power to declare what a Christian can believe and be a true believer, other than the clear teaching laid down in the Bible. I have a Bible degree. In my soteriology class, either it was not covered, or I missed it when non-essentials like NRA membership (or for that matter, stances on abortion) become essentials. Far be it from me to add or subtract anything from Scripture, especially as it pertains to salvation. I am assuming that Mr. Megachurch Pastor either thinks that NRA members who say they are Christians are giving a false profession of faith, or he is not a believer in eternal security, thinking that being an NRA member will cause a person to lose his salvation. Can the Grace of God ever forgive someone for the “mortal sin” of being an NRA member?
! Pet 5:1-3 (ESV) – I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.
Sounds pretty domineering to me to make a declaration like he did in his blog. Sounded rather legalistic and perhaps pharisaical. Perhaps he should make a master list for his church of what political-related beliefs and actions he believes would disqualify someone from the Kingdom of God. For the NRA’s stance on issues is a political thing. I am not an NRA member myself, so I speak as a freedom loving American and child of God. The NRA sees these research things as attempts for the government to build a case to chip away at our rights as Americans.
I am wondering what disease guns and gun crime are related to. They may try to make it a mental health issue. But nobody I know is saying that mentally ill people should have guns. But, and this is a *big* but, we have to be careful as to what we allow them to define as a mental illness.
But enough politics for me… I am not looking for a debate. (Kidding, kidding!! I just listened to your fun podcast. Great stuff, by the way.)
My thoughts are that Mr. Megachurch Pastor ought to be spending his mega-time and mega-money on better things, if he chooses to spend that time under the mantle and authority of mega-Pastor. If he wants to use his American right of free speech… do it as an average American, not an authority figure in the church.
Dave
Mark 12:17 (ESV) – Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him.
Brian Jones states in his blah blah blahg that he thinks there ought to be rules and requirements for people to buy
“Here’s what I believe:
There should be a singular nationwide process for obtaining a gun.
There should be a minimum six-month waiting period.
You should have to obtain a medical and psychiatric background check beforehand.
You should have to train and be certified prior to purchasing a gun.
You should have to put in a certain number of hours of supervised training each year to keep your gun.
There should be uniform laws and equipment standards dictating how guns and ammunition are stored in homes to prevent childhood accidents.
Guns should be revoked when certain behaviors trigger an alert in a national database of combined medical care professionals and civil/law enforcement agencies.”
None of these has Brian followed to get his guns. So while he says he “believes” in these rules, he doesn’t deem it necessary for himself as he has not put any such restrictions on his own gun purchases.
In typical progressive fashion, he’s talking about placing laws and restrictions on all us plebeians while exempting himself.
So if I ask a question will that make me brilliant as well?
I’m so confused…
I know I’m not supposed to eat anything JB offers.
But what AM I supposed to eat, again?
Did I miss that somewhere?
It appears that Wise Teacher and I are offering the same sandwiches.
This has been apparent to quite a number of people who have visited this site for some time already.
See above re: the lesson your father just had.
Baby steps and you’ll get there…
Go to bed, Ark.
It’s–what–after 3:00 in the morning on your side of the planet?
Thanks for your concern.
South Africa suffers on a fairly regular basis from Power Outages.
So when the power off at about 9:30 last night we called it a day and went to bed.
Unfortunately, we forgot to switch off several lights and when the power returned we were bathed in glorious light , which woke me up.
You need clarification on evolution? What have you heard so far that has made you not once deny it?
Wise Teacher, you are asking questions again. I’m trying to step away from the dessert table and indulge in the nourishment of your lessons. Evolution is whatever YOU say it is. Enlighten me!
A wise teacher always asks the student questions.
It is a recognised teacher method of all the best teachers.
Even the character Jesus did it in the bible
It encourages the student to exercise independent , critical thought.
So I will willingly shore up any shortfall you may have regarding your understanding of evolution.
Tell what you have learned about it so far?
It is my understanding that it is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
There you go! In a nutshell.
Joy!
My thoughts align with yours, Wise Teacher. We are in harmony!
Actually, I am in Johannesburg.
