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

[Richard Amiel McGough]

"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.

Here is what Josh said:

'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

My words stand.

[Ps 27:1]

Here is what Josh said:

'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

My words stand.

Hey Richard,

From the paper I linked: "The social media revolution has completely leveled the playing field, which has enabled the culture to spread what I call a
destructive intrusive immorality directly to our children. ....When our children wanted to visit neighbors or friends, we tried to
limit it to people with our same convictions. But today we have, by and large, lost control of the controls. That is because an intrusive immorality is just 1 click away from our children. With just one keystroke on a smartphone, iPad, or laptop, your child canopen up some of the worst pornography and sexually graphic content you can imagine. Just a few decades ago pornographic magazines were sold behind store counters and placed in paper bags. Most adult men didn’t even want to be seen carrying a porn magazine out of a store. Today pornography is available to anyone, and it is just 1 click away!"

How many times do I have to tell you he is talking about "intrusive immorality" (i.e., pornography)?

You think he wants to hide information? Please watch and listen to HIM!


or this one


And you know what is almost comical in all of this? He reasons just like you do when it comes to morality.



or this one


So you are either:

1) lying (I hope not)
2) have poor reading comprehension (Seems unlikely)
3) delusional (on drugs, wacky tabacky)()
4) so biased you can't see clearly (I'm guessing this one)

Isn't the internet grand?

Steve

[Ps 27:1]

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:


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!

And of course, wiki is the answer to everything. On his website he mentions there are arguments to his thesis on the internet but no published peer reviewed refutations. Anybody can throw something up on the internet. Since I live in the same city as he does, I'll try to contact him and see if he'll respond to some of these accusations and claims. And he is not my hero. Why would you even use that comment? It just shows more of your bias.

I am not a highly educated scientist, nor do I try to appear like one. And why should I read your list of books when there are plenty of other highly educated scientists who don't subscribe to their beliefs. You have faith in one group and I have faith in the other. Your group believes that intelligence came from chaos. My group believes intelligence begets intelligence. Your group believes rocks turned into people. I know, it sounds ridiculous. Here, I'll fix it: Your group believes that over billions of years, rocks turned into people. Oh silly me. Now it all makes sense.

I'm still praying,
Steve

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I am not a highly educated scientist, nor do I try to appear like one. And why should I read your list of books when there are plenty of other highly educated scientists who don't subscribe to their beliefs.

Why should you read any books explaning science before commenting on science? Oh I don't know ... maybe to avoid misleading people with falsehoods? Maybe to avoid looking like an ignorant fool?

How is it possible that you think to assert that something is scientifically impossible when you are in fact utterly ignorant of science?

You have faith in one group and I have faith in the other. Your group believes that intelligence came from chaos. My group believes intelligence begets intelligence. Your group believes rocks turned into people. I know, it sounds ridiculous. Here, I'll fix it: Your group believes that over billions of years, rocks turned into people. Oh silly me. Now it all makes sense.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. I am not a philosophical materialist. I don't believe that "rocks turned into people" in the way that you suggest. And besides, evolutionary scientists are not a monolithic group. Some are philosophical materialists, others are not. Some are even Evangelical Christians like Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project who wrote The Language of God, one of the books I suggested you read to free yourself from your pathetic ignorance.

Your attempt to equate science, logic, facts, and evidence with your primitive conception of religion is just another example of how religious fundamentalism corrupts the mind of those who adhere to it.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Here is what Josh said:

'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

My words stand.

Hey Richard,

From the paper I linked: "The social media revolution has completely leveled the playing field, which has enabled the culture to spread what I call a
destructive intrusive immorality directly to our children. ....When our children wanted to visit neighbors or friends, we tried to
limit it to people with our same convictions. But today we have, by and large, lost control of the controls. That is because an intrusive immorality is just 1 click away from our children. With just one keystroke on a smartphone, iPad, or laptop, your child canopen up some of the worst pornography and sexually graphic content you can imagine. Just a few decades ago pornographic magazines were sold behind store counters and placed in paper bags. Most adult men didn’t even want to be seen carrying a porn magazine out of a store. Today pornography is available to anyone, and it is just 1 click away!"

How many times do I have to tell you he is talking about "intrusive immorality" (i.e., pornography)?

You think he wants to hide information? Please watch and listen to HIM!

