How did the Pharisees "shut up" the kingdom of heaven?

[Ps 27:1]

Knowledge is the Key.

That says it all. That's how the Pharisees "shut up" the kingdom of God. They hid the knowledge. That's what all the "religious wars" have always centered on, and that's why Josh McDowell is saying that knowledge (information) is the primary threat against Christianity. Here's the article:

Apologist Josh McDowell: Internet the Greatest Threat to Christians

So Richard, in this new found morality of yours, do you now get to bear false witness against others to promote your agenda? Did you even read the whole article?

-Quote-

McDowell, who considered himself an agnostic before accepting Christ, warned that the sexual immorality through the Internet was 'marginalizing the maturity of the witness of Christ…all over the world.' It’s an 'invasive, intruding immorality… that is all just one click away.' He said the majority of questions young people ask him are about sex, mainly 'oral sex.'

The majority of all the 2.2 billion people who go to the Internet daily are between 15 to 25 years of age, he said. And there are 4.2 million pornographic sites. 'Do you know how many pornographic emails would be circulated just today? 2.5 billion…just one click away.'

The Campus Crusade staff also said around 90 percent of the 16-year-olds, according to the latest statistics, had viewed pornography. And 80 percent of 15- to 17-year-olds had had exposure to hardcore pornography. In a recent study, teenagers were asked if pornography was acceptable, and 67 percent of the men and 59 percent of the women said 'yes,' he added. 'For 47 percent of Christian families, pornography is a major problem. Association of Divorce Lawyers came out and said that over 50 percent of divorces were directly related to pornography.'

How can this be checked? You can use the content control on a computer, but what about their cellphone, and their friends’ computers? 'Folks, you can’t isolate your kids.'

-endquote-

To Josh, it's mostly about how pornography has been a cancer. Did you read that last sentence?


-Quote-

McDowell proposed three ways to deal with the problem. 'First, we have to model the truth. If you don’t model what you teach your kids, forget it. If they don’t see it, they won’t believe it… Second, we have to build relationships.' Just as truth without relationship leads to rejection, rules without relationship lead to rebellion, he said. 'Kids don’t respond to rules. They respond to rules in the context of a loving, intimate relationship.' And third, he said, we have to use knowledge. 'You better arm yourselves to answer your children’s and grandchildren’s questions…no matter what the question is…without being judgmental.' Kids’ greatest defense, he said, was the knowledge of truth.

-endquote-

I think you owe him and this forum an apology for your false witness.

Steve

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Knowledge is the Key.

That says it all. That's how the Pharisees "shut up" the kingdom of God. They hid the knowledge. That's what all the "religious wars" have always centered on, and that's why Josh McDowell is saying that knowledge (information) is the primary threat against Christianity. Here's the article:

Apologist Josh McDowell: Internet the Greatest Threat to Christians

So Richard, in this new found morality of yours, do you now get to bear false witness against others to promote your agenda? Did you even read the whole article?

Hey there Steve,

What's with the snotty attitude? I don't have a "new found morality." I have exactly the same "morality" I've always had. I'm just honest now when I point out that the Bible does not live up to objective moral standards. Believers twist their minds trying to justify the immorality attributed to God in the Bible. For example, William Lane Craig said that God did no wrong to order the murder of the Canaanite children because they were under the age of accountability and so they all "went to heaven." Of course, if this is true then abortionists do them no wrong either! This is an example of what happens when people deny their own morality and rationality in their effort to support the dogma that the Bible is the "inerrant and infallible Word of God."

Now on to the details of your criticism ...

-Quote-

McDowell, who considered himself an agnostic before accepting Christ, warned that the sexual immorality through the Internet was 'marginalizing the maturity of the witness of Christ…all over the world.' It’s an 'invasive, intruding immorality… that is all just one click away.' He said the majority of questions young people ask him are about sex, mainly 'oral sex.'

The majority of all the 2.2 billion people who go to the Internet daily are between 15 to 25 years of age, he said. And there are 4.2 million pornographic sites. 'Do you know how many pornographic emails would be circulated just today? 2.5 billion…just one click away.'

