Posted by: Nick Alberty ®
06/13/2002, 12:10:44
Author Profile Mail author
|
Narrow view of Christianity? Some people have a problem with this. I do also. First of all, it's not a narrow view I have. As I have stated before, it does not matter what church you go to, how intelligent you are, how rich or how poor you are, where you live, if you are educated (like many of the frequent posters here), or even what background you come from; to be a Christian is to have accepted Jesus as your personal saviour and live your life following Him. That's it. You may think I'm un-educated, as some have indicated here, but I do know that if you "boil it down" to the heart of Christianity, that's the answer you will get from many denominations and peoples across the world. How do I defend my "narrow view of Christianity"? Well, you can call it what you want. Simply, the Bible teaches that Jesus is THE way, THE truth, THE life. IT teaches that there is no other way. Even if you are a non-believer, if you studied the Bible, much as a kid in high school studying a book he could care less about, you would still realize that, outside of any one groups opinion, THAT IS WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. I'll let you guys argue this one yourself. I already know the Bible teaches this. You're the ones that have a problem with it.
|
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
06/13/2002, 13:56:13
Author Profile Mail author
|
I assume that this is the long-awaited response to my "Definition revisited" post in another thread. It would be clearer if you would post the reply with the relevant message. Don't worry if it's buried in a long thread; we'll find it. I think for clarity we should stipulate that Christianity can be defined on two levels: personal and institutional. I have no quarrel if you feel that your personal brand of Christianity, even if you are its only adherent in the world, requires exactly the things that you have specified are required of a Christian. It is, after all, a personal matter, between you and your savior alone. I'm sure you agree. But it is also a legitimate question to ask whether a particular institution (church, denomination, tradition, or whatever) is Christian. Obviously there are differences between the institutions, so assigning the label "Christian" to one requires a less rigid definition than you could reasonably come up with for any one institution. Are you willing to venture a definition of institutional Christianity? I think a starting point would be that the institution claims to worship Jesus Christ. This would include Catholics, Protestants (including Baptists, both the Southern ones and those from the other cardinal directions), Mormons, adherents of the various flavors of Eastern Orthodoxy, Copts, Maronites, Jehovah's Witnesses, Gnostics, and a raftload of others. (Muslims, who claim Jesus as a prophet but don't worship him, are excluded, which appears to suit them and the Christians just fine.) Can you suggest any refinements to the definition?
|
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
06/14/2002, 14:44:51
Author Profile Mail author
|
I was wondering whether you would like to continue our acrimony-free discussion on the definition of Christianity. I have, in the previous post, requested your thoughts on institutional Christianity.
|
Posted by: Nick Alberty ®
06/15/2002, 05:58:52
Author Profile Mail author
|
I have given my definition of Christianity several times. It's unfortunate that you did not see it. However, go ahead and test me because it is there. I have left it several times on these threads.
|
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
06/15/2002, 07:47:25
Author Profile Mail author
|
I can be a little slower than some of my friends here, but eventually even I capitulate to the obvious. (Hey, I became an atheist the same way!) If you're ever interested in picking up the discussion again, Nick, remember that I conceded your personal definition of Christianity and sought an institutional definition. You know where to find me.
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
06/15/2002, 09:55:42
Author Profile Mail author
|
Might I make a suggestion? Since the whole situation is obviously on the verge of out of control, do you suppose a moratorium from replying to Nick is the next step? I myself feel I shouldn't have replied so often, yet I wanted to get a few things out of my gut. What do you think? Vicki
|
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
06/15/2002, 10:44:21
Author Profile Mail author
|
Making it a general moratorium sounds like a capital idea, which is what I believe Cal has already suggested. I endorse it wholeheartedly.
