Exposing the underbelly of Armstrongism in all of its wacky glory! Nothing you read here is made up. What you read here is the up to date face of Herbert W Armstrong's legacy. It's the gritty and dirty behind the scenes look at Armstrongism as you have never seen it before!
With all the new crazy self-appointed Chief Overseers, Apostles, Prophets, Pharisees, legalists, and outright liars leading various Churches of God today, it is important to hold these agents of deception accountable.
Herbert Armstrong's Tangled Web of Corrupt Leaders
▼
Friday, February 7, 2020
Adult Sabbath School; Pastor Steve Waldron Sets the Record Straight on Darwinian Evolution
Say what?
Why Darwinian Evolution is Obviously Wrong!
Pastor Steve Waldron
Say that again?
Oh Cousin Steve, Tell us you did not really say that!
"Some food goes to your lungs and some food goes to your body". Mr. Diehl, you are going to put yourself into the insane asylum if you keep watching these type of videos.
Note to self: Do not send my kids to Indiana Bible College!
Just some entertainment of the type that many evangelical pastors feed their flocks to steer them away from the concept of evolution. This man knows nothing about the evidence for evolution. Sweeping generalities might work for the faithful but not in real life. I have attended such lectures given from this point of view and they are hard to sit through. Dave Pack has a bit more shine and polish but approaches the topic in the same way with incredible misconceptions about the topic making sweeping statements of "how can that be?" when it can be and it can proven to be.
I see things coming up in the COG pipeline of topics so stay tuned.
The It Only Works If It's Perfect theory of anti-evolutionists was well-represented in the case of the anglerfish presented in one of WCG's booklets many years ago. It is nonsense. However, I can say with authority --- based on six months of intensive study on the internet --- that neither the strictly materialist evolutionists nor the creationists have the right idea. Intelligent design through evolution is evident in nature. The question is who or what did the designing. Ultimately that may be a supreme being, but at a more local level the creators may well have been us, or at least what we are when we are not in this mortal coil. We are all immortal souls learning lessons in this physical existence, and when we die we go home and return to the source until we decide to be reincarnated to learn more lessons. This physical universe was designed by beings such as us as a teaching mechanism --- a lab, if you will --- to learn spiritual lessons on this and other planets. There is no "one true religion" because all religions are ultimately man-made. All religions have good teaching mixed with highly irrational ideas. On the other hand, strict materialism fails to satisfy most people because humans are ultimately spiritual creatures who like all other living creatures channel the universal consciousness. You may think this is all woo --- I once thought that too --- but in reality it is the only answer to the irrationality of religion and the unfulfillment which most people find in strictly materialistic science. Furthermore, studies about reincarnation, past life regression, near-death experiences, and shared death experiences all point to a spiritual reality which no religion gets exactly right and which science at this point denies. It is questionable whether such a spiritual reality can ever be proven in a strictly scientific way, but that is a limitation of science, not of the spiritual dimension from which we all came and to which we all will return.
I used to sit for a very long time at the Gorilla cage, as a kid at the Rochester Zoo, communing with the Gorilla that just sat there and made eye contact with me. We just looked at each other for along time. Then he would look away and then back again at me and I knew he knew and he knew I knew that we were cousins. lol
The difference that my more conscious self meant he'd stay in the zoo while me, his cousin, watched us go to the Moon. :)
What animal DNA is the closest match to human DNA?
Bonobos, which is the first primate pictured in the posting... these animals are similar to chimps and actually share 98.9% DNA with humans. This is the closest related animal to a human with chimpanzees coming close in second, sharing 98.5% of DNA with humans. However these animals are seriously endangered with only around 10 thousand left in the world!
Feb. 7 at 8:28 PM declares, "This physical universe was designed by beings such as us as a teaching mechanism --- a lab, if you will --- to learn spiritual lessons on this and other planets."
Right you are, 8:28. Let me fill in the details. When you learn how creation went down, you will see how it gives the appearance that one organism gradually changed into another. Instead it was actually a series of experiments by the creator, whose lab was a sort of terrarium. He covered parts of the floor with topsoil and left other parts rocky and steep. He added water and arranged for it to stream off the high ground and pool up in the low. He planted vegetation. To avoid the drudgery of creating each plant separately, he gave them seeds so they could reproduce independently.
He designed everything to look exactly like the result of natural processes acting on natural substances. The design and execution were superb. Only persons with theological training in apologetics could discern any sign of supernatural involvement. He stocked the terraformed surface by creating hosts of creatures: simple at first, then more complex. He was working toward beings that could satisfy his craving for affirmation. He would design them to sing his praises and glorify his name.
Among the uncountable variety of blobs and squiggles he came up with, he settled on a basic bilateral body plan. He hung muscles on a frame of bones and installed a central nervous system to control the mechanism. He ran a tube through the middle lengthwise to take in nutrients and excrete wastes. He designed many creatures this way, from fish on up.
As the crown jewel of the assemblage of created kinds he designed a creature on this plan that would walk on two legs the way he did and share some of his own mental traits. He prepared a nursery in a pleasant nook and stocked it with everything they would need. He modeled a figurine out of clay and breathed life into it, then cloned another from the original. This was the first breeding pair of human beings. He encouraged them to start populating the lab with their kind. He planned to let them and their descendants believe their terrarium constituted the entire cosmos and he was the only god in it. He would be their god and they would be his people.
This is where Pastor Steve Waldron went wrong. You see, each created kind was fully formed and functioned normally in its habitat. None ever had the partial shoulders or incomplete, unworkable ears he spouted about. It only looks like one kind developed into another because each successive creation incorporated the successful features this god had discovered by creating previous models. So it's no wonder we look like bonobos. Bonobos were prefinal drafts.
(Damn, I hope nobody takes this fantasy seriously and starts a religion with it.)
NOTE: I am well aware that some, many or even most simply visit this blog only for the reasons stated in the header. I could not agree more.
"Exposing the underbelly of Armstrongism in all of its wacky glory! Nothing you read here is made up. What you read here is the up to date face of Herbert W Armstrong's legacy. It's the gritty and dirty behind the scenes look at Armstrongism as you have never seen it before! With all the new crazy self-appointed Chief Overseers, Apostles, Prophets, Pharisees, legalists, and outright liars leading various Churches of God today, it is important to hold these agents of deception accountable."
But also, each of our experiences in waking up to the dis-illusioning aspects of the WCG and Splinter of a church we all were, at one time, drawn to as being the True Church, has taken us in different directions. Some into a splinter to keep the faith once delivered as some still see it. Some into mainstream Christianity from which they came. Some out of the only thing they ever knew having perhaps grown up in WCG or even by now a splinter and discovering there are alternative ways of viewing Christianity and the Bible there were never exposed to and find attractive enough to follow that path. And some have gone on to various forms of unbelief, which like it or not, is just another expression of such an experience.
Being in that "splinter", which is a legitimate result of outgrowing religious thought and restrictions on actually growing in the knowledge available to us today in the sciences, I present these topics as invited to do so far, to stimulate thinking and open ourselves up to that which we all were not accustomed to doing.
Personally, if one young Church of God captive teen finds a way out through having their mind opened here to what is commonly known and understood in the world outside their tiny box of their church by this blog, it's worth it. I wish someone had done it for me in my youth. I may have skipped the WCG experience and gone on to follow a path more in line with my actual interests and curiosities about all we survey.
While not for everyone, and I get that, it is important to point not to just to mainstream Christianity as the way to actually go but also to what we as humans are learning about ourselves according to the evidence and not constrained by faith restrictions of one or another true splinter or the ridiculous Apostles and Prophets, so called, who think they know what they do not and can't.
