Posts by clash_city

80

To those who need no purpose in life

by gumby in

jw
friends

after reading the comments from many on the thread "is there a purpose in life" by itsjustme , posted a couple of days ago i am confussed.. i cannot understand how anyone can be content and not believe life has a purpose.. to not be compelled to wonder how all the design around us is just here because who knows why ......totally baffles me.. at this point in my life believe in a creator but have so many unanswered questions.

things do not make sense in the bible.. if i were to come to believe that the bible were a fairytale of myths...i would feel as stupid as i did when finding out the borg was a crock.. i also would be emotionally devastated.. here are some samples of your comments about lifes purpose.

we may have been put here by someone, or we may not have.

clash_city_rockers

I think that I really challenge the athiest position in my last responce on another thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=17730&page=4&site=3

the 75 entry

blessings,
jr

75

Marry Christmas Jan-evolution goes down in flames

by clash_city_rockers in

jw
friends

darwin on trial is the title of a book on evolution that has ruffled the feathers of the secular scientific community.

though a christian, author philip johnson critiques evolutionary theory from a secular standpoint as he examines the philosophical games many scientists play to protect their evolutionary ideology.

johnson, a law professor at the university of california at berkeley, attacks head-on the often-heard statement that evolution is both a fact and a theory, an evolutionary dogma that has been a major source of confusion for a long time.

clash_city_rockers

Wendy Wrote:

“And this has really boiled down to one topic. Evil, and my reluctance to tell you that evil is clearly defined,”

Response: Of course you cannot respond to what is evil or give a clear definition. You abandon the only way you can know what evil really is as defined in the bible. Again as I said before atheism cannot give any bases for any definition of evil. Evil in your worldview can only be described in vague and arbratrary answers that are subject to change from time to time. Two things happen in this worldview of non-reason.
1. Evil in your worldview and any definition of it, in its logical conclusion is meaningless.
2. Your epistemological (look up the word epistemological in the Cambridge dictionary of philosophy published by Blackwell) method of understanding truth is destroyed. If what you see is true (new light) today but is false tomorrow, then your truth was never true to begin with. Does truth change? In submit that in the biblical Christian worldview as explained in the protestant reformation that it does not.

Wendy asked:

“You stated that god is the originator of the moral code, and anything he says goes, so to speak. If this is so would you kill if god told you to kill?”

Answer: Thankfully, in the New Covenant administration of his kingdom God would never ask such a thing. I’m not much of a killer. When Christ died on the cross and was rose bodily from the grave the killing stopped. God’s wrath has been appeased for his people as promised in Isaiah.

Wendy also asks:

“Why is there accounts in the bible of humans questioning god's moral decisions? You did not answer those questions for me yet.”

Question and Response: First of all which account please give me a chapter and a verse. This reason is that it will assure me that you have at least some idea of what you are talking about and not just making blind thoughtless accusations, thus assuring that we are having a meaningful dialog. I really want to tackle this question for you so please give me a chapter and verse of what you think man is questioning God about morality. Could you mean Joshua’s entrance into the land of Canaan? This would have promise and deliverance for God’s covenant people explanation. But first, what verse is your talking about. Remember you brought up the particular

Wendy reveals:

” To sit back and say that I would feel sorry for someone who just murdered my children would be absurd. Perhaps in time I would forgive them, but in the heat of the moment, there is no telling what I would do. Also there is no telling what you would do either. I can be honest and say that I may abandon all of my beliefs and take it upon myself to end their life.”

Response: Ah, this is where the rubber hits the road. Your atheistic dialectical tension has left you with a real dilemma that you can in no way solve unless you have the biblical God. You see without the knowledge of God you cannot say that the murder of your children by some Islamic terrorist is absolutely right or wrong. You have no standard of finality that you can make any moral judgments. And this has left you with a meaningless absurdity to explain or give an account for ethics, morals, law or justice. You’re not making a very compelling case for atheism.

Wendy Writes:

“If your fear is that an atheist will bring down all moral continuity in society, well fear not! I know many who are moral upstanding, non judgememntal people, who would never follow a voice in their head and attribute it to a god that created them. I feel sorry for christians who follow a god, because a book tells them to. I feel sorry for christians who base their entire life on "hope" that they will live another place. I feel sorry for christians who pray to their god and cry to their god and give up their lives when they feel their god has abanddoned them. I feel sorry for people who are so narrow minded that they miss out on many of the good people in this world, overlooking them because they feel their god would not approve.”

Response: Look, I’m just challenging the philosophical assertions of atheism. I am not arguing with you that they are some atheist who are inconsistent with their philosophical system and borrow from the Christian worldview and are upstanding citizens who have a benevolent form of civil righteousness. It doesn’t save though only the Righteousness of Christ can. Finally, I can tell by your writing that you are afraid of inevitable judgment from God. To that I say flee to the mercies of Christ for his forgiveness is free to you if you trust Him and His righteousness and not your own.

Peace,
Jr

80

To those who need no purpose in life

by gumby in

jw
friends

after reading the comments from many on the thread "is there a purpose in life" by itsjustme , posted a couple of days ago i am confussed.. i cannot understand how anyone can be content and not believe life has a purpose.. to not be compelled to wonder how all the design around us is just here because who knows why ......totally baffles me.. at this point in my life believe in a creator but have so many unanswered questions.

things do not make sense in the bible.. if i were to come to believe that the bible were a fairytale of myths...i would feel as stupid as i did when finding out the borg was a crock.. i also would be emotionally devastated.. here are some samples of your comments about lifes purpose.

we may have been put here by someone, or we may not have.

clash_city_rockers

rem,
I do got to give you some props I does look like you do some reading just on the evolution side of the debate.

