From another thread

[pgp_protector]

Given that we can't post in the Creation Sub Forum.

Thank you! But I'm not interested in researching it further. Just thought this was very interesting.

So you don't care if what you say is true or a lie, you just want to post what you think is "interesting" be it true or not.



http://www.raccoonbend.com/languages/chinchar/chinchar.html

 

[Mallon]

Was Mark Noll right when he said, "The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind"?

 

[busterdog]

Was Mark Noll right when he said, "The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind"?

That would appear to be a rhetorical question, since of course the answer is obvious.

A typical example is the character for lai2, meaning "to come". The modern form of the character looks like the character for tree (mu4) with two smaller characters for "person" (ren2) under it. Even if it really were composed of those elements (which it is not), it's still quite a stretch to say, "Oh, a tree. It must be the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Oh, two people. They must be Adam and Eve. Well, then, if this character represents Adam and Eve coming out from behind the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, then the ancient Chinese obviously knew about the story of Genesis." This way of basing a conclusion on a series of unfounded assumptions is the key methodolgy of both books--in fact, the only methodology. While Genesis and the Mystery Confucius Couldn't Solve may use earlier character forms than does The Discovery of Genesis, there has been no improvement in methodology. (As for lai2, it was originally a pictograph of a stalk of wheat, as can be seen both from its earliest graphical forms and from its use in actual ancient texts. It's use to mean "to come" is an excellent example of a phonetic loan. How can someone who doesn't know about the early forms and the earliest use of a character hope to analyze its origin?)

The conclusion above is patently flawed. There isnt a language where the "earliest forms" are beyond debate.

Kang and Nelson studied this longer than anyone on this site. So they must be right, shouldnt they? (Tongue in cheek.)

How is it that this debunking is going anywhere? Its a mishmash of opinion.

 

[Mallon]

That would appear to be a rhetorical question, since of course the answer is obvious.

I think so, too.
But out of curiosity, what do you think the obvious answer is?

 

[busterdog]

I think so, too.
But out of curiosity, what do you think the obvious answer is?

The most obvious way to look at the issue is to look at abortion. Evangelicals are probably the best equipped group of folks (except maybe Orthodox Jews) for being able to see that the Emperor has no clothes. None. The intellectual failure of the pro-choice movement is just too profound for words. A superior intellect is not what allows us to see it. But less blindness to anti-biblical deception does. But that is enough to prove Mark Noll wrong.

I checked your profile on the issue, so I know that this is not just a YEC view. But, in the YEC crowd you are going to find probably a 90% or better aversion to the deception of the "pro-choice" movement. The problem for Mark Noll is deciding which test to apply in figuring out whether there is an "evangelical mind" or not. Unfortunately, by this test, Noll's quote is too pithy, too quotable and but too light intellectually -- sort of like Tip O'Neill, who said quotable things that sounded smart until you really thought about them (eg, "All politics is local.").

There are so many similar issues, that I can appreciate why Genuine doesnt want to bother with debunking. Rarely is such debunking really all that meaningful.

Think about it. As a prolife guy, if someone is unable to understand abortion from the perspective of a child in utero, on what intellectual issue are they not very suspect? Probably we are all very suspect. Similarly, go through the list of Dawkins quotes and think about whether his brain can be trusted to function properly. http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm

 

[shernren]

The most obvious way to look at the issue is to look at abortion. Evangelicals are probably the best equipped group of folks (except maybe Orthodox Jews) for being able to see that the Emperor has no clothes. None. The intellectual failure of the pro-choice movement is just too profound for words. A superior intellect is not what allows us to see it. But less blindness to anti-biblical deception does. But that is enough to prove Mark Noll wrong.

Once this fact is established, then, first of all, comes the question about abortive fetuses, which are indeed "born" in the mother's womb, but are never so that they could be "reborn." For, if we say that there is a resurrection for them, then we can agree that at least as much is true of fetuses that are fully formed. But, with regard to undeveloped fetuses, who would not more readily think that they perish, like seeds that did not germinate?

