EIGHT Years Already? Merry Kitzmas!

Whatever happened to Dembski’s famous “fart video” mocking Judge Jones and the plaintiff witnesses after Judge Jones's decision?

Remember Dembski’s famous “Vice Strategy” in which he was going to brutally squeeze the truth out of people “trapped” into testifying under oath?

Remember how Dembski ran away from testifying under oath at Dover? Remember how Dembski presented an amicus curiae to “rebut” plaintiff witnesses at Dover without himself being subjected to cross examination?

Remember the jaw-dropping perjury by the “Christian” defendants that so irritated Judge Jones?

What a lovely display of ID/creationist tactics we saw emerge in real time as the trial took place.

Ah, memories!

Yeah, the ID guys are really in a rut, and as a result the anti-creationism / anti-ID forums/blogs etc. are a lot less busy than they used to be. I'm forced to go to UD if I want to have an argument, and it's pretty poor stuff.

There is some Kitzmas stuff over here though:

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/intellectual-free-fire-zone-for-kitzmas-2013/

...the Egnor/eugenics rebuttal is worth reading!

Whatever happened to Dembski’s famous “fart video” mocking Judge Jones and the plaintiff witnesses after Judge Jones’s decision?

Henry J said:

Whatever happened to Dembski’s famous “fart video” mocking Judge Jones and the plaintiff witnesses after Judge Jones’s decision?

It ran out of gas?

Mike Elzinga said: Whatever happened to Dembski’s famous “fart video” mocking Judge Jones and the plaintiff witnesses after Judge Jones's decision?

Remember Dembski’s famous “Vice Strategy” in which he was going to brutally squeeze the truth out of people “trapped” into testifying under oath?

Remember how Dembski ran away from testifying under oath at Dover? Remember how Dembski presented an amicus curiae to “rebut” plaintiff witnesses at Dover without himself being subjected to cross examination? Remember the jaw-dropping perjury by the “Christian” defendants that so irritated Judge Jones? What a lovely display of ID/creationist tactics we saw emerge in real time as the trial took place. Ah, memories!

The whiners do have an article asking, "So, again, how are most people going to hear about the evidence for intelligent design?"

Read your Bible, as always. OK, it's not evidence, but it gets to the heart of the matter, of the Dover decision. To actually hear about the evidence for intelligent design would require, well, evidence for it.

Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: To actually hear about the evidence for intelligent design would require, well, evidence for it. Glen Davidson

What sort of result is not to be expected?

I'm surprised UD keeps an archive at all. Going back to their pre-trial smugness, and post-trial implosion still gives me Kitzmas cheer, so much so that I sometimes pop over at random times throughout the year, just for a giggle.

The stuff they present now has devolved considerably, and adds great weight to their argument that complexity cannot evolve. Their best defendents have been reduced to be being reduced, via a combination of Elizabeth Liddel's honour, manners, and knowledge into whiny wimps at TSZ. (They steer clear of here as there is less of Lizzie's incredible tolerance for their shabby thought.)

Josh Rosenau and Glenn Branch at the Science League of America have produced an admirable and entertaining effort titled "Twas the night before Kitzmas."

Enjoy, Dave

another trial says this YEC.
If the judge had said YUP ID is science it is THEN would all the evolutionist reindeer agreed and submitted once and for all??
A good question for thinking people about the finality of Judges decisions on scientific investigation !
i think that evolutionists would of not agreed and examined carefully the reasoning behind such a judgement.
We creationists don't agree with this absurd decision or even the right for some obscxure judge to make such a decision.
We can tear it apart just as we tear evolution apart. Tooth and claw world.
This judge conclusion is dismissed and funny.
if evolutionist must rely on a judge's decision then it means they don't believe they could on merits make the case themselves.
Do ID/YEC folks care a snowman about this decision. NO.
It was wrong and dumb and biased and from a earlier age.
We bring our case to the world about our methodology and results.
Mr Meyer's best selling book is more important then another silly attempt of lawyers to settle scientific contentions.

