ODT on Intolerance
December 28th, 2009 at 11:36 am by David FarrarThe ODT editorial:
Central Auckland might not be Iraq or Afghanistan but it has been the scene of extremist religious reaction.
It was perfectly reasonable for certain churches and for various individuals to express their displeasure and even horror at what they saw as unsuitable or blasphemous in the Joseph and Mary billboard.
But the man who painted over it and the woman who attacked it with a knife are intolerant religious fanatics.
As such they are dangerous. In the name of their God they saw it as their right, even their obligation, to break the law and damage property.
The point I made.
While their actions are clearly of a different ilk to the suicide bombers of 9/11 or of a Baghdad market place, the fundamental impulse is the same. In the righteous name of God, they felt called to do their duty.
I agree. The moment you think doing God’s duty puts you above the law, it is a slippery slope.
But do the very values of the West contain the seeds of their own destruction? Is tolerance – and so-called “progressive” Christianity for that matter – a licence for wishy-washy thinking, policy and behaviour? Do the fanatics and the intolerant simply take advantage of weakness? Are the institutions and principles of democracy callously abused by ideologues for their own ends? These are dilemmas which liberal democracies face.
These are the concerns that echo through modern Western Europe as immigration swells the numbers from cultures and beliefs where ethics like individual human rights are far from sacrosanct.
The way forward has to be to ensure pride in the basic values that underpin democratic society and to defend them with vigour.
It means being prepared to be tolerant of different cultures and different beliefs but intolerant when aspects of those cultures and beliefs threaten the core on which Western democracies are based. Already, countries, institutions and individuals have been bullied over freedom of speech, with the most stark example the furore over the Danish Mohammed cartoons.
And the answer is to defend freedom of speech, not to applaud those who would deny it in Auckland.
December 28th, 2009 at 11:41 am
How could you believe in God and not think that your duty to God supercedes any duty to man’s laws?
[DPF: If God instructs me directly to do something, I'll probably do it. And hundreds of millions of people have faith, but don't think it is their job to force that faith on others by breaking the law. Faith and respect for the law is not mutually contradictory]
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Yes.
If the law said that I had to participate in the killing of innocents, you bet I would put God’s law above the law of the state.
[DPF: Sigh. Do you think the killing of innocents is wrong just because God says it is wrong? Extremist Islamists say killing innocents is right because their God says it is right.
Besides it is an ridicolous red herring you cite. This is not about people being forced to do something against what their God may wish. This is about people destroying property in the name of God. What is so hard about condemning those who broke the law?]
December 28th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Ryan – There are numerous verses in the bible that tell you to obey the law of the land. Like everything and anything, it all comes down to the individuals belief. Religion can inspire great, wonderful acts but it can also inspire terrible acts, which one all comes down to the individual.
I am a Christian, and in extreme cases, Gods duty will trump the law, for example, if the law called for me to report Jews to the authority’s to go to death camps I would break the law every time. I believe that god gave us a brain and we are to use these things to make the right choice of when obeying the law is so repugnant that it is right to break it.
Religion is just one of many things that can inspire people for good or bad. I would argue that more bad over the last two century’s has been done in the name of politics than in the name of religion… eg, atheistic communism, Nazism, social democracy (ooops, did I say that).
Comparing Christianity extremism to Islamic extremism in terms of the law is like comparing the labour party to stalin. Christianity believes that there needs to be a law of the land, Islam believes that the law of the land has to be Shariah law.
Regardless, those vandals who targeted the bill board are kidding themselves if they think they are doing gods duty, they are doing it for their own selfish reasons. They should be comfortable with their own beliefs, and not take offense at things they don’t agree with.
December 28th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
You could not have any form of protest or Libertarianism without a belief that Man is above the Law.
Religion is just one of many expressions in the primacy of Man over law, as an individual or in groups.
JC
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Has anyone considered what the West will do when some terrorist gets ahold of a nuclear bomb and detonates it in some western city? History shows that when push comes to shove, “Human rights” and “tolerance” gets shafted when your homeland is under threat. Its a depressing thought but I think its inevitable, and its the cost of living in a semi-free, semi-open and semi-democratic society.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
More horse radish using big words like tolerance and fanatics.
I’m intolerant of paedophilia and live in a society that is also intolerant of it – even to the extent that under New Zealand law people can be imprisoned for having sexualized images of children and I nor probably any other reader of this blog has a problem with that.
Intolerance is not necessarily wrong – it can actually be a virtue. One trick the so called progressives have used to great effect is to turn “intolerance” into a bash word to quieten their opponents.
Furthermore unless I am very much mistaken New Zealand still has blasphemy laws on the statute book and that bill board was blasphemous under the current law of New Zealand – but given the predominance of the progressive secular elite in our culture it would be unlikely that a prosecution under these laws would succeed – indeed a post modernistic interpretation of the statutes would doubtlessly be deployed by the attorney general to block prosecution as happened twice before in recent times with the “Virgin in a condom” and the “South Park Bloody Mary” cases .
Ultimately we all will face the greatest Judge of All and somehow I doubt such sophistry will be of much use when standing before Him.
PS I believe in free speech but free speech does not mean freedom of consequences for what you say and if you say something that offends you must be prepared to wear the consequences.
This faux outrage and the casting of those who defaced the billboard as “Christian Fanatics” is pathetic. Their actions are positively restrained compared to what we have seen in recent times from other quarters – in fact it is almost clichéd to point this out.
Anyway the good vicar has gotten his fifteen minutes by taking a giant dump upon Christians at Christmas to the great joy of those who hate the Church and more especially those who wallow in tastelessness.
December 28th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
They’re not inherently mutually contradictory, but where they contradict, faith will take precedence. Of course they would. How could they not?
Obviously this doesn’t mean that those people who break the law in the name of their duty to God should be exempt from the law and its consequences. But it seems unrealistic to me to expect people who believe in God to put respect for the law before respect for God’s wishes.
Whether or not God actually wanted them to deface the billboard is a different question. All that’s relevant is that they believed He did.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Andrei, what does free speech mean to you, then?
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
“I’m intolerant of paedophilia and live in a society that is also intolerant of it – even to the extent that under New Zealand law people can be imprisoned for having sexualized images of children and I nor probably any other reader of this blog has a problem with that.”
Depends on how the images are made.If a real child is used then its of course wrong as its rights have been violated.However if its a cartoon or CPI image then there is no actual crime commited.Doesn’t make the practice any more pleasent but it does raise major issues over wheather such images should be banned….which I would have to say no to.Indeed such images may reduce actual child sex offending as they act as a ‘low cost” option for these people to get there jollies without taking the risks that are part of real offending.
Good law doesn’t contradict with the natural human rights to life,liberty,property and to pursue ones happiness.In NZ as many other places we have a lot of bad law that actually violates these natural rights.These bad laws,like the ones concerning drugs,prostitution,employment arrangements,coercive taxation,etc need removing asap if NZ is to prosper and grow morally and ethically as well as economically.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Dressing up the actions of a few as “terrorists acting out God’s law” is completely over-the-top. For that matter, let’s deal with the specifics: Have these people gone on record saying that God told them to do this, or were they just offended to the point they engaged in petty vandalism? Wasn’t the women who attacked the billboard a member of the parish?
Both actions were wrong – something deliberately offensive and excused as “provocative” and the reaction from 2 people to deface the billboard in response. God didn’t tell the Parish priest to put up that billboard, and God didn’t tell those people to take it down.
It seems the people that care least about the actual billboard message are the keenest to pour oil on the issue, branding it incorrectly as religious extremism. The only Slippery Slope I can see are the irreligious baying for some kind of blood sacrifice, trying to make the blame for an idiotic response a papist conspiracy of Terrorists.
“Look, some-one defaced a billboard, they must be terrorists ready to kill us”
Let’s change the Electoral Finance Act to put to death all of those people found defacing a political billboard in the next election. They are obviously terrorists, not idiots.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
If a complete belief and adherance to the law is so compeling DPF would you support the British Crown/French Crowns verses the rebels before the respective revolutions? Revolting was surely against the law as it was at the time?
What about when the Eastern Bloc peoples rebelled against their respective communist governments in the late 80′s ? That surely was definitely breaking the law in place at the time?
What about the Easter trading laws in NZ? Would you speak against shops opening on Easter Sunday even though it is against the law as it now stands? What if the shops said they did it in legitimate protest against (as they see it) an archaic and out of date law?
Surely the law is to be adhered to only if it is in agreement to higher principles of fair justice and what is seen to be basic standards of right and wrong.
Where did the basis of our Western law come from if not from the basic biblical principles outlined in the ten commandments?
As to whether you put God’s law above human law as an indvidual you have to be pretty sure that what you are doing is what God wants as the bible says that christians are to obey the laws of those God sets over us.
As a general rule all christians should just stick to obeying the law of the land as it stands as too many flakey nutters have done otherwise in the name of God and have just made a mockery of the One they are supposed to be an apologist for 9unless laws are passed that are outrageous for example microchipping humans etc.).
[DPF: Adherence to the rule of law only applies when there is a broadly democratic government.]
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
“Already, countries, institutions and individuals have been bullied over freedom of speech, with the most stark example the furore over the Danish Mohammed cartoons.”
I wonder, has the ODT published these cartoons? If not, why not?
Well said Charlie Brown. Those who destroyed the bill boards committed a crime and should be prosecuted, end of story. However, those who are screaming loudest for “tolerance” exclude speech from that standard when it suits them. The speech freely exercised on the bill boards was mocking the beliefs of others and therefore grossly intolerant. Of course this does not justify destroying the billboards but those who give St Matthews a pass while demanding tolerance from others are being grossly hypocritical.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
“PS I believe in free speech but free speech does not mean freedom of consequences for what you say.”
True…..but it does mean having the right to say the thing by whatever medium is made availible to you without coercion being used to do so or to stop you from doing so.The vandals who defaced the billboard are criminals and should be prosecuted.They violated the rights of others who had violated no right of theirs (there being no such thing as a right NOT to be offended) and also their own supposed ten commandments to boot.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
David,
Do you think the killing of innocents is wrong just because God says it is wrong?
