R108,

That there are no transitional fossils doesn’t disprove evolution to its proponents. Evolution is the only theory materialistic science can logically produce. That is, materialistic science excludes any theory except evolution, and therefore must be correct. It is a fallacy.

Spirituality is the relationship between an individual and the almighty. Religion is the relationship between people about their spirituality, and hence is a social process.

Science is not the study by an individual, or the contemplation by that individual, of the laws of the universe. It is by its very nature a process that involves the interactions of many individuals regarding the study of those laws. Indeed a major “self-correcting” part of science is the review of one’s ideas provided by one’s colleagues.

If you discover something important but do not communicate it, or are unable to successfully convince your peers, you have accomplished nothing of scientific value.

Like religion, science is intrinsically a social process. It makes no sense to conflate, however, science with spirituality. To do so, implies a misunderstanding of what science is. As I have pointed out, science is intrinsically a social process and spiritual contemplation is intrinsically not. Therefore the analogy of the persecution of Galileo is an appropriate one.

Science is a process that is practiced by human beings, following a set of rules called the scientific method, which is intended to expose what is “scientifically knowable” about the universe. And we mean by “scientifically knowable” that which is both rational and observable.

God, by his/her/it’s nature is simply not rational, since God is both infinite and transcends the finite, rational universe.

Unless God is at least observable, he/she/it is not knowable from the scientific perspective. Nor is any private spiritual contemplation on my part ever part of science, because it fails all tests for being part of a scientific endeavor (being primarily a philosophical endeavor, it neither meets the requirements of the scientific methods, nor the requirement of social participation).

That science cannot test the existence or nature of God is not a weakness of science. It is simply a definition of what that discipline is. Conflating science with the pursuit of God, on the other hand, is to misinterpret the purpose and nature of the scientific method.

Let’s rewind a bit here.

The word “science” as people are using it here, is in the context of “empirical science”.

Robert108 is correct that that the word “science” implies the pursuit of knowledge, although in the context he uses, he clearly is thinking of empirical science.

There is also “mathematical science” which has its own set of precepts that define “knowability” in the mathematical sense.

In principle, you could also have “spiritual science”, if you could develop a universal description for knowability in matters spiritual.

HG: Agreed. Even in scientific terms, it’s just a theory, which means not yet proved.

Bezu wrote:
People who know and read the Bible -and in particular, the teachings of Jesus in the New testament, know exactly how “strange” these rituals, sayings and customs really are.

Robert
You misunderstand.
From the perspective of “other” christians, who don’t subscribe to Fischerism and who are in a position to discern the difference betwen christian truth and made up sensationalized balohney,this crap is “way-out-there, over-the-top, off-the-chain,odd ball-looney-toons.”

So this would make your continual assertion of:

It’s only alarming to those with a prejudice against Christians,

rather meaningless!!

Then–and this is really hard to understand–

Do you need to slaughter them? [are you one of those people] who slaughter the people they are afraid of? anyone who doesn’t follow their own ideology. Robert108

Are you friggin’ kidding me..what utter foolishness!

You seem to have a pathological hatred of 1)cops and 2) anyone that’s not christian.

In a very twisted fashion, you often turn your pathological shortcomings back on others!

I’ll not have it!

It’s time for you to lock up the liquor cabinet!

I know a lot of people buy into the creationism thing, but saying that it should be taught instead of evolution? C’mon. That’s just crazy talk.

The same thing could be said about ID. I’m glad this subject came up. The whole ID isn’t science jargon is a farce. Evolution is exclusively scientific when science is strictly defined from a materialistic philosophical perspective.

HG:

You couldn’t be more wrong. The only thing subject to the scientific method under the current definition of science is matter. This is commonly known and accepted truth.

You think?

Then what about sociology (science of relationships among humans), psychology (science of the workings of the human mind), economics (science of production, consumption and transfer of wealth), mathematics (science of number, quantity and space).

Secondly the only thing materialism and “material” have in common is the root word. Materialism is the doctrine that nothing exists except matter, it’s modifications and movements.

Physical science does not eschew other sciences, it merely limits itself to the physical or material world.

Bat: It’s a distraction from admitting that radical Islam is our enemy; if they admitted that instead of attacking the straw man of Christianity, they would have to admit that the President has been right all along, and that the Dems have been wrong all this time. They simply haven’t the honesty to do that. They would rather slaughter the Christians, like Clinton did, than admit that the jihadists are our enemy.

Science as a field was developed in the 16th century on. It never, in its history, had anything to do with the search for God. That is, was and remains a philosophical rather than scientific pursuit.

By the way, what exactly do you think a circular definition is? You keep using that word inappropriately.

Robert108:

Science used to be the study of God and the seeking of spiritual truth through understanding the unknown. The weakness and errors of what passes for “science” in the present time are attributable to its abandonment of God and it’s commitment to atheism.

As opposed to what? Putting Galileo under house arrest because he had the temerity to suggest that the Earth rotated around the Sun?

“Science” never was about the study of God. That’s a branch of philosophy. Science as a separate discipline is totally independent to the question of whether there is a God, or even in a belief in the absence of one.

Science deals with observable, which are measurable quantities, and with those aspects of the universe that can be explained by rational processes. God, in most theologies, is more than this. In general, the rational, observable world is a subset of the universe.

As long as this last statement remains true, science may be able to inform religion, but generally the opposite is not true.

Why all the 1)heat and 2)violent threats, combined with 3)intense anger?
Robert108

1)I rather like the tropics—2)what threats? (more robert bs) 3)where did you get your psychology degree?

I’m no more intense than you are!!

You’re a hypocrite, a very clever manipulator..
and intellectually dishonest.

P.S.

Make that your last “screwdriver” of the day!!!

Whatever we’re not up on we’re down on.

Dawn has it right. Persecution is part of normative Christian Living. If you aren’t being poked fun at, pilloried or treated pejorativly you may not be living your faith out front and in public.

That’s OK, but I have to look up What Jesus says about that.

