THEY REDEFINED Fascist REALITY.
1940 Fascism =
state control of media,
state control of education,
state control of banks,
state control of industry,
state control of churches,
socialism,
anti-capitalism
2025 Fascism = militarism, nationalism
https://www.facebook.com/prageru/videos/756566643807656
Those who claim to be tolerant of religion often exhibit what is really “patronizing condescension.”
–philosopher Alvin Plantinga
“Ironically, those who pride themselves on being open and tolerant often end up merely practicing a different type of intolerance. They resist the idea that any one religion is true, because that implies the others are false—which they take to be disrespectful.
To them, it seems more respectful to say that all religions are symbolic ways of describing a mystical experience, or giving emotional comfort, or motivating people to be moral, or some such. In other words, in the case of religion, the actual teachings do not matter, only the social and emotional effects.
But is this relativistic view really tolerant? To say that the teachings do not matter is to say that all religions are wrong—because all religions claim that their teachings do matter.
The relativistic view insists that Hindus are wrong; Buddhists are wrong; Muslims, Jews, and Christians are wrong—and that only the postmodern view of religion is right.
As philosopher Alvin Plantinga comments, “I find it hard to see how this attitude is a manifestation of tolerance or intellectual humility: it looks more like patronizing condescension.”
The relativistic view of religion is just as exclusive as the claims of any traditional religion.”
(Saving Leonardo)
This came from a recent discussion about blog sites not being able to be posted on facebook and seen in the facebook browser.
Susan Lambeau, Looking at the facebook post in a browser if you click on the picture it launches a new browser window (the default browser of your system) and goes to https://phys.org/news/2023-12-theory-einstein-gravity-quantum-mechanics.html which is the URL of the article at phys.org. But using the facebook app what happens is you cannot get to phys.org. Instead Facebook generates a new web page that looks like the page at the above URL and send you to there, but inside the facebook app.
The implication here is facebook can censor the content. If they don’t want someone reporting on adverse side effects, for example, they can ban that.
Legally they can do that because they own the content on their website. They do not own the content on outside websites.
Even if you put the URL “https://phys.org/news/2023-12-theory-einstein-gravity-quantum-mechanics.html” on your facebook post people using the app will not be able to see the URL. They filter it out and re-write the display that is rendered.
This is important. Why? Well, for example, there is a recent scientific paper published in Canada about contamination level of DNA fragments in Pfizer covid vaccines. Facebook will not allow discussion of the paper. You cannot post the paper. You cannot post a link to a website talking about the paper either. They just remove your post. Sometimes they warn you not to try doing it again. The information is suppressed. This is one of the reasons people blog – to avoid censorship.
One of the side effects I recently noticed was it is not possible to get to a certain blog on medium.com where there are book reviews of books on science. The owner puts the link on her facebook group but facebook app users cannot get to the site to give feedback to the reviewer.
Really old people who still have computers and know what a browser is are slightly better off. But the new gen-alpha audience is totally locked into phones. Even my 40 year old daughter in law does not know what a browser is. And her kids have never seen a computer.
I think there is a word for this. I have heard it called “shadow banning”. The idea is to prevent unauthorized information from being viral. Or being capable of being viral.
So if a research scientist or an MD wants to say something that is “forbidden” she may be subject to shadow banning. Was there much of that happening during the lockdowns? You tell me!
When I travel I usually do not access facebook from a computer, but use a phone. I miss being able to copy a URL to paste into a note for later retrieval.
for example, the book review site. I had to ask the owner to message me the URL.
I hope this helps explain some of my concern. I want an open world wide web, not one that is controlled by a coalition of big tech that chokes off information.
Thanks!
Chief Ish-Tak-Ha-Ba. Remember that name!!! It means “Sleepy Eyes”. And the high school in Sleepy Eye Minnesota carries the name “Indians” in honor of their namesake, who died in 1859 and whose remains are buried under a large granite monument in town. Four years ago his great-great-great-great granddaughter donated his pipe to the Sleepy Eye historical society in a ceremony that drew press attention.
Meanwhile, at Mahnomen, Minnesota public schools, the schools logo looks like a dreamcatcher with the word “Indians” across the top. They consider it is done with a sense of pride. The majority of the population is Indian and they like it – it gives them a sense of pride.
BTW, I am part Cherokee. So I like this idea. Lets celebrate some native American heritage.