No. I have believed the killing of innocents was wrong ever since I had my first child and started debating abortion. Prior to entering the debate, I had believed that abortion at a young age was tolerable. However, when I had to decide on where the line between life and death was to be, I couldn’t do it. Any argument for a line was an argument that the killing of innocents was ok. So in the end my line had to be conception, because once a human being is created, they should not, by virtue of their humanity, be allowed to be killed.
So, when I re-converted to Catholicism, I do so because their line in the sand was the same as mine. In other words, human life must always be protected, no matter how young or how old or what race.
Now surprise, surprise, the Ten Commandments (God’s law) also have a prohibition against murder.
Extremist Islamists say killing innocents is right because their God says it is right.
They may say that, but, they don’t speak for God. It is a human proclivity to invent God that corresponds to their own image. Probably linked to an internal seeking we have for God. My internal seeking lead me to God as revealed by the Catholic Church, which, in my opinion, is the fullest, truest expression of God known to humanity. Islamist’s view of God is a Catholic heresy, tailored invented by Mohammad.
Besides it is an ridicolous red herring you cite. This is not about people being forced to do something against what their God may wish. This is about people destroying property in the name of God.
I don’t think so. Have the person’s responsible for the damage come out and said that God wanted them to destroy the billboard? I haven’t heard that they have done so. As far as I can tell, this is merely a presumption on your part.
Religious person does not equal doing something in the name of God.
What is so hard about condemning those who broke the law?
I don’t have that level of respect for the law anymore. We have a PM that tells us that he will ensure parents are not prosecuted for breaking a law that Parliament put in that is unjust. We have an abortion law that is being flouted, allowing for the murder of an innocent, every time two consultants decide that a pregnancy is “dangerous” to a woman’s mental health.
You said: “The moment you think doing God’s duty puts you above the law, it is a slippery slope.”
As if the law is just. There are numerous examples around of unjust laws that states put in that are only held back by good people of conscience (many who will believe in God) who flout them. Surely that is a good thing?
December 28th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Sure prosecute them, I’d have no problem with that, I wish they would in fact.
The trouble is of course that the “owners” of the billboard in question have decided not to prosecute them.
And the reason is fairly obvious why they made that call – its not a good look to haul a little old lady before the courts. And by not prosecuting the people concerned they give the appearance of taking the moral high road whilst at the same invoking “Christian fanaticism” as being behind these acts of petty vandalism.
Indeed if the perpetrators where hauled before the courts and placed in the full gaze of public view “Christian fanatics” would seem to be somewhat normal and totally unscary.
The billboard remains what it always was both blasphemous and tacky.
December 28th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Not being a god-botherer to any extent (my gods prefer not to be bothered) I’m a little confused here (again).
Please help.
If, as those defenders of the law breakers state, the billboard was an affront to their god, a “blasphemy”, particularly when it was erected outside “his house”, why did your god require two people to risk their freedom and financial wellbeing to deal to it?
My understanding is he controls everything.
Why did he not simply zap it with lightning, dump on it with snow (an appropriate guesture at this time of the year surely), destroy it with a tornado, bury it with an earthquake or simply a fissure?
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Pity the ODT didn’t apply some of this sanctimonious criticism to Greenpeace Protestors who frequently abuse private property laws and get off scot free.
Oh wait- thats an “approved” religion.
December 28th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
If, as those defenders of the law breakers state, the billboard was an affront to their god, a “blasphemy”, particularly when it was erected outside “his house”, why did your god require two people to risk their freedom and financial wellbeing to deal to it?
I just said it was rude, like Hone’s racist remarks. God didn’t require two people to deal to it. If you need to imagine anything about a God you care little about, then imagine God preferring us to make choices that will lead to being better people.
Why did he not zap it? Because he was looking forward to the commentary arising from this incident. God does move in mysterious ways (TM). Possibly, he thought watching a bunch of atheists foam at the mouth at the thought of identifying religious terrorism here in NZ far more entertaining. Maybe there’s an opportunity here for atheists worrying about tolerance to practice what they preach?
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
MT_Tinman,
… why did your god require two people to risk their freedom and financial wellbeing to deal to it?
He didn’t require it.
Why did he not simply zap it with lightning, dump on it with snow (an appropriate guesture at this time of the year surely), destroy it with a tornado, bury it with an earthquake or simply a fissure?
For the same reason He was born as a defenceless child rather than coming down to earth, fully grown, surrounded by angels.
He wants our love, freely given. We have the freedom to choose to believe in Him – all of that freedom would be taken away if actions such as those listed above were enacted.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Well argued Maria – especially your 12:55 comment.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
redbaiter: “Pity the ODT didn’t apply some of this sanctimonious criticism to Greenpeace Protestors who frequently abuse private property laws and get off scot free.”
Greenpeace protesters are routinely arrested, as are protesters of all stripes. Anyone protesting outside the law is aware of this risk (or should be).
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Lucia, the evidence re required suggests otherwise, as of course do many of the comments on this blog.
I’m afraid that your second answer does not wash at all.
Part of any bargain must be that both parties work in each other’s interest.
Simply zapping the offending billboard (instead of expecting someone to do the job for him) would have done nothing at all to negate any “freedoms” as you suggest if only because the erector and owner was his own outfit and the act would have been seen as nothing else except protecting those more vulnerable than your god while correcting an errant employee.
If of course you are suggesting that the billboard was not in need of zapping or indeed simply not worth zapping how can you defend those who took it upon themselves to do exactly that in his name?
While talking of “freedom” where is the freedom of his employees to celebrate him as they see fit?
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
I posted this the other day on Christian Intolerance.
As DPF has taken the same tack my response is likewise the same:
I guess DPF, and others that agree with his take, would ALSO accuse Jesus of vandalism and assault.
Part of the issue is central to who actually put the billboard up. This wasn’t a group of atheists, but rather those who identify themselves as Christian, but are clearly not according to their own website data.
Christ condemned those that portrayed themselves as religious, but were just making money out of those who came to the temple to make sacrificial offerings. He cast them out (assaulted them), and overturned their tables and chairs (vandalism), and yet He sinned not – whether He broke the law is up for debate. Sometimes Christians need to make a principled stand, as Christ did. And sometimes the law is an ass, and people rightly or wrongly take the law into their own hands. Most parents are criminals now anyway – every time they smack their child to correct the child’s behaviour.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
But do the very values of the West contain the seeds of their own destruction? Is tolerance – and so-called “progressive” Christianity for that matter – a licence for wishy-washy thinking, policy and behaviour? Do the fanatics and the intolerant simply take advantage of weakness?
This is a misunderstanding of Western values. Western tolerance does not mean anything goes. Instead it is this: you have the right to hold any opinion and express them (almost) any way you want – but you don’t have the right to interfere with or damage others, or prevent them from having their say. Importantly – everybody has this right. Extending tolerance to believe others have the right to mess with your property for a cause they really care about implies either inconsistency or anarchy.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
The wonderful Clive James has a nice take on tolerance here.
Remarkably I heard it on Radio NZ this morning at 6.50. A virtual punch on the nose for Chris Laidlaw and his ilk.
I do believe we are seeing the beginning of the end of this farce.
As always, it’s worth reading just for the wit.
http://www.clivejames.com/point-of-view/series6/hermie
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Kris,
That passage you quote does not give license for Our Lord’s followers to do the same. Jesus had the authority to do what He did, because He is God. Just like God wouldn’t be breaking the law if He thunderbolted the sign.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Andrei 12:21 pm,
And this highlights that the (blasphemy) law doesn’t work, and isn’t enforced. Perhaps those that defaced the billboard in question were put in the position of (essentially) enforcing the law because the state wouldn’t. In reality St Matthews ‘broke’ the law by erecting the billboard in the first place.
And is the test of what is and isn’t acceptable based purely on what the statutes say, or is there a higher ‘law’ than the laws of the land? And what are the issues when these two sets of laws are in conflict?
While Christians are instructed to obey the laws of the land, this only holds true up to the point where the law doesn’t conflict with God’s law. Once these are in conflict then we are instructed to “obey God rather than men” [Acts 5:29].
For instance; if a Christian (or moral person) were confronted with a ‘billboard’ that encouraged young people to investigate the homosexual lifestyle what is the right response, especially if they felt that this would lead the innocent into sexual deviancy, sin, and would ultimately destroy their lives?
As our society moves further away from biblical standards these sort of conflicts are likely to increase, and no doubt Christians who take God’s word seriously are more likely to find themselves in conflict with the laws of the land. Bradford’s bill is just one such recent law change that comes to mind – obey man or obey God?
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
It will never cease to amaze me how many seemingly smart people still buy into a thoroughly discredited fairytale
December 28th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
“[DPF: Adherence to the rule of law only applies when there is a broadly democratic government.] ”
That qualifier immediately leads into questions about what is broadly democratic government, and even if we all agree on which governments are broadly democratic, what about laws that aren’t democratic in their nature or implementation?
I’d argue that on points of principle people should be willing to break the law, but also publicly stand up for their actions – admittedly a big ask in some countries.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Lucia Maria 2:38 pm,
How do you know it doesn’t give Christians license in certain circumstances? And what if we are called to be His ‘thunderbolt’? Are we not to do His bidding?
And what do you make of this:
Joh 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
Christ even says that we will do greater works than He did by the authority of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Christ preached the gospel – we are to preach the gospel.
Christ rebuked the Pharisees – we are to rebuke the Pharisees (religious hypocrits).
I could go on, but you get the point.
And have we not been given authority from the Lord Himself?
2Co 10:8 For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed:
Tit 2:15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.
Just as Christ made a stand against the moneychangers, etc in the temple, I believe He has also given us the authority to rebuke the religious hypocrits, and those that make financial gain of God for their own sakes. We are to defend our Lord, and His good name, to the point of death if required.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
“It will never cease to amaze me how many seemingly smart people still buy into a thoroughly discredited fairytale”
Like what?
Multiculturalism ? Utopian pacifism ? moral equivalence ?
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
It’s hard to look past the fact that many people defending those that defaced the billboard were amongst the first on this blog in condemning the Muslim reacting to things like the Danish cartoons of Allah.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them…
-Mark 16:17-18
Hey believers. If you really believe, drink some poison – your God said it will not harm you. If you’re not willing, why not?