BEZU, The sites you noted are alarming to those who don’t “Get it”.

So, be alarmed. Nothing I can say or not say will assuage your fear.

And BXZF I’m constantly amused by people like you who make reference to What Jesus Said when they have no idea or only how to take some fragmented verse out of context.

Here’s one for you, Jesus talked more about the infilling and gift of the Holy Ghost than he did about sin.

And the last thing he told his Disciples was to go wait and get this “Tounges” thing.

The pharasies thought they (The Disciples) were dangerous too. So, BEZU, you are in great company.

My $.02 (I stole that from RBB)

Bat One
It’s not a matter of being “afraid” of anyone and it’s not a matter of comparing Christianity with Islam.

My point is that these people are butchering, bastardizing and eviscerating a beautiful religion and because of this, they’re causing Christianity to loose its credibility; and hence, it’s real strength.

You and Robert claiming that people disagree with Fischerism because they’re “afraid” would be tantamount to others asserting that you and Robert are against homosexuality because you are “homo-phobs.”–are you?…. afraid of them???

Bezu: Personal attacks from you:

You seem to have a pathological hatred of 1)cops and 2) anyone that’s not christian.

In a very twisted fashion, you often turn your pathological shortcomings back on others!

It’s time for you to lock up the liquor cabinet!

Where’s the substance?

From the perspective of “other” christians, who don’t subscribe to Fischerism and who are in a position to discern the difference betwen christian truth and made up sensationalized balohney,this crap is “way-out-there, over-the-top, off-the-chain,odd ball-looney-toons.”

Was that the “sensible” part? What is your definition of “Fischerism”, or is that simply cheap demonization?

Your “scare quotes” around rational are particularly apropos, as we both know full well that genocide and mass killings are in no way based on Reason, and are in every way based on Faith.

Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, just a few mass killers in the name of atheistic reason.

It’s not selective. Faith–all faiths, secular and religious–destroys reason and progress. It is the bane of our existence.

Didn’t Stalin say something like that?
I know China used to say “Religion is the opium of the people”.

Dawn has it right. Persecution is part of normative Christian Living. If you aren’t being poked fun at, pilloried or treated pejorativly you may not be living your faith out front and in public
BEZU, The sites you noted are alarming to those who don’t “Get it”.
Gene on September 26, 2006 at 01:16 pm

Persecution is normative—-who are you trying to fool- besides yourself?

Make that two straight-jackets please!

Alarming to those who don’t “GET IT”?

I see. kinda like a magic trick eh? You have to “get it”–the secret knowledge- or you don’t know how the trick was pulled off.

By all means Gene, look it up in the Bible and get back to us.
Oh, and by the way, don’t try to pass off truncated concatenations because I’ll hammer you on it-so be prepared!!

Uh..howevr “DID” he make that elephant disappear..hmmmmm

Dave,

While I understand your point of view, and disagree vehemently with state exclusion of faith, I applaud the fact that you acknowledge the distinction between secular faith and the religious varieties.

Your insistence that faith and reason cannot coexist is, in my mind, both adolescent and tragic, but you are at least honest.

John Galt’s faith in his power to reason should not preclude others from likewise choosing their own faith, religious or secular. So long as we are each free to choose for ourselves.

Robert108,

I do not disagree with you, my friend, but I believe there is something more basic at work here.

Christians, at least those who take their faith seriously, represent an unspoken reproach to those who were raised on “if it feels good, do it.” The notion of a fundamental Right and Wrong, a universal moral creed that cannot be amended or overturned in court, is a direct and fearful threat to the moral equivalence and humanistic arrogance of the Left.

For the secular liberal, the here and now is all there is. For Christians, on the other hand, there are principles beyond secular expediency and the perspective of life beyond today, which are both in direct contrast with the left’s thirst for power.

Worse yet, Christians vote. And that is far more deadly a threat to liberals than Islamist terrorism.

My point is that these people are butchering, bastardizing and eviscerating a beautiful religion and because of this, they’re causing Christianity to loose its credibility; and hence, it’s real strength.

Bezu,

Not much on tolerance, or the panorama of diversity are you, even for something as personal as one’s religious faith? If a devout Catholic takes the “Roman” heritage seriously and prefers a mass celebrated in Latin, is that any concern of yours? No one is forcing you participate.

If another prefers the fundamental bliss of speaking in tongues, how is that any of your concern? Is some “primitive” holding a snake to your head and threatening you if you don’t convert?

Once again. what we have here is an inane and fearful example of moral equivalence. Because Liberals do not regard their creed as religious in nature, they are free to criticize the religious faith of others, yet are themselves immune from critique. Phooey!

You claim not to be “afraid” of anyone… which, of course wasn’t the question in the first place. And yet the vocifierous nature of your response betrays your irritation, for if my question wasn’t disquieting to you, then why the anger and resentment?

Incidentally, if you’ll read carefully (this time), you’ll see that my comment had nothing to do with either “Fischerisms” or homosexuality. Mind you, it’s not bad as strawman arguments go, but after reading a number of your comments, I thought we could expect a bit more from you. Well, maybe not that much, after all.

Nodak Joe

I was in my mid 30′s. I had heard a teaching on the Baptism in the Holy Ghost. I Thought, Wow, that would be something.

I was alone kneeling in prayer. I had weeks before prayed and asked God to fill me with His Spirit. I was hoping he would. I didn’t know if he would but I was believing for it.

Then soverignly without any promting it happened. Suddenly like in the book of acts I opened my mouth and words I didn’t make up or had ever learned came from me. It filled me with such joy. I felt like I was speaking directly to the heart of God in a way only he could understand. After a time I was overcome with the power of what had happened.

Now, as often as I can, whenever I’m alone, when I shower, when I drive and even in Church I find myself enjoying this marvelous gift. (lots of Spirit Filled Christians love to pray in the Spirit (tounges) in the shower)

It builds my faith. The very same faith that allows me to trust God for miracles in my life is the same faith I exercise while speaking in tounges. In that way I am edified, my faith is strenthed.

