Hang on Stefan - Dr Behe has already conceded the possibilty that God is non-interventionist, when he says that the deity's design may have been built into the universe prior to Big Bang 13.6 billion years ago. (Or am I missing your definition of "interventionist"?-I assumed you meant: an interventionist God is one who watches over the world and occasionally intervenes directly, and a non-interventionist God is one who set the whole thing in motion 13 billion years ago but is leaving the rest to evolution, free will and all the rest of it.)

Another thing makes me think Dr Behe may not be in possession of the full working genome - he says if a bacteria achieves a new function in the lab he might concede that evolution and not God is at work. But what is to stop the Supreme Being from intervening in a lab? Is God afraid of scientists or something? I mean, if you were God, wouldn't you be tempted to intervene in the experiment, just to keep things interesting?

My other hypothesis on this one is that whilst belief in a God may be unscientific, or even false, the evolutionary path of humans has made it essential to their continued success as a species. When the human race abandons its false Gods, in other words, they will be ripe for their own demise. That would be a fine universal irony, and one only a Creator could possibly have come up with (arguably).

Stefan - you seem to know a thing or two about this - can you direct me somewhere where there's a good discussion or explanation of the question regarding at what "level" (or more likely, levels) of an organism the evolutionary process is thought to function - eg. at the level of the bacterium)of the individual gene? of the genome? of the individual organism? the species? etc etc and how this is thought to work over time and dimensions,- as this is one which I cannot begin to resolve.

As I said in http://donsingleton.blogspot.com/2005/08/darwinists-and-doubters-clash.html, "What new ability? Did it turn into a plant, or an animal, or what?"

Stefan, Don: Living with blinders on.

Don, thanks. It is a good statement. But Stefan will probably not go read your site as I just did. I have been trying to get him to look at the following two sites:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2094
http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=5&itemid=2093
But I think he has not even given them a glance. At the very least he has made no comments about them, let alone ask intelligent questions about what is there.

In Kenneth Chang's NYT article on evolution: ìIt is unreasonable, they say, for design advocates to demand that every detail of evolution be filled in.î

It is not every detail that is required! What is required is the demonstration of at least one highly probable thread of events that could lead from non-life to life. That has to be, since the probability of the spontaneous generation of life from non-life currently indicates impossibility.

The real passion for evolution, scientist or not, is the emotional rejection of a higher power to which we are all accountable. I can say that because in no other branch of science would so much presumption be tolerated. Instead real science says it does not know and wants to find out, no matter what might be discoverd. When ìscientistsî rule out an intelligent designer a-priori, they are being very unscientific. In what other branch of science do they exclude in advance any set of possible outcomes of scientific investigation? Evolutionists betray science in the name of science.

Ah but sage (welcome back by the way), isn't the concept of a designer, in the context of creation and evolution, if you will excuse the expression, almost like an optional extra?

What I mean is - I happily combine belief in evolution with belief in a creator. Some people don't, but there is nothing in either evolution or (my version of) religion to say "To believe in one thou shalt disbelieve the other."

Moreover, the concept of a designer/creator doesn't, in itself, solve the problem of "where how and when did non-life turn into life?", does it? It just places the requirement for an explanation at one further remove.

I lit candles for you and the rest of the memefirst gang in St Maurice. If Stefan had known I was planning that, I feel sure he would have proposed a "scientific" test of some sort to evaluate the effects - I don't think he has an especially scientific cast of mind, certainly not to the extent of reading the articles you linked.

doesnt the bible say the earth was created about six thousand years ago in six days? so even if you believed that god was responsible for the creation of life from non living matter 3 billion years ago or something, doesnt that mean that you have to willfully ignore basically all of genesis? how do you reconcile a) scientific evidence with b) anecdotal biblical revelation? personally, i think there is nothing wong with beliving god created the big bang and everything after that happened within the set of rules he created at the outset, but i also believe the bible is just a book written by a bunch of inbred old men. while it has some good guidelines for spiritual and ethical life in human society, it is by no means an accurate record of the universe's origins.