To me and others, it does matter to understand that all the pompous players in the WCG/Splinter ministries will die as we all do. The day will come when others will look back on them the same way we look back now on HWA, GTA, Gerald Waterhouse, Rod Meredith and a host of others as just another mistaken preacher now relegated to the dustbin of mistaken theological ideas and teachings. These teachings, however, did guide the lives of real people who could have been better served elsewhere in their own lives, now also passed or passing.
"We are all immortal souls learning lessons in this physical existence, and when we die we go home and return to the source until we decide to be reincarnated to learn more lessons."
"Then he would look away and then back again at me and I knew he knew and he knew I knew that we were cousins. lol"
Why hasn't his genealogical line evolved further? Why aren't there varying levels of evolution in existence today? If he exists, and is your cousin as you say, why isn't there beings in existence along each evolutionary step between he and thee?
Dennis, you don't have to explain why you post what you do. It's Gary's blog, he allows it, so if someone doesn't like it they don't have to be here. Please quit giving them the benefit of an explanation.
717 we are evolving. It's a function of more time than you are allowing. Our cousins the bononos, orangs, chimps and gorilla evolved in parallel relatively with us and with each other from our common ancestor 6 to 7 million years ago.
Slow gradual evolution is difficult to show step by step in the fossil record. It appears in the record that it is more a matter of "explosions" with relatively rapid (in geological terms) changes and leaps. Hence, the "Cambrian Explosion" in the fossil record.
None the less, we are stuck with great mysteries should one want to go with the spontaneous emergence of life on Earth. Still not answered by science is how the first cell membrane came into existence. How even the most simple of DNA could randomly assemble and get itself inside of that membrane?
For me, there are many fingerprints of God and a designer found throughout the creation. Massive amounts of "code" and information that just simply could not have arrived out of nothingness, or produced randomly. Fibbonacci numbers, golden ratios, pi, fi, and more found from the smallest of atoms, to the entire galaxy.
Dennis, you may disagree, but it is not illogical to believe in the validity intelligent design, and irreducible simplicity. Both of these are legitimate avenues of scientific inquiry .
Sheist! Don't you pick up on the joy Denis experiences in carefully explaining? They are Denis's posts, and he can handle the responses any way he chooses. Why does someone always feel like they have to remake everything?
I am a theistic evolutionist. I believe that evolution as driven by Darwinian Natural Selection is true. I also believe there is a God. Evolution is just a tool God used to proliferate various forms of life on earth. Based on that belief, I see evolution as not being random but guided and even accelerated by God. There are scientists who are puzzled at the development of the great diversity of life in such a short period of time on earth. The observed rate of mutation does not seem to support this. Moreover, the diversity in the fossil record is much greater than what we might conclude there has been from just looking at living species today and assuming a historical straight-line progression (see the Cambrian Explosion).
Comparing genomes of living species reveals some degree of overlap everywhere. We share part of our human genome with bananas for instance. This argues not only a relatedness between living things but also origination from a single life source.
The real problem that evolution presents to conservative religion is not the science. The evolutionary science is intelligible and plausible. The problem is that this data drives the necessity to view the Bible differently from how tradition would have us view it. Both atheists and Christian fundamentalists make the same mistake of believing that evolution disproves the Bible with geometric rigor. So atheists are compelled to attack and Christian fundamentalists are compelled to defend. Neither consider an alternative course that regards the Bible as literary, sometimes allegorical, incarnational (written by the authors based on their place in history) and a book of wisdom rather than a technical manual. As someone said "God let his children tell the story."
837 Theory in science is not another word for opinion. Easy to look up and get a proper view of what science means by theory.
Tonto, do you mean intelligently designed by the Hebrew OT God or something else? Intelligently designed like the prostate which will swell and the urethra that runs through it and can't be blocked? That kind of intelligence?
I usually don't provide much commentary whenever the topic of evolution comes up, since years ago I became aware that God uses evolutionary processes as part of creation. That explains all of the many inconsistencies and open questions regarding evolution, such as parallel evolutions of different species which depend upon the symbiotic relationship which they share in order to survive. That evolution exists as one of the laws or guiding precepts of the universe is proof to me that God exists. The fact is that we get to witness evolution on a micro level in everyday life. It's not that difficult to extrapolate backwards and to realize how those micro changes affected the elements of the cosmos over billions of years' time.
Oh, BB. You just can't let go of that illusion of a creator! You're still under that solid dome firmament with a transcendant god sitting on the other side of a fixed dome firmament doing a miserable job of guiding everything "down here."
I know. I was one of those who helped get you in that frame of mind, but I at least was able to cast it off and face stark reality.
There is one thing that people posting and commenting here seem to over look. The original purpose of the blog was to point out the flaws in Herbert Armstrong's religion by pointing out his immoral living and use of religion. If we look at religion from a different point of view we will find that human life survival was faced with environmental conditions and limitations in their world. Survival was dependent on people drawing together or dividing. When people were drawn together there was a need for mutual agreement on everyone's responsibility and accountability. To me this is the basic core of the Bible and choose to encourage not destroy a religion that may add love and joy to life.
Dennis, I know what science's definition of theory is. Patronizing isn't necessary. In my own words, without looking it up, theory is the general consensus among scientists until is disproven.
The problem with evolution is that a being that only lives 80 odd years can neither prove nor disprove the theory of evolution. As such it's on the same level as the bible, both require faith and belief.
11:21 Your definition is quite good. However it only includes the quantitative aspect "general consensus."
For completeness I'd like to add the qualitative aspect within the definition. It is not a democracy with a 50 plus one vote. Institutions like Yvy league carry more weight than let's say a scientist at HeeHaaaw high.
"The consensus" you speak off carries weight because of both aspects.
That's why "research on climate change by research groups sponsored by oil companies" have less validity even IF all the researchers carry PHD's or doctorates. The institute they are part of just carries no weight in the equation. The same goes for or this goes especially for "research" carried out by the food industry or in the past the cigarette industry.
Yes. All people conducting the research carried titles, but "WITHIN" the scientific network they carry no weight. In a sense they are public relation puppets rather than scientists despite the methods.
This is often overlooked by the general public quoting "research" on food safety, anti vaxing, or climate change not being aware that they are trapped by a sophisticated public relations machine disguised as "scientific research".
You should not mistakenly assume that my definition add on implies "a closed scientific community". On the contrary, it is open, but the results are protected by the weight of the qualitative peer reviews as well as the quantitative aspect.
Others are free to convince all stakeholders of contrary opinions. But if NON agrees, it might be appropriate to toss that OPINION to the dustbin of history and *belief* or even dangerous fraud and misleading data dissemination for perhaps other reasons than scientific progress.
"The problem with evolution is that a being that only lives 80 odd years can neither prove nor disprove the theory of evolution. As such it's on the same level as the bible, both require faith and belief."
True for you maybe but not true for those who do the hard work of discovery. The Evolution as religion and a faith is Evangelical BS. Faith is the substance of what one hopes is true, based on absolutely no evidence that it is true. (Heb 11:1) The scientific method does not work like that nor abide that view.
What convinced me of the theistic nature of the evolutionary processes was the statistical analysis of the individual events in the process and their probability. It all came together in a time frame that exceeds best case scenario, and the appearance was that there was intercommunication amongst different species which were dependent upon one another simply to exist. They evolved in parallel fashion, a symbiosis. Plus, you have a system which seemingly renews itself on a perpetual basis.
Some may not find that convincing, but at some point, I, a formerly died in the wool atheist, did. Goes way beyond the watchmaker, or the existence of radioactive elements today, and other of the HWAcaca.
