Homosexuality Or Legalism--Which Is Worse?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Was it your lack of trust in God or your trust in men that was the root of the collapse when the rug was pulled out from under you?

To be entirely candid, it was probably both, though at the time and for a few years on I would have answered differently.

The problem with my "faith in God" was that I was re-evaluating my whole worldview at the time. My problem with my "trust in men" was complicated by my own insistence that I remain "under submission" to my leaders. This also caused me to remain silent when I should have spoken out. However, if I had sponken out at the time, my case would probably be one of those things that anti-Apostolics would throw in your face on boards like this.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Why don't you think the Intelligent Design movement has a legit case?

That would take a few volumes, let me try with my response to tv1a.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by RevDWW

My bad. I fixed the link.

So did it take science to show you that some "Pentecostals" are less then Christian and have problems and are imperfect?

Wow! And she's on the board of NORML? She's become quite the activist now. Carl must have been a real steadying influence on her.

But her observations from two decades ago seem to still be relevant. Human beings do have a component within them that is analogous to "animal nature." And it's not just a "sin nature" because it does involve "good" behaviors like alturism.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Wow! And she's on the board of NORML? She's become quite the activist now. Carl must have been a real steadying influence on her.

But her observations from two decades ago seem to still be relevant. Human beings do have a component within them that is analogous to "animal nature." And it's not just a "sin nature" because it does involve "good" behaviors like alturism.

Would that component be more akin to a conscience and the ability to know good from evil? We, as humans in general, want to do good but the Bible teaches us that evil is present with us and without Christ the sin that is in our flesh usually gets the best of us. Do animals behave altruistically?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by tv1a

Care to give a brief description of each book?

In The Blank Slate, Pinker sets about to debunk 3 "myths" that are generally accepted without question in academia. This book is a follow up to his "How the Mind Works."

Pinkers own words on the three myths:

Pinker (2002): The blank slate is the doctrine that the mind has no unique structure and that its entire organization comes from the environment via socialization and learning. The blank slate mentality is popular with people who believe that any human trait can be altered with the right changes in social institutions. It's popular in the more radical branches of feminism, although not with the original core of feminism that stressed the drive for equity between the sexes. I think it allies to some degree with Marxist approaches to society. Not that Marx literally believed in a blank slate, but he certainly believed that you could not intelligently discuss human nature separate from its ever-changing interaction with the social environment. (pelathais: "Think of Rouseau's 'Tabula Rasa.'")


The doctrine of the noble savage is that people have no evil impulses, that all malice is a product of social institutions. The noble savage myth is behind the sensibility that violence is learned behavior, a slogan that is repeated endlessly whenever violence is chronicled in the news. It's also behind the Romantic idea that violent nonconformists are actually seeing the hypocrisy of society and challenging social institutions from a marginalized viewpoint, as opposed to the idea that such people are psychopaths and that we should prevent them from wreaking havoc on everyone else."

Me again:
In addressing the first two "myths" he basically debunks the whole "multicultural" agenda as well as situational ethics and cultural relativism.

You should be aware that his "third" myth, "the ghost in the machine" doesn't take into account more recent findings about the human "soul" and the human mind. Pinker himself never touched on the quantum aspects of neurological function.

This is still a very new field of understanding. Basically, for our brains to work they not only utilize chemical reactions within the cells- but there are quatum reactions within the neurons as well. Of course, once you enter the quatum realm, physical chemistry no longer applies and we are dealing with profound mysteries.

But here is Pinker's statement (now proven to be somewhat dated) on the "3rd myth:"

"The doctrine of the ghost in the machine is that people are inhabited by an immaterial soul that is the locus of free will and choice and which can't be reduced to a function of the brain. The ghost in the machine [idea] lies behind the religious and cultural right -- literally in the case of people who want to couch the stem cell debate in terms of when ensoulment occurs."

More on De Duve...

[pelathais]

I especially like his statement, "It's also behind the Romantic idea that violent nonconformists are actually seeing the hypocrisy of society and challenging social institutions from a marginalized viewpoint, as opposed to the idea that such people are psychopaths and that we should prevent them from wreaking havoc on everyone else."

This is the approach we should be following when dealing with terrorists and rogue states. Is Academia is catching up with reality here?

[pelathais]

On the book "Vital Dust" by Christian De Duve (I inadvertently anglicized his name in an earlier post) I do not recommend that you buy the book unless you're up for a hearty challenge. It took me over 2 years to read 285 pages. I kept having to put the book down and try and learn what he was talking about. It's rather detailed and I don't come from a very scientific background.