The christmas gift was bringing great attention to the creationist cause to a otherwise unfamiliar public except in bare details.
IN fact today creationism and friends are sled flying high and possibly higher then if the court case had settled in the good guys favour.
Not that a court case would matter anyways on such matters.
I never followed the case but note in origin discussions on the web its obvious faulty criticisms.
Where is the Judge today? We all know where the iD thinkers are today. high as a kite, I mean sled.

I have a question about the Dover trial. The teachers acted honorably, but it seems the administrators above them did not. The assistant superintendent was willing to read the ID statement to the class. I have never read anything that said the principal or the administration above the teachers ever did anything to oppose the school board or support the science teachers. Was the administration sympathetic to the creationist movement or were they merely weak and uninformed?

Robert Byers said: We all know where the iD thinkers are today.

It did take them several years, but the ID perps at the Discovery Institute did finally remove the statement that they had a scientific theory of intelligent design to teach in the public schools from their education policy statement this year. There seems to be no acknowledgement of that fact at their Evolution News link above, but it seems that the teach ID scam is pretty much dead at this point. Anyone that still thinks that the intelligent design scam is still viable just has to go to the Discovery Institutes current education policy and look at what they are currently claiming. Another Kitzmiller would just be redundant at this point and the IDiots probably all know it. What has changed in 8 years? When the guys that sold you the scam drop it, what can you do?

Nothing has changed since Dover and with the change of leadership at the Discovery Institute, and the fact that the ID scam never amounted to more than a scam, it looks like they are moving farther away from those types of bogus claims.

Layman said: I have a question about the Dover trial. The teachers acted honorably, but it seems the administrators above them did not. The assistant superintendent was willing to read the ID statement to the class. I have never read anything that said the principal or the administration above the teachers ever did anything to oppose the school board or support the science teachers. Was the administration sympathetic to the creationist movement or were they merely weak and uninformed?

Robert Byers said: another trial says this YEC. If the judge had said YUP ID is science it is THEN would all the evolutionist reindeer agreed and submitted once and for all?? A good question for thinking people about the finality of Judges decisions on scientific investigation ! i think that evolutionists would of not agreed and examined carefully the reasoning behind such a judgement. We creationists don't agree with this absurd decision or even the right for some obscxure judge to make such a decision. We can tear it apart just as we tear evolution apart. Tooth and claw world. This judge conclusion is dismissed and funny. if evolutionist must rely on a judge's decision then it means they don't believe they could on merits make the case themselves. Do ID/YEC folks care a snowman about this decision. NO. It was wrong and dumb and biased and from a earlier age. We bring our case to the world about our methodology and results. Mr Meyer's best selling book is more important then another silly attempt of lawyers to settle scientific contentions. The christmas gift was bringing great attention to the creationist cause to a otherwise unfamiliar public except in bare details. IN fact today creationism and friends are sled flying high and possibly higher then if the court case had settled in the good guys favour. Not that a court case would matter anyways on such matters. I never followed the case but note in origin discussions on the web its obvious faulty criticisms. Where is the Judge today? We all know where the iD thinkers are today. high as a kite, I mean sled.

SLC said: Apparently booby has gotten into the Christmas cheer a little early. Or is he smoking lefty luckies?

Robert Byers said: another trial says this YEC. If the judge had said YUP ID is science it is THEN would all the evolutionist reindeer agreed and submitted once and for all?? A good question for thinking people about the finality of Judges decisions on scientific investigation ! i think that evolutionists would of not agreed and examined carefully the reasoning behind such a judgement. We creationists don't agree with this absurd decision or even the right for some obscxure judge to make such a decision. We can tear it apart just as we tear evolution apart. Tooth and claw world. This judge conclusion is dismissed and funny. if evolutionist must rely on a judge's decision then it means they don't believe they could on merits make the case themselves. Do ID/YEC folks care a snowman about this decision. NO. It was wrong and dumb and biased and from a earlier age. We bring our case to the world about our methodology and results. Mr Meyer's best selling book is more important then another silly attempt of lawyers to settle scientific contentions. The christmas gift was bringing great attention to the creationist cause to a otherwise unfamiliar public except in bare details. IN fact today creationism and friends are sled flying high and possibly higher then if the court case had settled in the good guys favour. Not that a court case would matter anyways on such matters. I never followed the case but note in origin discussions on the web its obvious faulty criticisms. Where is the Judge today? We all know where the iD thinkers are today. high as a kite, I mean sled.

