Don’t Play this at Home:

The obscenities in this video tear through the sentimental and schmaltzy fabric of Xmas with the sound of a low flying jet over a soft Kincaidian landscape. The message is that Santa gets all the accolades (and gets to look charitable to boot) whilst the beasts of burden (the reindeer) and the small men (elves, pixies and dwarfs) do all the work. Given that Santa is patron saint of Xmas capitalism, the video reminded me very sharply of the days when I used to read the stridently Marxist newspaper "Socialist Worker". The video expresses that paper’s vision of society to a tee: In raucous and harsh tones it forever condemned middle class capitalist acquisitiveness at the expense of working class wealth producers. “Stuff the Bosses”, “Stuff the Tories!”, “Stuff the Royals!” were the kind of headlines that often graced the front page.

I myself, however, was as cynical toward this Marxist message as the Socialist “Workers” were to the society that sustained them in sufficient freedom to express their opinions. Theirs was a materialist version of an archetypical eschatology that promised worker salvation on the great and terrible day of Revolution. Thence on the workers would own the means of production ushering in a supposedly classless society where everyone’s interests coincided and therefore all would live in peace.

But as the video says: “What a croc of ****”. A successful society depends on differentiation and specialization, thus implying classes, thereby setting the scene for potential conflicts of interest. Potential conflicts of interest are a fundamental feature of social existence. The so-called “dictatorship of the proletariat” is a cloud cuckoo land concept that in practice leads to an elite ruling class who stifle all debate and dissention under the pretext that in a (fictitious) “classeless” society no conflict would exist and therefore by definition dissenters are reactionaries.

How many times have we seen the failure of this sort of cloud cuckoo land social philosophy? The Christian cults and sects do exactly the same: They are so sure they have found the secret to a social and spiritual utopia where (wo)man is at one with fellow (wo)man. But they fail to get the right balance between positive and negative democracy; accordingly their uncompromising effort to usher in a new unified and free Christian community has exactly the opposite effect. Their zeal, conviction and misplaced confidence in the rightness of their proprietary vision of community betrays them and they end up creating a social nexus ten times more oppressive than what they aim to replace; a nexus where censorship and compulsion are the norm and imposed by a (self) righteous elite. As the video says: “What a croc of ****”.  Oh the pathetic irony of it all!

No social restructuring of community and society will ever relieve us of the basic challenge we face day by day; namely, that of finding the strength of moral character to meet the demands of gainsaying self in favour of our neighbor. There is no uptopian society so structured that the moral choices we should make come effortlessly and naturally. This age old challenge is as much with us today as it always has been:

And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)

Whether you believe the Christmas story is a myth or to signifies deep ontological realities, the values and challenges it embodies are timeless and for all: It is a story of a double condescension by Deity: One:That of giving our contingent and suffering world the power to allow its emergence out of the platonic realm of possibility into reality. Two: Of that Deity giving up all to visit this graciously reified world and identifying with it to the point of death:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Whether as a myth or as an “in fact” reality the Christmas story, in beauty, meaning, depth and grace, surpasses all.

More Nonscience From Ken Ham

Education without integrity

In a blog entry dated Dec 13th and entitled “We Love Science” Ken Ham continues to delude himself that Answers in Genesis isn’t an organization committed to delivering nonsense non-science to an ignorant and gullible Fundamentalist Christian public. I don’t want to spend too much time on the self delusions of this anti-science nincompoop, but if I were to expand upon just why Ken’s Answer in Genesis organisation is busily subverting science I would critique the following fundamental philosophical fallacies we find amongst the likes of Ken and his cronies:

1. The view that one can fundamentally distinguish between the “You weren’t there” historical sciences and the “repeatable” sciences: The motivation here is to undermine the historical sciences like evolutionary theory. As I have said elsewhere: All science, “historical” and otherwise, in varying degrees depends on historical documents and an assumed rational repeatability in the universe. There is no experiment that I can do, no historical investigation I can embark on, that doesn’t depend on documents and a posited rational repeatability. In short Ken’s philosophical fuax pas embodied in the quip “You weren’t there” undermines both Science and the Bible.

2. Ken’s Mature creation theory: I have addressed this at length here

3. The view that the Bible is the exclusive epistemic “lens” with which we see the universe: One cannot read and understand the meaning of the Bible without a “boot-strap” epistemic “lens” already in place – although of course the Bible effects one’s epistemic lens. What is being missed here is that epistemology and ontology have a two way coupling: Epistemology leads to knowledge of ontology and knowledge of ontology in turn modifies epistemology.

4. YEC failure to do justice to the equation “Meaning = Text + Context”: I have looked at this subject here.

5. An obsolete view of uniformitarianism that fails to understand power law catastrophism.

There are a lot more reasons I could find for pinning an anti-science charge on AiG, but really this unreasoning and bigoted fundamentalist group have consumed too much of my time already. It is irony that AiG’s position is liable to undermine all of science and history and would ultimately put irrationality on the throne. The vehement atheist and professional scientist PZ Myers has little patience with anyone who so much as entertains the subject of deity, but there is no need to unnecessarily antagonize an already very sore atheist with the anti-science bilge we get from Ken Ham. It is clear from the posts here and here that PZ Myers fully understands why Ken Ham’s junk science is the road to irrationalism and why it would lead to the ultimate demise of science and history as disciplines of hope and intellectual integrity. What an irony that secularist PZ Myers understands the role of rationality, intellectual integrity and hope in science but Ham’s organization doesn’t.

More Good News From Ken Ham.

(The first lot of good news can be seen here)

The Sectarian World View

In a blog post dated 17th November and entitled “World Wide Epidemic Threatens Church” we find Answers in Genesis’ Ken Ham riding on a wave of euphoria after attending “The All-Asian Creation Conference” in Malaysia. Over a 1000 attended the conference and Ken sold out of AiG resources in minutes. According to Ken he is amazed how God has used and taken AiG’s (false) message around the world. Ken also says he is thrilled to hear the testimonies of people who have been led to the Lord through AiG’s (false) message. As I have remarked before, this sort of talk, given that it is based on AiG’s fundamental errors really debases the language of Christian testimony. I’m sure the Jehovah’s Witnesses with their 7.5 million affiliates and the Mormons with their 14 million followers are equally as ecstatic after their huge rallies.

But, and this is the big “but”, 1000+ attendees is but a drop in the ocean. Ken really understands this and when he sobers up he comes back down to Earth with a bump. The following quote from Ken’s blog is an indication of just how marginal YECs are even within the Christian world. I have italicized the text where it is clear that Ken understands how relatively insignificant the YEC movement is even though it is 50 years since the “YEC reformation” started in the early sixties. I have also emboldened terms that indicate how badly Ken thinks of those who don’t hold his views; especially Christians. Ken is man on a very particular mission (i.e. to spread Christ plus YEC); but then particularity applies to the proprietary doctrinal idiosyncrasies of every Christian fundamentalist sect between here, Brooklyn and Salt Lake City. Here is my quote from Ken:

But something has stood out to me more than anything else at this conference, and it burdens me so deeply.