Hey there Steve,

I think that's a great video. Josh displays excellent parenting skills, and a lot of wisdom. His rule that "no question is out of bounds" is absolutely brilliant. It is the philosophy I live by.

But what does this have to do with my post where I quoted him as saying that "the abundance of knowledge, the abundance of information, will not lead to certainty; it will lead to pervasive skepticism."? Why are you constantly bringing up pornography? That has nothing to do with the point I originally made. And you know this.

So you are either:

1) lying (I hope not)
2) have poor reading comprehension (Seems unlikely)
3) delusional (on drugs, wacky tabacky)()
4) so biased you can't see clearly (I'm guessing this one)

Isn't the internet grand?

Steve

1) What could I be "lying" about? I merely quoted his own words in context.

2) What did I fail to comprehend? He plainly stated that the danger of the internet was that it "leveled the playing field" because the "abundance of knowledge, the abundance of information" would lead to "skepticism." Are you saying that Josh does not believe that anymore?

3) Precisely what is "delusional" about quoting a man's own words?

4) Precisely what is "biased" about quoting a man's own words?

And yes, the internet is grand indeed.

All the best,

Richard

[Ps 27:1]

But what does this have to do with my post where I quoted him as saying that "the abundance of knowledge, the abundance of information, will not lead to certainty; it will lead to pervasive skepticism."? Why are you constantly bringing up pornography? That has nothing to do with the point I originally made. And you know this.

You are falsely equating him with the Pharisees and those who start religious wars. They hid knowlege; Josh does not. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

A simple analogy for you.

11 years ago, I started teaching math at my last high school. Most of the math teachers let the low level students use calculators for everything. I told them that I thought the indiscriminate use of calculators would eventually make the students poorer at math. By the time I left the school last year, I had given up and gone with the "flow". Not only were most of my low level students incapable of doing simple arithmetic (6x4, 7x8, etc) in their heads, but my regular geometry students were almost as bad. Teachers that regularly taught honors classes told me that their students were now at the same level of regular classes just a few years ago. They also said they could see an almost yearly downward trend in most classes. Teachers across the board, not just in math, are passing undeserving students because of pressure to meet graduation and dropout rates. It's become pathetic and teachers are sacrificing integrity to avoid the heat. They are just delaying the day of reckoning.

Now just because I said what I did about calculators, doesn't mean I don't like calculators or that I don't want students to use calculators. Can you understand that? What I said was that an indiscriminate use of calculators would eventually make the students poorer at math. Big difference. The students need guidance from someone who has their best interests at heart. When they are ready, then you give them free rein of the calculator. They don't always know what's best for them.

I frequently use a chainsaw, which saves me a lot of time. It's a great invention. But nobody in their right mind would let a kid operate one.

Josh is talking about an invasion of privacy, an usurpation of parental protection, and easy access to perverts. Why you continue to equate that with what the Pharisees did with their oppressive rules and tyrants of the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages is mindboggling.

May God forgive you,

Steve

[Richard Amiel McGough]

But what does this have to do with my post where I quoted him as saying that "the abundance of knowledge, the abundance of information, will not lead to certainty; it will lead to pervasive skepticism."? Why are you constantly bringing up pornography? That has nothing to do with the point I originally made. And you know this.

You are falsely equating him with the Pharisees and those who start religious wars. They hid knowlege; Josh does not. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

I don't think Josh is like the Pharisees in general. I never said he was. I focused on the quote above. So there is only one issue. Has Josh recanted of his statement that the internet is a danger because it "levels the playing field" with those who oppose his dogmas by providing an "abundance of knowledge" and an "abundance of information"? If so, please provide the quote. If not, I don't see anything false in what I have said about his quote.

A simple analogy for you.

11 years ago, I started teaching math at my last high school. Most of the math teachers let the low level students use calculators for everything. I told them that I thought the indiscriminate use of calculators would eventually make the students poorer at math. By the time I left the school last year, I had given up and gone with the "flow". Not only were most of my low level students incapable of doing simple arithmetic (6x4, 7x8, etc) in their heads, but my regular geometry students were almost as bad. Teachers that regularly taught honors classes told me that their students were now at the same level of regular classes just a few years ago. They also said they could see an almost yearly downward trend in most classes. Teachers across the board, not just in math, are passing undeserving students because of pressure to meet graduation and dropout rates. It's become pathetic and teachers are sacrificing integrity to avoid the heat. They are just delaying the day of reckoning.

