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

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Luke 11:52 "Woe to you [religious] lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."

What did Jesus mean when he spoke of those who were "entering" the kingdom of heaven? What were they actually doing? What did the Pharisees do that hindered them?

What is the "key of knowledge?"

[Rose]

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Luke 11:52 "Woe to you [religious] lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."

What did Jesus mean when he spoke of those who were "entering" the kingdom of heaven? What were they actually doing? What did the Pharisees do that hindered them?

What is the "key of knowledge?"

To enter into the kingdom of heaven one must be free to seek knowledge, that is what the Pharisees were not allowing. Keeping people locked into religious dogmas shuts down the only connection we have to truth and knowledge lies in our inner selves.

A good example is of the story of Adam and Eve. They are portrayed as being the original humans untouched by sin, yet Eve had an innate desire for knowledge...where did that come from? Her inner self.

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Luke 11:52 "Woe to you [religious] lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."

Hummm ... the word "knowledge" in that verse is "gnosis." Jesus says we need the KEY OF GNOSIS to enter the kingdom of heaven.

:D

[gilgal]

Luke 11:52 "Woe to you [religious] lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."

Hummm ... the word "knowledge" in that verse is "gnosis." Jesus says we need the KEY OF GNOSIS to enter the kingdom of heaven.

:D
They warned that Jesus casts out devils by Beelzebub...they spread a bad propaganda to the people to keep them away from him.

[Beck]

Jesus called them hypocrites for they omitted the weighter matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith. These seem to be the keys to the kingdom or throught the knowledge. Theses also can be seen with in the parables given by Jesus of the kingdom of heaven where Jesus aways spoke in parables when the Pharisees was around. Whereby Jesus told Peter the keys of the kingdom was given to him through this knowledge of Jesus being the Son of God the Anointed One.

So actually they were the ones that should have the knowledge to lead other's into the kingdom, but were blind themselves and as Jesus said they were the blind leader of the blind. Instead of openning this door of knowledge to the kingdom they were actually shutting the door. Jesus said that he was at the door knotting and if any man hear his voice and open the door he would come in and will sup with him.

[gilgal]

Jesus called them hypocrites for they omitted the weighter matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith. These seem to be the keys to the kingdom or throught the knowledge. Theses also can be seen with in the parables given by Jesus of the kingdom of heaven where Jesus aways spoke in parables when the Pharisees was around. Whereby Jesus told Peter the keys of the kingdom was given to him through this knowledge of Jesus being the Son of God the Anointed One.

So actually they were the ones that should have the knowledge to lead other's into the kingdom, but were blind themselves and as Jesus said they were the blind leader of the blind. Instead of openning this door of knowledge to the kingdom they were actually shutting the door. Jesus said that he was at the door knotting and if any man hear his voice and open the door he would come in and will sup with him.
Yes because Jesus openly opposed their traditions. For example why would Jesus spit on the ground and make mud and put it on the blind's eyes if he could have simply said, "Be thou opened"? Because he's challenging their teachings.

So that's why they opposed him. He said at the sermon on the mount, "You have heard that it's been said...but I say unto you" as opposed to "It is written".

Probably the most challenging task was to heal on the Sabbath days. But Jesus wasn't afraid to do that openly. He would even make the sick run on the Sabbath as in John 9.

Look for Arnold Fruchtenbaum's teachings online:
http://deanbible.org/andromedaCS.php?q=f&f=%2FJewish+Life+of+Christ%2FAudio+Files

[Rose]

Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Matt.23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Matt. 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


Isa. 22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Rev. 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;



Looking at the above verses we see that “Knowledge is the Key” that is being spoken of. The Pharisee’s took away the Jew’s freedom to seek knowledge, thus they shut up the kingdom of heaven from men, meaning they took away the people’s ability to know the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus said he has the “Key of the House of David” and that no man can shut what he has opened. The knowledge of the kingdom of heaven is the “Key” that Jesus imparted to mankind, whoever receives his Key of Knowledge will never lack understanding the truth.

Knowledge is the Key to the universe!