Is that the end of the lesson?
I’m afraid I missed the teaching…
The best lessons are those where the student reasons the answer for themselves.
This you did.
You have accepted evolution.
Savour the knowledge.
Now you can move on to understanding.
Wise Teacher, you have STILL offered nothing. How do you suggest we ‘move on to understanding’? What knowledge will you present to move me closer to enlightenment?
You have already accepted evolution.
Go do some research.
Astounding.
You are truly a fountain of knowledge.
Always a pleasure to aid in lifting the veil of ignorance.
I am interested what data/books/articles you decide to read on this subject.
Will you let me know how you get on?
My next book is going to be “An Atheist’s Guide to Reality” by the Atheist philosopher Alex Rosenberg. (The subtitle is “Enjoying Life Without Illusions.”)
Here’s a little excerpt: “There is much more to Atheism than its knock-down arguments that there is no god. There is the whole rest of the worldview that comes along with Atheism. It’s a demanding, rigorous, breath-taking view on reality–one which has been vindicated beyond reasonable doubt. It’s called Science. [He uses his own term “Scientism” throughout the rest of the book.] …The basic things everything is made up of are fermions and bosons. Elementary, physical particals. That’s it!”
And then he goes on to explain what emotions and morality and right/wrong, good/bad REALLY are, in a purely physical world.
Here’s a review, which contains more quotes–http://www.proginosko.com/2013/08/the-atheists-guide-to-reality/
Your next book?
This suggests you already have a book in print?
What’s it called?
JB–Ark was talking to me.
When he said, “I’m interested what data/books/articles you decide to read on the subject.” I replied, “My next book will be the Atheist’s Guide to Reality by Rosenberg…”
Then Ark claimed that the phrase “my next book” sounded like I had written one already… which was a diversion so he didn’t have to read the article or look into the book himself.
I’m starting to think our Wise Teacher is just lazy.
Are you sure? I thought he was encouraging me to ‘do my own research’ on evolution. (After he provided precisely nothing to the conversation)
I’m crushed. I thought I had earned a moment of acknowledgment from Wise Teacher.
Yes, he was telling you to do your own research and to keep him posted about the things you were reading…
But, as you can see, it doesn’t matter what data/books/articles you mention–he’s probably not familiar with them.
Right.
He shouldn’t need data to accept that complexity is always the result of intelligence.
Otherwise, how could he ever know the books we’re reading aren’t just random collections of words to which we assign meaning?
@mrsmc.
No, I was talking to your dad with that comment, inquiring after the books data he had read on ID.
You asked both of us, on separate comments. The first one was a reply to me.
But I’ll assume it was just a mix-up, since that happens in forums sometimes.
I’ll also assume you’re reading the article I linked…
You probably just got confused.No, haven’t got round to it yet.
Busy with documents on this end. Just flitting between windows. Why do think it is important for me to read?
Care to summarize?
Nope.
Okay, just clicked it. Sorry, sweets; it’s philosophy, and I generally don’t do. Also the review is way too long for moi. But I will respond if you can give me a brief synopsis, no problem.
Fat chance with the synopsis, Teach. Your laziness isn’t my problem.
But I appreciate the honesty that you “generally don’t do” philosophy. It’s nice to have validation for what I’ve already told Tildeb and Allallt and JZ–most soft Atheists are philosophical lightweights.
Couldn’t agree with you more, my dear.
I am somewhat of a real Neanderthal in my approach to higher subjects of suchlike.
You say Noah built an Ark and the animals went on two by two, show me the evidence.
Don’t frakking offer me a philosophical treatise. It generally suggests there is no evidence and the proponent is whistling Dixie.
Life’s too short.
If I want to dance it is usually with a woman on the dance floor not with semantics.
If only “show me evidence” wasn’t built on a particular philosophy…then you wouldn’t be in the trouble you are…
Yes … there is that , I suppose!
But I don’t consider myself in any trouble whatsoever.
You consider a 1st century Jewish rabbi came back from the dead.
Now, that is a philosophical conundrum of note!
How one solves that problem I really don’t know. Do you?
