User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.7183 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. willcarrolldoesnotsuk Posted: April 21, 2008 at 05:19 AM (#2752746)Let's hear it for Christ's Cub Scouts!
/was a Spark and a Pal. Given than my dad was jewish and my mom Catholic, I'm not sure how that happened.
"I want to walk hand-in-hand with Jesus on a private beach for two. I want him to nibble on my ear and say, 'I'm here for you.'" It seems you really love Christ.
I tend to shy away from the true believers, but I guess that's harder to do if you're spending eight months with them in somewhat close quarters.
I once stumbled upon Mike Sweeney on a Catholic show on cable. It's a talk show hosted by a monk in a robe. Anyways he was talking about how the Royals chaplain was disappointed to find out that Sweeney was Catholic.
Two points:
1. They have two chaplains? To paraphrase Mickey Rivers, maybe they should spend less time praying and more time hitting and pitching.
2. Does this mean only a Christian can be a team leader for the Royals, or are they implying that Bannister is going to be a leader of the Royals who are Christian? The former is creepy and wrong so I'm guessing it's the latter. I hope it's the latter, at least.
Some do, some don't. I know that Jerry Spradlin had a reputation as a pretty persistent clubhouse evangelist.
Bannister is great! He understands DIPS and math and crap.
Today on BTF:
Weirdo. You can't practice religion AND know how to use a spreadsheet.
Naw, nobody is saying that. I'm not sure where you're getting that from in this thread. Just some mild snark here and some sincere questioning of clubhouse dynamics. I think the average primate understands you can be religious and know math. Now religion and biology...hoo boy!
Uh, I did that too when I was 10, and now I'm a card-carrying atheist.
Just sayin'.
I know the late-90s Yankees had a bit of a problem with this - there was a substantial portion of the team that was evangelical, led by the irrepresible Chad Curtis, that tended to pressure the non-evangelical side. I remember hearing something about a run-in between Curtis and Jeter that got so heated the Yankees decided it better off just to trade Curtis.
I was in Awana and I'm now a card carrying agnostic. Actually, we don't have cards because we're not convinced of their utility, but that's another conversation.
Anyway, my mom, worried that I wasn't playing with other kids and a bit worried about my mortal soul, put me in it. I remember virtually nothing about the religious stuff (I vaguely recall that you got the equivalent of a merit badge for memorizing bible verses) but I totally rocked on all of the games in the gym. They even had regional events called the Awana Olympics in which a bunch of red-vest wearing nerfherders played weird beanbag and bowling pin games in some chucrch gymnasium somewhere.
The point, if there ever was one, was lost on me and my mom, and she let me quit after a couple of years.
Well, he's the team CHAPLAIN, so OF COURSE he is focused on one thing, the need for one player to be the "go-to" guy when someone has a social/relational/spiritual issue. Which is why baseball teams, military units, etc., have chaplains, to facilitate help with relational problems so the manager can worry about other stuff like who isn't hitting a curve ball. Lots of times it helps. Sometimes it becomes a clubhouse distraction and hurts more than helps. Latter must be smaller than former, or teams wouldn't employ them.
This whole article is pretty much a non-issue unless you're seeing a large effect (+ or -) on the Royals team, as post 13 alludes to in another situation.
FWIW, I thought AWANA was great, though it was an accident how I came to be involved. It was by far the best churchgoing experience I ever had. THe group I was in was definitely and proudly Christian but taught the better parts of Christianity and legitimately (or so it seemed) tried to help the kids who needed help with bigger issues while fostering a playful and happy atmosphere overall. Actual church should do such a job.
Awana have fun, Just awanaaaaa...
If Chad Curtis had had a chance to bang Mariah Carey, they might've gotten along better.
Matthw 13:1-23.
Ha ha ha. Oh, I'll field that nuclear bomb on its own turf.
If God made me stony ground, how is that my fault?
Now I'll field it on my turf.
If you cannot get with atheism, <u>you</u> are the stony ground. Or possibly thorns.
Yawn.
No, He hates you because you're a Red Sox fan. I thought you knew that.
There are evening masses, you know.
