Time.com : The War for China's Soul

hairyheretic

I came across this Time article, and thought it might be of interest here.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1229123-1,00.html

Its a 4 page article, so I'm not going to repost it all. It concerns the spread of christianity in china, both in approved and unapproved versions.

robindch

Last weekend, I was in Ukraine and as frequently happens whenever I leave Ireland, I bumped into evangelicals -- this time, it was two separate sets of Jehovah's Witnesses and one tired-looking fifty-ish evangelist from the USA who was travelling to one or other of the schools which various evangelical sects have been targetting over the last few years. That's five evangelists in four days, each one trying to re-introduce religion to a country which has been mercifully free of religious disharmony since the end of WWII.

There was also an encampment of elderly women and priests outside the parliament building protesting against both the closure of an orthodox church in Lvov somewhere, and preferential rights of some kind being given to American fundamentalists and their money in the same region. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the story I was told, but it does co-incide with my own experience of fundamentalists in Odessa two years ago.

Not sure about anybody else, but I find this apparent level of penetration deeply worrying, and not only for the odd guy who kills himself:

http://today.reuters.com/news/ArticleNews.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=2006-06-05T133715Z_01_L05642927_RTRUKOC_0_US-UKRAINE-LION.xml

Anybody else met evangelicals while on holiday in unusual places?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

Anybody else met evangelicals while on holiday in unusual places?

How about some Mormons while in a remote part of Idaho accesable by plane or boat only. We got there by plane, they were in a boat floating down the river.

They were a warm and friendly couple, we had a great chat. They have my e-mail and we hope to maintain a friendship.

Robin instead of looking on 'fundies' with hate and disdain, why not engage in conversation and pursue friendships?

Slav

robindch wrote:

That's five evangelists in four days, each one trying to re-introduce religion to a country which has been mercifully free of religious disharmony since the end of WWII.

It’s interesting why Ukraine, a country with at least a thousand years of Christian tradition, is targeted by evangelicals. It’s even more interesting why they are relatively successful over there (compared to the neighbouring counties, based on my observations). Perhaps they are picking up those souls who are fed up with the confrontation between the Orthodox and Greek Catholic Churches therefore not having respect for both...

BrianCalgary wrote:

Robin instead of looking on 'fundies' with hate and disdain, why not engage in conversation and pursue friendships?

I guess not a big deal for a tourist but I hardly can image how local Christians would pursue friendships. There are two huge obstacles: they are unfavourable to anyone with proselyting agenda and Eangelists are heretics in an Orthodox Christian eyes spreading heresy among the laity.





Back on topic. I don’t understand why China is considered by many here on the West as a derelict orchard waiting for harvesting Christians? How about "The War for Western Soul" (between the oriental faiths and cults)? That’s what we see during the past 100 years or so and it’s far more successful! :cool:

DublinWriter

BrianCalgary wrote:

Robin instead of looking on 'fundies' with hate and disdain, why not engage in conversation and pursue friendships?

Because it's fruitless to engage in any type of debate with such people.

Just watch the eyes glaze over as they chant the party-line.

UU

Geesh, seems sorta scary! Religions fighting to take over China!

robindch

> instead of looking on 'fundies' with hate and disdain

Unfortunately, this is where you and I will always fundamentally differ. I believe that introducing fundamentalist religion, or indeed any religion, to a society is damaging because history has shown quite clearly that division and conflict are frequent adjuncts to religion for reasons which are well understood and well documented.

To me, it is additionally disagreeable to advance one's own religious views by taking advantage of a needy society, a bit like the case of the 'soupers' here in Ireland during the famine, or the scientologists turning up in New York after the WTC attacks, etc.

Finally, I don't look on the people doing this with hate, but rather with fear in the reasonably sure knowledge of what they will cause in generations to come.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Last weekend, I was in Ukraine and as frequently happens whenever I leave Ireland, I bumped into evangelicals -- this time, it was two separate sets of Jehovah's Witnesses and one tired-looking fifty-ish evangelist from the USA who was travelling to one or other of the schools which various evangelical sects have been targetting over the last few years.