DD said: Evolution as religion and a faith is Evangelical BS. Faith is the substance of what one hopes is true. What is it you hope a scientific method will reveal that will give people the hope the Christian religion gives them? So far there seems to be nothing you have said that will give a human being comfort that religion gives when faced with the final stages contributing to death.
Anonymous said... DD said: Evolution as religion and a faith is Evangelical BS. Faith is the substance of what one hopes is true. What is it you hope a scientific method will reveal that will give people the hope the Christian religion gives them? So far there seems to be nothing you have said that will give a human being comfort that religion gives when faced with the final stages contributing to death.
Reality is a hard pill to swallow and I don't find a pretend hope to be all that comforting. The actual origins of all we see are not obligated to give us some kind of false hope. The reality of origins and the evolution of life does not need and is not connected to a human hope for the future for us. It simply is what it is.
We like to think that we humans are the meaning of it all. That all that is, is for us and we are the center of it all. This is simply not so. We do have a conscious awareness that other life forms do not or at least appear not to have. It is that awareness of death that creates our religions. "What's going to happen to me?" is not something that unconscious or not as conscious life asks itself. But we do and when we do we make up answers that comfort us regardless as to their being actually true or not.
When faced with my final stages of life if I have time to face them, I will do it with gratitude for the experience of life. I will do it aware that the whole thing seems like it was only 15 minutes long but I assume everyone feels that way. I did not notice being unformed the first 13.87 billion years and I assume I won't be aware of the next.
I'd like to think there I more but there is no evidence that convinces me. "The Bible says" does not convince me either because the book was written by people just as fearful of death with just as many questions about it as we have today. It is not written by any God as far I can tell. If it was, He had a hard time getting to the point and proving it.
As Carl Sagan noted "We have not been given the lead role in the cosmic drama" We'd like to think we have, but the more we learn the smaller the gods become and are destined to shrink down to nothing in time.
If there is more, GREAT! I also don't believe that forgiveness is not available without the shedding of blood. That's a crass formula for salvation and does not speak well of a loving and sane Deity.
The bottom line is that a false hope is a cruel hope and does indeed ultimately make the heart sick. I'd rather just know how things actually seem to be and are than cling to reassuring yet false fables.
DD said: The bottom line is that a false hope is a cruel hope and does indeed ultimately make the heart sick. I'd rather just know how things actually seem to be and are than cling to reassuring yet false fables. This what I thought you might say. The reason I questioned you was that type of mentality is what the bible is trying to over come in the human life. It reveals that God wants people to think of the other people when trying to satisfy our selves. You may not believe that those who have the Christian Faith are comforted when they and their loved ones face and go through death you are either kidding your self or you don't care. I know that all of people in the families that are a part of my life have and will face death believing in God's involvement in their life.
Wonder why in answering, Dennis felt the need to use the bible's definition of faith? I find that intriguing.
nck, my definition of theory was merely a succinct, on the fly, explanation. I don't disagree with what you added, though it is interesting to consider that you don't seem to trust climate science funded by oil companies but you have no problem believing scientists who rely on government grants for their money who knowing that if they claim climate change bogus the money will dry up. I honestly don't know which side to believe, if either.
7:48 I know. I was only adding an important dimension to the, on the fly, explanation, to aid future discussion where "scientists" with no scientific merit are quoted.
My, *oil company" example was just an, on the fly example, my real beef would be with the food industry and los Angeles car lobby VS public transportation, since Edward Bernays father of public relations meddled with the "science" supporting pressure groups.
I don't care how you personally feel about climate change. Just don't start smoking cause Edward Bernays told you through Marlboro man that it is a liberating experience in tune with the American values of freedom and individual liberty......... while scientific lab results are tweeked......
Anonymous said... Wonder why in answering, Dennis felt the need to use the bible's definition of faith? I find that intriguing.
Because that is the Bible definition of faith and when paraphrased as to what it is saying , to me, it defines the entire Biblical meaning.
Hebrews 11:1 1Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
I don't think it inaccurate to say "Now faith is being sure that what we hope is true based on no evidence that it is true."
That is the antithesis of being evidence based it would seem. After any number of discussion on topics based in evidence and Biblical faith, it is not uncommon to have it capped off with "Well, it doesn't matter. I just believe what the Bible says" because they don't like the evidenced based consequences evidently and fear the implications. I get that too. I probably did that myself back in my youth.
I got to thinking as well that when I think of my objections about "Higher Powers" and "Intelligent Designers" that are often brought up in such discussions, my mind goes to the Hebrew version as portrayed in the OT. That God, to me and many, seems petty, limited, too small, cultic, self absorbed needing worship or else, capricious and lots of other more human like than we'd like. There seems nothing "intelligent" about it. Should there ever prove to be some other kind of being over it all that has not revealed itself in any meaningful way until some future date, I'm all in and it would probably be quite amazing. Of course, there would be questions to be asked :)
In thinking of Gospel Jesus, we have a story of a man that portrays a mere one year, according to Matthew, Mark and Luke on the planet saying things or three as John notes. First of all, who is right and kind of a basic bio miss. The Sermon on the Mount is not some amazing new way of thinking or teaching when you think about it. The actual info about Jesus is contained in Mark with Matthew and Luke copying most of it and John is contradictory to them with long speeches of Jesus not known by the others etc. The stories of this or that , birth and death, don't match and can't be reconciled. Seems pretty paltry evidence for a God turned son of self to me and others.
All that to say, Bible God and Gospel Jesus seem too small in the world and Universe we currently know exists
And then we have one guy, Paul, a man with a terrible past, formerly hating Christians etc, a braggart and claiming to be called from the womb or the dead Jesus depending and having visions and hallucinations about the a Third Heaven but not able to pass the info on telling us what it all means. One man! Who beats himself periodically to keep himself in line and admits to doing what he shouldn't and not what he should. One man out of nowhere who writes most of the NT meaning of a Jesus he never met nor ever quotes.. One man A guy who curses those who don't believe in his version and dismisses those who supposedly spent actual time with Jesus as people he learned NOTHING from. One man! That now everyone spends the next 2000 years arguing over what he said and what he meant as if he knows. Seems risky to me on something so important as one's eternal existence after death and we could have hoped a Deity could have cut out the middlemen and gotten to the loving, kind and compassionate point of proving love for his created everything without doubts, contradictions and so much blood shed over the meaning He meant.
552 I do think we are comforted in our faith near death. I have no doubt about that. I would be too. My point is the difference or reality of being comforted by that which might be true but can't prove it until whenever, the next moment on another side or way down the road in some resurrection again and what we know or even seems more so.
I can't be comforted by that which is not evidently true. That's considered a delusion and while delusions serve a purpose for a time, they are still delusional, inaccurate and untrue.
Is it so wrong to hesitate on declaring this or that is so until proved to be so or not to be so? Is it so wrong to not accept "just have faith" or "trust and obey for there's no other way to be happy in Jesus but to trust and obey" as I grew up singing? Is it so bad to notice the Bible or the people in it have problems telling a consistent story so important to us all? Is it so terrible to be amazed at what humans (science) has learned about our inner and outer world over the past 400 years that fly in the face of Biblical accounts of the same topics?
Our friend John always "time will tell"s from the standpoint of seeing that the Bible is correct. Is it so wrong to note that time will also tell that it is somewhat lacking and why?
Is it so wrong to be curious about the world and appreciate deeply living in a time when we can know what no others before us could even imagine about their world and it's real history nor could ever communicate about it as we do choosing rather to make up stories that we know don't really explain it?
Why is that view so devious and cause so much snark and finger wagging from the faithful?