Henry J said:

What sort of result is not to be expected?

The Spanish inquisition?

"We all know where the iD thinkers are today. high as a kite, I mean sled."

merry christmas robert you are truly the gift that keeps on giving

Mike Elzinga said: Remember how Dembski ran away from testifying under oath at Dover? Remember how Dembski presented an amicus curiae to “rebut” plaintiff witnesses at Dover without himself being subjected to cross examination?

1. William Dembsk did not contribute to writing the brief, as he is not an attorney and does not write legal treatises. His name does not rise in discussion anywhere in the brief. The brief is written by lawyers. The only place Dembski is mentioned in the brief is he is cited as the author of the books that were referenced as authorities in the bibliography. 2. It's impossible to cross examine an expert witness when they were never retained as an expert to begin with. Dembski never testified upon direct exam, and had nothing to do with the trial. If he was not questioned on direct exam, then he certainly wouldn't be cross-examined as well. To say he "avoided" anything is a lie. Also, if anyone does testify, they don't have a choice to opt out of being cross-examined. It's the opposing attorney who decides if he wants to cross-examine the witness. If the witness refuses to answer, they could be held in contempt. 3. The amicus curiae brief did attack the plaintiffs or anybody. It was a discussion of Constitutional law, primarily based upon the history of the First Amendment in the history of American jurisprudence with respect to school curriculum. You can easily tell by the historic landmark legal cases that are cited.

Tristan Miller said: I am only moderately well-versed in American law, so I'm not sure if the rebuttal is valid.

Just out of idle curiosity, what would have been the next step if the ruling had come down in favour of ID? Up to the supreme court I imagine? And what if, horrors of horrors, the supreme court judged in favour too? I am not saying this to feed Bryars, but I am thinking that though the church/state separation is pretty rock solid in the US constitution, the US constitution is not inviolate and has been changed over its history. Though I guess the nightmare scenario I'm thinking of requires the SC to go against the constitution, not having it changed first. But let's say the SC was stacked with a bunch of Scalias?

daoudmbo said: Just out of idle curiosity, what would have been the next step if the ruling had come down in favour of ID? Up to the supreme court I imagine? And what if, horrors of horrors, the supreme court judged in favour too? I am not saying this to feed Bryars, but I am thinking that though the church/state separation is pretty rock solid in the US constitution, the US constitution is not inviolate and has been changed over its history. Though I guess the nightmare scenario I'm thinking of requires the SC to go against the constitution, not having it changed first. But let's say the SC was stacked with a bunch of Scalias?

Tristan Miller said:

Mike Elzinga said: Remember how Dembski ran away from testifying under oath at Dover? Remember how Dembski presented an amicus curiae to “rebut” plaintiff witnesses at Dover without himself being subjected to cross examination?

On a Facebook page, little known IDiot blogger Dennis Jones responded to these accusations as follows:

1. William Dembsk did not contribute to writing the brief, as he is not an attorney and does not write legal treatises. His name does not rise in discussion anywhere in the brief. The brief is written by lawyers. The only place Dembski is mentioned in the brief is he is cited as the author of the books that were referenced as authorities in the bibliography. 2. It's impossible to cross examine an expert witness when they were never retained as an expert to begin with. Dembski never testified upon direct exam, and had nothing to do with the trial. If he was not questioned on direct exam, then he certainly wouldn't be cross-examined as well. To say he "avoided" anything is a lie. Also, if anyone does testify, they don't have a choice to opt out of being cross-examined. It's the opposing attorney who decides if he wants to cross-examine the witness. If the witness refuses to answer, they could be held in contempt. 3. The amicus curiae brief did attack the plaintiffs or anybody. It was a discussion of Constitutional law, primarily based upon the history of the First Amendment in the history of American jurisprudence with respect to school curriculum. You can easily tell by the historic landmark legal cases that are cited.