Now just because I said what I did about calculators, doesn't mean I don't like calculators or that I don't want students to use calculators. Can you understand that? What I said was that an indiscriminate use of calculators would eventually make the students poorer at math. Big difference. The students need guidance from someone who has their best interests at heart. When they are ready, then you give them free rein of the calculator. They don't always know what's best for them.

I frequently use a chainsaw, which saves me a lot of time. It's a great invention. But nobody in their right mind would let a kid operate one.

Josh is talking about an invasion of privacy, an usurpation of parental protection, and easy access to perverts. Why you continue to equate that with what the Pharisees did with their oppressive rules and tyrants of the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages is mindboggling.

I don't see how your analogy helps. In the quote that I gave, Josh was not talking about the "invasion of privacy." He specifically said that the internet is a danger because it "levels the playing field" with those who oppose his dogmas by providing an "abundance of knowledge" and an "abundance of information." If you want to say that he didn't mean what he said, then you need to provide a quote where he retracts those words. The fact that he said other things about pornography has nothing to do with the idea of "leveling the playing field" for opposing arguments. I get the impression that you are deliberately confusing the issue because you can't answer it.

May God forgive you,

Steve

That's rude.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So you are either:

1) lying (I hope not)
2) have poor reading comprehension (Seems unlikely)
3) delusional (on drugs, wacky tabacky)()
4) so biased you can't see clearly (I'm guessing this one)

Isn't the internet grand?

Steve

1) What could I be "lying" about? I merely quoted his own words in context.

2) What did I fail to comprehend? He plainly stated that the danger of the internet was that it "leveled the playing field" because the "abundance of knowledge, the abundance of information" would lead to "skepticism." Are you saying that Josh does not believe that anymore?

3) Precisely what is "delusional" about quoting a man's own words?

4) Precisely what is "biased" about quoting a man's own words?

And yes, the internet is grand indeed.

All the best,

Richard

Hey there Steve,

Why didn't you answer these points? You made some pretty rude insinuations about my "honesty" but did not respond to the answer I gave.

All the best,

Richard

[Ps 27:1]

That's rude.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. I am not a philosophical materialist. I don't believe that "rocks turned into people" in the way that you suggest. And besides, evolutionary scientists are not a monolithic group. Some are philosophical materialists, others are not. Some are even Evangelical Christians like Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project who wrote The Language of God, one of the books I suggested you read to free yourself from your pathetic ignorance.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...llins_does.php "He's a delusional kook, but Collins is also a competent administrator, and I have to give him credit when he does the right thing.

Two things here: You say I'm rude for praying for your forgiveness, but you have no problem with calling me pathetic and then I see an evolutionary scientist(you know, the one's that are so smart) calling this geneticist a kook.

Then there is this problem with Dr. Collins: http://factsaboutyouth.com/uncategor...er-to-collins/ and this
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/on-...n-the-schools/

So I see he is part of Obama's pro-gay agenda. No thanks.

I don't think Josh is like the Pharisees in general. I never said he was.

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.

No matter how you spin it, you are implying that Josh is trying to hide knowledge.

I don't see how your analogy helps.

And that is why I am done talking with you. You have an agenda and it is clouding your ability to comprehend such a simple concept.

Why didn't you answer these points? You made some pretty rude insinuations about my "honesty" but did not respond to the answer I gave.

I did answer them. More than once. But you keep on spinning it and now you're trying to backpedal and say you don't think that Josh is like the Pharisees in general. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence could see that was exactly what you were implying. Otherwise, why put those four sentences together the way you did?

I've prayed for you. I've cried over you. I've tried to use humor. I've tried to be pleasant with you. I've tried sarcasm with you to hopefully wake you up. Big mistake on my part. I don't know what else to do. You have put yourself in a dangerous position.

I will end my discussion with you with a text you used on page 12 of your Bible Wheel book :




THE BIBLE contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers. Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable. Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy. It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.


It is the traveler’s map, the pilgrim’s staff, the pilot’s compass, the soldier’s sword, and the Christian’s charter. Here Paradise is restored, Heaven opened, and the gates of hell disclosed.

