tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post9223249713352361218..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: "Evangelicals" and Atheists TogetherPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger193125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-33640074057333170752010-08-26T13:19:21.539-07:002010-08-26T13:19:21.539-07:00Pinch me. This is the year 2010, isn't it? An...Pinch me. This is the year 2010, isn't it? And we know the impact Darwin has had. <br /><br />When one approaches (such as Giberson) the Word of God with the bias of reconciling Christianity and evolution - should we be surprised by the outcome? It reveals how one views God and His Word.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-51062587679166615812010-08-26T11:28:41.027-07:002010-08-26T11:28:41.027-07:00"It is totally inconceivable to him that Darw..."It is totally inconceivable to him that Darwin could have had any leanings towards evolution before his voyage." <br /><br />Did I say this? Anywhere?Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-31561504143538100042010-08-26T09:29:46.849-07:002010-08-26T09:29:46.849-07:00"It is totally inconceivable to him that Darw..."It is totally inconceivable to him that Darwin could have had any leanings towards evolution before his voyage. Darwin is the hill he is choosing to die on."<br /><br />Oh, for crying out loud. <br /><br />Can you not see the difference between (1) having some knowledge of this idea called evolution, an idea that very few accepted in 1831 and (2) deliberately setting out with the specific goal of proving evolution and overthrowing Christianity in some satanic plot? <br /><br />Is this really so impossibly hard to understand? I'm not trying to die on any hill, I'm just trying to set the record straight. What do you want me to do? Accept the validity of an argument when there's no evidence for the argument?Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-314670214839648132010-08-26T09:19:02.783-07:002010-08-26T09:19:02.783-07:00ST,
Save yourself much frustration...don't fe...ST,<br /><br />Save yourself much frustration...don't feed the troll. He won't listen and won't acknowldge the validity of any arument you put forth against what he believes. It is totally inconceivable to him that Darwin could have had any leanings towards evolution before his voyage. Darwin is the hill he is choosing to die on...and that is his choice.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13987985549747283669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-64415882091483846052010-08-26T09:11:45.563-07:002010-08-26T09:11:45.563-07:00ST,
"Upon further reflection, I would accep...ST, <br /><br />"Upon further reflection, I would accept that this statement appears to misrepresent to some degree Darwin’s intellectual shifts before and during his experience on the Beagle."<br /><br />Ok, so what you are saying is that this sentence doesn't mean what it appears to mean. Mohler isn't acknowledging that his statement misrepresents Darwin's intellectual shifts? Mohler stands by his statement that Darwin boarded the Beagle to prove evolution? And I'm the one who gets accused of weaseling? You know, reading comprehensive depend on the clarity of the writer as well as the ability of the reader. <br /><br />So, we're back to Mohler claiming that Darwin went on board the Beagle in 1831 with the express goal of proving evolution. We're talking about 1831 here. 1831. <br /><br />Thought this was settled, thought that others had agreed the Mohler had backed off his claims about Darwin and the Beagle, but ok, here we go again. <br /><br />So, your evidence that Mohler was right would be...? And let's avoid the your link, my link thing. Just tell me in your own words what the evidence is.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-21276880436315843242010-08-26T08:05:30.902-07:002010-08-26T08:05:30.902-07:00"Upon further reflection, I would accept that..."Upon further reflection, I would accept that this statement <b><i>appears to misrepresent</i></b> to some degree Darwin’s intellectual shifts before and during his experience on the Beagle."<br /><br />You didn't read this David. Mohler makes no concession in the substance of his presentation. He checked the instant replay and stands by his call.<br /><br />In any case, his presentation was not an excursus on the life of Darwin, rather, it is part of an ongoing examination of the impact of the entire genre of pseudo-scientific philosophical attacks upon the inerrancy of Scripture and its power to destroy the otherwise clear thinking of even the most orthodox theologians. Darwin was just one bit player who has been enshrined despite his being rejected by his peers of the time and the bulk of modern evolutionists. The impact, though, has had deeply destructive effect in evangelicalism, intended, or not. The conference addresses the new media and acknowledges the fact that if without it the attacks have been devastating, then Christians need to be armed to use it in defense of Scripture. <br /><br />Nor did you read the Standford piece where their hostile witness is that Darwin did indeed set out to prove evolution and establish that no miraculous creation ever occurred. Whatever is said about that it cannot be that he was seeking to defend the inerrancy of Scripture. By attacking miraculous creation, he was by defintion, out to destroy the basis of the Christian faith. Whether he intended evil is not the question, the fact is that what he did was evil. Regardless of your impassioned defense of your hero, it is his name, not any achievement of his that is exploited for profit by secularists. As the Standford piece clearly states, Darwin did indeed set out to prove evolution. You're wrong, and their right, their right and so is Dr. Mohler.