Oh, and I really am not lazy. Just disinclined to read thousands of word simply to arrive at the end and ask, ”And now?”
Everything you believe is built on assumptions. But–when asked about those assumptions–you can’t explain them… and you don’t even bother to defend them.
THAT is a problem.
Just shouting “evolution” or “Yahweh” every once in awhile only gets in the way of MY pursuit of truth.
You’re still stuck on step #1, with no foundation and no interest in building one.
Not so, I accept that scientists have developed certain theories and are continually working on others.
I have never had a problem with evolution as to me it seems the most cogent explanation based on the evidence presented so far. And one can see it happening. There are examples.
You know of some of these I’m sure.
On the origin of life I am more ambivalent as there are no hard and fast scientific theories to explain it.
As it in no way impacts my life- not directly that I am aware of – I am perfectly happy with what science has shown so far.
I must qualify that. With what I ?understand of science .
Got to be honest, right?
So, you were going to offer some sort of explanation for the Resurrection?
That is if you believe it , of course?
You assume the universe is logical and knowable.
That’s part of philosophy.
You take the foundations that were laid by Theists (and Deists) and then try to strip God out of the equation, after the fact.
Science itself wouldn’t exist, without presupposing Logic and Truth.
But you’re too lazy to read up on the history. You’re too lazy to read even ONE ARTICLE outlining the philosophical trouble you’re in.
It’s kind of neat how these philosophical discussions occupy a large chunk of day while simultaneously having ‘no impact’ on his life…
I try not to assume anything.
The arguments presented by theists invariably involve a myriad of doctrines that clash – even within the same religion.
How would one identify any sort of veracity among the plethora of theological propositions?
And if one chooses the wrong one? Then what?
Thus, a non-theistic approach is much healthier.
Deism I generally have no real problem with. I donlt necessarily agree ewith it, but it carries no baggage, no doctrine so it is more of a take it or leave it system of belief.
It makes no serious demands on me and therefore I am kosher with it.
Again, not lazy at all.
But I will accept that you consider philosophy a major part of your foundational beliefs .
So explain how the Resurrection happened/ impacts on my world view or lack thereof?
You’re right.
You’re a terrible philosopher. lol.
I’m not going to explain myself to a person who’s not sharp enough to recognize why “I try not to assume anything” is a stupid statement.
So you accuse me of being lazy, berate me for not reading that particular article yet balk at the chance to offer a simple explanation of the Resurrection.
And you call me lazy?
I say you are also lazy and a damn hypocrite to boot!
I accuse you of being lazy because you are, Wise Teacher.
The only thing you do, day after day after day, is try to pull Truth out of other people. You never offer any.
You ASSUME that your brain is capable of rational thought. You ASSUME that thoughts are able to take you to the Truth. And you ASSUME that you’re qualified to judge evidence of the resurrection as “good” evidence or “bad” evidence.
It’s not laziness that refuses to give you more water.
It’s necessity.
You’re still stuck on step #1–the foundation.
Wrong again.
I assume nothing, and certainly not with capitals to assume makes an Ass out of U and Me.
You have not even offered a reasonable explanation, let alone a rational explanation for this foundation.
As I stated, it is you that is lazy and a hypocrite.
And I have read a considerable amount more than you might suspect.
Explain #1
You ASSUME that to “assume” is a bad thing…
Let’s see how honest you truly are.
Explain #1
Do I have to get out my laughing emojis again, Wise Teacher?
It’s your pulpit.
YOU explain why you trust your own brain to understand anything I offer you.
See, you are little more than a a fraud.
You have no real interest in what you believe.Nothing serious, as you avoid the hard questions.
You adopt a thin veneer of so called spirituality and pretend to play-play at being a christian simply to claim some sort on intellectual moral high ground.
When you have developed a level of genuine empathy you might ”get it”.
Until then you smug pseudo intellectualism just comes across as petulance.
You know, someone with a more philosophical mind might take your angry reactions every time you’re asked for answers and wonder where they come from…
Are the fermions and bosons in your head just out of alignment?
Interesting, that after I pulled out of the previous thread you seem intent on trying to illicit an emotional response.