Eh; Jesus is a good man, and Christianity would be infinitely better off if the Jerry Falwells of the world and their followers realized:
a) it's a book written thousands of years ago, at a time when people truly believed things like "don't sit on the bed of a menstrating woman, you'll get sick", "the sun revolves around the earth" and the like, and since we've advanced a bit technologically and scientifically, using it as a science textbook is not smart.
b) along the same lines, just like almost every other book in existence, it's supposed to be read allegorically. You read it literally, and you're just asking for trouble.
c) Look at how much time Jesus spent talking on helping the poor and making the world a better place. Now look at how much time he spent damning the liberals and the gays to hell. Why the disconnect?
AND
Girls just awana have fun
Awana have fun, Just awanaaaaa...
The theme song SHOULD be, "Awana Hold Your Hand".
Why? Because the religion was spread by Saul of Tarsus, not by Jesus. Saul was a true believer, but he was a lot closer in temperament to Jerry Falwell than he was to Jesus.
So...this is a Catholic organization?
(sorry)
I remember the pastor asking me if I was going for the religious merit badge and all I could do was stammer some kind of weak, "I'm startin' on dat next week, fadder." I really wanted to say "after I do all the badges that involve matches, guns and knives and baseball and ropes and swimming and the fun stuff and I still need another badge, mebbe"
So... shouldn't the same be said for this website?
a) Agreed, the Bible is no science text, but as my personal belief is that it is ultimately authored by the Creator, it does give me some context.
b) Yes, the Bible is full of parables, allegories and symbolism, all of which contribute to its depth and beauty. My personal belief is that these are commonly identified as such ("Then Jesus spoke unto them a parable...", "the Kingdom of Heaven is like unto a...") and what is to be taken literally is just as easily recognizable. Obviously, there is much debate even within the walls of Christianity.
c) Agreed in full. I have no explanation for you. Jesus certainly did teach against sin, but it is important to note his most scathing blasts were directed at religious hypocrisy (Matt.23).
Yeah... baseball should leave all the political and religious stuff at the doorstep.
Oh, that BTF could leave it at the doorstep as well. I wish that the baseball discussion was kept on a separate page from politics, music, etc., but I understand why that is not practical. Of course, here I go as the hypocrite again, as I get suckered into these threads every so often.
Ah, a remembrance one of my favorite Bible verses: Revelation 3:16.
Of course, here I go as the hypocrite again, as I get suckered into these threads every so often.
What "suckered" you in was assuming you are right and everyone else is wrong.
There's that, too.
AWANA is largely in Protestant and conservative Bible-thumper type churches. This means likely southern Baptist. My church is non-denominational though. AWANA is unashamedly evangelical. We try to teach the kids the Bible. About 1/3 of the time is spent in Bible memory, 1/3 is some sort of spiritual story/sermon/presentation, and the final third is game time which is largely used admittedly to insure the kids have fun and want to keep coming back. We welcome kids from any church to attend and do not attempt to hide our motives from parents or the kids.
I did not come here to argue who is right between Catholics and Protestants but I am always jolted when people are surprised that there are differences that we see as important. I say they are eternally important. If you are not in either camp I can understand that this looks like unimportant Christian infighting, but to an evangelical it is disappointing to learn that someone described as a Christian is Catholic. I would tell you they have a wrong theology on salvation and thus if you believe Catholic theology you will be lost. Many will tell you there is no important distinction (some Catholics and some Protestants believe this) but be aware there are many who disagree.
Sorry to hear the Bible stuff did not make more of an impression on you. Sounds like game time did what it was supposed to do. It's my favorite time too. Of course the point of AWANA was to get you to believe in Christ, be saved, and then follow Christ. I would tell you like the parable of the soils mentioned in this thread that AWANA distributes the gospel (seed) and it is heard by the kids (falls in the soil) but it is up to God to create belief/conversion (cause the seed to grow and give fruit). FWIW I am the world leader in evangelizing newsgroup Maddux fans, although I specialize in Jewish Maddux fans (it's a very niche job) :).
In my opion the less you try to earn your salvation the better off you are. God doesn't place a high value on hypocracy.
I was being a bit flip on the Awana stuff. I do remember the non-games component, albeit a lot more vaguely than leading the train at the Spark-o-Rama. ;-)
For what it's worth, the church where I went for my Awana group was a Baptist church in Flint, Michigan. I don't have a sense of what the place was like outside of Awana (we didn't go to Sunday services) but things seemed decidedly less, um, intense there than they were among the Baptist friends I would meet when we moved down to West Virginia.