(cue the “you can’t take this literally” argument. I agree. You can’t take a single word of this fiction literally)
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Sorry, just noticed that got thrashed to death just a week ago
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Some of the replies from the hard-core Christians sound exactly like the justifications that Muslims have when they try to blow people up.
It isn’t just that the hard-cores believe in the boring fairy tale, they would actually kill and die for it. That is the problem that atheists have about some Christians and other religious groups.
People should be able to believe whatever they like, but the problem is that religions are only successful if they propagate. The most viciously growing Christian religions are the nutters like the Pentecostals and Elims. People joining these groups often are (for whatever reason) not capable of developing any inner morality. They need to be told what to think, which for Elims etc includes evangelisation – they want to “spread the word”. They want to spread their idiocy to others, are intolerant of those with different beliefs. They take it personally if their religion is insulted, and respond with violence and vandalism.
Fundamentalist Christianity is no different from fundamentalist Islam. It’s just that Islam was designed/evolved to affect poorer and marginalised groups who place less value on their own life (and who think living in heaven with 50 virgins would be fun), so they don’t mind suicide as much.
Now most churches are okay, traditional Christian churches (Anglicans, Presbytarians, Catholics, etc) generally have reasonably intelligent leadership does not encourage things like abortion-clinic murders etc. It’s the new-age hateful Destiny and Elim churches (which generally employ failed scout masters) where the problem lies.
What to do about it? Allow free speech, especially about religion. Comic depiction of Jesus and/or his brother Mohammed should be allowed. Punish those who try to curtail it. Maybe not the old lady (people are entitled to some dementia as they age), but groups who said the bus companies shouldn’t publish the atheist slogan and those complaining about offensive cartoons on TV.
December 28th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Zapper “And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them…
-Mark 16:17-18
Hey believers. If you really believe, drink some poison – your God said it will not harm you. If you’re not willing, why not?
(cue the “you can’t take this literally” argument. I agree. You can’t take a single word of this fiction literally)”
You have missed the key to the passage “In my name…” this does not mean simply saying Jesus’ name. Here it means acting in accordance with his will, his character. Jesus never performed miricles on demand to satisfy an audiance…
Matthew 4:6-7 (New King James Version)
6 and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written: ‘ He shall give His angels charge over you,’ and,‘ In their hands they shall bear you up, Lest you dash your foot against a stone.’ 7 Jesus said to him, “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the LORD your God.’
It is hardly acting according to Jesus’ name to test the Lord by drinking poison just for the sake of testing him.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
The thread is descending into the typical abuse of Christians for their beliefs. So much for the high moral ground, my fellow atheists. And if it only takes two people to deface a billboard and then declare all Christians are culpable, then are only two commenters required to extrapolate that all atheists in New Zealand are keen to feed a few lions?
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I drunk of Zapper’s poison and I survived.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
MT Tinman,
God doesn’t tend to get involved in punishing the guilty in that way often. There are only a couple of recent events where He has most likely done so that I can think of.
1) Elephants rampaging through Orissa, taking out only the Muslims a year to the day of Muslims massacring Christians in that area a week or so ago.
2) A major US abortion provider having a large part of the youngest members of his family die in a plane crashing into a cemetery for unborn children killed through abortion last year.
Both of those events could be thought of as coincidences, therefore, maybe not God.
As for Glynn Cardy being “of his own outfit”, those that don’t believe in God tend not to be working for Him, and therefore are “not of his own outfit”.
I am not defending those who defaced and destroyed the billboard.
I also do not think that God wanted people to destroy the billboard. There are better ways that it could have been dealt with.
However, I do understand the provocation involved.
I think it is idiotic to put up a billboard that is intended to mock of the beliefs of a proportion of people in this country and not expect some sort of reaction.
The billboard wasn’t a celebration. It was intended to mock. That is all.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
What a surprise…ignoring what is said and putting the Christian spin on it. The Bible is an evil document written by men with their own agendas. It would be hilarious that people have still fallen for it so much later, if it wasn’t the cause of such suffering for many.
“1) Elephants rampaging through Orissa, taking out only the Muslims a year to the day of Muslims massacring Christians in that area a week or so ago.
2) A major US abortion provider having a large part of the youngest members of his family die in a plane crashing into a cemetery for unborn children killed through abortion last year.”
Wow. Just wow.
Are you God? You seem to think you know everything this Flying Spaghetti Monster is thinking?
That is one of the most stunning things I have read. Is it a piss take?
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Zapper
Do you think I’m making those two items up?
I am not.
They happened.
They can also mean whatever you want them to mean.
However, I don’t claim to think for God.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Is Zapper Billy as an avatar?
I still haven’t had an answer to MNIJ/Billy of a previous thread?
“[DPF: Adherence to the rule of law only applies when there is a broadly democratic government.] ”
yeah right – what part of 80-% don’t you understand?
Intolerance – The way I read it – the secular require the people of faith to aid and abet those who are intolerant of them.
My take on it is you have a right to think as you want and I am tolerant of that fact, that doesn’t mean I have to support you, enable you or aid you in any way, especially if you are a danger for society then I have to oppose you, even if I am the only one.
This used to be clear as we had common values – this is not so anymore -You can’t have common sense without common values.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
“The billboard wasn’t a celebration. It was intended to mock. That is all.”
It was intended to provoke discussion, Lucia at least that’s the line.
Both the Anglicans and the Catholics are big Churches with some peculiar strands in them as in all large societies.
Notwithstanding I don’t understand for example why the Catholics continue and have been so obdurate in acknowledging and redressing the appalling child abuse their clerics have committed. Similarly I don’t understand the objective of this progressive strand of the Anglicans exemplified by this Bishop whose overstepped the mark by a mile and knew it before he did it.
If you wanted to turn people away from instead of toward a particular Church both of those dynamics are doing a splendid job.
There is enough ignorance out there as to what the Churches are really all about without these sideshows adding to it and I can’t understand why the Pope and the ABC haven’t addressed this many years ago. United we stand divided we fall doesn’t even begin to describe it.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Without descending into Zapper’s own fantasy world about how evil it was for Jesus to promote peace and love, let’s look at the incident this way:
It’s Waitangi Day, 2010. A Maori separatist group purchase 100 New Zealand flags, and piss on them then burn them. They do this in front of a huge billboard with a Pakeha couple in bed after sex saying “it doesn’t matter where we have our baby in this country, they’ll never be a true New Zealander.”
They claim they are simply provoking discussion, but some people take exception to it, and deface the billboard.
David Farrar creates a blog post decrying the vandalism and suggests that the idea the billboard portrayed in itself isn’t that offensive.
A couple of people argue that although they do not condone the billboards being defaced, the reaction should not be seen as unexpected, property laws or no property laws.
Zapper and friends simply respond by calling them terrorists and Nationalistic fascists that have no right to show intolerance to some-one’s free speech.
Could we suggest that they are really missing the point?
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Lucia, I wasn’t saying they didn’t happen, I was saying that ascribing them to your mythical God is absolutely unbelievable, and shows that you think this God of yours is a vengeful wanker.
Why do idiots like ZenTiger assume just because I use common sense and logic to determine that I don’t follow one of the thousands of God’s then I am a left wing nutter?
It is very strange that generally right wingers adopt such a common sense approach to politics, finance etc, but such an insane approach to religion (i.e. by having one)
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Hi Kris,
I take it you are a Bible believing Christian who doesn’t adhere to any particular denomination? I ask, because I need context for your comments. It saves me from assuming stuff about you that isn’t true, and ends up saving time. You already know where I am on the spectrum.
I don’t claim to know for certain.
I do what I normally do, and use the brain that God gave me and figure it out. I also rely on the fact that His laws were written into my being, and this one makes me extremely uncomfortable, therefore restraint is required.
I can’t help but think of the 3rd Sorrowful Mystery of the Rosary, where Our Lord is mocked, and rather than avenging Himself, He meekly takes it.
Anything to do with destruction also links the action with he who hates all life, so makes me wary.
The Danish Cartoon saga, which I was the first NZ blogger to comment on, made me think about mockery and it’s intentions.
I look at the Martyrs who died in the most horrible ways because they wouldn’t light incense to the Emperor, and think they died not because they desecrated pagan monuments, but because they wouldn’t worship the pagan gods.
I think David has a point – religious extremism can be incredibly dangerous. When people act seemingly on God’s behalf, but really on their own behalf, when they lie to themselves about why they are doing something, that can give a potency to their actions. A commenter on my blog talked about a job he had where the new owner had him smash the Catholic statues from the chapel because they offended him. Maybe he thought he was working for God?
I can think of no Saint that went around destroying things.
St Leo the Great went out and talked to Attilla the Hun and turned him away from Rome. If St Leo, or a person like him were to call for the destruction of the billboard, then I would put aside my reservations.
Yes and no.
Too large a discussion for a simple blog comment.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Why do idiots like ZenTiger assume just because I use common sense and logic to determine that I don’t follow one of the thousands of God’s then I am a left wing nutter?
Who is assuming what here Zapper?
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
I don’t know ZenTiger, perhaps the person who constructed a hypothetical situation and then assumed how other people would react?
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
[DPF: Adherence to the rule of law only applies when there is a broadly democratic government.]
The nazies were elected in a broadly democratic way, and had they had subsequent elections, they probably would have been re-elected. That statement above is a cop-out. In affect it is saying that you should adhere to the rule of law when it suits your particular belief.
Rebelion has its place, even in “broadly democratic” countries. I believe it is right to break the law when a “broadly democratic” government unnecessarily impinges on mine or my families life, for instance, I would be breaking the law when I lightly smack my child. Likewise, there have been instances of rates and tax revolts that I believe were just.
Its funny how the progressives (that includes the like of John Key and Helen Clarke) believe in “democracy” so vehemently despite the way they always ignore it (referendums anyone) and allow for race based electorates. Even worse, they ignore other cases of democracy being flouted, eg, in Fiji with the corrupt and racist government before Bainarama rightly overthrew it. The current crop of progressives only believe in elections and democracy only when it suits them.