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Looking at the above verses we see that 'Knowledge is the Key' that is being spoken of. The Pharisee’s took away the Jew’s freedom to seek knowledge, thus they shut up the kingdom of heaven from men, meaning they took away the people’s ability to know the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus said he has the 'Key of the House of David' and that no man can shut what he has opened. The knowledge of the kingdom of heaven is the 'Key' that Jesus imparted to mankind, whoever receives his Key of Knowledge will never lack understanding the truth.

Rose
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 (http://www.christianpost.com/news/apologist-josh-mcdowell-internet-the-greatest-threat-to-christians-52382/)

[Beck]

Looking at the above verses we see that 'Knowledge is the Key' that is being spoken of. The Pharisee’s took away the Jew’s freedom to seek knowledge, thus they shut up the kingdom of heaven from men, meaning they took away the people’s ability to know the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus said he has the 'Key of the House of David' and that no man can shut what he has opened. The knowledge of the kingdom of heaven is the 'Key' that Jesus imparted to mankind, whoever receives his Key of Knowledge will never lack understanding the truth.

Knowledge is the Key to the universe!

Rose

:lol: Isn't that what I said... :thumb:

[Rose]

:lol: Isn't that what I said... :thumb:

Right on Beck...:thumb: I guess I missed your post...:sEm_blush8:

Once knowledge is received it can never be taken away, that is why religious fanatics like the Pharisee's sought to keep knowledge from the people, thus keeping them in bondage.

Hos.4:7 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

Knowledge leads to truth...
Rose

[Beck]

Right on Beck...:thumb: I guess I missed your post...:sEm_blush8:

Once knowledge is received it can never be taken away, that is why religious fanatics like the Pharisee's sought to keep knowledge from the people, thus keeping them in bondage.

Hos.4:7 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

Knowledge leads to truth...
Rose

I also thought of how Jesus told them that he came into the world that they which see not might see, and they that see might be made blind. The pharisees then asked Jesus were they then blind?


John 9:4141Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

[Rose]

I also thought of how Jesus told them that he came into the world that they which see not might see, and they that see might be made blind. The pharisees then asked Jesus were they then blind?
John 9:4141Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

Jesus implied that because the Pharisee's could see and were not walking in the light of truth...all the while keeping others from seeing by withholding knowledge, they were in sin.

Rose

[Beck]

Jesus implied that because the Pharisee's could see and were not walking in the light of truth...all the while keeping others from seeing by withholding knowledge, they were in sin.

Rose

I would express it this way. Because they said they see for they said they understood the laws and prophets which forshadows the good news of Christ. All the while still blind to the truth standing before them and not acknowledging this truth to other's Jesus implied that becasue of this their sin remains. So indeed knowledge is the key.

[Silence]

Hi Rose,
Your statement - " A good example is of the story of Adam and Eve. They are portrayed as being the original humans untouched by sin, yet Eve had an innate desire for knowledge...where did that come from? Her inner self." - is an assumption that cannot be proven. Unless a person grows up isolated from all outside influences, how can they know that their desires come from themselves and not from inferring the desires that others seem to have from their behavior? Eve did not have an "innate desire" for knowledge. That desire was modeled to her by the serpent. Prior to her dialogue with him, she was afraid to even touch the fruit on the tree of knowledge.

We don't really realize just how "plastic" or change-able "we" are. When I think of "me", who is this "me"? One of the offshoots of Rene Girard's theory of mimetics is the realization that we are not so much "individuals", as we are "inter-dividuals". We only become a "me" in relation to and in response to, someone else. I am starting to believe that this is how "Adam and Eve" died in the day that they ate of the forbidden fruit. The "me" that each of them was before eating died when their eyes were opened and they knew something that they did not know before. The modeling of desire and the relational basis for our existence is, I believe, the reason Adam was to "guard" or "keep" the garden. Knowledge is not the key. The subject of a person's knowledge is.

As I was thinking about the nature of "modeled desire" one day, I realized that the episode with Eve and the serpent in the garden has it's paralell in the new testament with Mary and Gabriel. Both Eve and Mary were confronted with an "angelic being" that was very powerful. In both cases their male counterpart is not involved in the exchange. In both cases a scenario is laid out to them by the visitor that will affect the way things are in the future. I also find it interesting that Mary's exchange with Gabriel takes place in "Nazareth", and though the meaning of this town's name could come from one of two different root words, the fact that one of those possibilities is a word that means "to guard" makes the connection to Adam's failure to guard the garden another possible hint at the paralells between the two events.

