The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter wrote:

Washington Intelligence?

If you think Washington is stupid, how you account for them running the world? Arrogant, indifferent to suffering, greedy, crafty, all spring to mind before stupid. Stupid would be good. It would mean they did not have an imperial agenda and all the problems we see are just incompetance.

I hope you are right.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

If you think Washington is stupid, how you account for them running the world? Arrogant, indifferent to suffering, greedy, crafty, all spring to mind before stupid. Stupid would be good. It would mean they did not have an imperial agenda and all the problems we see are just incompetance.

Or both, of course. After all, you can be "arrogant, indifferent to suffering, greedy, crafty", and stupid too. It's widely stated (by, for example, senior British generals) that those in charge of the planning for Iraq simply dismissed out of hand any suggestion that the troops they were putting in were insufficient for the occupation.

Wasn't it Napoleon who said that you should never ascribe to conspiracy what is adequately explained by incompetence?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

I have no problem with eternal vigilance against abuse, by religions/ideologies or individuals. We ought to keep a close eye on all who seek to exercise authority.

But the suppression of free speech and the threat of taking children into care so that they will be properly indoctrinated is the issue before us. The mantle of imperial Papacy has fallen on Secularism. The Holy Inquisition sits in our courts and social services executives.

Well, yes, but that's been the case for the last 30-40 years. It's nothing to do with secularism - the state may be secular, but that has nothing to do with its increased power to remove children from their parents.

Or would you be referring to the way the Church used to arrange such things, with the help of convents, adoptions, and the Magdalene laundries?

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Galvasean wrote:

Satan must be the dumbest entity in existence.

1) Betrays got, gets battered and sent to hell.
2) Accidentally saves humanity.
3) Turns up for the battle of Armageddon when he knows he has no chance of winning. Gets battered again.

Maybe wickedness blinds one to the most evident truth, and drives one on even when truth is recognised.

The Preacher said, Truly the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil; madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead.

The Prophet said:
“ The heart is deceitful above all things,
And desperately wicked;
Who can know it?
I, the LORD, search the heart,
I test the mind,
Even to give every man according to his ways,
According to the fruit of his doings.

If this is so of sinful man, how much more so of the father of wickedness?

robindch

Scofflaw wrote:

Wasn't it Napoleon who said that you should never ascribe to conspiracy what is adequately explained by incompetence?

Always thought this was one of Churchill's. A smart guy.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote:

Or both, of course. After all, you can be "arrogant, indifferent to suffering, greedy, crafty", and stupid too. It's widely stated (by, for example, senior British generals) that those in charge of the planning for Iraq simply dismissed out of hand any suggestion that the troops they were putting in were insufficient for the occupation.

Wasn't it Napoleon who said that you should never ascribe to conspiracy what is adequately explained by incompetence?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I hope incompetence is the explanation. Others would suggest that a conflict that sucks in Iran is just what was planned.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

Always thought this was one of Churchill's. A smart guy.

Definitely Napoleon, although I've been slightly inaccurate: "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." is the correct version.

But then of course we run into the fallacies of teleology and agency - it must mean something, and there must be someone behind it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, yes, but that's been the case for the last 30-40 years. It's nothing to do with secularism - the state may be secular, but that has nothing to do with its increased power to remove children from their parents.

Or would you be referring to the way the Church used to arrange such things, with the help of convents, adoptions, and the Magdalene laundries?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, as I said, the mantle of imperial Papacy has fallen on the Secular State.

Had it been a truly liberal State, then we would not be under threat. But the West is becoming an increasingly fascist society - liberal facism -intolerant of any competing ideology.

J C

Galvasean wrote:

Satan must be the dumbest entity in existence.

1) Betrays (god), gets battered and sent to hell.
2) Accidentally saves humanity.
3) Turns up for the battle of Armageddon when he knows he has no chance of winning. Gets battered again.

Yes indeed, Satan did/will do, all of these things, although his motives are diametrically opposite to his results........such is the sovereign power of God.......and the ultimate stupidity of evil!!!!

Satan even tried to tempt God Incarnate (Jesus Christ) to SIN.............how mad is that???????!!!!!

Satan is BOTH extremely intelligent .......and also totally insane!!!:eek:

Satan was the brightest and most intelligent Angel in Heaven.....until he got the mad idea that he could challenge God's authority.....and he Fell, bringing one third of the Heavenly Host with him!!!!!:eek:

Fallen Humanity is no match for Satan.......only with the full armour of God and covered under His Blood can we hope to be saved from Satan and all his devious works and empty promises.

Lovingly

J C

robindch

wolfsbane wrote:

robindch wrote:

wolfsbane wrote:

Liberal facism

Thanks -- I'll file that one away with "compassionate conservatism", "creation science" and "moral majority"!

Yes, any thinking man will acknowledge the existence of all these - whether they agree with them or not.

Yes, my point exactly! All of these things exist as rather unspecific, not to say vacuous, hooray-phrases that a certain class of people feel it's their duty to gather around. Though they rarely, if ever, quite know what it is that the hooray-phrase means, or what they're gathering for, nor ever really seem to understand quite how politically useful the vacuity is.