After I spoke a person came up to me and said, “Please bring a conference to Indonesia—most of the pastors there believe in evolution.” Then another person said, “Please come to my country—most of the pastors believe in evolution. Then another said, “Please come to my country—most of the pastors there believe in evolution.”

There were 20 countries represented at this conference, and I think I have now heard from people from nearly all of them pleading for a creation conference in their country. They have all have said to me something like, “most of the pastors—Christian leaders—seminary professors—believe in evolution and millions of years.”

Friends, disbelief in the book of Genesis is a worldwide epidemic. Satan has used millions of years and evolution to permeate the church around the world. What a mission field we now have to the church. And in particular, what a mission field we have to reach the “shepherds,” the Christian leaders and pastors around the world to call them out of compromise and back to the authority of the Word of God.

I think this one conference has made me realize even more than ever how the pagan religion of millions of years and evolution has so permeated the church around the world! What a mess! And sadly, countries like the USA and England have sent missionaries around the world teaching this compromised message because they were trained in compromised colleges and seminaries.

This makes me more burdened than ever to challenge these compromising church leaders.

And you know what else this conference in Asia has shown me? There is a real hunger among the people—hunger for the truth. It is a hunger for answers. When people who do have a respect for God’s Word are given answers and taught the importance of not undermining biblical authority in Genesis, they get it. They really get it! And then they are set on fire to go back to their country and be a missionary for creation evangelism.

Please pray for the Lord to open more doors so we can deal with this compromise epidemic that is undermining God’s Word worldwide.

Each and every sectarian thinks they’re uniquely placed before God. If anything, then, the small size of their community gives them the pride of being  part of a select spiritual elite, the remnant through which the Almighty is working to enlighten humanity about looming apocalypse. Moreover, they take consolation in their work of proselytizing; they always believe they are in with chance as they seek to convert those who are beyond the pale of their strict and particular beliefs and practices. But in the face of unbelief and lack of response to their message they look for scapegoats to accuse of courting Satan and sin; especially fellow Christians who don’t quite see it their way. These sects may be in a small minority but their clownish extremism gets them an audience out of all proportion to their size; Harold Camping (amongst many others of similar ilk) has shown us that.

Lessons in Authenticity

Christianity magazine is nothing if not painfully honest about the Christian life. In keeping with this ethos the magazine published an article by Jeff Lucas (October 11). In this article Lucas tells his readers about a church he visited where the preacher “Painted the Christian life as endlessly epic”. The whole article is worth reading, so here is a photo of it (click to enlarge):

Clearly Lucas isn’t fooled by the extravagantly superlative terms of the Christian triumphalists. The excessive use of such language inflates its shock value; more and more of it is needed to achieve its desired effect of intimidating the faithful into belief and wrenching from them an emotional reaction. Ergo, this language gets increasingly empty of meaning and the affectations of the rank and file as they try to follow what they hear from the pulpit ring hollow. Jeff Lucas (like most of the writers for Christianity magazine), on the other hand, comes over as entirely genuine and above all self-critical – any claims that he makes about being a witness to the epically miraculous feel that much more authentic. He's a man one can take seriously.

Knock, Knock .... Who's there ? ... the Je-who-vah’s Witnesses!!

I concocted the following imaginary conversation between a Jehovah's Witness and a mainstream evangelical Christian sometime in the 1980s. I have resisted the temptation to hone it some more as it is a long time ago that I studied the Watchtower Followers. When I created the imaginary dialogue below my conversations with  the JWs and the contents of their books (on which the dialogue was based) were still fresh in my mind. I have on occasions attempted to place the dialogue before evangelicals, but unless they are a captured audience in a home group they stay well clear. The fact is that apart from some obvious unorthodoxy such as the notoriously difficult and contentious questions over the nature of Christ in relation to God, the JWs can make a statement of salvation that approximates very closely to the evangelical one. However, there is definitely an observance based streak in the JW's concept of salvation. But to be fair my contact with fundagelicalism has also revealed a very observance based faith; fundagelicals can be very scathing about the standing before God of those who do not assent to their verbal formalisms and practices to the letter. Hence, I'm as sympathetic to the JWs as I am to many a sectarian fundagelical.

***

What do you do when someone like this knocks on your door ?; I'm sure it will ring a bell with you ....

A :(Knocks on door & door opens) Hello. I have just been discussing with your neighbour the present state of the ...

B: Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

A: Yes, how did you know?

B: Sorry, but I'm a Christian and I don't believe what the Jehovah's witnesses say.

A: But what we say is only what the Bible says.

B: That's not true.

A: Can you give me an example?

B: Well, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have said the world would end and it hasn’t. That couldn’t have been from the Bible!

A: We have never said that.**

(...Pause. Bill knows that he can’t prove it so he tries again)

B: Er... Well, you don't believe in the Trinity.

A: You won't find any mention of the Trinity in the Bible. Jesus couldn't have been God because he said "The Father is greater than I am"

B: But Jesus said "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30).

A: Look at John 17:22. The disciples were "one", but they weren't one person: it just means that they were in harmony with one another.

B: What about John 1:1 where it says "The Word was God"?

A: Look at verse 18 of that chapter; it says "No one has ever seen God" -but men have seen Jesus, so he can't be God. This is why the Greek text actually says "The word was divine" and not "The word was God". Further proof can be found in Colossians 1:15 where it says "He is the firstborn ..". This shows that Christ was created and therefore couldn't be God.

B: (silence)

A: What religion do you belong to?

B: I.. err... am a Christian.

A: Do you go to a Church?

B: Yes.

A: What denomination is it?

B: It's the Vineyard fellowship, but we're not denominational.

A: Do you use God's name in your services?

B: What do you mean?

A: If you write a letter to a person do you address it with their name?

B: err ... yes.

A: Then do you think that during your worship you should address God by his name Jehovah?

B: What is wrong with addressing Him as father as mentioned in Romans 8:15?

A: You have to remember to whom that reference applies. Who was the Old Testament written for in the first place?

B: The Jews.

A: Do you think then that the sacrificial practices should apply directly to us?

B: No.

A: In the same way most of the New Testament is not directly applicable to us but only to a little flock with a heavenly hope. These are the 144,000 mentioned in Revelation 7:4 who are anointed by the Holy Spirit, and who are resurrected to heavenly life as spirit creatures as Jesus was. This is why you can't apply Romans 8 to us now - unless you are one of those few Christians anointed by the Holy Spirit and therefore a member of the 144,000.

B: If most of the New Testament doesn't apply to you, what is the basis of your salvation?

A: The basis is Christ's ransom sacrifice. Jesus willingly laid down his life in sacrifice for us. Let me read 1 Peter 2:24 ... "He Himself bore our sins in his own body upon the stake in order that we might be done with sins and live to righteousness." That is a marvellous expression of God's love for mankind. Let me also read John 3:16 "God loved the world so much that he gave his only begotten son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed, but have everlasting life". By exercising faith in this Ransom we can enjoy a clean standing before God and come under His loving care. In Revelation 7:9 it says "before me was a great crowd that no-one could count standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb". Jehovah's witnesses are the great crowd who have exercised this faith.