It's not just to the glory of the King, anymore, to search out a matter as says scripture. Kings evidently were only allowed to do such things in the past. Today it is to the glory of human beings, open minded and curious ones, to search out matters of interest, fascination and actual truth.
Hmm, we get a novel by Dennis. I don't think that we are the ones that you're trying to convince, that would be yourself.
Salve on your conscience perhaps?
As opposed to your non contribution to the discussion? Can't comprehend more than a few sentences at a time perhaps? Crack off anonymously because you are afraid perhaps?
DD said: Today it is to the glory of human beings, open minded and curious ones, to search out matters of interest, fascination and actual truth.
My comment: What matters, of interest, fascination and actual truth are the ones that a person can build a life on that will contribute to solving the broken lives the world continues to produce?
"Crack off anonymously because you are afraid perhaps?"
Nope, not afraid, just don't want to get into an endless debate. Posting anonymously I can give my opinion and then bow out of the discussion when the discussion gets redundant and/or accusatory as it always does here.
FYI I read very little of your seemingly unending post. I have no problem with you posting here, I have no problem with the content of your posts. Atheists don't scare me one bit. Nope not even Aron Ra. I enjoy "cracking off" like you enjoy rambling on and on and on and on and on and on ad infinitum.
"Can't comprehend more than a few sentences at a time perhaps?"
Also, before you go making accusations about ones conversation skills you might want to go back and re-read most of your posts. Rambling sentence structure, that is when there is any structure at all. Frequent misspellings. Run on sentences. Mind you, I wouldn't have said anything about it except for your crack about reading comprehension.
7:48, it isn't an either or situation, because scientists are not restricted to two distinct groups, one of which is on the payroll of the oil companies, and the other funded by the government. If you attempt to corral all of the scientists around the world into those two groups, you will be ruling out and dismissing the majority of scientists.
Speaking of "funded by the government" it would be very difficult to invalidate the time lapse NASA photos, which are a matter of public record. One disturbing news item from earlier in President Trump's term was that he had actually ordered that the NASA website be shut down. Last time I checked, it was still there.
Yes. It's like an opinion that the word "Saxons" is derived from "Isaac's sons."
Suppose a reasonable "quantity" of scholars and scientist could be found to support that opinion. The opinion will still be of significantly lower status if only the University of Bologna and Oxford would oppose that research.
Not because of their "names and marketing" but because of the number and quality of the scholars and scientists within their network and linked to those institutions as peer reviewers and the links and networks associated with those scholars and scientists in qualitative peer review and research.
Does it make the opinion completely invalid.
No.
But it just scores 2 points on a scale of 1 to 1000 in worthwhile citing to be taken seriously by people who spend a lifetime researching the validity of such assumptions.
Still. The world could be round. Columbus could be right.
it's a good thing for you, 9:14, that u do ur drive by comments anonymously. If u used a name, I'd automatically ignore them. Anonymous is not supposed to be ur personal license to be an asshole. It's to protect church members from the ministurds.
"Posting anonymously I can give my opinion and then bow out of the discussion when the discussion gets redundant and/or """acusatory""" as it always does here."
"Anonymous said... 2 or 3 of the anonymous posters are like irritable bowel syndrome to this blog. Or like common lawn slugs. But alas there is no cure.
Anon 7:11 PM seems not to understand that in Darwin's world homo sapiens sapiens is a race, as is homo neanderthalensis, the latter of which became extinct when the former crowded it out and used all of the resources on which it relied. Genetic tests that were not available in HWA's lifetime now document this as a fact, not a faith.
"Favoured races" refers to the adaptations that best inhabit their ecological niche. Dark skin in Africa, fat-cell retention in the cold north, etc. "Favoured" has nothing to do with value judgments, as one "favored" in the Sahara Desert may not be favored at the Bering Strait.
To be "racist" is to believe that the words in Genesis 49 have anything to do with the characteristics and actions of modern human beings. To be "racist" is to believe that some angry sky elf doesn't want dark-skinned Africans to love and multiply with fat-retaining Nordics. Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive like some modern racist religious cults.
It's also to be racist to follow the teachings of a racist like Darwin. His teachings were about survival and that some races were simply superior to others and therefore _would_ survive and rule over the others.
It's amazing how quickly atheists will beat Christians over the head with science but turn and run when it shows how evil raw facts can be without true morality based on love can be.
Eugenics are based on Darwinism, the Nazis', Marxists, all the worst of the last few centuries believed like atheists, that men were the ultimate power to decide life and death.
Racism is at the root of some of humanities pure sciences that deny God, and hypocrites want to deny this fact.
Thank you for your warning regarding misdirected pseudo science that swept peoples to anihilate other peoples.
As has been pointed out this has nothing to do with science or darwinism.
The fact is that people will ALWAY find reason to fault another. For instance the latest genocide in Rwanda between Huti's and Tutsis was presented as "genocide". However the real origin of the difference between the two "peoples" was the former colonial government's decision to name one group containing people owning more than 10 cows with one name and name the other group different. The same applies when your new neighborhood where people do not know each other decides to play a friendly game of football before the barbeque.
Observe what happens when someone hands out red shirts for the one team and blue for the other. Non of the people ever met and suddenly will behave like different opposing groups.
Modern studies are showing that 19 month old children will return a piece of fruit voluntarily to someone who accidentally dropped the piece of fruit on their plate and reaches for it. 30 percent will do this AT their actual feeding time.
Other studies show that toddlers will hand (their) toys to a crying baby if left alone in a room.
Man seems to also inhabit intrinsic altruistic behavioral characteristics.
Some cultures nurture bad in man others nurture good. But we can change that culture. I therefore suppose you are in favor of gun control and protest against the hanging of homosexuals in Iran........or maybe not..........maybe you find reason to accept cultural traits that go with both decisions. Just like ISIL found cause to destroy much of Nineveh and Syrian archeology..........."because they were pagan statues anyway."
Once again I do applaud your warning against immoral behavior and the dangers of (pseudo) science run amuck both for individuals or a society as a whole. That's also why the French and the Europeans for that matter oppose the import of US genetically modified food.
It is an important topic that should be properly adressed. To brand others as racist or hypocrites while they may just be helping the elderly cross the road or assist their disabled child, when they are not making comments on this blog, may not convince them to see your valid point.
Yes Eugenics are based on pseudo Darwinism and made bad results. But Darwin lived long after the Crusades when the people of Jerusalem and Beziers were burned for the very same reasons you cite as "denying god and being hypocrites and having ultimate power to decide life and death."
Darwinian Evolution is Obviously Wrong
ReplyDeleteso dennis take a hike.
ReplyDelete"Some food goes to your lungs and some food goes to your body". Mr. Diehl, you are going to put yourself into the insane asylum if you keep watching these type of videos.
Note to self: Do not send my kids to Indiana Bible College!
Just some entertainment of the type that many evangelical pastors feed their flocks to steer them away from the concept of evolution. This man knows nothing about the evidence for evolution. Sweeping generalities might work for the faithful but not in real life. I have attended such lectures given from this point of view and they are hard to sit through. Dave Pack has a bit more shine and polish but approaches the topic in the same way with incredible misconceptions about the topic making sweeping statements of "how can that be?" when it can be and it can proven to be.
ReplyDeleteI see things coming up in the COG pipeline of topics so stay tuned.