Let us not forget the Warroad, Minnesota Warriors, who have a special logo designed by native american students that shows an indian warrior’s face with two feathers. I say “bravo” for them. Its about time!
So its ok to use these logos if the people whose culture is represented actually want them. The politically correct just dont want them used if the people dont happen to have a background in the heritage. In that case its considered offensive.
But in Washington State, the mascot “Vikings” now has to be changed because the “offended” dont feel included in Viking heritage. I KNEW IT! I KNEW VIKINGS would be considered politically incorrect. And it is! But in this case you cant have innocuous because someone ISNT represented by the mascot.
The PC are offended if you name something they think is about them, and the PC are offended if you DONT name something that is about them. Soon, absolutely all speech in America will be censored by some minority that is offended. So the Seattle Pina Colada Blenders will be banned because the non-drinkers feel offended that their culture is both not included and too included to be allowed.
America has gone nuts, and free speech is getting shredded by the lunatic left.
I’m also Irish, and I shudder to think the non-Irishmen wont be allowed to celebrate anything Irish because either the Irish didnt give permission or the non-Irish feel left out. It a way for the PC to extinguish recognition of Irish culture. Its coming.
Does English Common Law Apply in America?
===================================
Well, if you are libertarian, and all you care about is contracts contracts contracts, you may want to pay attention.
===================================
Dec 6, 2014, I wrote:
Have an employment contract? (ie, an employee agreement?). Does it say you cant go to work for a competitor? Minnesota law is based on old English common law in how courts enforce these contracts. CD2’s extremist Ron Paul Tea Party Libertarians in the republican party object to this, insisting that history of law in general is invalid; only modern laws we make now (meaning after 1990) are valid. Thats how they want civilization to be run, which makes Libertarians (and the liberal philosophy they base everything on) extremely dangerous to civilization. Why is the Tea Party so against history based law? One reason is they think marriage is a private contract and marriage is none of the state’s business. But the republican party historically imposed marriage laws on the south in order to give former slaves the right to marry. The GOP led government wrote marriage laws – and they weren’t just private contracts. Libertarians hate this about the republican party and get very angry when told of it. Which is why I have half the republican party assholes blocked on facebook.
The Tea Party radicals in Minnesota want gay marriage. Thats why they are against old english law and the rights of englishmen. BTW, the rights of englishmen are why we have the 2nd amendment.
Followup: Bill Pentelovitch (shown above) wrote the wrote the chapter on non-compete agreements in the Minnesota Business Torts Deskbook. The rule in Minnesota is pretty similar to most other states, and that is old English common law,” Penteovitch said. “There are only two states that have laws that are very restrictive of noncompetes, and thats North Dakota and California. Thus Pentelovitch affirms the common law, from a thousand years ago, runs our daily lives. History *IS* important, despite what the Ron Paul fanatics and other jackass republican idiots say about it.
Reference:
https://www.maslon.com/bill-pentelovitch-and-haley-schaffer-author-chapters-in-minnesota-cles-ibusiness-torts-deskbook-i
This caught my eye today.
I have to say I never truly appreaciated the screaming the House of Commons does at each other over the aisle of Parliament. It is a mild form of controlled implosion.
The following is an opinion article on democracy by Jonathon Turley. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a practicing criminal defense attorney.
The single greatest threat to America is hiding in plain sight.
A startling poll was released last week showing that a majority of voters not only view the opposing party as a threat to the nation but justifying violence to combat their agenda. The poll captures a crisis of faith that I have been writing about for over a decade as an academic and a commentator. Many now question democracy as a sustainable system of government. It represents the single greatest threat to this nation: a citizenry that has lost faith not just with our system of government but with each other.
The polls by the University of Virginia Center for Politics shows a nation at war with itself. Fifty-two percent of Biden supporters say Republicans are now a threat to American life while 47 percent of Trump supporters say the same about Democrats.
Among Biden supporters,
41 percent
now believe
violence
is justified “to stop [Republicans] from achieving their goals.” An almost identical percentage,
38 percent,
of Trump supporters now embrace violence to stop Democrats.
Not surprisingly, many of these people have lost faith in democracy. Some 31 percent of Trump supporters believe that the nation should explore alternative forms of government. Roughly a quarter (24 percent) of Biden supporters also question the viability of democracy.