I wonder what this suggests, do you think?
Explain#1
You ASSUME that emotions can’t tell you anything about truth…
Explain#1 please.
Nope.
Hypocrite.
Lazy.
Yes, you are.
Surely you’re not so far gone that you can’t see the problem.
You get unreasonably upset unless YOU’RE asking all the questions. YOU have to be the judge and jury, putting everyone else on trial.
But you’re a crooked, biased judge who doesn’t even know where the laws that he uses came from.
My dad can keep playing your game if he wants. But there’s no way I’m giving you any more “answers” until I get some.
…and I’m never going to get any, as long as you keep ASSUMING that philosophy isn’t that important….and you keep ASSUMING that it’s possible to make rational sense of the world without God.
So.
Impasse.
You still haven’t managed to work it out, have you?
I find that quite amazing to tell the truth.
You still think this is about my asking the questions.
*Smile*
You are so far gone you cannot even see it for yourself.
Philosophy is not, and never will be a means to an end on it’s own.
The subject matter that you so fervently wish to champion – your is either a philosophical construction based on a narrative construct or is a demonstrable fact.
And so far, you haven’t the gumption to even ask
this question.
I suggest you take some time and ponder why not.
I won’t present any facts to you because you’re a crooked judge who doesn’t even know where the laws he uses came from in the first place.
I thought I said that?
The philosophy of logic is the foundation of everything. And you have demonstrated that you don’t understand it.
You are what Alex Rosenberg would term a ‘soft Atheist’ because you want to tell religious people they’re wrong without actually examining YOUR OWN assumptions.
Not really. However, I might suggest that someone such as you who makes unsubstantiated claims based on a ”book” they know almost zip about other that what they have been encouraged to parrot based on erroneous doctrine is likely suffering from a mental unbalance.
That you continue to believe this book (even if only in part) and insist on its veracity without once making a single reasonable effort to demonstrate the veracity of your claims merely cements the belief that you would rather adhere to this falsehood than face the possibility that what are believing is a lie.
A famous cosmologist(?) (forget his name at the moment) who is also a Christian once said that, even if irrefutable evidence was produced for every scientific claim he would still reject it and side with the bible as this he believes is the inspired word of your god.
This is indoctrination pure and simple .
There are several theories concerning people who adhere to such extreme religious beliefs and one of them is called death anxiety.
It is a recognised medical condition.
I told JZ to burn that book, if it’s not true…
Now what, Teacher?
Burn which book?
The book you keep trying to insist I need to defend, when YOU’RE the one with the obsession.
Burn it.
Now what’s true?
I don’t burn books. I am somewhat of a bibliophile.
Are you that insecure you believe burning a book will suddenly make you ”free”?
http://giphy.com/gifs/news-why-anchor-26BRq84rhISRcFVUQ
Yes, you really do have issues.
So, the evidence for the Resurrection.
Your father failed … as he has done from the outset.
Why not try to convince me of its veracity … based on philosophy, if you like?
How about it?
Ark,
Listen to me:
You’re not qualified to judge evidence.
What evidence?
The evidence for the resurrection that you keep asking for.
You don’t have the qualifications to judge it.
I’d be happy to have the conversation with a Mormon or Muslim or Deist or anyone else who has a solid foundation and recognizes truth.
But your foundation is nonsense. It’s emptiness. You can’t contribute anything.
Well, foe what it’s worth,
I have probably read the bible more than you, studied it more than you and have a greater appreciation of the nuances than you might believe.
I approach all such studies with a completely neutral POV and always follow the evidence – wherever it leads.
I have zero emotional hang ups, no baggage, no presuppositional beliefs and no death anxiety complex.
Truly, I am likely the most ”open-book” in this regard that you are likely to meet.
So if you truly believe you have a case to make, then stop pretending and hiding behind your inflated ego and present it.
It will either stand or fall on its own merits and should not rely on your scholastic standing , or lack thereof , to demonstrate its veracity.
Let’s see some genuine humility. Some real up front honesty if you have any left.
Cut the hubris bullshit for five minutes and show me you are not simply some indoctrinated Sunbeam for Jesus.