The It Only Works If It's Perfect theory of anti-evolutionists was well-represented in the case of the anglerfish presented in one of WCG's booklets many years ago. It is nonsense. However, I can say with authority --- based on six months of intensive study on the internet --- that neither the strictly materialist evolutionists nor the creationists have the right idea. Intelligent design through evolution is evident in nature. The question is who or what did the designing. Ultimately that may be a supreme being, but at a more local level the creators may well have been us, or at least what we are when we are not in this mortal coil. We are all immortal souls learning lessons in this physical existence, and when we die we go home and return to the source until we decide to be reincarnated to learn more lessons. This physical universe was designed by beings such as us as a teaching mechanism --- a lab, if you will --- to learn spiritual lessons on this and other planets. There is no "one true religion" because all religions are ultimately man-made. All religions have good teaching mixed with highly irrational ideas. On the other hand, strict materialism fails to satisfy most people because humans are ultimately spiritual creatures who like all other living creatures channel the universal consciousness. You may think this is all woo --- I once thought that too --- but in reality it is the only answer to the irrationality of religion and the unfulfillment which most people find in strictly materialistic science. Furthermore, studies about reincarnation, past life regression, near-death experiences, and shared death experiences all point to a spiritual reality which no religion gets exactly right and which science at this point denies. It is questionable whether such a spiritual reality can ever be proven in a strictly scientific way, but that is a limitation of science, not of the spiritual dimension from which we all came and to which we all will return.
ReplyDeleteI used to sit for a very long time at the Gorilla cage, as a kid at the Rochester Zoo, communing with the Gorilla that just sat there and made eye contact with me. We just looked at each other for along time. Then he would look away and then back again at me and I knew he knew and he knew I knew that we were cousins. lol
ReplyDeleteThe difference that my more conscious self meant he'd stay in the zoo while me, his cousin, watched us go to the Moon. :)
What animal DNA is the closest match to human DNA?
Bonobos, which is the first primate pictured in the posting... these animals are similar to chimps and actually share 98.9% DNA with humans. This is the closest related animal to a human with chimpanzees coming close in second, sharing 98.5% of DNA with humans. However these animals are seriously endangered with only around 10 thousand left in the world!
I've had run-ins with this nutjob before. He gave a study recently in which he claimed "jesus" was his own father.
ReplyDeleteHe's more F'ed up than a football bat, so nothing he says is surprising.
Feb. 7 at 8:28 PM declares, "This physical universe was designed by beings such as us as a teaching mechanism --- a lab, if you will --- to learn spiritual lessons on this and other planets."
ReplyDeleteRight you are, 8:28. Let me fill in the details. When you learn how creation went down, you will see how it gives the appearance that one organism gradually changed into another. Instead it was actually a series of experiments by the creator, whose lab was a sort of terrarium. He covered parts of the floor with topsoil and left other parts rocky and steep. He added water and arranged for it to stream off the high ground and pool up in the low. He planted vegetation. To avoid the drudgery of creating each plant separately, he gave them seeds so they could reproduce independently.
He designed everything to look exactly like the result of natural processes acting on natural substances. The design and execution were superb. Only persons with theological training in apologetics could discern any sign of supernatural involvement. He stocked the terraformed surface by creating hosts of creatures: simple at first, then more complex. He was working toward beings that could satisfy his craving for affirmation. He would design them to sing his praises and glorify his name.
Among the uncountable variety of blobs and squiggles he came up with, he settled on a basic bilateral body plan. He hung muscles on a frame of bones and installed a central nervous system to control the mechanism. He ran a tube through the middle lengthwise to take in nutrients and excrete wastes. He designed many creatures this way, from fish on up.
As the crown jewel of the assemblage of created kinds he designed a creature on this plan that would walk on two legs the way he did and share some of his own mental traits. He prepared a nursery in a pleasant nook and stocked it with everything they would need. He modeled a figurine out of clay and breathed life into it, then cloned another from the original. This was the first breeding pair of human beings. He encouraged them to start populating the lab with their kind. He planned to let them and their descendants believe their terrarium constituted the entire cosmos and he was the only god in it. He would be their god and they would be his people.
This is where Pastor Steve Waldron went wrong. You see, each created kind was fully formed and functioned normally in its habitat. None ever had the partial shoulders or incomplete, unworkable ears he spouted about. It only looks like one kind developed into another because each successive creation incorporated the successful features this god had discovered by creating previous models. So it's no wonder we look like bonobos. Bonobos were prefinal drafts.
(Damn, I hope nobody takes this fantasy seriously and starts a religion with it.)
DD
ReplyDeleteDid you see the video on Borneo.
One of the forestwardens was removing snakes from a pool that might endanger the urang utan monkeys.
One of the urang Utans thought the man was in danger and extended his hand to get him out of the water.
The video is going viral.
Nck
NOTE: I am well aware that some, many or even most simply visit this blog only for the reasons stated in the header. I could not agree more.
ReplyDelete"Exposing the underbelly of Armstrongism in all of its wacky glory! Nothing you read here is made up. What you read here is the up to date face of Herbert W Armstrong's legacy. It's the gritty and dirty behind the scenes look at Armstrongism as you have never seen it before! With all the new crazy self-appointed Chief Overseers, Apostles, Prophets, Pharisees, legalists, and outright liars leading various Churches of God today, it is important to hold these agents of deception accountable."
But also, each of our experiences in waking up to the dis-illusioning aspects of the WCG and Splinter of a church we all were, at one time, drawn to as being the True Church, has taken us in different directions. Some into a splinter to keep the faith once delivered as some still see it. Some into mainstream Christianity from which they came. Some out of the only thing they ever knew having perhaps grown up in WCG or even by now a splinter and discovering there are alternative ways of viewing Christianity and the Bible there were never exposed to and find attractive enough to follow that path. And some have gone on to various forms of unbelief, which like it or not, is just another expression of such an experience.
Being in that "splinter", which is a legitimate result of outgrowing religious thought and restrictions on actually growing in the knowledge available to us today in the sciences, I present these topics as invited to do so far, to stimulate thinking and open ourselves up to that which we all were not accustomed to doing.
Personally, if one young Church of God captive teen finds a way out through having their mind opened here to what is commonly known and understood in the world outside their tiny box of their church by this blog, it's worth it. I wish someone had done it for me in my youth. I may have skipped the WCG experience and gone on to follow a path more in line with my actual interests and curiosities about all we survey.
While not for everyone, and I get that, it is important to point not to just to mainstream Christianity as the way to actually go but also to what we as humans are learning about ourselves according to the evidence and not constrained by faith restrictions of one or another true splinter or the ridiculous Apostles and Prophets, so called, who think they know what they do not and can't.
con't
ReplyDeleteTo me and others, it does matter to understand that all the pompous players in the WCG/Splinter ministries will die as we all do. The day will come when others will look back on them the same way we look back now on HWA, GTA, Gerald Waterhouse, Rod Meredith and a host of others as just another mistaken preacher now relegated to the dustbin of mistaken theological ideas and teachings. These teachings, however, did guide the lives of real people who could have been better served elsewhere in their own lives, now also passed or passing.
Live, Laugh, Love and Hurry. :)
"We are all immortal souls learning lessons in this physical existence, and when we die we go home and return to the source until we decide to be reincarnated to learn more lessons."
ReplyDeleteProof? Or is that only your opinion?
"Then he would look away and then back again at me and I knew he knew and he knew I knew that we were cousins. lol"
ReplyDeleteWhy hasn't his genealogical line evolved further? Why aren't there varying levels of evolution in existence today? If he exists, and is your cousin as you say, why isn't there beings in existence along each evolutionary step between he and thee?
Dennis, you don't have to explain why you post what you do. It's Gary's blog, he allows it, so if someone doesn't like it they don't have to be here. Please quit giving them the benefit of an explanation.