As for the non-game stuff, I will say that my knowledge and understanding of Protestent theology (about being saved, reborn, etc.) had to have come from there, because it certainly didn't come from Catholic mom or Jewish dad. It's probably a testament to the Baptists/Awana folks that, as I thought about religion on my own terms as a young adult, it was that model (whether I realized it at the time or not) that made "the finals" as it were between my current agnosticism and a life of faith. Jewishness in my life was really just part of my ethnicity (the actual religion was limited to my extended family), and Catholicism seemed to me to be a patently ridiculous exercise in population control through silly ancient dogma.
Again, I will stress that I am an agnostic that, in all honesty, probably leans towards atheism more than I lean towards doubt (I just stop short of "believing" there is no God), but I will admit that the personal relationship with Christ -- the evangelical stuff -- made some sense to me for a while even if I ultimately rejected it.
Maybe that's just a function of me being a product of late 20th century individualism and isolation ("hey, if I can do it all in my head and heart and with this book that sure as heck beats all of the rules of the other religions!") but I think the nice folks in Awana had a lot to do with it too.
Good luck on beating back the flames of the Catholics in the rest of the this thread! If they're anything like my mother you'll have your hands full.
I am at a loss as to what you are talking about. Paul was the apostle of freedom. Freedom from the "written code" was at the heart of most of his letters. Like every other apostle (and most monotheists), he urged the members of his new churches to abstain from sexual immorality (and all otehr addictive behaviors). Like Jesus (and the apostle John), he was very hard on those who tried to impose excessive and oppressive religious rules and called for "everyone to be convinced in his own mind" about "disputable matters." The discipleship Jesus called for was no less radical and was the same in character in every way as the discipleship Paul (and John) taught: centered on repentance lived out in a life of faith, love, and hope. You are either doing some serious eisogesis in your reading of Paul or taking a few verses you don't like or agree with and failing to read the message as a whole. The main difference between Paul and Jesus was audience (Paul was evangelizing a pagan audience; Jesus was speaking to legalistic zealots).
"May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer—may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love."--Proverbs 5:18,19
If you say so ;-)
Best Regards
John
Well, I don't have a ton of time for a theological debate, but I find Paul's writings to be profoundly conservative, much more so than the words of Jesus. And I think a lot of times he missed the point.
But that's not to knock Paul. Just because he was conservative doesn't mean that he wasn't a good man, or that he didn't have good things to say.
That's true, but neither are unicorns. Are you really "agnostic" with respect to unicorns? Or Thor? I suppose I am not 100% certain that Thor is a fictional character, but I'd put it somewhere safely in the 99+% range.
I'd say I'm most definitely NOT agnostic with respect to unicorns; I feel comfortable in denying their existence. Of course, should one turn up, I'm more than willing to change my stance. I don't have an infallible belief that unicorns don't exist; I've just determined that the probability of their existence is so exceedingly small that it's enough for me to say they don't exist.
It doesn't matter, the burden of proof is on theists, not on atheists. You cannot prove a negative.
Have you ever read the definition of atheism? "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."
Where's the faith?
...should know better... what?
This is stating the obvious, as faith is belief in something in the absence of evidence.
I assume you are still referring your faith argument to atheism, so I propose to you to look at the advances in science over the last 150 years. That is responsible for an amazing amount of conversions from theism to atheism.
In reference to theism, your statement is 100% true.
It’s funny because it has the opposite effect on me. When Darwin first penned “Origins” he thought the cell was a fairly rudimentary construct. Science has proven that the cell is an amazing organism--almost a walled city on the microscopic level with a city hall, transit system, sanitation, power plants, manufacturing, defense etc.
“Each of those 100 trillion cells functions like a walled city. Power plants generate the cell’s energy. Factories produce proteins, vital units of chemical commerce. Complex transportation systems guide specific chemicals from point to point within the cell and beyond. Sentries at the barricades control the export and import markets, and monitor the outside world for signs of danger. Disciplined biological armies stand ready to grapple with invaders. A centralized genetic government maintains order.”--Newsweek, “The Secrets of the Human Cell,” August 20, 1979, p. 48.
Heck, just the DNA “if written out, would fill a thousand 600-page books … Each cell is a world brimming with as many as two hundred trillion tiny groups of atoms called molecules. . . . Our 46 chromosome ‘threads’ linked together would measure more than six feet. Yet the nucleus that contains them is less than four ten-thousandths of an inch in diameter.” --National Geographic, “The Awesome Worlds Within a Cell” September 1976, pp. 357, 358, 360
This was written thirty years ago--just think of what they learned since then and will continue to learn over the next 30.