[Rose]

Hi Rose,
Your statement - " A good example is of the story of Adam and Eve. They are portrayed as being the original humans untouched by sin, yet Eve had an innate desire for knowledge...where did that come from? Her inner self." - is an assumption that cannot be proven. Unless a person grows up isolated from all outside influences, how can they know that their desires come from themselves and not from inferring the desires that others seem to have from their behavior? Eve did not have an "innate desire" for knowledge. That desire was modeled to her by the serpent. Prior to her dialogue with him, she was afraid to even touch the fruit on the tree of knowledge.

We don't really realize just how "plastic" or change-able "we" are. When I think of "me", who is this "me"? One of the offshoots of Rene Girard's theory of mimetics is the realization that we are not so much "individuals", as we are "inter-dividuals". We only become a "me" in relation to and in response to, someone else. I am starting to believe that this is how "Adam and Eve" died in the day that they ate of the forbidden fruit. The "me" that each of them was before eating died when their eyes were opened and they knew something that they did not know before. The modeling of desire and the relational basis for our existence is, I believe, the reason Adam was to "guard" or "keep" the garden. Knowledge is not the key. The subject of a person's knowledge is.

As I was thinking about the nature of "modeled desire" one day, I realized that the episode with Eve and the serpent in the garden has it's paralell in the new testament with Mary and Gabriel. Both Eve and Mary were confronted with an "angelic being" that was very powerful. In both cases their male counterpart is not involved in the exchange. In both cases a scenario is laid out to them by the visitor that will affect the way things are in the future. I also find it interesting that Mary's exchange with Gabriel takes place in "Nazareth", and though the meaning of this town's name could come from one of two different root words, the fact that one of those possibilities is a word that means "to guard" makes the connection to Adam's failure to guard the garden another possible hint at the paralells between the two events.

Addressing your one point that I highlighted in Red I would like to respond by first quoting Genesis 3...
Gen.3:4-6 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Notice that the two things the serpent says to the woman are "You shall not die", and "Your eyes shall be opened". From that we can conclude, once the woman's eyes were opened she immediately knew she had a desire for knowledge...that desire was already innate within her. The serpent did not have the power to place that desire in her, only to cause her to look and question. Once they ate from the tree, they did not die...the only thing that died was their innocence.

Knowledge is the "Key" that opens every door, once we allow ourselves to question and look for the answers we can never go back to a state of ignorance...our minds become open to discover the universe.

All the Best,
Rose

[Silence]

Hi Rose,
I think you have the order wrong.

" Notice that the two things the serpent says to the woman are "You shall not die", and "Your eyes shall be opened". From that we can conclude, once the woman's eyes were opened she immediately knew she had a desire for knowledge. "

Eve started out thinking that just touching the fruit of the tree would result in death. There is no record of Eve seeing the fruit of the tree as being desirable until after her dialogue with the serpent. This dialogue was before her eyes were opened. So having her eyes opened had nothing to do with her seeing the tree as desirable to make one wise.

If Eve was really helped by having her eyes opened, how accurate was her perception and knowledge about her earlier dealings with the serpent? Did she then have clear knowledge about that? If she did, then it follows that she really was deceived by the serpent, because after her eyes were opened, that was her testimony when questioned by God. If she wasn't deceived by the serpent, then she was either lying when she said that she had been deceived, or her new state of having "open eyes" didn't really help her discern the truth.

If she was deceived by the serpent, what was the deception? "Your eyes will be opened" and "You will be like God knowing good and evil" were the two results promised. The text does say that their eyes were opened, so there is no way that was the deception. The part about being like God and knowing good and evil isn't as clear. Later on, God said that Adam and Eve had become like 'one of us' so that part appears to have taken place. The way it is written in Hebrew doesn't make it clear if the part about actually knowing good and evil took place. English translations have either "... the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil." (implying that they had achieved their purpose), or "the man has become like one of us to know good and evil." (could mean that they had "become like one of us" with the goal or purpose of knowing good and evil, but not stating whether or not they had achieved that goal). If they did really come to know good and evil, other questions arise. How well did they know either good or evil? To be like God in this respect would require full knowledge of both. How many people can handle that? On the other hand, if you are going to operate on the basis of good and evil, not having full knowledge of either can be dangerous.