Faith is the one thing that no system of government can do without. Without faith in the underlying values of a constitutional system, authority rests on a mix of coercion and capitulation.
For years, I have written about this growing loss of faith and how it has been fueled by our intellectual and political elites. In the echo chamber of news and social media, citizens constantly hear how the opposing party is composed of “traitors” and how the constitutional system works to protect enemies of the people.
Viewers now get a steady diet of figures like Elie Mystal who called the U.S. Constitution “trash” and argued that we should simply just dump it.
In a New York Times column, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for the Constitution to be “radically altered” to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”
Rosa Brooks went on MSNBC’s “The ReidOut” to lash out at Americans becoming “slaves” to the U.S. Constitution and that the Constitution itself is now the problem for the country.
They are part of the radical chic that has become the norm in academia — and widely embraced by the media.
According to these law professors the problem is not just our Constitution, but constitutionalism in general.
Others have argued that key protections or institutions should just be ignored. In a recent open letter, Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet and San Francisco State University political scientist Aaron Belkin called upon President Joe Biden to defy rulings of the Supreme Court that he considers “mistaken” in the name of “popular constitutionalism.”
“Popular constitutionalism” appears a form of discretionary or ad hoc compliance with constituitional law. If only “popular” constitutional rules are followed, the Constitution itself becomes a mere pretense for whatever the shifting majority or forming mob demands.
Politicians have also contributed to this crisis of faith in challenging constitutional values or core institutions. Members like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., have questioned the need for a Supreme Court.
Others like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., have called for the packing of the Supreme Court to simply create an immediate liberal majority.
Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., thrilled his base by going to the steps of the Supreme Court to declare “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
It is little surprise that one man showed up at the home of Justice Kavanaugh to kill him for his “awful decisions.”
Conversely, former President Donald Trump has regularly denounced his political opponents as “traitors” and “enemies of the people.” He recently declared
“If you go after me, i’m coming after you”
With leaders engaging in such reckless rhetoric, it is hardly surprising that the Constitution itself is now viewed as a threat to our nation rather than the very thing that defines us. It is designed to restrain the majority and protect those who are the least popular in our society.
In the end, a constitution remains a covenant not between citizens and their government but between each other as citizens. It demands a leap of faith; a commitment that despite our differences we will defend the rights of our neighbors.
If nothing else, the Constitution has one thing to recommend it: we are still here. It is a Constitution that has survived economic and political upheavals. It survived a Civil War in which hundreds of thousands were killed.
It is not a particularly poetic document. It was written by the ultimate wonk, James Madison. If you want truly inspirational prose, try any of the French constitutions. Of course, they had more practice since they regularly failed. Other countries based their constitutions on aspirational statements of the values that we shared. The Madisonian system spent as much time on what divided us; it not only recognized the danger of factions but created a system to bring such divisions to the surface where they could be addressed.
The danger of other systems was realized when these divisions were left below the surface where they would fester and explode in the streets of Paris. The American constitution allowed for a type of
controlled implosion
toward the center of the system; these factional interests would be expressed and vented in the legislative branch. The Madisonian system does not hide our divisions; it invites their expression.
The question is whether we have reached a time when the things that divide us will now overcome what unites us.
This is not our first age of rage. Indeed, at the start of our Republic, rivaling parties were not just figuratively trying to kill each other; they were actually trying to kill each other through laws like the Alien and Sedition Acts. Thomas Jefferson would refer to the term of his predecessor John Adams as “the reign of the witches.”
Yet, that history is no guarantee that it can survive our current age of rage. The relentless attacks on the constitution from the political, media, and academic elite has turned many into constitutional atheists. Yet, the future of our constitutional system may rest with the rising number of constitutional agnostics — those citizens who are simply disconnected or disinterested in the defense of our founding principles.
Philosopher John Stuart Mill warned in 1867 that all it takes for evil to prevail is for “good men [to] look on and do nothing.” We are now in an existential struggle to preserve the values that founded The most successful constitutional system in the history of the world. It is our legacy that now can be either boldly defended by a grateful people or lost in the whimper of a disinterested generation.
Francis Collins writes,
Science is not the only way of knowing. The spiritual worldview finds another way of finding truth. scientists who deny this would be well advised to observe the limits of their own tools, as nicely represented in a parable old by astronomer Arthur Eddington.