I know what you mean, but it will be confusing if you use evangelicals to describe J.Ws. They might well be evangelists for the J.Ws, but they would certainly not be evangelicals. The latter term has doctrinal associations quite opposed to fundamental J.W. beliefs.

That's five evangelists in four days, each one trying to re-introduce religion to a country which has been mercifully free of religious disharmony since the end of WWII.

I understood there was great tension between the two main sects in Ukraine, the Roman Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox? Since the Soviet demise, the power struggle has been more evident.

Rather than the absence of competing religions being a blessing to society, it often is a mark of oppression and denial of freedom of thought. It is the same as saying a one-party state is better than a multiparty one, since there is less dispute.

There was also an encampment of elderly women and priests outside the parliament building protesting against both the closure of an orthodox church in Lvov somewhere, and preferential rights of some kind being given to American fundamentalists and their money in the same region. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the story I was told, but it does co-incide with my own experience of fundamentalists in Odessa two years ago.

Yes, there may well be corrupting influences at work. From the native Christian friends I have in Belarus and Ukraine, I gather Orthodoxy has a powerful influence on government and local officials, to the extent of perverting the law to prevent them exercising their religious freedom. But also they tell of the money-men 'miracle' workers who are bringing their health and wealth false gospel from America. Maybe it is greasing of officials that accounts for the alleged preferential treatment.

Not sure about anybody else, but I find this apparent level of penetration deeply worrying,

Hey, its the problems that come with civil and religious liberty. Sad, but the alternative is much worse.

and not only for the odd guy who kills himself:

http://today.reuters.com/news/Articl...RAINE-LION.xml

Yes, mental illness or false religion can have deadly consequences. Obviously this man was either mentally ill or did not believe in the God of the Bible, for such an act is in flagrant disobedience to His word: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%204:9-13;&version=50;

ScumLord

These door to door christian types never come out into the country and when they do I always seem to miss them. The buffer sole must not be worth saving.

wolfsbane

Scumlord said:

These door to door christian types never come out into the country and when they do I always seem to miss them. The buffer sole must not be worth saving.

On the contrary, my friend, God sends His message of salvation to you too: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=17&verse=29&end_verse=31&version=50&context=context

May I suggest a few sites where you may sample some gospel ministry? There are many, but I'll give you a couple in Ireland, one in England and one in America. Same gospel, to all nations.
http://www.lurganbaptist.com/index.html This is my home church. Follow the links to sermon.audio and you can hear the gospel live on sundays at 19.00. Our teaching meeting and breaking of bread are at 11.00, the preaching also live on the web. Various printed sermons are also available.

http://www.dundalkbaptistchurch.org/

http://www.metropolitantabernacle.org/

http://www.gracereformedbaptistchurch.com/

UU

I don't mind evangelicals as long as they are not those fanatic types with psychological problems like Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church in America. If they preach goodness, kindness, love, forgiveness, etc., I have no problem with them but if they preach hate and picket around with signs like "God Hates Fags", "Thank God for AIDS", "Thank God for dead soldiers" at funerals and set up sites like godhatessweden.com and godhatescanada.com then frankly, they are giving a bad name to Christianity.

I mean, evangelicals came to my door recently. I was polite to them and simply said that I'm not Christian and therefore I'm not interested. They were kind back, understood and said "Peace be with you". They treated me in the same way i treated them. An example, of the Golden Rule.

Christians have the right to evangicalise but have the responsibility to present themselves and their religion in an appropiate manner and try not to use scare tactics to convert people. I like Christians who show the true message of their religion. That is, following Christ's teachings.

5uspect

UU wrote:

Christians have the right to evangicalise but have the responsibility to present themselves and their religion in an appropiate manner and try not to use scare tactics to convert people. I like Christians who show the true message of their religion. That is, following Christ's teachings.