I am only moderately well-versed in American law, so I'm not sure if the rebuttal is valid.

diogeneslamp0 said: Where, in Dembski's pile of codswollop, is there any mention of the expert report Dembski wrote and charged the school district $20,000 for? In that "expert report" he insinuated that evolutionary theory would lead to sex with animals. $20,000 for that. Ray Comfort would do it for free. Jones should tell Dembski to be a man for once and come here himself.

Matt G said:

Henry J said:

What sort of result is not to be expected?

The Spanish inquisition?

Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope....

Reynold Hall said:

Matt G said:

Henry J said:

What sort of result is not to be expected?

The Spanish inquisition?

Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope....

I'm sorry, but after reading that, I had to post this: http://www.servantsoftheimperium.com/comic.php?comicid=51

Reynold Hall said: Anyway, here's something designed to take away some of that Kitzmas cheer: A new video by Illustra media! FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds http://illustramedia.com/intelligent-design/flight/rsvp-for-illustra-medias-film-premier-of-flight/

SWT said:

Reynold Hall said: Anyway, here's something designed to take away some of that Kitzmas cheer: A new video by Illustra media! FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds http://illustramedia.com/intelligent-design/flight/rsvp-for-illustra-medias-film-premier-of-flight/

By "new," you apparently mean "released months ago". Perhaps it even meets the same rigorous documentary standards set by Expelled!

Mike Elzinga said: Whatever happened to Dembski’s famous “fart video” mocking Judge Jones and the plaintiff witnesses after Judge Jones's decision? Remember Dembski’s famous “Vice Strategy” in which he was going to brutally squeeze the truth out of people “trapped” into testifying under oath? Remember how Dembski ran away from testifying under oath at Dover? Remember how Dembski presented an amicus curiae to “rebut” plaintiff witnesses at Dover without himself being subjected to cross examination? Remember the jaw-dropping perjury by the “Christian” defendants that so irritated Judge Jones? What a lovely display of ID/creationist tactics we saw emerge in real time as the trial took place. Ah, memories!

Ray Martinez said:

Mike Elzinga said: Whatever happened to Dembski’s famous “fart video” mocking Judge Jones and the plaintiff witnesses after Judge Jones's decision? Remember Dembski’s famous “Vice Strategy” in which he was going to brutally squeeze the truth out of people “trapped” into testifying under oath? Remember how Dembski ran away from testifying under oath at Dover? Remember how Dembski presented an amicus curiae to “rebut” plaintiff witnesses at Dover without himself being subjected to cross examination? Remember the jaw-dropping perjury by the “Christian” defendants that so irritated Judge Jones? What a lovely display of ID/creationist tactics we saw emerge in real time as the trial took place. Ah, memories!

The Darwinian Judge ruled as expected. No other "decision" was possible. When was the first time a Federal judge ruled that Creationism violated constitutional amendments and principles? Was it before or after the rise of Darwinism in higher education? Of course my questions are rhetorical: Judge Jones became a Darwinist when he matriculated through higher education. No matter how much it is denied, his "decision," in the eyes of every honest and objective person, was predetermined. Judge Jones is a liar.

Robert Byers said: Another trial says this YEC.

Ray Martinez said: Moreover, the fact that Atheists praise Judge Jones for his "integrity," proves that Jones is not a Christian. Atheists, of course, would never support a real Christian.

Ray Martinez said:

Ray Martinez said:

Mike Elzinga said: Whatever happened to Dembski’s famous “fart video” mocking Judge Jones and the plaintiff witnesses after Judge Jones's decision? Remember Dembski’s famous “Vice Strategy” in which he was going to brutally squeeze the truth out of people “trapped” into testifying under oath? Remember how Dembski ran away from testifying under oath at Dover? Remember how Dembski presented an amicus curiae to “rebut” plaintiff witnesses at Dover without himself being subjected to cross examination? Remember the jaw-dropping perjury by the “Christian” defendants that so irritated Judge Jones? What a lovely display of ID/creationist tactics we saw emerge in real time as the trial took place. Ah, memories!