<br /><br />What you need to do David is really read what is written. You have, thoughout this thread, refused to do so, or so it appears. Now if you cannot see that, it may not be that you are not able to be taught, it may just be that you are unable to learn. You absolutely didn't understand Mohler's statement, so the possibility is definitely out there that you have comprehension problems. You cherry-picked one statement from Mohler and didn't understand it and made it to mean what it did not. In any assessment, you make yourself as much an obscurantist as Giberson when you didn't go on to quote: "I stand by my address in full, and only wish I had been able to address these issues at even greater length in that context." Either that, or you are so ego evolved that those words didn't even register in your mind.<br /><br />In short, Mohler didn't apologize, he didn't back off. He slapped Giberson up side the head and refused to back down. If anything he graded Giberson's paper and gave it an F.<br /><br />So follow the link again, and read. It will do you some good if you take off your filtered glasses first.Strong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-16954842140950692552010-08-26T07:32:07.769-07:002010-08-26T07:32:07.769-07:00“So I take it you won't be visiting any other ...“So I take it you won't be visiting any other blogs to address the accuracy and honesty of the statement, [Darwin] “boarded the Beagle with his childhood Christian faith intact,” . Kudos on that adept weasel though.”<br /><br />Ah, so now we add weasel to infantile and dishonest. Gimme, gimme some lovin’. Well, again, I would ask why I’m being held to a standard that you are unwilling to meet yourself. While holding the position that Giberson was in error, did you also make an effort to correct Mohler? If my failure to meet your standard means that I’m infantile and dishonest, what can we conclude when you fail to meet the standard, too? <br /><br />But as my special gift to you, I’ll consider the statement “[Darwin] boarded the Beagle with his childhood Christian faith intact”. All I ask is that you tell me what you think is inaccurate about this statement and why you think it’s inaccurate. <br /><br />“And to rephrase DJP's question. Please explain what honesty and accuracy even mean from within your worldview? If you have no absolutes why are you even here raising the point?”<br /><br />What do these words mean to me? Well, I guess they mean pretty much what most dictionaries say the mean. Honesty and accuracy are useful things. What does this have to do with absolutes? <br /><br />"And I am really interested, what does "Let the poor man rest in peace." even mean? Seeing as though that is your motivation."<br /><br />Seriously, you want to focus on a figure of speech? If you were fond of some dead guy, and others were blaming him for everything except halitosis, this wouldn’t bother you? I don’t like it when people I like are unfairly and inaccurately maligned. Is this really all that hard to understand?Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-29045565924869010772010-08-26T07:31:24.279-07:002010-08-26T07:31:24.279-07:00WL,
“Did you even notice the sentence that follow...WL,<br /><br />“Did you even notice the sentence that followed the one about the locust swarm. (Never mentioned a storm.)”<br /><br />So, now you’re focusing on my typos? And complaining that I’M knippy?<br /><br />“Gravel pit full of 20 lb rocks = Mohler's overall argument. Little red M&M lying in the middle of gravel pit = the one inaccuracy you are having a knippy over.”<br /><br />M&M in a gravel pit? Slight distortion of the actual importance of Mohler’s error, but ok, I understand your analogy. <br /><br />I think you need to re-read all of my comments from the beginning. The Pyro post was about the Huffpo post. The Huffpo post focused on the M&M. So, in the context of this post, the M&M wasn’t an M&M. Given the focus of the dispute between Giberson and Mohler, I thought it might be useful to determine the accuracy of the questionable Mohler statement. And I like Chuck. So, sue me. <br /><br />However, if you want to talk about the gravel pit, that’s ok with me. All I ask is that you pick a particular 20lbs rock from the pit that you’d like to discuss, just to narrow things down a bit. <br /><br />“Which really has been the just of everyone's response to you.”<br /><br />Well, the “just” of most of the responses was that I was wrong about Mohler being wrong. Not all, but most. Except that Mohler turned out to be wrong after all.