[DPF: I disagree totally with you. You need to study up what democracy means – it is more than having elections. It is about freedom of speech also – the very thing I am defending and the fanatics in Auckland are trying to get rid of.
But anyway this is not about the Government’s laws. This is about the right of a church to not have its property destroyed. I don’t support burning down or vandalising church property because I think their message is offensive.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Lucia Maria 5:49 pm,
Yes, I regard myself as a Bible believing Christian first and foremost. I happen to fellowship at a Baptist Bible church.
And I do have issues with any ‘church’ that doesn’t hold the scriptures as their sole authority. Therefore I have issues with the Roman Catholic church in this regard where it goes beyond biblical revelation.
I guess, as with my example of Christ casting out the moneylenders, etc., I do feel that at times Christians are to make a similar stand in similar situations. Obviously any such action is to be carefully considered, and held up against God’s word and the leading of His Holy Spirit. So while at times we are to “turn the other cheek”, there are also times where we are to “cast out the moneychangers” – Christ being the example in both cases.
I think you are drawing a long bow to say that [any] destruction is linked to “he who hates all life” [Satan]. What of the destruction of evil? Are we as Cristians not to destroy the works of the evil one? And would not this billboard perhaps fall into this category? Perhaps those that defaced it were of this view?
I really struggle to see this as “religious extremism”, and certainly nothing approaching the death threats by Muslims whenever they feel Mohammad has been slighted. Perhaps murdering abortionists would be a better comparison.
I’ve known a few – they present a bad testimony to those around them though.
You do realise that ALL Christians are saints according to the Bible?
Indeed.
Vote:But I think that we can agree that there are times to make a stand, and there are times to desist.
Perhaps this billboard fiasco falls into the former category for those that took such actions.
December 28th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
“I do what I normally do, and use the brain that God gave me..”
I do the same but with the confidence that nature and evolution gave our species the brain inside our head. We agree to disagree on the source of our thinking engine.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Reid,
I’m not sure exactly what it is that you want the Catholics to do, with regards to child abuse, beyond what has already been done.
Would burning the errant clerics at the stake do the trick?
Oh wait, we can’t do that any more.
A major Cathedral in Ireland was burned to the ground on Christmas Day. Presumably in retribution.
The current Pope has named as “filth” those who in the Church abused children. Alot of practices have changed over the years so that there is less chance of pedophiles gaining access to children.
When it comes down to it, anything that disgraces the Church gets massive media attention, but anything positive gets ignored.
Plus the Pope has limited power.
Talk to NZ Catholics, and you’ll find a great deal of them consider Rome to be very far away.
I don’t know if the Church will survive in NZ.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Kris K, we are called to become Saints, it’s not automatic – you have to work for it. I suggest defacing billboards is not the way there.
Zapper – I stand corrected. In my above analogy, I’m sure you would not have condemned any-one for their Nationalistic fervor in reacting to flag burning and the idea that Paheka born in New Zealand were not New Zealanders. No way. Chances are you would have only used the occasion to mock the Bible and the beliefs of Christians. And I never said you were a left wing nutter.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Want to point out exactly where I commented on the Jesus billboard or the reaction to it? I couldn’t care less what some church and its nutty members do. The church can put up 100 billboards for all I care, and I will reserve the right to point and laugh at their stupidity, or just ignore it – that’s how freedom of speech works.
Why don’t we just worry about this Pakeha billboard when it happens shall we? If someone posts a billboard that breaks the laws of the land then I’m sure people, including me, will have an opinion.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
“A major Cathedral in Ireland was burned to the ground on Christmas Day. Presumably in retribution.”
Perhaps your vengeful God has stepped in?
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
An interesting article from the ODT but in some ways very confused.
I would argue that Christianity is at the core of Western civilisation and the source of most of its values-with all due respect to the ancient Greeks who are probably the other major strand.
Christianity does not represent a threat to the West- it is the West.
But yes wishy washy liberalism is under threat from religious extremism. But I would suggest from the crescent rather than the cross. Islam is in the headlines again with yet another attempt from a would be suicide bomber to bring down an airliner.
It is there that the existential threat to Western democracy lies-not in the doings of the Anglican church.
Incidentally I am amused by the fuss about the so called ‘Christian fanatic armed with a knife’ who attacked and defaced St Matthews in the city’s poster. My understanding is that the ‘christian fanatic’ was an irate elderly parishioner armed with a pair of knitting needles.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Want to point out exactly where I commented on the Jesus billboard or the reaction to it? I couldn’t care less what some church and its nutty members do. Err, that was my point. You are not apparently here to comment on the issue at hand, the only “contribution” I can see is to use the occasion to have a dig at Christians, the Bible and God.
Why don’t we just worry about this Pakeha billboard when it happens shall we?
Well, we could look at something that happened in the past: The VUWSA was thinking about burning a New Zealand flag for ANZAC day. Then a former VUWSA executive member burned it later as a Workers Party action against NZ imperialism and ANZAC day. DPF covered the story with two posts (linked in text).
It attracted a not unexpected set of comments suggesting such disrespect on ANZAC day deserves a punch in the nose. I didn’t see DPF suggesting that responding with such passion is akin to terrorism, only one step away from serious violence. I’m not suggesting DPF approved of such a reaction, just pointing out he wasn’t as moved to comment on it in the same way he has done so with a billboard being defaced. The context obviously changes for people, depending upon the circumstances, and that is what my analogy was designed to point out.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Scott
I am not amused at the labeling of an old lady who probably had had enough of a liar (wearing a dress with a collar on) offending her and decrying the faith (and person of) he claims to have week after week all in the name of being relevant and edgy.
Then he deliberately abased a Holy thing (God, Marriage bed, Marriage, the people he claimed to be in relationship with, take your pick).
She finally snapped and said enough is enough and rightly took action as her church leadership both alongside (the hypocritical dress) and above is so compromised, infact that maybe what make her take action finally.
The DPF’s and other here ignore comprehension on this as deep in their hearts they chortle (whilst they keep a straight face and pontificate) at the mocking of the faith by progressive christians (liars and hypocrites) and their abased world.
She has already been painted with the fanatic word (used as emotional painting) so she has no voice and will not be listened to as she is worthless by being painted (same as homophobe, fundamentalist).
This is their tolerance which Josh McDowell wrote so eloquently about.
Wishy Washy Secular Liberalism (in the church) is under threat from fundamental and traditional Islam, fundamentalist Islam because they have a plan and purpose and know no bounds and traditional Islam because they have time on their side. In both the cases Liberalism is vacuous with no real core as it is interpreted differently daily by the individuals.
It might also be under threat from traditional Christianity but in reality they will always be in the majority as the word clearly articulates as worldly domination in the affairs of men isn’t the purpose of the church.
One of the purposes of the church is the witness in and of the world (both corporately and individually) so in all this they are part of our judgment just as we are part of theirs. We must keep that in mind as we dialogue.
It is ultimately futile to engage on this as they cannot accept the Spirit separate from the physical, due to their rebellion and lawlessness towards God and opposing all of His will and wishes for the creation.
Vote:You know the fairy god
December 28th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
If the Destiny Church had a sigh out front stating that homosexuals including bisexuals offend against underage adolescents disproportionately to their number in the population and a similar statement about HIV I doubt if many condemning the defacing of the sign at St Mathews would complain if a sign at the Destiny Church was defaced. The HRC would also hold a different view.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Chuck
Have you ever read any of the articles at http://www.Narth.org?
I read this today at American Thinker
Vote:http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/the_hypocrisy_of_the_left.html
December 28th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
All these analogies that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue in question.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
And I’ve course I’m here to have a dig at Christians and religion in general. It is absolutely ridiculous
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Mike NZ- my comments were about the ludicrous over reaction from the media labelling her as a christian fanatic, not the sincerity of the elderly lady. I can certainly appreciate her being upset.
By the way I think we are on the same side. Though I must confess i have found your postings have recently become somewhat long and rambling and hard for me to understand . Like if the christians can’t understand you then how can the secular people on this blog?
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Thanks for advice Scott
At least some Aussies appear to be getting it.
Vote:http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/aussies_fight_political_correc.html
December 28th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Andrew W,
thanks for your comment earlier on.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
“[DPF: I disagree totally with you. You need to study up what democracy means – it is more than having elections. It is about freedom of speech also – the very thing I am defending and the fanatics in Auckland are trying to get rid of.”
Thats the point i’m trying to make, the progressives believe democracy is all about elections. Thats what just about the entire west believes, as long as the previous fijian government won the election (its validity was questionable), it doesn’t matter if they introduce racist policies, confiscate non-indegenous land, release murderers, the fact that they won the election was good enough for John Key, Helen Clarke, Obama, Bush etc. As for freedom of speech, what democracy truelly believes in it… eg, hate speach laws, anti-holocaust denial laws, electoral finance act, name suppression laws.
In fact, we are moving further and further away from what I interpret democracy to be about… freedom. We are moving closer and closer to the old soviet style democracy, you can vote, but only for the one party (lets face it, national and labour are not very different). It is scary when you consider that you can start your own business, a pub for instance, but you cannot smoke in it (even if all staff and clients in it smoke) because some nanny state fascist says so. DPF, You cannot even freely give financial advice if its on your blog unless you become an accredited financial advisor.
The only good point that editorial made was that the vandalism of the billboards was wrong. Just because this was done in the name of religion is concerning, but when you consider all the other vandalism and illegal protest that goes on for other causes it is pretty minor, eg, Greenpeace does it all the time, the Hikois that block of roads, occupations done in the name of the treaty of waitangi, I consider all the people who do these things fanatics too.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
All you christians out there that were offended by that billboard should try to get a sense of humour, and stop being so up-tight. Why does it matter what one bishop or congregation thinks? If you think that the virgin birth is the cornerstone of your faith then you should really be concerned as their is so much more value in christ than the idea of the immaculate conception. Its that sort of attitude that puts other people off the christian faith.
nb, I thought that billboard was witty and thought provoking as many other chirstians do
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
As far as I can tell, the billboard was not in fact blasphemous. It made the somewhat cryptic point that Virgin birth was not literally true- implying a metaphorical or symbolic meaning to the story of the virgin birth. The Nicene Creed is elastic enough to accommodate both perspectives.