Huh - you may have a point. I would chuck Genesis as far as scientific evidence is concerned, and a lot of the morals on display would not encourage me to invite the characters over for a weekend either. The OT as a whole is desperately problematic, in fact. See it as a work of metaphors, myths, and, in all fairness, a source of ancient history. You say the biblewriters were old and inbred. What is your evidence for that? Is it the lengthy family trees which litter the OT? Many people find them boring - not to say unscientific - but Sterling and I have spent many a happy hour poring over them, cooing with delight as we uncover generations upon generations of our mutual ancestors.

they were inbred because people back then were inbred. its just how things were done back then. the bible itself in its firm instruction AGAINST inbreeding is evidence that such behavior was rampant at the time.

I see. I hadn't spotted that.

"Instead real science says it does not know and wants to find out, no matter what might be discoverd. When ìscientistsî rule out an intelligent designer a-priori, they are being very unscientific."

Was God discovered, Sage? I hadn't heard. Seriously though, I don't think it's a passion for atheism that prevents scientists from considering an intelligent designer, just the impossibility of ever scientifically proving one exists. I don't rule out the POSSIBILITY of an intelligent designer, as others have metioned, evolution and God can co-exist nicely. As a belief system.

Huh - you have profoundly disturbed my equanimity. Does this interbreeding thing mean that Sterling and I are, in fact, unhealthily and overclosely related - ruling out any possibility of an incestuous same-sex union, for example?

"Sterling and I are, in fact, unhealthily and overclosely related"

LOL

you make that sound like a bad thing. and I dont blame you!

Sage, I have looked at The Apologetics Press response to the SciAm article, but several paragraphs into Bert Thompson's "Answers" I gave up, because he starts by arguing about the definition of "theory" in a manner that is either intentionally misleading or betrays such a complete lack of the most basic understanding of fundamental scientific concepts that I'd probably gnaw off my thumbs if I had to read the entire 42,000 word refutation. I'm sorry, but I don't pity the children that much.

But I'll give you an example, just this once:

Stedmanís Medical Dictionary defines a theory as: ìa reasoned explanation of the manner in which something occurs, lacking absolute proofî (McDonough, 1994, p. 1023, emp. added). This definition is only slightly better than the one found in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, which says that a theory is an ìabstract thoughtî (p. 749), and uses words like ìhypothesisî and ìconjectureî as synonyms.

It is these kinds of definitions of a ìlack of proof î that has brought about the need for a radically different definition of the word ìtheoryî in the evolutionistsí camp.

Thompson must know that the definition of theory by the National Academy of Sciences does not in any way conflict with the idea of lacking absolute proof, no matter how much emphasis is added. An he must also know that Merriam Webster is not a reference by scientists for scientists, as he promises to exclusively quote but two sentences earlier, but that it lists precisely the layman's definition that the SciAm article accuses creationists of muddling. He's doing it again right in front of your eyes, and you don't even notice!

Which leads me to suspect that the entire article is just one big attempt at boring the opposition into submission while offering their co-travelers something to link to, which you do, obviating the need for you to think for yourself and allowing you to put your trust in his higher authority. Which you're trained to do without question.

And of course, this trust is entirely unfounded. After 26 years as its director, Bert Thompson was fired 3 months ago from the Apologist Press after confessing to "sexual misconduct", which turns out to be a bit of a euphemism, and which makes him a complete hypocrite for having penned articles condemning homosexuality on biblical grounds.

Clearly, the most generous explanation is that the man suffers from a finely honed ability to delude himself, deceive others, mislead a great many and justify anything that his human, all-too human instincts drag him towards. I suspect he took that aptitude with him to his work.

But at least the news article above is good for some quotes so tragicomic that not even the Onion could have made it up.

Ouch.

Sage7, Charles Darwin believed in God.

SAC:

ìI don't think it's a passion for atheism that prevents scientists from considering an intelligent designer, just the impossibility of ever scientifically proving one exists.î

Certainly they deny that they are improperly motivated. Many of them do not even see it themselves. But when they use different standards for science in evolution than any other branch of science, it reveals where they are really coming from.

Scientists are in a delimma that I understand. If science acknowledged that some phenomenon under study might be the product of ID, and it isnít, they are likely miss an important scientific discovery. But if they do not acknowledge that possibility, they are likely to miss evidence of creative intelligence when it really is there.