I’m baffled why everyone wouldn’t want it. After more than a quarter century of walking in Pentecost I can’t imagine what life would be like without it.

How does it differ from normal prayer. Well to me, tounges is normal. But, more to the point, sometimes I just run out of words to say, I am incapable of expressing what I have in my heart, I can’t verbalize what I know I should or I don’t completly grasp the whole situation I know I should or want to pray about. At that point I pray in tounges with the assurance that the Father hears me, understands and even guides my prayer.

Reason can be a tyrannical master and sometimes can be the enemy of faith. It was unreasonable for Peter to step out on the water when Jesus called. But he did. I want to abandon reason like Peter sometimes.

I take a reasoned view in many areas of my life but I try hard not to let my intellect get in the way of faith.

You might be interested in what this LUTHERAN pastor from our area says on the Baptism of The Holy Spirit and Speaking in Tounges. They are a good read and should answer all your questions.

I am part of a Good Lutheran Church here although it’s probably less like any Lutheran Church you have seen. We don’t use hymnals, we’re looking for a new drummer and the music is foot-tapable.

And, Thanks for Asking.

For the secular liberal, the here and now is all there is.

No, for intelligent, rational, skeptical people the here and now is all there is. As it should be. It’s why it’s so important that we rise up and reach our potential (our potential is not eternal servitude), since we have just one chance at it.

This view discourages senseless violence. Your view encourages it.

when the haters get more desperate than just making us fundamentalists look crazy on film

Dawn,

That behavior and doctrine is not ‘Fundamentalist’. It is ‘New Evangelical’. Please don’t confuse the two.

The problem with the behavior in the video is that it is fanatical. Motivating people using frenzied emotional manipulation is not Christian.

Clint: Even if what you say is true, what do you propose? Should we have legislation forbidding it? It is the free exercise of their religion, and as long as it doesn’t violate any existing laws, why should anyone else have anything to say about it?

Here’s what they do:

“Hundreds of children experience fiery worship, sobbing prayers, and other experiences that leave them shaking and convulsing on the floor.”

“There were so many kids piled up on the floor and there was no room for me.”

“I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are in Palestine, Pakistan and all those different places,” Fisher said. “Because, excuse me, we have the truth.”

“We’re kinda being trained to be warriors,”

“The night Uncle Leon prayed for me I was on the floor bawling, and my tummy was shaking,” says 12-year-old Emily, a 2003 camper.

“We’re talking this week about how the devil uses tactics to destroy our lives,”

“The first tactic that he uses is to tempt you with sin.”

“It’s, you’re either with us or you’re against us.”
… Not only are you a sinner, but you are working for the enemy — the enemy being Satan.”

Isn’t this “What they do”

Can someone explain to me why these people speak in “tounges”? How and what causes this to happen? I have witnessed first hand people speaking in tounges but I never understood why the Holy Spirit would cause someone to speak in gibberish.

Nodak,

Although there is a popular perception that the Holy Spirit is behind this phenomenon, this is simply not true.

If you check out any of the Koz Kidz diarists, or the Democratic Underground site some time, you’ll see nothing but mindless gibberish. It’s simply one more example of that old leftist sectarian credo, “Do as I say, not as I do.”

HG: Where are all the transitional fossils?

This is one of the biggest straw men ever concieved by the mind of man.

I won’t even TRY to explain it. It must be experienced. The only people who have an opinion are those who don’t understand it. This can’t be explained only experienced.

My favorite story in this regard was a large meeting of people who are Pentecostal (Several Thousand). Visitors were invited.

At one point in the meeting, the leader asked this question, “How many here are baptised in the Holy Ghost with the Evidence of Speaking in Tounges”. Probably 80% of hands went up. Then, after he told them to put down their hands, he asked this, “How many of you that do speak in tounges regret or are sorry you ever did?”. Uproariaous laughter followed.

How preposterous. For such a wonderful gift, for such a wonderful blessing to be regretful or sorry.

The ones I feel really sorry for are not those who don’t believe in God and therefore miss out on all of this but the ones I have greater pity for are those who call themselves followers of Christ and yet leave the gifts God gives them under the tree. It’s like saying at Christmas to Grandpa, I like this one, but this one I’m not so sure of. Grandpa would still love you but he would scratch his head as to why you would reject one of his best gifts.

I speak in tounges. I wish everyone would. It’s not weird. It’s wonderful. I’ve been in pentecost for 25 years. Not for a single day do I regret it. I have only pity on those who by force of suspision or reason eschew the fullness of the Spirit.

It’s not about going to heaven. It’s about living Heaven on this side of the veil.

OH, and when everyone prays in the Spirit corporately, As Becky asked the kids to do; That is the most beautiful of all. The sound of many waters. The roar as a mighty rushing wind. I am thrilled and strengthened every time when we come together and sometimes the leaders instructs us to all pray in the Spirit (Tounges).

Seems like people that have never tried Mangos all have an opinion on what they do or don’t taste like and if we should or shouldn’t eat them.

Those who regularly eat and enjoy Mango’s can’t figure out what the fuss is all about. So it is with Tounges.

Carrick: This is getting interesting, notwithstanding the aspersions on my character and thinking. You exhibit more intolerance than usual for disagreement.
Nowhere did I claim that there was a connection with the atheism of modern “science” and it’s functional inability to “test the existence of God”, so that is a nonissue with me. I did clearly state that modern science has adopted its present atheistic stance because of the inability to quantify God. God cannot be quantified, so that is hardly a shortcoming of science, just a fact.
The circularity of the definition of science as it is presently defined is that it is defined by the scientists themselves, and not an objective source. Of course, any method they choose is then “the scientific method”, another bit of circularity. “It is science because science is what we say it is.”
Contrary to your assertion that science didn’t exist before the 16th Century, that is also circular. By present standards, nothing that doesn’t fit into the present definition is now considered to be science, but in terms of the definitions of the time, science has existed almost as long as humans have existed. The word itself is derived from the Latin verb, “to know”(scire), and is really about the human thirst for knowledge. Present day definitions have separated the various branches into “non-scientific” areas, such as philosophy, but this was not always the case. Was Aristotle a scientist? Archimedes? They don’t fit into your definition of science, but they were the scientists of their day, including Newton and Einstein, both men of God as well as scientists, and proud of it. They acknowledged the fusion of spirituality and science; why can’t you?