The reality is that a significant number of clergy in all major denominations do not believe in a “literal” virgin birth. Many people professing to be Christians also do not hold to the story of the literal Virgin birth. I am intrigued that faced with this differing perspective, a core of Christians both take offense at this perspective and deny that such people (heck, at one point all Anglicans) are Christians as well.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Black Paul- ” Greenpeace protesters are routinely arrested, as are protesters of all stripes. Anyone protesting outside the law is aware of this risk (or should be). ”
You’ll need to do better than that if you’re going to post to Kiwiblog- I found these two examples of Greenpeace protesters being discharged without conviction in thirty seconds searching.
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/news-and-events/media/releases/genetic-engineering/ingham-gm-chickenfeed-protes
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0611/S00278.htm
There’s plenty more. The criticism by the ODT of those who attacked the subject sign is rank anti Christian bigotry.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
That is a ridiculous assertion – absurd really which shows that you have had little to no contact with the Church.
At best it would be a very tiny minority view amongst Protestant clergy . Certainly no Orthodox Priest would espouse it – it would be the end of his ministry if he did and the same would go for Catholic clergy I am fairly certain.
Denial of the Virgin birth is in fact a heresy – not a new one either, it has a long history.
The Nicene Creed of course does not accommodate this view at all, on the contrary the Nicene Creed explicitly states belief Virgin Birth as you know only too well I suspect.
Vote:December 28th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
As far as I can tell, the billboard was not in fact blasphemous. It made the somewhat cryptic point that Virgin birth was not literally true- implying a metaphorical or symbolic meaning to the story of the virgin birth.
Cryptic point? Metaphorical? Joseph lying in bed with Mary and the specific assertions Mary (a) had sex with God and (b) leaves Joseph feeling sexually deficient as a husband.
Yeah, what an open and inviting message to start a positive debate in good spirit. A great way of suggesting Jesus was born through normal means. Not. [/sarcasm]
The bus campaign adverts are respectful and have a sense of fun in them, this advertisement does not. I would have expected it to be designed by some-one who thinks mockery is insanely funny, and hides a thin veneer of hatred towards the story of Jesus. Very puzzling therefore to come from the supposedly respectful religious progressive. It was condemned for good reason. I suspect if the billboards had not been defaced, the church would have been been faced with voluntarily taking down the billboard and apologising, or facing continued serious blows to their reputation.
All you christians out there that were offended by that billboard should try to get a sense of humour, and stop being so up-tight. Why does it matter what one bishop or congregation thinks?
Who is uptight? Just because I think the billboard was in bad taste, doesn’t mean I’m losing any sleep over it.
All of you that are so uptight that some-one defaced the billboard, should try to get a sense of humour. Why does it matter what one person does to an inanimate object that the priest decided not to put back up anyway?
Or are we both allowed to have opinions on the matter and debate our point of view?
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Sorry Redbaiter what are you upset about? That someone protesting something avoided a criminal conviction? Which proves…?
Going to have to do better than that to post anywhere Redbaiter, I’m not going to prove a negative for you.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 7:40 am
Andrei, in a survey of Anglican clergy 27% said they didn’t believe in the virgin birth.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 8:27 am
A 1998 poll by Hadden of 7,441 Protestant clergy in the U.S. showed the following ministers did not believe in the literal virgin birth: American Lutherans 19%; American Baptists 34%; Episcopalians 44%; Presbyterians 49%; Methodists 60%.
Andrew W has already cited a 2002 study.
A 2004 poll of the Church of Scotland showed that 37% did not believe in a literal virgin birth, preferring a metaphorical interpretation.
A 1999 poll included Roman Catholic clergy, and collectively, 25% did not believe in a literal virgin birth.
Clearly a significant number of clergy are satisfied that a metaphorical interpretation of the virgin birth is consistent with their faith and the Nicene creeds.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Well there’s a surprise a few Protestant ministers in England and the USA are confused about what they believe in.
Well they are according to some small surveys conducted by the media.
But we don’t need surveys to tell us that – the media are attracted to “Liberal” Churchmen in much the same way as flies are attracted to shit.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 9:22 am
I have never met a ‘Christian’ who would hesitate for one second to ‘do you down’ if they had half a chance; who would stick the knife in with great joy (at leaving someone worse off than previously) before rushing to Church to sing hymns and pray telling themselves what ‘good people’ they are.
Never met a ‘Christian’ who has ever given assistance to poor people, needy people, those in distress in a ‘practical’ way (e.g You are hungry? come with me to Foodtown and I will buy you groceries)
Never met a ‘Christian’ who does not Judge everybody they meet in a bad way
Never met a ‘Christian’ who does not secretly support their spiritual leader…. (I am, of course, referring to Graham Capill)
Never met a ‘Christian’ who does not hate substantial portions of the population
Conversely, I have never met a criminal who is not a ‘salt-of-the-earth-shirt-off-his-back’ type; never met a criminal who would hesitate to help someone in need; I have no doubt whatsoever there would be more ‘charity’ shown by chaps at the local gang headquarters than the local Church
Oh how the World is a**e about face….
http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 9:53 am
If Christ was not born of a virgin then he is just a man, and not God also.
The virgin birth of Jesus Christ is ESSENTIAL to salvation! To deny it, I believe, removes ALL possibility of salvation for that individual. ‘Christians’ that deny the virgin birth are not Christians at all.
I posted this the other day on Now they’re complaing about a church (17-12-09) about the importance of the virgin birth of Christ:
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Elijah Lineberry 9:22 am,
Maybe you need to have a chat with some of the ex prisoners (criminals) that received Christ while in prison through our church ministry, and who now attend our church.
But I agree that many Christians are a bad testimony, and many who claim to be Christians are in fact not. Identifying yourself as a Christian is one thing; having Christ indwelling you is quite another. Without Christ’s indwelling the individual is unsaved, and is not a Christian (by definition).
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Andrei, Chthoniid was right you were wrong, carry on denying the facts and living in your alternate reality.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 10:19 am
“‘Christians’ that deny the virgin birth are not Christians at all.”
Is that your opinion or did your God make that ruling?
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Rubbish Andrew W
For example
So what is this survey and what is the denominational breakdown of respondents?
Hardly compelling is it?
Mind you as a true believer in GLOBAL WARMING your numeracy and understanding of scientific rigor is somewhat deficient, probably woeful in fact.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 10:57 am
ZenTiger 6:59 pm,
Disagree STRONGLY.
The word ‘Saint’ and ‘Christian’ are interchangable. Just as you do not/cannot work for your salvation, you similarly do not work for sainthood – you become a Saint/Christian at the point of salvation.
It is clear from the following scripture that ALL Christians are Saints:
The last two verses [Rev 19:7 & 8] highlight that the Bride/Wife of Christ (ie the Church) is clothed in the “righteousness of saints”. This is not the righteousness of the individual/Church through her own effort, but rather the righteousness imparted to them that come to, and receive Christ – Christ makes those that come to Him in repentance righteous:
Without belief/faith in Christ none can be made righteous – just as none can become a Saint/Christian.
Vote:Tha Roman Catholic concept of sainthood is an unbiblical anathema – ALL in Christ are Saints.
The Scriptures are clear on this point.
December 29th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Thanks for the link Andrei, I found this claim surprising: “Despite the Roman Catholic Church’s historical emphasis on the theological importance of Mary, Catholics in the poll were somewhat less likely than Protestants to believe in the virgin birth. Theologians attributed this to the doctrine in many Protestant churches that the Bible must be accepted as literal truth.”
But because it’s one survey and contrary to what I would have expected, I’m not betting the claim is sound. But for now I will accept that scepticism of a literal virgin birth is indeed widespread even in the Catholic Church.
You’ll obviously not capable of understanding my views on AGW, your blinkered up-bringing makes you incapable of understanding that there can be merit in opinions other than your own.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Andrew W 10:19 am,
To deny the virgin birth of Christ denies: His deity, His sinlessness, His ability to wash us of our sins, our ability to obtain salvation.
Basically to deny the virgin birth rejects who and what Jesus Christ is. You have redefined Him, and no longer believe in the Christ of the Bible. As belief and faith on Christ are foundational to salvation, then to redefine Christ implies you no longer are eligible for salvation. In effect you have invented a non Biblical ‘Christ’; an imposter.
I have discussed this more fully in my 9:53 am comment headed: “The Importance Of The Virgin Birth of Jesus the Christ”.
Vote:I encourage you to read it.
December 29th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Thank you for that Andrei, you’re moving very much in to matters of faith and biblical interpretation and as an atheist/agnostic I don’t see it as my place to comment on such. My regards.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Sorry, I mean Kris
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Kris K, I think we are using the same word to describe two different things. When you use “Saint” as an equivalent to the word Christian, it gives the word no additional special meaning. It makes the word redundant. I use the word Saint to describe some-one who is actually living a sanctified life, something we could strive for. Perhaps the word you would use instead is “Holy”?, as in our challenge is to become more holy (what I am saying as more saint-like). I suspect if we each accept the word in the way the other intends, there is no contradiction.
Read your first two lines again – to become a perfected saint, make sure you live as one. And with Rev 14:12, keep the commandments of God. I humbly suggest such sanctity will not come with defacing billboards in his name, for it reflects anger in your heart. An alternate response would be praying for Glyn Cardy, I think that would be more productive for both him and those that are angry about the billboard.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Dear Kris,
You believe in the Bible, that is good. However, the Bible did not drop from the sky whole and entire as the Muslims believe the Koran did. It was written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit. The books of the Bible were decided upon after a number of centuries, so, by your own argument, you would have had trouble with the early Christian Church. The Bible is the Holy Catholic Church’s book – you cannot give authority to one and not to the other. (For more, see What’s your authority)
Most of the works of the evil one are in our own hearts. It’s easy to externalise evil, far harder to deal with the very real evil within. Without knowing the people involved and their motivation, I would be wary of attributing good or evil to their actions.
I agree with you there. In this case, only the billboard was targeted. There was no rioting, no destruction of the church or similar churches, no killing of progressives. Only the offending item was dealt to.