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
06/15/2002, 11:10:17
Author Profile Mail author
|
However the reality is I speaketh one thing and behaveth another. Hell hath no fury... etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. I'll try to restrain myself. Vicki
|
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
06/13/2002, 14:14:19
Author Profile Mail author
|
"to be a Christian is to have accepted Jesus as your personal saviour and live your life following Him. That's it." Where is the word Christian defined this way in the Bible? And if not in the Bible, then by what authority do you argue that this is the only valid way to define it? Lets take a look at the term "Christian" as it appears in the New Testament. Acts 11:26, "...And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." Called "Christians" by whom? Themselves? Jesus? The Apostles?
The term "Christian" originated with the gentiles, and it was anything but complimentary. Some quotes from 'Vines exposition of New Testament words', Under Christianos- "Though the word rendered "were called" in Acts 11:26 might be used of a name adopted for oneself or given by others, the Christians do not seem to have adopted it for themselves in the times of the Apostles." Under Chrematizo (call)- "Its primary significance, to have business dealings with, led to this (sense of the word meaning 'to be named'). They "were (publicaly) called" Christians, because this was the their chief business." 1 Peter 4:16 "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed.." Vines- "In 1 Peter 4:16, the Apostle is speaking from the point of view of the persecutor; cp. "as a thief, (in vs. 15)"as a murderer." Acts 26:28, "Then agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." Vines- "As applied by the Gentiles there was no doubt an implication of scorn, as in Agrippa's statement in Acts 26:28. Tacitus, writing near the end of the first century says, "The vulgar call them Christians..." Never once does the Bible define the word "Christian" as those who have "accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior". Further, no apostle or believer in the Bible ever refers to himself, or those who follow Jesus as "Christians". One might argue that independent of who coined the term, it referenced those who followed Christ, but since this isn't completely true to Biblical context, we ought to be careful what we "add to or take away from" God's word. Vines- "From the second century onward the term was accepted by believers as a title of honour." Now, the meaning of words change over time. For clearity, its often best to use words in a sense mutually understood between speaker and audience. Since its used today as a very general term refering to a rather broad tradition (only slightly more focused then the obviously broad term Judeo-Christian), there is only one reason I can imagine a small group would ever want to use it as exclusivly refering to themselves, basically to say, "We are the only TRUE followers of Christ." Or put another way, "We are right, and you are wrong." It's simply more clear to refer to yourself as southern baptist, LDS, Pentacostal etc.
We know that you think your right and the others are wrong, you don't have to make a play on words to convince us. Really, if you want to refer to yourself as Christian exclusively, it doesn't really bother me. Just remember that 1) the word is never defined the way you intend it in the Bible, 2) the word Christian, like every other word evolves over time, and it doesn't bolster your position any to narrow the commonly understood definition.
|
Posted by: Martin ®
06/13/2002, 12:51:32
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dear Nick, As we can see, you're still getting the hang of the proper etiquette around here. Please note that except in special circumstances, you are not supposed to start a brand new thread simply to continue a thread or argument. Please don't do this again, okay? It's simply not respectful of everyone else here for you to dominate the creation of new threads as you have done recently. Also, you are expected to reply to posts directly where they exist, rather than respond somewhere else, such as you did here (even starting a brand new thread!) With respect, may I ask that you henceforth abide by our community standards on the proper etiquette on this board?
Thank you
- Martin
|
Posted by: Cal ®
06/13/2002, 12:55:41
Author Profile Mail author
|
The ethics here is to post a new thread when you have a new topic to introduce, hopefully an interesting one. And not to do that too often. Remember, other threads get pushed down by a new thread. And this new thread isn't even mildly interesting. Don't you understand?
|
Posted by: Martin ®
06/13/2002, 12:59:58
Author Profile Mail author
|
Nick! Stop making stupid insults and PROVE you're not a "hit-and-run" poster by responding -- DIRECTLY WHERE THEY ALREADY ARE -- to... Darr's posts to you! Mensch's posts to you! Vicki's posts to you! phishhead's posts to you! Craig's posts to you! Cal's posts to you! And anyone else's posts I haven't listed to you! UNTIL you do so, you will rightfully be considered a "hit and run" poster who is unable to defend his assertions and arguments! Hit-and-runners, like you have so far demonstrated yourself to be, are the least respected people around here.