This may sound really crazy to those who don’t believe, but this is just the beginning of persecution of christians that is to come.
Taking something perfectly innocent????? and making it look threatening and crazy is the agenda of those who want to eradicate christianity and set up a one world religion and one world government.
dawn 9-26-06

See what I mean?

One world government, 9/11 was an inside job, the anti-christ is under the bed with the boogey-man, the world’s running out of oil, Jesus is coming back in my lifetime, the jews who haven’t been converted will burn, … and on and on ad nauseum.

Most of this silly “end of times” shit comes from books like Tim LaHaye’s “Left Behind Series.”

It’s fiction folks…get over it!!!

The Catholic Church holds at the highest levels that Faith and Reason are one in the same. You can reasonably determine that God exists simply through your consciousness and nature. Protestants don’t necessarily follow that premise. But thats a whole other discussion.

Daniel: Exactly.

Woof: If the govt confiscates your money and gives it to a drunk or a drug addict, thus ensuring they will continue in their ways, how can the Love of God be in that govt?

Robert
I can’t say it any better then the people quoted. I just don’t understand why you keep ignoring what christians are saying.
I don’t understand why you keep saying people want to make it illegal or violate someone’s constitutional rights.
I read this article and the other article on the same subject. I didn’t see where anybody said any of those things.
Even once you accused someone of wanting to slaughter jesus camp people. I didn’t see that expressed by anyone either.
Also you accused many people of hating. I didn’t anywhere see anybody said they hated anyone. I’ve read all the comments in two of the articles and what you say in them is very confusing and doesn’t seem to relate to the actual comments that were made.

Why exactly is it a virtue to be “tolerant” toward Christians?

Dave,

The virtue, as you call it, isn’t to be found in tolerance toward Christians, but rather tolerance toward everyone where their personal beliefs are concerned. Christianity makes no less “sense” to the rational than does Zen Buddhism, Paganism, or Islam, although, not surprisingly, there is in this country far more tolerance of those religions and far more concern about subjection their adherents to offense, than is true toward Christianity.

Which brings up the second point about tolerance. Many of those who are the most intolerant toward Christianity and Christians are the very same liberal hypocrites who self-righteously preach the values of diversity, sensitivity, inclusiveness, and tolerance as part of their secular credo. And though it is admittedly un-Christian, it is certainly a good deal of fun rubbing their faces in their own dishonesty, hypocrisy, and intolerance.

Notice that I said “aspersions”, not personal attack.
robert108 on September 27, 2006 at 04:02 am

An “aspersion” is a personal attack.

i.e.-a damaging or derogatory remark or criticism; slander- malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report

I am guilty as charged Robbie- I did slam you yesterday- I apologize- but my apology in no way means that I agree with you. Be a gentleman and accept the olive branch!
However,Don’t include Christian in with me and ellinas.

Christian: You are certainly welcome to your opinions. You seem to need to speak through others, though. What original thoughts do you have?

notwithstanding the aspersions on my character
robert108 on September 27, 2006 at 03:46 am

Since when is claiming someone is wrong an “aspersion
on their character?”

Where did Carrick do this? Please respond by putting it in quotes.

Christian: Thanks for replying in your own words.

Even once you accused someone of wanting to slaughter jesus camp people. I didn’t see that expressed by anyone either.
I did no such thing; I asked someone if they wanted to slaughter the people in this camp like Clinton slaughtered the Branch Davidians. I was testing to see how far their hatred of this woman and her camp would take them. I never got an answer, btw.
Also you accused many people of hating. I didn’t anywhere see anybody said they hated anyone.
If you reread some of the comments made toward both Becky Fischer and myself, the hatred is quite plain. How do you interpret the creation of the term “Fischerism” to describe what she does? Isn’t that just a tiny bit hateful?
I’ve read all the comments in two of the articles and what you say in them is very confusing and doesn’t seem to relate to the actual comments that were made.

One world government, 9/11 was an inside job, the anti-christ is under the bed with the boogey-man, the world’s running out of oil, Jesus is coming back in my lifetime, the jews who haven’t been converted will burn, … and on and on ad nauseum.

Most of this silly “end of times” shit comes from books like Tim LaHaye’s “Left Behind Series.”

It’s fiction folks…get over it!!!
Bezu Fache on September 26, 2006 at 12:31 pm

Loving? Tolerant? or hateful and intolerant?

if you can’t see the purposeful similarity between them and the kids of Islam, you are blind.
Mary on September 27, 2006

No terrorism, no jihad, no killing, but all this hate.

That you both are full of shit dummy.

No comment.

Oh, and you didn’t answer my questions; why are you so afraid of gays and non-christians. Why do you fear them so much. Why do they make you tremble? Why do you want to kill all of them”?
Why do you get so intensely angry when they try to assert their rights? Why do you hate them? Why do you want to violently want to murder all of them Robert?

Those are all hateful lies. Not only that, but they have nothing to do with any sort of reasoned argument.

One world government, 9/11 was an inside job, the anti-christ is under the bed with the boogey-man, the world’s running out of oil, Jesus is coming back in my lifetime, the jews who haven’t been converted will burn, … and on and on ad nauseum.

None of this has anything to do with the facts, either. This is hate-filled ranting.

Enough?

To Mary:
Your anger about these things is hard to understand. I too have been part of Rick Joyner’s meetings and I get NOTHING of what you saw or said. His little book, Final Quest changed my life.

And, as far as prophecy encouraging little kids. Wow, there’s a bad idea. Let’s tell them they are idiots and life will never work out.