When I say Saint (with a big “S”), I mean those such as St Maximilian Kolbe, who gave his life in place of another man who was to starve to death in retribution for a supposed escape from the Auschwitz death camp. The action of a Saint brings light where there is darkness.
While as any person in Heaven who is not a large “S” Saint, is a small “s” saint.
Perhaps. But in a time of increasing anti-Christian fervour, in a country that is very secular, possibly not the wisest course of action.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
ZenTiger 11:49 am,
I understand what you mean, it’s just that the idea that one becomes a saint (distinct from becoming a Christian) is a teaching of the Roman Catholic church, and is unbiblical. While I agree that we are to “live a sanctified life”; to be holy; to become a perfected saint (in our daily living, we are already ‘perfect’ in Christ), one must be careful not to confuse our terms.
Perhaps a better, less confusing way to express what you’re trying to say is to encourage Christians to be more Christ-like.
Vote:And as I said before, Christ did cast out the moneychangers, and rebuked the religious hypocrits. Are there not situations where Christians are to take similar steps? And could not this billboard fiasco fall into the ‘rebuking of religious hypocrits’ category?
December 29th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Must be great picking and choosing which scriptures you believe in, and which ones to follow. Personally, I have enough of a brain to work out my values for myself.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Lucia Maria 12:05 pm,
Respectfully, I have to disagree.
The Bible is NOT the Roman Catholic church’s book.
The Bible was completed approximately 90 AD, long before Constantine established his religion in 313 AD. And while God lead Holy men of God to later select which books would make up the 66 books of the Bible, it wasn’t the RC church. The source manuscripts that the RC church used were corrupt (Vaticanus and Sanaticus being the main culprits). And even if it weren’t so, the RC church holds the authority of the Pope above that of the word of God. If there is a contradiction between the Bible and the Pope, then the Pope trumps biblical teaching. If the Bible isn’t our sole authority, then we have removed the authority for our salvation.
Christians existed before and after the establishment of the Roman Catholic church eg the Anabaptists. Many who rejected the teachings of Rome were persecuted and murdered for their faith. Have a read of Foxes Book of the Martyrs. Just as then, many today reject the RC practice of infant baptism, and the belief that this saves the soul of those infants baptised. Likewise, many Christians reject the authority of the Pope and the concept of apostolic succession which the RC church claims substantiates his authority.
Matthew 23:9 comes to mind:
Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
As does Hebrews 4:14:
Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
As Christians we have ONE high priest, and ONE heavenly Father. Each Christian has direct access to heaven, and requires no earthly priest or human intermediary between himself and God. Christ did away with the earthly priesthood at His crucifixion.
Many Christians gave their lives for their faith when the RC church burnt them alive at the stake – would these fit your definition of a “Saint (with a big “S”)”?
I reject the idea of two classes of saints in heaven (or on earth for that matter) – this is an unbiblical contrivance by the RC church. Show me from the Bible if I’m wrong.
Of course, there would be some that, no doubt, thought Christ ‘unwise’ for casting out the moneychangers, and for rebuking the religious hypocrits of His day, too.
I haven’t meant to be offensive in what I’ve said – there’s just no easy way to dress it up.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Must be great picking and choosing which scriptures you believe in, and which ones to follow. Personally, I have enough of a brain to work out my values for myself.
Then you are simply picking and choosing what you wish to believe in, and are no better. Indeed, many people use the collected wisdom of great philosophers, or the teachings of Jesus, and even the life experience of our parents, and mentors to shortcut the process. However, they would still need to pick and choose between competing ideas.
If the essence of the idea is sound, then you seeking to point out nuances as ridiculous don’t actually advance your claim that you, alone can do a better job.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
So you don’t think a person with any brains at all can work out “love thy neighbour”, don’t murder people (except the bible says the opposite in many places) etc etc without reading the bible? I don’t think anyone needs a bible to live their life like I do – my goal is to avoid doing anything that hurts other people, to put it simply. The bible does say this in parts, but it also says the opposite. So you can either read that and follow someone who supposedly gives contradictory advice, or use your own brain.
I must admit, sometimes it would be nice to believe in a fairytale – unfortunately common sense won’t let me.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Kris K
“Basically to deny the virgin birth rejects who and what Jesus Christ is. You have redefined Him, and no longer believe in the Christ of the Bible”
Thats really sad and narrow minded. Whether you believe in the literal virgin birth or not doesn’t define whether you are a Christian. What should really matter is what jesus tought and what jesus sacrificed for us.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Charliebrown
Your view on the deity of Christ and therefore your relationship to Him is key to salvation and does define whether you are a Christian or not.
If Jesus/Yeshua isn’t God and you aren’t His created being that acknowledges that status, then you aren’t a Christian.
If you think that is narrow minded then blame Jesus but it is not up for discussion, never was and never will be, either He is God or He isn’t.
Either you aren’t or you are a Christian.
“I and the father are one” then they took up stones to stone Him. John 10:30
Why did they take up stones?
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
CharlieBrown 4:31 pm,
Both what Jesus Christ taught and His death on the cross are meaningless IF He was not born of a virgin, and if He therefore was not God incarnate – literally ‘God in the flesh’.
Do you actually understand the significance of His shed blood? It had to be pure and not tainted by Adam’s sin.
I’ve covered this in my earlier comments, so won’t restate it here, but this is pretty fundamental stuff and is foundational to those that are truly in Christ.
Christ warned us about others that would come in His name and would claim to be the messiah. By redefining Christ you are in fact embracing a different Jesus.
Christ Himself warned those that embraced a different Jesus:
The above is a dire warning to those ‘Christians’ that believe they know Christ, but to whom Christ will say, “I never knew you”. You cannot know the Christ of the Bible if you change who and what He is.
[And thanks for your support, Mike]
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
“Both what Jesus Christ taught and His death on the cross are meaningless IF He was not born of a virgin…” – I stopped reading there, it sums up your judgemental narrowmindedness that is polarising Christians from the non-christians in the western world.
I don’t know if Christ is born of a virgin or not, and to be frank, I don’t care. As I said before, I believe in his word, teachings and sacrifice. I know that man isn’t perfect, our language isn’t perfect, therefore I take the writings in the bible knowing that it has been published, translated and in the end, written by man therefore is not perfect, which is why we have so many denominations of Christians, churches and different bibles. God gave us a brain, we use that brain to question things and to know what is right or wrong.
To pronounce that people who read the bible differently to you are not christians is absolutely terrible as in the end, only God can lay that judgement down on people.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
The protestors were foolish to get upset. Saying that Joseph had a hard act to follow after God created Jesus is an interesting question and I have no problem in accepting that God created Jesus, nor that it was a ‘virgin birth’ becuase intercourse was not the cause of the gestation. After all God created the universe so just one human being is nothing in comparison. So for Joseph to think his was a hard act is likely true. But since sex is a taboo subject for many of religious following some people foolishly get their nickers in a twist and break the law and christian tolerance. A true christian could disapprove and might remonstrate with the minister and leave it at that. The wreckers are not good christians in my opinion.
Further to Charlie Brown we know that the bible was written and copied and in doing so the writers put their interpretation into the act. We have no way of knowing if the Bible as we know it today is what was written originally, in fact in my lifetime the bible has been changed to make it more acceptable to current generations … the last of many adaptions from the originals. I’m sure this is an unpleasant fact that many choose not to believe as they thump their copies.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
So you don’t think a person with any brains at all can work out “love thy neighbour”, don’t murder people (except the bible says the opposite in many places) etc etc without reading the bible? Zapper, I did not say that. You on the other hand insinuate that those who have faith are somehow deficient. When you work out “live and let live” or “respect others”, let me know and maybe we can continue this conversation.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
I am disappointed at this manifestation of intellectual dishonesty. The Hadden survey was more than ‘a few’ and large enough to have statistical power and significance.
Like it or not, there are a significant number of practicing Christians who believe in a metaphorical Virgin birth- a symbolic story that expresses the unique relationship between God and Jesus. The argument that these people are not true Christians seems to be predicated on being a member of particular Christian sects. It’s not really a compelling (or rational) argument if you’re not a member of these sects.
Indeed, I find it vaguely affirming of my atheism that even the Christian contributers to this thread, don’t agree on who is a real Christian. For guys who talk to God on a daily basis, you’d think he’d have set you right by now surely?
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
“When you work out “live and let live” or “respect others”, let me know and maybe we can continue this conversation.”
We both know that a small minority of christians/religious folk adhere to this don’t we. And you have inadvertently made a very good point about the topic of this post.
Respect others indeed.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Statistical power and significance mean nothing if the non sampling errors overwhelm them as I am sure you know only too well Chthoniid.
What is needed to evaluate this survey in any meaningful sense is the sampling methodology – if the survey population is self selected from liberal churchmen, as is very likely IMHO it is meaningless. Well not meaningless if you have an axe to grind.
Be that as it may I have yet to meet a Churchman who does not hold with the Virgin Birth – never come across one except in the pages of the NZ herald where they flourish – a few years ago it was Bishop Randerson, the agnostic Anglican who was holding forth.
And it is the Liberal Churches which are in decline which is no surprise really – after all people go to Church to Worship not to receive left wing indoctrination from the pulpit.
Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, Υἱέ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλόν
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Charliebrown
To pronounce that people who read the bible differently to you are not christians is absolutely terrible as in the end, only God can lay that judgement down on people.
CB are you deliberately being a pratt here?
As you can’t be a Christian if Jesus isn’t God to you.
What is it about Jesus’s diety that you want to argue about?
Either He was God or He wasn’t.
He was born of a virgin and resurrected and ascended up to heaven or didn’t.
What He said, did or taught doesn’t matter a toss if the first assertion isn’t true.
The alternatives are he was a liar, a nutter or God.
Are you a Christian?
Do you believe Jesus was God?
if not you aren’t a Christian.
Never Give in KrisK, ever.
Vote:But remember it is pearls before swine sometimes.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Zapper
12:49, Must be great picking and choosing which scriptures you believe in, and which ones to follow. Personally, I have enough of a brain to work out my values for myself.
So you’re simply picking and choosing which values to live by. Arbitrarily.
Zapper – have a good long think about this.
What are your values, you know, the ones you worked out all by yourself, based on?