He [Eddington] described a man who set about to study deep-sea life using a net that had a mesh size of three inches. After catching many wild and wonderful creatures from the depths, the man concluded there are no deep-sea fish that are smaller than three inches in length! If we are using the scientific net to catch our particular version of truth, we should not be surprised that it does not catch the evidence of spirit.
Reference: Language of God, p 229 https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744
Collins is quoting this fellow:
Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington OM FRS[2] (28 December 1882 – 22 November 1944) was an English astronomer, physicist, and mathematician. He was also a philosopher of science and a populariser of science. The Eddington limit, the natural limit to the luminosity of stars, or the radiation generated by accretion onto a compact object, is named in his honour.
My remarks:
Eddington points out an epistemological mistake that is then used to draw an ontological conclusion that is not warranted. This is exactly what believers in philosophical naturalism (PN) commit when they tell us “science says there is no god.” PN believers are actually asserting that the natural world comprises all of reality and therefore theists must give up theism because the supernatural is impossible. This, BTW, is scientism.
I label this as Naturalism of the Gaps. I coined the phrase as a satire and later realized it is a serious position that invokes questions about human knowledge. I recently mentioned Naturalism of the Gaps to Jonathon Blocker. That afternoon I also read the remarks by Collins. It seems many physicists and philosophers have pondered these questions. I only noticed it because of the virulent and boisterous criticism of theists by science students who are looking for their daily student dose of confirmation bias.
Facebook pushed this at me:
Someone answered them. Actually, Luke 14:26 is followed by a parable – which the deist ignores.
Look how the deist answers. “A true leader does not speak in code”.
The OP is going to decide who a true leader is and who you should listen to based on the OP’s opinion. It is not even an argument. It is a declaration. Sounds like authoritarianism to me.
Actually it is the OP’s “Revealed Religion”, revealed by them. Because they say so.
This isn’t actually deism as conceived historically. It is pure atheism. Deists believe God wound up the universe but does not interfere with it. This OP says there is no God.
WHATS REALLY GOING ON?
See below for this: In the Hebrew Scriptures, the contrast between “love” and “hatred” is sometimes used to communicate preference. For example, in dealing with inheritances in polygamous marriages, the Mosaic Law referred to “two wives, one beloved, and another hated”
Following the statement that we must “hate” our father and mother, Jesus relates a metaphor about a man who builds a house without first counting the cost (Luke 14:28–30). The man finds that he cannot follow through with what he set out to do. He leaves the house unfinished because he cannot pay what is required. Jesus’ illustration helps explain His difficult statement about hating our mother and father—namely, we must count the cost of being a disciple. There is a cost, and that is the point of the passage.
In order to be a disciple, we must be willing to give up everything for Jesus. Following Jesus requires commitment and faithfulness, even if our parents choose not to follow the Lord. If and when we are faced with the painful choice of loyalty to family versus loyalty to Jesus, we must choose Jesus. Even if our family members disown us—or worse—for being Christians, we must follow Christ. It is in this sense that we are “hating” our family. Jesus’ command to “hate father and mother” requires us to prioritize our relationship with Jesus over our relationship with parents, siblings, and other family members.
Of course, it is right to love our family members, and we want them to love and follow God. Elsewhere, Jesus confirmed the fifth commandment that we honor our fathers and mothers (Mark 7:9–13). And Paul sternly warned that “anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8). Jesus’ statement that we “hate” father and mother must be seen in relation to the whole of Scripture. His point is not that we are to be heartless toward our families, only that we must love Him more.
We must not forget that included in Jesus’ condition that a follower must “hate” his father and mother is the condition that he likewise hate “even his own life” (Luke 14:26, NAS). Jesus is not teaching an emotional hatred of one’s parents any more than He is teaching self-hatred. The emphasis is on self-denial and absolute surrender. Immediately following is Jesus’ instruction to “carry your own cross” (verse 27, NLT).
Some other translations make Jesus’ meaning a little clearer: “If you want to be my disciple, you must hate everyone else by comparison” (Luke 14:26, NLT, emphasis added), and the Amplified Bible says that a follower of Christ must “hate” his family members “in the sense of indifference to or relative disregard for them in comparison with his attitude toward God.” It is a “hatred” by comparison, not an absolute hatred.