This is the perfect opportunity to show all your dad’s followers that you know what you believe is the absolute truth.
What you got kiddo?
No, Ark.
I don’t have to show anybody anything.
You already have.
I think you have indeed shown everybody.
Enjoy the delusion.
You can’t resist, can you, Judge?
What measuring stick are you using to call something a “delusion?” What’s the criteria for something being “true?”
http://www.ashestobeauty.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/lewis-quote3.jpg
I can’t resist? Good heavens’you really are so full of hubris aren’t you?
I have yet to come across an honest Christian who had the integrity to present any sort of historical verification for any of their foundation claims – for their religion or its doctrine.
I have outlined that I asked you to explain the Resurrection.
It’s as simple as that.
Let’s see if you can do what every apologist – including your father, who is no doubt following this – has failed to do.
I am using no measuring stick, Amanda.
I dont believe it remember?
The onus is as it always is on you to demonstrate it’s veracity.
It is after all what your ”faith” hinges on. And you are called to spread the word. Your ”commission”.
As ”Paul” said
….if there is no resurrection of the dead, Christ has not been raised either. But if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and …” well you know the rest, I’m sure?
Over to you ….
“I have yet to come across an honest Christian who had the integrity to present any sort of historical verification for any of their foundation claims…”
Maybe that’s because you keep forgetting to bring your measuring stick for verifying what they’re saying…
I’ll help you out: the criteria you use for judging right/wrong is your own, jumbled head.
If you like someone (which is usually dependent on them saying, “I’m an Atheist!”) then you’ll trust what they say…
…sometimes…
…unless it’s Richard Dawkins saying that morality is just arbitrary…or Clarence Darrow saying that people can’t be held responsible for murder any more than a branch can be held responsible for falling off a tree…
…then you say you disagree with them, but you can’t explain WHY.
You are wasting your life trying to steer every, single, stinking conversation toward one about the Bible–even when someone says, “I don’t care if you burn the Bible. Just give me a better source of truth.”
Then, when I asked what your source of truth is, you answer, “I don’t have a measuring stick.”
Yes, you do. You plan to use your measuring stick whenever Christians try to give you answers. You say, “That’s crazy!” and “You’re delusional!” and “I hope you don’t have contact with children!”
That’s a really weird thing for someone to say, if they don’t fancy themselves good judges of right/wrong.
So–again–your measuring stick is YOU, Ark. You use your own brain, and your own instincts, and your own emotions to decide which people you’re going to idolize and which ones you’re going to terrorize.
So–here is my position again. Try to get it this time: I will not allow you to put any specific religion on trial, because you are not qualified to judge them.
There are true and beautiful things written in Gone with the Wind. There are true and beautiful things written in Pride and Prejudice. There are true and beautiful things written in The Kiterunner and the Lord of the Rings and The Great Divorce. But you’re not qualified to talk about any of them, because you’d need to Google “Atheist Opinion of Lord of the Rings” first…
You aren’t qualified to judge truth until you know what truth is and where it comes from.
Well, let’s torch this nonsense straight away shall we?
And the Inquisition did it for real once upon a time, didn’t they Amanda?
Your religion.
That’s how much faith they had in the veracity of the nonsense you cling to.
I am not putting it on trial, it was convicted of fraud right from the damn beginning.
You and every single delusional cult continually put non belief in your god on trial and non-belief will result in being sent to hell, or whatever interpretation you deem fit.
So based on this and this alone you are a liar and a hypocrite.
You and your religion condemn children to hell for non- belief and your religion supports it – tacitly or overtly.
You claim veracity for your scripture yet you have not a clue of its origin, or it’s writers or even its etymology.
And when called upon to demonstrate the veracity of the single moist crucial part of your doctrine you balk.
Why?
Simply because you know it is all make believe . A lie that cannot stand on its own merits.
You refuse to judge your religion because you are simply afraid.
When in your heart of hearts you know perfectly well if it is not for faith you have what?
Absolutely nothing.
And that is a cold hard fact.
You sound like a crazy man, Ark…
But maybe you’re not crazy. Maybe this is what happens to a person who only trusts himself. Only his own, feeble brain.