B: So Salvation is only available to Jehovah's Witnesses - I can't find that in the Bible.

A: What you have got to do is identify the marks of the true worshippers of God. One of their marks is the widespread publishing and honouring of his name. If you are to gain salvation you must honour the name of God. What religious group is most prominently publishing the name of God? If you were to talk to your neighbour and refer repeatedly to Jehovah, with what organisation would they associate you?

B: Why does that prevent salvation being available to those who have nothing to do with your group?

A: Surely if you follow the Bible commands you must be in one organisation. In the Old Testament there was only one channel of truth and that was Israel. Today it is the Jehovah's witnesses. What other religious organisation have the identifying marks of true discipleship. Are there any other organisations of which you could say that all members are in unity, love one another and teach the same things ?

B: Well, what about the Mormons and Moonies?

A: But they aren't in agreement with the Bible are they?

B (After a pause): It seems to me that this debate has missed the point. Faith is not based on academic opinion, or logical or illogical human reasoning; but on fact and reality; God can actually be known in real experience; what's important is whether we know him.

A: I agree, we need to know God and His working in our lives and through His organisation, and if we know Him we will know the truth.

"B", (call him Bill) certainly fails to do justice to himself and his faith in this confrontation with "A" (call him Andy), the Jehovah's Witness and appears to readily fall into the traps long planned by the JW doorstep evangelism system. But Bill is in fact a stooge placed to illicit some of the stock of preprogrammed responses of this system enabling us to put it under the microscope. Perhaps, DV, we can, at some later stage, consider in detail some of the puzzles and questions that the above dialogue raises like: Can a cult member be a Christian? What is faith? What is unity?. What is a church ? What is wrong with JW theology? And certainly not least: How ever do you witness to cult members? In the meantime any of your own reactions and comments to the above are welcome. (I never got  any comments! - ed)

Footnote

** This is misleading. There is much documentation drawn from old Watchtower sources to indicate that their attempts to predict world events, based on their reading of the Bible, have failed. Many doorstep JWs are not aware of this documentation and of course do not know that the Watchtower has made significant false predictions. Therefore these JWs can genuinely deny that such predictions have been made by the organisation. This strategy is largely unconscious, but it clearly enhances the organisation’s survivability in a hostile environment.  (see The Spiritual Rat Run for  a discussion on the similarity between cults and organisms)


c. T. V. Reeves, September 1995

McDowell lays it on with a Trowel

Should Christians build protectionist barriers?

PZ Myers has written a gleeful blog post about this article in “Christian Post”. The article reports the comments of Christian apologist Josh McDowell. In the article McDowell admits that his version of Christianity will find it difficult to survive amongst young people given the environment of information laizzez faire brought on by the internet. If, as McDowell is effectively saying, Christianity will struggle outside the bounds of its tradition epistemic play pen, then this is hardly an advertisement for the authenticity of the faith; in fact it sends out the signal that the Christian world view can’t cope with the latest influx of information; that could be construed as saying that as a world view it is bankrupt. No wonder atheist PZ Myers is so pleased about McDowell’s comments. Here are some quotes from the “Christian Post” article:

Atheists and skeptics now have equal access to our children as we have, which is why the number of Christian youth who believe in the fundamentals of Christianity is decreasing and sexual immorality is growing, apologist Josh McDowell said. What has changed everything?” asked the apologist from Campus Crusade for Christ International as he spoke on “Unshakable Truth, Relevant Faith” at the Billy Graham Center in Asheville, N.C., Friday evening. His answer was, the Internet. “The Internet has given atheists, agnostics, skeptics, the people who like to destroy everything that you and I believe, the almost equal access to your kids as your youth pastor and you have... whether you like it or not,” said McDowell.

McDowell, who lives in southern California with his wife Dottie and four children, said atheists, agnostics and skeptics didn’t have access to kids earlier. “If they wrote books, not many people read it. If they gave a talk, not many people went. They would normally get to kids maybe in the last couple of years of the university.” But that has changed now.

Around 15 years ago, the apologist added, when Christian youth ministries were raising money for youth projects, the big phrase was, “If you don’t reach your child by their 18th birthday, you probably won’t reach them.” What is it now? “If you do not reach your child by their 12th birthday, you probably won’t reach them.”

The Internet is weakening Christian witness and “we better wake up to it because it’s just beginning.”

My Comment: If the Christian world view can’t weather a blizzard of information then it’s worth less than tuppence. Removing the walls of the epistemic play pen can only be a good thing for any Grand Narrative that is really worth its salt. A successful sense making narrative feeds on raw data and has no need to insulate itself from challenges. Mcdowell, however, clearly doesn’t believe that internet laizzez faire will actually support a Christian World view; in fact he thinks it will do precisely the opposite and support other world views. Let me repeat: Mcdowell is sending out the very worst kind of signal about Christianity: For if Christianity finds it difficult to survive in an environment of free flowing information then that suggests it simply doesn’t work as a world view. Typically, Mcdowell gives little credit or trust that young people, in the fullness of time, can and should come to their own opinion on things: He regards a young person as all but lost if they haven’t succumbed to early years indoctrination. This looks to me like a return to the Jesuit concept of an institutionalized faith propagated by child rearing.

I made the statement off and on for 10-11 years that the abundance of knowledge, the abundance of information, will not lead to certainty; [My Bold] it will lead to pervasive skepticism. And, folks, that’s exactly what has happened. It’s like this. How do you really know, there is so much out there… This abundance [of information] has led to skepticism. And then the Internet has leveled the playing field [giving equal access to skeptics].”

While 51 percent of evangelical Christians did not believe in absolute truth in an earlier survey, the percentage escalated to 62 in 1994. In 1999, it jumped to 78 percent. “You know what it is now?” asked McDowell. “One of the most staggering statistics in history of the church… 91 percent said there is no absolute truth apart from myself.”

My Comment: Note McDowell’s reference to “certainty” in the foregoing. My recent exposure to fundamentalism tells me that postmodernism and relativism are becoming such frightening ogres to fundamentalists that they are confusing skeptical and critical attitudes with a lack of belief in absolutes; to fundamentalists anything less than certainty in their kitschy world view smacks of relativism. Fundamentalism offers a false dichotomy between a toy town certainty and the slippery slope of relativism. With only this dichotomy available in the minds of fundamentalists, they are liable to classify skepticism and uncertainty as postmodernism.

McDowell proposed three ways to deal with the problem. “First, we have to model the truth. If you don’t model what you teach your kids, forget it. If they don’t see it, they won’t believe it… Second, we have to build relationships.” Just as truth without relationship leads to rejection, rules without relationship lead to rebellion, he said. “Kids don’t respond to rules. They respond to rules in the context of a loving, intimate relationship.” And third, he said, we have to use knowledge. “You better arm yourselves to answer your children’s and grandchildren’s questions…no matter what the question is…without being judgmental.” Kids’ greatest defense, he said, was the knowledge of truth.

However, McDowell said, as many as 85 to 90 percent of the evangelical Christian parents in America are not equipped to handle their kids. Christians, he urged, needed to understand the time, quoting 1 Chronicles 12:32: “Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do...”