The word hate in Luke 14:26 deserves a closer look. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the contrast between “love” and “hatred” is sometimes used to communicate preference. For example, in dealing with inheritances in polygamous marriages, the Mosaic Law referred to “two wives, one beloved, and another hated” (Deuteronomy 21:15, KJV). This is a good, literal translation. There was a “loved” wife and a “hated” wife. Other translations usually soften the “hated” wife to be “unloved” (CSB) or “less loved” (NET). The law was not indicating emotional hatred on the part of the husband, only preference. One wife was preferred over the other. We have a similar use of the love/hate idiom in Malachi 1:2–3 (cf. Romans 9:13).
Many Christians will never have to make the painful choice of turning their backs on their family in order to follow Christ. But, around the world, there are many other Christians who face shunning, disowning, or persecution from their families. These believers, if they are to be true to Christ, are forced to live in a way perceived as “hateful” toward their “father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters” (Luke 14:26). All believers are called to acknowledge the lordship of Christ and show Him preference over all earthly ties. Those who must sacrifice earthly relationships have this promise: “No one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life” (Mark 10:29–30).
So, the OP has jumped to a conclusion based on inadequate research of the subject he is complaining about. He is actually just complaining about his own imaginary world.
I do not need to read any more of this atheistic claptrap shrouded in religious language. A reductionist atheist makes way more sense. They at least know what epistemology actually is.
Some insist that anthropologists need to know how an ancient human may have chosen to identify themselves.
It’s all in the DNA.
When an atheist (Mr.X.) declares to you “I don’t care what Alan Lightman thinks about God” you know you are talking to a narcissist.
Why?
Because Alan Lightman, to the best of my knowledge, doesn’t think anything at all about God. He isn’t a theist.
https://news.mit.edu/2021/pondering-unknowable-alan-lightman-0305
Mr X, the narcissist, is either lying or he is an idiot.
Alan Lightman isn’t talking about God and religion. He is talking about physics.
The real question about what atheism is: what does atheism really have to say to humanity? Atheists need to explain the following: “How do you know thought and mind does not exist? And if it does not, isn’t your religious world view then nihilism? Is the logical conclusion of reductionism nihilism?”
Nihilism means if thought does not exist then minds do not exist. if minds do not exist then humans do not exist. The human race does not exist. its a fantasy. and values do not exist. Love, hate, justice, hope, all these are fantasies because none of them really exist. They are figments of the imagination and have no reality.
“Well, gee, batman”, a student mutters under his breath, “the trans person with hurt feelings is just going to have to lump it, aren’t they?”
What do nihilists really have to say to humanity? Nothing. They add no value. Values do not exist in their world view.
That doesnt answer the question of, “Is the logical conclusion of reductionism nihilism?”
Atheists aren’t talking. They do not know. They rage against theists on the basis of, well, as far as I can tell, a basis of ignorance. I think Jonathon Haight describes it best. They have a preconceived conclusion, really just a moral belief, and they are looking for evidence to shore up their belief. What Jonathon Haight calls “the elephant and the rider problem.” There is a cognitive dissonance in that process, and also a dishonesty.
Alan Lightman, by contrast, ponders the unknown and the unknowable and attempts to label them. That is why is is so hilarious that Mr X boldly declares “I don’t care what Alan Lightman says about God.”
AIG apologist Isaac Bourne claims Christians are going to hell (cannot be saved) because they fail to follow AIG theology. Here is his argument. It depends on having a belief about the age of the earth (being young).
That’s because the worlds education requires one to accept the worlds views. You cannot be educated with secular degrees and expect not to be rejected by the groups that educated you if you proclaim God and the Bible. God plays second fiddle to no man’s: Education, opinion or whatever. Period. And when this person gets to Heaven, God won’t be opening a science book either. And Darwin won’t be sitting next to Him giving judgment on how well every accepted evolution.
Which creation belief can you use to draw people forward to salvation?
God used evolution to create? Nope.
God used millions and billions of years to create? Nope.
God’s creation is literally true aka YEC? Yep. Happens everyday.
This is why you won’t see God used evolution to create do alter calls.
This is why you won’t see God took millions and billions of years do alter calls.
Because there is no God in it therefore God will not draw people unto his Son through a lie. So those 2 teachings come back void while YEC does not.
“Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” James 4:17 KJV
When you know what the truth is and you instead decide to believe a lie.