The only thing left is to attack things the other person has never said. That’s the only place to go, when you have no foundation.
Smile.
Explain the Resurrection?
I dare you …
Here’s an interesting question for you to ponder.
I will presume you know at least some of your history in this matter and are
aware who James the Just was?
Now we know that those Jews that recognised Jesus as the mashiach did not change their ways. They continued to follow the Torah and the Law.
Why is that do you think think this was?
I don’t have time for your thick headedness any more this weekend.
My sister and her fiance are taking vows to God tomorrow.
Any wishes for the happy couple?
Smile. Ignorance is bliss.
And you epitomize that to a T.
All the very best for the happy couple.
I’ll tell her you said, “I hope your Fermions and Bosons arrange in such a way that you feel what has come to be called ‘happy.'”
She’ll appreciate that. 😉
I doesn’t seem like Wise Teacher is impressed by Alex Rosenberg. I
Already done. You’ve assured me that I grasped evolution before you ever uttered a word. The veil of ignorance was a myth of your making!
A process as complex as evolution cannot take place without the action of an intelligent agent. Evolution displays intention which is evidence of this intelligent agent.
And in which book did you read this? Remember, I said I was interested in your data etc?
Surely a Wise Teacher doesn’t need data to believe the idea that complex systems require intelligence to bring them about.
Wise Teacher should not object to this humble pupil making inferences from gained wisdom. Do I have to provide a book reference for every statement I utter? If so, is Wise Teacher exempt from that rule?
@ jb
Not exempt in the least. On the face of it, I see no real problem in the idea of some sort of intelligence bringing this all about.
There are indicators that this could well have been so, depending on one’s point of view.
And the arguments against also have validity.
Thus on this issue I am somewhat ambivalent.
What sort of intelligence, of any, had you in mind? Anything in particular, or are you also ambivalent on the -excuse the term – ”designer ”?
If you see no real problem with some sort of intelligence bringing this about, which ‘arguments against’ have validity?
Ones that try to identify the designer.
I don’t follow how trying to identify the designer is an ‘argument against’ intelligence bringing everything about…
Well, we can easily test this:
Who or what do you think is the designer responsible?
Who or what sort of intelligence do you have ‘no problem’ bringing everything about?
Something currently unidentifiable.
And you?
An immaterial, timeless, intelligent, personal mind.
Okay.
Now what?
This makes you a deist then yes?
No. I’m not a deist. But it doesn’t matter.
I listed attributes for a designer.
You wrote the word ‘unidentifiable’.
Whether I’m a deist, Hindu, Buddhist or Zoroastrian you have no basis for raising an argument. There’s no point in continuing a discussion when you, again, have nothing to contribute.
I ask if you are a deist and you become ultra-defensive and aggression?
I have not dismissed the idea of a designer and asked for clarification but you balk at the final hurdle.
Are you not confident of your answer/belief or so arrogant that you can stand in judgment?
I clarified. I said I was not a deist.
You are under the impression that ‘not dismissing the idea of a designer’ is a satisfactory foundation for dialogue. Now, you’ll start asking me to make specific claims about the designer from the safety of ‘unidentifiable’. You have risked nothing and you’ll be able to dismiss any and every claim I put on the table.
So I’m not defensive or aggressive. I’m just wise to your mojo.
You are simply being disingenuous that’s all.
That you are unwilling to move this dialogue to its (from my perspective) inevitable cul-de-sac, suggests you have neither the confidence in your belief/argument nor the historical or theological knowledge to back a single (as yet unspoken ) claim.
Maybe you would like to explain the Resurrection. As your daughter simply shies away, maybe you have the integrity to step up to the plate, John?
What say you?
Resurrection is historical fact.
Only internet intellectuals believe Jesus is a fictional character.
(PREDICTION: You will reject this claim.)
Excellent. A truth claim. Evidence please.
…you know you’re just demonstrating your laziness, right?
The books of: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John
(PREDICTION: You will now demand more evidence of some sort.)
What evidence had you in mind?
Right.
You have successfully demonstrated that you are not going to contribute anything to the conversation.
