BBC Blog Network

User Profile

EdwinDroom

Listed below are comments made by EdwinDroom between Friday, 5th June 2009 and Monday, 8th June 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Christianity v. fundamentalism 4:18pm on 08 Jun 2009 You can of course be facetious any time you like - not sure why you thought me saying 'Fair enough' was me somehow trying to forbid it. What I said was, let me know when you're being serious, and actually want an answer.

So:- first you said that
"I also notice this phrase coming up time and again - judge not lest ye be judged."
I pointed out that, in fact, Paul teaches exactly the opposite.

Then you refined it to
"Jesus put such an emphasis on it that I actually find St Paul, at times, missed the point." and "I'll focus on what Jesus had to say.
Do not judge and you wont be judged seemed to be a regular theme for him."
I showed that Jesus is listed as having said it only once (I don't base my life on word counts, by the way, but a word count is a valid response to a claim of 'time and again' if the count is once in the entire bible). You haven't retracted that either - you return to ad hominem attack on me instead of admitting you got it wrong.

I'm not good enough to judge anyone. Neither is anyone in the church. However, Jesus (and Paul) made it clear that the Church is to do so, however much it hurts to do so, on his behalf, because it will rescue the person ultimately. You may not want to believe this, but it is what the Bible says - you may decide, based on a dozen posts I've made here, that I love to judge the immoral, that I consider myself above them, and that I am deliberately twisting the bible just to fit my desire to do so. That is your prerogative, you are free to judge me if you want to. As you say, you'll face your judgement and I'll face mine.

So, I am a nasty little man with a god complex who hates all gays and am better than others, a pharisee who loves to see people in Hell because it makes me feel better about myself. I'll stipulate to that, and a lot of other sins. If you'd like to actually DISCUSS anything, let me know.
Is this evolution's 'missing link'? 10:48am on 08 Jun 2009 "Pendleton et al. Mutations in ANKH cause chondrocalcinosis. Am J Hum Genet. 2002 Oct;71(4):933-40."

Did the scientists observe the duplication and mutation happening in nature? Or did they ASSUME that this had happened as an explanation of observed differences? Possibly they 'recreated' it in the lab to show it COULD have happened in nature - "Reconstruction of each mutation in a full-length ANK expression construct followed by in vitro tissue culture assays". The fact that a designer can conceive of it, and then cause it to happen in a lab, is not exactly evidence of it happening by accident in nature.

"Hughes et al. Mutations in TNFRSF11A"
"In the Northern Irish and American FEO families, identical tandem duplication of bases 84-101 (84dup18; 603499.0001) in exon 1 of the TNFRSF11A gene was found in all affected individuals tested. An identical 84dup18 duplication was found in the DNA of an affected member in the German family."
Notice. Was found. There needs to be evidence that the information was missing and is now present in order to show duplication, rather than assume it.

Anyway, I'm not an expert, but there is certainly more doubt over this than over whether the earth orbits the sun, which was the point I made.
Is this evolution's 'missing link'? 01:45am on 08 Jun 2009 Actually, it's Dawkins who mixed them up. "Should we then call the original replicators 'living'? Who cares?" - Chapter 2, The Selfish Gene. Dawkins apparently believes that natural selection also applies to the pre-cell 'mutations', in fact that there's no point defining life, since the same theory applies throughout.

That said, I did make the point that they were different, even if Dawkins doesn't. Hence "Doesn't that also apply to the theory of evolution generally?" Dawkins doesn't admit that one, but many of the critical parts of evolution (addition of information rather than loss, change from one kind to another) are also not proven and have never been observed. It is also full of 'probably' and 'must have' and just so stories. How anyone can claim it to be about as open to doubt as that the earth orbits the sun is beyond me.

However, it was Dawkins technique - specifically in the Selfish Gene - I was mainly discussing. Peter's point about whether the FSM's act was a fact or just some undefined degree of probable made me think of Dawkins - particularly chapter two of the Selfish Gene, where something is mentioned as possible or probable, then inexplicably becomes an unassailable premise to the next argument. It's one of his most endearing techniques, and he uses it a lot. Cf his Meme Theory.
Christianity v. fundamentalism 01:12am on 08 Jun 2009 "Come on, Edwin, are you seriously trying to tell me that I'm arguing that if we stop a paedophile abusing a child we are judging? Is that what you think I'm arguing?"

Well, I certainly think you're trying to say that's not what you're arguing. But by deciding he's wrong to do so, and by 'stopping' him - limiting his freedom in whatever way - you are both judging AND punishing him. I know you wish you weren't, but either it's OK to judge or it's not, you can't have it both ways. We only differ on which things are offences, not on whether it's OK to judge those offences once established. As I say, Christians are only to judge - in a church setting - others in the Church, and therefore what the Bible teaches is relevant to decide what is an offence.