The Campus Crusade staff also said around 90 percent of the 16-year-olds, according to the latest statistics, had viewed pornography. And 80 percent of 15- to 17-year-olds had had exposure to hardcore pornography. In a recent study, teenagers were asked if pornography was acceptable, and 67 percent of the men and 59 percent of the women said 'yes,' he added. 'For 47 percent of Christian families, pornography is a major problem. Association of Divorce Lawyers came out and said that over 50 percent of divorces were directly related to pornography.'

How can this be checked? You can use the content control on a computer, but what about their cellphone, and their friends’ computers? 'Folks, you can’t isolate your kids.'

-endquote-

To Josh, it's mostly about how pornography has been a cancer. Did you read that last sentence?

-Quote-

McDowell proposed three ways to deal with the problem. 'First, we have to model the truth. If you don’t model what you teach your kids, forget it. If they don’t see it, they won’t believe it… Second, we have to build relationships.' Just as truth without relationship leads to rejection, rules without relationship lead to rebellion, he said. 'Kids don’t respond to rules. They respond to rules in the context of a loving, intimate relationship.' And third, he said, we have to use knowledge. 'You better arm yourselves to answer your children’s and grandchildren’s questions…no matter what the question is…without being judgmental.' Kids’ greatest defense, he said, was the knowledge of truth.

-endquote-

I think you owe him and this forum an apology for your false witness.

Steve

Your assertion that Josh's opposition was "mostly about how pornography has been a cancer" is not true. Yes, that's a big concern in the latter half of the article, but it's far from the only concern, and it has nothing to do with the point that I was making. Here is the first big quote from Josh in the article:

'The Internet has given atheists, agnostics, skeptics, the people who like to destroy everything that you and I believe, the almost equal access to your kids as your youth pastor and you have... whether you like it or not,' said McDowell, who is author of two books on Christian apologetics, More than a Carpenter and New Evidence that Demands Verdict.

The belief or worldview, McDowell said, forms values, which in turn drive one’s behavior. The worldview 'is where we are falling down the most anywhere in the world.' So what is the prevalent worldview in America today? 'There is no truth apart from myself,' that’s what even many young 'evangelical, fundamental, born-again Christians' believe, he said.

His primary concern is with competing worldviews, and he explicitly said that the danger was that the advocates of those competing worldviews (atheists, agnostics, and skeptics) had access to their kids. This has nothing to do with pornography because there is no connection between skepticism of Christianity and pornography. There are skeptics that are against pornography every bit as much as Christians. So it looks like Josh was not communicating clearly and he mixed up the two topics. Maybe the article was not well written, or maybe Josh was trying to persuade his audience by falsely associating pornography with religious agnosticism. I wouldn't put it past him. Truth is not a strong point amongst Christian apologists.

His assertion that "knowledge of truth" is the solution looks like an absurd self-deception on his part. The real truth wipes out his Biblical fundamentalism in short order. The internet is like the printing press which was instrumental in freeing people from the domination of the Roman Catholic Church. It gives access to all the "evidence that demands a verdict" and the authentic "knowledge of truth" so folks can see through the deceptions of religious fundamentalism.

It looks like you think that I "bore false witness" because Josh said kids should have "knowledge of truth" whereas I said that he opposed the internet because it exposes the kids to arguments by atheists, skeptics, and agnostics. Is that correct? If so, then it comes down to one thing - do you think that Josh really wants kids to be exposed to the "knowledge of truth" presented by atheists, skeptics, and agnostics? If not, then he is not really pushing for "knowledge of truth" at all. What he really meant when he said "knowledge of truth" was probably something like "belief in fundamentalist Christian dogma."

So do you still maintain that I have borne false witness? Should I apologize? If so, please state precisely what I said that was false.

Thanks!

Richard

[Ps 27:1]

Hey there Steve,

What's with the snotty attitude? .......So do you still maintain that I have borne false witness? Should I apologize? If so, please state precisely what I said that was false.

Thanks!

Richard

Not snotty, angry. You are twisting the intent of his words. And if you cannot see and/or admit to that, then I pity you.

..please state precisely what I said that was false.

Josh McDowell is saying that knowledge (information) is the primary threat against Christianity

First of all, Josh didn't write that article, so you have to be careful to read the context of his quotes.