I would apply that also to lying about science too. I'm also very concerned about the money making machine that fundalmentalist christianity has become. I would like to see special privilages like tax exemption removed and the money given blindly to charities with no religous agenda. This way christians can't buy their way into a society. Like UU has said they have a right to share their beliefs but they also have an obligation to abide by them.

UU

5uspect wrote:

I would apply that also to lying about science too. I'm also very concerned about the money making machine that fundalmentalist christianity has become. I would like to see special privilages like tax exemption removed and the money given blindly to charities with no religous agenda. This way christians can't buy their way into a society. Like UU has said they have a right to share their beliefs but they also have an obligation to abide by them.

Yes. I'd agree with you there. I think the fact that many fanatical Christians getting tax exemption to be very worrying indeed. Thus, I think it is wrong in America how they practically control the government and get way with not teaching Evolution in schools or worse still endeavour to disguise it with Intelligent Design (IT). As they say "Practise what you preach" . . . . . . :rolleyes:

wolfsbane

UU said:

like Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church in America.

I wouldn't accept them as Evangelicals. The truth is, anyone can call themselves Christian, Evangelical, Baptist, Muslim, Humanist. They use the flag for convenience, but are not true representatives of what it means.

Which brings me to a point you raise in your next post:

how they practically control the government

If Christians had so big a say in the government, don't you think abortion would be greatly limited, and creation taught alongside evolution in every State school? But the opposite is the case. Why is that? Why did 'Evangelicals' like Bill Clinton actively promoted totally unchristian policies, like partial-birth abortion? The answer is, because they are not Christians at all. They play the Christian card for electoral purposes, but 'by their fruits you will know them'. The real policies that affect daily life are secular humanist, while the rhetoric remains vaguely Christian.

I think the fact that many fanatical Christians getting tax exemption to be very worrying indeed.

It is worrying that any perverted groups get tax exemption. But it may be problematic to do much more than is being done in awarding charity status. There are many aspects of religious and anti-religious groups I don't like, but should my church get the OK for tax relief and not theirs? Better perhaps that no tax exemption is given to any, and everyone knows that their support for a particular charity needs adjusted accordingly. With the increased revenue, the government could drop the level of tax for us all, and so more of us could contribute to the charity directly.

get way with not teaching Evolution in schools

Really? In State shools? I thought they were only trying to get creation taught alongside evolution in these schools. Maybe you should check your facts again.

or worse still endeavour to disguise it with Intelligent Design

ID is an idea that can apply to both evolution and creationism. See: Intelligent design: is it intelligent; is it Christian? http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part8.asp
Secular humanists want no place for a Designer in a theory of origins, so they object to ID.

Christians have the right to evangicalise but have the responsibility to present themselves and their religion in an appropiate manner and try not to use scare tactics to convert people. I like Christians who show the true message of their religion. That is, following Christ's teachings.

That's indeed how it should be. No use of psychological tactics, for true conversion is a spiritual matter. That is not to say men are not to be warned to flee from the wrath to come - Christ was the one who spoke the most about the reality of Hell and the need to be saved from it. But they should not be told sob stories to play on their emotions, to get a cheap 'conversion'. The Lord Jesus did the opposite - He warned people about the cost of becoming His disciples.
Matthew 10:37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

I would apply that also to lying about science too.

Yes, Christians object to secular humanist dogma being taught as science in State schools.

I'm also very concerned about the money making machine that fundalmentalist christianity has become.

I abhor any money making machine that purports to be a charity. Of course, Charities need to raise money to function, so we cannot condemn that, only any misuse of it.

I would like to see special privilages like tax exemption removed and the money given blindly to charities with no religous agenda.

If we rule out charities with any religious/idealogical agenda, would there be many left? Most of them have been started by people motivated by their beliefs.

This way christians can't buy their way into a society. Like UU has said they have a right to share their beliefs but they also have an obligation to abide by them.