- Martin
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
06/14/2002, 06:19:08
Author Profile Mail author
|
Nick, I (and others) have tried to inform you at various times, of the etiquette on this board. We try to stay with beginning no more than one thread per day because it drives on-going discussions off the front page and eventually into the archives where they are rendered non-active. Also, and if you plan to stay here with us...keep your comments within the thread you're involved in! Do you see where you stated that Martin "hides" his posts down in the pile...that's EXACTLY where you need to reply to them. We will find them, trust me! When you bring a comment like this to the top it frustrates people because it is the creation of another thread when the comment should have appropriately been posted in the EXISTING thread. That is why I cautioned you to STAY in the thread and keep your eye on the ball. The post you made here makes your last posts in the existing threads look like hit and runs! If you are having a hard time tracking the discussions (especially when they become long) try clicking on the 1.5 to see the new posts. Also, watch the colors of the posts. The blue ones are the new one's you haven't read yet. Check the time stamps. It's alot to keep up with but if I can do it, so can you! We are all quite adept at locating posts in lengthy threads. Do you recall when I mentioned to you the "onslaught" and that many of the first threads I was in went well over 100 posts? I did my best to heads up you, without insulting you and yet, you do not take my advice! If you are logging off for the evening and wish for us to know that...put it in under your last post in an EXISTING thread. We'll find it! It is a rare occasion when we create multiple threads for such purposes, unless there is something extraordinary going on (such as Nigel updates). Otherwise it is seen as self-indulgent. And yes, my Summer Tangent thread was self indulgent but not without purpose. Sometimes when things get heated and nuts around here I like to throw in a thread like that as a mind-break for myself and others. Not unlike the "Fun Friday's" we take part in from time to time. If you keep doing what you're doing right now I can tell you without question that you will be blocked from posting here and I will be one of the first to request it. I was very glad to see you arrive here but you need to know that if you stay here you'll have enough to contend with, without bugging the hell out of us all with these "continuation" posts of already existing threads!
Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl at Fri, Jun 14, 2002, 06:30:48
|
Posted by: angelica ®
06/14/2002, 06:41:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
vicki
I want to say I was moved by the kind way you told nick the protocol for new threads, it was sensitive and I congratulate you .
I hope Im not guilty also of too many threads, if so please tell me :)
Love Angelica
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
06/14/2002, 06:44:29
Author Profile Mail author
|
Angelica, I think everyone deserves a fair shot at posting here but at this point I have to say that Nick has been given the information he needs and if he chooses not to partake of our advice he'll eventually be blocked from posting here. I can just about guarantee it. It's not because we wish to bully people Angelica, or throw them off balance...it is because we wish to protect the on-going discussions, many of which are quite lengthy and those are the very ones we wish to preserve. Vicki
|
Posted by: Nick Alberty ®
06/14/2002, 07:53:16
Author Profile Mail author
|
Guess I took you literal when you said I should only start one new thread a day. I don't guess I was allowed even that. However, I apologize again. If you see carefully, after I learned of the etiquette, I did only start ONE thread yesterday. Martin, and Craig really crack me up. So intelligent, yet so misled. Actually, it's sad that they haven't accepted Jesus yet.
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
06/14/2002, 08:08:54
Author Profile Mail author
|
Nick: Martin, and Craig really crack me up. So intelligent, yet so misled. Actually, it's sad that they haven't accepted Jesus yet. Vick: Nick, do you honestly think that a non-believer would find anything of interest or desirable in accepting Christ and becoming a man who flaunts his Christianity as you have done here, as a kind of pious flag of self righteousness??? Sorry Brother, I call it like I see it.
Modified by Jersey Girl at Fri, Jun 14, 2002, 08:09:54
|
Posted by: Nick Alberty ®
06/14/2002, 08:14:13
Author Profile Mail author
|
You must have missed the post where I explained that I am totally unrighteous. I am a sinner and mess up everyday. You do too. We all do. Christ, however, has made me righteous in His eyes through His atonement He made for me by His blood. I think, in light of what these men have said to me, that I have been very kind and respectful. When did I call them stupid? assanine? believing "baloney"?
