Search This Blog

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

What shall I fear? Whom shall I fear? Bad Science or a Good God?



There are plenty of Atheists who wish that God was not real. They are wanting to live in a world with no absolutes and no final authority. But wanting something doesn't make it real.

Either God is real or pure, dumb, blind chance is the miraculous cause of it all. Guess which one makes more sense to me?

Psalms 27 begins: "The LORD is my light and my salvation— whom shall I fear? The LORD is the stronghold of my life— of whom shall I be afraid?"

I was asked why there would be a reason to fear bad science...more to the point, to explain what might be to fear if one believed bad science. I thought I would take the gloves off and tell people what I personally believe about various issues.

Hell. People who deny the existence of God and the remedy for their sins, Jesus Christ, are going to wind up spending eternity in Hell. Hell was not designed for mankind. Hell was designed as a place of eternal punishment for angels that rebelled against the Almighty. God most certainly went the extra mile to ensure we would not have to be there. But He has always allowed mankind to have choices. Otherwise, we would be mere robots. Those who deny God and laugh at the idea of Hell will experience it someday. If that were not so I would not be so concerned about whether anyone else believed in God or not.

There is a logical collision at the intersection of Justice and Mercy. A Just God has demanded that mankind would adhere to His rules. A Merciful God seeks to forgive man for his transgressions. A God who is all light and truth cannot bend the rules or pretend. Mankind owes God a debt for choosing to disobey. God could collect from man, or pay the debt Himself. He chose to pay the debt Himself and offers the receipt freely to all of us.

However, there are many who refuse to accept that there might be a higher power to whom they have a responsibility. They will not admit there is a debt and will not take the receipt that would save them from the collector. The colossal ignorance of the naturalistic materialist science movement of God dooms them and all who believe what they teach. Bad science refuses to consider all possibilities because they operate under the ABG dictum - Anything But God. Bad science gives people who prefer to ignore the idea of God an excuse to do so and condemns them to an afterlife of unimaginable woe. I don't think it is a laughing matter.

It seems so absurd to me that the feeble intellect of man seeks to put the Creator God on trial to decide whether or not He exists and in what form. We have studied life and the Universe and the way things work. We see intricate and amazing design and declare it must have happened by chance. Read Job 38-41 sometime.

The fact is, it is far more logical to accept a self-existent God than a self-existent Universe. What we know of the Universe tells us that it had a start and is heading for an ending. Who or what started it? Big Bang Theory requires a controlled explosion, so even if a Big Bang was the first sound it was sounded by God.

It is painfully obvious that Darwin had no idea of the incredible complexity of life. Lyell didn't know that the rock layering around the world is not uniform. Early Paleontologists had relatively few fossils to study beyond the preponderance of fossilized denizens of the sea floors. The scientific community had only recently agreed officially that life did not come from non-life when Darwinism and Uniformitarianism was popularized.

Now we have found mountains of evidences that our ancestors lived with, described and made pictures and sculptures and carvings representing dinosaurs that supposedly had been extinct for millions of years. Now we find so-called "living fossils" basically unchanged from the fossilized remains of their kin. Why didn't they evolve? Where are all the transitional forms?

I believe that the evidences we can see tell us that God created the Universe and placed the Earth in an area of space from which we could make observations and get a basic understanding of the makeup of existence. He provided a planet that has a series of natural checks and balances to keep the climate within a relatively narrow range of extremes.

About 4,000 some-odd years ago God caused the world to be flooded and wiped out the civilization that had existed at that time. He saved a remnant of mankind and a sampling of the necessary air-breathing land animals and birds so that the planet and mankind could begin over again. What we see in the rock layers of earth is consistent with catastrophism rather than uniformitarianism. All rock formations can be explained by a flood with all kinds of flows and cross-flows. We have fossils of animals trapped at the beginning of the deluge, animals buried probably post-flood during a time when much of the earth's surface was still malleable and there was glaciation and volatile weather conditions we have not observed in our lifetimes. How do we explain Mammoths frozen upright in the middle of chewing on vegetation, dinosaur families seemingly posed for an exhibition but buried within tons of sedimentary rock? How do we explain fossilized footprints made by animals fleeing uphill while mostly submerged in water?

How do we explain a Grand Canyon in which the water would have to run uphill if it was formed gradually? How do we explain dinosaur remains with actual flesh and blood still intact?

How do we explain thousands of generations of bacteria failing to become anything else other than bacteria while scientists bring various factor into their environments in hopes of inducing evolution?

Easy. God designed living kinds of animals with a rich code within the genes that allows for great variation within the kinds to adjust to various conditions. We have learned that the genetic code allows for redundancies within gene pools so that more than one kind of animal would survive and fulfill their assignment within the food chain. There are organisms that live far from sunlight in the deepest areas of the oceans that simply do not get their sustenance from the power of the sun at all. So far scientists have discerned two different ecological systems that exist on the ocean floors that do not depend upon sunlight at all. This means that there had to be three different original organisms that became life from non-life in order to begin these three kinds of ecosystems.

Eyes are varied within species, so much so that scientists have determined that a form of eye had to have developed independently at least ten times. Yet the most sophisticated eyeballs found in nature are those of the Mantis Shrimp, a species seemingly unchanged through the ages.

In the first book of the Bible, Genesis, God tells man that He made the light first and then the sources of the light. It annoys people that according to what we can measure that some of the light we see coming to the planet from outer space has been traveling for millions of years. However, if God made the light first and then the source, the light has only been traveling for around 6,000 some-odd years according to the Biblical chronology.

Some call this deceptive. But the things we see are not a joke or a hoax. Scientists have learned a great deal about the workings of the Universe by studying this light. If God had put together this magnificent Universe without creating the light coming all the way to be viewed by men on the planet Earth, we would know much less about existence and much less about God. I believe God created the Universe with lights emitted from millions of light years away so that man could see the stars, the constellations and someday use massive telescopes and advanced satellites to further study the awesome creation He had made.



ONE WAY TO HEAVEN

Jesus stated in John 14:6, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

I believe that He was telling the Truth. Jesus was the Son of God who limited Himself willingly to the body of a man, went about doing good and speaking the truth, never sinning, always doing right. He was wrongly convicted and crucified and He took upon Himself all the sins of all mankind as He suffered and died. He then rose from death to eternal life so that all who accept His gift of forgiveness and redemption may join Him. Those who trust God through Jesus Christ are renewed spiritually with and are redeemed from the judgement laid upon them by the sins of their fathers and themselves.

THREE WAYS TO JESUS

1) Looking for Truth - Many of us who found God did so because we had an inner drive to find Truth. Many of us want to understand why we are here and for what purpose, who made the Universe, are there absolutes? I found God because I wanted to know the Truth, whatever it might be.

2) Fear of Hell - Billy Sunday was a major league baseball player of some note back about a century ago now. He was a hard-drinking and wild-living profligate who never knew a curse word he didn't consider worth saying on a regular basis. He came to trust in Jesus, gave up drinking, gave up hard living, gave up baseball and became a preacher. The main thrust of his preaching was that man needed to repent lest they spend eternity in torment, apart from God and always alone...an endless tortured insanity. Some say you have to get a sinner lost before he understands he needs to be found.