Most scientists are reluctant to even struggle with this issue. They resolve the conflict with an a-prori rule: ID cannot exist; no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest it, ID is an impermissable conclusion from the facts. So, by definition, ID will never be discovered under this paradigm.

Although the dilemma is symmetrical, it was not likely that the opposite rule would have been adopted because of its emotional implications. If you talk about ID, you are messing up their paradigm. That is a real emotional no no.

That is why Beheís minimal complexity principle has been so upsetting to the evolutionary community. It basically says random processes cannot construct minimal complexity. That is why I stress is that IDís useful function is to pose problems for the theory of evolution that evolutionists must answer to achieve their credibility. I suspect they will answer some of those, but not all of them.

ìI don't rule out the POSSIBILITY of an intelligent designer, as others have metioned, evolution and God can co-exist nicely. As a belief system.î

I agree. No one is saying evolution does not exist. But some are saying it cannot account for all the complex design in nature.

I would say the ID camp is using "different standards for science" is pushing for inclusion in high school curriculum. Shouldn't this line of study be tested thoroughly by high-level scientists in labs and research universities before even being brought up for discussion in high school science classes? That is my main issue with ID. I'm no scientist, so I leave it up to those who are to determine ID's validity or lack thereof. The resistance from the majority of the scientific community may prove foolish in the long-run, who knows? Look at the history of evolutionary theory, it took quite a long time before it trickled down into high school curriculum, which is a good thing. The ID camp is trying to circumvent this process out of purely ideological and political motivations.

Stefan: Hypocrisy

Every now and then a high-profile personality in Christian leadership does fall into hypocrisy. We absorb those hits and regard them as casualties in the spiritual warfare against Satan.

I know, if you do not believe in God, why should you believe in Satan? By the same token, you do not understand evil, its character, or its purposes. You may not even accept the concept of evil. That in turn exposes people to make serious mistakes regarding resistance to or constraint of evil. The most current example of that is the pacifistís naive view of extreme Islam.

In the article you referenced, I noticed the following two paragraphs:

ìLast year, Apologetics Press published two articles making a biblical case against homosexuality and listing the authors as Brad Harrub, Thompson and Miller. Both articles remain on the organization's Web site, but references to Thompson as an author have been deleted.

ìI think we just decided to remove those because of the hypocrisy,î said Miller, indicating that he and Harrub had written 98 percent of the original articles.î

This confirms the direct hypocrisy you mentioned. About that you stated:

ìClearly, the most generous explanation is that the man suffers from a finely honed ability to delude himself, deceive others, mislead a great many and justify anything that his human, all-too human instincts drag him towards.î

Actually, the most generous explanation would be one of mercy, not anger. He, like the rest of us are besieged by those ëall-too human instinctsí that pull hard on us to fail. Recall that in my explanation of Christianity:

1. That people are greatly flawed and strongly inclined to fail. For this reason Jesus lovingly took responsibility for their sin upon Himself and paid the price to spare us the judgment we deserve. Each individual is free to accept or reject that work on their behalf as applying to themselves.

2. That people are as inclined to sin after they accept Jesus as Lord (and his forgiveness for messing up) as they were before they accepted. And to deal with that...

3. That the Holy Spirit now functions as a helper of Christians against these ëall-too human instinctsí, again as each individual *allows* that force to work in their lives. It is ALWAYS voluntary with God, since it is a love relationship between us and God. It is a daily struggle won by how much we choose to love God on that day.

So ìthe most generous explanationî would see Thompson as a highly conflicted individual whoís love of God was not enough to allow the Holy Spirit to help him overcome his temptations. Satan attacks people who are being too effective in the Godís cause. He attacks us at our weakest points, job, family, lust, etc.

Are you being generous when you say:

ìI suspect he took that aptitude (a finely honed ability to delude himself, deceive others, ...) with him to his work.î

I too am skeptical of the work of hypocrits. But in generosity I would limit that skepticism to the domains in which the hypocrisy was manifested. Consider your own hypocrisies (can you admit they exist?). Do they disqualify your credibility in other domains of your life?