Why are your values better than my values? Or the values of some murderous cannibal living in the jungles of Papua New Guinea?
On what basis can you say that your values are better than a Christian’s values?
Why is your basis better than a Christian’s basis?
Values without a basis are meaningless.
If your mind came about due to a random event (evolution), then the product of your mind, your thoughts and opinions are random and meaningless too.
No manner of chirping will change the fact that you are a random collection of atoms.
How can you attribute “wisdom” and “intelligence” to something stemming from a universe’s burp?
Rufus
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 10:22 am
MikeNZ 9:55 am,
I agree – I usually give up after about the third attempt.
I find those that regard themselves as ‘religious’ are usually the ones that are the most confused about the truth of God’s word.
I was reflecting to a fellow churchmate the other day after a sermon about Christians being ‘salt and light’ in the world. The Pastor had said that ‘salt’ gives flavour, and ‘light’ illuminates darkness – and as Christians we, too, are to give flavour and bring illumination to a world without Christ.
I mentioned that another property of salt is that it brings aggravation when rubbed in an open wound. That Christians also often exhibit this property of salt. I’m sure that Christ intended that just as we ‘add flavour’, we are to also ‘aggravate’ those around us by expounding God’s truths.
Keep up the ‘aggravation’, brother.
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Rufus 10:03 am,
Indeed.
This is the Achilles’ heel to the reasoning of those that adhere to evolution as the explanation for their existence.
If evolution is true then EVERYTHING is meaningless – including their thoughts.
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Why? What is meaning anyway?
It could just as easily be said that if everything is created and done at the whim of a god then everything is meaningless.
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Pete George 10:58 am,
Sometimes your logic intrigues me, Pete.
For example, God didn’t create us as ‘robots’, but gave us freewill and a conscience that ultimately we might find and obey Him.
God alone gives meaning and purpose to mankind as well as the rest of His creation.
Vote:He made it all for a purpose; and yes, it is His purpose – no one elses.
We were made for His pleasure.
December 30th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Kris K
Vote:When salt is rubbed into a wound does it clean it or make it better ?
December 30th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Pete George
It depends whether he is a created god or The God
What is it about worshiping God with your life that you abhor so much?
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 11:23 am
What makes you think I abhor worshiping God Mike? I don’t abhor it, I just don’t feel any need to do it, doesn’t make sense to me, but I accept that some people like to.
Do you abhor my non-believing?
Kris, to me there is plenty of meaning in life. And I realise some people see meaning in religion that I don’t see. So what? Different strokes for different folks.
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 11:30 am
MikeNZ 11:10 am,
And of course the answer is yes – it’s just that some ‘wounds’ don’t want to get better, and so it (the ‘salt’) just keeps on stinging and aggravating.
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Pete George 11:23 am,
I don’t believe Mike does, and nor do I.
But of course our aim is to turn you to the ‘light’.
That’s all well and good, Pete, but will the ‘meaning’ in your life have eternal value, and will it carry you into the next life?
Vote:This is a question all of us should ponder.
(I’m not even sure if you believe in the after life, but let me assure you, you have one)
December 30th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Pete
No I don’t abhor your non-believing I understand it.
as for worshiping,
but I accept that some people like to
you lie like a flatfish
As we all worship something, it is what we do.
Vote:It is the way we were made, it is in the DNA.
December 30th, 2009 at 11:52 am
I believe in an afterlife. I just see it different to you. After my life, if everything goes according to plan, my ashes will return to the soil so I will help promote further life. Some of my impressions will remain with those who knew me, for a while anyway.
I think I’ve posted part of this before but this sort of sums it up for me, I wrote it for a competition a year ago.
I’ll Not Be Old
I’ll not grow old in Dunedin
I’ll always be a younger man
than Rabbie as he gazes o’er
the pass of yet another clan
The truly old I’ll not forget
as new laid cobbles bear my step
I’ll not be old in Dunedin
I’ll never be as old as thee
I’ll not grow old in Dunedin
as things will never stay the same
I’ll keep step with the march of time
acknowledging my body’s wane
but all my mind that once supposed
as spirit never decomposed
I’ll not be old in Dunedin,
I’ll never be as old as thee
So many more have been before
as relatives of history
I’ll keep on growing in Dunedin
Even when my years are done
as cast upon the southern winds
and settled gently ‘neath the sun
I’ll be not gone, but turn the page,
a fertile mind, a different age.
I’ll not be old, Dunedin
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Rufus
A post full of silly assumptions, irrelevant questions and responses to a strawman. I have never said my values are better than those of an individual Christian who picks the common sense values from the bible and ignores all the calls for killing and raping etc. On what basis does an ordinary Christian choose to ignore the advice of God when it involves raping everyone in a village? Common sense perhaps?
If you really think that evolution leads to us having a completely random sense of what is right and wrong then I am very glad I do not know you in the real world. That is downright scary. And I’m sorry to have to tell you this, but evolution has been proven (unlike your fairytale).
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Pete George 11:52 am,
Nice poem (even though I disagree with its sentiments).
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Pete
Vote:I do appreciate the creativity in what others do.
December 30th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Zapper 12:07
mate, I’ll put it to you gently – you’re a bit ignorant.
Doesn’t sound nice, but you are. I asked you to have good think about what I asked. You didn’t, and you haven’t engaged with the arguments
By condemning other’s ideas/values/beliefs you imply yours are better. You don’t have to say it outright, the very act of making a judgement on others implies it.
Now this is fine, we make judgement calls all the time.
I’m just wondering what gives you the right to claim your views are better than someone else’s?
If all views are not equal, why choose yours over another’s?
If all views are equal, why hold on to yours?
You do not engage with my argument – random thoughts coming from a brain that developed randomly from random bits in a random world (ie = evolution) have no meaning, and can claim no authority, no merit over another’s view.
It is a very scary worldview, and it is the only logical one if you are an honest evolutionist.
BTW, Evolution has not been “proven” – no-one was there at the time. All either side can do is look at the evidence, and then take a leap of faith – believe one arguement over the other.
As for strawmen – I suggest have never said my values are better than those of an individual Christian who picks the common sense values from the bible and ignores all the calls for killing and raping etc. On what basis does an ordinary Christian choose to ignore the advice of God when it involves raping everyone in a village? Common sense perhaps? is a very good one.
Please show me from the Bible where God commands me, as a Christian to kill and rape an entire village.
Peace
Rufus
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Why? Not everything about evolution is random, far from it. Random gene mutation (if it is random) is a basic part of evolution, but that only puts in place the capability for adapting, nature and interactions within nature determine what mutations may come in to play.
And why is it scary? I’m not scared at all by the concept of evolution. It mostly makes sense to me, the science tends to stack up favourably for it. There is absolutely no science backing up creation and religion, it is purely a belief, a construct in some people’s minds. Nothing has ever brought me close to believing that creation is a credible possibility.
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Pete,
“Not everything about evolution is random, far from it”
I don’t get it. I have read so much evolution theory, and it all assumes a random, unplanned process.
If it is not random, who is directing it? Where does the “plan” come from? Who/what determines what happens?
How can you obtain order from chaos? Design? Purpose?
I’m really, really stumped by your claim here.
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Sorry, Pete, don’t want to hijack the thread into another evolution thread.
I just wanted to encourage Zapper to have a good think about the things he writes.
Peace,
Rufus
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Rufus, I am intrigued about this segue into evolution.
Nevermind, first, it is not clear what you mean by random. One of the processes in natural selection is random- the generation of genetic variations- by both recombination and mutation. That this occurs is an uncontroversial event.
The second process is the selection of those variants that are ‘fitter’. That comes through the interaction of the organism with its environment. Favourable traits get inherited and passed on- unfavourable traits are eliminated as the organism dies prematurely. Only part of natural selection is random. It’s an easy process to understand once you understand that there are two forces driving it.
It is not clear what you mean by order from chaos. Is this some reference to thermodynamics? We often observe higher forms of organisation emerging spontaneously. It occurs in markets- a bunch of people acting in their own self-interest doesn’t cause chaos. It causes a new organisation- a market which clears- to emerge. In culture, things like languages evolve spontaneously. Nobody would design English afterall, with all its exceptions and irregular instances.
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Rufus.
Thanks for your opinion but you come across as a typical self-righteous, hypocritical Christian with absolutely no idea about evolution or the evidence for it.
“No-one was there at the time”. Wow. Is this really the quality of your argument against evolution?
Evolution is far from random so there is no need to engage an incorrect argument.
As for your other request:
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
I’m sure you will find a way to ignore/disregard this section. Old testament blah blah.
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
No one is directing it, it is far too complex to be able to be directed anyway.
The “plan” is to survive.
All the survivors determine what happens.
Nature is a mix of chaos and order. Competition, the necessity to co-exist and mutual benefits are all involved.
It is not just life forms that evolve, thoughts and beliefs also evolve. Religions evolve, with plenty of competition.
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
“I just wanted to encourage Zapper to have a good think about the things he writes.”
Goodness me. Did your randomly designed brain really come up with this?
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
First, you are employing a logical fallacy. An evolved brain does not imply that our thoughts and analysis are random. So your starting premise is false. Second, meaning is not defined, making inference from that point invalid. Third, given our thoughts are not random you cannot claim that all views are of equal merit.
Next, I’m not scared by rejecting creationism (indeed, I find a literal Virgin birth to be entirely more plausible than modern Creationism/ID). And the lapses of logic you have displayed in that short paragraph, pretty much rule out the credibility of your conclusion.
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Virgin birth more plausible than ID?
What’s your logic?
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
A virgin birth only requires one miraculous intervention.
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Dear Kris,
I’m not in the slightest bit offended.
You are telling me what you believe to be true.
It is my experience that swapping Bible verse with those such as yourself, to be … painful and pointless. I’ve found that even the interpretation of many verses are completely different for the type of Christian one is. The chapter of John 6, for instance. For that reason, I didn’t reply at once. And I apologise.
God bless you.
While I don’t agree with your position, I admire your passion.
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Zapper:
In what way do you think I am “self-righteous” and “hypocritical”? How am I “typical” of others who might be like this?
I think your assertion that I have “absolutely no idea about evolution or the evidence for it” is a bit unfair – I have a genuine interest in the subject and I’ve read plenty about it.