"I think - without having statistics readily at hand - that Jesus kinda tried to hint..."
So, I post specifics on the gospels which contradict your take on what Jesus taught, and you say "I think" the opposite - though apparently he did it 'from afar'? He did teach kindness and forgiveness (seventy times seven, if your brother repents - though even Jesus himself doesn't promise to forgive unless there is repentance) etc, but that doesn't prove that he said not to judge, which is the point we were discussing. Tell you what, go back and have a look at what Jesus actually said, then we can talk about it. It seems a little one-sided with me posting facts and you coming back with opinions.

"Anyway, why do you guys so hate being called Pharisees? Paul liked them... at first. They do loads of great things in all the other books in the Bible outside the gospels."
I realise you will probably not have stats to hand, but which books were you thinking of? Pharisee is mentioned (in a quick search in biblegateway.com - I also don't have stats to hand, but it doesn't take long to check facts) in the Gospels, Acts, and once in Philippians. Since Philippians is in reference to Paul himself, it doesn't count. Acts is written by Luke, and has 4 passages.
The first also is in reference to Paul himself.
One is to Gamaliel, who basically hedged his bets, and only allowed the disciples to be flogged on no evidence.
One is where some Pharisees took Paul's side against the Sadducees, on learning that Paul was also once a Pharisee.
One is when, true to form, they insisted Gentiles be circumcised according to the law.

Again, which of the other books of the Bible were you referring to? Are we reading different Bibles?

"One minute you have the church as being based on the Bible, the next minute you are talking about Christians following Christ. Are they the same thing?"
Yep. In the beginning was the Word. Paul was an apostle of Christ, according to Luke, who wrote one of the gospels. But of course, you know that Orthodox Christianity generally accepts the Bible to be the basis of our lives, and the teaching on how we follow Christ, so again, your question appears to be rhetorical and facetious. Fair enough - let me know if you'd like me to answer these in future, if not I can just mark them R&F?
Is this evolution's 'missing link'? 00:40am on 08 Jun 2009 "What I notice it does say is, "The Flying Spaghetti Monster probably created the whole universe when He sneezed during a moment of alcoholic intoxication. This first fact...", well is it a fact or not, or is it probably a fact and if so, what is the degree of factual probability?"

Probably somewhere along the lines of Dawkins Selfish Gene. Chapter 1 - "Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun". Then go to chapter two, where he outlines the actual evidence for the origins of life itself - the survival of the stable as he puts it. Count the number of 'probably', 'must have', 'scientists believe' and the like. See if he actually has evidence even for the things he doesn't admit to being pure hypothesis (e.g. 'at some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident').

Oh, hang on, sorry, Dawkins' one is science isn't it - hypothesis, design, experiment, results, conclusion. Not religion. Science. I forgot. It's as well-established by experiment as the theory that the earth goes round the sun.

Apart from this, of course - Chapter 2 of the Selfish Gene:-
"The account of the origin of life I shall give is necessarily speculative; by definition, no-one was around to see what happened...The account I shall give is probably not too far from the truth"
Doesn't that also apply to the theory of evolution generally? I'm unaware of anyone ever having observed any kind mutating into another kind. I've heard a lot of interesting Just So stories, but never seen it actually demonstrated.

So, on what does Dawkins base his calculation of probability of proximity to 'the truth'? And isn't it at least a bit more open to doubt than the solar orbit of the earth?
Christianity v. fundamentalism 11:39pm on 07 Jun 2009 "So we dont get to judge those outside the church."

"So we dont get to........ sounds a bit like your missing out on a pleasure."

Anyone who doesn't understand irony, this is a great example. Thanks for judging me, but no, I don't even particularly want to judge those in the church. As I am part of the church, though, I use we, and WE are commanded to do so. The immoral (all of us) get a chance to repent - it's only those who refuse to change their behaviour when called on it who are to be expelled, and even then, it is to be done out of love, to SAVE them from Hell (this isn't me making this up, this is what the passage about expelling the immoral brother says - in perfect keeping with the rest of the bible, where discipline is not harmful but for the good of the person disciplined). If you know Paul well enough to decide he is so out of step with Jesus, presumably you already know this and are being 'mischievous' to put it as kindly as I can.

However, the point you made was
"I've read time and time again in the Bible what judgement shall befall me should I decide to judge."
If you meant only, 'I've read again and again in 4 of the 66 books of the Bible, taken in isolation', I may have posted differently. In the Bible as a whole, which is what the Church bases their teaching on, Paul's teaching is pretty important.

So - now I know your thoughts on what the 'Bible' teaches - do you think that Jesus intended that Christians should oppose civil authorities when they judge? You seem to think that Jesus condemned any man judging another - should Christians not serve on juries, be judges, pay taxes to support the court system etc?

When I'm looking for a baby sitter, should I suspend judgement, as I am almost certainly just as sinful as the paedophile I might leave him with?

When my child gets older, am I allowed to judge his behaviour, and discipline him if necessary?

If my minister stands up in the pulpit and denies the holocaust, or suggests that we should all go out and stone Muslims, presumably I can't oppose him?