Q: Have you read those three books by Phillip Johnson that I mention?
yes or no would do.

rem, I got some thing for you. I dont think you can challenge these objections point by point.

A Reformed Response To:
Is Science a Religion?, by Richard Dawkins, The Humanist, Jan./Feb. 1997., pp 26-29

by Jonathan Barlow

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
The article presently under examination is a transcript of a speech made to the American Humanist Association by Richard Dawkins on the occasion of his being named "Humanist of the Year, 1996". Filled with his customary rhetorical excess (and also his much-appreciated humor), Dawkins' speech provides a good opportunity for Christians to take note of the role of presuppositions in every intellectual endeavor and the role of self-deception in unbelief.

The Faith of Science

Dawkins begins his speech by comparing the threat of AIDS and "mad-cow" disease to the threat posed by faith. He writes that faith is "one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate" (p 26). Dawkins defines faith as "belief that isn't based on evidence" and calls it the "principle [sic] vice of any religion" (ibid). Reformed Christians realize that this definition of faith is a caricature. Instead of viewing faith as belief that is not based upon evidence, we view faith as that which is a pre-condition for gaining any other knowledge; faith itself is not irrational or unscientific, but that which must be in order to gain other knowledge through science and logic. For instance, confidence in the law of non-contradiction could be said to be faith. There is no direct way to prove the law of contradiction except that it must be presupposed in order to learn anything or differentiate anything from anything else. Likewise, the principle of induction, which states that the future will be generally like the past, is what makes possible the formulation of scientific laws and theories. We cannot test the truth of this principle scientifically, for we would be assuming the truth of induction to try and prove it. We cannot test the truth of the principle logically, for logic has as its subject matter static propositions. Thus, induction and the law of contradiction, two of the bedrocks upon which all the rest of Richard Dawkins' knowledge is based, are both things he must accept on faith. Dawkins does not believe this, however, and directs this entire speech at demolishing the notion that science is a religion, or at least a faith-based discipline.

Dawkins and the Apostle Thomas

Dawkins writes, "Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidences" (27). What we have seen above, however, is that science is based upon evidences which are themselves held to be true because of principles which are accepted on faith, induction and the laws of logic. No understanding of the philosophy of science seems to be evidenced by Dawkins' statements. He, in fact, appears to have the same honorific view of science as the technology-stunned hoi polloi. Dawkins compares science, which he sees as being based upon "verifiable evidence" with religion which he says shouts "independence from evidence" from the rooftops (ibid.). This is why, he says, we Christians criticize Thomas, the disciple who doubted Jesus' resurrection. He writes, "The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists" (27). Let us examine the Thomas story, so as not to let any of Dawkins' erroneous statements pass by without comment.

First of all, Dawkins says that the disciples only believed based upon faith. This is not at all accurate. In John 20:19 and following we find Jesus, after his resurrection, appearing miraculously in a locked room among the disciples. He "came and stood among them and said, 'Peace be with you!' After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord" (Jn 20:19,20). Jesus not only appears to them, but he also shows them his wounded side and wounded hands to prove to them that he is the crucified, but ressurected Jesus. Where is the faith here?

Well, Thomas wasn't with the other disciples, so they reported to him what they had seen. Ten of his best friends all reported to him the same thing, that Jesus was resurrected. He did not believe them, however. Is this because he refused to believe on faith? No. There was the evidence of ten eyewitnesses, and yet he refused to believe, even given all the miraculous things he had already witnessed. How many journal articles must Dawkins read before he agrees with the findings of the scientific community? Has he seen all the calculations which allow us to postulate the existence of sub-atomic particles? Doesn't the testimony of witnesses count as evidence for Dawkins? I would imagine so, or else he would be forced to personally verify every experiment upon which he bases his current research.

Thomas' answer is more revealing of his attitude than his evidential requirements. He says to his 10 closest friends, whose word he doubts, "Unless I see the nail marks in the hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it" (Jn 20:25). Notice how strident Thomas' evidential ultimatum is. One thing that should be clear is that one's expectation for verification must match the entity under question. What if I stated, "I will not believe in the existence of Saltine Crackers until I eat one and it makes a sweet taste in my mouth"? This would be absurd. I would be requiring verification that is not and could not be accessible to me -- verification inappropriate to the entity under question. Suppose Jesus had come back with a non-scarred side and non-scarred hands. Suppose he appeared to the ten and then decided to re-enter heaven. Thomas' requirement for verification would be unreasonable. As it turns out, Thomas may not have even fulfilled his stated evidential standards before he believed. When confronted with Jesus personally, Thomas can do nothing but declare "My Lord and my God!" (v 28). Jesus' response is perhaps where Dawkins and the rest of the atheistic or so-called "freethought" community have received their impetus to use Thomas as the poster-child for Enlightenment rationalism and Baconian empiricism. He says to Thomas, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (29). In context, this quote is easily understood to be speaking of a different kind of belief required in the post-apostolic era. In the Gospels are recorded many miraculous acts of Jesus. Many who witnessed these events with their very eyes did not even believe! Some did, however. Now that Jesus is returning to heaven, there will be no chance to believe based upon sight. One must believe based upon the testimony of the apostles. Thomas' brand of faith is inappropriate for the apostolic era and beyond. Analogously, I must believe in the assasination of Abraham Lincoln based upon the testimony of witnesses. I cannot demand to see the event personally in order to believe it. Such a requirement is inappropriate for this time in history. Thomas, likewise, is held up to be an example of one whose brand of faith was too crude for the coming era. The question is not faith versus evidence, but what kind of evidence! If believing the testimony of witnesses is a kind of faith that scientists are not to embrace, then why are there scientific journals? (Dawkins here may well respond that scientists often include their data in journal articles, and thus their experiments can be checked. But who is to say that the scientists are honest in the reporting of their findings?)