To Neutral Nick
In the Charismatic world there are lots of flavors. There are abuses. There are abuses in the Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, The Prespetarian Church.

That doesn’t mean you toss all babies out as you dispose of bath water.

TO both of you, I seriously doubt you were ever really IN the whole program. I see lots of people who join a Church, attend meetings, conferences as outside observers. They stand around a pick on what is happening. That’s what Pharasies do. So, call it for what you are. Critics of what God is actually doing in this age. Pharasies. And, since you probably have a little understanding, you will see what Jesus thought of them. Snakes, Vermin, Whitewashed tombs. Not to be listened to. All they did was stand on the outside and critisize.

TO Nodak Joe
I actually got saved in a Catholic Church. I wasn’t Catholic but I attended a 3 day “Intense Indoctrination” called Cursillo. It was great.
We went to Mass, we prayed the Rosary. I thought it was terrific. I didn’t become Catholic but to this day I have a special spot of appreciation for the Catholic faith.

I see the Pope as a/the world leader in faith. I have more in common with what Catholics believe than I do with many mainline denominations.

So, hang in there. What little we may not see perfectly eye to eye on is insignificant.

What Bat1 said about whatever you do in the quiet is OK with me. And as Crosby Stills and Nash said, Teach Your Children Well, even at Jesus Camp

Why exactly is it a virtue to be “tolerant” toward Christians? I don’t tolerate people who believe Australia is a planet, and I don’t tolerate people who believe a virgin gave birth to the son of God 2000 years ago. Tolerating insanity is insanity itself.

Science is not the same as materialism, nor based upon it. It is the study of what can be knowable using the “scientific method”. It does not endorse the notion that “physical matter is the only reality”, nor is it anything but indifferent to anything that isn’t knowable by the scientific method.

What has anything I’ve said here have to do with evolutionary science?

Carrick,

Your claims about science and your reference to the scientific method.

The context of your statements strongly implied the science of origins by your references:

That science cannot test the existence or nature of God is not a weakness of science. It is simply a definition of what that discipline is. Conflating science with the pursuit of God, on the other hand, is to misinterpret the purpose and nature of the scientific method.

Science if not restrained by materialism can prove design within nature. Therefore, God may not be knowable personally through science, but the existence of an Intelligent Designer can be admitted by science.

Bezu: Sorry, read the other one first.

I am guilty as charged Robbie- I did slam you yesterday- I apologize- but my apology in no way means that I agree with you. Be a gentleman and accept the olive branch!
However,Don’t include Christian in with me and ellinas.

Of course, I accept your figurative olive branch. In fact; Barkeep! Olive branches all around for my friends!
I do think “aspersion” is a milder term than “attack”; that’s the way I meant it, at any rate.

Life would be boring without disagreement, btw. How else can we test our reasoning, and make corrections, if necessary?

Science is not the same as materialism, nor based upon it.

Carrick,

You couldn’t be more wrong. The only thing subject to the scientific method under the current definition of science is matter. This is commonly known and accepted truth.

In philosophy, materialism is that form of physicalism which holds that the only thing that can truly be said to exist is matter; that fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions. Science uses a working assumption, sometimes known as methodological naturalism, that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. As a theory, materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. Wikipedia

Naturalism is a descendent of Materialism.
You are wrong.

It would be circular reasoning if science were to make a judgement that what isn’t knowable via the scientific method were therefore invalid.

To reason that matter is the only reality subject to the discovery of science leads to the conclusion that design is no part of the origin of the universe. Science attempts to discredit and undermine ID daily. If ID isn’t knowable then you have just admitted circular reasoning.
Besides the circular reasoning I referred to is between Materialism (Naturalism) and the conclusion that Science therefore is limited by the premise of this philosophy.

WOOF: I believe you intended to cite the first Epistle of John, 3rd chapter, seventeenth verse.

robert108: Jesus did teach about helping the poor, but I always understood it as a personal initiative, not a government effort. This should be the work of churches and charity organizations. I think you essentially agree with me on this. Please don’t equate someone talking about Jesus wanting to take care of the poor the same thing as entitlement programs.

HG: Materiaslists do not have a monopoly on science, it existed long before materialism. Another correction would be that science can only explain what can be tested and observed in the material world. This does not mean that in order for science to be valid there can exist nothing beyond the material. It simply means that anything beyond the material is unable to be scientifically proven. I find your statement to be entirely illogical and pointless.

Just to throw my thoughts into the ring, I am very intersted in seeing this film. I used to be involved with Charismatics until I realized how completely illogical and unBiblical they were. The church that I went to was a Rhema affiliate, and they basically preached: 1) treating your pastors with more respect than normal people, 2) giving all your money to the church (Many in the church were struggling) and to the pastors so that God would bless you financially, 3) not reading or considering any ideas outside the Charismatic movement because it was “destructive to your faith,” and 4) never questioning anything a Charismatic preacher said, because they were “God’s annointed ones.”

I think I should qualify my statement by saying that I am still a Christian, but certainly not a Charismatic. The aforementioned brainwashing techniques seemed very dangerous to me whether the people in charge had good intentions or not. I don’t think that be skeptical or doubtful destroys your faith in the least bit. As a matter of fact, I have found it strengthening to my faith to hear other sides out and evaluate their claims. I completely theologically disagree with these people, but I am not in any way suggesting that their beliefs be made illegal. I think we should oppose this ideology with: 1) open and honest discussions and 2) prayer. I should also point out that I have been to similar camps with an organization in Texas known as Teen Mania Ministries, and found them to be just as narrow-minded and brainwashing as Rhema.

Science cannot disover who God is. However, Science can discover design.

It simply means that anything beyond the material is unable to be scientifically proven.

Nuetral_Nick,

Gravity is scientifically proven by its influence upon material objects yet is invisible.

So to can design be scientifically proven by its influence upon and existence within the architecture of nature.