ReplyDeletekm
717 we are evolving. It's a function of more time than you are allowing. Our cousins the bononos, orangs, chimps and gorilla evolved in parallel relatively with us and with each other from our common ancestor 6 to 7 million years ago.
ReplyDeleteSlow gradual evolution is difficult to show step by step in the fossil record. It appears in the record that it is more a matter of "explosions" with relatively rapid (in geological terms) changes and leaps. Hence, the "Cambrian Explosion" in the fossil record.
ReplyDeleteNone the less, we are stuck with great mysteries should one want to go with the spontaneous emergence of life on Earth. Still not answered by science is how the first cell membrane came into existence. How even the most simple of DNA could randomly assemble and get itself inside of that membrane?
For me, there are many fingerprints of God and a designer found throughout the creation. Massive amounts of "code" and information that just simply could not have arrived out of nothingness, or produced randomly. Fibbonacci numbers, golden ratios, pi, fi, and more found from the smallest of atoms, to the entire galaxy.
Dennis, you may disagree, but it is not illogical to believe in the validity intelligent design, and irreducible simplicity. Both of these are legitimate avenues of scientific inquiry .
Sheist! Don't you pick up on the joy Denis experiences in carefully explaining? They are Denis's posts, and he can handle the responses any way he chooses. Why does someone always feel like they have to remake everything?
ReplyDeleteDennis,
ReplyDeleteThat is the """THEORY"""!
I am a theistic evolutionist. I believe that evolution as driven by Darwinian Natural Selection is true. I also believe there is a God. Evolution is just a tool God used to proliferate various forms of life on earth. Based on that belief, I see evolution as not being random but guided and even accelerated by God. There are scientists who are puzzled at the development of the great diversity of life in such a short period of time on earth. The observed rate of mutation does not seem to support this. Moreover, the diversity in the fossil record is much greater than what we might conclude there has been from just looking at living species today and assuming a historical straight-line progression (see the Cambrian Explosion).
ReplyDeleteComparing genomes of living species reveals some degree of overlap everywhere. We share part of our human genome with bananas for instance. This argues not only a relatedness between living things but also origination from a single life source.
The real problem that evolution presents to conservative religion is not the science. The evolutionary science is intelligible and plausible. The problem is that this data drives the necessity to view the Bible differently from how tradition would have us view it. Both atheists and Christian fundamentalists make the same mistake of believing that evolution disproves the Bible with geometric rigor. So atheists are compelled to attack and Christian fundamentalists are compelled to defend. Neither consider an alternative course that regards the Bible as literary, sometimes allegorical, incarnational (written by the authors based on their place in history) and a book of wisdom rather than a technical manual. As someone said "God let his children tell the story."
837 Theory in science is not another word for opinion. Easy to look up and get a proper view of what science means by theory.
ReplyDeleteTonto, do you mean intelligently designed by the Hebrew OT God or something else? Intelligently designed like the prostate which will swell and the urethra that runs through it and can't be blocked? That kind of intelligence?
Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin covers our body parts evolution nicely.
ReplyDeleteI usually don't provide much commentary whenever the topic of evolution comes up, since years ago I became aware that God uses evolutionary processes as part of creation. That explains all of the many inconsistencies and open questions regarding evolution, such as parallel evolutions of different species which depend upon the symbiotic relationship which they share in order to survive. That evolution exists as one of the laws or guiding precepts of the universe is proof to me that God exists. The fact is that we get to witness evolution on a micro level in everyday life. It's not that difficult to extrapolate backwards and to realize how those micro changes affected the elements of the cosmos over billions of years' time.
ReplyDeleteBB
Oh, BB. You just can't let go of that illusion of a creator! You're still under that solid dome firmament with a transcendant god sitting on the other side of a fixed dome firmament doing a miserable job of guiding everything "down here."
ReplyDeleteI know. I was one of those who helped get you in that frame of mind, but I at least was able to cast it off and face stark reality.
There is one thing that people posting and commenting here seem to over look. The original purpose of the blog was to point out the flaws in Herbert Armstrong's religion by pointing out his immoral living and use of religion. If we look at religion from a different point of view we will find that human life survival was faced with environmental conditions and limitations in their world. Survival was dependent on people drawing together or dividing. When people were drawn together there was a need for mutual agreement on everyone's responsibility and accountability. To me this is the basic core of the Bible and choose to encourage not destroy a religion that may add love and joy to life.
ReplyDeleteDennis, I know what science's definition of theory is. Patronizing isn't necessary. In my own words, without looking it up, theory is the general consensus among scientists until is disproven.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with evolution is that a being that only lives 80 odd years can neither prove nor disprove the theory of evolution. As such it's on the same level as the bible, both require faith and belief.
Viruses have evolved in detectable patterns over the past 80 years.
ReplyDelete11:21
ReplyDeleteYour definition is quite good. However it only includes the quantitative aspect "general consensus."
For completeness I'd like to add the qualitative aspect within the definition. It is not a democracy with a 50 plus one vote. Institutions like Yvy league carry more weight than let's say a scientist at HeeHaaaw high.
"The consensus" you speak off carries weight because of both aspects.
That's why "research on climate change by research groups sponsored by oil companies" have less validity even IF all the researchers carry PHD's or doctorates. The institute they are part of just carries no weight in the equation. The same goes for or this goes especially for "research" carried out by the food industry or in the past the cigarette industry.
Yes. All people conducting the research carried titles, but "WITHIN" the scientific network they carry no weight. In a sense they are public relation puppets rather than scientists despite the methods.
This is often overlooked by the general public quoting "research" on food safety, anti vaxing, or climate change not being aware that they are trapped by a sophisticated public relations machine disguised as "scientific research".
Nck
And 11:21
ReplyDeleteYou should not mistakenly assume that my definition add on implies "a closed scientific community". On the contrary, it is open, but the results are protected by the weight of the qualitative peer reviews as well as the quantitative aspect.
Others are free to convince all stakeholders of contrary opinions. But if NON agrees, it might be appropriate to toss that OPINION to the dustbin of history and *belief* or even dangerous fraud and misleading data dissemination for perhaps other reasons than scientific progress.
Nck
"The problem with evolution is that a being that only lives 80 odd years can neither prove nor disprove the theory of evolution. As such it's on the same level as the bible, both require faith and belief."
ReplyDeleteTrue for you maybe but not true for those who do the hard work of discovery. The Evolution as religion and a faith is Evangelical BS. Faith is the substance of what one hopes is true, based on absolutely no evidence that it is true. (Heb 11:1) The scientific method does not work like that nor abide that view.
What convinced me of the theistic nature of the evolutionary processes was the statistical analysis of the individual events in the process and their probability. It all came together in a time frame that exceeds best case scenario, and the appearance was that there was intercommunication amongst different species which were dependent upon one another simply to exist. They evolved in parallel fashion, a symbiosis. Plus, you have a system which seemingly renews itself on a perpetual basis.
ReplyDeleteSome may not find that convincing, but at some point, I, a formerly died in the wool atheist, did. Goes way beyond the watchmaker, or the existence of radioactive elements today, and other of the HWAcaca.
BB
DD said: Evolution as religion and a faith is Evangelical BS. Faith is the substance of what one hopes is true.
ReplyDeleteWhat is it you hope a scientific method will reveal that will give people the hope the Christian religion gives them? So far there seems to be nothing you have said that will give a human being comfort that religion gives when faced with the final stages contributing to death.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteDD said: Evolution as religion and a faith is Evangelical BS. Faith is the substance of what one hopes is true.
What is it you hope a scientific method will reveal that will give people the hope the Christian religion gives them? So far there seems to be nothing you have said that will give a human being comfort that religion gives when faced with the final stages contributing to death.