3) Hope of paradise - Some seek to draw people to God by painting a picture of a glorious afterlife and that is fine...just sign on that spiritual dotted line and you will live forever in glorious joy.

The thing is, eternity with God means spending time with Him and being blessed by being in His presence. If you don't love God you wouldn't really like the experience anyway. Those who do not hunger and thirst for Truth will not find it. Those who do will eventually find their way. This is what I believe.

I agree entirely with the Biblical interpretation of the evidences. I believe in a young Earth and a young Universe made complete and whole at one moment by a self-existent and omnipotent God. The evidences fit much better into a God scenario rather than the (to me) utterly ridiculous string of mathmatically impossible coincidences required to explain the existence of even one microorganism, much less the remarkable millions of different creatures that have and do now inhabit our globe.

Bad science is being practiced by thousands of men and women who realize that the Darwinian point of view does not fit the evidences but refuse to consider the obvious alternative.

My fear is that you, the reader, will comfortably accept the lies of bad science and live a life without real purpose. You will not understand the nature of the Creator until you meet Him as Judge. This is not a meeting destined to go well for you. I believe that a loving God has provided plenty of evidences of his existence. He made sure to communicate with us via the Bible, a remarkable piece of literature made even more so because it is a message from the Eternal God to temporal mankind.

37 comments:

radar said...

I wonder who will be the first to decipher and identify the cryptic message in the comic?

scohen said...

Radar, good to see you kicking around. I hope you're feeling better.

Now to the bogosity:

"believe that the evidences we can see tell us that God created the Universe and placed the Earth in an area of space from which we could make observations and get a basic understanding of the makeup of existence. He provided a planet that has a series of natural checks and balances to keep the climate within a relatively narrow range of extremes."

Are you nuts? An area of space where we could make observations? Why is our area of space better suited to observations than others? Why not an area of space where we can easily witness a nebula, or peer at the galactic center? Half of our sky is occluded by dust lanes from our galaxy. How about having a couple stars of varying types closer to us? *That* would be something.

A relatively narrow range of extremes? Like Neil deGrasse Tyson said, If I drop you off naked on 75% of the planet's surface, you'll be dead in a half hour.

The cryptic message was a shout out for a geek meetup in Cambridge, Mass. It gave the date, location and time here are pics.

Oh, and I'm sure Randall Munroe would flip out if he knew his comic was on a creationist blog.

One more thing: I'm not trying to be pedantic, but why do you keep using the word "evidences"? Evidence will work in all of your posts, and doesn't ring harshly on the ear.

highboy said...

Good post Radar. You also forgot to mention though the social consequences that have evolved from Darwin's thinking. (such as the Holocaust) Of course many evolutionists claim that murder of this nature in the name of evolution is an obvious misinterpretation of the theory of evolution, much like those who kill in the name of religion usually are misinterpreting the religion. But factually speaking, if we are all just biological creatures, products of an unintelligent design, it is the only conclusion one can derive from evolution. Natural selection is nature selecting, pure and simple. Nature selected the dinosaurs for extinction for example. Therefore, one biological creature (human) killing another biological creature (human) is in fact nature selecting. There is no way to spin it any other way.

radar said...

scohen,

Great! I figured either you or IAMB would figure that out in no time. I didn't go there but the numbers tell me that it was a walkway area in a park just off or part of the Arnold Arboretum but I have never been there...If I really had wanted to get there at the time of the meet I would have gotten more specific, but that was back in 2007 so too late for me.

I love that comic strip! He is a geek who is into science and so am I, although we have come to different conclusions about the evidence(s) available to peruse. Probably one out of every 30 comics is too harsh for me but I will be happy with 96.7%.

One of the comics he links to is Copper. I recommend that one highly as well.

One of my best buddies is a Buddhist and staunch Darwinist. When we get together sometimes we have long involved arguments on the subjects of religion and science. Sometimes we talk about work and family and other stuff. For all I know, I might really like hanging out with Randall Munroe and vice versa. I bet you his MP3 collection and mine have a lot of titles in common...

Yes, we are in between the arms of a galaxy so that we have a better view of the Universe while not stuck within the star-and-gas clutter of a galactic arm. If we were in the core it would be very hard to distinguish all the objects that would clutter the night sky. Even if we were in the arm we would have a hard time observing beyond the local stars of that arm. On the other hand, being between arms places our solar system in an area most friendly to both surviving and observing the Universe.

We are protected within a solar system that has large gas giant planets with multiple moons, plus a ring of asteroids, all of which help protect the planet from large object impacts.

"A relatively narrow range of extremes? Like Neil deGrasse Tyson said, If I drop you off naked on 75% of the planet's surface, you'll be dead in a half hour."

Compared to the Universe, the Earth fits into a very narrow band of extremes in terms of temperature. In fact, I am sure you are aware of Fine Tuning, the evidence that shows how our place in the Solar System, the relative sizes of the Earth and Moon, our place in the Milky Way, the amount of free water interacting with the Moon to produce tides, the magnetic field and on and on and on...The Earth fits into a very narrow band of criteria that are necessary for life as we know it to survive.

And yet...God created life that can live in superheated water at the edge of sea vents and life that thrives in the Antarctic. There are creatures who live in the depth of the Ocean. No matter how deep we dive, we find living organisms. We find them at mountaintops and drifting along in the atmosphere, we find them in the middle of the ocean and the middle of the desert.

As to that quote, humans have learned a few things about clothing and shelter so if I knew I was going to be dropped on 95% of the surface of the planet I could plan accordingly and survive. (No dropping into an active volcano, please!)

I will try to make a style choice and substitute evidence for evidences.

My last day of taking toxic antibiotics is Friday, so by Monday I should be close to my normal annoying self. I am already working several hours a day. Back to work!

scohen said...

"...Holocaust..."

I cite Godwin's law this discussion is dead.

scohen said...

"Yes, we are in between the arms of a galaxy so that we have a better view of the Universe while not stuck within the star-and-gas clutter of a galactic arm."

No, we're within a galactic arm. We're towards the edge, but definitely in the arm itself.

"
We are protected within a solar system that has large gas giant planets with multiple moons, plus a ring of asteroids, all of which help protect the planet from large object impacts."

There are lots of these, we're finding more and more every day.

"The Earth fits into a very narrow band of criteria that are necessary for life as we know it to survive."

The operative phrase being "as we know it". This, of course also ignores the vastness of space, the size of our galaxy and how many millions of solar systems there are in our galaxy alone. Then there are the vast number of Galaxies in the universe... wow.

I wonder what effect the discovery of extra-terrestrial life would have on you. Care to discuss? I know if they talked about Jesus, I'd be a believer tomorrow.

Oh, and I suspect that we have a lot of MP3s in common as well. Did you ever give The Mars Volta a listen? I just bought about 40 old records, and among these are Peter Gabriel era Genesis. Great stuff. I also have been in the process of wearing out "In through the out door".