The tie-in would be in the area of personal Integrity. Does that mean that one should see their own hypocrisy and withdraw from making any assertions in *every* other area of life? Or, only in those areas where the hypocrisy is in fact having an impact? Since we are all hypocritical in one way or another, the former would render us completely impotent in every area. Integrity would have had Thompson withdraw from co-authoring those articles on homosexuality. So, he deserved to get fired.

But I am not anxious to dismiss his other work as you apparently are. I will judge it on its own merits, and I encourage you to do the same.

Stefan: Definition of ëTheoryí.

Here I will look at your comments on Thompsonís comments on the definition of ëTheoryí that appeared in.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=5&itemid=2093 Argument #1.
All of your comments focus on material in the first three paragraphs, and already you are bored? **

ìThompson must know that the definition of theory by the National Academy of Sciences does not in any way conflict with the idea of lacking absolute proof, no matter how much emphasis is added.î

Thompson did not say there was a conflict, but that the new definition omits the notion of proof.

ìAn he must also know that Merriam Webster is not a reference by scientists for scientists, ...î

I am sure he does. He as much as says so in this article. That is why he said that the Dictionary of Modern Biology is such a reference.

ì...as he promises to exclusively quote but two sentences earlier, ...î

I am sorry, I cannot find any promises at all in the first several paragraphs of his argument #1. But I do not think that relevant to the issue at hand. If I am wrong about that, please point me directly to that promise.

ì...but that it lists precisely the layman's definition that the SciAm article accuses creationists of muddling.î

Yes it does, and that is his point, not a mistake. It appears that you completely missed his point.

ìHe's doing it again right in front of your eyes, and you don't even notice!î î

It looks like you massively mis-interpreted a rather clear exposition. That makes me wonder how I can make the point to you in a way that you can get it.

Science (probably the National Academy of Sciences) has changed the definition of ëtheoryí to something more favorable to evolutionists. Specifically, away from ì...something that falls ìin the middle of a hierarchy of certaintyóabove a mere hypothesis but below a law, ...îî (from Rennie in the SciAm article.) to a new definition that allows a theory to be called a fact. The old definition of ëtheoryí used to be taught in science classes, but no more! I believe the old definition is adequate for all branches of science except evolution and the evolutionary aspects of paleontology,

I think I have a way to explain it that you might accept. But I will defer that for a moment to first try to clear up an interfering issue.

In your MemeFirst posts on other topics you seem in no way to be mentally handicapped. But here you seem to have trouble even reading the text. I saw this once before from you, when you responded to my offering of the Biblical prediction of the 173,880 days before Jesus would first present Himself as king, and just before He was killed. Your response was so full of confusion and misinformation that I did not know how to answer without embarrassing you, which I did not want to do. So I let it go... And you were the only MFer that even tried to respond to that.

All of this makes me wonder if you are suffering from atheistís blindness. It is a powerful negative emotional reaction to presentations of information that threaten that world view. It seems like you approach such information with the attitude of finding, as quickly as possible, a way to dismiss the offending information, and escaping from its presence. I expect you consider yourself a seeker of truth, if you believe in truth. But the effort appears to be so distressing to you that you cringe away from it after only three paragraphs and conclude that all of it has to be intolerably boring.**

That is one reason why I am taking so long to answer SACís question. I intend to once again offer the 173,880 prediction, as it is truly an amazing prophecy. I have been searching through over 500 websites to find the clearest presentation of it available, one which clearly accounts for all the computational issues. I think I have found one and have drafted a presentation of it. I hope to offer that soon on MF since I want to get that and all the consequent activity done before October 5, after which I may no longer be able to contribute to MF.

So please relax and read the following with an open mind. I am doing my best for you. I will try to make Thompsonís first point from another perspective and in my own words.

After searching around I decided that I should start with Wikipediaís definition of the Scientific method:

Scientific methods or processes are considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence. Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. Any theory which is cogent enough to make predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way. The method is commonly taken as the underlying logic of scientific practice. A scientific method is essentially an extremely cautious means of building a supportable, evidence-based understanding of our natural world.