Gene:
I also forgot to mention that in August of 2001 I attended the Teen Mania Honor Academy (which sounds very similar to this “Jesus Camp”, and was only there for three months because I couldn’t stand it. I initially joined this program because I believed in it, but that changed once I actually got there and saw what they were all about.

What has anything I’ve said here have to do with evolutionary science?

You’re just silly.

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

…to put a correct view of the universe into people’s heads we must first get an incorrect view out. People believe a lot of nonsense about the world of phenomena, nonsense that is a consequence of a wrong way of thinking. The primary problem is not to provide the public with the knowledge of how far it is to the nearest star and what genes are made of, for that vast project is, in its entirety, hopeless. Rather, the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth.

Richard Charles “Dick” Lewontin (born March 29, 1929) is an American evolutionary biologist, geneticist and social commentator. A leader in developing the mathematical basis of population genetics and evolutionary theory, he pioneered the notion of using techniques from molecular biology such as gel electrophoresis to apply to questions of genetic variation and evolution. In a pair of 1966 papers co-authored with J.L. Hubby in the journal Genetics, Lewontin helped set the stage for the modern field of molecular evolution. Wikipedia

I find it interesting that the same people who want the govt to “stay out of the bedroom”, because it is “private”, have little or no compunction with violating the privacy of a church or a congregation, and making very heavy judgements about what is going on there, whether they understand it or not. This is why the Constitution guarantees us relgious freedom; it isn’t up to someone else to judge my religion, as long as I am doing nothing illegal in my religious practices. Where’s that tolerance?

The word “science” as people are using it here, is in the context of “empirical science”.

Carrick,

You’re attempting to distract. The fact is Evolutionary science is based upon a definition of science that admits the premise of materialism as I proved in my previous posts. Other sciences only conflate the argument.

There is not doubt that science defined by materialism is horribly biased and flawed.

robert108, is the following an example of circular reasoning:

Gene:

There is a Baptist teaching which many in the AG don’t espouse. But there is validity.

They teach once saved always saved. And if you backslide you were never saved.

Extrapolating that a bit, Once you have received the Holy Ghost and have an encounter that includes speaking in tounges (for real, not hundai shundi etc)
you can never go back again. You are ruined for life. If you turn your back on it, you never were in it, never were filled with the Holy Ghost, never were Charismatic except in affiliation. I don’t care if you were the PASTOR, Attended Rhema, and a Professor at ORU you can still be all that and not be a “Holy Ghost” Man. I am of the sincere belief that when someone says to me they were and now they aren’t they never were.

The reason is Hebrews 6:4-6 (I know you Know this passage)

Materiaslists do not have a monopoly on science, it existed long before materialism.

Nuetral_Nick,

Maybe not but materialism does.

Another correction would be that science can only explain what can be tested and observed in the material world. This does not mean that in order for science to be valid there can exist nothing beyond the material. It simply means that anything beyond the material is unable to be scientifically proven.

This is silly. Design can exist but science can’t prove it. However, science will disprove it. Exclude the evidence then conclude it doesn’t exist. Wow!

I find your statement to be entirely illogical and pointless.

Better you than Logic and reason.

HG: About your gravity example, just because we don’t see gravity doesn’t mean it’s not material. God on the otherhand is admittedly supernatural, or beyond the natural. What evidence would indicate the presence of a “designer” by the way? I think you would have to superimpose a meaning on some scientific data to come to this conclusion. Science doesn’t tell us why things happen, only how. You also presuppose that one cannot simultaneously be a Christian and accept evolution, which is entirely ridiculous. Creationism starts with the presupposition that the world was created as stated in Genesis 1 and then tries to find any sort of evidence that could possibly lend itself to that conclusion. You think this is science?

Gene: The passage in Hebrews you referred to is talking about salvation, being “born again,” not this supposed “baptism of the holy spirit.” You make it sound like this “baptism” is essential to salvation or something, which to me sounds like a different gospel than is presented in the Bible. So let me get this straight, the only way to know you’ve been “filled with the spirit” is if you never stop believing in it. Interesting, especially considering how indoctrinating these circles are by telling their members that reading anything contrary to their theology is “destructive to their faith.” If you only ever read one side that’s the only thing you’ll ever believe, because you don’t even know what else exists. This is a creationist tactic, you can’t believe any evidence for evolution because the scientists involved are atheistic and trying to disprove religion. That’s total crap!

Dave I could through a nearly impossible scientific method prove to you that Mary’s remains are not on this earth.

Despite Pope Pius’s dogmatic statements on the assumption it was a tradition that was held in the Church prior to 1950.

There is no reason to suspect that Jesus Christ even existed.

Having Faith that Mary was assumed into heaven and that Jesus lived is different that having Faith in God. Its like having faith that there actually was an King Henry VIII and that the story wasn’t made up.

You can reasonably conclude that God exists. You don’t need the bible to know God. You don’t need to know that any of the biblical events ever took place.

Science used to be the study of God and the seeking of spiritual truth through understanding the unknown. The weakness and errors of what passes for “science” in the present time are attributable to its abandonment of God and it’s commitment to atheism.

HG: Yours and my position on Christian charity are identical. As with JC’s spirituality in general, it’s all about individual responsibility.

HG: I’m not blatantly ignoring evidence, your position simply doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t matter who the quote is from, I don’t shut down my critical thinking because it’s from “a famous scientist.” What was this scientists name again by the way? Science does not suppose that nothing exists beyond the material, that is the belief of materialism. Science simply attempts to give natural explanations for natural things. I would like to once again ask if you could give me some kind of physical evidence that is indicative of design? Still waiting.

robert108: The presence of evil proves what you’re claiming as being false. If everything is indeed a part of God, and evil exists, then part of God is evil. See a problem there? You say you are not a fan of Christian orthodoxy and yet you hold to a 6 day creation theory? Okay.

Gene: After reading my last comment I realized that I didn’t quite explain the whole “creationist tactic” thing. What I mean by this is that the Charismatic preachers tell their congregations that they can’t believe anything written by people who disagree with them theologically, because they are “deceived.” Charismania is based on chills, goose-bumps and people who desparately want to see something that seems “spiritual.” There is no sound biblical basis for most of their beliefs, it is all based on feelings.