Second. Nowhere does Josh say, "knowledge or informatiom is the primary threat against Christianity".
That is purely your biased interpretation.

Third. You are missing the whole point about kids being exposed to "knowledge". It is the job of parents to protect their children until they are strong enough to protect themselves. Do you have children of your own? Have you never heard the admonishment, "Don't talk to strangers." Strangers can't be trusted to have kids best interest in heart, especially in today's culture. Would you expose your young children to pornography?

Fourth. Your comparison of the internet to the printing press misses the point again. It's about the usurping of parents' rights of privacy and protection. That is why Josh admonishes parents to arm themselves .......with knowledge.

I am sorry that we are butting horns, but when you disparage members of my spiritual family, I'm going to call you out.

Blessings anyway,
Steve

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Not snotty, angry. You are twisting the intent of his words. And if you cannot see and/or admit to that, then I pity you.

Hey there Steve,

I didn't twist anything at all. Take a look at this quote of Josh's own words from that article:

'Now here is the problem,' said McDowell, 'going all the way back, when Al Gore invented the Internet [he said jokingly], I made the statement off and on for 10-11 years that the abundance of knowledge, the abundance of information, will not lead to certainty; it will lead to pervasive skepticism. And, folks, that’s exactly what has happened. It’s like this. How do you really know, there is so much out there… This abundance [of information] has led to skepticism. And then the Internet has leveled the playing field

Is that not exactly what I stated in the post you now are complaining about?

First of all, Josh didn't write that article, so you have to be careful to read the context of his quotes.

Of course, I made note of that in my response.

Second. Nowhere does Josh say, "knowledge or informatiom is the primary threat against Christianity".
That is purely your biased interpretation.

That's not true. See the quote above.

Third. You are missing the whole point about kids being exposed to "knowledge". It is the job of parents to protect their children until they are strong enough to protect themselves. Do you have children of your own? Have you never heard the admonishment, "Don't talk to strangers." Strangers can't be trusted to have kids best interest in heart, especially in today's culture. Would you expose your young children to pornography?

That's not correct. Folks don't want kids to talk to strangers because of dangers like kidnapping. It has absolutely nothing to do with the "information" the stranger might impart. If that were the case, then parents would be very wary about kids going to the public library to read books written by strangers.

Fourth. Your comparison of the internet to the printing press misses the point again. It's about the usurping of parents' rights of privacy and protection. That is why Josh admonishes parents to arm themselves .......with knowledge.

The printing press is the perfect analog to the internet. It helped free people from the oppression of the Roman Catholic Church. The KEY to FREEDOM was INFORMATION. That's why the internet is such a threat to fundamentalist Christianity. This point was addressed by Josh in the article:

McDowell, who lives in southern California with his wife Dottie and four children, said atheists, agnostics and skeptics didn’t have access to kids earlier. 'If they wrote books, not many people read it. If they gave a talk, not many people went. They would normally get to kids maybe in the last couple of years of the university.' But that has changed now [because of the internet].

And what is the change that has made the ARGUMENTS BASED ON EVIDENCE available to kids??? THE INTERNET! That was Josh's point, and I merely pointed it out. Your complaint against me is obviously false. I think you should admit this fact.

I am sorry that we are butting horns, but when you disparage members of my spiritual family, I'm going to call you out.

Blessings anyway,
Steve

That's OK man. It's healthy to "butt horns" once in a while. I'm glad you "called me out" because it gave me the opportunity to present the evidence that supports my case.

Bottom line: Christians (and all ideologues) have always known that you have to "get them while they are young" or you probably won't "get them" at all.



See that? All I had to do was a quick little Google search and BINGO! I found intelligent people giving intelligent reasons for their rejection of religion. That's why Josh sees the intenert as the greatest threat to Christianity.

Great chatting,

Richard

[Ps 27:1]

See that? All I had to do was a quick little Google search and BINGO! I found intelligent people giving intelligent reasons for their rejection of religion. That's why Josh sees the intenert as the greatest threat to Christianity.