Dawkins and Morality

On page 27, Dawkins calls faith a "vice". He criticizes scientists who falsify evidence. He calls science "one of the most moral, one of the most honest disciplines around - because science would completely collapse if it weren't for a scrupulous adherence to honesty in the reporting of evidence". He criticizes the law profession for being based upon the falsifying, or at least the twisting, of evidence. On page 28 he calls religious instruction "mental child abuse" stating that it is wrong to inculcate children in a particular religion. On page 29, Dawkins draws a finer point on the issue of morality writing, "When the religious education class turns to ethics, I don't think science actually has a lot to say, and I would replace it with rational moral philosophy." Further, "It's a rewarding question, whatever your personal morality, to ask as an evolutionist where morals come from; by what route has the human brain gained its tendency to have ethics and morals, a feeling of right and wrong?" He hints that a "thinking and feeling chimpanzee" should have more rights than "a human fetus with the faculties of a worm". He writes, responding to the charge of scientific zealotry, "Sometimes there may be a little bit of justice in this accusation; but as zealous bigots, we scientists are mere amateurs at the game. We're content to argue with those who disagree with us. We don't kill them". Here, apparently, Dawkins means to say that arguing is morally better than killing. As the above testifies, it is truly amazing how much time Dawkins devotes to ethical issues. Let us ask, however, what kind of pronouncements Dawkins is able to make about ethical issues given his view of the world.

For Dawkins, human beings are animals that have evolved from lower forms of life and ultimately from non-life. They have material brains which have formed alongside material arms, legs, and colons. Somehow, a sense of feeling that some things are right and wrong have welled up in the human mind over the course of evolution. Ethical feelings are epiphenomena, feelings that have developed out of the chemical construction of the brain which itself evolved to possess this capacity. What does this mean? This means that ethical norms are like opposable thumbs, an inherited trait that has evolved gradually from non-life. Ultimately, in Dawkins' particular scientific world-view, there is nothing but matter. Thus, ethical obligations are mere feelings like indigestion or fear. How then, does Dawkins make pronouncements about how children ought to be taught? How does he know that it is better to let them decide about religion for themselves? Suppose someone else felt the epiphenomenon of obligation to teach his children his own religion. How does Dawkins propose going about arbitrating between the two feelings, his and the religious educator? He offers one alternative - rational moral philosophy, a discipline which has not exactly been responsible for very much agreement in the past! How does he decide which is more rational, killing someone for fun or killing someone in self-defense? It seems that since the former produces the state of mind "fun" and the latter is simply a response to the negative state of mind "fear", the former is a more positive, and thus presumably a more rational, thing to seek out. Of course, he is no more able to define rationality in terms of his Darwinistic world-view than he is able to define the ethical. For both are mere epiphenomena like fear, pain or pre-menstrual syndrome. Dawkins would do well to avoid altogether this subject for which his own world-view provides no answers, only a morass. In Dawkins' world-view, people are just animals battling it out in history -- it is no more ethical to let our children decide for themselves about religious issues than it is to grind them up and use them to fertilize the family garden.

Christianity, however, provides a coherent basis for ethics. There is an absolute person, God, and thus his unchanging character, and the ethical aspects of his character, can serve as absolute ethical norms. An added element is that with the character of an absolute God as our guide for ethical obligations we are not left in the dark because God is a person who can reveal his character to us. Not only are there obligations, then, but we can know them. The amazing amount of consolation Dawkins receives from his self-satisfaction with atheistic ethics is further evidence of his self-deception with regard to the possibility of ethics within his world-view. At least Christianity provides the ethical tools needed to critique the behavior of its own. Christians can condemn the actions of the Spanish Inquisition. Scientists like Dawkins, however, cannot even give a coherent reason for why the biological experiments of the Nazis were unethical.

Dawkins and Awe

Dawkins writes,

"All the great religions have a place for awe, for ecstatic transport at the wonder and beauty of creation. And it's exactly this feeling of spine-shivering, breath-catching awe - almost worship - this flooding of the chest with ecstatic wonder, that modern science can provide ... The merest glance through a microscope at the brain of an ant or through a telescope at a long-ago galaxy of a billion worlds is enough to render poky and parochial the very psalms of praise" (27).
Later, however, he writes, "we know from the second law of thermodynamics that all complexity, all life, all laughter, all sorrow, is hell-bent on leveling itself out into cold nothingness in the end. They - and we - can never be more than temporary, local buckings of the great universal slide into the abyss of uniformity" (29). So is science a good source of encouragement and awe, or for despair and nihilism? Dawkins' universe is one in which humans are animals presently evolving and battling it out until the time when the "sun will engulf the earth" (29). I'm not so sure that Dawkins has made his case that science replaces religion's sense of wonder and awe. Assume for a moment that an absolute person designed and created the ant's brain with all of its minute detail; assume for a moment that a loving God made the crab nebula and the planets and stars in all their vast array! Which is more awe-inspiring, the creation or the creator? I'm not giving an argument for God's existence, here, only that given his existence as creator, he is more awesome than the creation.