The Darwinian Judge ruled as expected. No other "decision" was possible. When was the first time a Federal judge ruled that Creationism violated constitutional amendments and principles? Was it before or after the rise of Darwinism in higher education? Of course my questions are rhetorical: Judge Jones became a Darwinist when he matriculated through higher education. No matter how much it is denied, his "decision," in the eyes of every honest and objective person, was predetermined. Judge Jones is a liar.

Moreover, the fact that Atheists praise Judge Jones for his "integrity," proves that Jones is not a Christian. Atheists, of course, would never support a real Christian.

Dave Thomas said:

Ray Martinez said: Moreover, the fact that Atheists praise Judge Jones for his "integrity," proves that Jones is not a Christian. Atheists, of course, would never support a real Christian.

Ray, I think you've committed the "No True Christian Scotsman" logical fallacy.

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Thomas said: Ray, I think you've committed the "No True Christian Scotsman" logical fallacy.

This person actually thinks a real Christian can be as such while enjoying the support and praise of Atheists. Yes, you're suffering under a logical fallacy.

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Thomas said: Ray, I think you've committed the "No True Christian Scotsman" logical fallacy.

This person actually thinks a real Christian can be as such while enjoying the support and praise of Atheists. Yes, you're suffering under a logical fallacy.

Hmm… I'm an atheist. I support and praise the new Pope. Sure, he's still Catholic. Hard to get around that and still be "Pope", and all that. But as long as we're going to have a Pope, he's a lot more promising than the previous one. Better to have a Pope with whom I can agree on some issues, rather than one whom I disagree with on all issues. So, does my support and praise for the new Pope make him not a "real" Christian?

Does the recognition by an atheist of the good works of a Christian automatically make that person less of a Christian??? How, exactly does my praise or support change whether another person (who doesn't even know me) believes in Christ or not??

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Thomas said: Ray, I think you've committed the "No True Christian Scotsman" logical fallacy.

This person actually thinks a real Christian can be as such while enjoying the support and praise of Atheists. Yes, you're suffering under a logical fallacy.

Hmm… I'm an atheist. I support and praise the new Pope. Sure, he's still Catholic. Hard to get around that and still be "Pope", and all that. But as long as we're going to have a Pope, he's a lot more promising than the previous one. Better to have a Pope with whom I can agree on some issues, rather than one whom I disagree with on all issues. So, does my support and praise for the new Pope make him not a "real" Christian?

We Protestants, long ago, in most brazen fashion, rejected the Pope and the Catholic Church as having any semblance to our founding document, the Bible. The fact that the current Pope enjoys endless praise and approval from the secular world, including Atheists, means he is not a real Christian. You picked the ultimate example, thank you. If Pope Francis were a real Christian he would be suffering some form of persecution from the secular world, as did Jesus, Paul, and all of the original Apostles and Disciples. In the context of preaching the gospel, Paul said: 2Corinthians 11:24-26 (KJV) "Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren." What has Francis suffered at the hands of unbelievers? Time Magazine Man of the Year! 2Timothy 3:12 (KJV): "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."

Does the recognition by an atheist of the good works of a Christian automatically make that person less of a Christian??? How, exactly does my praise or support change whether another person (who doesn't even know me) believes in Christ or not??

You're not praising Francis for good works; rather, you're praising him for rejecting Biblical truth and accepting secular truth. And I'm saying the Bible says that a real Christian suffers rejection and disapproval from non-believers, not praise and approval. When a Christian receives praise and approval from unbelievers the same means said Christian isn't a real Christian because if he was a real Christian he would be treated the same way Christ and Paul were treated. Both were rejected by the established religious communities of their day, both suffered at the hands of unbelievers for walking with God contrary to tradition. Ray (Protestant Evangelical)

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Thomas said: Ray, I think you've committed the "No True Christian Scotsman" logical fallacy.

This person actually thinks a real Christian can be as such while enjoying the support and praise of Atheists. Yes, you're suffering under a logical fallacy.

Hmm… I'm an atheist. I support and praise the new Pope. Sure, he's still Catholic. Hard to get around that and still be "Pope", and all that. But as long as we're going to have a Pope, he's a lot more promising than the previous one. Better to have a Pope with whom I can agree on some issues, rather than one whom I disagree with on all issues. So, does my support and praise for the new Pope make him not a "real" Christian?