Great chatting,

Richard

Hey Richard,

A big sigh here. You just don't get it. Instead of me defending Josh, I'm going to let him defend himself with his own words. And you're right, "a quick little Google search and BINGO!" It took me less than 2 minutes to find the source material. If you really have the integrity that you claim to have, then you will read the whole paper. It'll take 5 - 10 min or less if you are a speed reader. Here is the link and then click download paper. http://www.just1clickaway.org/page.php?tag=resources


A couple of quotes from the paper:

"This, of course, is not bad in and of itself. The social media revolution is
connecting us in positive ways never before imagined 10-20 years ago.
The digital age has become part of young people’s everyday lives."

"You can’t reverse this current social media explosion, nor should you
even try. In fact, in the last 12 months, on various web sites, more than
200 million people were confronted with the claims of Christ. The social
media revolution itself is not the real culprit here. It is simply the vehicle
that can bring either positive or destructive influences that are just 1
click away from our children."

Two things that should be obvious to you if you read the paper. It is mostly about the pervasive influence of pornography (which agrees with what I said in my first post) and Josh is all about educating people (which I also said).

You will also see that Josh is the one that pushes for frankness and openess when it comes to having these sex talks with kids.

"A few years ago, I was invited to speak on sex and relationships at one
of the largest and most prestigious evangelical Christian schools in
North America. They appreciated that I came to speak on that subject,
but they made the following request:
'We don’t want you to mention anything about oral sex,' they said,
'because we don’t have that problem here. And if you mention it,
our kids will simply start thinking about it and want to
do it.'
I thought their request was absurd and naive, but out of respect,
I honored it. The moment I finished speaking, dozens of kids
crowded around me to ask questions. Nearly every question was
about oral sex. 'Is it sex?' 'Is it wrong?' 'Can you get a STD from
doing it?' etc.

If you truly value my input, then please read the paper before continuing the discussion. Thank you.

Blessings still,
Steve

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey Richard,

A big sigh here. You just don't get it. Instead of me defending Josh, I'm going to let him defend himself with his own words. And you're right, "a quick little Google search and BINGO!" It took me less than 2 minutes to find the source material. If you really have the integrity that you claim to have, then you will read the whole paper. It'll take 5 - 10 min or less if you are a speed reader. Here is the link and then click download paper. http://www.just1clickaway.org/page.php?tag=resources


A couple of quotes from the paper:

"This, of course, is not bad in and of itself. The social media revolution is
connecting us in positive ways never before imagined 10-20 years ago.
The digital age has become part of young people’s everyday lives."

"You can’t reverse this current social media explosion, nor should you
even try. In fact, in the last 12 months, on various web sites, more than
200 million people were confronted with the claims of Christ. The social
media revolution itself is not the real culprit here. It is simply the vehicle
that can bring either positive or destructive influences that are just 1
click away from our children."

Two things that should be obvious to you if you read the paper. It is mostly about the pervasive influence of pornography (which agrees with what I said in my first post) and Josh is all about educating people (which I also said).

You will also see that Josh is the one that pushes for frankness and openess when it comes to having these sex talks with kids.

"A few years ago, I was invited to speak on sex and relationships at one
of the largest and most prestigious evangelical Christian schools in
North America. They appreciated that I came to speak on that subject,
but they made the following request:
'We don’t want you to mention anything about oral sex,' they said,
'because we don’t have that problem here. And if you mention it,
our kids will simply start thinking about it and want to
do it.'
I thought their request was absurd and naive, but out of respect,
I honored it. The moment I finished speaking, dozens of kids
crowded around me to ask questions. Nearly every question was
about oral sex. 'Is it sex?' 'Is it wrong?' 'Can you get a STD from
doing it?' etc.

If you truly value my input, then please read the paper before continuing the discussion. Thank you.

Blessings still,
Steve

Hi Steve,

I very much value you input. I appreciate the fact that Josh was able to give a more nuanced explanation of his view of the impact of the internet. But I don't see how this additional information changes anything I wrote in my first post. Josh explicitly stated that the internet was a danger because it brought kids into contact with contrary points of view that might introduce them to skeptical thought (freethinking) and so undermine the Christian faith. But there is a huge problem with this point of view, because I would think that you and Josh would agree that it is good that the internet exposes the errors of other religions like Mormonism, Islam, Jehovah Witnesses, etc. What's good for the gander is good for the goose. The same internet that exposes the errors of the other religions exposes the errors of Christianity too.