Absence of tax relief did not stop the early Christians from caring for the needy. It does not stop them doing the same today in the many parts of the world where their faith has no priveliges, indeed is persecuted. The Christians I know would be quite happy for tax exemption to be removed from all charities. Let everyone support the charity of their choice, without government support by way of exemptions.

5uspect

wolfsbane wrote:

Better perhaps that no tax exemption is given to any, and everyone knows that their support for a particular charity needs adjusted accordingly. With the increased revenue, the government could drop the level of tax for us all, and so more of us could contribute to the charity directly.

We can agree on something, finally.

wolfsbane wrote:

ID is an idea that can apply to both evolution and creationism. See:

ID proponents want ID taught in science class. However it's claims of a designer cannot be tested and hence is unscientific, this have been explained to you numerous time I'm sure. Teach such ideas in philosophy if you must.

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

ID proponents want ID taught in science class. However it's claims of a designer cannot be tested and hence is unscientific, this have been explained to you numerous time I'm sure. Teach such ideas in philosophy if you must.

The argument is that the evident design reveals a Designer. The nature of the design is the test as to whether or not a Designer is needed.

But leaving that aside, by your logic you must agree that speculation as to the ultimate origin of the universe - was it always there, or did it come into being? - would not be appropriate for the science class either. Is that your view?

5uspect

wolfsbane wrote:

The argument is that the evident design reveals a Designer. The nature of the design is the test as to whether or not a Designer is needed.

Which begs the question what is the designer? You must define any such notion unambigously.

wolfsbane wrote:

But leaving that aside, by your logic you must agree that speculation as to the ultimate origin of the universe - was it always there, or did it come into being? - would not be appropriate for the science class either. Is that your view?

We have a number of theories as to how the universe we see came into existence and how it works. In science class the basic introduction to these theories, the big bang is generally taught and quite rightly so. These are vast amounts of evidence to support it. I would regard this as the ultimate origin of our universe, time itself is seen to be a product of the big bang.If I was a science teacher and I were asked about the origin of the universe that would be the answer I would give. I would also suggest that the student research string theory and particle physics as they are probing the very fabric of the universe, the latter the complexities of the formation of matter in the big bang. However these are works in progress and I would hope that the student would go on to join the many researchers that are working hard to test and develop these theories to find out the truth rather than just accept some old stories from some book.

So to answer your question should the origin of the universe be discussed in a science class, yes. Students should be encouraged to question their existence in an unbiased scientific way. Introducing ideas like intelligent design and its ancestor creationism limit and blinker scientific thought as they place untestable walls in the way of honest research.

EDIT: I see we are growing impatient at the loss of the creationism thread, apologies for drifting off topic

Asiaprod

5uspect wrote:

I see we are growing impatient at the loss of the creationism thread, apologies for drifting off topic

Then start a new temporary Creationist thread and BC can merge them when the old returns:) All that has happened is they are turned of till the Gods of Boards i.e sort out the problems. I think someone mentioned you can google the last week of threads and re post the bones. Fire away I say.

ArphaRima

Anybody else met evangelicals while on holiday in unusual places?

Nha Trang, Vietnam. The government has banned them here. Only catholicism and a few other select protestant religions are licenced in Vietnam, so there are these underground churches that entice the poor by giving them loans and suchlike. I find it sick, but then again I'm not a religious man.

Asiaprod

fluffer wrote:

Vietnam, so there are these underground churches that entice the poor by giving them loans and suchlike. I find it sick, but then again I'm not a religious man.

Yes, I had a heated debate on this forum before about the disgracefull tactics used by the evangalising crowds during the Tsunami recovery efforts. It got so bad that even the Buddhist priests were protesting in the streets. The same applies to the carry on in South Korea where certain groups are assisting North Koreans to escapre and then hiding them in for want of an appropriate phrase indoctrination houses.

This is not to say that all are bad. There are of course many groups working in a correct an admirable manner, but you always get the few bad apples.