Then what you believe becomes a sin because you knew better. That is why the word knoweth is used. Do you know God’s Word say nothing about using evolution during creation? Of course you do. Do you know God’s Word and tracible time line supports 6-24 hour days and 6.000 years? Of course you do.
And yet you believe something else right? So your belief is now a sin, not by my opinion, but what God’s Word states. And if you do not respect God’s Word enough to accept correction then you are already lost in that sin.
Here’s what happens when you mess with God’s Word.
“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Revelation 22:19 KJV
And can you enter Heaven without you name in the book of life?
“And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.” Revelation 20:15 KJV
And because you now know, you can never claim true ignorance which is covered by grace because this ignorance is on purpose. YEC is just a literal belief. God’s Word judges what happens when you go outside of such things, not those who believe YEC, Did I not back up everything concerning that? Then your problem is not with YEC, it’s with God’s Word. And all we do is abide by that is that also is what you have a problem with. prove me wrong.
I said to him
Issac Bourne Origins theories have nothing to do with salvation as far as I can figure. Ive started to ask lifelong bible scholars, ordained ministers, and theologians about this. Is Christianity dependent upon a particular narrative or belief about origins? The answer I get is “no”. Salvation depends on Jesus of Nazareth and his death, burial, resurrection, and propitiation for sin, etc, etc, and faith in him and his work Age of the earth? Has nothing to do with that except you have constructed a narrative and turned it into a doctrine. The sorting of sheep and goats will depend on response to the Christ, not on opinion about origins. Unless you create some kind of “new and different?” doctrine that says judgement does depend on a believer’s opinion about origins. I dont see that requirement in the scriptures. It looks to me like this doctrine, if it is a doctrine at all, did not exist in the 1st and 2nd century but was added in modern times. Which adds doctrine to the scriptures. Its either modern additive doctrine or its not doctrine at all but instead is just personal opinion. A bit hard to tell.
I dont see the core beliefs of christianity being affected by your world view here.
Dustin Burlet, another AIG apologist says no, their belief about the bible and theology does not affect salvation per se. But if not accepted it does destroy the truth in the bible.
There is a lot to unpack here – if I have understood the scenario (about YEC) correctly much hinges on Jesus. Allow me to explain (citing C. John Collins, Science and Faith: Friends or Foes, pg. 106)
Collins states:
“The argument for a young earth . . . goes like this: the phrases ‘from the beginning of creation’ (Mark 10:6) and ‘from the beginning’ (Matt 19:4, 
do not refer to the beginning of mankind [sic] but to the beginning of creation itself. Therefore, Jesus was dating the origin of mankind [sic] to a time very shortly after the initial creation of Genesis 1:1. If there is any kind of time very shortly after the initial creation and the beginning of the creation week, or if the week itself lasts much longer than an ordinary week, then we must conclude that Jesus was mistaken (or worse, misleading), and therefore he can’t be God. “
Collins goes on to clarify:
“If this argument is sound, I’m in trouble, because . . . I cannot follow this reading of Genesis 1. On the other hand, I firmly believe in the traditional Christian doctrine of Christ, and tremble at the thought of doing anything to undermine it. But the argument is not sound. It finds its credibility from the way the English “from the beginning” seems so definite; but the Greek is not fixed in meaning. “
NB: Specifically, the use “of the article in Greek is not like use of the definite article in English, not least because Greek does not have the same choice of forms . . . Once a Greek speaker or writer chose to use the article, there was not a choice whether an indefinite or definite one would be used. Therefore, the presence or absence of an article does not make a substantive definite or indefinite.” Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (London: Sheffield Academic 2nd. ed, 2005) 103. See too Middleton, Doctrine of the Greek Article (London: Rivington, 2nd ed, 1841). Notably, though, the term ἄρχη is not actually articular in any of the texts cited above save Matt 19:4 (Cf. John 1:1).
Irrespective of the minutia, what is clear from the above is that Collins does not dismiss the question of the age of the earth as a secondary issue. Instead, he (rightly) ties a proper understanding of these matters to biblical authority via connecting them to the doctrine of Christ (cf. John 18:37).
