By now the talk about global warming on this site amounts to beating a dead horse, as the granting of the Nobel prize to Al Gore should demonstrate. Clearly, because we fail to take necessary action now as well as in the immediate (as in, the next 3-5 years) future, we are headed towards some catastrophic changes in the way the ecosphere functions to support our main life support systems. There are irreversible changes occurring all around the planet due to the chain of events started by industrialization, the least of which are the opening up of the Northwest passage, the melting of the Siberian permafrost (releasing massive amounts of methane, a far more potent source of pollution than carbon dioxide), rapid melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, and increases in chaotic weather (and I’m putting it mildly – like the recent 40 degree drop in temperature from 90 to 50 in the past few days here in Chicago), to name a few.
Hi “Melanie” (an explanation on the quotes coming further down the post),
I’ve decided to move your four last “responses” here, as well as copy your earlier ones to create an exclusive post. My responses are quoted (you can tell by the date following them) or interspersed.
This is not a Lie or a Joke. Jesus returned in Spirit in the Spring of 2006. He talked to only one person. Again this is not a lie.
Jun 30, 11:09 AM
… and, where did this “contact” occur?
Jun 30, 5:33 PM
Hi Albert, God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost came to North America. Not to far from where Joseph Smith’s alleged talk with God happened. Maybe God just likes this place.
Jul 12, 9:19 AM Continue reading
As horrible as such a decree might sound, I think it actually brings the true catholic “Church” nearer to truth – in terms of orthopraxis – although it’s clearly offset by its person/institution of origin. The bare fact is that the Church is to be as a united and uniformly pure gathering of individuals after the return of Jesus, not as some arbitrary decree from a “recognized” (that is, recognizably flawed) institution like that of the Vatican.
That said, as a follower of the Way, our identity is formed and dictated by our relationship to God and one another, not to any earthly institutions.
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) — The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ.
I’m not entirely sure why Father Stevens took down this comment, but it’s here for reference.
Continued from this thread below:
Thanks for the quick response. My comments interspersed below. I did find them to be helpful.
1. Respect – assuming the best about someone even if you disagree with them, not attacking their motives or intelligence. Ad hominem is disrespectful
I can agree with this – it’s nearly the definition of ad hominem. Bringing it into a subjective context, what do you think about a layman referring to you as “Brother”? Or, under what circumstances would you consider “Brother” to be non-disrespectful?
[Ed: For context, reference my removed comment.]
As I mentioned, I’m not entirely sure what you meant by your phrase (although I do know the meaning of the phrase itself). Please elaborate.
albert wrote: “A recent goal of mine has been to root out heresies from the church. Granted, this has been a rather large task, but the multiplicity of errors I’ve seen are just too blatantly out of sync to ignore, lacking resemblance to a heart, soul, strength and mind in geniune worship of God. This is because I see myself as a teacher of sorts, although I lack what is seen as “credentials” – Ph.D/Master’s of Divinity. (That’s a partial reason why I’m back in school right now).”
Sorry for the late response. The thread has clearly blown up, so I’m taking the liberty to move it to my blog for legibility.
If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn’t thinking. – George Patton. [ed: my quote]
I’ve addressed your topic in my For Atheists page under Junaman thread – Empiricism vs. Rationalism, but I’ll respond to your logic w/in the framework of Christianity:
1. Assume God exists.
Define “God”. You do that in 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8, not 1. The Old Testament, throughout the course of its 39 books, does it in a similar fashion, but comes up with a different conclusion.
The formatting always gets lost in translation… even with html. Bleh.
The tags are a good indicator of what this thread’s about (maybe will work on a summary later).
A: It’s fine, I suppose. But the longer it takes, the more disingenuous your pursuit of “exposing incompetence”, as it were, will look (recent post(s) nonwithstanding).
J: You put a bit much weight on a tagline…
That’s not just a tagline… it’s also the title of your blog.
…How is this conversation exposing incompetence.
Well, that one should be obvious. The incompetence comes in the form of dogmaticism regarding the “ultimate truth” of science, which is implied from your For Christians page.
The real incompetence is not whether you believe in a god [or not], but what you use that belief for, what objective you try to achieve with that belief.