Anyway, how can you say this without fully knowing what I know?
Greater minds than yours and mine have argued for and against the theory of evolution. And it is merely a theory at this point.
The very fact that there are lots of highly educated, intelligent people on both sides of the argument would suggest to me that the science is not settled – ie, evolution has not been “proven”.
Since no-one was there to observe the process of macro-evolution, we can only look at the world around is and work backwards.
So you look at the arguments for and against, the supporting evidence, and pick a side. However, since you cannot prove it conclusively, you have to ultimately take a leap of faith.
Zapper, if Evolution is not random, who or what is directing it?
Rufus
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Chthoniid,
I like your posts, and I respect you as a contribution to the site.
I tried to use simple language, and a simple structure. In hindsight, perhaps I could have formed my argument better.
I don’t know if this is best time or the place.
Rufus
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
“.. if Evolution is not random, who or what is directing it?”
A myriad of uncontrollable variables, impossible to predict or manage, and equivalent to nothing at all.
Vote:So, you could say it is random.
December 30th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Zapper
re: your bible verses in 3:57
I wonder how much of the Bible you have read and/studied? What do you know of bible history? Do you understand the importance of context when studying verses like the ones you have chosen?
I could try to explain the context and what those verses teach us. I could show that God dealt in different ways with His people throughout history, and that Jesus came to fulfill the OT laws. I could explain that Jesus taught us to love God and our neighbour as ourselves.
As Christians we now follow Jesus’ example and His teachings.
But I wonder if it’s worth the effort.
Your mind seems to have been made up already, based on your pre-suppositions.
Peace,
Rufus
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
MikeNZ, Kris, Lucia
Where have I gone wrong here? How could I have handled this better?
Thanks,
Rufus
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Rufus,
Pray for him. It’ll be more effective at this point.
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Rufus.
Your posts show that you need things to be explained or directed by someone. That is fair enough. I like to determine my own path, and not ignore the answers that evolution has provided us. Each to their own.
Go and pray for me if you think it will help. Hey, maybe even rip out a few more pages of the bible that you don’t like. Meanwhile I will relax and live my own life.
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Rufus 6:57 pm,
As MikeNZ reminded me earlier today:
Sometimes it really is pearl before swine.
I usually try about three times, but after that I generally give up unless I sense the person is genuine.
I think you’ve explained yourself pretty clearly.
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
haha, the self-righteousness just drips out of some posts around here
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Kris, Lucia
– thanks.
I thought maybe it was my style, maybe I was on the wrong tack, language or whatever.
I have difficulty debating/arguing/conversing with most people these days.
People don’t really want to think any more.
Most seem to pick up some random bits from school/uni/tv/pop press and hey presto, they’ve got their world-view. Done, no more thinking required.
When you present a reasonable argument, and they discover you’re a Christian, the old fundamentalist/nutter/hypocrite/intolerant/self-righteous etc labels come out.
Kind of sad really.
Peace
Rufus
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Chthoniid 6:29
“A virgin birth only requires one miraculous intervention”
Whereas Darwinian macro-evolution requires a squillion miracles. None has ever been recorded/observed.
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Chthoniid 3:57
Sorry, last post on this topic on this thread.
re: order from chaos – your examples of a market organisation and the evolution of english involve intelligent beings.
Darwinian macro-evolution doesn’t.
It relies on chance. No intelligence, no plan, no direction.
Just chance and a bunch of amino acids eventually becoming a design marvel like the human eye. Order from chaos.
That’s the theory.
But like I said, I respect your contribution to this blog, I love your photos, and I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree here.
Peace
Rufus
Vote:December 31st, 2009 at 12:41 am
Rufus
You did nothing wrong.
In fact you did everything right.
Your heart is kind and caring.
In Luke 10:5-9, Jesus told us to deal with the man of peace, that is who God has prepared for us.
Do you see one here that is seeking Him? (http://www.ethnicharvest.org/links/articles/bridges_man_of_peace.htm)
Just for you.
Vote:http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/power_to_the_conservative_peop.html
December 31st, 2009 at 8:33 am
Thanks Mike,
and thanks for that second link. Good to read.
Rufus
Vote:December 31st, 2009 at 8:59 am
Okay Rufus, you are jumping around a bit. Let me preface my comments by stating there are some things I admire about Christianity (e.g. one of the catalysts of Western Civilisation), some I’m neutral about (e.g. the acceptance of evolution as God’s mechanism for life by some denominations) and some things- like modern Creationism/ID- I have no sympathy for.
For macro-evolution (assuming you mean the transition from one species to another) to occur, there are only two necessary conditions. One is that natural selection does occur, and the other is that there is enough time for speciation to occur. Natural selection is observable- cf. pepper moth responses to pollution. And since Clair Patterson established the age of the Earth (and indeed, earlier when Rutherford proved that Kelvin’s heat decay estimate was wrong), there has been enough time. The conditions for speciation are met.
Speciation is also observable in the fossil records. It was during the era of canal building in the UK where marine invertebrate fossils were carefully mapped out, that these continuous changes were first noticed. The opening data from the fossil record didn’t have any gaps, as small marine invertebrates it turns out, provide ideal fossil records. There’s a lot of them, they don’t move around, and the die in sediments that make fossilisation more likely. Speciation was accepted in the 19th C scientific community before Darwin and Wallace put pen to paper.
The reason I don’t believe that the human eye has been designed, is because it is built backwards. Unlike arthropod eyes, where the nerves are at the back of the retina, the human eye has its nerves at the front so that it is forced to loop back through the retina in a cluster. This creates a ‘blind-spot’- an area of the retina we can’t see to use. Oops, not very clever really.
Simply stating that something is complex, hence must be designed, isn’t evidence of ID. You’ve just folded the phenomenon into the cause.
Lets now consider your jump to the origin of life. This doesn’t require miracles. What it requires is a certain combination of atmospheric conditions and opportunities. Since the 1950s, we have in lab simulations, been generating the amino acids (and other cellular like structures) in settings that mimic these early conditions on planet earth. With adenine- the experiments have been so successful that commercial manufacturing of adenine is based on these experiments.
But you don’t prove Creationism/ID to be correct by arguing that evolution is unlikely or wrong. You prove that Creationsim/ID is a better theory by assembling evidence and publishing it in academic journals. That hasn’t happened- intelligent people haven’t been publishing pro-Creationist evidence in academic papers. And Creationism is full of holes.
Why did God put so much junk DNA into our genes? If he’s an intelligent designer, why waste that material?
Why did he pick DNA when it is so vulnerable to UV radiation? Our planet is covered in the stuff.
Why did he pick DNA when it doesn’t actually work to create proteins until RNA is applied. Why not just stick to RNA, it works for viruses?
Why would people be designed with an appendix?
Why would the human eye be designed backwards?
How did marsupials get to Australia before other mammals? Are wombats capable of faster migration than tigers and foxes?
If species were designed, they’d be the best fit for their environment. Why then, do invasive species threaten so many native species with extinction. Weren’t the natives designed to be a better fit?
If God is a caring, benevolent creator, why have we had so many mass extinction of species?
If speciation doesn’t occur, why generate marine fossil invertebrates that show it occurs?
If the earth was created recently, why does radioactive-isotope testing say otherwise? If the speed of geological processes has changed, why?
Science is not an area where people agree to disagree. It is an area where evidence is used to discern merits of different cases.
Vote:December 31st, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Add condescending to the list Rufus.
“People don’t really want to think anymore”..so they get their world view from an ancient book.
Go ahead and tell me again I need to think or I get my world view from TV or pop culture. You sound like a Grade A f**kwit
Vote:December 31st, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Hey guys. I cant seem to find my comments to this thread, so i obviously upset someone.
This is not my intention, but simply to relay the truth of the Bible.
Vote:December 31st, 2009 at 1:44 pm
RE: “People don’t really want to think anymore”..so they get their world view from an ancient book.
The Bible teaches it is possible for it to be night AND day at the same time in the world. A few centuries ago many would have laughed at such a thought.
Only 500 years or so ago, many were convinced that Columbus would fall of the edge of the earth, because our planet was believed to be flat. The Bible explains the opposite.
Doctors today know that the best time to circumcise a baby is on the eighth day, when there is more Vitamin K and prothrombin in the blood, which means less bleeding, less pain and a better healing process. Genesis 17:10-12 prescribed circumcision on the eighth day.
Many of the ancients beleived that our planet was resting on the back of some giant creature, yet in Job 26:7 it is written “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.”
Ancient? Yes. Scientific? Yes. Out-of-date? No. Trustworthy? Yes.
Dean
http://christian-truths2.blogspot.com/
Vote:December 31st, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Kiwichristian
Vote:pearls before swine.
they don’t want to know or engage as at the core of all the arguements they believe everything came from nothing.
December 31st, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Rufus,
“Order” from “chaos” – snowflakes.
“Order” from “chaos” – complicated knots in the headphones you left in your pocket all day.
But I probably don’t agree with your definitions of “order” and “chaos” anyway.
Vote:December 31st, 2009 at 4:31 pm
@MikeNZ
It’s called a singularity Mike, not nothing
Evidence for it includes both the white noise detected in radio telescopy and the movement of galaxies away from each other.
Vote:December 31st, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Best not to engage him Chthoniid, he’ll start quoting scriptures thet “prove” what can’t be proven
Vote:December 31st, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Zapper (aka MyNameIsJack, aka Billy Borker) at 1:11 pm
Why don’t you go spread your hate elsewhere, you schizoid?
Rufus,
Ignore this idiot, he manifests himself in various personas and likes to have a dig at Christians and wind them up. He wallows in his own ignorance, pride, and hate. His previous incarnation, Billy Borker, was just banned, and the other one he still uses, MyNameIsJack, has also been banned in the past.
Just ignore him, he eventually goes away like a bad smell does.
Vote:December 31st, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Kris K,
You are a fool. I’m not either of those left wing retards. It says a lot that you so sensitive about your beliefs that you assume only one person disagrees and needs different personas to do it. Maybe it’s the devil!
Spreading hate would be…calling someone an idiot? How un-christian!
Vote: