Cafeteria Christian Darwinist goyim are anti-Semitic
The "Cafeteria Christian" Darwinist goyim -- e.g., Ken Miller and Francis Collins -- who take the gospel literally but do not take the bible's creation story literally are being anti-Semitic, because that is the exact reverse of what true orthodox Jews believe and hence these Christians are mocking the religious beliefs of orthodox Jews. The Cafeteria Christian goyim further mock Judaism by holding that the Christian New Testament is the literal truth while the Jewish Old Testament is false.
Also, the bible's creation story makes much more sense that the gospel. To be interpreted literally, both the creation story and the gospel require belief in the supernatural, but the bible's creation story is fairly straightforward whereas the gospel is full of illogic, inconsistencies, ambiguities, and unintelligibility. And the creation story is consistent with the idea of an all-powerful god (except for the fact that god had to rest after all that hard work of ordaining creation for six days) whereas the god of the gospel is a weak, limited god who must struggle against Satan for control of the world.
The Cafeteria Christian evolutionist goyim try to justify their beliefs by claiming that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. However, it doesn't matter how good the evidence for evolution is (the evidence is not good, but that is another matter), because the fundies will always be able to claim that there can be no absolute proof of evolution because no one was there to see and record it.
Also, the bible's creation story makes much more sense that the gospel. To be interpreted literally, both the creation story and the gospel require belief in the supernatural, but the bible's creation story is fairly straightforward whereas the gospel is full of illogic, inconsistencies, ambiguities, and unintelligibility. And the creation story is consistent with the idea of an all-powerful god (except for the fact that god had to rest after all that hard work of ordaining creation for six days) whereas the god of the gospel is a weak, limited god who must struggle against Satan for control of the world.
The Cafeteria Christian evolutionist goyim try to justify their beliefs by claiming that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. However, it doesn't matter how good the evidence for evolution is (the evidence is not good, but that is another matter), because the fundies will always be able to claim that there can be no absolute proof of evolution because no one was there to see and record it.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 7/29/2009 03:19:00 PM
10 Comments:
"Cafeteria Christian" is really promoting atheism even those the likes of Miller and Collins are religious to a certain degree. As far as the Gospel, it's quite logical and straightforward. The shadow of it, is found in the Old Testament as well.
You say, "whereas the god of the gospel is a weak, limited god who must struggle against Satan for control of the world."
I can understand where you get this from but it's not found in the Bible.
For example, "But he is one mind, and who can turn Him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doth." Job 23:13
"The King's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whatsoever he he will." Proverbs 21:1
"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purpose." Romans 8:28
The gospel is straight forward, unconditional love, followed by a bond that cannot be broken. The likes of Ken Miller and Collins have trouble understanding it as well.
>>>>>> "Cafeteria Christian" is really promoting atheism even those the likes of Miller and Collins are religious to a certain degree. <<<<<<<
WHAT? Can't understand what you are saying here.
>>>>>> As far as the Gospel, it's quite logical and straightforward. <<<<<<
Wrong. For one thing, there is not one gospel, but four. And here is an example of verses that are illogical, ambiguous and even unintelligible, John 19:10-12 --
Then said Pilate to him, Speak you not to me? know you not that I have power to crucify you, and have power to release you?
Jesus answered, You could have no power at all against me, except it were given you from above: therefore he that delivered me to you has the greater sin.
And from thereafter Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend: whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar.
What is Jesus saying here? Who is "he that delivered me to you"? Judas Iscariot? Caiaphus the chief priest? King Herod? And what sins and whose sins is Jesus talking about when he says, "he that delivered me to you has the greater sin" ? And why did Jesus's statement persuade Pilate to seek his release?
>>>>>> You say, "whereas the god of the gospel is a weak, limited god who must struggle against Satan for control of the world."
I can understand where you get this from but it's not found in the Bible. <<<<<<
Of course, it is not expressly stated in the Bible, but it is implied by the Bible. An all-powerful god could have saved our souls without persuading his son Jesus to agree to be crucified. And take the statement, "god gave his only begotten son . . ." An all-powerful god would not be limited to one son.
the creation story is consistent...except for the fact that god had to rest after all that hard work
Here is the Young's Literal Translation: and God completeth by the seventh day His work which He hath made, and ceaseth by the seventh day from all His work which He hath made.