My Comment: Not surprisingly McDowell’s solution is didactic; give kids “answers” in a controlled and authoritative way rather than inculcate a probing, analytical faculty allied to an uncompromising integrity and honesty that strives for truth. It is ironic that the religious right favours epistemic protectionism rather than the free market of ideas. They are unwilling to apply their “Libertarian, small government” ethos to epistemology.

***

I don’t think militant atheism is the ultimate enemy of Christianity; laizzez faire atheism’s critical freedom and lack of superstition is far too sanitized to present any real “dark side” threat to Christianity. Moreover, atheism has difficulty connecting with some of humankind’s deepest emotions and provides little or nothing to celebrate publically - unless it borrows from religion: Viz: when organised atheism in the form of communism has attempted to provide a public rationale for celebration it has created cult figures, demigods and a quasi-religious sense of mystical collective destiny.

But the postmodern nihilism that often accompanies laizzez faire atheism may simply be the pendulum pull back prior to an almighty reactionary swing into the black depths of cult religion. Maybe the house is being swept clean ready for all manner of nasties to re-inhabit it; my guess is that those nasties will be fundamentalists of some sort. Fundamentalism, as I have said elsewhere, appeals to deep seated instincts in way that laizzez faire atheism has little hope of doing. Religion is capable, therefore, of unleashing some of the strongest motivations known to man. The real danger to Christianity is not gnu atheism and the internet but something far more insidious.

Rico Tice and Christianity Exploded

Is hell for those who offend Deity or for those who offend humanity?

Evangelical Rico Tice is to the “Christianity Explored” course as Nicky Gumble is to the “Alpha” course. Tice and Gumble have conceived and implemented their respective introductory courses to the Christian faith and left the hallmark of their particular Christian subcultures on their creations: If Christianity can be regarded as a combination of stick and carrot then I don’t think it is an over simplification to say that Tice is more drawn toward the stick of eternal damnation than is Gumble. It therefore comes as no surprise that in the July edition of “Christianity” magazine we find Tice justifying his strong promulgation of the doctrine of eternal torment. He is quoted as follows:

The reason I believe in hell is that hell tells me that an infinite God can be infinitely offended. If the punishment for murdering my neighbour is £100, it immediately diminishes my neighbour. The punishment for hurting other human beings in this life, if I don't find rescue with Jesus, is eternal torment, because that's how valuable they are. They're made in God's image, and they're very valuable. I don't have a problem with eternal torment, because it tells me that people are incredibly valuable and how you treat them is a very serious thing.

Tice is sugaring the bitter pill of eternal torment by invoking God’s love: According to Tice human beings made in God’s image are so incredibly valuable to God that He is infinitely offended if they are sinned against. It follows, then, that the perpetrators of sin deserve eternal torment. In short, according to Tice, God’s love is so expansive and His offence is consequently so great that hell becomes a kind of creation of God’s love! Love and hell are two sides of the same coin, according to Tice.

Sounds good doesn’t it? Tice can slip in the bitter pill of hell amidst soothing talk of God’s love. This is certainly an advance on the more mediaeval take on eternal torment. Here the Glory of God is thought to be so infinitely above lowly human beings that a slight against His awful presence deserves eternal torment; such a justification sits well with a feudal system and its hierarchal systems of worth, but not a modern ethos that likes to hear about self worth.

In shifting the emphasis away from sin as an affront to a high medieval tyrant to an offence against much loved humanity, Tice’s justification for eternal torment works by distraction: In bamboozling us with God’s love for humankind one little point may pass unnoticed: That is, the identity of the nameless entities who have sinned against those incredibly valuable human beings. Those entities are, of course, none other than those valuable much loved human beings! Tice passes over this fact without comment.

Tice’s verbal sleight of hand hides a nasty conundrum and paradox: If those human beings are oh so valuable and oh so loved, they are clearly not so valuable and loved that this prevents them from being consigned to eternal damnation if they should commit a sin against their fellows. But if they are not that valuable how then could sinning against them be so offensive to God? Does sin somehow subtract from their value in a kind of mathematical way, viz: Value = Value – Sin? Unlikely since sin and love-value are incommensurable; someone can sin against you but that doesn’t necessarily reduce their value to you.

Hugely valuable human beings but huge offence: An impasse that is perhaps well addressed by the Christian doctrine of a self sacrificing Deity whose love is so great that He resolves the contention between the immoveable object of justice and the irresistible force of Divine love with His own self sacrificial act. This might make sense if all are saved, but given that Tice represents a Christian culture where it is thought that only a self defined remnant will benefit from God’s grace, then for the broad swath of humanity the conundrum and paradox of eternal torment remains in place: Valuable and much loved human beings are being consigned to hell in large numbers. According to Tice countless average human beings are going to be eternally damned for sinning against other humans. To complete the experience of eternal damnation there will be one last cruel irony for them: They will find the majority of those incredibly valuable human beings they have sinned against occupying hell along with them!

Whatever the realities behind the age old archetypical concept of hell, Tice’s attempt to sugar the pill is a piece self deception that fails to allay the deep moral distaste for this doctrine.

The Farce Goes On: Ham Fisted Prophets

"Hey you, we've got a monopoly franchise on this business!"

We all know about the above "prophetic" farce. As in all the best farces we find earnest blockheads like Camping, with their wacko projects, played off against knowing and terminally cynical characters. In the latter role we have, of course, PZ Myers and his rabid raiders. The whole fundagelical business just wouldn't be so funny without PZ Myers and co to witness and react to it. And do we need the medicine of a little black humour, for in many ways the extreme antics of the fundamentalists, which they carry out with a straight faced seriousness of purpose, are really no joke at all.

In  this blog post  PZ brings together the Camping affair with his other favourite buffoon, Ken  Ham. The post links  to one of Ken Ham's facebook pages.  As a rule fundamentalists never see themselves mirrored in other fundamentalists; they are egotistical enough to think of themselves as somehow different and set apart with a monopoly on truth. They continue to show no coyness or embarrassment about themselves; they remain as ebullient and irrepressible as ever: On Ken's facebook page one of his admirers says: "Thank God for true prophets like Mr. Ham!!!;-)

No End to End of World Predictions

PZ Myers blog is required reading if you want to keep up with the weird and wonderful world of fundagelicalism. His latest catch of a strange fish can be seen here. Basically it’s yet another fundamentalist (lauded by gullible followers) predicting the end of the world; in fact 10 days from today on the 21st May. The man at the centre of this latest prediction is someone called “Harold Camping”. More details are available here. Let’s give Camping some leeway: This is probably his best shot at making sense of life. But like a large swath of religious humanity he is spiritually egotistical enough to be absolutely sure he is right and can write off as damned so many individual human stories of experience, hope, endeavour, aspiration, seeking, encounter etc. without so much as a second thought: “My way or the damned way” says the fundagelical with bullet proof confidence.