Note how the notions of the ëtruthí or ëvalidityí or even ëcredibilityí or ëconfidenceí in a theory are avoided here. ëCogencyí is the closest they get. Even though scientists avoid those words and others like them, they *use* those notions. Theories which are not reproducible in prediction are abandoned. So, lack of abandonment is a euphemism for credibility or confidence in a theory, except of course for evolutionary theories. An ëevidence-based understanding of our natural worldí will only incorporate those theories that can be substantiated via reproducible predictions. Well..., except for theories of evolution and evolutionary aspects of paleontology.

And therein lies the rub. Evolution and paleontology, by their nature, cannot often demonstrate reproducible predictions. In fact, they have precious little evidence to work with. Promoters of evolution are loath to admit that. The detractors of evolutionary theory say that the theories of evolution do not have the substantive credibility of theories that can be reproducibly tested. And they dont, they canít. That is what SciAmís Rennie is bitterly complaining about. The promoters of evolutionary theories want their theories to have the respect due to successfully tested theories, even though that is impossible. It is a sales issue.

** ìWhich leads me to suspect that the entire article is just one big attempt at boring the opposition into submission while offering their co-travelers something to link to, which you do, obviating the need for you to think for yourself and allowing you to put your trust in his higher authority. Which you're trained to do without question.î

I see, when I reference the work of others for substantiation you say it is because I cannot think for myself. But when you swallow whole the admittedly biased sales pitch of the National Academy of Sciences, that is thinking for yourself? How can that be when the NAS has so many presentations that gloss over the difficult issues facing the theories of evolution?

There is a lot of good material at ApologeticsPress.org challenging the theory of evolution of the species. For those who really are seekers of truth as best we can know it, it is full of helpful information.

SAC: Inclusion of ID in high school curriculum.

ìShouldn't this line of study be tested thoroughly by high-level scientists in labs and research universities before even being brought up for discussion in high school science classes?î

Yes, but I think you would run into the same bias. That is the prolem.

I cannot answer your question because I have no idea of what an ID curriculum looks like.

What's happening on October 5, Sage? Something to do with the Second Coming?

"I hope to offer that soon on MF since I want to get that and all the consequent activity done before October 5, after which I may no longer be able to contribute to MF."

Is that a wrapture?

thats the best you two can come up with? come on, now you guys look like the assholes.

The somewhat unworthy reactions to your piece above further confirm one of your many excellent points: how there is a mindset (note abandonment of ad hominem pettiness here) which, when confronted with information uncongenial to its worldview, always reacts by latching on to "a way to dismiss the offending information, and escaping from its presence", as you rightly write.

This may be because, for such a mindset to survive, in an evolutionary sense, its only hope is to ignore all evidence which confounds it, hoping it'll just go away. The primitive urge of the closed mindset is to preserve its viability, and any engagement with an open mindset will, inevitably, destroy it. Thus does Darwin's theory explain the basis and continued success of the "closed mindset meme".

Regarding the evolution theory, I am still preoccupied by trying to find the "level(s)" at which it is supposed to operate - organism, gene, meme, genome, individual, blog discussion group, species, etc. It strikes me as weird and wonderful that evolutionary competition is going on at all these levels and I would love to know more about that, and about how the different levels interact. Have Stefan and Felix found any evidence that competition between genes within an individual, say, may be causing illnesses within the individual - as the genes are acting purely in their self interest as genes, and not on behalf of the individual? Might this explain why one perfectly urbane, atheistical Belgian split into two organisms, calling themselves "Stefan" and "Felix", the better to pepetuate their memes?

The classic take on evolution is that it sorts out weak from strong species. But "the selfish gene" claims that it also works at that level. I am fascinated by that kind of stuff. I humbly asked Stefan for his thoughts on that or where I could read more about it, but he probably thought the question beneath him (rightly so, arguably!).

Regarding linked issues, I worry about those dimensions which we know exist but can't describe, and I am intrigued about what is happening there.