Have a read of Stephen Poole's occasionally excellent Unspeak for more on this.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

I hope incompetence is the explanation. Others would suggest that a conflict that sucks in Iran is just what was planned.

My own opinion, in complete contrast to my caveats, is that the US knows it doesn't have the power to govern the Middle East, but cannot permit the emergence of any regional powers that are not aligned with the US.

Destabilisation is therefore the game plan, with US strongholds in Israel, Iraq, and Saudi (plus Afghanistan if that works out), and allies in Pakistan. Hence the enormous fortified bases in Iraq, which are pretty much the sole purpose of being in Iraq at this stage.

So, yes, sucking Iran into the conflict and essentially destroying its infrastructure would be part of the plan. The resultant misery is not of interest from that viewpoint, only the lack of challenge to the US.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Son Goku wrote:

So, God needed Judas to commit a horrible sin in order to get everybody else saved? Did Judas himself get saved?

Yes, a betrayer was needed.

No, Judas was damned:
Matthew 26:23 He answered and said, “He who dipped his hand with Me in the dish will betray Me. 24 The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, a betrayer was needed.

No, Judas was damned:
Matthew 26:23 He answered and said, “He who dipped his hand with Me in the dish will betray Me. 24 The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

The ends justify the means.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote:

My own opinion, in complete contrast to my caveats, is that the US knows it doesn't have the power to govern the Middle East, but cannot permit the emergence of any regional powers that are not aligned with the US.

Destabilisation is therefore the game plan, with US strongholds in Israel, Iraq, and Saudi (plus Afghanistan if that works out), and allies in Pakistan. Hence the enormous fortified bases in Iraq, which are pretty much the sole purpose of being in Iraq at this stage.

So, yes, sucking Iran into the conflict and essentially destroying its infrastructure would be part of the plan. The resultant misery is not of interest from that viewpoint, only the lack of challenge to the US.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, I fear so. As I said, I hope I'm wrong.

robindch

Scofflaw wrote:

But then of course we run into the fallacies of teleology and agency - it must mean something, and there must be someone behind it.

To which one could add the intentional fallacy -- "Something offended or hurt me, therefore the offence or hurt was caused intentionally."

How often does one see a race to take offence in religious circles? Here's today's example

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

No, Judas was damned:

Was it possible that he could have been saved had he been of mind to repent? Or was it also necessary in some sense for him to be damned?

wolfsbane

robindch wrote:

Yes, my point exactly! All of these things exist as rather unspecific, not to say vacuous, hooray-phrases that a certain class of people feel it's their duty to gather around. Though they rarely, if ever, quite know what it is that the hooray-phrase means, or what they're gathering for, nor ever really seem to understand quite how politically useful the vacuity is.

Have a read of Stephen Poole's occasionally excellent Unspeak for more on this.

Thanks for the link, Robin.

I'm in sympathy with you concerning the insincerity of many who gather around a label. But that is not to say there are no compassionate Conservatives, members of the 'moral majority', facist liberals, or what ever. They do exist, just as Christian Fundamentalists do, or militant Buddhists, etc.

wolfsbane

Son Goku wrote:

Was it possible that he could have been saved had he been of mind to repent? Or was it also necessary in some sense for him to be damned?

Had he repented, he would have been saved. But it requires God to give that change of heart. God chose to let Judas remain in his wickedness.

J C

robindch wrote:

To which one could add the intentional fallacy -- "Something offended or hurt me, therefore the offence or hurt was caused intentionally."

Yes, indeed we can all CHOOSE to take offence.........but I prefer to provide a defence of my faith position.......and to love the person making the offensive remark!!!!:D :eek:

Such people are deserving of our forgiveness as per Jesus Christ's plea to "forgive them, for they know not what they do!!!!":D

Lovingly,

J C

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

The ends justify the means.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The end became the means......

i.e. the 'end' of Judas became (a part of) the 'means' of salvation......the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ!!!!

Lovingly


J C

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Had he repented, he would have been saved. But it requires God to give that change of heart. God chose to let Judas remain in his wickedness.

Despite the fact that he had served God's purpose, exactly as God intended.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Had he repented, he would have been saved. But it requires God to give that change of heart. God chose to let Judas remain in his wickedness.

Does every Christian agree with this view? As there seems to be no free will for Judas in this picture. Judas might as well be a line of code in the saviour program, a cog in the machine.

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

Despite the fact that he had served God's purpose, exactly as God intended.

cordially,
Scofflaw

He served God's purpose.......but he did so of his own free will.........it's called being hoist on ones own petard!!!

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

He served God's purpose.......but he did so of his own free will.........it's called being hoist on ones own petard!!!

Or being used and then abused.

JC wrote:

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organ design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Prof Stephen Jay Gould, Evolutionist and Late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard University

By the way, I keep meaning to ask whether you're aware that this quote is from the paper in which Gould proposed Punctuated Evolution, 28 years ago?