We Protestants, long ago, in most brazen fashion, rejected the Pope and the Catholic Church as having any semblance to our founding document, the Bible. The fact that the current Pope enjoys endless praise and approval from the secular world, including Atheists, means he is not a real Christian....

Scott F said: Does the recognition by an atheist of the good works of a Christian automatically make that person less of a Christian??? How, exactly does my praise or support change whether another person (who doesn't even know me) believes in Christ or not??

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said: Does the recognition by an atheist of the good works of a Christian automatically make that person less of a Christian??? How, exactly does my praise or support change whether another person (who doesn't even know me) believes in Christ or not??

If a person CLAIMS to be a believer in Christ, or CLAIMS to walk with Christ, both claims are proven false if the alleged Christian receives praise and approval from the secular world. The Bible says the secular world is controlled by Satan. Therefore when the secular world approves of a Christian then that Christian isn't walking with Christ. If said Christian was walking with Christ the secular world would hate him. Do you understand?

It's projection and narcissism in approximately equal proportions, phhht. Ray is considered a raving loony by nearly everybody, including most evangelical Christians, even most young-earth creationists, because he's an "immutabilist", which is to young-earth creationism as turtles-all-the-way-down is to flat-earth theory. Even young-earthers concede some change in the species, if only as a desperate shift to get out from under one of the many impossibilities in the Noah's Ark myth. But not Ray.

So Ray's reaction to everyone knowing that he's loopy is to embrace it. It is a proud and lonely thing to be a crackpot. But more: to what Ray calls his mind, the necessary conclusion to be drawn from the fact that everyone knows that he's crazy is that he must be right. But better yet, being the only one who's right means that he'll get to watch while everyone else gets fell in on the left for eternal torment.

That's what's behind this True Scotsman farce. Ray's heard the story. He's perfectly happy with his status as the only True Christian(tm). That just makes it better, so far as he's concerned. Heaven, for Ray, consists essentially of his own unique and exclusive company, plus everyone else frying. What's not to like?

What's not for Ray to like, that is.

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said: Does the recognition by an atheist of the good works of a Christian automatically make that person less of a Christian??? How, exactly does my praise or support change whether another person (who doesn't even know me) believes in Christ or not??

If a person CLAIMS to be a believer in Christ, or CLAIMS to walk with Christ, both claims are proven false if the alleged Christian receives praise and approval from the secular world. The Bible says the secular world is controlled by Satan. Therefore when the secular world approves of a Christian then that Christian isn't walking with Christ. If said Christian was walking with Christ the secular world would hate him. Do you understand?

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said: Does the recognition by an atheist of the good works of a Christian automatically make that person less of a Christian??? How, exactly does my praise or support change whether another person (who doesn't even know me) believes in Christ or not??

If a person CLAIMS to be a believer in Christ, or CLAIMS to walk with Christ, both claims are proven false if the alleged Christian receives praise and approval from the secular world. The Bible says the secular world is controlled by Satan. Therefore when the secular world approves of a Christian then that Christian isn't walking with Christ. If said Christian was walking with Christ the secular world would hate him. Do you understand?

Ray Martinez said: You're not praising Francis for good works; rather, you're praising him for rejecting Biblical truth and accepting secular truth.

The Bible says the secular world is controlled by Satan.

Dave Luckett said: When loonies appear to quote the Bible, they're usually not only wrong, but quite often blasphemous. Ray said:

The Bible says the secular world is controlled by Satan.

It doesn't say that, of course. Ephesians 2:2 says that "the commander of the spirits of the air" is "the spirit now at work among God's rebel subjects". Which is to say that it is God, not this commander of spirits (whoever he is) who rules the Earth. Saying otherwise is to say that God is not sovereign over creation, which is a heresy. Jesus refers to "the prince of this world" three times in the Gospel of John. The first of these occurs at John 10:31, where Jesus says: "Now is the hour of judgement for this world; now shall the prince of the world be driven out." So it might be possible to hold that Satan - if that was who Jesus meant - had been the prince of the world up until then, but it is to deny the word of Jesus Himself to hold that Satan still rules; for Jesus said plainly that he was driven out from that hour. Ray, of course, isn't going to take the word of Jesus on this. He knows better, you see. Tell you what, Ray, why don't you correct the Bible on this point? Or better still, write your own holy book? Won't be the first time it's happened, you know.