Regarding ID in schools, my only scepticism is regarding whether it isn't an "optional extra" for many classes - if you do a chemistry experiment and a gas is evolved, say, the teacher's explanation would be based on the chemical reactions that have occurred. That a creator might have been involved in the process - not actively, but in the "He set off big bang and is therefore involved in everything since" sense - cannot be excluded but is not proved or otherwise by the experiment. Similarly, when evolution is described to a class, the focus is on the specific discoveries that have been made regarding the progress through time of species - and the possibility that a creator set the process off before big bang isn't necessarily touched on.

Sage7, are you suggesting that such classes/courses should feature a section in which ID is set out as a theory which "complements" evolution, or, if you like, expands on its scope - or does ID propose a theory to replace evolution? My understanding, based on your response to the question "can you believe ID and evolution?" - (to which you said yes) is that ID complements evolution. I suppose Stefan's mindset is set more on dismissing any idea of miracles or of God's active pushing of buttons, but that isn't the nub of the debate, really. I think that if God is to be found whilst we are consciously alive as now it would be somewhere in those unknown dimensions, and, that being so, his intentions if any, as well as his "direction of operations", are truly unknoweable.

SIMON: Et Tu?

ìthats the best you two can come up with? come on, now you guys look like the assholes.î

WRT responding to #17, why did *you* not point out something that would let you dismiss the point that I and Thompson are trying to convey? Is it possible that there are fissures in your worldview?

I was hoping that the doubters of the arguments at Academic Press (referenced in #17) would take them to task point by point, not run away from them. Lets engage in some real thinking, and drop the escapism.

Stefan, Felix: Rapture.

ìWhat's happening on October 5, Sage? Something to do with the Second Coming?î Felix

ìIs that a wrapture?î Sefan

That is a possibility, but not a probability.
Babylon is not yet a dominant financial center.

For those who do not know, the Rapture is a Biblically predicted future event where God will pluck all Christians right out of their shoes to go and be with Him. Christian pilots and bus drivers etc. will disappear from their cockpits, and their vehicles may crash. Those who remain are in for a rough ride. Not just the people in those in those vehicles, but it will be bad for everyone who remains on earth. The current grace period will then be over, and the wrath of God will be manifest on earth. Hell is yet to come.

Likely there will be all kinds of explanations of where we all disappeared to.
But you will know where we went. Still, it will not be too late to accept Jesus as Lord. But life on earth will be even harder for you.

The Bible tells us that humans will not be able to predict when that event will occur:

I Thessalonians 5:2 (New American Standard Bible)
ëFor you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night.í

Matthew 24:42-44 (New American Standard Bible)
ë42 "Therefore (A)be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming.
43 "But be sure of this, that (B)if the head of the house had known (C)at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into.
44 "For this reason (D)you also must be ready; for (E)the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.í

Nonetheless, every now and then some Christian will say they have got a handle on it. Clearly, not all Christians take the Bible at its Word... so to speak.

If you ever become a Christian, take the Bible as the Word of God and do not ignore any part of it. Study it daily. Start with the New Testament and later graduate to the Old Testament. In genuine sincerity ask the Holy Spirit to open it up to you, and it will be a rewarding and fulfilling experience.

For some reason I do not understand, I feel compelled to include the following as well, so I will:

ìThen said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.î- John 6:28-29

OMG you ARE talking about the rapture!!!

http://members.citynet.net/morton/rapture.htm (Search for 'October 5')

Any chance of making this prediction falsifiable?

"Babylon is not yet a dominant financial center."
>>Depends on your definition of center. It sure is a financial sinkhole, if that helps.

Well, if October 5 is the rapture, I'm definitely not paying off my credit cards, no matter what Felix says.

Sage, stop kidding them. Honestly, what is really happening on October 5th? I am curious. Are you starting a new job or something?

You don't really think it is the rapture coz you just told us no-one knows when it is and it is specifically designed as to be impossible to predict.

Presumably god would note that when anyone -- no matter how virtuous they may be -- is predicting it for the say, the 5th he would switch dates accordingly.

I've also been wondering about that: Isn't it bad manners to second-guess God on such weighty matters? Doesn't it betray a measure of hubris to presume to know what the mind of God thinks? And isn't that a sin?