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
06/14/2002, 08:26:13
Author Profile Mail author
|
Nick, I almost hesitate to reply here. Yes, I agree that we are all human and subject to falling. I do it on a regular basis myself. However, to a sister believer I can tell you that your remarks are counterproductive to the salvation of others. If you're going to make an ass of yourself do it on your OWN...why do you thrust the name of the Savior into the muck and mire of of your own human pride? Dirty your own shoes Nick...not HIS! And now...I'm going to stand aside. Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl at Fri, Jun 14, 2002, 08:27:49
|
Posted by: Nick Alberty ®
06/14/2002, 08:32:39
Author Profile Mail author
|
"If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying" 2nd Corinthians 11:30-31
|
Posted by: Martin ®
06/14/2002, 07:45:09
Author Profile Mail author
|
If we each created a new thread every day, valuable discussions would drift away so rapidly that it would inevitably destroy all the value of this board! Consideration for other posters requires even more restraint than that the "only 1 thread per day" rule. - Martin
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
06/14/2002, 07:47:21
Author Profile Mail author
|
I hadn't thought of that! You're right! So much for Summer Tangents.... Vicki
|
Posted by: Nick Alberty ®
06/14/2002, 08:09:44
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hello,Before I became a Christian about 2 and a half years ago, I was brought up by society to assume Darwinism is true, that living creatures are as we know of them are the result of random, purposeless evolution ("you can challenge 'religious dogma,' but even think for questioning 'science' and be dismissed as a lunatic." go figure.) Then not too long ago, I read some convincing arguments against Darwinism, and I became an Intelligent Designist. Heck, recently I read some intriguing arguments in favor of the literal interpretation of Genesis. my point is, I am curious about your stand point on the debate. I know that one could write a novel-sized response to this one, so I do not expect you to dwell on this subject very long unless you are led to. God bless Justin.
Hi Justin, Thank you for writing. Darwinism is definitely a hot topic today, especially with students and churches. Your letter brings up many issues that I'd like to mention. The most important thing when addressing this or any other issue is to try and approach the discussion in a consistent way. We should be able to examine the evidence for and against it rationally and judge its reasonableness. I really believe there has been too much reaction on an emotional level from both sides and therefore we have not been communicating our position effectively. The best place to start with any discussion is by understanding the exact issue that's being discussed. Misunderstandings about the Christian position of evolution are commonplace. First off, when objecting to the idea of Darwinism, we are only discussing a specific type of evolution - macroevolution. This means that we're talking about life starting spontaneously and from a single organism came every type of living thing we see today - including germs, bugs, animals, fish, and all of the plants too. Not moths changing colors or some such thing. Having different colors or sizes within a species are micro-evolutionary changes and they are not in dispute. More specifically, though, we must remember that Darwinian theory the way its proponents currently assert it is a RANDOM AND PURPOSELESS process. That means we must leave out ideas of "theistic evolution" - God causing evolutionary changes to take place. None of the advocates of Darwinism as it is now taught in schools holds to ANY type of creator/designer having any hand in the evolutionary process. I cannot stress this enough. In discussing evolution verses Intelligent Design theory, we must discuss each of those theories the way that their proponents position them. This means evolution is a cosmic accident and nothing more. Secondly, we must understand that Darwinism is not an empirical science, but a historical theory based on interpreted evidence. Many people get caught speechless when someone objects, "How can you doubt evolution to be true? Don't you know that science has proven it to be true?" Well, science has not proven evolution to be true. The origin of life is not testable and repeatable like the refraction of light or a chemical reaction. It is primarily a search to find out what happened in a specific point in time in history. Much like a forensic investigator who examines clues at a crime scene and tries to put together the events, we are trying to find out what happened for a single occurrence at a specific point in history that is not reproducible. Therefore, we approach the problem by looking at what we CAN examine and make educated guesses as to which processes are the most likely to bring about all of those outcomes. Evolution is simply one idea of what