IT Loser

Asiaprod wrote:

Yes, I had a heated debate on this forum before about the disgracefull tactics used by the evangalising crowds during the Tsunami recovery efforts. It got so bad that even the Buddhist priests were protesting in the streets. The same applies to the carry on in South Korea where certain groups are assisting North Koreans to escapre and then hiding them in for want of an appropriate phrase indoctrination houses.

This is not to say that all are bad. There are of course many groups working in a correct an admirable manner, but you always get the few bad apples.

Islamic Prosletysation and Gender Cleansing in Ehiopia/Darfur is waaaay ahead of anything you guys are talking about.

robindch

> Islamic Prosletysation

Does this mean that you are in favour of christian prosletysation?

BrianCalgary

fluffer wrote:

so there are these underground churches that entice the poor by giving them loans and suchlike. I find it sick, but then again I'm not a religious man.

Interesting this should come up. God must be involved. On Thursday I had lunch with a 14 year old man here in Guatemala. He is going to our equivalent of grade 7 in Canada. When he finishes he would like to go to college and learn auto mechanics. Then what?

We have the means whereby we can give him a grant and or loan to start up his own garage. Thereby helping himeto get out of the cycle of extremepoveerty that exists in thisaprt of the country. Why in Heavens namewould you find this to be sick? Are you against giving people a hand upin life?

If it wasn´t by the grace of God allowing us to be working here nothing could be accomplished. We let people know that the help they are receiiving is a gift from God. And no being a Christian is not a prerequisite for receiving help.

wolfsbane

Apologies for the delay in reply. I lost my broadband Sunday week ago and got the run-around between my ISP and BT who provide the line. Turned out the line was faulty, but the level also had dropped so that my ordinary extension cable was unable to convey the signal properly. A lot of phone calls, a new special broadband extension cable, and finally a rebooting of the modem has won the day.

5uspect said:

So to answer your question should the origin of the universe be discussed in a science class, yes. Students should be encouraged to question their existence in an unbiased scientific way. Introducing ideas like intelligent design and its ancestor creationism limit and blinker scientific thought as they place untestable walls in the way of honest research.

Thanks for that. So Big-Bang and String-Theory are testable in a way Intelligent Design is not? Or are you ruling ID out because it tends to support the idea of God as creator of all? Isn't that rather unscientific? Smacks of a religious commitment to secular materialism. But maybe we should continue this over on the Creation thread?

wolfsbane

Asiaprod said:

Yes, I had a heated debate on this forum before about the disgracefull tactics used by the evangalising crowds during the Tsunami recovery efforts. It got so bad that even the Buddhist priests were protesting in the streets. The same applies to the carry on in South Korea where certain groups are assisting North Koreans to escapre and then hiding them in for want of an appropriate phrase indoctrination houses.

This is not to say that all are bad. There are of course many groups working in a correct an admirable manner, but you always get the few bad apples.

Your final comment makes a big difference. I don't know any Evangelical groups abusing aid to 'indoctrinate'. - but I'm sure there are many religious groups who do. The Health & Wealth movement is doing something like that in the West, only it is the promise of wealth that is the bait, rather than any free gifts or aid.

The use of aid to win supporters is an obvious cynical technique - used by politicians everywhere.;) But, as Brian points out, there is a dilemna for Christians who are concerned for the needy. Do we refuse to help their material needs, lest we be accused of buying converts? Certainly not, for we have our Lord's mandate to love our neighbour's as ourselves. So great care needs to be exercised, that the unconverted will know that our kindness to them is not conditional on them professing faith. It has been a real difficulty for us, for the unconverted often will think we are just like the other recruiters/politicians and so make false professions of faith. 'Rice-Christians' are the last thing any genuine missionary wants.

Just another point: many of the unregistered or underground churches are so because they refuse to allow State interference in their affairs. The persecuting States usually want to have a say in the appointment of pastors/elders; the restriction on who attends; a ban on children being taught about God, etc.