Keep an eye on this blog if you want to find out the latest news on the end of the world. On the 22 May I’ll up date you on whether it has happened or not – provided you haven’t been raptured, that is. When the rapture does come there's a chance atheists might get raptured too: God will hardly be able to blame them for not believing in Him given that the Christian world is suffused with the fallible utterings of the Harold Campings of this world......and the William Tapleys, the Weatherbill7s, the Barry Smiths, the Gerald Coates...... etc.; its all down to a toxic mix of egotism, spiritual elitism, authoritarianism, Biblical legalism, wish fulfilment, gullible followings, fideism, and spiritual spin - a list of all too human failings that provide a very plausible basis for a belief that religion is nothing but a quirky human foible. But it's going to be tough on the atheists if they are raptured: The're going to have to spend an eternity worshipping "Jebus" with some of the world' most egotistical spiritual pundits. In short heaven's going to be hell for them.

Fundie Argument Clinic Part 4: Summing up

He hasn't met the  Christians who Jesus  really, really, really loves 

Christian Fundamentalists, by definition, believe they have a very direct connection with the Divine. Consequently they are very sure of their respective spiritual positions, positions which will be based on some blend of gnosis and Biblical legalism. Convinced of the divine authority of their own opinions they will presume to speak in the name of the Almighty, readily condemning those they perceive to be heretics. They are likely to feel uncomfortable with Harries Formula “Meaning = Text + Context”, because for them divine meaning is unambiguous and clear, demanding little in the way interpretative context, a context which in any case they will probably identify as a corrupting influence. (And yet they themselves must make use of contextual resources in order to interpret texts!) For fundamentalists “compromise” is a dirty word and consequently when fundamentalists holding conflicting versions of “revelation” meet it is a meeting of the irresistible force and the immoveable object; the subsequent contention can be short, sharp and acrimonious....

STOP! I’m really sick and tired of this subject and it is not really what I would like talk about…what I would really like to talk about can be found here on my Physics blog.

Fundamentalist Argument Clinic Part 3

The following discussion thread, which I reproduce below, first appeared on the Christian web site Network Norwich and Norfolk, although it has since been censored. The thread is, in my opinion, instructive and I hope in due course to draw out the lessons in a later post.

In the last part of this series it would appear that a geocentric Christian fundamentalist has convinced a YEC fundamentalist that geocentricity is the teaching of the Bible. I was confounded by this outcome as I had always assumed that fundamentalists are extrenely unreasonable and not open to persuasion especially by other fundamentalists. However, as we shall see business returns to normal in this section of the thread.

As you read this thread you need to be mindful of "Poe's Law" which states that parodies of fundamentalism are all but indistinguishable from the real thing.

Lord Ipsulot (Guest) 12/11/2010 12:43

Hi g.s.

At least you are not trying to hijack the brilliant discovery made by Mr. Charles Darwin like some, by trying to involve god in it.

My Comment: Our simple minded atheist commentator would much prefer that all theists were as simple minded as GS. The atheist dogmatist's job would then be as easy as shooting fish in barrel.

geocentric believer (Guest) 12/11/2010 16:37

Yes, Darwinism and God must be kept in holy separation. To you Ipsulot Darwin is holy and therefore must be kept separate from unholy religion. I agree, except that you have got your holiness and unholiness categories switched round. But Ispolute, my son, you have correctly perceived the need for separation. Perhaps you are more spiritual than you think, much more spiritual than James Knight who mixes up God and evolution.

My Comment:  Like Ipsulot our fundamentalist geocentrist (GB) hates a three or four cornered gun fight. They much prefer a simple polarised world view of "us vs. them"

Mike 2 (Guest) 12/11/2010 17:10

Hi Lord Ipsulot,

Depressing to read this nonsense isn't it? You know, when I see stuff like this, I sometimes think there's no hope for the human race and that eventually reason will give way to the stupidity of religious dogma. It seems as though it doesn't matter how clearly and demonstrably wrong something is, these guys will just go on believing it just because its written in the bible. They will stand there and tell you that black is white all day long.

Where have they gone wrong in their lives to become so obsessed. Has our education system let them down, or have they been got-at from an early age by some over-zealous religious fruitcake? The nutters of Network Norwich eh!

My Comment: You can hardly blame Mike 2 for being well and truly put off religion. When I look in this "mirror" I sometimes wonder why I call myself a "Christian".

geocentric believer (Guest) 12/11/2010 17:42

I think you will find mike 2, my son, that you have availed your self of the opportunity to publish on Network Norwich far more than us geocentrists. To me it looks more like the "atheists and compromisers of Network Norwich"!

My Comment: GB shows typical egocentric fundamentalist arrogance; everyone is rotten through and through except him and his sect.

Lord Ipsulot (Guest) 12/11/2010 23:46

Greetings Mike 2.

The level of irrational nonsense displayed on this site is indeed quite astonishing. Mind you, I am not so sure about "geocentric believer". Seems to me he is only joking about the whole thing.

Mike 2 (Guest) 13/11/2010 08:35

Yes, I am also suspicious that he is a wind-up merchant and that poor old g.s. is the target of his humour. After all, why else would he write such nonsense?

My Comment: Cue "Poe's Law"!

geocentric believer (Guest) 13/11/2010 10:15

...I write "such nonsense" because it is the clear teaching of Bible. As g.s. must surely see his devotion to the Bible requires his assent to geocentricism.

This is not humour, it's about following the clear teaching of the Bible. I don't expect you to understand Mike 2 because you are not born of the spirit and don't understand the things of God.

Have you looked at that web set yet Mike 2? If you do you'll realise that it's not nonsense, but serious Biblically based science. http://www.geocentricity.com/

My Comment: Appeal to the inner light of the Holy Spirit is the fundamentalist and fideist way of dodging a reasoned engagement. Basically it's a form of Christian gnosticism. (See my introduction in part 1)

Lord Ipsulot (Guest) 13/11/2010 18:57

Yeah sure.

My Comment: Read that as "I'm Ipsulotely clueless about the fundamentalist mindset, so where do I go from here?"  

geocentric believer (Guest) 14/11/2010 11:44

Yes I am sure; just like you my good Lord Ibsulote. We have quite a lot in common in an opposite sort of way don't we?


My Comment: ....he's probably right: Ipsulot is likely to be as epistemically arrogant as GB.

Mike 2 (Guest) 14/11/2010 17:10

Then if you're not a wind-up merchant geo-b, then I truly feel sorry for you. I think you need a bit of one-to-one with the good James Knight.

My Comment: The atheist Mike 2 is not a bad guy at all. He can see that there is theism and theism just as there is atheism and atheism. James Knight, by the way, is a Christian who writes for Network Norwich and Norfolk.

geocentric believer (Guest) 15/11/2010 16:59

Ahh! So you are a bit of a fan of James Knight! Like I said this site is full of atheists and compromisers.


My Comment: ...meaning that James Knight is the sort of "compromiser" GB despises. In GB's books "epistemic humility" is likely to be identified as compromise.