Gene wrote: I take a reasoned view in many areas of my life but I try hard not to let my intellect get in the way of faith.

Your comments lead me to believe you are staying firm in your faith.

This came to my mind as I read those words. 2 Tim 3:14 you must continue in the things which you have learned and have been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them.

Christians cannot afford to endorse anything that is biblically unsound; we’re going to have enough trouble as it is without unsafe teaching passing as what goes for the church these days.
To me it’s pretty simple. Kids are really easy to brainwash. There is a reason every army from the dawn of time has gotten young men to go into battle, their minds are malleable.
If watching this clip doesn’t turn your stomach or cause you to question what they are doing, there is little to nothing I or anyone can say to change your mind, only the Holy Spirit can.
Rick Joyner and company and some of these other mind-manipulators are filling children with visions of worldly glory. I have first hand knowledge of this. They will haul kids in front of “a prophet” who will pump them up with all of “what they will do”…filling them with visions of glory…which is food to a child.
It’s basically this, if you are a prophet, God speaks to you, and you work to do what He wants. You don’t need a cheering section, you don’t need “education on intercessory prayer”…you don’t need all this noise which is used to pump egos into the tasks of their masters.
We are starting to see the divide in the church which will help those who will persecute in the end times.
We have Rick Warren, “why can’t we all get along, but if you don’t agree begone” group, which will link up with others to rid the world of “fundamentalism in all forms”. They will stand in locked-arms with the enemy and not know it to kill and persecute Christians.
We have Christians like those shown in this video giving them fuel, if you can’t see the purposeful similarity between them and the kids of Islam, you are blind.
Meanwhile, those of us walking the narrow path are caught in between.
A friend of mine told me the churches will be full after the rapture, I am really beginning to believe him.
Much that is done in church today is done in the name of Christ, but has little to do with Him.
Blessings,
Mary

You also presuppose that one cannot simultaneously be a Christian and accept evolution, which is entirely ridiculous.

N-nick,

When did I say that?

Creationism starts with the presupposition that the world was created as stated in Genesis 1 and then tries to find any sort of evidence that could possibly lend itself to that conclusion. You think this is science?

No. I know that is an attempt to confirm one’s faith through physical evidence.

Design is observable and can be verified. Design necessitates the presence of a designer. Science unrestrained by materialism, can prove this.

More importantly, if you read my posts, you’ll see the gross error of materialistic science. This science is what evolution is founded upon.

You are claiming that science is bound by a philosophy (materialism), though you give no compelling reason “why.”

I posted a quote from a well known scientist. Did you read it? I posted ‘Materialism’ from Wikipedia which shows the connection of Materialism to the scientific method used to advance Darwinism. Did you read it?

It is bound by materialism because it is bound by the same premise. It also happens to be the philosophical persuasion of many Darwinists such as the scientist whose quote is posted above.

You are blatantly ignoring the evidence I already posted. If you refuse to acknowledge facts it is no wonder you can’t follow logic.

N-N,

The fact of the matter is that Materialism is the premise upon which science is founded. I documented it above and you refuse to accept documentation of this fact. That is your critical thinking not mine. When you can acknowledge facts then maybe we can continue.

HG: from the talkorigins website-

If the correct explanation for a phenomenon happens to be supernatural, the naturalistic method of science will miss it. “With creationist explanations disqualified at the outset, it follows that the evidence will always support the naturalistic alternative.”
Source:

Johnson, Phillip E., 1990. Evolution as dogma: The establishment of naturalism. First Things (Oct.), 15-22. http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm
Response:

1. Nobody has ever come up with a useful definition of supernatural. By most definitions, something having an effect on nature makes that something a part of nature itself. So any explanation for something we see in nature can be considered natural by definition.

2. We cannot observe the supernatural, so the only way we could reach the supernatural explanation would be to eliminate all natural explanations. But we can never know that we have eliminated all possibilities. Even if a supernatural explanation is correct, we can never reach it.

3. Suppose we do conclude that a supernatural explanation is correct. It is impossible, even in principle, to distinguish one supernatural explanation from another. Many people, including many scientists, are willing to accept certain supernatural explanations on faith. There is nothing wrong with that as long as they do not claim special privilege for their faith. Some people, however, are not satisfied unless others believe as they do; this group includes all those who want to make the supernatural a part of science. Since they cannot make their case by using naturalistic evidence, they must resort to other means, such as force of arms. (This is not hyperbole. Such groups continually attempt to get political enforcement on their side.)

4. If we do miss a supernatural explanation, so what? Supernatural explanations cannot be generalized, so the explanation does not matter anywhere else. The usefulness of science comes from the ability to apply findings to different areas. Any supernatural explanation would be useless.

5. Explanations in terms of the supernatural are evaluated to the extent it is actually possible to do so. For example, scientists have investigated faith healing (Benson et al. 2006) and creationist claims about a global flood and age of the earth.

6. Creationist accounts of origins are not disqualified. People are free to believe whatever religion they choose. P. E. Johnson and others like him merely object to their religion not being taught as science to the exclusion of all other religious interpretations (not to mention to the exclusion of all of science).

References:

Benson, H. et al. 2006. Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer. American Heart Journal 151(4): 934-942.

Carrick: Your circular definition of science is the present one; it has not always been so. Science is what scientists say it is. It is simply a word with a definition, and that definition has changed over time.
Religion is the politics of spirituality.
Spirituality has not always been an individual affair, as you assert. That is the gift to us from Jesus Christ. For most of human history, the individual has been regarded as far less important than the collective; whether it has been a tribe or something larger, the collective has usually been far more important than the individual. Even today, only the US is dedicated to the primacy of the individual, and that is a constant struggle. Likewise, science has always been a collective affair, as you acknowledge with your “peer review” assertion.
With the advent of the personal computer and the internet, individuals have unprecedented access to information, which will undoubted lead to the next scientific, social and maybe even spiritual advances.