Please do not lump me in with “Creation Scientists” and “I.D.ers” because I have a lot of issues with their points of view (not to mention an extremely damaging political agenda if ever implemented). I acknowledge there are a lot of unanswered questions with my viewpoint but I have a lot of unanswered questions about the evolutionary model.
One example is that we all agree (I hope) that ol’ Terra is at least four billion years old. Chances are good that that this rock didn’t appear with an organic soup right off the bat--it would develop over time. I don’t think it unreasonable to put a potential three billion year time frame from when things started to happen until today.
Life--according to evolution came about through natural selection and beneficial mutation.
No matter how you slice it, it’s a long series of mathematical impossibilities that defy the scientific method. Whether it’s getting the correct number and kind (left-handed) of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins by random chance to the genesis of the living cell, to getting the proper mutations to produce two genders and have it happen in the same time frame, geographic area and instinct to mate, nurture and raise to sexual maturity with the mutation passed along in its entirety when DNA tends to repair, not perpetuate mutation is a long shot of epic proportions.
Let’s examine what we have now:
“There are about 2 million known forms of insect life, but estimates extend to as many as to 30 million."
“Marine scientists reported Tuesday that they have discovered 106 new species of fish and hundreds more new species of plants and other animals in the past year, raising the number of life-forms found in the world’s oceans to about 230,000”
“Surprisingly, this question of "how many species?" has received relatively little systematic attention, from Darwin's time to our own. At the purely factual level, we do not know to within an order of magnitude how many species of plants and animals we share the globe with: fewer than 2 million are currently classified, and estimates of the total number range from under 5 million to more than 50 million. At the theoretical level, things are even worse: we cannot explain from first principles why the global total is of the general order of 10[7] rather than 10[4] or 10[10].” (This excludes bugs, microscopic life and extinct species). Consider this: If beneficial mutations are a basis of evolution, what proportion of them are beneficial?
There is overwhelming agreement on this point among evolutionists. For example, Carl Sagan declares: “Most of them are harmful or lethal.” (Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, 1980, p. 31) Peo Koller states: “The greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful.”(Chromosomes and Genes, by Peo C. Koller, 1971, p. 127)
Excluding any “neutral” mutations, then, harmful ones outnumber those that are supposedly beneficial by thousands to one. “Such results are to be expected of accidental changes occurring in any complicated organization,” states the Encyclopædia Britannica. (Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol. 22, p. 989) That is why mutations are said to be responsible for hundreds of diseases that are genetically determined. (The Toronto Star, “Crusade to Unravel Life’s Sweet Mystery,” by Helen Bullock, December 19, 1981, p. A13)
So how many mutations would have had to occur to accrue enough beneficial ones to sculpt all the varieties of life forms on earth past and present? Do you think all of these could happen in a time span of 3-4 billion years? Each of the millions of life forms required a long list of beneficial mutations but at the same times probably had tens of thousands of harmful mutations had to be weeded out. Further how many of these beneficial mutations were passed off in their entirety to the next generation[s] when the genetic code generally fixes any mutations and they wash out after a few generations?
It’s one thing to have a rare beneficial mutation, it’s even rarer that it gets passed on.
But all of this had to have happened within three billion or so years.
A single cell is incredibly complicated. How many beneficial mutations were required just to get the first fully functional and able to reproduce cell? How long did it take?
Considering all the forms of life both existing and extinct and all the biological systems within each creature (eyesight, hearing, central nervous system, respiratory system, reproduction, digestion, cardio pulmonary, skeletal etc.) we'd need billions of beneficial mutations to account for everything from amoebas to whales, to humans and all things in between which presupposes thousands of billions of harmful mutations as well. Mutations happen at the cellular level and to the DNA. Yet despite all these alterations to the DNA the cell (and DNA) remains unchanged. The oldest cells that have been discovered are just like the cells we have today despite the almost endless amount of alterations that allegedly happened to it
Let’s assume that circumstances were different in the far distant past--let’s concede that indeed there were that many mutations within the time frame. Simply an almost innumerable total of mutations. This being the case--the fossil record should be absolutely packed with examples of these mutations.