But go into a B&N bookstore or some such establishment and read the final chapter - The Meaning of Life. De Duve is Belgian and once headed the Pasteur Institute in Paris. From the last chapter I hope you will see why I think it appropriate that his given name can be translated as "Christian of the Dove."

[mizpeh]

Pelathais,

Is Pinker saying the human mind and soul are different things? Is he equating the mind with the brain?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Would that component be more akin to a conscience and the ability to know good from evil? We, as humans in general, want to do good but the Bible teaches us that evil is present with us and without Christ the sin that is in our flesh usually gets the best of us. Do animals behave altruistically?

Yes. She-bears will allow themselves to be torn apart to allow their cubs to escape. Ants will sacrifice themselves to protect a tree in which their colony nests. It would be hard to attribute human like emotions to the ants- but their hive behavior displays adaptivity that almost speaks of "wisdom."

And I probably didn't really answer your question about my criticizing the ID movement very well. I just don't trust the Moonies; and their involvement through Jonathan Wells and behind the scenes at the Discovery Institute makes me feel uncomfortable.

Michael Behe's arguments about "irreducible complexity" don't stand up to scrutiny. The whole Young Earth side of the movement is overcome by crackpots, criminals and embarrassing attempts at science.

Put yourself in my place at one time: You are to speak in front of several hundred people and follow that up with radio interviews and local talk shows. The material that you must defend as being honest and scientific comes from the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis. Go through that material and put your reputation and ministry on the line with it. You honestly have to be either:

1) A dishonest huckster who can sell anything without a conscience.

2) So unlearned that you can't really even read the material but you did look at the pictures.

3) Under some sort of spiritual deception that I can only speculate about.

And by "you" I of course don't mean "you, Mizpeh."

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Pelathais,

Is Pinker saying the human mind and soul are different things? Is he equating the mind with the brain?

What I understand him to be saying on the "ghost in the machine" is that the "soul" doesn't exist apart from the neuro-chemical reactions within the nervous system. He seems to be saying that when those chemical processes stop- there is no "soul" left to function.

It was on this point that I was suggesting that his quote from 2002 may not be up to date with some more recent findings (that I linked to earlier).

In other words, while I am very much in agreement with him about everything else, I think that there's more to the human soul than chemistry. I actively promote his views on the myths of the Blank Slate and the Noble Savage while holding out that we don't really understand enough about the "ghost in the machine."

It was those views of his that influenced me back toward faith in Christ, along with Christian De Duve.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Yes. She-bears will allow themselves to be torn apart to allow their cubs to escape. Ants will sacrifice themselves to protect a tree in which their colony nests. It would be hard to attribute human like emotions to the ants- but their hive behavior displays adaptivity that almost speaks of "wisdom."

And I probably didn't really answer your question about my criticizing the ID movement very well. I just don't trust the Moonies; and their involvement through Jonathan Wells and behind the scenes at the Discovery Institute makes me feel uncomfortable.

Michael Behe's arguments about "irreducible complexity" don't stand up to scrutiny. The whole Young Earth side of the movement is overcome by crackpots, criminals and embarrassing attempts at science.

Put yourself in my place at one time: You are to speak in front of several hundred people and follow that up with radio interviews and local talk shows. The material that you must defend as being honest and scientific comes from the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis. Go through that material and put your reputation and ministry on the line with it. You honestly have to be either:

1) A dishonest huckster who can sell anything without a conscience.

2) So unlearned that you can't really even read the material but you did look at the pictures.

3) Under some sort of spiritual deception that I can only speculate about.

And by "you" I of course don't mean "you, Mizpeh."

Thanks for being clear but I didn't take "you" as meaning me personally.

I was an atheist at one time. The delusion of atheism is a very strong demonic deception.

Common sense points to an intelligent creator as does the scriptures. Every house is built by some man, but he that made all things is God. It makes sense that when we look at things as complex as the human body, that we should deduce that its intricate design calls for a designer and not just happen stance. Disorder is the state that natural things resort to if not tended to. Houses fall into disrepair, civilizations becomes barbaric without law and government, gardens become overgrown and wild.....does anything good and orderly come out of an explosion? ie: the big bang? Do natural laws come about through destruction?

The heavens declare His glory. His handiwork is seen all around us. The wise among us understand God by the things He has made and are able to discern his ways by watching what happens to the wicked and the righteous. I never noticed these things before becoming a Christian because I was blinded and deceived. It's amazing the clarity of mind that comes when you find the truth, Jesus Christ.

I just bought Behe's book a couple of weeks ago so I can read for myself what the arguments on ID are.