could have happened given all the evidence we have. The question then becomes "is evolution the best explanation of the evidence we have?" In reviewing all the evidence we have currently on evolution, I feel that its explanatory power falls short for the origin of life and great variation of species that have existed throughout time. Some of the problems evolution faces are its inability to demonstrate how living organisms began at all, how the components of the living cell are irreducibly complex and how the design evident in those organisms argues for a designer. As we look at each of these dilemmas, we can see how evolution fails as an explanatory model. In studying the basic question that evolution attempts to answer, "where did life come from", we see that there is no sustainable model for chemicals coming together and creating a living cell. As geologists uncover the true atmosphere of a primitive earth, molecular biologists find that generating amino acids - which produce the proteins needed in all cells for life - becomes incredibly difficult. Further, many scientists see signs that oxygen would have been present in the early atmosphere which would destroy any biological chain reaction creating life. In fact, there is no agreed upon model in the scientific community on how cells did come to be. Scientists who hold to one theory easily point to obvious flaws in a competing model and visa-versa. Another refutation of the evolutionary model that has recently arisen is the idea that cells themselves are comprised of processes that are what as known as "irreducibly complex". In other words, the entire system must exist all at once for it to be of any benefit at all. Michael Behe in his book Darwin's Black Box explains this in greater detail. He uses a mousetrap as an example. In order for a mousetrap to be of any benefit, it must have some type of base, a spring, a holding wire, a trigger and the hammer that strikes the mouse. Without any one of these components, the trap is completely useless. In the same way, a cell cannot evolve gradually, because all the components that allow a cell to do work must exist simultaneously. Evolving one part but not another is not only useless, but according to evolutionary theory, would put a transitional form at a disadvantage and therefore less likely to survive. Lastly, the incredible design and purpose shown in the living cell and in the structures that make up living organisms have never been adequately explained by evolution. DNA is a prime example of this. DNA is a digital code made up of only four amino acids. As a digital code it provides a blueprint so that all the various mechanisms and forms of life are replicated according to its instruction. The question arises then how could something like DNA to be created randomly? There is no such thing as a self-generating code - for a code is an agreed upon representation of what it's trying to communicate. That's why they're used in espionage; they don't mean anything taken at face value. It is only when someone or something who understands the code based on rules which were prearranged will the true message of the code be known. Similarly, the idea that several thousands of mutations that happened in the proper sequence are responsible for the flying birds or the eye of a man are, when examined objectively, pure fable. We never see this type of successive mutation in reality. Even the fossil record shows environmental systems such as the Cambrian explosion appearing abruptly and completely. Also, the odds for such a delicate balance of all variables required for life to exist is so infinitesimal (see our latest newsletter for more on this idea) that holding it happened by accident becomes absurd. So, if all these things are evident, some may ask, why do smart people like scientists keep saying evolution is true and scientifically proven? Well, when you get them to talk seriously about evolution, they say something different. Professor Richard Lewontin wrote in The New York Review "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." This honest admission shows that these scientists view their theories as dogma. They are taken on faith alone, and not on objective scrutiny. There is so much more to this topic that I cannot cover due to time and space limitations. I do hope, however, that everyone would think twice before shying away from the evolutionary debate or retreating to a "I take it solely by faith" response. There is good evidence that evolution fails, and so the question then becomes if evolution doesn't work, what other options are there for the existence of life? The evolutionists know the inescapable answer to this question: a Creator.
©2001 Come Reason Ministries.
Bibliography How To Help Contact Us
|
Posted by: Nick Alberty ®
06/14/2002, 08:19:26
Author Profile Mail author
|
Check out what these guys believed. Look it up on the internet, read it in the encyclopedia, find it in the library. It's true. Certainly though, Martin and Craig think differently.