If my wife cheats on me, not only should I forgive her, but I have no right to condemn her in the first place? I mean, who am I to judge?

We are called to resist injustice and stand up for justice. How do we do that, if we're not allowed to make this judgement in the first place?

Mind you, I see Jesus using the word 'judge' as a verb in a number of distinct passages (allowing for the same instances in different gospels). Most are about Jesus, or the Father, judging. The remainder are:-
1 - the one you mentioned
2 - Luke 12 - "Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right" - arguably not pertinent to judging people. If it is, it is certainly not banning judging.
3-John 7 - "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment."
The Greek word in the first and third is the same - so, if your reading of 'judge not, lest ye be judged' is accurate, then Jesus says once, don't judge, and then once 'here's HOW to judge when you're doing it. Of course, since the first says not to judge hypocritically, it could be that both passages are effectively saying the same thing - deal with your own sin before judging others. If you have unrepentant sexual sin in your life, don't judge others for the same sin. If, for example, you are sleeping with someone outside of marriage while being an elder or teaching elder, you'd better excuse yourself from judging others (i.e. being in authority in the church) until you get this sorted. If someone in authority refuses to sort it when confronted with their sin, they should be excluded from this authority.

Anyway, where is this 'such an emphasis' that Jesus put on not judging? Should I look for another word, like the passage about "by their fruits shall you know them" (Matt 7) which seems to be another teaching on how to judge people based on their actions.
Christianity v. fundamentalism 2:09pm on 07 Jun 2009 RJB
Read 1 Corinthians 5, and let us know what you think this means, if not that the church has not just the right but a responsibility to deal with sexual immorality?

Main point,

"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you."
So we don't get to judge those outside the church - that, God reserves to himself. Within the church, it is the responsibility of the church to judge and, if the person doesn't repent, to expel them.

You say OT doesn't get it, but on this point, I think this teaching is pretty clear, and that it is you who hasn't got the principle. Now, I don't have time to check all posts, so I will add that this should all be done in love, and I don't stand by any vicious personal attacks, or singling out a particular sexual sin as somehow more disgusting, unless the Bible does so.
Is this evolution's 'missing link'? 1:51pm on 07 Jun 2009 Graham,

While I stopped watching Corrie a long time ago, yes, Lister (Craig Charles) is in it now. They actually used it in the new episodes of Red Dwarf made for Dave this year.

Also short on time, hope you're having / had a great weekend (depending when you read this).
'I can't see it happening within our Assembly' 4:09pm on 05 Jun 2009 LSV, did you actually believe what you wrote, or is it just supposed to be facetious?

The logical conclusion of a man leaving his wife and child, moving in with his gay partner and telling the press and others that the bible doesn't condemn homosexual sex is that he is having sex with his partner.

The burden of proof has to be with you to show that, against the preponderance of evidence (or even reasonable doubt, if it were in the courts) the man is chaste.

I do believe homosexual practice is wrong, though I think (based on studies) that homosexual tendency is, at least sometimes, built in the womb, and am not sure that gay sex in a committed relationship is as bad as drunken meaningless shags between opposite sexes, but would have a problem if a minister was doing that and justifying it to himself or others too. Or cheating on his wife, or having sex with a woman outside of marriage. Or watching porn. Or allowing himself to fantasize about parishioners.

But one of the things most condemned in scripture is when someone deliberately goes on in a sinful lifestyle, not just falling down as we all do - not sure how this applies when someone genuinely thinks what they're doing is OK. If a minister tried to justify ANY of the things above, I would say they should be disciplined - though if they did it and repented, it is a different issue entirely.

Mr Rennie, dismissing the (stronger, IMO) Pauline condemnations of homosexuality, says "Paul does not have a modern conception of what sexuality is, or of a long-term committed partnership between members of the same sex. He doesn't. You can't expect him to. He is living in the first century." That seems pretty weak, as it can be applied to ANY moral issue that's changed over the years. Not least because it assumes God didn't anticipate the 21st century when inspiring Paul. Also because there were committed homosexual relationships in Ancient Greece, Paul was a Roman citizen and much travelled, and if Mr Rennie doesn't know these things, he shouldn't be a Teaching Elder anyway.

Anyway, I'd rather not get too much into that debate, as I tend to find that bigoted idiots who use the bible to justify their hatred and disgust with a whole person over a single chosen sin want to think of me as an ally.
Horus and Jesus: mythological plagiarism? 3:17pm on 05 Jun 2009 they don't count as Roman Catholics as they aren't from Ireland

I've never heard it actually put that way, but that's brilliant.

I remember Derek McKelvey preaching in Fisherwick years ago (about 13 of them, now I think about it - I am old. He asked the congregation - especially those who prided themselves on their tolerance - which would worry them more: their teenage child comes home with a believing Catholic partner, or a 'Protestant' atheist one. That's stuck with me all this time, and says so much about good old Norn Iron, and Norn Iron Christianity.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

EdwinDroom