Like I said at the outset.
You may now have the last word to perpetuate your consistent futility.
But even someone like you knows there is no verifiable evidence in the gospels, surely?
You making a faith claim, nothing more.
If a wise teacher (e.g.- one that claims to dislike the smell of John’s sandwiches) comes running back to John’s kitchen each time he smells John’s sandwiches – can said teacher be wise?
“It smells like John is cooking feces again,” says the wise teacher. “I think I’ll go check it out … again.”
Senor DS,
Wise Teacher approves of my cooking now. We are of one accord. There should be no further criticism of my sandwiches.
I also noticed that he later referred to your sandwich as a “sweet tasting dessert.” Now it makes sense why he keeps walking past the intelligent table and straight into your kitchen.
Señor DS
My sandwiches are like milk and honey. Taste and see…
Ark –
Why did you drop out of the last thread?
Was it your “genuine empathy” for those you long to save from indoctrination?
Was it your “confidence in your belief/argument”?
Were you unable to honestly answer the question posed to you in the last thread while simultaneously maintaining confidence in your belief/argument?
How does one “frame a question in acceptable terms” anyway?
Who decides whether or not a question is framed in acceptable terms?
Señor
Kevin.
I return in the hope that he acknowledges what’s on the sandwiches.
I have certainly never partaken of any sandwiches he has offered.
You, it seems, obviously have no such qualms.
You’ve never offered any alternative sandwiches despite numerous invitations to do so, either.
So in lieu of other menu items…Bon Appetite!
Really?
Evolution has been on the menu for a long time and most normal people consider it a staple of a well-balanced diet.
However, you and yours always seem to walk right past the table where intelligent people are eating from and pig out on all the sweet tasting desert, which we all know has pretty much zero substance.
Furthermore, evidence proves that too much ”sugar” is likely to seriously upset ones’ mental faculties.
Based on the behaviour of the ”Life’s too short eat pudding first” crowd – which would be one such as you, John, there is serious merit in that little meme.
Maybe it’s time you seriously considered taking some antacid?
I’ve never denied evolution.
Not once.
But since you brought it up, does it make sense from an evolutionary standpoint that murdered gays are simply unfit for survival?
Fix up a nice sandwich, piled high with science and I shall feast upon your bountiful offering, Wise Teacher.
You will?
Then let us begin …Just clarify for me. You do accept evolution?
Just to clarify…you’re asking me to accept something that you haven’t described yet?
The Centers for Disease Control studies (or has studied) gun violence? Is there a vaccination on the horizon?
Love the disclaimer. Love that people cannot debate without using condescension [thank you autocorrect] or profanity. Expand your imagination and your vocabulary, or be as a clanging cymbal.
Actually, I think I did see something about the NRA in Hezekiah chapter 7…
The earliest copies of the book of Hezekiah do not contain chapter 7.
Oh, sorry. I was reading the Message Bible.
Keep the sojourn notes coming. Good stuff, John.
Who doesn’t love it when one True Christian ™ tries to call out another True Christian™?
And you quote 2 Peter. 2 How wonderfully ironic, quoting a (most likely) fraudulent piece of scripture.
What would America be without its fetish for guns?
Hmm… worth pondering.
Hey Ark,
One aspect of a True Christian (no trademark) is we call out bad ideas no matter where they exist. You don’t get a pass because you’re a pastor at a megachurch. And you don’t get a pass because you’re a self proclaimed “free thinker” who quotes Richard Dawkins and Chris Hitchens.
I sort of expected you atheists would appreciate my consistency.
You refer to your continual practice of presenting a bullshit sandwich and telling us: ”Seriously, guys, it really is cheese… I promise!” in the hope we might not notice the smell and turn out to be as credulous as you?
Hmm, how’s that been working for you so far, John?
As always, I appreciate you placing your personal doctrine into the forum for consideration. It’s a refreshing contrast to my offerings.
As always, I am more than happy to fulfill your expectations, as you do mine.
Ark –
Claiming that you don’t like John’s sandwiches and then repeatedly coming back for more is self-contradictory.
On a different note – I’ve been praying for you.