Anonymous said...

Good to see you are OK radar.

So, it is believe in Jesus or go to hell? Live a good life, serve mankind, give back to your community but if you don't believe in Jesus, you go to hell?

What does it take, beyond a belief in Jesus, to reach heaven?

lava

highboy said...

"I cite Godwin's law this discussion is dead."

Nice try, but a philosopher doesn't arbitrarily decide when it is/isn't appropriate to make a Hitler comparison. It is a verifiable fact that natural creatures of biology (humans) eliminating other natural creatures of biology (humans) is natural selection. It is nature selecting who/what will survive. It is pure Darwin. Evolutionists can distance themselves from discussing it and acknowledging it all they want but that doesn't make the truth go away.

"So, it is believe in Jesus or go to hell? Live a good life, serve mankind, give back to your community but if you don't believe in Jesus, you go to hell?"

That's correct. Humans of course often reject this because they have their own definition of what a "good life" is or what giving back to the community is, and feel that should be enough. But we are not the authority that decides what is/isn't good enough.

"What does it take, beyond a belief in Jesus, to reach heaven?"

Nothing. No one enters Heaven without the Savior Jesus.

Anonymous said...

highboy(or radar or any other christians who have an opinion on this),

So, let's say one was to go on a murder rampage, where within seconds of the last murder, the murderer takes his own life. The entire time, he believed in Jesus. He actually, though erroneously, believed that the murders/suicide were necessary because of a bible passage he misinterpreted(after all, no humans are perfect). This man will be in heaven, no?

On the other hand, let's say a person lives their entire life taking in orphans, saving sick animals from the street, working at soups kitchens, and otherwise living what most would call a good life. However, this person was unsure about Jesus. You say, there is no chance this person would go to heaven? Even if all of his actions throughout his entire life would have been judged by God to be the proper Christian choices? (yes this question is filled with problems...but I think you get the gist of my question- let's not get bogged down in the details of it).

lava

highboy said...

Anonymous (lava): In answer of your first question, it wouldn't happen. Someone truly in touch with Jesus will not misinterpret one single passage or even two of them and go on a murder spree, not to mention take his own life. As to your second question: that is correct. A person is not going to be judged by checking off all of their good deeds like a laundry list. The same person you described is also guilty of an entire slew of sins and those sins can only be atoned for by the blood of Christ. Recognizing one is a sinner and asking for that atoning blood is the only way to Heaven. Just as a "good person" as you described can be barred from acceptance at the end, so can even the most heinous acts be forgiven and washed away. All it takes is a recognition of one's sinful nature, and a decision to spend our lives living for Jesus.

Anonymous said...

So it isn't just believing in Jesus, it really takes being "truly in touch" with Jesus to get into heaven?

lava

Taxandrian said...

Yay! Radar is back! And with him, the entertainment!

There are plenty of Atheists who wish that God was not real.

Yes, in the same way you don't want Zeus to be real. Or Odin. Or Quetzalcoatl. Atheists are just a little less discriminating than you.

But wanting something doesn't make it real.

Does that go for creationism and christianity too? Or are you using this statement arbitrarily?

I was asked why there would be a reason to fear bad science...more to the point, to explain what might be to fear if one believed bad science.

Yes, we can find the original statement here:
"Truly I fear that those who do not thoroughly consider the evidences will fall prey to the standard long age teachings based on unproven assumptions and the tyranny of a presumptive and dogmatic majority. I do not wish anyone to "pay the price" associated with rejecting God because they believe in bad science."

Hell. People who deny the existence of God and the remedy for their sins, Jesus Christ, are going to wind up spending eternity in Hell.

Thank you, Radar, for admitting that you indeed use scare tactics to coerce people into believing your point of view. Basically you are saying: "You better believe the evidence I present here, or you'll end up in Hell!".
Hate to say it, Radar, but not only is this a logical fallacy called Appeal to Fear, it's also quite disrespectful towards your readers. And your initial explanation by saying you do it out of concern? Well, why not achieve your goal by presenting sound, scientific evidence? Do you think your readers are incapable of reasonable thinking?
Unintentionally however, by adding that emotional appeal, you yourself admit that the 'scientific evidence' you present, cannot stand on its own and is not convincing enough. Thanks for the concession.
FUD tactics might work when you're preaching to the choir or to gullible people. For those of us who aren't scared that easily or don't like to be coerced into believing things, you just come across as desperate, insecure and unsure of your own arguments.
After the Hartnett debacle, you once again ruin your own credibility. Blame yourself for it.

He chose to pay the debt Himself...

By sacrificing himself to himself by being crucified and then spend eternity in heaven, all the while knowing in advance that this would happen? Hardly in comparison to the eternal torment every one else would have to endure.

...and offers the receipt freely to all of us.

Kinda like you freely give your money to the robber who puts a gun to your head: he didn't take it from you, you gave it to him freely.

Bad science gives people who prefer to ignore the idea of God an excuse to do so and condemns them to an afterlife of unimaginable woe. I don't think it is a laughing matter.

Well, I think it is, actually. But if this matters so much to you, why not do something about it? You're the science guy, so why not provide sound, empirical scientific evidence for the existance of God and Hell? Then your worries will be over. It's that simple!

Big Bang Theory requires a controlled explosion, so even if a Big Bang was the first sound it was sounded by God.

Care to present some evidence? (scientific, peer-reviewed) Or is this just another case of 'goddidit'?

It is painfully obvious that Darwin had no idea of the incredible complexity of life.

It's equally painful for creationists that scientific knowledge and technology like DNA sequencing and genetics all support Darwin's theory, years and years after he wrote it down.

Now we have found mountains of evidences that our ancestors lived with, described and made pictures and sculptures and carvings representing dinosaurs that supposedly had been extinct for millions of years.

Show me that 'mountain of evidence'. Again, since we're talking science: only peer-reviewed articles in reputable scientific journals count. And this does NOT include AiG-articles.

About 4,000 some-odd years ago God caused the world to be flooded and wiped out the civilization that had existed at that time.

Apparently, your idea of a 'good god' is someone who can wipe out civilizations, including women, children and newborn. It never ceases to amaze me how christians always claim the higher ground, yet are more than willing to give their own god, according to the bible the biggest mass-murderer of all time, a free ride time and time again.

How do we explain dinosaur remains with actual flesh and blood still intact?

Please elaborate. Did you actually look for an explanation, or simply swallow AiG's explanation?

How do we explain thousands of generations of bacteria failing to become anything else other than bacteria while scientists bring various factor into their environments in hopes of inducing evolution?

Speaking of bacteria, there's still that other article of yours where you apparently buggered off. Care to reply there, or are you abandoning it?

God designed living kinds of animals with a rich code within the genes that allows for great variation within the kinds to adjust to various conditions

Well then, why didn't he do the same for humans? Dogs can make their own vitamin C. Humans however, cannot. Humans must have vitamin C in their diets; without it they will die from vitamin C deficiency. It appears god is indeed dog's best friend; on long sea journeys the sailors would suffer terribly from scurvy, but the dogs on these voyages did not suffer. Pretty sloppy for an omniscient creator.