Reality is a hard pill to swallow and I don't find a pretend hope to be all that comforting. The actual origins of all we see are not obligated to give us some kind of false hope. The reality of origins and the evolution of life does not need and is not connected to a human hope for the future for us. It simply is what it is.
We like to think that we humans are the meaning of it all. That all that is, is for us and we are the center of it all. This is simply not so. We do have a conscious awareness that other life forms do not or at least appear not to have. It is that awareness of death that creates our religions. "What's going to happen to me?" is not something that unconscious or not as conscious life asks itself. But we do and when we do we make up answers that comfort us regardless as to their being actually true or not.
When faced with my final stages of life if I have time to face them, I will do it with gratitude for the experience of life. I will do it aware that the whole thing seems like it was only 15 minutes long but I assume everyone feels that way. I did not notice being unformed the first 13.87 billion years and I assume I won't be aware of the next.
I'd like to think there I more but there is no evidence that convinces me. "The Bible says" does not convince me either because the book was written by people just as fearful of death with just as many questions about it as we have today. It is not written by any God as far I can tell. If it was, He had a hard time getting to the point and proving it.
As Carl Sagan noted "We have not been given the lead role in the cosmic drama" We'd like to think we have, but the more we learn the smaller the gods become and are destined to shrink down to nothing in time.
If there is more, GREAT! I also don't believe that forgiveness is not available without the shedding of blood. That's a crass formula for salvation and does not speak well of a loving and sane Deity.
The bottom line is that a false hope is a cruel hope and does indeed ultimately make the heart sick. I'd rather just know how things actually seem to be and are than cling to reassuring yet false fables.
DD said: The bottom line is that a false hope is a cruel hope and does indeed ultimately make the heart sick. I'd rather just know how things actually seem to be and are than cling to reassuring yet false fables.
ReplyDeleteThis what I thought you might say. The reason I questioned you was that type of mentality is what the bible is trying to over come in the human life. It reveals that God wants people to think of the other people when trying to satisfy our selves. You may not believe that those who have the Christian Faith are comforted when they and their loved ones face and go through death you are either kidding your self or you don't care. I know that all of people in the families that are a part of my life have and will face death believing in God's involvement in their life.
Wonder why in answering, Dennis felt the need to use the bible's definition of faith? I find that intriguing.
ReplyDeletenck, my definition of theory was merely a succinct, on the fly, explanation. I don't disagree with what you added, though it is interesting to consider that you don't seem to trust climate science funded by oil companies but you have no problem believing scientists who rely on government grants for their money who knowing that if they claim climate change bogus the money will dry up. I honestly don't know which side to believe, if either.
7:48
ReplyDeleteI know.
I was only adding an important dimension to the, on the fly, explanation, to aid future discussion where "scientists" with no scientific merit are quoted.
My, *oil company" example was just an, on the fly example, my real beef would be with the food industry and los Angeles car lobby VS public transportation, since Edward Bernays father of public relations meddled with the "science" supporting pressure groups.
I don't care how you personally feel about climate change. Just don't start smoking cause Edward Bernays told you through Marlboro man that it is a liberating experience in tune with the American values of freedom and individual liberty......... while scientific lab results are tweeked......
Nck
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWonder why in answering, Dennis felt the need to use the bible's definition of faith? I find that intriguing.
Because that is the Bible definition of faith and when paraphrased as to what it is saying , to me, it defines the entire Biblical meaning.
Hebrews 11:1 1Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
I don't think it inaccurate to say "Now faith is being sure that what we hope is true based on no evidence that it is true."
That is the antithesis of being evidence based it would seem. After any number of discussion on topics based in evidence and Biblical faith, it is not uncommon to have it capped off with "Well, it doesn't matter. I just believe what the Bible says" because they don't like the evidenced based consequences evidently and fear the implications. I get that too. I probably did that myself back in my youth.
I got to thinking as well that when I think of my objections about "Higher Powers" and "Intelligent Designers" that are often brought up in such discussions, my mind goes to the Hebrew version as portrayed in the OT. That God, to me and many, seems petty, limited, too small, cultic, self absorbed needing worship or else, capricious and lots of other more human like than we'd like. There seems nothing "intelligent" about it. Should there ever prove to be some other kind of being over it all that has not revealed itself in any meaningful way until some future date, I'm all in and it would probably be quite amazing. Of course, there would be questions to be asked :)
In thinking of Gospel Jesus, we have a story of a man that portrays a mere one year, according to Matthew, Mark and Luke on the planet saying things or three as John notes. First of all, who is right and kind of a basic bio miss. The Sermon on the Mount is not some amazing new way of thinking or teaching when you think about it. The actual info about Jesus is contained in Mark with Matthew and Luke copying most of it and John is contradictory to them with long speeches of Jesus not known by the others etc. The stories of this or that , birth and death, don't match and can't be reconciled. Seems pretty paltry evidence for a God turned son of self to me and others.
All that to say, Bible God and Gospel Jesus seem too small in the world and Universe we currently know exists
con't….
ReplyDeleteAnd then we have one guy, Paul, a man with a terrible past, formerly hating Christians etc, a braggart and claiming to be called from the womb or the dead Jesus depending and having visions and hallucinations about the a Third Heaven but not able to pass the info on telling us what it all means. One man! Who beats himself periodically to keep himself in line and admits to doing what he shouldn't and not what he should. One man out of nowhere who writes most of the NT meaning of a Jesus he never met nor ever quotes.. One man A guy who curses those who don't believe in his version and dismisses those who supposedly spent actual time with Jesus as people he learned NOTHING from. One man! That now everyone spends the next 2000 years arguing over what he said and what he meant as if he knows. Seems risky to me on something so important as one's eternal existence after death and we could have hoped a Deity could have cut out the middlemen and gotten to the loving, kind and compassionate point of proving love for his created everything without doubts, contradictions and so much blood shed over the meaning He meant.
552 I do think we are comforted in our faith near death. I have no doubt about that. I would be too. My point is the difference or reality of being comforted by that which might be true but can't prove it until whenever, the next moment on another side or way down the road in some resurrection again and what we know or even seems more so.
ReplyDeleteI can't be comforted by that which is not evidently true. That's considered a delusion and while delusions serve a purpose for a time, they are still delusional, inaccurate and untrue.
Is it so wrong to hesitate on declaring this or that is so until proved to be so or not to be so? Is it so wrong to not accept "just have faith" or "trust and obey for there's no other way to be happy in Jesus but to trust and obey" as I grew up singing? Is it so bad to notice the Bible or the people in it have problems telling a consistent story so important to us all? Is it so terrible to be amazed at what humans (science) has learned about our inner and outer world over the past 400 years that fly in the face of Biblical accounts of the same topics?
Our friend John always "time will tell"s from the standpoint of seeing that the Bible is correct. Is it so wrong to note that time will also tell that it is somewhat lacking and why?
Is it so wrong to be curious about the world and appreciate deeply living in a time when we can know what no others before us could even imagine about their world and it's real history nor could ever communicate about it as we do choosing rather to make up stories that we know don't really explain it?
Why is that view so devious and cause so much snark and finger wagging from the faithful?
It's not just to the glory of the King, anymore, to search out a matter as says scripture. Kings evidently were only allowed to do such things in the past. Today it is to the glory of human beings, open minded and curious ones, to search out matters of interest, fascination and actual truth.
ReplyDeleteHmm, we get a novel by Dennis. I don't think that we are the ones that you're trying to convince, that would be yourself.
Salve on your conscience perhaps?
"and actual truth."