If we assume that Adam and Eve really did come to know good and evil, this would mean that the two outcomes that the serpent promised actually took place, and that he hadn't deceived Eve like she accused him of doing. Unless you take into account the fact that both outcomes promised by the serpent were conditioned by the first part of his statement - "God knows that in the day you eat of it you will ...". Maybe that was the point of deception. Their eyes were opened immediately, but the only immediate knowledge they had was of their nakedness, and their response to that did not portray much knowledge about "good and evil" (can be translated "functional and dysfunctional"). They made coverings of fig leaves, which are irritating to the skin and dry out very quickly and crumble into small pieces. So the promised knowledge did not seem to happen all at once. Which means that operating in the area of knowledge, we are going to make mistakes all along the way as we learn, many of which will result in things we cannot make right or fix. We are also vulnerable to "not knowing if we really know what we think we know". We are limited in our ability to look back and learn from the past since the things used to record knowledge can deteriorate and forms of communication change over time. We are also limited when looking at the future. Who knows if the things that are called "cosmological constants" have always remained constant in the past, and more importantly, will remain constant in the future? We did not create them and to this day do not fathom them, so what we are left with is an assumption that they will remain the same as they have been during the past that is visible to us.

Final thought - Ignorance isn't always bliss, but knowledge doesn't always cut the mustard either. Thank God He can deal with our problems in both areas.

[Rose]

Hi Rose,
I think you have the order wrong.

" Notice that the two things the serpent says to the woman are "You shall not die", and "Your eyes shall be opened". From that we can conclude, once the woman's eyes were opened she immediately knew she had a desire for knowledge. "

Eve started out thinking that just touching the fruit of the tree would result in death. There is no record of Eve seeing the fruit of the tree as being desirable until after her dialogue with the serpent. This dialogue was before her eyes were opened. So having her eyes opened had nothing to do with her seeing the tree as desirable to make one wise.

If Eve was really helped by having her eyes opened, how accurate was her perception and knowledge about her earlier dealings with the serpent? Did she then have clear knowledge about that? If she did, then it follows that she really was deceived by the serpent, because after her eyes were opened, that was her testimony when questioned by God. If she wasn't deceived by the serpent, then she was either lying when she said that she had been deceived, or her new state of having "open eyes" didn't really help her discern the truth.

If she was deceived by the serpent, what was the deception? "Your eyes will be opened" and "You will be like God knowing good and evil" were the two results promised. The text does say that their eyes were opened, so there is no way that was the deception. The part about being like God and knowing good and evil isn't as clear. Later on, God said that Adam and Eve had become like 'one of us' so that part appears to have taken place. The way it is written in Hebrew doesn't make it clear if the part about actually knowing good and evil took place. English translations have either "... the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil." (implying that they had achieved their purpose), or "the man has become like one of us to know good and evil." (could mean that they had "become like one of us" with the goal or purpose of knowing good and evil, but not stating whether or not they had achieved that goal). If they did really come to know good and evil, other questions arise. How well did they know either good or evil? To be like God in this respect would require full knowledge of both. How many people can handle that? On the other hand, if you are going to operate on the basis of good and evil, not having full knowledge of either can be dangerous.


If we assume that Adam and Eve really did come to know good and evil, this would mean that the two outcomes that the serpent promised actually took place, and that he hadn't deceived Eve like she accused him of doing. Unless you take into account the fact that both outcomes promised by the serpent were conditioned by the first part of his statement - "God knows that in the day you eat of it you will ...". Maybe that was the point of deception. Their eyes were opened immediately, but the only immediate knowledge they had was of their nakedness, and their response to that did not portray much knowledge about "good and evil" (can be translated "functional and dysfunctional"). They made coverings of fig leaves, which are irritating to the skin and dry out very quickly and crumble into small pieces. So the promised knowledge did not seem to happen all at once. Which means that operating in the area of knowledge, we are going to make mistakes all along the way as we learn, many of which will result in things we cannot make right or fix. We are also vulnerable to "not knowing if we really know what we think we know". We are limited in our ability to look back and learn from the past since the things used to record knowledge can deteriorate and forms of communication change over time. We are also limited when looking at the future. Who knows if the things that are called "cosmological constants" have always remained constant in the past, and more importantly, will remain constant in the future? We did not create them and to this day do not fathom them, so what we are left with is an assumption that they will remain the same as they have been during the past that is visible to us.