God ceased from his work. To cease is what the word means. Today, our definition of rest means to recover strength after being weakened and wearied from an activity.
When reading the bible in English you have to take into account the fact that is a translation, and words that mean something today had a very different meaning 400 years ago and certainly 2000 years ago. Some words and ideas expressed in the bible
are difficult to comprehend without having lived in ancient Greek or Hebrew culture. Idiomatic expressions are extremely hard to translate.
2,000 years from now, someone reading about someone "flipping his lid" will wonder about the significance of someone flipping a container top and the behavior and significance attached to the act.
dootland said,
>>>>>>> God ceased from his work. To cease is what the word means. Today, our definition of rest means to recover strength after being weakened and wearied from an activity. <<<<<<<
Interesting observation, dootland. Most versions of Genesis 2:2 listed here say that on the seventh day God "rested from all his work which he had done (or made)," except for the following two:
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995):
By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing. On the seventh day he stopped the work he had been doing.
and -- as you noted in your comment,
Young's Literal Translation:
and God completeth by the seventh day His work which He hath made, and ceaseth by the seventh day from all His work which He hath made.
Also, orthodox Jews' observance of the Sabbath is not concerned with resting in the sense of minimizing exertion -- in fact, exertion is actually increased by the insistence on walking instead of driving. Instead, orthodox Jews are primarily concerned with avoiding making a light or igniting a fire. There is a neighborhood in West Los Angeles or thereabouts where a lot of orthodox Jews live and all the traffic lights there are constantly on automatic timers on the Sabbath -- including all through the night at times when the streets are mostly deserted -- because orthodox Jews won't push a button to change the light. Orthodox Jews won't even use a telephone on the Sabbath because that involves the closing of electrical switches. Orthodox Jews are somewhat hypocritical because they cheat by employing a "shabbos goy" to do things for them that they are not allowed to do for themselves on the Sabbath.
Anyway, Dootland, thanks for pointing that out -- it strengthens my argument that the bible's creation story is consistent with the idea of an all-powerful god.
Also, it has been claimed that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are inconsistent because they supposedly have different chronological orders of the events of creation. But Genesis 2 does not specify the chronological order of creation events -- it has only been assumed that the chronological order is the same as the sequential order of events in the text, but that is not necessarily so.
Ken Miller believes in an undirected, accidental, mechanical process of evolution, and thus says that humans might easily not have appeared at all. But some intelligent creatures, such as dinosaurs with big brains, would emerged. And God would have used them for His purposes, according to Miller!
Thus according to Miller, Jesus might as well have been a dinosaur.
I'm not a Christian. But from what I know of Christianity, I don't see how Miller can be called a Christian. And I doubt that the Pope can actually approve of his doctrines.
Jim -- you're back! I noticed that your domain name -- sfpl.org (San Francisco Public Library) -- has been missing for several weeks from my Sitemeter list of visitors. You often visit several times a day and have the longest visits and the most page views per visit. You have also been an outstanding commenter, with insightful comments and beautiful poetry.
Yes, what you say about Ken Miller is true. Cafeteria Christian Darwinists like him are just "useful idiots" or mascots that the Darwinist establishment trots out to try to show that evolution is compatible with religion. I was really amazed that he was chosen as the plaintiffs' lead expert witness in Kitzmiller v.Dover -- in an establishment clause lawsuit, it would have made much more sense to choose a militant, abrasive atheist like PZ Myers for that position.
I wrote in my comment of Thursday, July 30, 2009 3:14:00 AM,
>>>>>>Michael said,
"Cafeteria Christian" is really promoting atheism even those the likes of Miller and Collins are religious to a certain degree.<
WHAT? Can't understand what you are saying here. <<<<<<<
Sorry, didn't realize that "those" was supposed to be "though." Makes a little more sense now (though not much).