If we must discard evolution because of this philosophy, then we must also discard navigation, meteorology, farming, architecture, printing, law, and virtually all other subjects for the same reason.

N_N,

This quote admits philosophy is at the core of science. It admits naturalism which is the offspring of materialism.
The quotes I cited made the same connection. Now will you admit that this science is premised upon philosophy?

nick: A question: If you think that good and evil are objective, where did they come from originally? Who decided what was good, and what was evil? Are they scientific definitions? If so, who invented science?
About design. I can always tell a Frank Lloyd Wright house, even if they are all different in some ways, because they are all the work of one man, and that tends to give them similarities of design. Understand?

nick:

robert108: The presence of evil proves what you’re claiming as being false.
No, it doesn’t. Evil is a human creation. The Garden of Eden/forbidden fruit story is the allegory of human-based dualism(good and evil).
If everything is indeed a part of God, and evil exists, then part of God is evil.

Wrong again. We perceive parts of God as evil. God is just God.

See a problem there? You say you are not a fan of Christian orthodoxy and yet you hold to a 6 day creation theory?
I don’t believe any such thing. You made that up. I have clearly stated elsewhere that I accept evolution as one of many natural processes. What I reject is Darwinism as an all encompassing explanation for the creation of life and the universe.
Okay.

nick:

You stated that everything is a part of God, we know that evil exists, so wouldn’t that mean that the evil is a part of God too, thus making God partially evil? Do you deny the presenc of evil or do you wish to retract your claim that everything is a part of God.

I already explained this, but will give it another try. God created everything we know of, and everything we don’t know of. Humans, out of free will(Genesis) created duality, and thus good and evil. Evil is a human creation, out of free will. I know this is a very difficult concept for those mired in scientific orthodoxy, since they tend to dialectical thinking, but that isn’t my problem.

This is why modern science needs to be essentially atheistic: if they admit The Creator, then everything is God, since it was God who created everything.

..got any prove of that which I highlight?

nick:

So any human creations are not a part of God, thus meaning that not everything is a part of God. Where’d you get the idea that everything is a part of God from anyways? Just curious.

Everything is a part of God; humans regard certain parts of creation to be evil; that is a human judgement. In the “french fry” thread, someone pointed out that, thirty years ago, polyunsaturates were considered “good”, and saturated fats were considered “evil”. Now, we have reversed that. What changed? Not God’s Creation, but our perception of it. Got it now.
As far as “where did you get the idea…?” Nothing else makes sense. I see the same design everywhere. It’s not random. As Einstein said, to paraphrase: “God does not play dice with the universe.”
If you believe in the Big Bang, then you believe in CPO, or central point origin. God is the central point of everything.

Or, intolerance of any unorthodox way of worship.

nick: Actually, that was sin. Evil is generally considered to be “all bad with no good”, but more than that, damaging to everyone, everywhere, all the time. Since the Holocaust undoubtedly led to the establishment of the modern state of Israel, it was not necessarily evil, only very bad.
I find it interesting that you posit God as the basis for your personal morality. Good move.
Another question: Where did the sun, the atmosphere, and the elements come from?
The physical evidence is all around you, everywhere you look.

HG:
This quote does not admit that philosophy is at the core of science. Philosophy is really the study of all knowledge, whether empirical or not. The fact that science practices some philosophies does not mean that it is rooted in philosophy. Also, I think you failed to read all of the response. Yes it admits a type of naturalism that simply states that the material world is the only objective source for evidence because history shows (including many comments in this thread) that not everybody experiences the supernatural in the same way. The supernatural is very subjective and not a reliable source for empirical investigation.

Here’s another very funny clip:

“Black power” aint no power!!

I never knew “the Daily Show with Jon Stewart was a reencarnation of the following show:

“Why get so speritual if there’s no market for it?”

robert108:

I believe that God decided what is good and evil, thus the Ten Commandments, telling Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit, etc. Evil is essentially anything that violates God’s commands. I would like to qualify this statement by adding that I think God is far more concerned with principles (“love thy neighbor”) than He is with legalism (the Levitical laws). I do realize that people do have subjective views of what is evil, but I think the ultimately correct view comes from God. I understand the design inference, but couldn’t everything have a similar appearance because everything on earth exists under the same atmosphere, receives heat from the same sun, are essentially all made of the same elements, and exist in a symbiotic relationship. By the way, HG has yet to give some physical evidence for inferring “intelligent design.”

aNON: You can’t be serious. The “random mutation” meme has been throroughly disproved, at the mathematical level. Not enough time has elapsed for the “random” creation of single-celled organisms yet, mathematically speaking. What other means do you offer?
As far as proof is concerned, the smaller set can never prove the larger set.

Scholars

The Holy Spirit

True Faith

S: Anything in your own words? Even if your links are relevant, I can’t debate with them. I might also get an entirely different message than you get, because I have different principles by which I live.

Matthew
Chapter 24
If anyone says to you then, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it.
24
False messiahs and false prophets will arise, and they will perform signs and wonders so great as to deceive, if that were possible, even the elect.
25
Behold, I have told it to you beforehand.
26
So if they say to you, ‘He is in the desert,’ do not go out there; if they say, ‘He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 15

—————————————————-

Matthew
Chapter 7
9 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.
16
By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17
Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit.
18
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.
19
Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
20
So by their fruits you will know them.

—————————————————–
Romans
Chapter 16
7 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who create dissensions and obstacles, in opposition to the teaching that you learned; avoid them.
18
For such people do not serve our Lord Christ but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the innocent.

S: Anything in your own words? Anyone can cherry-pick, but most cherry-pickers at least offer their version of what their cherry picks mean. How about it?

Sorry Carrick, these are the facts. Evolutionary science is seriously flawed from its beginning.

Pentecostal Bedlam/quote]

Seems odd to me too, Nodak. I don’t understand it…but then I don’t get a lot of things about religion.