I can agree if you’re referring to “amoralism”, e.g. in the case of Hitler and Bush. I don’t think proselytising necessarily bring you to the same conclusion.
Update [3/1/07]: also check out UK apologist and Oxford Professor Alister McGrath’s book The Dawkins Delusion for a scientifically-inclined rebuttal to Dawkin’s arguments negating God.
Excellent post from Alternet‘s Evan Derkacz discussing the merit (and lack thereof) of Dawkins. Of course, it probably just wouldn’t be right not to link it to my atheistic humanist acquaintance Brett Keller’s blog, where he undoubtedly supports some of his main points of contention.
I’d respond to Dawkins’ assertions myself if I had more time. In all likelihood, though, I probably already have, albeit indirectly.
Sorry, haven’t had much time to post due to increasingly busy schedule. Of course, there have been plenty of blogworthy world events (will do a quick post maybe later).
Oh, and note that I tagged “the Antichrist” not necessarily because I believe Dawkins is the Antichrist… one of them, maybe – but far from “uniting an army” against God as it were. I’d leave it up to the politicians to do that.
via Alternet (video also available at link).
tagline: ‘Darwin’s Rottweiler’ Richard Dawkins disses faith, Bush base
In a BBC interview on Friday, Evolutionary Biologist and sharp religion critic, Richard Dawkins, talks about his new book, The God Delusion (I”m just ecstatic that he referenced the Flying Spaghetti Monster).
He claims to want to speak to the middle ground; to people who haven’t really thought too much about faith and God in order to challenge their belief. An uphill battle, to be sure. He employs all the usual suspects: “people need to believe in fairy tales” “just look at organized religion” but fails to see where every method for assessing reality is hopelessly mired in its own methodology. Or: the scientific method may be positively divine for assessing the physical world, it has built-in limitations w/r/t [FC ed. note: with respect to] the spiritual one.
Dreams are an important part of our existence. Although clearly not as central a component to American culture today (Gone with the Wind) as compared to Japanese mass media (Princess Mononoke, Final Fantasy, Evangelion, et. al), dream – ethereal visages or personal ambitions – tell a lot about our sense of personal image and our main concerns.
They have major ramifications in terms of moral obligation and future endeavor.
It’s too bad we in the “civilized countries” don’t pay too much attention to them anymore.
At 8:00 one evening, Prasad lay down to sleep as usual. However, as he would soon find out, the evening would be anything but normal, as his sleep was interrupted by two bizarre dreams.
In both dreams, dark-clothed men surrounded Prasad, but a host of angels fought on Prasad’s behalf with bow-and-arrow, swords and other weapons. The angels won the battle, and the men of darkness fled.
There was one thing going through my mind when I read this headline: could Hugo Chavez be the Antichrist? Let’s take a look at 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12. While it could be the subject of an hour-long sermon (as other quotes I’ve used), we’re going to use it exclusively for the purpose of using it as a rubric to grade Chavez.
1Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 2not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. 3Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
5Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.
So, doing a basic breakdown (being far from thorough, and lacking cross-references), actions will include:
- opposition and exaltation of himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped (v.4a)
- thereby sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God (v.4b)
and preceding signs:
- rebellion must occur first. (v.3, unsure of clarifying characteristics)
- will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders (one ref: Egyptian wisemen and sorcerers) and in every sort of evil (v.9)
I think it’s safe to say that, so far, Chavez hasn’t met the criteria for points 1 and 2. It could be said, on the other hand, that as a figurehead of the non-alignment movement, he could be seen as a fulfillment of point 3.
Even so, despite Chavez’s relatively good standing, it’s no prediction of future events. As is usually the case, time can change situations and people for the worse when hearts, minds, strengths, and souls are not turned to God.
In the words of the British historian Lord Acton:
Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely
So, what should we do?
Be on guard! Be alert[a]! You do not know when that time will come.
Chavez Calls Bush ‘Devil,’ Assails US Policies
via NPR news.
Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez took the podium at the United Nations, where he launched his latest verbal salvo against President Bush and U.S. world influence. Making the sign of the cross, Chavez described Bush as “the devil” and decried Washington’s misuse of its far-reaching power.