CHRIST is its grand subject, our good the design, and the glory of God its end.

It should fill the memory, rule the heart, and guide the feet. Read it slowly, frequently, and prayerfully. It is a mine of wealth, a paradise of glory, and river of pleasure. It is given you in life, will be opened at the judgment, and be remembered forever. It involves the highest responsibility, will reward the greatest labor, and will condemn all who trifle with its sacred contents.


The Gideons International, The New Testament, National Publishing Company, 1985, preface

Peace and mercy to you, Richard,

Steve

PS You have the last word, because I will no longer respond. I'm done.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...llins_does.php "He's a delusional kook, but Collins is also a competent administrator, and I have to give him credit when he does the right thing.

Two things here: You say I'm rude for praying for your forgiveness, but you have no problem with calling me pathetic and then I see an evolutionary scientist(you know, the one's that are so smart) calling this geneticist a kook.

Hey there Steve,

Why are you amplifying your outrage? I'm not trying to insult you. I simply spoke a universal truth that all rational souls would agree upon, namely, it is truly PATHETIC for anyone to argue against a scientific theory established by hundreds of thousands of observations if they have not taken the time to educate themselves about the evidence! You glory in ignorance man, and that is truly pathetic.

Let me ask again - how is it that you think you are qualified to reject an entire scientific discipline when in fact you are utterly ignorant of it's most basic elements and stubbornly refuse to educate yourself?

As for PZ Myer's calling Collins a "delusional kook" - so what? We all know why Myer's would say that. He thinks all religious people are delusional kooks. He was merely rejecting Collins' religion, not his science.

Then there is this problem with Dr. Collins: http://factsaboutyouth.com/uncategorized/college-letter-to-collins/ and this
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/on-...n-the-schools/

So I see he is part of Obama's pro-gay agenda. No thanks.

I wasn't offering Dr. Collins as an Evangelical Pope. You don't have to agree with everything he says. But then, you can't disagree with everything he says because he's a Christian like you. He says Jesus is God, should I reject that too?

Your arguments appear to be entirely ad hominem and lacking in any scientific reasoning. You have clearly stated that you don't need to learn any science, but then you go about presenting pseudo-scientific "refutations" of evolution. Can't you see why that appears ridiculous?

Why didn't you answer these points? You made some pretty rude insinuations about my "honesty" but did not respond to the answer I gave.

I did answer them. More than once. But you keep on spinning it and now you're trying to backpedal and say you don't think that Josh is like the Pharisees in general. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence could see that was exactly what you were implying. Otherwise, why put those four sentences together the way you did?

It is impossible to "backpedal" from a position I never asserted! You are the one who has been trying to put those words in my mouth. And now when I admit your point - that Josh is not like the Pharisees in general - you piss on me with the rude assertion that I am "backpedaling." Why didn't you say something positive like "I'm glad we agree that Josh is not like the Pharisees?" I'll tell you why - because you are raging in your "outrage." Well .. have fun! I feel outrageous this morning, so I won't be playing your "outrage" game with you.



I only mentioned the Pharisees once and I never said that Josh was "like them." All I said was that the battles over ideology are information driven, and so dogmatic folks like Josh and the Pharisees (they do have that in common you know) find the free abundance of information a threat to their dogmas. That's exactly what Josh said, and you have never shown me wrong. You have only tried to distract the conversation into issues like pornography which have nothing to do with the point I was making. And you have refused to answer my simple question - Are you saying that Josh does not believe what he said any more? If not, then my point stands.

I've prayed for you. I've cried over you. I've tried to use humor. I've tried to be pleasant with you. I've tried sarcasm with you to hopefully wake you up. Big mistake on my part. I don't know what else to do. You have put yourself in a dangerous position.

You should have tried to REASON with me. That would have worked.

You should have dealt with the reality of what I really wrote and answered the questions I asked.

You should have avoided all the ad hominem that you threw out.

You should not have taken offense at my statement that your WILLFUL IGNORANCE is truly pathetic. That's what blows my mind more than anything else. You actually admitted that you have not read any books on the science of evolution but you still feel qualified to tell the world that evolution is false. That is utterly pathetic. How is it possible that you could consciously choose to be ignorant? I just don't get it.

All the best to you, my friend,

Richard

Proverbs 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.