ArphaRima

I find any monetary enticements to join a religion abbhorrent. I have seen school grants, university loans, food and health programmes etc. Nothing should be conditional, yes, but lets be fair the poor do not see it that way. They will all flock to the religion they hear is offering more. Call it helping, which it is, but it is also purchasing support.

Even now, religious association alone is enough enticement. With a large enough community people see it as good business to join. eg catholics in Vietnam are generally far wealthier than other groups, and the gap was far wider pre-communism. Many new converts saw it as an anchor post-communism and dropped it.

I had quite a few relatives that spend massive portions of their lives in missionaries, and retired into schoool principalships around the world. They were the amongst the most impressive people I have ever met. I know the catholic church probably offered more than spiritual guidance (building schools etc). But I dont know where the line is drawn beyond which beliefs and followers are being bought.

Sorry if i dont fully appreciate the difference between evangelical, religious and missionary group please.

5uspect

wolfsbane wrote:

Thanks for that. So Big-Bang and String-Theory are testable in a way Intelligent Design is not?

Simply, yes. They need no untestable supernatural forces to work scientifically.

wolfsbane wrote:

Or are you ruling ID out because it tends to support the idea of God as creator of all? Isn't that rather unscientific? Smacks of a religious commitment to secular materialism. But maybe we should continue this over on the Creation thread?

You can continue it if you wish, I see no need to continue beyond this post. Ruling out ID is not unscientific, we know matter exists, we can perform experiments on it, we have models that predict its behaviour. We know if you apply heat to water it boils. We know that if you have a critical mass of uranium 235 you get a chain reaction that...well you know.

The idea of a god is just that an idea. We cannot design an experiment that will result in a divine miracle and until you provide one that does, that cannot be explained in anyother way, then your concept of god will remain an uproven hypothesis. (Evolution on the other hand has extensive observations and experiments that verify its mechanisms)

There is a commitment to (as you call it) materialism. But this is a fact of our reality. Everytime you make a cup of tea you verify the laws of thermodynamics, everyday do interact with the material world. You cannot show, not havenot shown that there is any other world. As a result science deals with what we know not what we believe.

Wolfsbane, I hope this makes things perfectly clear to you, I'm getting tired of your continued ignorance of the scientific method in order to push your religious agenda.

BrianCalgary

fluffer wrote:

I find any monetary enticements to join a religion abbhorrent. I have seen school grants, university loans, food and health programmes etc. Nothing should be conditional, yes, but lets be fair the poor do not see it that way. They will all flock to the religion they hear is offering more. Call it helping, which it is, but it is also purchasing support..

Purchasing support would be a 'join us first then get help' attitude. Showing the love of Christ when performing the help will definitely attract people to want to experience that same love. They make the choice.

fluffer wrote:

Even now, religious association alone is enough enticement. With a large enough community people see it as good business to join. eg catholics in Vietnam are generally far wealthier than other groups, and the gap was far wider pre-communism. Many new converts saw it as an anchor post-communism and dropped it...

If they see it as 'good business' then they are joining for the wrong reasons. Material wealth becomes their goal as opposed to a heart felt commitment to Christ.

fluffer wrote:

I had quite a few relatives that spend massive portions of their lives in missionaries, and retired into schoool principalships around the world. They were the amongst the most impressive people I have ever met. I know the catholic church probably offered more than spiritual guidance (building schools etc). But I dont know where the line is drawn beyond which beliefs and followers are being bought. ...

See above

fluffer wrote:

Sorry if i dont fully appreciate the difference between evangelical, religious and missionary group please.

Evangelical is a person or group who preaches the gospel to others.

Religious group is a group that adheres to a particular religion and may not be evangelical.

A missionary group is one that has a goal of evangelizing a particular people group or region.