Final thought - Ignorance isn't always bliss, but knowledge doesn't always cut the mustard either. Thank God He can deal with our problems in both areas.

You are right...I got the order wrong, :sEm_blush8: but you didn't quote my main point which was..."that desire was already innate within her. The serpent did not have the power to place that desire in her, only to cause her to look and question."
Gen.3:4-6 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

As you pointed out, the woman's eyes were not yet "opened" when the serpent tempted her, but she still saw that the tree was desirable to make her wise, which seems to imply that the desire for wisdom was innate within her.

All the Best,
Rose

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Luke 11:52 "Woe to you [religious] lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."

What did Jesus mean when he spoke of those who were "entering" the kingdom of heaven? What were they actually doing? What did the Pharisees do that hindered them?

What is the "key of knowledge?"
Part of the answer is in the context and then understanding the temporal conditional nature of the mosaic covenant.


1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
Somewhere in the OT, it is stated that the law would eventually weigh on them and oppress them. And we know of their inability to keep it due to it's nature being opposite the intended free nature God created in man. Yet the PHarisees continued to push a obligation to the mosaic law after Jesus and knowledge of God came with a message contrary to the law. He brought the words of the "NEW COVENANT" which would be NOT LIKE the mosaic covenant.

I'm wondering if the 'key of knowledge might be connected to the knowledge of God through Jesus Christ [and the Holy Spirit] being referred to as eternal life in John 17:3. It was this experiential knowledge which Adam/Eve lacked.


Luke 11:52 "Woe to you [religious] lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."

13If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Did the lawyers of the mosaic law take away the experiential knowledge of God through Christ and push it aside to perpetuate their law, interpretations and codes?



34The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.

35Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness.

Is the singular eye the abiding in Christ while the 'evil eye' is the darkness of the conditional mosaic law?

[Brother Les]

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

Somewhere in the OT, it is stated that the law would eventually weigh on them and oppress them. And we know of their inability to keep it due to it's nature being opposite the intended free nature God created in man. Yet the PHarisees continued to push a obligation to the mosaic law after Jesus and knowledge of God came with a message contrary to the law. He brought the words of the "NEW COVENANT" which would be NOT LIKE the mosaic covenant.

I'm wondering if the 'key of knowledge might be connected to the knowledge of God through Jesus Christ [and the Holy Spirit] being referred to as eternal life in John 17:3. It was this experiential knowledge which Adam/Eve lacked.



No one was ever able to keep the Law of Moses. The Pharisees and Scribes knew this and pushed forward their own Laws. The out cry Jesus and John the Baptist and Apostles against the Pharisees and Scribes was not their pushing of keeping the Mosaic Law, but their pushing upon The People their (man made) Rabbinical Laws, that were even far more harsher. Churchanityhas no clue about the Rabbinical Talmud and the strick precepts of it. Churchanity ass-u-me(s) that when the words 'Law' are spoken that it always points to the Mosaic Law. This is not always the case. The Apostle Paul was a Pharisee, and he knew 100% about their teaching of 'Moses' +,+,+,+,+,+, what the Rabbis wanted to add on and change and change again (six pluses for mans number is 6)

[Bob May]

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Luke 11:52 "Woe to you [religious] lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."

What did Jesus mean when he spoke of those who were "entering" the kingdom of heaven? What were they actually doing? What did the Pharisees do that hindered them?

What is the "key of knowledge?"

Hi all,
I missed this discussion so I am late in arriving.
Lots of good answers.
All seem to have something in common.
Freedom from Dogma.
Knowledge lies within.
Bad propaganda.
Omitting weightier matters of the law. Faith, mercy and judgement.
Blind leading the blind.

So what is the key of knowledge? (Gnosis true experiential knowledge.)