Lord Ipsulot (Guest) 16/11/2010 16:27

Geo, yes, I believe we do have a few things in common. g.s., is it getting too much for you?

g.s. (Guest) 17/11/2010 13:10

No

My Comment: GS is lost for words (as usual). It is not a case of it getting too much for GS because it always was too much for GS

(Guest) 21/11/2010 17:15

Well thats the end of anythig interesting and radical debated on here now that "Big Brother" and the powers that be insist you are on the membership list and can censor you if you do not agree with their questionable spiritual practices. Mind you its been like that for years not just here but among the various groups. R1 R2 legacy of self appointed apostles and pastors heavy shepherding of the gullible still in tact here in Nowich.

What else would you expect when its run by the Wimber-ites and those that have an endless history of splits and division,jelousy who desire to be kings.. "facilitate christian fellowship", yes as long as its on certain ones terms, accompanied with trumpet blowing.

So watch this site for yet more back slapping pseudo spiritual claptrap masquerading as a move of God.

Timothy V Reeves (Guest) 23/11/2010 19:46

Hello Brother XXX old son!

(Guest) 23/11/2010 19:53

xxx is dead. Long live guest!

Timothy V Reeves (Guest) 23/11/2010 20:23

..well that rather clinches it doesn't it, as only xxx would know whether or not xxx is "dead" - as if that very characteristic line of forthright rhetoric wasn't enough to clinch it! No look here Brother XXX, you may have some interesting points there, but why on this thread? You see I was thinking of doing one of my blog entries on this particular thread as it's content intrigues me. Trouble is, now that you have made an appearance there is a distinct danger that Brother Keith will get "deleter's delirium" and bang goes my thread!

(Guest) 25/11/2010 13:38

That raises an interesting question about consciousness after death.

Would xxx know if he was dead or not? What about soul sleep? What about the two parts of Hades, Abrahams bosom? The souls of the martys under the alter "how long" etc etc. Ooppps I digress, is that deleters digit deliberating above us?!

One thing is clear, Christ is raised from the dead and so are we. We are already in ressurection.

Timothy V Reeves (Guest) 25/11/2010 21:37

Interesting questions? My foot! "Guest" simply meant that the label XXX was dead! XXX has simply been re-badged!

My Comment:  A joker in the pack suddenly  makes an appearance; namely, "Brother Triple-X" from the Witness Lee Brotherhood, a fundamentalist sect who (of course) want to "recover" the whole church to the Witness Lee way of doing church. Their enhanced sectarianism gives me a "professional" interest in them; hence I've made an appearance here in order to draw Brother Triple-X into the fray giving us a five or six cornered gun-fight! For Triple-X all this is beneath his hyper-spirituality: To him the "soulish"  GB and GS are badly in need to being "recovered" to the true spirituality of the "blended" brotherhood. He is probably making a very frustrated appearance here after having no doubt been censored by the moderator on another thread.

g.s. (Guest) 04/12/2010 15:57

All Christians must refute Darwin's ideas, and offer the truth of the gospel to everyone. Thus saving millions from the fires of hell.

My Comment: That's so extreme that I'm feeling the effects of Poe's Law at this point! GS wants to get back to the subject. I can't imagine why because he is so utterly out of his depth. But then like Triple-X he is so utterly assured of his own brand of fundamentalism that he knows the Holy Spirit is testifying to both apostates and heathen of the truth of his version of unreason. Thus, he "assists" the Holy Spirit by threatening hell and damnation.

geocentric believer (Guest) 05/12/2010 21:59

But don't forget g.s. Copernicanism came first. It demoted God's place for the Earth by removing it from the spatial origin of His Creation, just as the claimed billions of years removed the Earth from the temporal origin of Creation. Copernicanism paved the way for an Old Earth and Darwinism. What you should be saying is: All Christians must refute Copernicanism, and offer the truth of the gospel to everyone. Thus saving millions from the tortures of hell.

My Comment: This point (which GB keeps repeating) is interesting and telling. I will be coming back to it as I have already said.

g.s. (Guest) 06/12/2010 17:25

Copernicanism is not the issue here. Besides, it is not in conflict with the Scriptures.

geocentric believer (Guest) 06/12/2010 21:50

I gather, then, that it was "another" g.s. who said:

"So it seems therefore you are correct geocentric believer. Thanks for the link."

We are back to square one with you disobeying God's Word and compromising with science. Let me warn you for the second time: The Bible implies that the Sum moves - Ecclesiastes 1:5 says:

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."

Once again, over to you g.s. Let me advise that you start using scripture to prove your points.

geocentric believer (Guest) 08/12/2010 15:56

Yes it does matter: How can you make claims to discovering the accuracy of the Bible if you subscribe to Copernicanism? Have you got any scriptures to support Copernicanism? I think you know the answer to that question g.s. - No! In fact do you use your Bible at all other than to parrot what other people tell you it says?

geocentric believer (Guest) 08/12/2010 18:07

...how can you ask people to refute evolution when you are not also asking them to refute copernicanism which is clearly against the word of God? This looks like hypocrisy to me g.s. and atheists will see through it as hypocrisy.

My Comment: We are well and truly back on track:  This will make any argument clinic proud: We are going round in circles again!

g.s. (Guest) 08/12/2010 18:26

So you are an atheist.....thought so.....explains it all.

My Comment: Even a fundamentalist can feel the force of Poe's law!

geocentric believer (Guest) 08/12/2010 18:41

You're getting desperate if that crass response is anything to go by. Have you looked at that link I provided? Can you start using the Word to justify your Copernican position? For the third time:The Bible implies that the Sun moves - Ecclesiastes 1:5 says: "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." For the third time, over to you g.s. Third time lucky? I doubt it, I don't believe in luck any more than I believe in hypocrites

geocentric believer (Guest) 08/12/2010 22:53

BTW g.s. you will find that geocentrist scholar Dr Gerardus D. Bouw agrees with me about your hypocrisy (See herehttp://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/fresp/index.html):

"Evolutionists, atheists, and agnostics in the know can easily shame creationists on the issue of geocentricity by simply pointing out the hypocrisy of their insistence that the days in Genesis 1 are literal while the rising and setting of the sun is not."

Are you now going to accuse Dr Bouw of being an atheist?

g.s. (Guest) 08/12/2010 23:20

I never asked you to bring in this "copernican" stuff. Let us concentrate on the fallacy of Darwinism. Like I asked before: when did anyone witness a monkey giving birth to a human? Going on the theory of evolution such a thing must happen every now and again, right? But so far no one has ever seen it happen. Yet evolutionists insist on holding on to this nonsense. They just invent the irrational presupposition that species simply "evolved", and that therefore the Bible must be wrong. Yet they fail to produce one bit evidence to support their assumption. I feel that there is something different at work here; something very sinister, which has more to do with satanism than with science. Sadly, there are also some Christians who pander to this abhorrence by suggesting that the Holy Scripture and evolution are both true. By doing so, they give some level of credibility to atheism. We must stay true to our faith at all times, our Lord demands no less. Evolution is incompatible with the Bible.