ReplyDeleteWhat is truth?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteHmm, we get a novel by Dennis. I don't think that we are the ones that you're trying to convince, that would be yourself.
Salve on your conscience perhaps?
As opposed to your non contribution to the discussion? Can't comprehend more than a few sentences at a time perhaps? Crack off anonymously because you are afraid perhaps?
DD said: Today it is to the glory of human beings, open minded and curious ones, to search out matters of interest, fascination and actual truth.
ReplyDeleteMy comment: What matters, of interest, fascination and actual truth are the ones that a person can build a life on that will contribute to solving the broken lives the world continues to produce?
"Crack off anonymously because you are afraid perhaps?"
ReplyDeleteNope, not afraid, just don't want to get into an endless debate. Posting anonymously I can give my opinion and then bow out of the discussion when the discussion gets redundant and/or accusatory as it always does here.
FYI I read very little of your seemingly unending post. I have no problem with you posting here, I have no problem with the content of your posts. Atheists don't scare me one bit. Nope not even Aron Ra. I enjoy "cracking off" like you enjoy rambling on and on and on and on and on and on ad infinitum.
"Can't comprehend more than a few sentences at a time perhaps?"
ReplyDeleteAlso, before you go making accusations about ones conversation skills you might want to go back and re-read most of your posts. Rambling sentence structure, that is when there is any structure at all. Frequent misspellings. Run on sentences. Mind you, I wouldn't have said anything about it except for your crack about reading comprehension.
7:48, it isn't an either or situation, because scientists are not restricted to two distinct groups, one of which is on the payroll of the oil companies, and the other funded by the government. If you attempt to corral all of the scientists around the world into those two groups, you will be ruling out and dismissing the majority of scientists.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of "funded by the government" it would be very difficult to invalidate the time lapse NASA photos, which are a matter of public record. One disturbing news item from earlier in President Trump's term was that he had actually ordered that the NASA website be shut down. Last time I checked, it was still there.
BB
Yes.
DeleteIt's like an opinion that the word "Saxons" is derived from "Isaac's sons."
Suppose a reasonable "quantity" of scholars and scientist could be found to support that opinion. The opinion will still be of significantly lower status if only the University of Bologna and Oxford would oppose that research.
Not because of their "names and marketing" but because of the number and quality of the scholars and scientists within their network and linked to those institutions as peer reviewers and the links and networks associated with those scholars and scientists in qualitative peer review and research.
Does it make the opinion completely invalid.
No.
But it just scores 2 points on a scale of 1 to 1000 in worthwhile citing to be taken seriously by people who spend a lifetime researching the validity of such assumptions.
Still. The world could be round. Columbus could be right.
Nck
it's a good thing for you, 9:14, that u do ur drive by comments anonymously. If u used a name, I'd automatically ignore them. Anonymous is not supposed to be ur personal license to be an asshole. It's to protect church members from the ministurds.
ReplyDeleteGot me there. I write as I am speaking it in my head and keyboard to keep up.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous is not supposed to be ur personal license to be an asshole.
ReplyDeleteFebruary 9, 2020 at 9:27 AM"
Then why do you use it as such?
"Posting anonymously I can give my opinion and then bow out of the discussion when the discussion gets redundant and/or """acusatory""" as it always does here."
ReplyDelete9:27am proves my point!
2 or 3 of the anonymous posters are like irritable bowel syndrome to this blog. Or like common lawn slugs. But alas there is no cure.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete2 or 3 of the anonymous posters are like irritable bowel syndrome to this blog. Or like common lawn slugs. But alas there is no cure.
February 9, 2020 at 7:15 PM"
Is that right pot?
Kettle
Dennis,
ReplyDeleteThe only way to believe in evolution is to be RACIST. There is no getting around this FACT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species#/media/File:Origin_of_Species_title_page.jpg
"The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" - Darwin
Evolutionists who deny they are racist are deceivers, hypocrites and liars.
DennisCDiehl said: “The Evolution as religion and a faith is Evangelical BS.”
ReplyDeleteDennis your opinion is clouded by your rejection of God and the Christian Bible.
Evolutionism like Christianity is a faith based religion.
Evolutionism, like the big bang, is a theory of the origin of humanity and the universe.
Evolutionists interpret evidence that support their belief system that evolutionism is a fact and true.
It’s a death cult and a false religion.
Anon 7:11 PM seems not to understand that in Darwin's world homo sapiens sapiens is a race, as is homo neanderthalensis, the latter of which became extinct when the former crowded it out and used all of the resources on which it relied. Genetic tests that were not available in HWA's lifetime now document this as a fact, not a faith.
ReplyDelete"Favoured races" refers to the adaptations that best inhabit their ecological niche. Dark skin in Africa, fat-cell retention in the cold north, etc. "Favoured" has nothing to do with value judgments, as one "favored" in the Sahara Desert may not be favored at the Bering Strait.
To be "racist" is to believe that the words in Genesis 49 have anything to do with the characteristics and actions of modern human beings. To be "racist" is to believe that some angry sky elf doesn't want dark-skinned Africans to love and multiply with fat-retaining Nordics. Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive like some modern racist religious cults.
It's also to be racist to follow the teachings of a racist like Darwin. His teachings were about survival and that some races were simply superior to others and therefore _would_ survive and rule over the others.
ReplyDeleteIt's amazing how quickly atheists will beat Christians over the head with science but turn and run when it shows how evil raw facts can be without true morality based on love can be.
Eugenics are based on Darwinism, the Nazis', Marxists, all the worst of the last few centuries believed like atheists, that men were the ultimate power to decide life and death.
Racism is at the root of some of humanities pure sciences that deny God, and hypocrites want to deny this fact.
9:01
ReplyDeleteThank you for your warning regarding misdirected pseudo science that swept peoples to anihilate other peoples.
As has been pointed out this has nothing to do with science or darwinism.
The fact is that people will ALWAY find reason to fault another. For instance the latest genocide in Rwanda between Huti's and Tutsis was presented as "genocide". However the real origin of the difference between the two "peoples" was the former colonial government's decision to name one group containing people owning more than 10 cows with one name and name the other group different. The same applies when your new neighborhood where people do not know each other decides to play a friendly game of football before the barbeque.
Observe what happens when someone hands out red shirts for the one team and blue for the other. Non of the people ever met and suddenly will behave like different opposing groups.
Modern studies are showing that 19 month old children will return a piece of fruit voluntarily to someone who accidentally dropped the piece of fruit on their plate and reaches for it. 30 percent will do this AT their actual feeding time.
Other studies show that toddlers will hand (their) toys to a crying baby if left alone in a room.
Man seems to also inhabit intrinsic altruistic behavioral characteristics.
Some cultures nurture bad in man others nurture good. But we can change that culture.
I therefore suppose you are in favor of gun control and protest against the hanging of homosexuals in Iran........or maybe not..........maybe you find reason to accept cultural traits that go with both decisions. Just like ISIL found cause to destroy much of Nineveh and Syrian archeology..........."because they were pagan statues anyway."
Once again I do applaud your warning against immoral behavior and the dangers of (pseudo) science run amuck both for individuals or a society as a whole. That's also why the French and the Europeans for that matter oppose the import of US genetically modified food.
It is an important topic that should be properly adressed.
To brand others as racist or hypocrites while they may just be helping the elderly cross the road or assist their disabled child, when they are not making comments on this blog, may not convince them to see your valid point.
Yes Eugenics are based on pseudo Darwinism and made bad results. But Darwin lived long after the Crusades when the people of Jerusalem and Beziers were burned for the very same reasons you cite as "denying god and being hypocrites and having ultimate power to decide life and death."
As in death row.
nck