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Luckett said: When loonies appear to quote the Bible, they're usually not only wrong, but quite often blasphemous. Ray said:

The Bible says the secular world is controlled by Satan.

It doesn't say that, of course. Ephesians 2:2 says that "the commander of the spirits of the air" is "the spirit now at work among God's rebel subjects". Which is to say that it is God, not this commander of spirits (whoever he is) who rules the Earth. Saying otherwise is to say that God is not sovereign over creation, which is a heresy. Jesus refers to "the prince of this world" three times in the Gospel of John. The first of these occurs at John 10:31, where Jesus says: "Now is the hour of judgement for this world; now shall the prince of the world be driven out." So it might be possible to hold that Satan - if that was who Jesus meant - had been the prince of the world up until then, but it is to deny the word of Jesus Himself to hold that Satan still rules; for Jesus said plainly that he was driven out from that hour. Ray, of course, isn't going to take the word of Jesus on this. He knows better, you see. Tell you what, Ray, why don't you correct the Bible on this point? Or better still, write your own holy book? Won't be the first time it's happened, you know.

Your understanding of Scripture is truly kindergarten (to be kind). While God retains ultimate control of everything, the Fall gave Satan operational control of the Earth and its peoples. The secular world is controlled by Satan; this is why they reject Christ and Bible. The most common testimony one hears from new converts is that they were saved from their former secular life and its opposition to God and Christ. Again, you're clueless concerning BASIC Theology, like most Darwinists. This is also seen in your quotes which say what I'm saying and refute what you're saying. In short: You don't even know how stupid you look. CONTEXT defines which spirit is being spoken of, God or Satan's. Your assumption that "spirit" always and only means "Holy Spirit" is laughable ignorance. And "driven out" speaks of a specific area. Ray

Dave Luckett said: Ray is considered a raving loony by nearly everybody, including most evangelical Christians

even most young-earth creationists, because he's an "immutabilist", which is to young-earth creationism as turtles-all-the-way-down is to flat-earth theory. Even young-earthers concede some change in the species, if only as a desperate shift to get out from under one of the many impossibilities in the Noah's Ark myth. But not Ray.

So Ray's reaction to everyone knowing that he's loopy is to embrace it. It is a proud and lonely thing to be a crackpot. But more: to what Ray calls his mind, the necessary conclusion to be drawn from the fact that everyone knows that he's crazy is that he must be right. But better yet, being the only one who's right means that he'll get to watch while everyone else gets fell in on the left for eternal torment. That's what's behind this True Scotsman farce. Ray's heard the story. He's perfectly happy with his status as the only True Christian(tm). That just makes it better, so far as he's concerned. Heaven, for Ray, consists essentially of his own unique and exclusive company, plus everyone else frying. What's not to like? What's not for Ray to like, that is.

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Luckett said: Ray is considered a raving loony by nearly everybody, including most evangelical Christians

Typical evo anger and slander.

even most young-earth creationists, because he's an "immutabilist", which is to young-earth creationism as turtles-all-the-way-down is to flat-earth theory. Even young-earthers concede some change in the species, if only as a desperate shift to get out from under one of the many impossibilities in the Noah's Ark myth. But not Ray.

I'm relieved to be rejected by persons who believe in a young Earth while accepting evolution, that is, the main claim of their alleged enemy.

So Ray's reaction to everyone knowing that he's loopy is to embrace it. It is a proud and lonely thing to be a crackpot. But more: to what Ray calls his mind, the necessary conclusion to be drawn from the fact that everyone knows that he's crazy is that he must be right. But better yet, being the only one who's right means that he'll get to watch while everyone else gets fell in on the left for eternal torment. That's what's behind this True Scotsman farce. Ray's heard the story. He's perfectly happy with his status as the only True Christian(tm). That just makes it better, so far as he's concerned. Heaven, for Ray, consists essentially of his own unique and exclusive company, plus everyone else frying. What's not to like? What's not for Ray to like, that is.