Conclusion

I would do well at this point to break away and leave Dawkins in the morass of his purely contingent universe in which not even logic, science, and morality make any sense. For all of his huff and puff against faith, Dawkins lives in a drafty house of pure scientism that he has sealed up with faith -- faith in logic, of whose foundations he can give no account, faith in induction, upon which he builds science, and faith in the evolving human brain and the evolving human society to more often produce Martin Luther Kings than John Wayne Gacys.

For Further Reading

Van Til, Cornelius. Why I Believe in God.

Frame, John and Martin, Michael, A Debate Concerning the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God.

Bahnsen, Greg L. The Crucial Concept of Self-Deception in Presuppositional Apologetics, WTJ Vol. 57, No. 1, Spring 1995. pp 1-31.

don't stop to the punk rock,
jr

75

Marry Christmas Jan-evolution goes down in flames

by clash_city_rockers in

jw
friends

darwin on trial is the title of a book on evolution that has ruffled the feathers of the secular scientific community.

though a christian, author philip johnson critiques evolutionary theory from a secular standpoint as he examines the philosophical games many scientists play to protect their evolutionary ideology.

johnson, a law professor at the university of california at berkeley, attacks head-on the often-heard statement that evolution is both a fact and a theory, an evolutionary dogma that has been a major source of confusion for a long time.

clash_city_rockers

Wendy asked:

"Did you mean "ironic manner"? I "

Response: No, i meant irenic, as in a peace full conciliatory polemical dialog.

Wendy posted:

"I can't understand myself, but I do not call it evilness. I think those men really felt in their heart they were right, and they were willing to die for their beliefs. I shared this with my children, and she was unable to understand it, but my son did. He said "Mommy you are right, they have to really believe in something alot to die too." Are they evil for their willingness to die, to sacrifice themselves, in something they believed in 100%?"

Responce: This is what happens when you abandon any absolute standard. So if some musslum in your naberhood blew up a bomb for his belief in Allah and that happen to kill your kids, then by your standard and definition "YOU SAID IT" that act is really not evil.
Wendy, can't you see the absurdity of your position? people who are going to look at this conversation are going to get the impression that you are some sort of monster.

Dialectically this is the problem follow the conversation:

Wendy: There is no absolute truth!!!
JR: Wendy, are you ABSOLUTLY true?

Do you see the self-refuting nature of your dialectic?

Wendy said:

"and there is a "reason" behind it. What I would define as evil is an act of violence with no purpose, or medical reasoning, and there are very few of those. I have actually been racking my brain to try to remember the last act I defined as evil, and I cannot."

Response: You have no absolute standard for right or wrong nor the ability to define evil this is your athiestic dilema. This is why you cant and I'll quote you "I have actually been racking my brain to try to remember the last act I defined as evil, and I cannot". Of course you can't define evil your an athiest and you have NO standard for what is evil or good. someone could argue for the necessity of shooting your kids because they are in the way. and you with your athiesm would have no ground to stand on to say he is wrong. Because according to you there is no standard for right or wrong.

Wendy says:

"So how about it? Are we still going to lunch? Or do you think I may destroy any preconcieved ideas you may have? Would that be that bad though? Wow a whole paragraph of questions, I don't think that is grammatically correct, you may be rubbing off on me

response: Lunch is still on, and on me. what I'm trying to do is to get you to think logically to the conclusion your assertions. If I truly beleived that you live consistantly through all of your assertion I yould think you would be one of the most evilest person out there. But I don't I just want to demonstrate that you live inconsistantly from the athiestic world view you so desparately want to defend. No the only reason that you have'nt slip down into more of a cold more consistant athiest is because the grace of God, who has hept his restraint over you, keeping you from the irrational absurtity of the athiestic self-diefication of your world view.

tootles with Korean Kimche noodles,
jr

251

space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.

by aChristian in

jw
friends

the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

clash_city_rockers

aChristian,

I see that you been extra diligent to avoid my critique.

jr

75

Marry Christmas Jan-evolution goes down in flames

by clash_city_rockers in

jw
friends

darwin on trial is the title of a book on evolution that has ruffled the feathers of the secular scientific community.

though a christian, author philip johnson critiques evolutionary theory from a secular standpoint as he examines the philosophical games many scientists play to protect their evolutionary ideology.

johnson, a law professor at the university of california at berkeley, attacks head-on the often-heard statement that evolution is both a fact and a theory, an evolutionary dogma that has been a major source of confusion for a long time.

clash_city_rockers

Cell. writes:

"I would never be so ignorant as to argue for the morality of evolution, natural selection, etc.."

Response: Cell, you are wise for it would be embarrasment to argue the moral marits of evolution. As we all know evolution fuled the athiestic murderious ideologies as Hitlers fatsious regiem, Stallen, Churmen, Moe and other marxist communist killers. Your igdominious athiesm has killed over a Billion poeple in the 20 Century 300 times more than any hetrodox sub-christian movement so don't play body count with the christians and claim christianity has killed thousands when your athiesm has killed so much more it is embarracing for you to even mention.

Wendy said:

"Again, you assume because I am an atheist, that I raise my children to be atheist. As a matter of fact, I am raising my children to be their own individual. If they choose to follow christianity then they can follow christianity, I will not stop them."