Bad science is being practiced by thousands of men and women who realize that the Darwinian point of view does not fit the evidences but refuse to consider the obvious alternative.

You mean people like Francisco Ayala and Francis Collins?

My fear is that you, the reader, will comfortably accept the lies of bad science and live a life without real purpose.

Thanks for the concern. But you can stop worrying, I'm not afraid. If you still insist on convincing me of your point of view, why not start with respecting my intellect? If you think you can convince me by using scare tactics, you are wrong, sir.

You will not understand the nature of the Creator until you meet Him as Judge. This is not a meeting destined to go well for you.

Ooohhh! Scary! Now, what did I just say?

Oh, and considering the title of your article:

"What shall I fear? Whom shall I fear? Bad Science or a Good God?"

I'd say: Fear is the mind-killer.

Try living without fear for a change.

chaos_engineer said...

There are plenty of Atheists who wish that God was not real. They are wanting to live in a world with no absolutes and no final authority.

Those aren't Atheists, are they? They sound more like Satanists to me.

Atheists might very well want to live in a Universe where God existed. I mean, objectively, this is a pretty crappy world. It's usually either too hot or too cold, or else it's raining, and even when the weather is OK things are still infested with spiders and gravity is twice what it needs to be and on and on. Atheists might like to believe that all those burdens were put on them for a good reason, and that they'll eventually get an explanation and maybe some compensation for their hard work.

But they look around and think: "Well, if there was a being who was (1) all-knowing, (2) all-powerful, and (3) wanted me to live my life differently, then such a being would be able to make me understand what it wanted. Obviously no such beings exist."

I do understand that God communicates with some people directly, which is kind of confusing.

One possibility is that Atheists are doing OK on their own, so God doesn't see any need to tell them to live their lives differently. If that's true, we should look at Atheists more closely and maybe consider using them as role-models.

The other possibility is that the Calvinists are right, and that there are some people who God just doesn't like for whatever reason...so He makes up arbitrary rules that the poor Atheists are supposed to follow, but He communicates the rules in such a vague and confusing manner that Atheists have no hope of figuring them out. If that's true, I guess we need to decide if that sort of God is really worthy of worship.

highboy said...

"So it isn't just believing in Jesus, it really takes being "truly in touch" with Jesus to get into heaven?"

One doesn't come without the other.

highboy said...

"Unintentionally however, by adding that emotional appeal, you yourself admit that the 'scientific evidence' you present, cannot stand on its own and is not convincing enough. Thanks for the concession."

Actually since it was not he who demanded he present what you call a "scare tactic" nearly you entire response so far is totally irrelevant. You are the one who wanted to know what possible consequences came from believing in bad science. It isn't an "appeal to fear" it is simply an answer to your question. Not to mention he's been debating "bad science" for quite some time without once mentioning Hell, so your entire analysis of his response is moot.

"By sacrificing himself to himself by being crucified and then spend eternity in heaven, all the while knowing in advance that this would happen? Hardly in comparison to the eternal torment every one else would have to endure."

Except that Jesus was wholly human as well as divine, and completely capable of the fear and pain that comes with crucifixion and 3 days in Hell. Not to mention no one HAS to endure the eternal torment as a result.

"Well, I think it is, actually. But if this matters so much to you, why not do something about it? You're the science guy, so why not provide sound, empirical scientific evidence for the existance of God and Hell? Then your worries will be over. It's that simple!"

Its laughable that people who already know Christianity is rooted in a concept of faith ask for empirical evidence for the existence of God, all the while ignoring the idea that science and nature itself are strong evidence of a creator. The creation itself is evidence enough that there is a Designer. Whether or not the designer is intelligent or not is a philosophical matter, not a scientific one.

"Apparently, your idea of a 'good god' is someone who can wipe out civilizations, including women, children and newborn. It never ceases to amaze me how christians always claim the higher ground, yet are more than willing to give their own god, according to the bible the biggest mass-murderer of all time, a free ride time and time again."

And we can just toss the multi-millions who've been mass murdered by humans in with natural selection, since us natural creatures are just selecting.

"You mean people like Francisco Ayala and Francis Collins?"

He means like Hitler and Stalin.

radar said...

I have to work up to this slowly due to after-effects of strong meds. I am like a computer needing a scandisk, defrag and RAM upgrade right now.

I consider peer review as practiced these days as farcical. It is a members-only club that excludes ideas not considered sci-politically correct.

Godwins Law is arbitrary and amusing. Hitler wasn't the most evil man of the 20th century and, in fact, not the most evil man in his own administration. If a discussion leads to Hitler or Pol Pot or Stalin that is no less valid than one that leads to Lincoln or Einstein or Tesla.

I have posted a great deal of information about dinosaur pictures, historical accounts and carvings previously on this blog.

I sure hope to make a new post tonight or tomorrow and address the fear question and some other things...

Taxandrian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Taxandrian said...

Radar,

I hope you will "address the fear question and some other things" in the form of a comment here instead of posting a complete new article, thereby -yet again- abandoning an active one.

Anonymous said...

"So it isn't just believing in Jesus, it really takes being "truly in touch" with Jesus to get into heaven?"

One doesn't come without the other.


My example above showed otherwise. I guess you wouldn't call that belief, though. I really thought we were dealing with an objective standard, belief. What gets tricky, is when you have this subjective standard to get into heaven...belief = truly in touch? How do you know you are really "truly in touch"? There are dozens (if not more) variations of Christianity. Are they all truly in touch? If not, how can you be certain you are really truly in touch?

lava

scohen said...

For all you Natural Selection == Nazism people, pray tell: Have you actually *read* Darwin?

Which niche didn't the Jews/Holocaust victims fill correctly? What segregated them as a population? How were the Nazis better adapted to their environment?

The answer, of course is that there isn't a niche that they didn't fill correctly, and they weren't segregated (in an environmental sense) from another population. Natural selection indeed doesn't apply here.

Godwin's law speaks to the utility of having conversations with people who make such comparisons. It's really not worth the time. As we can see from the above display of (and I'm sorry for the word) ignorance, Godwin is right.

It's deeply offensive to me as a Jew to have someone lay partial (or entire) blame for the Holocaust at the feet of Darwin. This illustrates the person doing the blaming has no idea of what Darwin (or any of modern biology) says. In addition, that person also needs to take a history class to understand why and how the Holocaust happened. This is exactly why the ADL issued a statement against that comparison when it was made in Expelled.

Again, Radar: You are being lied to.

One more thing: Tim might not believe in a young earth; is he going to hell?

highboy said...

Radar: You're absolutely right, Goodwin's Law is indeed amusing and nothing more than a smoke screen to deflect a valid connection.

"My example above showed otherwise."

No, it didn't. Christianity, as based on Christ's teachings in the Bible and the Bible as a whole, clearly indicates what type of person someone who truly believes in Jesus Christ is. Its not that they're perfect, but that they live for Him. It wouldn't be misinterpreting Christ's teachings to go on a killing spree, it would be to completely disregard them.

"The answer, of course is that there isn't a niche that they didn't fill correctly, and they weren't segregated (in an environmental sense) from another population. Natural selection indeed doesn't apply here."

You can try and spin your way out of it all you want, but one biological creature killing another biological creature is natural selection. Adaption to one's environment is only one aspect of it. And it was Hitler's view that the Jews/black/indians WERE in fact detrimental to the evolution of the human racce.

"Godwin's law speaks to the utility of having conversations with people who make such comparisons. It's really not worth the time."

Translation: its a valid comparison and Godwin's law is a cheap way to avoid dealing with it.

"In addition, that person also needs to take a history class to understand why and how the Holocaust happened. "

Some of us have, and some of us have read Mein Kempf, where Hitler continuously praises Darwin and Nietchze for their insight.

"One more thing: Tim might not believe in a young earth; is he going to hell?"

He didn't say you will go to hell for believing in on old earth.

chaos_engineer said...

Some of us have, and some of us have read Mein Kempf, where Hitler continuously praises Darwin and Nietchze for their insight.

This is why I love this blog.

On most blogs, I can usually figure out who's serious and who's trolling, but this place stumps me every time.

radar said...

I suppose I can do some answering here and blog later on as well...

radar said...

The Bible says that if you believe in Jesus the Christ in your heart and confess him with your mouth you are saved. Pretty straight forward - Believe that Jesus existed and join the madding crowd. Believe that He is the Christ and the answer for your own sins (thus making him Messiah in your own life) and accept His sacrifice on your behalf and you are saved.

I believe the Bible. It says that there is a Hell. I rarely mention it so therefore I can hardly be accused of "scare tactics" on this blog. I don't like trying to scare people into Heaven with the fear of punishment, much prefer to lure them there with the joy of knowing the One True God.

Trying to invent these odd scenarios where the unbeliever is such a great guy and the saved one is a murderer...please! People who know God tend to act more like Him, not less.

I was a drug user and dealer, a cheat and a liar who was one part good and two parts lucky enough to avoid death or jail until I came to know Christ. I became someone who volunteered his time and money to help others and quit using and manipulating others. Going oppo proves nothing.

It requires a belief that impacts the heart and not just saying words to actually become a born-again believer. Beyond that, to be a Christian implies a lifestyle that seeks to emulate Christ. I seek to be a Christian in the way I live and interact with others to the best of my ability. The presence of the Spirit of God in my heart tends to keep me from allowing anger or jealousy to turn into a murderous course of action.

Christians have emotions just like anyone else. We are equipped to handle the negative ones better as long as we choose to follow God's ways. It is possible for a Christian to lose control and do something terrible, just less likely.

Then again, without God's moral absolutes, who is to say murder is wrong? Who decided that? I say God set the standard in the first place. I would think that a Darwinist would put survival of the fittest far above the welfare of his fellow man.

Godwin's Law is a joke. There is no validity to it because Hitler could well be a part of a discussion on one matter or another. He was one of the most prominent men of the 20th century, was he not? More infamous than famous but notorious for sure.

Here is some genuine Kool-Aid: "It is painfully obvious that Darwin had no idea of the incredible complexity of life.

It's equally painful for creationists that scientific knowledge and technology like DNA sequencing and genetics all support Darwin's theory, years and years after he wrote it down."

No, not at all. WRONG! That answer came from the Adam Sandler School of Higher Learning...the more we study DNA, the more complex we find it to be. "Junk DNA" turns out to have purposes after all. The entire system of DNA/RNA becomes less likely to have ever happened by accident with each new discovery.

Genetics has shown us that organisms vary within kind and do not change into something else. We've been trying to prove otherwise for about 150 years or so and fruit flies are still fruit flies and bacteria are still bacteria.

radar said...

Yes, and by the way I would consider us to be on the outside of an arm of the Milky Way galaxy rather than in the arm, therefore we are able to observe the Universe with considerable clarity. We may be part of an arm but we are not "in" the arm. Thus, we have a nice vantage point to observe more of the Universe than would be the case if we were "in" the arm or the center.

radar said...

"For all you Natural Selection == Nazism people, pray tell: Have you actually *read* Darwin?"

Nazism resembles facism which resembles a lot of lefty liberal loons but not really Darwinism. I don't think being a Nazi and Darwinist is in any way synonymous.

"Which niche didn't the Jews/Holocaust victims fill correctly? What segregated them as a population? How were the Nazis better adapted to their environment?"

Wrong question. The question is, why did Hitler and some of his closest followers decide to eliminate Jews and the handicapped and Christians and those not of Aryan descent? The answer is Darwinism, not because Darwin was a Nazi but because so many Nazis believed in Darwin. They took it upon themselves to believe that the Aryan Race was the most developed and evolved race and that they needed to eliminate other races and also those who were handicapped or otherwise genetically "inferior" to help evolution run its course. They wanted to do the job of natural selection themselves. It was an evil and warped point of view but nevertheless they felt it was a valid one.

"The answer, of course is that there isn't a niche that they didn't fill correctly, and they weren't segregated (in an environmental sense) from another population. Natural selection indeed doesn't apply here."

I agree. I think it is nonsensical/evil/arrogant to believe that a Jew is better or worse than anyone else because of his religion or heritage. But that is from a God point of view, not a Darwinist point of view. From Darwin we get a Holocaust and we get Eugenics and we get other evils and it is illogical to deny it.

On the other hand, the Holocaust was not an unusual event in the history of Jews, having experienced Pogroms and slaughter and slavery and prejudice throughout recorded human history. Is it because they are the race God chose to protect the Scriptures and keep alive the idea of the Creator God?

"Godwin's law speaks to the utility of having conversations with people who make such comparisons. It's really not worth the time. As we can see from the above display of (and I'm sorry for the word) ignorance, Godwin is right."

Nope. I disagree. Let's make GOODWINS LAW and end all conversation as soon as math shows up. Lets form Badwins Law and walk away from a conversation as soon as Abraham Lincoln is mentioned. Duh. Sorry, but duh.

"It's deeply offensive to me as a Jew to have someone lay partial (or entire) blame for the Holocaust at the feet of Darwin. This illustrates the person doing the blaming has no idea of what Darwin (or any of modern biology) says. In addition, that person also needs to take a history class to understand why and how the Holocaust happened. This is exactly why the ADL issued a statement against that comparison when it was made in Expelled."

Sorry that facts should interfere with anybody's point of view. Hitler was one part narcissicist and one part sociopath and one part Darwinist. The Holocaust happened, not because of Darwinism per se, but rather because Hitler and his gang decided that they would play the role of natural selection and they would do the selecting. How can you deny it? We know Hitler and his cronies believed that they could help the human race evolve into Superman and they believed that Aryans were the closest thing to that end.

Hitler was wrong. He was a maniac. But you cannot truthfully deny that a Darwinist point of view was a large part of his motivation to attempt to take over the world and eliminate the non-Germanic peoples of the world.

highboy said...

Very well said radar, every word. But you didn't answer scohen's most important question: am I going to Hell?

Anonymous said...

A few things:

1. Mormons. Do they go to heaven or hell? They believe in Jesus.

2. You've mentioned about how our country was formed as a christian nation in past posts and our Constitution is based on christian values/the Bible/the ten commandments. The Constitution also allowed for slavery until the 13th Amendment was passed. Was the slavery part the un-Christian part of the Constitution?

3. People who know God tend to act more like Him, not less. While we don't know who really believes in Jesus or not, some people who professed to weren't such great people. If you want I list, I could provide one but I don't think that would matter.

lava

highboy said...

"1. Mormons. Do they go to heaven or hell? They believe in Jesus."

They profess to.

"The Constitution also allowed for slavery until the 13th Amendment was passed. Was the slavery part the un-Christian part of the Constitution?"

Where does it say slavery is a sin in the Bible? Regardless, it was amended based on the Christian principle of "do unto others" so I fail to see the point.

" While we don't know who really believes in Jesus or not, some people who professed to weren't such great people. If you want I list, I could provide one but I don't think that would matter."

No, it wouldn't, which is why I'm not sure why you keep going on about this. Its been explained as simple as possible: belief in Jesus Christ is salvation. The works or lifestyle that come after are evidence of salvation not requirements for salvation. If you're confused as to all the different types who profess to be Christians, simply read the Bible.

scohen said...

Tim:
"You can try and spin your way out of it all you want, but one biological creature killing another biological creature is natural selection."

No, it is not. Please, before you spout stuff off bother to educate yourself a little. Natural selection has little to do with individuals and more to do with populations. You look foolish when you make these statements.

"And it was Hitler's view that the Jews/black/indians WERE in fact detrimental to the evolution of the human racce. "

Hitler's view was not informed by Darwin (see the above link) and it is utterly irrelevant in this context. Ascribing a darwinian motive to Hitler's actions cheapens the Holocaust. Thanks so much for continuing this highly offensive line of argument.

"Translation: its a valid comparison and Godwin's law is a cheap way to avoid dealing with it."

I'll let your argument with a Jew about what the Torah is speak to the utility of having a productive conversation with you.

"He didn't say you will go to hell for believing in on old earth."
Then why doesn't he believe in an old earth? The evidence is manifest.

"am I going to Hell?"
What I'm confused about is how if you're a real true Christian, and works don't really matter, why does belief in science matter? So belief in Christ + biblical literalism = heaven, while Christ + science = hell? I thought surrender to Christ was all it took.

Personally, Radar's skipping the topic is illustrative --you have a 50% chance of going to hell. If he didn't, he must admit that believing in a young earth is not required for salvation, and there would be no reason for him to do so. The evidence against a young earth/universe is so vast as to make belief in an young earth laughable. There has to be some reason that he believes this way.

Radar:
"Godwin's Law is a joke. There is no validity to it because Hitler could well be a part of a discussion on one matter or another."

Yes, Godwin's law *is* a joke. You guys just don't really get it or see the inherent truth behind it. Comparing the Holocaust to Natural Selection cheapens the horror of the Holocaust and is quite frankly *wrong*. It is a desperate tactic advanced by those who are out of arguments.

"Junk DNA" turns out to have purposes after all"
Junk DNA refers to the fact that it doesn't *code* for anything, not that it's purposeless. Another bunch of bull fed to you by Creationists. An entry level Bio class in college will tell you this.

"Genetics has shown us that organisms vary within kind and do not change into something else"

A gross mischaracterization of evolution. Please, what's the genetic definition of Kind? Where does evolution state that something turns into another thing? Things adapt to niches, and if that requires subtle changes, than that's it.

"Yes, and by the way I would consider us to be on the outside of an arm of the Milky Way galaxy rather than in the arm..."

What you or I "consider" is irrelevant, we're inside the arm. This is not an opinion --it is a scientific fact. Also, are you arguing that being further away from stars lets you observe more? That's baffling.

"Nazism resembles facism which resembles a lot of lefty liberal loons..."

Correction: Communism resembles lefty liberal loons and Nazism represents conservative cro-mangon cretins. One could argue that the end result of either ideology isn't much different. Fascism is an inherently conservative and corporate ideology. Again, we have an example of fact being manipulated in order to comport with your beliefs. All hail conservatism, which never has produced anything horrible ever!

"The answer is Darwinism, not because Darwin was a Nazi but because so many Nazis believed in Darwin"

That argument is wrong on its face. There was long standing hatred of Jews, and a desire for a "master race". These ideals were along well before darwin. Racism isn't Darwinian. The fact is that that the Holocaust doesn't align with natural selection, and it's only the cheapest tactic to compare the two. You're out of argument when you compare them.

"But that is from a God point of view, not a Darwinist point of view. From Darwin we get a Holocaust and we get Eugenics and we get other evils and it is illogical to deny it."

No, the illogic is entirely on your end. Even *if* you murder in the name of natural selection, that doesn't make what you do natural selection. Murder in the name of natural selection is a perversion of natrual selection much like murder in the name of Christianity is a perversion of Christianity. Deny the former and you deny the latter.

"On the other hand, the Holocaust was not an unusual event in the history of Jews"

Back on the meds? The Holocaust was unprecedented in its scale and brutal efficiency. It's interesting to see how Christians did all the oppressing. Is this the race that was chosen by god to spread his message?

"Nope. I disagree. Let's make GOODWINS LAW and end all conversation as soon as math shows up..."

Math is an easy way to show you that you're 100% wrong (or are being fooled). There is no arguing it, even though you try. Here we have a case where Godwin's law applies. You are advancing an argument that in addition to being patently offensive is completely false (as shown above) yet you persist. Deciding to play the role of natural selector isn't natural selection. It is wrong to equate the two. It is *immoral*. You have an organization like the ADL showing you that it is both offensive and wrong, yet you continue... Amazing.

"Hitler was wrong. He was a maniac. But you cannot truthfully deny that a Darwinist point of view was a large part of his motivation to attempt to take over the world and eliminate the non-Germanic peoples of the world."

It's simple to deny it, as the beliefs to which Hitler ascribed had also been carried out by Christians throughout the centuries. Jews were inferior, they must be converted or killed. They don't deserve to live. They killed Christ. How can this be laid at the feet of Darwin? Hitler merely carried these old beliefs to their logical conclusion. Does that make anti-semitism Christian? Of course not, and by the same token the Holocaust is not Darwinian.

By the way, look where discussion of the Holocaust has gotten us: A flurry of text and irritation, yet no progress. Godwin's law writ large.

highboy said...

'I'll let your argument with a Jew about what the Torah is speak to the utility of having a productive conversation with you."

..and I'll let the absurdity of a professed agnostic claiming to be a Torah-adhering Jew speak for itself.

"Hitler's view was not informed by Darwin (see the above link) and it is utterly irrelevant in this context. Ascribing a darwinian motive to Hitler's actions cheapens the Holocaust. Thanks so much for continuing this highly offensive line of argument."

Claiming to be offended is not going to refute the validity in the fact that Darwinism is one of the chief influences of Hitler's logic.

"What I'm confused about is how if you're a real true Christian, and works don't really matter, why does belief in science matter? So belief in Christ + biblical literalism = heaven, while Christ + science = hell? I thought surrender to Christ was all it took."

No one said works don't matter. Its that works aren't the saving act. Works are evidence of salvation, not a requirement. Further, radar never said that belief in a certain science will send someone to Hell. He's simply pointing out that belief in what he calls bad science (old earth) is a deception that can lead to disbelief in God, thus hell.

"Yes, Godwin's law *is* a joke. You guys just don't really get it or see the inherent truth behind it. Comparing the Holocaust to Natural Selection cheapens the horror of the Holocaust and is quite frankly *wrong*. It is a desperate tactic advanced by those who are out of arguments."

You can keep ranting about the Hitler comparison to natural selection "cheapening" the Holocaust but it won't prove your argument. And any educated person whose only retort is to invoke a made up "law" written by a philosopher in an attempt to avoid the discussion has no business referring to the opposing sides desperation.

"The fact is that that the Holocaust doesn't align with natural selection, and it's only the cheapest tactic to compare the two. You're out of argument when you compare them."

I guess "Survival of the Favored Races" was just a typo by Darwin then.

"Murder in the name of natural selection is a perversion of natrual selection much like murder in the name of Christianity is a perversion of Christianity. Deny the former and you deny the latter."

Actually, the perversion of Christianity is verifiable in accordance with the Christian "Thou shalt not kill" commandment. Natural selection by definition is that only organisms best adapted to their environment survive. Thus nature "select" who will/won't survive.

"Back on the meds? The Holocaust was unprecedented in its scale and brutal efficiency. It's interesting to see how Christians did all the oppressing. Is this the race that was chosen by god to spread his message?"

1. The world is still counting the deaths from the Stalin regime, up 18 million.
2. In terms of numbers the Holocaust was staggering, but it wasn't the first time in history that the Jews were nearly exterminated.
3. You'll have to provide some verifiable evidence that Christians did all the oppressing. That's an interesting accusation.

"You are advancing an argument that in addition to being patently offensive is completely false (as shown above) yet you persist"

You haven't shown in any way that its false, you simply keep stating its false. Also constantly harping on the fact that it offends you so once again, will not prove your argument. And please, the ADL is hardly an objective authority as to the comparison of Hitler with natural selection.

"It's simple to deny it, as the beliefs to which Hitler ascribed had also been carried out by Christians throughout the centuries. Jews were inferior, they must be converted or killed. They don't deserve to live. They killed Christ"

Which Christians?

"By the way, look where discussion of the Holocaust has gotten us: A flurry of text and irritation, yet no progress. Godwin's law writ large"

You're the only one being irritated.

Taxandrian said...

My compliments, Radar. You took the whole conversation from mildly entertaining to outright hilarious. Thanks for that.

I consider peer review as practiced these days as farcical. It is a members-only club that excludes ideas not considered sci-politically correct.

So you're saying that your buddies from Answers In Genesis are part of a members-only club? After all, why else did they choose to start their own "peer-reviewed technical journal"?
And considering the exclusion of ideas; we've been there before. I proved that if there's any active censorship and exclusion of ideas, it's done by the creationist "peer-reviewed" journals. I also repeatedly asked you to back up your claim that mainstream scientific journals actively suppress creationist ideas. You were never able to do so.
In short: all your complaints about peer-review are correct, insofar as it refers to creationist peer-review.
Don't you just love it when a creationist gets bitten in the hind quarters by his own argument?

I believe the Bible. It says that there is a Hell. I rarely mention it so therefore I can hardly be accused of "scare tactics" on this blog.

I never said that you have been using scare tactics throughout your blog. I DO say though, that you are using scare tactics in that specific article. Everyone with the least bit of reading comprehension will understand that when talk about your "fear" about people "having to pay the price" for "rejecting God", will understand that you are referring to Hell. I just asked you to specify because I wanted you to say it yourself. Indeed you are referring to Hell, and no matter which way you spin it, that IS using scare tactics: you try to get people to believe you by using emotional arguments instead of rational ones.
Not only does that prove that you yourself know that your rational (scientific) arguments are not good enough, it also displays lack of respect towards your readers. That's what I've been pointing out all the time.

Trying to invent these odd scenarios where the unbeliever is such a great guy and the saved one is a murderer...please!

There isn't much 'inventing' to be done. Take Jeffrey Dahmer for instance; he became a born-again christian in jail, so by your standards he is in heaven now. But there's quite the chance that his victims won't be. Now be really honest, Radar: do you think that's fair? What does your 'god-given morality' have to say about that?

People who know God tend to act more like Him, not less.

Trouble is that no one has a correct definition of what exactly 'knowing god' is. Point in case: Paul Jennings Hill. He certainly thought he was doing god's will, and expected to be rewarded in heaven. How would you go about and prove that he did not know god?

The presence of the Spirit of God in my heart tends to keep me from allowing anger or jealousy to turn into a murderous course of action.

Wow Radar, now this is genuinely scary. If the presence of god's spirit really is the thing that keeps you from going on a killing spree then for the love of Pete, do NEVER, EVER lose your faith!!!

Then again, without God's moral absolutes, who is to say murder is wrong?

There are plenty of reasons one could give to prove that murder is wrong, without invoking any kind of deity.
But if your god-given morality is so absolute, Radar, then your god should be the first one you condemn since according to the bible he is the biggest mass-murderer of all time; killing 99,99% of the Earth's population, children and newly-born included. Yet he gets a free ride time and time again. Just another case of 'might is right'? Nice morality.

Genetics has shown us that organisms vary within kind and do not change into something else. We've been trying to prove otherwise for about 150 years or so and fruit flies are still fruit flies and bacteria are still bacteria.

I see you have still not replied in that other article. Are you conceding?

I agree. I think it is nonsensical/evil/arrogant to believe that a Jew is better or worse than anyone else because of his religion or heritage. But that is from a God point of view, not a Darwinist point of view.

That's interesting, Radar. Earlier you stated that accepting Jesus Christ as messiah is necessary for salvation. Since Jews do not do this, they will not be saved. So it seems that, from God's point of view, Jews are worse than others. Congratulations Radar, you managed to contradict yourself in 30 minutes.

Hitler was wrong. He was a maniac. But you cannot truthfully deny that a Darwinist point of view was a large part of his motivation to attempt to take over the world and eliminate the non-Germanic peoples of the world.

Radar, it really puzzles me as to what you wish to achieve here. You said it yourself already: Hitler was a maniac and he was wrong. Since when does a maniac's point of view on any belief or theory have any merit considering the validity of that belief or theory?
It's just the age-old fallacy of guilt by association. I could do the same just as easily by quoting Hitler from Mein Kampf:

"Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."

and then say: 'you cannot truthfully deny that his belief in God was a large part of his motivation to kill the Jews'.

But what would that prove? Absolutely nothing, because some lunatic's misinterpretation of any theory or belief should not even be taken in consideration when discussing that theory or belief.
Basically it's the same as blaming Atomic Theory for Hiroshima.

And that's what Godwin's Law could have saved you from: wasting a lot of time on something that proves absolutely nothing other than that you appear to be desperate for arguments.

By the way, here's a video about Social Darwinism you might find interesting, although not really confirming your point of view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nWbRz-X_3o

radar said...

Taking a snack break at work. Hurray, I am able to work at closer to fulltime!

Music segue:

There was a time "in through the out door" found my appreciation after years of neglect. At this moment I am in one of my phases where I don't listen to much music. Mostly when I do right now it is Christian rock from the 80's and 90's.

But then I will feel like listening to new stuff again and old weird favorites like Concrete Blonde or Atomic Rooster or Gentle Giant or .38 Special. Or King Crimson. Or the Beatles. Or Genesis.

I am like that with books, too. I will read voraciously for awhile and then take some time off and only read news and online information and then go back to devouring books.

I don't like Mars Volta nearly as well as my daughter, who has a lot of their tunes on her iPod. Sometimes a group really hits you and sometimes not. The Killers hits me. Mars Volta grazed me. Muse gets me right between the eyes.

I just don't get into gangsta rap or poptart music at all. I hate electronically enhanced oversampled stuff that is almost entirely technology and little or no humanity.

I am not saying I hate everything electronica/techno. Royksopp, for instance, is probably classifed that way but it is clever and eccentric enough to be interesting as long as you don't make it a steady diet.

Something like Beyonce or Brittany Spears or Katy Perry (gak!) or pretty much anything hiphop or rap seems drearily stupid, sad or evil to me.

If any of you guys have discovered a new non-poptart/rap artist who you really love, let me know and I will check them out.

For you younger guys, let me suggest some rock groups of note who are/were musically notable to me.

The Who - John Entwhistle was maybe the best bass player ever. Great lead singer, lead guitarist who was sometimes exceedingly good and lyrics that meant something. Early Who had an amazing drummer, Keith Moon, but he was one of those accidental drug/alcohol suicides that plagued the 1960's.

Rush - Three remarkable musicians. All technically proficient and creative. Best drummer ever? Dumb philosophical bent IMO but almost always interesting. Tom Sawyer still kicks my butt!

Early Emerson, Lake and Palmer = Great musicians intent upon making 20th century classical music intermingled with whimsy.

Derek and the Dominoes - Yes, angst and depression and turmoil can sometimes bring out the best melancholy artistic sides of musicians. Dueling guitar work between Allman and Clapton was the keystone of the album. Eric Clapton mourned for dead friend Hendrix, pined after George Harrison's wife Patty and was high, drunk or depressed pretty much 24 x 7...Gordon was a troubled soul who beat his girlfriend Rita Coolidge and killed his mother with a hammer. Duane Allman was killed in a motorcycle accident before the band could tour. Bobby Whitlock was the unsung hero, having written or co-written large parts of the album but not being notorious enough to be remembered.

Led Zep - If for some really strange reason you have only heard their hit songs and never explored their albums, you have missed the boat. Most of their best stuff didn't get much airplay (although the way overplayed Stairway to Heaven does have one of the great guitar solos ever).

Robin Trower - Brilliant blues/rock guitarist who put out a couple of awesome solo albums back in the day.

Jimi Hendrix - I mourn for him. What a talented guy, full of joy and life who tragically died young. He is just the kind of guy who turns to God later in life. Like me. Like Dion DiMucci or Van Morrison or the Kansas guys or Phil Keaggy. But he didn't have a later in life. Brilliant and probably most creative guitarist ever. Band of Gypsies is, I think, up there with Live at Leeds as best live album ever.

Cream. Traffic. Yardbirds. Pink Floyd. Jethro Tull. Chicago before they became elevator music.

In Christian music, what was once rock is basically gone. No more Bloodgood or White Heart or Whitecross or Guardian. A few groups like Skillet are left to carry the flame but it isn't what it once was. Tait hasn't made an album for awhile.

Is it just me, or did music begin to get less interesting somewhere in the 90's? Or did my musical tastes get locked into some kind of generational prison that cannot grok new stuff?

Okay, segue over.

highboy said...

"There isn't much 'inventing' to be done. Take Jeffrey Dahmer for instance; he became a born-again christian in jail, so by your standards he is in heaven now. But there's quite the chance that his victims won't be. Now be really honest, Radar: do you think that's fair? What does your 'god-given morality' have to say about that?"

Why isn't it fair? Are the victims of JD less guilty of sin than he? No. Who would love God more, the mass murderer who is forgiven or the average Joe Schmo who accepts God while living a "good" life?

"But if your god-given morality is so absolute, Radar, then your god should be the first one you condemn since according to the bible he is the biggest mass-murderer of all time; killing 99,99% of the Earth's population, children and newly-born included. Yet he gets a free ride time and time again. Just another case of 'might is right'? Nice morality."

Murder is the act of a human wrongfully killing another human.

"That's interesting, Radar. Earlier you stated that accepting Jesus Christ as messiah is necessary for salvation. Since Jews do not do this, they will not be saved. So it seems that, from God's point of view, Jews are worse than others. Congratulations Radar, you managed to contradict yourself in 30 minutes."

There are Christian Jews genius. Try again.

radar said...

As to Jews...Jesus was a Jew, as was every one of his Apostles without exception. The vast majority of the early Christians were all Jews. Christianity is Judaism with The Messiah having come. Pretty much the entire New Testament (like the Old Testament) was written by Jewish men.

Judaism split in two. Jews who accepted that Jesus was the Messiah became known as Christians. That half of the equation allowed for the free inclusion of Gentile believers, no longer excluding those not descended from Abraham. (Yes, I know that there was a way that a Gentile could be "grafted in" to the Jewish line, such as Rechab). Christianity is Judaism with a Messiah and membership is by faith rather than by heritage.

Saul of Tarsus was a disciple of probably the most famous and respected Jewish Rabbi ever, Gamaliel. He was charged with finding and killing Christians wherever he could locate them shortly after the events recorded in the Gospels. He later came to know and trust in Christ and became known as Paul, author of several New Testament books. He wrote these words in Romans chapter two: "A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God."


Jews that denied Jesus as Christ kept calling themselves Jews. But the curtain of the Temple had been split, the Presence of God had departed, the Temple was destroyed and the Ark of the Covenant lost. No more sacrifices, no more Holy of Holies, no more Judaism as practiced before Christ. Not even the Orthodox Jews keep the Law as required by Moses.

According to scripture, I am a Jew, for I have become a child of God by faith. My heart has been circumcised according to the scripture and the words of Paul as inspired by God. I don't know if genetically I am in any way descended from Abraham, but I am certainly descended from Noah as are we all. I am proud to be a Christian and, as such, a Jew by faith if not by birth.

Taxandrian said...

As expected, Radar responds by taking evasive action.
No biggie though since at the moment some other things are higher on my priority list; like checking out Taake's new album, for instance.

Get back to ya later!

radar said...

Evading what? There was a lot you threw out there, what did I miss?