Further, the dinosaurs are simply great, big, honking lizards. Unless I’m mistaken, their biological systems (central nervous, skeletal, digestive, reproductive, respiratory, circulatory, cardio-pulmonary) are pretty much the same as reptiles today. This means that all of the required mutations would have had to take places millions, upon millions of years ago further shortening the time frame for these things to develop.
Another unanswered question is In recent years, scientists have researched human genes extensively. By comparing human genetic patterns around the world, they found clear evidence that all humans have a common genetic ancestor. The DNA of all people who have ever lived, including each of us has a common source.--“The Search for Adam and Eve.” Newsweek 1988 (I’ve lost the issue number ).
Those studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the woman. In 1995, research on male DNA point to the same conclusion—that “there was a common ancestor whose genetic material on the [Y] chromosome is common to every man now on earth.” Time Magazine (1995) put it.
Whether you believe in Genesis or evolution, it appears that the human species (homo sapiens) have a common genetic ancestor which means that a long, long time ago there was a great deal of inbreeding required to get the population to where it is today.
However, this practice is incredibly detrimental to the species. Why did it not cause damage eons ago when it is so malignant now? Was the species more durable once upon a time? Doesn’t this suggest entropy rather than evolution taking place? I know that science has some theories regarding how this happened but cannot prove it through the scientific method nor is the fossil record overly supportive of them.
One does not have to be a theist, a deist, or a “Christian” to wonder about these issues and be open to yet another answer. Ironically, the more science learns, discover and invents the less I feel the evolutionary model can explain things. Most inventions use nature as the blueprint. Modern man, with all his scientific know how and intellectual capacity can only engineer crude imitations of what is in the world around us. I would think that the best and brightest would be able to improve on things engineered by random chance. Heck, you work a machine and it weakens and wears out. You work a human and the body and immune systems strengthen until age or disease throws a wrench in the works.
Who know? What if both sides are wrong and a third option presents itself which answers these questions? There would have to be considerable backtracking in the scientific community “EVOLUTION IS A FACT -- IT IS ONE OF THE MOST WELL-ESTABLISHED AND WELL-DOCUMENTED FACTS IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE. TO DENY AND ATTACK EVOLUTION IS TO DENY AND ATTACK ONE OF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL FACTS ABOUT ALL OF NATURE AND REALITY AND ONE OF THE MOST CRUCIAL FOUNDATION STONES OF ALL OF MODERN SCIENCE.
Evolution is not a matter of "controversy" in the scientific community: It is recognized as a fact by the overwhelming majority of scientists in the U.S. and throughout the world. Evolution is just as well-established as the fact that the earth goes around the sun ”
These folks have an almost religious zeal and dogmatism about them that suggests that if a third concept arises they have to defend the turf they have staked out. I’m always skeptical about dogmatists in every walk of life. One day I may disavow both viewpoints.
Just some food for thought--if others wish to use this as fodder for debate be my guest. All of us know where we stand on the issue and a 1000 post thread won't change anybody's mind anyway.
Best Regards
John
John, I'm not trying to dismiss your very long, obviously deeply-considered post, but I think the bit above about 3 billion years goes a long way towards explaining how life got through the landmine of improbabilities to where we are today. Three billion is a really big number. Bigger than even those of us who deal with numbers on a regular basis typically appreciate. I don't know if those little cells and amino acids had any divine help -- remember, I'm an agnostic here -- but I can imagine that three billion years is enough time for them to stumble through on their own.
Further, the dinosaurs are simply great, big, honking lizards. Unless I’m mistaken, their biological systems (central nervous, skeletal, digestive, reproductive, respiratory, circulatory, cardio-pulmonary) are pretty much the same as reptiles today. This means that all of the required mutations would have had to take places millions, upon millions of years ago further shortening the time frame for these things to develop.
No, dinosaur aren't big honking lizards. They have much more in common with birds than lizards and almost all paleontologists accept as fact that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, or, more accurately, that birds are dinosaurs or at least belong on the same clade (There are a few holdouts, though.) Also, it's easy to underestimate just how long, say, 100 million years is. That's a long freaking amount of time. It's longer than we can conceptualize. A LOT can happen in 100 million years.