But who, then, would dare to deny--though he would not dare to affirm it either--that in the resurrection day what is lacking in the forms of things will be filled out? Thus, the perfection which time would have accomplished will not be lacking, any more than the blemishes wrought by time will still be present. Nature, then, will be cheated of nothing apt and fitting which time's passage would have brought, nor will anything remain disfigured by anything adverse and contrary which time has wrought. But what is not yet a whole will become whole, just as what has been disfigured will be restored to its full figure.

On this score, a corollary question may be most carefully discussed by the most learned men, and still I do not know that any man can answer it, namely: When does a human being begin to live in the womb? Is there some form of hidden life, not yet apparent in the motions of a living thing? To deny, for example, that those fetuses ever lived at all which are cut away limb by limb and cast out of the wombs of pregnant women, lest the mothers die also if the fetuses were left there dead, would seem much too rash. But, in any case, once a man begins to live, it is thereafter possible for him to die. And, once dead, wheresoever death overtook him, I cannot find the basis on which he would not have a share in the resurrection of the dead.

[St. Augustine's Enchiridion, 85-87 (emphasis added)]

Well, today's evangelicals must be far more learned and wise than St. Augustine then, since supposedly over 90% of them are clear from Scripture that life begins at conception and therefore that any abortion is a sin -

- what? they don't?

About a third of white evangelicals say that abortion should sometimes or always be legal, according to the Pew Research Center—a number that hasn't changed in a decade.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/130710

Hmm, maybe white evangelicals aren't as nice as you think they are. Busterdog, meet real world ...

(While we're at it, I have never met a single pro-choice Muslim before ... and I actually come from a country that produces them, so I've met quite a few. They must obviously be better than Christians at thinking and being right with God and the like.)

 

[busterdog]

About a third of white evangelicals say that abortion should sometimes or always be legal, according to the Pew Research Center—a number that hasn't changed in a decade.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/130710

Hmm, maybe white evangelicals aren't as nice as you think they are. Busterdog, meet real world ...

(While we're at it, I have never met a single pro-choice Muslim before ... and I actually come from a country that produces them, so I've met quite a few. They must obviously be better than Christians at thinking and being right with God and the like.)

I am more and more unimpressed with Augustine all the time. Pelosi tried to use the same thing.

You do realize that the Pew numbers don't challenge my assertion about the tendencies of evangelicals. I havent looked at the numbers, but I dont need to. Evangelicals are still the most pro-life in the country, with some exceptions, as noted.

The Muslims are better at many things than American Christians. Thats for sure. But, your characterization of my view is, again, wrong.

"[Antiabortinists] must obviously be better than Christians at thinking and being right with God and the like."

What I said is that the functioning of the intellect depends on being freed from deception and that Mark Noll chose his ground arbitrarily and made an excessive blanket statement. If the Muslims are free from this one, God bless them.

 

[shernren]

The most obvious way to look at the issue is to look at abortion. Evangelicals are probably the best equipped group of folks (except maybe Orthodox Jews) for being able to see that the Emperor has no clothes. None. The intellectual failure of the pro-choice movement is just too profound for words. A superior intellect is not what allows us to see it. But less blindness to anti-biblical deception does. But that is enough to prove Mark Noll wrong.http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm

Two posts and one day later:

But, your characterization of my view is, again, wrong.

"[Antiabortinists] must obviously be better than Christians at thinking and being right with God and the like."

What I said is that the functioning of the intellect depends on being freed from deception and that Mark Noll chose his ground arbitrarily and made an excessive blanket statement. If the Muslims are free from this one, God bless them.

... yes, and you said that anti-abortionism was "the most obvious way" to see this. Your own words.

You have every right to say that you know more about Christianity than St. Augustine and more about American demographics than the Pew Survey. You have every right to say such things without the slightest sliver of reasoning or evidence.

We have every right to find your characteristic hubris, as always, cute. (And not much more.)

^^

 

[busterdog]

Two posts and one day later:



... yes, and you said that anti-abortionism was "the most obvious way" to see this. Your own words.

You have every right to say that you know more about Christianity than St. Augustine and more about American demographics than the Pew Survey. You have every right to say such things without the slightest sliver of reasoning or evidence.

We have every right to find your characteristic hubris, as always, cute. (And not much more.)

^^

I stand by what I wrote.