My Comment: Heck, GS has written a whole paragraph. GB must be getting to him. But notice once again, it's just sheer ignorant assertion. In his own words he fails to produce one bit evidence to support his assumptions !

geocentric believer (Guest) 09/12/2010 18:59

As I have tried to make clear above, Copernicanism, in subtly devaluing the pinnacle of God's creation here on Earth is the thin end of the Satanic wedge. It paves the way for Darwinism in devaluing man's place in God's plan. Therefore we cannot proceed with a critique of Darwinism without a critique of Copernicanism. The two go hand in hand. In any case as I have said above to hold to Copernicanism and yet to reject Darwinism is hypocrisy. So g.s. stop sitting on the fence.

BTW: I'm no evolution buff but even I know that evolutionists are not saying that a monkey one day gave birth to a human. You really need to get your facts straight first.

My Comment: GB keeps repeating this same point about a link between Darwinism and Copernicanism. The dimwit GS just won't engage it. This is the point I will come back to in due course.

g.s. (Guest) 09/12/2010 23:38

I still don't understand why you keep bringing up this copernicanism stuff; it has nothing to do with it.

Do you or do you not agree that evolution is basphemy against God?

My Comment: Of course GS doesn't understand, he's all but brain dead.

geocentric believer (Guest) 10/12/2010 00:20

In answer to your question: Yes. Now will you please answer my question: Do you or do you not agree that Copernicanism is basphemy against God? Depending on how you answer that question you will then understand or not understand, as the case may be, why I keep bringing up this "Copernicanism stuff"

geocentric believer (Guest) 14/12/2010 18:31

Four days and still no answer from g.s.

My Comment: GS obviously had to think long and hard about this one: 

g.s. (Guest) 16/12/2010 17:30

It is the popular believe that there is no centre in the universe. This has not been proved or disproved. To Christians it is clear that Gods reation (relation?) is the centre. But the question of the earth's physical position is less important than the spiritual reality of God's love for his people. If nothing else, the earth is the spiritual center of the universe.


My Comment: Ironically a similar argument could be invoked in regard to GS's YEC philosophy.

Mike 2 (Guest) 17/12/2010 17:27

Yes g.s., and what's more the dinosaurs also believed that to be the case some 60 million years ago. The truth of it was revealed to them just seconds before the impact.

My Comment: Worthy point Mike 2, but you are wasting your time here I'm afraid to say!

geocentric believer (Guest) 17/12/2010 18:22

...and such imaginary scenerios show us why Copernicanism stinks and g.s. won't admit it. Copernicanism set us up for all this rot about us being just an accident in a remote and obscure corner of the universe with no special status to protect us from apocalyptic meteor impacts. And g.s. foolishly thinks it's unimportant.

g.s. (Guest) 17/12/2010 23:57

You have a very narrow-minded world view geo.

My Comment:  A case of the pot calling the kettle black I think! 

geocentric believer (Guest) 18/12/2010 17:02

But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it - mat 7:14

In any case I am sure there are many on this web site who would accuse you, g.s. of having a narrow-minded world view. What's wrong with being narrow? But how narrow is "narrow"?

(Guest) 22/12/2010 00:04

Network Norwich. Shame on you. Keith. John and John.

You are not what you think you are.

geocentric believer (Guest) 22/12/2010 00:33

Don't tell me Mr. XXX, another of your forum threads has been nuked by Keith and co? Now look here my man, me and brother g.s are having a nice civilised Christian discussion and the last thing we want is another "Local Church verses all them others" fight breaking out on our nice cosy peaceful thread. Next thing you know, all our comments have gone to thread heaven.

My  Comment: Triple-X uses this thread to make his protest after being censored elsewhere; in fact it is probable the whole thread he was contributing to was deleted - clearly a destiny that GB thinks is likely for this particular thread now that Triple-X has appeared. Triple-X is, needless to say, as dismissive of "all them others" as are GB and GS. Consequently, the vitriol arising when Triple-X and his brothers engaged posters, especially  ex-WLB members, made threads unmanageable and they were often deleted wholesale. This vitriol is comprehensible when one understands that the WLB considers that all who are not with the sect to be, by default, against it; the WLB demands ultimate acquiescence or else.  ("Local Church", by the way, is another name for the Witness Lee Brotherhood)

***

And that folks, was the end of that! As GB predicted the thread suddenly disappeared for unaccounted reasons. Its destruction seemed to come out of the blue just like that meteor which Mike 2 spoke of. As if they were its lumbering dinosaur inhabitants GS, GB  and Triple-X went the way of the thread. And yet the thread is such a gem, such a microcosm of fundagelicalism. The wallahs at NN&N deleted it presumably oblivious of just what this thread was trying to tell us about the state of  modern fundagelicalism.

...to be continued

GB feasts on GS, but  something comes along to spoil the party.

Of Dragons and Unicorns

The screen shot below is taken from an Answers in Genesis facebook page. Ken Ham, AiG Supremo, is asking for some (favourable) testimonies regarding the ministry of AiG and in particularly his Kitsch Creationist Extravaganza, the Creation “museum”.

(Click to enlarge)

The visceral spiritual superlatives come in thick and fast:

“God bless your ministry”, “One of the most peaceful places I know” “I’m am so blessed by …YOU”, “Praise God for your ministry and good example”, “I could feel the presence of God” , “God made sure I stood firm in trusting a literal Genesis as a sure foundation”, “This is the proof that the Holy Spirit leads us into truth”, “it is an amazing place and the anointing is very strong there”.

Clearly these people went in with their expectations and hopes fulfilled thrice over. The world they have come to believe has been made palpable by a stunning spectacle of foam rubber, glass fibre, and plaster exhibits with a backdrop of painted wooden facades and atmospheric lighting. The cosmos of their imagination has thus been brought to life; they can almost touch it: But smell it? No.

But we must set beside this testimony the fact that many Christians don’t believe in a Ken Ham’s Young Creationist cosmos. To them the glitzy Bible Disneyland of AiG is to the Earthy Biblical World as a Star Trek convention, with its plastic phasers and communicators, is to Astronomy.

Having said that we now have to grasp the nettle: There is a contingent of Christians out there who are fundamentally mistaken about the nature of the physical world and yet they are able to dress up their error in the language of intense devotion, ecstasy and epiphany. That they can be so utterly vehement, so utterly sure they know the Divine Will  and yet so utterly vacuous debases the first person language of religious testimony almost beyond recovery; almost.... 

The Fundamentalist Argument Clinic. Part 2

The following discussion thread, which I reproduce below, first appeared on the Christian web site Network Norwich and Norfolk, although it has since been censored. The thread is, in my opinion, instructive and I hope in due course to draw out the lessons in a later post.

We are at the start of an argument between two fundamentalists one of whom is accusing the other of compromise on issue of geocentricity. Strange though it may seem there are still Christians out there who, based on their view off the Bible, believe in a geocentric cosmos. The geocentric believer ("GB") has just accused a Young Earth Creationist ("GS") with compromise. It was GS who actually started the thread by accusing Christian evolutionists of courting blasphemy. (See part 1) It is the turn of our YEC, GS, to reply to GB

g.s. (Guest)

That is a different matter.