Anyway, the short of it is that a lot of the confusion about evolutionary theory popularly is that most people think of Darwin's Natural Selection = Evolution. But since the publication of On the Origin of Species new discoveries--fossils, field work data and, most importantly genetics--have greatly complicated things. I'm only a dude who likes to read about this stuff, so I'll let the experts take it from here. I got interested in current evolutionary theory because of how our understanding of dinosaurs has so radically changed from when I was a wee lad. It's exciting stuff, I think.
Impressive. At least you didn't tell us who was right.
John, I think you should also consider the fact that there are probably millions (or billions?) of other planets out there. The improbability of life developing on any single planet needs to be considered in the context of just how many planets there are.
Modern man, with all his scientific know how and intellectual capacity can only engineer crude imitations of what is in the world around us. I would think that the best and brightest would be able to improve on things engineered by random chance.
Yes, but man's technological progress is likely moving faster than biological "progress" on earth ever moved. I'm guessing that in three billion years, we're going to have some pretty amazing technology (or *really* cheap HD TVs).
Paul's understanding of the law in complex.
Rom 3.1-2: What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.
Rom 3.31: Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
Rom 7.11-14: For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful. We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.
This last passage is the key. It is clear that Paul is speaking in character - he says "once I was alive apart from the law" (7.9), and of course Paul, as a Jew, was never apart from the law. He is, instead, speaking as a Gentile who attempts to fulfill the Jewish law and fails to do so.
He explains, quite emphatically, that the law is holy and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. The problem is that many Gentiles are unable to follow the law, and Paul believes that these problems need to be rectified in order for Gentiles to receive the fruit of God's promise.
As Krister Stendahl argued, it makes sense to read Paul as exactly what he says he is - the Apostle to the Gentiles - and to take his audience as exactly who he says they are - Gentiles. (See Gal 4.8, for instance) When he talks about how one is not saved through works of the law but through faith, he is explaining to Gentiles that they do not need to worry about their struggles to fulfill all the commandments of the law, as faith in Jesus Christ will suffice for them.
Paul never says that the Jews will not be saved. In fact, he says the exact opposite. Rom 11.26: All Israel will be saved. He never says they'll be saved by faith in Christ - it's only later Christian readers who supplied that part.
The freedom Paul preached is, I think, not an attack on the "written code" but an acknowledgement of how difficult he saw it was for Gentiles to be Jews. He found, through Christ, a way for Gentiles to also receive the fruits of God's promise given to the Jews.
This isn't the world's only available reading of Paul - god knows, there are as many readings of Paul as there are readers of Paul - but I think it best explains his seemingly contradictory statements about the law, and gives us a picture of Paul that fits better with his historical context - a faithful Jew, with regard to the law a Pharisee (Ph 3.5), is not attacking the law of his people as a "written code" from which all must be set free, but is opening the promises of God to Gentiles and offering them a different path through Christ.
Paul, I think, was not the first supersessionist theologian.
this had zero to do with religion. The Yanks and Mariners got into a crazy brawl, and as it was winding down, Arod and Jeter were seen on the outskirts talking and laughing. Curtis then called him out in the dugout, while the cameras were on them. It all comes stems from that.
People believe in deities because 1.) they need to and 2.) they want to. Any other reason cited - and many many many are by theists of all stripes - strikes me as extraneous.
"seems to be"? He IS dogmatic.
He could, with equal validity, attack all moral reasoning. Where is the "proof" that I ought to do anything? It is highly unlikely that there is any metaphysical realm in which an ought could exist. So, I propose, in honor of Richard Dawkins, that there is no right action, and that everyone should be freed from ever thinking they should perform one action or another. This "moralism" is the very height of anti-scientific ignorance.
My point here is not the religion is the same as morality - though they overlap in many important ways in many historical and cultural contexts, they are obviously differentiable. Atheists have ethics, too, that's just a historical fact.
Rather, most religions - like most ethical systems - involve the assent to highly unlikely beliefs. They also involve much more than that, from community gatherings to ritual practices to charitable organizations to frameworks for moral reasoning and artistic production, things that cannot be reduced to assent to unlikely beliefs. To reduce religion to "theism" - I've never met a theist, though I've met gobs of Conservative Jews and Episcopalians and American Buddhists - is to misrecognize religion and to misunderstand the value that people gain from religion.
To dismiss a belief because of its unlikeliness without asking about the particular world in which that belief came to exist, and the work (ethical, communal, artistic, bodily) that that belief does within its world is exactly why scientists usually make such bad historians and such poor ethicists.