The following is a list of scientists of the past and present who believed in creation:Isaac Newton (dynamics, calculus) Lewis Pasteur (bacteriology, pasteurization, biogenesis Law) Blaise Pascal (barometer, hydrostatics, Pascal's Law) Michael Faraday (Farad, electric generator) Lord Kelvin (thermodynamics, energetics, Kelvin Scale) Leonardo DaVinci (hydraulics, engineer, artist) Samuel Morse (telegraph, Morse Code) Gregor Mendel (genetics, Mendel's Law) George Washington Carver (inventor) Kurt Wise, Ph.D. (Harvard paleontology) D.B. Gower, Ph.D. (biochemistry, University of London) John Ambros Fleming (electronics, physics, Fleming Valve)
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
06/14/2002, 08:34:48
Author Profile Mail author
|
Did you get that list from the Defender's Study Bible?
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
06/14/2002, 08:49:06
Author Profile Mail author
|
WHERE did this "common knowledge" come from Nick?? Do you have a resource? Put it up here. Vicki
|
Posted by: Nick Alberty ®
06/14/2002, 08:57:27
Author Profile Mail author
|
History.......for one! Colliers Encyclopedia. Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia. Internet Resources. Etc. I don't know how else I can answer you. So go ahead and call me a hit and runner
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
06/14/2002, 08:59:11
Author Profile Mail author
|
You obviously typed that list from a written page of some kind...or did you type it from memory?
|
Posted by: Martin ®
06/14/2002, 11:07:35
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dear Vicki, Do you begin to understand more clearly the nature of our replies to this contemptibly ignorant and blatantly dishonest hit-and-run crackpot?
- Martin
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
06/14/2002, 11:11:28
Author Profile Mail author
|
Yes Martin, I should like to pursue him myself,if you don't mind. Can we talk someplace else? Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl at Fri, Jun 14, 2002, 11:42:02
|
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
06/14/2002, 12:28:47
Author Profile Mail author
|
Or maybe they both have a common (plagiarized) source. Its highly improbable however that Nick constructed this list on his own, either from various sources or as a summary of a single more detailed work (although I firmly believe he has the intelligence to construct a list like this on his own). I havn't read all of the sub-threads here so maybe the issue has been resolved. A little trick you might find interesting (although you may already do this): Whenever you suspect someone is quoting a source that might have been cut and paste from the web, take a something from that document that seems unique and do a search in the "google" search engine. For instance here, I did a search on the last names of the first 7 scientists listed, in order. What would be the probability that all these scientists have something else in common other then belief in creation, that they would appear in exactly this order in any non-creationist document? Of course, after doing the search in google, I always click the "cached" option, because then the words you did a search on appear highlighted in the document and you can quickly scan to the info you want. It took me less then 1.5 minutes to find this source, and it was the second page I selected from the search results. maybe this helps.
Related link: http://www.ripsawnews.com/2001.07.18/news.html
|
Posted by: Nick Alberty ®
06/14/2002, 14:06:52
Author Profile Mail author
|
Cool, you found the same info. on a DIFFERENT PAGE than the one I found it on. By the way, I never said I came up with the list. I never said anything about it SPECFICALLY. However, that's not the page it came from.
|
Posted by: Martin ®
06/14/2002, 14:15:23
Author Profile Mail author
|
You owe at least fifty replies to people who have asked you direct questions which you CONTINUE TO EVADE while continuing to submit stupid hit-and-run posts! ANSWER THEM, NICK! Right now! Either that or stop posting completely.
- Martin
|
Posted by: Martin ®
06/14/2002, 14:30:31
Author Profile Mail author
|
You owe at least fifty replies to at least a dozen different people who have asked you direct questions which you CONTINUE TO EVADE while continuing to submit stupid hit-and-run posts! ANSWER THEM, NICK! Right now! Either that or stop posting completely.
- Martin
|
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
06/14/2002, 14:47:08
Author Profile Mail author
|
nick, you did see that I clearly said you both may have plagiarized from the same source. you didn't say that you drew up the list yourself, but implied you might have in one place. And you didn't give a link to vicki to find it, which I thought was kind of wierd. I was merely pointing out to Vicki how she could go about settling the matter independent of your responses to her.
|
|