I can understand why humans might want to prophesy. Our minds are terrible at sorting coincidences from proper cause and effect, so those who do predict the future (soothsayers, mediums, and prophets) can count on our selective memory. So if being wrong incurs no costs (and every single doomsayer has been wrong since the beginning of history) and if being right means that its the end of the world as we know it, why shouldn't we all have a go at this macabre lottery.

Sage I'm willing to bet nothing happens to you on October 5. I'll take any odds. Really. Any odds. Just name them.

My cherished friends: On the Rapture:

Re: http://members.citynet.net/morton/rapture.htm

Stefan: Thanks for that excellent link. in #25. I hope all of you read all of it, especially the last 2 sections.
I really appreciate Tim Mortonís observations, demeanor and conclusions. I am glad he wrote this piece.

I note that he presented the naive computation for the 173880 days prophecy.
69 weeks of years x 7 = 483 years = 173880 days

Stefan: ìAny chance of making this prediction falsifiable?î

For all practical purposes... no. You would have wait until the end of time.... to demonstrate that it in fact the Rapture did not occur.

Stefan: ìDoesn't it betray a measure of hubris to presume to know what the mind of God thinks? And isn't that a sin?î

Actually, one of the roles of the Holy Spirit is to reveal to humans bits of information on the mind of God. But anyone claiming to know the mind of God wholly would also know how God brought all things in the material universe into existence by his energy, intelligence and will. Yeah.... hubris.

Stefan: ìSage I'm willing to bet nothing happens to you on October 5. I'll take any odds. Really. Any odds. Just name them.

I just got through saying that I believe, like Morton, that the date of the Rapture is unknowable by humans. It will truly be a surprise for both you and I. And for good reason. Look at all the silly things humans have done when they think that they do know it (Re: Mortonís article). I will acknowledge that some dates like Oct. 5, 2005, are more probable than others. But there are many of those.

99: ìWell, if October 5 is the rapture, I'm definitely not paying off my credit cards, ...î
This illustrates why humans are not to know the date of the rapture.
99: Does this mean you have accepted Jesus and Lord and His forgiveness for your sins?

Eurof: ìSage, stop kidding them. Honestly, what is really happening on October 5th?î

You are getting to know me too well. Welcome back from vacation.

You are right, I picked a date that would stimulate discussion of the Rapture, and one that closely coincided with my need to return to my other responsibilities. I care too much about the MemeFirst crowd, and it is taking way too much of my time. I have to bow out. If any of you ever take me seriously about Christianity, I will be available for serious questions about that by email after that.

It will be a great shame if you depart, sage7. I do hope you reconsider. I for one would much miss the "grounding" this group discussion blog is given by your presence.

... and your demolition of the agrressively atheistical Belgians is extremely effective, although charitably subtle to the extent that they haven't even noticed it themselves...

Sage7: I was raised Catholic (well, I was baptized at age 5 because it got us a discount at the local parochial school). I was had to draw god for a studio assignment. I drew an empty square (in and of itself a nifty feat, though I wasn't ten and it didn't feature really nice unicorns), and described god like a good sweater: you put it on when you need it. Then I put the drawing in my trunk and told people I had god in my trunk. And nothing bad ever befell me with god in my trunk. Then god was stolen -- along with a 45 year old wool blanket of my father's issued when he was in the army -- right the police academy, in '91. Have I accepted god? I don't think I was ever resisting him. That's the beauty of being Catholic: you get to change your mind right up until the last second. If things look dicey on the 5th, I'm sure I'll get more pliant. I don't know that finding god five minutes before you die is an intellectual betrayal of humanism. After all, there's only so much harping and preaching I'll be able to accomplish. If I'm on the street, I'll reach out and grasp at the nearest passing women: "Abortion... murder... "

read this:

SHOW ME THE SCIENCE

99: Passive resistance.

"I don't think I was ever resisting him."

Do you think you are not resisting God now?

Did you carefully read my responses to ALLASí LOVE or HYPOCRITES part 1... while sober and serious? Did you understand what I said there about how one may come to God, and why? It may not be familiar to you, but it is Biblical!