They would never dismiss ethics because they can't prove an "ought". They would enquire more deeply into the location and effects of many oughts and many ethical systems, and discuss them respectfully. But because they misunderstand religion as merely a collection of beliefs, rather than as a massively complex system, a total cultural fact, they fail to engage intelligently with their object of study.
I became a believer and follower of Jesus Christ 9 years ago. I didn't 1) want to, nor 2) needed to. I can only explain it that the gospel as it was presented to me opened my eyes, and I began reading the bible for all it was worth. It made sense to me, I saw what a sinner I was, why Jesus died, and I submitted to and followed Him. I never thought in a million (or a 100 million, or 3 billion) years I would ever become a "Jesus Freak."
How does "the particular world in which that belief came to exist" affect the likelihood of a belief existing?
Regardless of how the belief came to exist, there has been no evidence given -- and they've had thousands of years to come up with it -- that there is one or more deities out there. It doesn't matter how they came up with the idea.
You will get no argument from me that religions have done some good. However, it is far outweighed by the bad, and when you look at it, religion is superfluous. Do you need a religion to be charitable, to care for the sick and the desolate, to treat your neighbor as you would want to be treated? Of course not -- as you mentioned, atheists have ethics, too.
If this is a hint at moral relativism, I actually agree with it. I don't believe in moral absolutes.
Lassus, I think you're showing the imgainative gap that exists between believers and non-believers. A non-believer has to throw a tremendous amount of empathetic imagination at the question to really understand belief. It's almost like trying to understand what it's *really* like to be a hunter-gatherer. You can't really do it, no matter how many facts you gather. The difference of mindset is just too great.
In divinity school everyone had a belief story (and was willing to share). I honestly believed most of them -- people reasoned themselves into belief, or somehow felt something divine, or were just arch-traditionalists. Sure, some people used God as therapy, but not all or even most of them. Belief can be honest and intelligent. I, as an unbaptized lifelong agnostic (who would probably admit to being an atheist if you asked him about it at a bar), didn't always get this an looked like an idiot on several occasions because of my ignorance. But it's true.
For me it's 2.
In a way, I like Dawkins' explanation as given up in #55. The origin of life as we know it without design is highly improbable, yet when the evidence at hand is stacked up, the existence of a designer is highly improbable.
However, the former improbability doesn't impact me. Life already is as we know it, and how it arose does not change the fact that it did arise. I do not lead a life of alternate origins and alternate realities. Alternate explanations, sure... but the fact is that what I know as life - no matter how improbable - exists.
The existence of a designer doesn't impact me at all, either - that is, unless a designer exists, and then it might impact me quite a bit. My house burning down is also statistically improbable, but I buy insurance anyway because if the improbability is found to be reality I'm out several hundred thousand dollars, and I don't want to be. I want to be prepared for the low-probability, high-severity occurrences. So, yes, I want to believe in a deity, mostly because I take greater comfort in believing and being wrong than nonbelieving and being wrong.
(I'm basically a relativist, too, but I have an ethics. I just leave it open to critique.)
I heard they were wiped out by the rageoroidosaurs.
"And you remember...Matthew...21:17!"
"'And he left them and went out of the city into Bethany and lodged there?'"
"Yeah ..think about it!"
No, that would be the ankylosaur.
(Just kidding guys and gals)
Definitely top ten. For me, just a cut below Stegosaurs and Ceratopsians. God I am a dork!
As an atheist, I wish more atheists would at least strive to understand whatever religion they happen to be criticising, Christianity / Islam being the 2 most common, instead of just going with a hardcore by the book reading of the religion, and thus coming off more fundamentalist the most intolerant fundies.
I had to look up ceratopsian, and then I realized that you're just using fancywords for triceratops!
Others in the top ten: icthyasaur and maiasaur. One of the amusing developments in paleontology (to me) was the discovery of bigger and bigger sauropods, and their more and more impressive names: diplodicus...seismosaurus...supersaurus...ultramegasauras tournament edition. At least that's how I remembered it.
<strike>God</strike> I am a dork!
Fixed? (I snark, I snark)
I believe the next one in line is the Movaughnasaurus. Unless you prefer the Bigpapisaurus.