>>>>>>> It's anti-semitic to disagree with Jewish beliefs? What a weird thought. Following that line of thinking, every single Christian is anti-semitic, because Jews don't believe Jesus was the messiah. <<<<<<<
Instead of commenting here, why don't you ask Ed Brayton to let me respond on his blog?
My response to Ed's post is here.
>>>>>>> I don't suppose that's what you really men, so it sounds to me like you're using anti-semitic as a cheap insult instead of a meaningful criticism. <<<<<<<
Well, calling these Cafeteria Christians anti-Semitic sure got people's attention, didn't it?
"who take the gospel literally"
You have a source for Ken Miller agreeing with that statement?
"the bible's creation story is fairly straightforward whereas the gospel is full of illogic, inconsistencies, ambiguities, and unintelligibility"
How about the part where it says that happened 6000 years ago? Or the part where God created all the billions of stars as an afterthought, or the two contradictory creation accounts in successive chapters, or the part where the sky is a roof keeping the waters of heaven off Earth, or the part, etc.
"creation story is consistent with the idea of an all-powerful god (except for the fact that god had to rest after all that hard work of ordaining creation for six days)"
And except that he wasn't able to keep the magical talking snake out of the garden, had to ask Cain where Abel was and couldn't just bring him back, needed to use something big an inconvenient like a flood instead of just striking everyone but Noah's family instantly dead, etc.
Going a little further into the Pentateuch, if God was all-knowing, didn't he know that the Pharaoh wouldn't fold until the tenth plague? Why'd he play games with him, why not just cut to the chase? Or appear to him in a cloud of fire? Or teleport his chosen people to a new planet he had made that didn't have any evil Pharaohs on it? A land of milk and honey?
>>>>>> "who take the gospel literally"
You have a source for Ken Miller agreeing with that statement? <<<<<<<
Is Ken Miller the only Darwinist Cafeteria-Christian goy?
When Darwinist Cafeteria Christians' religious beliefs are attacked, they often defend themselves by saying that they take the gospel literally.
It looks like you missed the whole big debate about "accommodationism," which is mainly about whether people who reject the creation story but take the gospel literally should be "accommodated."
>>>>>> "the bible's creation story is fairly straightforward whereas the gospel is full of illogic, inconsistencies, ambiguities, and unintelligibility"
How about the part where it says that happened 6000 years ago? <<<<<<<
What -- at least in relation to the rest of the bible -- is illogical, inconsistent, ambiguous, or unintelligible about that part?
>>>>>> Or the part where God created all the billions of stars as an afterthought <<<<<<<
Well, maybe it was an afterthought.
>>>>>> or the two contradictory creation accounts in successive chapters <<<<<<<
It has been claimed that the chronological orders of the creation events in Genesis 1 and 2 are inconsistent, but Genesis 2 does not specify the chronological order of creation events -- it has only been arbitrarily assumed that the chronological order of creation events in Genesis 2 is the same as the textual order.
>>>>>>> or the part where the sky is a roof keeping the waters of heaven off Earth, or the part, etc. <<<<<<
I don't get what you are driving at here.
>>>>>> "creation story is consistent with the idea of an all-powerful god (except for the fact that god had to rest after all that hard work of ordaining creation for six days)"
And except that he wasn't able to keep the magical talking snake out of the garden, had to ask Cain where Abel was and couldn't just bring him back, needed to use something big an inconvenient like a flood instead of just striking everyone but Noah's family instantly dead, etc.
Going a little further into the Pentateuch, if God was all-knowing, didn't he know that the Pharaoh wouldn't fold until the tenth plague? <<<<<<<
I was only comparing the creation story -- Genesis 1 and 2 -- to the gospel; I was not including Exodus or the rest of Genesis in the comparison. The issue here is which parts of the bible should be taken literally on the basis of how credible they are. One factor in that credibility is, of course, whether the events are supernatural. Some other criteria, as I indicated, are logic, consistency, non-ambiguity, and intelligibility. What I am saying is that on the basis of these criteria, the creation story is more credible than other parts of the bible, e.g., the gospel and -- according to your reasoning -- Exodus and parts of Genesis other than the creation story.
Post a Comment
<< Home