You are more valuable than you can imagine. By that I mean that you are seriously loved to the point of huge personal sacrifice in your behalf on the part of the One who loves you in hopes you would return that love. Have you ever considered returning that love? Have you ever realized how your life falls far short of righteousness (not even considering your life-style)? If not, you grasp neither your real needs or your opportunities. And you suffer for it.

I wonder if you have Felix-moments when your mind fights off these worldview threatening ideas by going irrational. If so, that is a tragic state that only some serious and sober self examination can remedy. I kindly suggest you privately read the Book of John or Luke in the Bible, and read as if they were written to you. If your mind fights this more than it would fight off Shakespeare or the like, that is evidence of substance in Godís Word.

SIMON: read this:

SHOW ME THE SCIENCE

Thanks. I will.

CLAUDE: Thank you for the encouragement.

But please realize that I do not seek approval for myself in these efforts. What I really want is that Jesus would get the approval of minds currently foreign to Him. At the bare minimum, I want to help the memeFirst-ers to more accurately perceive Biblical Christianity* whether they buy into it or not.

I consider re-directing my efforts because I am not keeping up with my other and more immediate responsibilities due to my time given to MemeFirst.

And I apologize once again to SAC. Demands on my time and efforts have recently swelled and put off my response to him. But I am determined to give SAC the best answer I can before I leave memeFirst.

Sage7-
I fully realise you are neither aiming for personal applause, nor in need of my encouragement!

In fact, my plea that you stay is motivated by selfish considerations:

(i) Riddled with sin myself, yet still resisting, somewhere, full surrender to Jesus' love, I benefit from the verbal example you set;

(ii) In arguing the toss with Belgic atheistical naysaying handwringing whingers about relatively minor details of political chicanery (and, occasionally, morally-significant matters), I tend to lose sight of the fundamentals, as I flay my perception of Belgian shortcomings, a tendency your presence counters;

(iii) The very tenor and tone of yur contributions is conducive to feelings of charity and uplift.

As Eurof's chums "Mozzer", Popper and Hayek maintain, it's all about personalities. Your virtual personality adds a valued quality to this group discussion blog which it would otherwise lack. But only you can set your priorities correctly. Pearls before swine can tire - may be, may not be the best use of your time. Although I sense that with (for example) 99 you are pushing at an open door... there is a decidedly spiritual quality to 99's virtual personality, too.

I'm sure you are busy, sage, and I don't expect you to take time out to address the issues I bring up, but I'm beginningt to think you have no answer for them, as mine are not questions of historical accuracy or petty Biblical inconsistencies, which can always be countered.

Also, answers like this:

"I cannot answer your question because I have no idea of what an ID curriculum looks like."

are exactly my point. Anyway, I enjoy reading your repsonses as they are thoughtful, usually.

99: "I don't think I was ever resisting him."

That is passive. Love is aggressive, it seeks out ways to encounter the one who is loved.

There are many reasons to love God:
1. He designed us to be capable of love.
2. He first loved us... even sacrificially paying the price of justice for our sins.
3. He forgives us of having offended Him, if we accept it and Him as Lord.

Thereafter:
4. He helps us to better love others.
5. He encourages us to love ourselves as much as we love others.
6. He empowers us through His Holy Spirit to be better people.
7. He has expressed that He wants and enjoys our love of Him.

Sage, I infer from what you say above you are not going to continue using memefirst. You said that 99 is more valuable than he can imagine. That he is seriously loved to the point of huge personal sacrifice in his behalf on the part of the one who loves him in hopes he would return that love. That he is SUFFERING for how far his life falls far short of righteousness. Presumably this also makes your god suffer: I mean 99's failure to love him and all that. So what is your response? To walk away. To abandon him and your god to suffering and heathenism. You say god helps you 'to better love others'. I'd say you forfeit your ticket to the rapture for your shameful abandonment of a lost sheep.

Ah, but Jez, I tried that tack, too, with sage7, somewhere else, regarding 99, whose potential spiritual greatness looms large; yet pondering, I saw that only sage7 could set sage7's priorities. It shall be left to you and I, dear Jez, to probe the mysteries of 99's soul, and convert him to the true path. We shall be the heirs of sage7 here (Rapture notwithstanding); he has given it his best shot, alas.