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-27519151106587152332010-08-25T21:22:37.316-07:002010-08-25T21:22:37.316-07:00David, I see why you are confused and don't un...David, I see why you are confused and don't understand what I am saying. Because you are responding to your own weird imaginary version of what I actually said. Read my comments again, slowly. <br /><br />Did you even notice the sentence that followed the one about the locust <b>swarm</b>. (Never mentioned a storm.) Here it is verbatim:<br /><br /><i> Subsequently that particular 'gnat' in no way derails Mohler's earlier contention and subsequent response. </i> <br /><br />If you're still confused with my analogy I'll try another one.<br /><br />Gravel pit full of 20 lb rocks = Mohler's overall argument. Little red M&M lying in the middle of gravel pit = the one inaccuracy you are having a knippy over. <br /><br />Which really has been the just of everyone's response to you.<br /><br />So I take it you won't be visiting any other blogs to address the accuracy and honesty of the statement, <i> [Darwin] “boarded the Beagle with his childhood Christian faith intact,” </i>. Kudos on that adept weasel though.<br /><br />And to rephrase DJP's question. Please explain what honesty and accuracy even mean from within your worldview? If you have no absolutes why are you even here raising the point? <br /><br />And I am really interested, what does "Let the poor man rest in peace." even mean? Seeing as though that is your motivation.Wamalohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00429423371551631602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-10801045695492936932010-08-25T20:34:49.942-07:002010-08-25T20:34:49.942-07:00David,
As incomprehensible as it may seem to you,...David,<br /><br />As incomprehensible as it may seem to you, some of us are more concerned about the trajectory of your eternal soul than we are about a misstatement about Darwin.<br /><br />Apparently you aren't.<br /><br /><i>"Oh well"</i>, indeed.<br /><br />In Him,<br />CDCoram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-20444860750016401312010-08-25T20:14:40.746-07:002010-08-25T20:14:40.746-07:00You know, I really just wanted to correct a mistak...You know, I really just wanted to correct a mistake about Darwin. But inevitably, we've move on to the "your going to burn in Hell" part of the program. Oh, well.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-35626858415636602452010-08-25T20:08:35.818-07:002010-08-25T20:08:35.818-07:00Cont.
Many, if not most of us remember what it wa...Cont.<br /><br />Many, if not most of us remember what it was like to walk in the futility of our minds, thinking ourselves wise as we smiled patiently at the poor, misguided (and in all probability mentally imbalanced) "religious" Christian folks around us and tried to help them see the obvious truth that there's no <i>"magic man in the sky who really, really loves you, but who will angrily burn you forever if you don't worship him"</i>.<br /><br />We also remember that even as we labored to enlighten our misguided "religious" Christian friends, we nevertheless carried around a gnawing conscience within ourselves that constantly waved its accusing finger in our face crying out <b>"guilty, Guilty, GUILTY!!!</b><br /><br />And try as desperately as we might to mute that conscience, or deny it, or suppress it; we never really could. And even when we thought we had in our quiet moments alone with only our thoughts we knew, down deep in our heart of hearts, that there was an angry, wrathful God above us, an accusing conscience within us, and a yawning hell beneath us.<br /><br />Christians realize the reason that we could never escape these realities is because they are written on every man's heart by his Maker. The guilty, accusing conscience is the soul's cry for justice against our sin against God, and the Gospel is Christ's cry for reconciliation to God through His grace, mercy, and love - a love demonstrated by His substitutionary death for all those believing.<br /><br /><b>For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.</b> - <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205:21&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">2 Cor. 5:21</a><br /><br />You must be born again, David.<br /><br /><b>Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.</b> - <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">John 3:3-5</a><br /><br />Christ is the only way.<br /><br /><b>This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”</b> - Acts 4:11-12<br /><br /><b>Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.</b> - John 14:6<br /><br /><b>Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.</b> - John 15:13<br /><br />In Christ,<br />CDCoram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-61871114209000419842010-08-25T20:07:56.293-07:002010-08-25T20:07:56.293-07:00As to my motivation...I like history, I like poor ...<i>As to my motivation...I like history, I like poor old abused Darwin, and when people start picking on my good friend Chuck, I feel some need to point out the mistakes. Seriously, the man's been blamed for or accused of everything except kidnapping the Lindburg baby. Let the poor man rest in peace.