Also, it would have helped if you had responded to my actual points I made.

All the best,

Richard

[CWH]

Hi Steve,

I very much value you input. I appreciate the fact that Josh was able to give a more nuanced explanation of his view of the impact of the internet. But I don't see how this additional information changes anything I wrote in my first post. Josh explicitly stated that the internet was a danger because it brought kids into contact with contrary points of view that might introduce them to skeptical thought (freethinking) and so undermine the Christian faith. But there is a huge problem with this point of view, because I would think that you and Josh would agree that it is good that the internet exposes the errors of other religions like Mormonism, Islam, Jehovah Witnesses, etc. What's good for the gander is good for the goose. The same internet that exposes the errors of the other religions exposes the errors of Christianity too.

Also, it would have helped if you had responded to my actual points I made.

All the best,

Richard

I do hope also that the internet exposes the errors of non-theism and atheism. "The fool says in his heart, there is no God". The internet is also a threat to non-believers.

God Blessed us,

[Ps 27:1]

Hi Steve,

I very much value you input. I appreciate the fact that Josh was able to give a more nuanced explanation of his view of the impact of the internet. But I don't see how this additional information changes anything I wrote in my first post. Josh explicitly stated that the internet was a danger because it brought kids into contact with contrary points of view that might introduce them to skeptical thought (freethinking) and so undermine the Christian faith. But there is a huge problem with this point of view, because I would think that you and Josh would agree that it is good that the internet exposes the errors of other religions like Mormonism, Islam, Jehovah Witnesses, etc. What's good for the gander is good for the goose. The same internet that exposes the errors of the other religions exposes the errors of Christianity too.

Also, it would have helped if you had responded to my actual points I made.

All the best,

Richard

Did you read the whole paper?

Let's analyze this quote:

Originally Posted by RAM

Knowledge is the Key.

That says it all. That's how the Pharisees "shut up" the kingdom of God. They hid the knowledge. That's what all the "religious wars" have always centered on, and that's why Josh McDowell is saying that knowledge (information) is the primary threat against Christianity. Here's the article:

Apologist Josh McDowell: Internet the Greatest Threat to Christians

"Knowledge is the Key" That's not what the text says. It's "key of knowledge" or "key to knowledge" depending on the translation. Minor point.

Pharisees "shut up" the kingdom of God. Agreed.

"That's what all the "religious wars" have always centered on" Too broad of a statement.

"That's why Josh..." How you make this jump just shows your bias. Connecting him with the Pharisees and "religious wars". Please.

"knowledge is the primary threat against Christianity." That is not what he is saying and you know that or you are so bitter or mad about something that it is clouding your judgement.

I already let Josh defend himself and the other "points" you made just show that you still don't get it.

I'm going to start praying for you, Richard, and also for myself to not let my anger get the best of me. Because right now, I am angry with you.

Steve

[Ps 27:1]

Hey Richard,

So you think Christian Fundamentalists are guilty of hiding knowledge? I knew about some of this from reading Gentry's Book but hadn't thought to check the internet. Isn't the internet grand?

Tax-Funded arXiv Engaged in Religious Discrimination
Our sister site, www.OrionFdn.org, has an entire section on this topic. Basically, what happened is that we posted ten papers outlining fatal flaws in the Big Bang theory on the arXiv, an internet service hosted at the time by Los Alamos National Laboratory. The arXiv distributes physics papers worldwide, and we had previously posted papers there with no problem. This time, when those in charge of the arXiv discovered that our papers very clearly outlined the fallacies of the Big Bang, and were supportive of a model of the universe that harmonizes with Genesis, the papers were removed. After we posted them again, they were removed a second time, and our password was revoked.

You can read the subsequent letters that were exchanged by clicking the links on the page "Documentation of Censorship by the Los Alamos National Laboratory arXiv Staff", a page on our sister site.