My Comment: GS is man of few words; he can only assert, he cannot or will not reason. Given that he accusing Christian evolutionists of something tantamount to blasphemy you would think that the least he could do would be to take the trouble to get some Biblical evidence together to support his case. His short reply to GB betrays a desire to get off a subject that is likely to confound him and get back onto to familiar ground. For GS this is all a very annoying distraction.

geocentric believer (Guest)

No it isn't. Copernicanism is as evil as Darwinism. In fact Darwinism is just another type of Copernicanism applied to the animal Kingdom, making man insignificant, just like Copernicanism does. Copernicanism came before Darwinism and is the thin end of the wedge that takes us away from the Word of God. If you believe in Copernicanism you are a compromising the clear Word of God.

My Comment: Ironically I agree there is conceptual link between Copernicanism and Darwinism; I will be coming back to this matter in another post.

g.s. (Guest)

If you read the Bible properly, you will see that the scriptures are in harmony with the copernican world view. Evolution is an entirely different thing. It is at odds with the word of God. It is a blasphemous theory, and deeply offensive towards Christians.

My Comment: GS has managed to get to together all of 3 sentences, but once again it’s sheer assertion; in spite of all the vehement affirmation about what the Bible says GS seldom uses it. He is just parroting the line put out by his sect

geocentric believer (Guest)

Clearly .. you are not reading the Bible properly. The Bible teaches the Earth is stationary. Joshua 10:13 says: "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."

      As I keep trying to tell you g.s. Darwinism is linked to Copernicanism. In belittling God's created Earth Copernicanism paved the way for Darwinism. Christians like yourself who have compromised with the first blasphemy of Copernicanism have only got themselves to blame for the blasphemy of Darwinism.

My Comment: To give a robust and clear meaning to such terms as “the sun stood still” would require quite a technical discussion about motion. But GB is likely to think this as entirely unnecessary because to him everything is crystal clear and he takes it for granted that his mindset about motion is up to the task of spiritually indicting someone – as does GS. GB thinks his position is so obviously corroborated by the "plain teaching" of scripture that anyone who disagrees must have a bad conscience. However, let’s take a little pleasure in the fact that GS is getting a good dose of his own medicine!

Lord Ipsulot (Guest) 06/11/2010 13:47

Hi g.s., how nice to read another one of your contributions again. So, here it is: I accept the theory of evolution to be accurate (as against "believe"). Moreover, I think the bible is a load of old bunk, made by people who were - at best - not too well informed. Am I a blasphemer now? What will happen to me?

My Comment: This is an atheist who calls himself “Lord Ipsulot”. Although more articulate than GS he too only indulges in “argument clinic” assertion. His attempt to make a distinction between “accurate” and “belief” fails given that his sentence is naturally rendered as “I believe the theory of evolution to be accurate”!!

Mike 2 (Guest) 07/11/2010 16:18

Well well well. It seems that the bible is the authoritative text on just about everything then. I don't know what to say other than It Must Be Wrong Then Musn't It?

My Comment: Up pops another atheist called Mike 2 (to distinguish him from Mike 1 if you wondered). He’s usually a lot better than Lord Ipsulot at engaging, but at the moment he seems gob-smacked and “I don’t know what to say…..” really sums things up for him. Who can blame him.

geocentric believer (Guest) 07/11/2010 20:42

g.s. does not obey the clear geocentric teaching of the bible. He is compromising with science.

http://www.geocentricity.com/

My Comment: Yes, we've already heard that GB. Interesting, however, is the link to the geocentric web site. It’s the same site I considered on my physics blog  here.

g.s. (Guest) 08/11/2010 12:48

This so-called geocentric idea is at variance with the Bible as I read it, just like evolution.

My Comment: This is now looking like an argument clinic exchange,  the kind of “oh yes it is / oh no it isn’t” stuff you get at the pantomime.

geocentric believer (Guest) 08/11/2010 17:34

Then you are clearly not reading the Bible correctly. Where in the Bible does it say the Earth moves round the Sun?

My Comment…well you’ve got to concede it – he’s got a point in that last sentence!

g.s. (Guest) 08/11/2010 17:56

Where in the Bible does it say that the sun moves around the earth?

My Comment: … GS has let himself in for it now…look at this:

geocentric believer (Guest) 08/11/2010 18:41

Easy; the Bible implies that the Sun moves - Ecclesiastes 1:5 says:

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." Over to you g.s.

My Comment: Advantage GB! GS really ought to learn to use his Bible! Whatever do they teach him at his fundangelical chapel?

Mike 2 (Guest) 08/11/2010 19:20

That may be so, but just because it is written in the bible, it does not mean it is correct. The bible is well known to be wrong on many counts. Nor does it mean that relative motion is precluded. Wake up man, the universe runs on relative motion. It is impossible to say that you have no motion unless you devise some method of measuring your dopler shift relative to the 3K background radiation which appears pretty constant in all directions. Your standpoint is demonstrably rediculous, so why do you persist?

My Comment: Good points Mike 2 but you are wasting your breath – these two Biblical sectarians are not in the least bit interested in science – they debunk it as “man’s reasoning". The riposte from GB is all too predictable:

geocentric believer (Guest) 08/11/2010 19:33

..because I believe the Bible and not science; unlike g.s. who merely claims he believes the Bible, but in fact disobeys it and follows the blasphemy of copernicanism.

Mike2: If you want to find out more about absolute motion, follow the link I have provided.

My Comment: Re: the Geocentricty link. GB feels he can leave all his scientific problems in the hands the incorrigible Dr Bouw,  a geocentrist; although I hesitate to call him a "geocentrist scientist". GB is effectively saying: “I don’t do science – go and see Dr Bouw”. He is thereby relieved of the responsibility of defending the technical merit of his position, and he can then thoughtlessly mouth off scripture, tacitly assuming he knows what it means, thus giving him the pretext to accuse “compromisers” of heinous sin.

g.s. (Guest) 08/11/2010 23:08

Whenever the science and the Bible are at variance, it is the Holy Bible that is correct at all times. So it seems therefore you are correct geocentric believer. Thanks for the link.

My Comment:....am I seeing things? Surely GS isn’t acquiescing that easily? In fact is this the real uncompromising GS we've all grown to love?

Mike 2 (Guest) 09/11/2010 07:31

Then you both live in a world of phantasy. How sad that you cannot even attempt to reconcile science with your religion.

My Comment: Poor old Mike 2 is in despair!

geocentric believer (Guest)

So g.s. do I take it that you are in agreement that the whole universe revolves round the Earth in one day?

My Comment: I don’t think GB can believe this is happening ! Must admit, it does look fishy.

g.s. (Guest)

If that's what it says in the Bible, then yes.

geocentric believer (Guest)

..and do you believe the Bible says that?

g.s. (Guest)

If the Bible says it, it settles it for me.


My (Whispered) Comment: I'm not sure GS is entirely convinced; he is being evasive.

geocentric believer (Guest)

g.s.: Congratulations on joining the geocentrists! Spread the message about the blasphemy of copernicanism, the precursor of Darwinism!

My Comment: This apparently lame outcome certainly wasn’t expected. So is it really all settled with two uncompromising fundagelicals actually managing to come to an agreement? Not in a month of fundagelical Sunday Services, as we shall see…