Fixed? (I snark, I snark)
Thanks Winnie. I was starting to feel like an ineffectual straight man when that one didn't get hit out of the park right away. So...nicely played!
diplodicus...seismosaurus...supersaurus...ultramegasauras
I believe the next one in line is the Movaughnasaurus. Unless you prefer the Bigpapisaurus.
Naw, next up will be a double-humped nickodmitridom vulgaris
Somebody should probably hit this out of the park, as well!
Somebody should probably hit this out of the park, as well!
Probably my girlfriend but, alas, she has no desire to be a primate.
I'm an Atheist and really despise hardcore fundamentalist, but do appreciate the good that religion has done over the centuries, and will argue that a lot of the bad in gods name would have happened for other reasons. I mean I honestly don't think there is one major religion out there that says "damage and hurt in my name will get you to heaven". We have lawyers who distort the law to perform evil acts. We have presidents, generals, and politicians who do the same. You have business owners who performed evil actions in name of their business because of their interpretations of what is best. You have doctors who do the same etc. It doesn't matter how the evil is manipulated, as a general rule almost all the rules etc was set up to be beneficial to society and is purposely or ignorantly read incorrectly to cause evil.
I told you my opinion which is shared by many (Catholics and Protestants disagree over salvation, and Catholics are wrong). Feel free to disagree but I would hope you could now understand why a Protestant would not want a Catholic chaplain.
From Rom 3:31 about upholding the law. The law says that if you fulfil it you will live, if you break it you will die. But Paul also says that all have sinned (not just non-Jews) and fall short of the glory of God. No one can fulfil the law, not Jews, not Gentiles, not anyone. You'd better find another way to heaven than depending on your own ability to fulfil the law. Jesus told Nicodemus (Jewish) that he must be born again (not he must fulfil the law). The Bible presents the way to heaven being the same way for all men, not different for Jews and Gentiles. Jesus says that He is the way.
It's sad that I understand this.
This is the wrong way to look about it though (your later explanation in #63 does deconstruct this a bit, but I disagree on Pascal's wager ... the classic rebuttal: if God knows that you are just wagering on God, which He would, what evidence is there that He'll count it). The origin of life may be improbable without a designer. But the origin of life is highly probable, given that life exists. Simple application of Bayes Theorem:
P(no god|life) = P(life|no god)*P(no god)/P(life)
Which doesn't really tell us anything unless we postulate the unconditional probability of there being a god, whether life exists or not and the unconditional probability of there being life, whether god exists or not -- or at least the relative probability of these two events. Not to mention that we have nothing other than baseless conjecture that P(life|no god) is small -- and even if true, how small is small? So P(life|no god) small --> P(no god|life) small is not supported without several additional assumptions about the likelihood of alternate universes and a clear definition of what is meant by small.
#78: As an atheist I still find it weird to say stuff like Evolution or etc is proof that there isn't a supreme being. Yes it's strong evidence against the bible or pretty much any religious text being factual, but there is always the argument that God set up the rules of physics so that life could eventually evolve.
This is a fairly weak invocation of God in the process. Evolution has many possible outcomes ... there are multiple ways to fill a niche, and to define a niche, and it's not predetermined which changes will occur even if we know what environmental pressures there will be. The stronger invocation is that evolution is the physical mechanism of God creating life: God didn't create the laws of physics so that life could evolve; instead, evolution is the process by which God created the life he intended there to be, and the laws of physics are the trace of His creation process.
You'd pretty much said, "I don't want to argue, I just want to state an opinion." If you don't want to entertain rational discourse, that suggests you're already closed-minded. And if you're already closed-minded... Yes, I can understand why you would not want a Catholic chaplain.
When mrsidiom (UCC) was in the hospital, the only clergy to visit her was a Catholic priest. They prayed together. So now I have your opinion ("a Protestant would not want a Catholic chaplain") and I have her opposite action. I think I'd need a lot more data points before forming an opinion about what Protestants generally do or don't want. YMMV.
* For certain definitions of "cool," preferably ones that allow for you to occasionally post from your mom's basement between rolls of 20-sided dice and heated discussions of who was the stronger adversary, Prince Zordar or Leader Desslok.
** You could be an undersized one, for instance.
SHE SAYS THAT HES PERFECT HOW COULD I COMPARE
SHE SAYS I SHOULD FIND HIM AND ILL KNOW PEACE AT LAST
IF I EVER FIND JESUS IM KICKIN HIS ASS
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main