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Son Goku wrote:

there seems to be no free will for Judas in this picture. Judas might as well be a line of code in the saviour program, a cog in the machine.

We must rely TOTALLY on God to save us.......but I believe that we can freely make the DECISION to be saved ourselves.
I think that Wolfsbane may differ with me on this point......I think that he believes that even the decision to be saved can also only be made with God's help.

Anyway, either ways, Judas decided to betray Jesus......and he subsequently appeared to repent.......and he then hanged himself.

However, none of this is conclusive evidence of the eternal fate of Judas....and WE are NOT allowed to judge the eternal fate of ANYONE.

It is the words of Jesus in Mt 26:24 that seem to be damning in regard to Judas "The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born." .

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

Or being used and then abused.

Allowing himself to be used by Satan ......repenting......but apparently not relying on God to save him!!

Scofflaw wrote:

By the way, I keep meaning to ask whether you're aware that this quote is from the paper in which Gould proposed Punctuated Evolution, 28 years ago?

I am!

The reasons that I chose it are:-

It is true.
It was made by a leading Evolutionist.
It is devasating of gradual Evolution.
....and punctuated equilibrium which was proposed, as much in desperation as in hope, by Gould is ALSO now largely abandoned due to the absence of any observed mechanism for it's existence.:eek:

Lovingly

J C

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Allowing himself to be used by Satan ......repenting......but apparently not relying on God to save him!!

I think your quotes show that he didn't really stand any case of salvation.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

By the way, I keep meaning to ask whether you're aware that this quote is from the paper in which Gould proposed Punctuated Evolution, 28 years ago?

I am!

The reasons that I chose it are:-

It is true.

It's a good deal less true than it was 30 years ago. The intervening decades have seen an explosion in palaeontology, and the filling in of a good number of 'missing links'. However, the picture will never be filled without a full, and totally provable, parent-child succession for ever single lineage. Funnily enough, if the world were only a few thousand years old, we'd be an awful lot closer to having such a thing...

J C wrote:

It was made by a leading Evolutionist.

Well, that's true, if we take 'leading' to mean 'prominent' as opposed to 'at the cutting edge' - although given your penchant for ignoring modern science in favour of the more easily opposed theories of yesteryear (or yestercentury), I suppose a 1970's idea might look like that to you.

J C wrote:

It is devasating of gradual Evolution.

Actually, punctuated evolution is a form of gradual evolution. The kind of "gradual evolution" you're thinking of is very slow creeping evolution by the simple accumulation of mutations - which, surprisingly, is something of a caricature of evolutionary theory.

J C wrote:

....and punctuated equilibrium which was proposed, as much in desperation as in hope, by Gould is ALSO now largely abandoned due to the absence of any observed mechanism for it's existence.:eek:

Funnily enough, he proposed it because he felt it offered a good explanation of the observations. Mad, eh?

"Punctuated evolution" is hardly "largely abandoned" - it has just never had a particularly prominent place in evolutionary theory. It has achieved a greater measure of public fame than scientific respect (because Gould is a good writer, but never offered much in the way of proof), though, which might well lend itself to that impression.

J C wrote:

Lovingly

J C

I love flattery!

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Mad Hatter

Can I point out that J C and wolfsbane have very successfully derailed this thread just when it seemed progress was being made (about four pages ago).

Scofflaw

The Mad Hatter wrote:

Can I point out that J C and wolfsbane have very successfully derailed this thread just when it seemed progress was being made (about four pages ago).

I haven't forgotten - we've got as far as "we can add new information to the genome by beneficial mutation", and JC has stated for the record that he never claimed beneficial mutations didn't happen, which is JC's form of graceful acceptance.

I doubt wolfsbane had any intention of derailing the thread - he said he'd be busy for the summer, he's always been interested in the moral questions rather than the scientific, and I suspect JC is just glad to hide behind his coat-tails for a while. I don't expect JC to actually re-engage for a while after progress has been made, so I consider this pretty much half-time chat.

Of course, the most probable outcome is that after a bit of this kind of thing, JC will simply revert to standard Creationist claims as if the preceding discussion never happened. Just for the record, I'd like to point out that it has that JC has no answer to the nylon enzyme frameshift mutation, and the convenient reference point of post 7000 will take us back to that little bit of progress at any time he tries that approach.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Galvasean

J C wrote:

Yes indeed, Satan did/will do, all of these things, although his motives are diametrically opposite to his results........such is the sovereign power of God.......and the ultimate stupidity of evil!!!!

Satan even tried to tempt God Incarnate (Jesus Christ) to SIN.............how mad is that???????!!!!!

Satan is BOTH extremely intelligent .......and also totally insane!!!:eek:

Satan was the brightest and most intelligent Angel in Heaven.....until he got the mad idea that he could challenge God's authority.....and he Fell, bringing one third of the Heavenly Host with him!!!!!:eek:

Lovingly

J C

Okay, so if Satan is insane, shouldn't God help him overcome his insanity? Or would that just leave evil?