</i><br /><br />Sadly by all measures your <i>"good friend"</i> is roasting in hell right now in conscious, exquisite, eternal agony cursing the One true and living God in a cacophony of rage and hatred.<br /><br />Although you obviously don't realize it, you're certain to join your "good friend" in his infernal estate as soon as you breathe your last, lest you repent and place your trust in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.<br /><br />What you think is foolish is actually the wisdom of God, and what you think is wise is actually utter foolishness.<br /><br />You've believed the lie, and thinking yourself wise you've become a fool.<br /><br /><b>For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools</b> - <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:20-32&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Romans 1:20-22</a><br /><br /><b>For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,</b><br /><br /><b>"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."</b><br /><br /><b>Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.</b><br /><br /><b>For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."</b> - <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%201&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">1 Cor. 1:18-31</a><br /><br />See, nobody else cares enough about you to tell you these things except for Christians. Why? Because we've all been exactly where you are right now.<br /><br /><b>And you were dead in the trespasses and sinsin which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience — among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.</b> - <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Eph. 2:1-3</a><br /><br />Cont.Coram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-12702763551601990962010-08-25T18:44:20.288-07:002010-08-25T18:44:20.288-07:00"But do we have to call it love?" -David..."But do we have to call it love?" -David<br /><br />Yes, it is love. The three men here love Christ, and love His Word, and so love their neighbor, who you are David.<br /><br />It's not perfect love. We sting each other.<br /><br />I love my wife to death, but sometimes she will say to me, "Do you love me?"<br />It's because of our flesh, we sometimes say things that hurt, and so on.<br /><br />But, don't ever forget Christ, our perfect Lord and Savior,who loved others perfectly, and was hated.<br /><br />Sometimes when we love, we will be misunderstood, and our own flesh will think we are not being loved, when we truly are.<br /><br />Lot there to consider David.<br /><br />We all are sinners. We all are in the same train wreck. But Jesus is the Healer, and Redeemer of this stinking mess.<br />He didn't need to come and have mercy on us, but He did. And the Cross is there for all to come to and see. And His voice, "Come unto Me, all who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest, rest for your souls", still cries out.<br /><br />Have a nice evening.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-55808945323913401262010-08-25T18:40:40.747-07:002010-08-25T18:40:40.747-07:00So, in the case of Giberson/BioLogos and Mohler, e...So, in the case of Giberson/BioLogos and Mohler, et al., this is hardly the first round. The attacks have gone back and forth for some time now. Who knows where it started or where it will end? The key to understanding all of this is understanding that each side is looking for the worst in the other and is looking for any slip, any mistake, any error. Just like in a failing marriage. In the current butter battle, Giberson gets to say that Mohler was wrong about Darwin, and until Mohler finally replied (just today), Giberson gets to say that Mohler doesn’t care about correcting the record , i.e., doesn’t care about the truth (and yes, here’s my bias – I like old Chuck, so I care about correcting the record , too). Since Giberson has gotten himself worked up over the constant attacks by Mohler, Giberson probably goes too far with the whole “doesn’t care about the truth thing, and so now Mohler gets to say that Giberson called him a liar and that’s slanderous because he’s not a liar, and so look at how bad Giberson is. Now, everyone stick out your tongues and waggle your fingers. <br /> <br />Of course, it's true that no one has gotten killed in the current dust-up, but that's largely because religious groups lack the political power that they once had. Obviously, you don't have to go too far back in time (or maybe just to Northern Ireland) to find examples in which these sorts of "debates" proved fatal. As I said way back up the comment thread, we can all be grateful that we do these fights with mashed potatoes and no one gets burned at the stake anymore.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-80339880750071906382010-08-25T18:40:03.909-07:002010-08-25T18:40:03.909-07:00JD,