I was just in Guatemala working with a missionary who has a goal of preaching the gospel of Christ. In doing so he takes to heart the verses concering feeding, clothing and sheltering the poor. He provides the services to the poor, the people understand that the gifts provided are a result of God's grace.

wolfsbane

fluffer said:

Even now, religious association alone is enough enticement. With a large enough community people see it as good business to join. eg catholics in Vietnam are generally far wealthier than other groups, and the gap was far wider pre-communism. Many new converts saw it as an anchor post-communism and dropped it.

Yes, the attractions of any ideology may well be more than the idea. So too with the Christian gospel. Love for God may not be the real motivator, but social acceptance; a pool of customers, supporters, marriage prospects; an insurance policy against hell. Whatever, the tree will be known by its fruit. Those who are genuine will persevere in the face of loss, tribulation or anything that would make others go back. Their love of Christ comes before all else.

There is no way to totally prevent false professions of faith. The Parable of the Sower reminds us of that:
Matthew 13:18 “Therefore hear the parable of the sower: 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside. 20 But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles. 22 Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful. 23 But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.”

Also, the Lord Jesus gives us the example in His dealing with the crowds who had ulterior motives in following Him:
Luke 14:25 Now great multitudes went with Him. And He turned and said to them, 26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. 27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.

The best the preacher can do is to make plain the cost of being a Christian, so that those who want the easy bits will know that they come with the pain of the hard road that leads to life.

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

You can continue it if you wish, I see no need to continue beyond this post. Ruling out ID is not unscientific, we know matter exists, we can perform experiments on it, we have models that predict its behaviour. We know if you apply heat to water it boils. We know that if you have a critical mass of uranium 235 you get a chain reaction that...well you know.

The idea of a god is just that an idea. We cannot design an experiment that will result in a divine miracle and until you provide one that does, that cannot be explained in anyother way, then your concept of god will remain an uproven hypothesis. (Evolution on the other hand has extensive observations and experiments that verify its mechanisms)

There is a commitment to (as you call it) materialism. But this is a fact of our reality. Everytime you make a cup of tea you verify the laws of thermodynamics, everyday do interact with the material world. You cannot show, not havenot shown that there is any other world. As a result science deals with what we know not what we believe.

Wolfsbane, I hope this makes things perfectly clear to you, I'm getting tired of your continued ignorance of the scientific method in order to push your religious agenda.

You certainly make yourself perfectly clear. Your ignorance or wilful misunderstanding of the argument is manifest. You link your ideas about the origins of the universe (Big Bang, etc.) with observed science. But the Big Bang, etc., cannot be observed or repeated. Only the effects may be observed. So with ID - the act of creation itself cannot be observed or repeated, but the effects can be observed.

You continue in your error by contrasting the Big Bang, etc., with an immaterial world. That is not the contrast. ID is very material - it is the evident design we see before our eyes. ID looks at what we see, its complexites, and says this is not the result of undirected processes, but of intelligent design.

The untestable things are the Designer, not the design. Or in the case of a materialist explanation of the universe, the origin of matter/energy itself.

You attempt to rule out any scientific explanation of what we see before us that says an intelligence must have caused it. That shows your commitment not to science but to the religion of materialism.

Son Goku

Look at it this way wolfsbane. Imagine if you had a theory that could actually decide, in a scientific way, if something was designed. It would be an unprecedented advance. The actual codification and formally definition of what makes something built by an intelligence different from something formed naturally.

It would be used even by the most ardent and biased materialist, simply because of the vast implications it would have in complexity theory, e.t.c.
(From a mathematical point of view I couldn't imagine the areas it would open up)

The simple fact of the matter is that intelligent design isn't well formed enough at this stage, otherwise the ability to do what it claims to do would be used quicker than you could imagine.

It is therefore not at the stage of being a scientific theory. It is a collection of polemical arguments. I'm not even saying they're bad ones, but they are not yet scientific ones.

Remember the old Creationism thread where I couldn't get JC to tell me the mathematical specifics of Intelligent Design?

BrianCalgary

Ok Guys, getting a little too close to the ID discussion. Let's get back to China and the article.