As such, In a similar way, Terry Mortenson asserts: “Exodus 20:8–11 resists all attempts to add millions of years anywhere in or before Genesis 1 because in Exodus 20:11 . . . God says He created the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them during the six days described in Genesis 1. He made nothing before those six days. It should also be noted that the fourth commandment is one of only a few of the Ten Commandments that contains a reason for the commandment. If God created over millions of years, He could have not given a reason for Sabbath-keeping or He could have given a theological or redemptive reason as He did elsewhere (cf. Exod 31:13 and Deut 5:13–15) . . . Ultimately, the question of the age of the earth is a question of the truth and authority of Scripture. That’s why the age of the earth matters so much and why the church cannot compromise with millions of years (or evolution).” Terry Mortenson, “Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended.” No Pages. Online. Italics original. https://answersingenesis.org/…/young-earth-creationist…/
Elsewhere, Mortenson also opines: “The . . . larger controlling thesis for this book is that the age of the creation is foundationally and critically important for Christian doctrine. It really does matter what we believe on this issue. To be sure, we are not insisting that a person must be a young-earth creationist to be saved and in a right relationship with God. Faith in Christ alone is sufficient for that. But what we believe on this topic does relate critically to inerrancy, hermeneutics, and Scripture as the final authority in all matters that it addresses.” Terry Mortenson, “Foreword,” in Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth, 20. New Leaf (2008).
Lastly, another YEC scholar (Joanthan Sarfati) maintains:
“OK, let’s assume for the sake of the argument that firstly, creation was by evolution, over millions of years of death and suffering—and that Jesus did perform some sort of lobotomy7 on Himself, so that He could no longer recall what really took place. So He just understood Genesis in the most natural straightforward way, not realizing what the real truth was. What you’re claiming in that case amounts to this: That God the Father, knowing the real truth, permitted not just the Apostles, but His beloved Son, while on Earth, to believe and teach things that were utter falsehoods. Furthermore, it means that the Father permitted these false teachings to appear—repeatedly—in His revealed Word. With the result that for some 2,000 years, the vast majority of Christians were seriously misled about such things as not just the time and manner of creation, but gospel-crucial matters such as the origin of sin, and of death and suffering.”
The doctrinal position of AIG
What you’re claiming in that case amounts to this: That God the Father, knowing the real truth, permitted not just the Apostles, but His beloved Son, while on Earth, to believe and teach things that were utter falsehoods. Furthermore, it means that the Father permitted these false teachings to appear—repeatedly—in His revealed Word. With the result that for some 2,000 years, the vast majority of Christians were seriously misled about such things as not just the time and manner of creation, but gospel-crucial matters such as the origin of sin, and of death and suffering.”
Wow, all of Christianity has been misled for 2000 years? Really?
AIG Fragility?
What I am left thinking:
Seems to me that if Adam ever stepped on a bug, or ate a bug, then death came into the world before the sin of Adam and their entire theological world view instantly collapses.
A Re-evaluation
If all the truth in the Bible were to be destroyed then how does anybody come to a saving faith in Jesus of Nazareth as their saviour? So, truth be told, perhaps the AIG belief really is about who can be a Christian? It is all about heresy.
Caveat: Is it possible for the bible to be true but AIG simply does not understand what it says? BINGO!
Is it possible for God to have spoken in parables in Genesis and the bible is still true? You see, AIG claims if Genesis is parables then the bible is not true. That is based on their opinion. Only on their opinion.
Until covid vax is required, that is.
#DarwinCancelled? 😉
A post I saw today from a dentist says,
I am a practicing Dentist, but also a biology major. I do believe there are just two biological sexes: XX and XY. That is not a theory it is a fact. Gender issues are social constructs to normalize behavior. Darwin would have said: survival of the species selects for the strong biological sexes.
How can America defend Sweden? It’s out of ammo. Can it even defend Taiwan?
My take is geo-economic turmoil just got vastly worse. Food supplies will suffer. This will affect energy and fertilizer stocks.
For background material start with:
Rebekah Koffler is the president of Doctrine & Strategy Consulting, a former DIA intelligence officer, and the author of “Putin’s Playbook: Russia’s Secret Plan to Defeat America.” She also wrote the foreword for “Zelensky: The Unlikely Ukrainian Hero.“
Mike Fyten,
I played a trick on someone I knew and asked them if the had heard of the bag of puppies found in the river. I said it sounds like they were taken from the mother and tossed in a bag and drowned. She went nuts…, I said that’s weird you don’t act that when when people are killing babies. She got a bit upset. Blows my mind.
From the X-Files? Where’s Mulder when you need him most?