Rose tied it to the Key of David:

Isa. 22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Rev. 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

This key of David is the knowledge (his "experiential gnosis") is the awareness that David had. Even though he was a sinner, he knew that the sin would not be held against him.
That is the knowledge that cannot be taken away from us.
That is the key to the kingdom.
It is held back by the Pharisees (even modern day Pharisees) because
once a person realizes this, they, the Pharisees, are out of a job.

Ps 32:1 A Psalm of David, Maschil. Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
Ps 32:2 Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

I agree with Silence that it is not the knowledge that is the key, but the subject of that knowledge.
That subject is that our sins are no longer held to our account.
That is the knowledge that cannot be taken away because it is true experiential knowledge. Spiritually discerned.

The Accuser would try to but he has to use the law in order to accuse us.
But since we are no longer under the law that will not work.

If others try and talk us out of knowing that our sin is not counted against us they also are unarmed in that they too must use the law in order to prove us wrong. In that case they are either working for the side of the Pharisees, or they have not come to that revelation yet.

Beck brought up Peter's Revelation from heaven.
That is the key. Gnosis,...Revelation,... flesh and blood did not reveal it to him. The Father in heaven did.
As a Catholic boy we were taught that Peter was special because he had the keys to heaven.
He had an experience that was the key to him and for all of us. The Father revealing things to us.
That is Gnosis (knowledge) and those are the keys that cannot be taken away.

Bob

[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 (http://www.christianpost.com/news/apologist-josh-mcdowell-internet-the-greatest-threat-to-christians-52382/)

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 (http://www.christianpost.com/news/apologist-josh-mcdowell-internet-the-greatest-threat-to-christians-52382/)
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:D,
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, :yo:

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:D,
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.


http://youtu.be/4zZytbe1a9s

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, :pray:

[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 (http://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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_V._Gentry) 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] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_V._Gentry#cite_note-2) A number of creationists, including fellow Seventh-day Adventists, have criticised his work.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_V._Gentry#cite_note-Numbers-0)

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Brent_Dalrymple) stating:[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_V._Gentry#cite_note-Numbers-0) "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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas) case over the constitutional validity of Act 590 that mandated that "creation science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science)" be given equal time in public schools with evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_V._Gentry#cite_note-3) The defense lost and Act 590 was ruled to be unconstitutional (a verdict that was influential on, and upheld by, the Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) in Edwards v. Aguillard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard)).

Gentry has devised his own creationist cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationist_cosmologies) and filed a lawsuit in 2001 against Los Alamos National Laboratory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alamos_National_Laboratory) and Cornell University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_University) after personnel deleted ten of his papers about his cosmology from the public preprint server arXiv (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_V._Gentry#cite_note-4) On 23 March 2004, Gentry's lawsuit against arXiv was dismissed by a Tennessee court on the grounds that it lacked territorial jurisdiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_jurisdiction), as neither defendant in the case was considered to have a significant presence in the state of Tennessee.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_V._Gentry#cite_note-5)

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] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_V._Gentry#cite_note-6) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_L._Numbers), a prominent historian of science.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_V._Gentry#cite_note-Numbers-0)


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. (http://www.creationists.org/robert-gentry-press-release.html)" 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!

[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!

http://youtu.be/SDDrW3mMf-o

or this one

http://youtu.be/PG2EL0ocd7g

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


http://youtu.be/23gvzFfxWs0

or this one

http://youtu.be/MkJJ6U7gHIc

So you are either:

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

Isn't the internet grand?:D

Steve

[Ps 27:1]

Yes indeed, the internet is grand! Here is what it says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_V._Gentry) 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. (http://www.creationists.org/robert-gentry-press-release.html)" 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.:lol: 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? :doh:

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!

http://youtu.be/SDDrW3mMf-o

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)(:eek:)
4) so biased you can't see clearly (I'm guessing this one)

Isn't the internet grand?:D

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)(:eek:)
4) so biased you can't see clearly (I'm guessing this one)

Isn't the internet grand?:D

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/2011/12/sometimes_francis_collins_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/uncategorized/college-letter-to-collins/ and this
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/on-the-promotion-of-homosexuality-in-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/2011/12/sometimes_francis_collins_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/ (http://factsaboutyouth.com/uncategorized/college-letter-to-collins/) and this
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/on-the-promotion-of-homosexuality-in-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.

:sunny:

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.