The Fundies are in your bed, not mine, Thank God. I'm glad to be considered crazy by persons like yourself; that is, persons who receive approval from young Earth Fundies. RM (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist, Protestand Evangelical)

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: You're not praising Francis for good works; rather, you're praising him for rejecting Biblical truth and accepting secular truth.

On the contrary, I'm giving Francis praise and approval for willing to help the poor, and for living a humble and self effacing life (even as Pope), both of which I find to be exemplary human traits. Are helping the poor and acting with humility both acts of "rejecting Biblical truth"?

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: You're not praising Francis for good works; rather, you're praising him for rejecting Biblical truth and accepting secular truth.

On the contrary, I'm giving Francis praise and approval for willing to help the poor, and for living a humble and self effacing life (even as Pope), both of which I find to be exemplary human traits. Are helping the poor and acting with humility both acts of "rejecting Biblical truth"?

The alleged Boss of the Pope---Jesus, said in the Sermon on the Mount, NOT to sound a trumpet when you do good works; for when you do the praise of men is all you're going to receive, you have NO reward in Heaven. The Pope violates this simple and well known command on a DAILY basis. And how poor a life do you really think the Pope lives? Are you really that naive? Does he not eat the finest food? Is he denied access to the best healthcare or ANY modern luxury? Are not ALL of his expenses paid for by the Church? Are you admitting that you don't know that he is playing before the cameras that follow him around? Your kind loves Christians who take care of the poor so it's less of a burden on your wallet, tax liability, and conscience. But when a Christian asserts his faith into politics or law your admiration suddenly turns into rage. Secular only approves of Christians when they take care of the poor and when they kiss their ass (accept secular truth while rejecting Biblical truth). The only real Christian Pope the world has seen since the Reformation was the Smiling Pope who died (= murdered) after serving a few days in office. He was about to clean house on a corrupt Catholic hierarchy. Read the book. Although not popular for obvious reasons, it's by far one of the best books ever written.

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said: Does the recognition by an atheist of the good works of a Christian automatically make that person less of a Christian??? How, exactly does my praise or support change whether another person (who doesn't even know me) believes in Christ or not??

If a person CLAIMS to be a believer in Christ, or CLAIMS to walk with Christ, both claims are proven false if the alleged Christian receives praise and approval from the secular world. The Bible says the secular world is controlled by Satan. Therefore when the secular world approves of a Christian then that Christian isn't walking with Christ. If said Christian was walking with Christ the secular world would hate him. Do you understand?

But Ray, as an atheist I have nothing but praise and approval for Christ, his messages of love and compassion for the poor, downtrodden, and meek in spirit, and for his good works. It's Paul and The Church which he and the Roman emperors built up around Christ and his message which I have problems with.

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said: Does the recognition by an atheist of the good works of a Christian automatically make that person less of a Christian??? How, exactly does my praise or support change whether another person (who doesn't even know me) believes in Christ or not??

If a person CLAIMS to be a believer in Christ, or CLAIMS to walk with Christ, both claims are proven false if the alleged Christian receives praise and approval from the secular world. The Bible says the secular world is controlled by Satan. Therefore when the secular world approves of a Christian then that Christian isn't walking with Christ. If said Christian was walking with Christ the secular world would hate him. Do you understand?

But Ray, as an atheist I have nothing but praise and approval for Christ, his messages of love and compassion for the poor, downtrodden, and meek in spirit, and for his good works. It's Paul and The Church which he and the Roman emperors built up around Christ and his message which I have problems with.

All this says is that you like Christ when He defends and helps the poor. Everything else you dislike. In other words, you only like that which helps your immediate concern: the poor. You like this auxilliary message because it helps to take the burden off of your wallet. The meat of what Jesus said, that is, the fact that you and I are sinners who are going to hell unless we come into a right relationship with Him, is rejected by your kind. So, like I said, you only like a very small part of Christ's message because your wallet is perceived to benefit.

Now is the hour of judgement for this world; now shall the prince of the world be driven out.

My "Close Comments" finger is twitching. Must click with it soon. Get your final comments in pronto, people.