The arXiv is funded by tax funds. It is therefore inappropriate for the arXiv to discriminate on the basis of religion against scientists who do not ascribe to evolution.

http://www.halos.com/

May God open your eyes, Richard,
Steve

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey Richard,

So you think Christian Fundamentalists are guilty of hiding knowledge? I knew about some of this from reading Gentry's Book but hadn't thought to check the internet. Isn't the internet grand?

Tax-Funded arXiv Engaged in Religious Discrimination
Our sister site, www.OrionFdn.org, has an entire section on this topic. Basically, what happened is that we posted ten papers outlining fatal flaws in the Big Bang theory on the arXiv, an internet service hosted at the time by Los Alamos National Laboratory. The arXiv distributes physics papers worldwide, and we had previously posted papers there with no problem. This time, when those in charge of the arXiv discovered that our papers very clearly outlined the fallacies of the Big Bang, and were supportive of a model of the universe that harmonizes with Genesis, the papers were removed. After we posted them again, they were removed a second time, and our password was revoked.

You can read the subsequent letters that were exchanged by clicking the links on the page "Documentation of Censorship by the Los Alamos National Laboratory arXiv Staff", a page on our sister site.

The arXiv is funded by tax funds. It is therefore inappropriate for the arXiv to discriminate on the basis of religion against scientists who do not ascribe to evolution.

http://www.halos.com/

May God open your eyes, Richard,
Steve

Yes indeed, the internet is grand! Here is what it says about your hero Robert Gentry who thinks his one little piece of "evidence" should overthrow the accumulated scientific evidence of hundreds of thousands of other scientists, and then whines like a baby when his ideas are rejected:

Gentry has had strong disagreements with other creationists over some details of flood geology.^[3] A number of creationists, including fellow Seventh-day Adventists, have criticised his work.^[1]

In the late 1970s, Gentry challenged the scientific community to synthesize "a hand-sized specimen of a typical biotite-bearing granite" as a test of his claims. The scientific response was dismissive, with geologist G. Brent Dalrymple stating:^[1] "As far as I am concerned, Gentry's challenge is silly. … He has proposed an absurd and inconclusive experiment to test a perfectly ridiculous and unscientific hypothesis that ignores virtually the entire body of geological knowledge."

In 1981 Gentry was a defense witness in the McLean v. Arkansas case over the constitutional validity of Act 590 that mandated that "creation science" be given equal time in public schools with evolution.^[4] The defense lost and Act 590 was ruled to be unconstitutional (a verdict that was influential on, and upheld by, the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard).

Gentry has devised his own creationist cosmology and filed a lawsuit in 2001 against Los Alamos National Laboratory and Cornell University after personnel deleted ten of his papers about his cosmology from the public preprint server arXiv.^[5] On 23 March 2004, Gentry's lawsuit against arXiv was dismissed by a Tennessee court on the grounds that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, as neither defendant in the case was considered to have a significant presence in the state of Tennessee.^[6]

His self-published book Creation's Tiny Mystery was reviewed by geologist Gregg Wilkerson, who said that it has several logical flaws and concluded that "the book is a source of much misinformation about current geologic thinking and confuses fact with interpretation." He also noted that the book contains considerable autobiographical material and he observed that "[i]n general I don't think educators will find its worth their time to tread through this creationist's whining."^[7] This criticism of Gentry's "frequent whining about discrimination" has also been made by fellow creationists, who concluded that "his scientific snubs resulted more from his own abrasive style than from his peculiar ideas", according to Ronald L. Numbers, a prominent historian of science.^[1]

If you disagree, then you should try to refute this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

I think you should take a few minutes and ask God to open YOUR eyes, my friend! It seems quite obvious that you value your own religious ideology over truth and reality.

The problem with your method is that you CHERRY PICK anything you think supports your preconceived assumptions and ignore everything else. This is the root of most delusions.

All the best,

Richard

PS: By the way, when searching the net for stuff on Gentry, I found Christian sites claiming he is a "world renowned physicist." Do you think they were telling the truth, or was it a DELIBERATE LIE they invented to advocate their cause? Think before you answer. Read the wiki article. I didn't see anything that would justify such a claim. He doesn't even have a PhD!