"We've gone from Giberson's si...JD, <br /> <br />"We've gone from Giberson's sin against a mistaken Mohler, to equating this with Northern Ireland, and Israelis / Palestinians?"<br /> <br />My apologies for failing to communicate my point clearly. This is genuinely my error. If you'll pardon the expression, this wasn't meant to be taken so literally. It was more of, ahem, a metaphor. I was not trying to say that Mohler exactly equals Hamas. Maybe I should have stuck with the failing marriage metaphor. This was my “oops”. <br /> <br />What I'm trying to say is that both sides in this tussle have gone back and forth so many times with charges and accusations and insults that it's hard to know where it started or who started it or who is most at fault. You know, like in Northern Ireland where the Catholics justify some attack on the Protestants on the grounds of something that the Protestants did who knows how long again, and the Protestants do the same. In this case, as I've tried to point out, everyone is mad at everyone, everyone is looking for an opportunity to take a shot at everyone, and everyone can justify their behavior in the grounds that "they did it first" or "they're worse than we are". Each attack is justified on the grounds of a previous attack made upon the current attackers. Each side gets to have its share of righteous indignation. And around and around it goes.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-79500096035990414412010-08-25T18:19:44.962-07:002010-08-25T18:19:44.962-07:00Joel and Donsands,
You know, I can understand be...Joel and Donsands, <br /><br />You know, I can understand being insulted, one has to expect these things in these sorts of "debates", but do we have to try to pretend that it's something other than what it is?<br /><br />Infantile<br />Dishonest<br />Unteachable troll (repeated endlessly)<br /><br />And that's the short list. <br /><br />C'mon. Look at how many have addressed me, look at the tone of the responses. Again, I understand why I might prompt such responses, and I can be just as rude, so I'm not claiming any superiority in this realm. <br /><br />But do we have to call it love? Do we have to abuse the "L" word?Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-39393211005718376932010-08-25T17:50:02.466-07:002010-08-25T17:50:02.466-07:00WL,
"David, no I believe that 'infantil...WL, <br /><br />"David, no I believe that 'infantile' is correct. Or if you'd prefer, dishonest."<br /><br />Wheeee! More of that Christian love! So, it’s only infantile when I’m biased. Got it. <br /><br />“But they do not mask their intentions with, "hey I really all about honesty and accuracy".<br /><br />I don’t understand. We agree that “they” are biased, and they’re not masking their intentions with "hey, I'm really all about honesty and accuracy", so they are not claiming to be honest and accurate, … soooo, they are openly not honest and accurate? <br /><br />"But that leaves the question which Dan consistently poses to you."<br /><br />I've lost track. What was the question again? Honestly, I've lost track. <br /><br /><br />"But at least you've come clean about your object of worship and your real motivation."<br /><br />I didn't know that I was hiding anything. Hey, I saw an error, and I pointed it out. I was right about the error. Is there some requirement that I must meet before I can ask do this? I don’t get it. <br /><br /><br />"In my view talk about trying to swat a gnat in the midst of a locust swarm."<br /><br />Well, given what the "gnat" led to, I'm not so sure I'd call it a gnat. Maybe more of a biting horse fly. Seems like that "gnat" set off quite a ruckus, so maybe it was worth paying it some attention. Now, what exactly is the locust storm? I’ve become confused.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-43481161750917647542010-08-25T17:39:00.388-07:002010-08-25T17:39:00.388-07:00"Donsands,
"They speak the truth in lov..."Donsands,<br /><br />"They speak the truth in love."<br /><br />Yeah, that's what I feel here from those who disagree with me. Love." -David<br /><br />Depends on your definition of love, doesn't it.<br /><br />Here's one portion of what genuine love is, from 1st Corinthians 13:<br /><br />"Love....does not rejoice in iniquity [wrongdoing], but rejoices in the truth".<br /><br />I'd encourage you to read the whole chapter, for it is a very powerful way to understand what love is.<br /><br />You know, I can love my enemies by the grace of God. And yet, my love for them, is different than my love for Jesus, and my family, and the church.<br /><br />The way I love Osama Bin Laden is mainly, for me, to pray that God would have mercy on him, as God had mercy on me. <br />At the same time, I want this man caught and brought to justice. And justice would be execution for sure,after what this wicked man has done.<br /><br />Love is something to ponder my friend. I pray to the Lord for you to consider Christ.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-44193724595806947202010-08-25T17:17:13.496-07:002010-08-25T17:17:13.496-07:00David, as for not feeling love. You have probably ...David, as for not feeling love. You have probably been shown more genuine love in the last several comment threads than you have in your entire life. Contrary to the drivel you have been fed about Love and feelings, true love goes a lot deeper than that warm tingly feeling you get when you snuggle up to your honey. True love speaks about selflessness, dedication and truth. <br /><br />As Christians we are not allowed to deliberately offend you in order to cause you hurt, but if you are offended by the truth, that is your problem. Contrary to what you have been thought your entire young adult life, the truth is supposed to hurt; that is how it lets you know you don't have it.joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05811833690725966814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-16315316623720842472010-08-25T16:49:06.592-07:002010-08-25T16:49:06.592-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05811833690725966814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-75991972890680240782010-08-25T16:48:23.584-07:002010-08-25T16:48:23.584-07:00Now that David has succeed, as he sees it, in remo...Now that David has succeed, as he sees it, in removing the speck from Dr. Mohler's eye we can hold David to the same standard of honesty and demand that he repent of his repeated erroneous comments equating evolutionary biology, geology, etc. in any way shape or form with accurate reproducible science. <br /><br />David, before you make another single attempt at correcting someone else's error you could remove this massive, hallway blocking, log from your own eye before you accidentally take someone's head of with it.joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05811833690725966814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-39490374344839216142010-08-25T15:54:03.671-07:002010-08-25T15:54:03.671-07:00If today, the party of the first part has committe...<i>If today, the party of the first part has committed the more egregious act, we can be sure that the party of the second part will catch up tomorrow. (See theological food fight above, Northern Ireland, Israelis and Palestinians.)</i><br /><br />Whuuu? Talk about proof against evolution! These comments have devolved into chaotic nonsense. The Second Law of Thermodynamics lives!<br /><br />We've gone from Giberson's sin against a mistaken Mohler, to equating this with Northern Ireland, and Israelis / Palestinians?<br /><br />Good grief. It's a simple issue. In a public debate, one side went over the line and should apologize. The other side, who made a mistake, has owned it and responded respectfully, though firmly, and is now being tossed into a salad with Hamas! As if there is anything in Mohler's past or character to give any shred of evidence for such blather. <br /><br />You seem like a smart young pup, but without wisdom or discernment. And it's total Christian love to help you get out of yourself and into some clear thinking. Also, to grow a little thicker skin and keep the victim card in your deck. <br /><br />Word Verification: pitifix!James Scott Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641370124346172648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-89804862228919926992010-08-25T15:19:50.055-07:002010-08-25T15:19:50.055-07:00David, no I believe that 'infantile' is co...David, no I believe that 'infantile' is correct. Or if you'd prefer, dishonest.<br /><br />I'm hardly making the claim that contributors and commenters here are NOT biased but they do not mask their intentions with, "hey I really all about honesty and accuracy". But that leaves the question which Dan consistently poses to you.<br /><br />But at least you've come clean about your object of worship and your real motivation. <br /><br />In my view talk about trying to swat a gnat in the midst of a locust swarm. Subsequently that particular 'gnat' in no way derails Mohler's earlier contention and subsequent response. But hey if it provides you comfort, have at it.<br /><br />And what an odd statement, "Let the poor man rest in peace." From your point of view what does that even mean?Wamalohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00429423371551631602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-89508983847509573572010-08-25T14:14:18.365-07:002010-08-25T14:14:18.365-07:00Donsands,
"They speak the truth in love.&qu...Donsands, <br /><br />"They speak the truth in love."<br /><br />Yeah, that's what I feel here from those who disagree with me. Love. I've practically been buried in Christian love. Hey, I can understand why folks would not respond to me with love, and that's fine. I can get all worked up and agitated in internet exchanges, too, and I can be as rude as anyone. But let's not pretend that there's a whole lotta lovin' going on here. <br /><br /><br />WL,<br /><br />"I see your demand for honesty and accuracy only cuts one way - biased towards your home team."<br /><br />Well, now, I can't see everything from my PC terminal, but I don't recall seeing a long line of Pyro people heading down Mohler's way or to Mohler's blog to demand accuracy from Mohler. Instead, most seemed ready to go to the mattresses to defend what was a clear error. Not everyone, but most. So, maybe we should be a little more careful about the using the word "infantile", eh? Everyone is "biased towards their home team", and as far as I know, the Pyro people weren't making any demands of Mohler, but I'm not calling anyone infantile. <br /><br />As to my motivation...I like history, I like poor old abused Darwin, and when people start picking on my good friend Chuck, I feel some need to point out the mistakes. Seriously, the man's been blamed for or accused of everything except kidnapping the Lindburg baby. Let the poor man rest in peace.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.com