Response: Come on Wendy. The very fact that you are hostile to Christianity, in an irenic manor gives a good president that you will be very hostile toward your children, if called by God to be a christian. If your kids got saved and joined the Orthodox Presbyterian Church(my church) or a Reformed Baptist church or Reformed Episcapalian church garanteed you will give them hell so don't sell me with this tolorance bull.

Wendy Said: (snip)

"I have stated that there is no clear definition for evil, you did not refute that, and cannot refute that"

Response: I'm sure you do not live as if it were true. Were the events of 9/11 a clear definition of evil? How about if some punk kidnapper tries to kidnap your kids. You see you can not live by your assertion. So if you won't accept my refutation then by they way you live will refute your assertions. The reallity is that you do not live as if there is no clear definition of evil.

as for God and his redemptive acts through out redemptive history pick a verse or two at a time and we will talk out them.

----------USC-------has no offence-------
jr

251

space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.

by aChristian in

jw
friends

the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

clash_city_rockers

aChristian,

You are so absolutly wrong! I will will challenge you verse by verse your anti-christian doctrines.

aChristian said: snip

"I do not believe the Bible teaches that mankind "fell." Rather, I believe it tells us that God originally created the human race as free people. Free to do both right and wrong. In the exact same way we are free to do so today. Unfortunately we often choose to do what is wrong rather than what is right. God, however, cannot do wrong. For God is "Incorruptible." (Romans 1:23) So, because we can and often do behave unrighteously, and because God cannot and never does behave unrighteously, we are less righteous than God. And, because "all unrighteousness is sin" we are all born "sinful". (1 John 5:17, New American Standard Bible; Psalms 51:5)"

The bible does teach the fall. Not only that by God charges us first with adams sin since he was our federal representive then charges with our sin since we are bound to it? How do you explain Romans 5:12-21 read the whole passage (all crhistians on this board, hold this man to the passage)? One man Adam brought sin and death into the world(curse of the fall, which you reject) Romans 5:12-14. One mans trespass lead to the condemation of all is the biblical teaching. If no one is guilty for Adams sin then how can you account for Romans 5:18. The fall does two things render us guilty for adams transgression and distroyes all MORAL ABILITY TO CHOOSE GOD(free will) read Romans 3:11 very carfully and John 1:13 very carfully. John uses "not by the will of the flesh" this refutes aChristians free will error. Men are not Born Again (made alive) by thier free will as John says but by the mercy of God. Eph 4:5 (Eph 1-10). We are under the condemnation of God 1st because of Adams transgression, again to deny this is to reject the Romans 5:12-21 passage in its entierty. 2nd we are guilty of are sins namely the surpression of truth in unrightiousness Romans 1:18-32.

What's more distressing is that if you deny that our guilt came from Adam then by Paul's consitant argument from Romans 5:12-21 namely verse 19, then our saving rightiousness(for those who believe) does not come from ourselves, which by logical implication must come from us. The doctrine of the IMPUTATION of Christ's Perfect Rightiousness is by faith alone. Romans 3:23-26, 4:5. We are given Christ's perfect rightiousness outside of anything we do. (no working for salvation here, this is of course against the free will salvation who by logical implication work for salvation) Just like we are guilty of Adams sin even though we where not physically there. Look God already impunes guilt before we are born. Read the psalm 51:5 passage carfully and not dishonestly misread the passage. "I was born Guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me" Ps51:5 NRSV.

Look, and fallow this closely.
1. We sin, because we are sinners(it's what we do it's who we are)
2. Your view which is false, is we are sinners because we sin(as if man had a choice to do otherwise)

David, Escargot, look this man's error is nothing new it is what we call Palagianism named after Palagius Rejected by Christains through out History like.
1. Agustine
2. Anselm
3. Martin Luther
4. John Calvin
5. John Knox
6. Dutch Calvinist (contenental reformed)
7. Scotch/Irish Calvinist (true presbyterianism)
8. All English Puritians (Congragational, Baptist, Reformed Episcapalian)
9. Jonathan Edwards (hey DW, you ought to read Johnathan edwards he had some cool stuff like "Sinners in the hands of an Angry God" and "Safty in the Rightiousness of Christ Alone on the day of Judgement")

Guys, don't get duped by this man.

Another herectical view by aChristian:

"So, with these things in mind, Paul accurately referred to Adam when he wrote, "By one man's disobedience many were constituted sinners." (Romans 5:19, Amplified Bible) This is true because Adam's disobedience demonstrated that the entire human race was not only capable of doing wrong but incapable of not doing wrong. So, after Adam failed a simple God given test of his righteousness, God had good reason to retroactively condemn the entire human race as being deserving of: the deaths they had been suffering, and undeserving of eternal life, a gift God had not yet given to any human being."

Response: Your exigises is a wrong. Verse 19 of Romans 5 says by one mans sin many where MADE(constituded is a poor word) sinners(due to there nature not just thier acts). Adam and Adam ALONE hade the choice to sin or obedience, no one after Adam had that ability, Again and let the record reflect for everyone to read these passages. Ps 53: 2,3. Who seeks for God acourding to this passage? Answer No One. This passage refutes your claim. John 1:13 can man believe by his own free will? Answer: NO, not by the will of the flesh or the will of man. Romans 3:11 You believe anyone has the ability to seek God. The Bible says "No one seeks for God" Basically when one is born into this world "spititually speaking" he is born "Dead on Arrival" to the things of God. John 6:65 Acourding to you any Tom, Dick or Harry has the ability to come to Christ for forgiveness. But the scriptures refute that claim "No one can Come to Christ, unless granted(enabled) by the father. Thus regeneration(being born again) precedes faith and repentance.

It gets worse, achristian writes:

"The story of Adam and Eve told in Genesis makes clear that their being able to live forever was not a part of their original physical nature. Rather, Adam and Eve's ability to live forever depended entirely on their eating from a tree "in the middle of the garden" of Eden, "the tree of life." (Genesis 2:9) Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve were going to be allowed to continue to eat from that tree only if they passed a God given test, a test which we are told they failed. After failing that test God expelled Adam and his wife from the Garden of Eden and prevented them from ever again eating from "the tree of life."

1. You said " Adam and Eve's ability to live forever depended entirely on their eating from a tree "in the middle of the garden" of Eden, "the tree of life.""

Reponse: Everyone read Gen 2:17 "but of the tree of Good and Evil YOU SHALL NOT eat for in the day you that you eat of it you shall shurely DIE" your error is a Satanic error for the root of the error is questioning God's word like satan did. "hath God said?" Gen 3:1

2. You said "The story of Adam and Eve told in Genesis makes clear that their being able to live forever was not a part of their original physical nature"

Response: With your misinterpratation of the "tree of life" refuted chapter and verse your claim that God intended Adam and Eve to be mortal?

DW, don't use the word ransom in describing Christ Death. Use the word Substitution and or Propitiation(satisfaction of justice) Romans 3:25.

Christ's death was not a ransom to Satan, but a pay off of perfect justice to God the Father(on the behave of the believer).

Soli Deo Gloria,
jr

251

space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.

by aChristian in

jw
friends

the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

clash_city_rockers

aChristian,

I was looking at your coments and had to ask if you truely believed that there was humans before adam and eve and (normal living activity in the anamal kingdom i.e. lions and tigers eat and sleep and do thier thing untill the die{key word}. Same thing with the plants and trees they grow up tall and leafy then they die, timber......)

Now earlyer you said that the bible was the ultamate authority, right?
If so lets go to scripture for some insite on the begining of man and creation.

Escargot, David W, and other christians pay close attention on the method of questioning and you will see why we should let the BIBLE defend its self.(presupositionalism) And I want you to see the weakness of trying to have science, philosophy, mathamatics, baseball or anything else defend the bible.(evedentialism)

1. If you beleive in this evolutionist/creationist systhisis, i.e. God used evolution as his creative process. There is no way you could of got it from scripture. So if the evolution process has ben going for all this time, since the begining of creation in one degree or another. Then all living things including pre-Adam and Eve humans where subject to death and dying.

2. If you hold on to your view how can you reconsile the Romans 5:12 passage "death came into the world through Adams sin"? When in your view there is death before the fall. Either you are wrong or the bible is wrong but you can't both be wright. Unless you want to submit that both you and the Bible are wrong at that point I will have to ask by what standard do you make such a claim. I would submit that the scriptures are correct thus your theory is falsified by the data in the bible.

3. If all living biological systems where "status quo (going normally along thier every day thing)" before and after the fall as your view dictates. Then, how can you explain Romans 8:19-21 about "creation awaiting(growning for) the consumation of redemtion"? If creation was perfect(i.e. God saw it was good from Gen. 1) before the fall. The fall happened God Curses man starting with capitol punnishment(death being introduced in to planit Earth. Gen.2:17, 3:14-19. this effects all creation because of The fall!
When why would creation grown for its redemtion basically back to the garden then things didn't die.

Do you believe in the Fall? If not then how can you believe in redemption in Jesus Christ? Unless you believe Jesus was just a "moral example" and not "Savior".

Stick to the scriptures to defend the scriptures.

sola scriptura for ever,
jr

251

space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.

by aChristian in

jw
friends

the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

clash_city_rockers

TEST TEST

ACHRISTIAN

MY COMPUTERIS DOWN

BUT IN MY NEXT POST I HAVE

A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION

75

Marry Christmas Jan-evolution goes down in flames

by clash_city_rockers in

jw
friends

darwin on trial is the title of a book on evolution that has ruffled the feathers of the secular scientific community.

though a christian, author philip johnson critiques evolutionary theory from a secular standpoint as he examines the philosophical games many scientists play to protect their evolutionary ideology.

johnson, a law professor at the university of california at berkeley, attacks head-on the often-heard statement that evolution is both a fact and a theory, an evolutionary dogma that has been a major source of confusion for a long time.

clash_city_rockers

Hi every one

I'll try to respond to most of you Like David, Windy, rem and Erich....

David, Your getting it down.... keep at it we ought to do lunch this week. Pick a place you name it.

1. This Italian place on the south end of Winchester Blvd. in Cambell/San Jose near Safeway and these movie theater and a Kung Fu acadamy.

2. We could do Sushi at the Kenokinia Shpping Plaza on Saratoga Ave Just South of 280 in San Jose.

3. We could hang out at The Lion and Lamb Christian Book Store (the coolest book store in the Bay Area that sells the coolest calvinist, puritian, Van Tillian Presupposionalist Apologetics books that everyone loves) Located on the courner of Stevens Creek Blvd and De Anza Blvd in Coupertino.

4. We could hang out at Berean Book store and walk over to McDonalds on Meridian Ave in San Jose.

5. How about some Korean BBQ in K-town in Sunnyville on El Camino Real near Kyopo Market.

6. There is this pretty good Jewish Deli on Alameda ave. south of 280 Near Bascom Ave. San Jose

7. How about Mexican Downtown SJ near 2nd and Santa Clara.

8. Another Itailan place that has the best strombolis in the world. Its near Almeden Expressway and Camden Ave about one block near this huge calvery chapel mega church is at.

9. Finaly Cantoneese place on University in Palo Alto

pick a place.

Wendy Responding to David writes: snip

"I understand what you are trying to say, but I am afraid that it is just one outlook on this. Part of survival is getting along
with others so that you will prosper. Now you are saying survial of the fittest is the evolutionary way. This does not mean that you kill everyone but yourself. That would serve no purpose. If you want to get down to the nitty gritty and pick apart why we have the morals we have, you will need to look individually at them. Do you want to? I hate to spend all that time if you are not interested. But I could probably pick every act and explain in a logical way why we should not commit them."

Response: Wendy, Wendy, Wendy,
You can not explain why we should not commit acts of moral evil and yet at the same time hold on to the athiest dogma of moral relitivism. The dielectical tention(internal contradiction) is too great for you to overcome. On one hand you want to impose a moral standard, on the hand you want deny any notion of absolute standards that may objectively rule over you in morals and ethics in which you want to ground your notion of morals and ethics on. Your claim to be logical and yet as a selfproclaimed logition as yourself why are you insisting in violating the law of contradiction in your apologetics of athiesm. Your just demonstraiting the SELF-REFUTING nature of athiesm and that athiesm is not an intelectual persute but a rejection of ones own personal gifts of intellegence. As Francis Scheaffer would say "Wendy, you have your feet firmly planted in mid air. Wendy, your a sharp lady, but I think inside you know better.

Look, all David or anyone else can ask you is "why should I not commit acts of moral evil, by what absolute standard" At that point your athiestic world view is in jepordy. You eather live by your athiestic world view and say "there is no absolute standard, so philisophically why not an ethical/moral free for all". Or, you can deny your athiestic world view and live and act as if athiesm were "a bunch of crap" and impose an absolute standard for right or wrong in which you will have no other place to go but to barrow capital from the christian world view.

Wendy, in response to me writes:

"Of course I do not want an answer to that question, I just used it to show you that it boils down to not if one is atheist or
christian, but what moral code(conscience) the individual person has."

Response:
The Christian World View is the only world view can provide the intelectual (logical and epistomological--how we know what we know)
answers to give a reason why there is an absolute standard for ethics and morals. Athiesm can not. To use your words "what is BOILS DOWN TO" is that Christianity can give an account to and give a reason for morals, ethics and an orderly society. Athiesm can not. So I can see why you don't want to answer my question.

Acourding to your athiestic world view why should we have ethics and morals?

Wendy Posts:

" I was raised a christian and remained one for 26 year. What I have a problem with is, you thinking that because I am no longer a christian I would throw all my morals out the window. I still have to answer to the same person I had to answer to for 27 years, myself.
And truth be known I am way hard on myself, much more so than anyone else I know. So I assure you that if another atheist tried to persuade me to abandon my own conscience I would not be jumping on that bandwagon. As a matter of fact I have never met an atheist that would even try to impress their own moral code on me."

1. you said "I was raised a christian and remained one for 26 years"
Q1: where you raised a Jehovahs Witness? if so then you where not raised a christian, because Jehovahs Witnesses is not Christianity.
Q2: Where you raised in an Protestant bible believing evangelical home? Either Baptist, Presbyterian, Reformed, Congragational, Independent, or Lutherian home? If so what are you doing in a JW chat room with us x-JWs since you grew up in an evangelical home for 26 years and on your 27th revial that you were never converted to Christ, (by Christ since He does the converting, not man). Did you spend a few months studying with the JWs?

2. You said "And truth be known I am way hard on myself, much more so than anyone else I know"
Q1: I'm just trying to apply YOUR athistic world view and go consistanly to its logical conclusion. So then why go through all the self-bashing and being so hard on yourself? If there is no Absolute moral standard then why go through all the fuss. As your people would say "hey, relax a little, take it easy, smoke a few joints. There is no God so there is nothing to worry about"
Q2: If you do have a moral standard which you say you have, What do you base your standard on? Feelings, popular public opinion, female intuition, the feeling that as Rodny King would put it "we nee to get along", mathamatical calculations, your favorite song?
When you reject the bible that's all you got.

3. You said: "As a matter of fact I have never met an atheist that would even try to impress their own moral code on me"

Response: Why should they thier world view teaches that there is really no real absolute standard for right and wrong. "Just do as you please" they say but for pragmatic reasons they might add "as long as you don't go to jail"

Wendy, as far as the pop quizes go, the reason for them is to demonstraite that they have absolutly no Idea what they are talking about. This way they can be exposed for misrepresenting the Christian position. These poeple pull of the same dishonest garbage tactics as the WT does. As for rem and the others thier antagonism against the Christian message is nothing new. Going from JW to Evolutionist Atheist is just going from one form of rebelion (JW) against God to another form of rebellion (Atheism) against God. Both forms of religion worship the creation rather than the creator.

One more thing. Wendy you wished me a Marry Christmas. Why, if you are an athiest and don't believe in Jesus are into Christmas. Christmas is suppose to be about the birth of Christ(whom you dont believe). Are you contradicting yourself or just living off the fruits of the christian? Why celabrate the birth of a potental enemy(one who will send you to hell)? Is in it more consistant to say happy winter solstus?

Could you imagen your kids comming to you and saying "mommy why do we celabrate christmas when we are athiest and don't believe in Christ?" "Please be consistant mommy"

Wendy, I have looked at some of your other post and think your a cool person so please dont take offence. I am praying for you...

check out http://www.reformed.org

Saint Satan had a Pius little quote:

"He who doesn't live his faith doesn't have any."

Response: Sappy sentamantalism never explains why men and women need Christ and his redemption. The only one who ever lived his faith perfectly as demanded by God was Jesus Christ. The good news is that perfect life is imputed to those who trust Him(this ability does not rest with man but is given by God) Romans 3:19-4:5

So you see SS your sentamental quote has a touch of leagalistic perfectionism, law with out redemption.

Let me explain the order of salvation.
1.Election or Predestination---->2.Efectual calling or Regeneration ----> 3.Faith and Repentance---->4. Sanctification----->5.Glorification

1. God choses not on the bases of what man does but by his good mercy. You might say well thats not fair. Then again does he have to chose to save anyone at all? Eph 1:1-14

2. God makes some one alive in Christ (by the preaching of the word of god) James 1:18 Romans 10:17(faith comes by hering the word of God)
Acts 8:4,5 (keyrigma) http://www.kyrux.com The sinner can now choose the things of God. before his free will was bound to sin.

3. Now he can truely trust God and Repent.

4. Now he grows in holiness(Phil 1 "he who began a good work in you will complete it) no falling from salvation

5. The consumation of the covenant promise.

Look at it this way individually the nice guy down the street who doent believe nor trust Christ but does good deeds of civil rightiousness he will go to hell. But Gansta man who use to pimp sell crack and smoke sucka G's on the down stroke(shoot rival gangsters). Well lets say God will do his rescue mission on him. He gets saved grows in Godliness and walks away from gangsta life because Christ is in him. This man shall surely live.

rem writes:

"Evolution is a scientific theory, not a philosophy. It's not even inherently atheistic. There are millions of god believers
who accept Evolution. Your position has no support."

Response:No rem, you are so wrong, it presents an athiestic alternative to the Christian World View. Look, if this topic continues after Christmas I will personally take time to marshall quotes from athiestic evolutionist professers(you people) from universities all over this land like Stanford, Texas A&M, Harvard, all the way down the list to refute your silly cliam that evolution "is not even inharently athiestic" that is so full of it, even your own athiestic people will tell you that.

Who are these millions who are as you abrataraly put it "god believers"? (as if you had a standard of what a "god believer" really is)

Roman Catholics, buddist, hindies, islam, these people dont count because they are not christian and they do not hold to the biblical view of creation so your claim has no marit. Look man go to school and take logic and rhetoric and learn how to marshal a good argument.
To equivocate and use arbratrary terms does not boster your case. Stop being lazy and read some books and think through your arguments..
Just because induviduals whom you falsly claim as Christian say that they believe in evolution does not make evolution true.

example: I could go to you and say all the people on the 8th floor say that windows NT 4 never crashes. Well we know given all the technical white papers and working on the systems that that claim is full of it.
and yet rem, that is exactly the type of argument you give me in reguards to the defence of evolution.

our dialog is kinda going like this:
jr: rem, do you believe in evolution?
rem: Well, because, just because, um.. kay...

rem wrote:
"Can you construct a moral code that 100% of the population of earth will agree on? I don't think so."

God given laws are not based on democrocy. God gives his laws that settles it it doesn't matter wether I believe it or not. We dont sit around and say "All in favor of outlawing armed robery say I, all against say Ney. The I's have it by a margen of 60-40."

rem wrote:
"Also, the fact that Christian morals are based on a punishment/reward
system doesn't look very appealing to me."

Response: If that's the case then by your standard your not to fond of American constitutional government, which has far more punnishments than rewards.
I guess America "land of the brave, home of the free" is not your cup of tea.

God's laws are a reflection of his Unchanging Holy character this is why God creates moral laws that he does not break because they are reflective of who He is.

rem, dont give me this junk of "well prostitution was o.k in the O.T and now not o.k. in the N.T. Give me one passage where prostitution was O.K. I hate to say it but you are as ignorant of the context of the bible as JWs are.

Look, remI don't like beating you down like this but your view do not reflect and hard effort to seek the truth, but only a reflection of a lawless reprobate heart. The only good news for you is that you are never too far away from the salvation of christ.

One more question rem, on what ethical/moral standard are you to keep your marrage together? If there is no moral absolutes then who is to say that is right or wrong to cheet on eachother? You see athiesm has practical personal implications that you should think through.

Don't think I have anything against you personally. Yea, I think your views are wacked. But I do hope to be friends. So your still invited to hang out with us.

one last thing

Saint Satan, wrote:

[quote]" Did you know that the founding fathers of the american republic were not christians?........

Response: Your historical reference is as about as acurate as your average WT magazine. Truth is the founding fathers of America where a mix of christian and non christian If you really want to go there SS then I'll call you on it and challenge you by asking you for all the names of those who signed the declaration of Independance what there religious position were and of those who where Christian what was there denoninational leaning? This should be eazy for you SS since you have claimed on this board historic expertise. If not keep quite on the matter and stop advancing false information. I'm sure people on this board has hade enough false info from the WT with out you adding to the mix.

go Lakers,

jr

clash_city_rockers

Posts by clash_city_rockers