What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? (NIV)
In comments on Tim’s post, Terry (who is both an Evolutionist and an Objectivist) says
a camera is NOT an eye (nor is an audio recorder an ear, etc). A camera is a piece of equipment used to record images, whereas an eye is an organ of sight. The former mimics the functions of the latter, but apart from that they are worlds apart.
simply because human technology [has] been built so as to mimic certain biological functions does not justify grounds for claiming that the reverse applies and that biology can therefore ‘possibly’ mimic human inventions via the process of evolution. … Evolution is not a creative process – it is an entirely responsive process, which means that new functionality only develops and is maintained in response to the need to survive.
Terry has just committed Objectivism’s “stolen concept” fallacy and violated a fundamental tenet of Evolutionism! Doubleplusungood!
According to Evolutionism, there are no biological functions. The eye, for example, is an organ of sight, but the eye has no purpose. Its function is not to see. It has no function.
According to Evolutionism, there are no biological malfunctions, either. A blind eye, by definition, is not an organ of sight. A blind eye has not malfunctioned, because there is nothing it is supposed to do. An eye has no purpose to be fit for.
If it’s the case that the eye was designed for a purpose, as Creationists claim, then we can say that the function of the eye is to see, and that there is something wrong with an eye that does not see. It ain’t doing what it’s supposed to do, and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. But Evolutionism is quite explicit that no biological organ is designed for any purpose. As Dawkins says
Biology is the study of complicated things which give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose
and, as Terry himself puts it, “Evolution is not a creative process – it is an entirely responsive process.”
Evolution according to Evolutionists is a blind, stochastic process. Any appearance of design, purpose or function is just an appearance. The reason that we have eyes that see is simply because having eyes that see helped our ancestors to survive. But eyes do not, in virtue of their evolutionary history, ever acquire a purpose or a proper function.
All talk of biological functions is pre-Darwinian. Consistent Evolutionists should not talk of biological functions. If they do, they must explain that their use of the word ‘function’ is just shorthand for facts about an organism’s evolutionary history. If they don’t, they are guilty of Ayn Rand’s stolen concept fallacy.
The “stolen concept” fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends.
The concepts of ‘function’ and ‘purpose’ logically depend on the concept of a Creator. They are pre-Darwinian. Evolutionists have no right to use them.
[47] “Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. [48] When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. [49] This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous [50] and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (NIV)
Verse 47 is about selection. It is about a net. A net selects fish on the basis of size. Fish smaller in size than the apertures in the net pass through it. Fish larger in size than the apertures in the net do not.
Verse 48 is also about selection. The fishermen collect the good fish in baskets, but throw the bad away.
Verse 49 too is about selection. The angels separate the wicked from the righteous and (in verse 50) destroy the wicked by throwing them into the blazing furnace.
I can’t help but think that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has precedents in Scripture.
“Have you understood all these things?” Jesus asked.
“Yes,” they replied.
He said to them, “Therefore every teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.” (NIV)
It has been said that gay marriage is a non-issue being used to distract from larger issues (i.e., the Mon$atan Protection Act).
NOTE: From now on, I am referring to the Monsanto Corporation as “Mon$atan” (thank you, @OrganicLiveFood on Twitter).
There is some truth to this. But here’s the thing. Gay marriage is an important issue—not so much in and of itself, so much as it is important to assert that we will live and let live, in order that we may unite to deal with institutions like Mon$atan and its ilk, and so that we can continue to win over the liberals to the importance of gun rights, etc.
They are using this issue to divide us.
We need to use this issue to unite ourselves.
“Live and let live!” must become a categorical political axiom if we are going to unite to take down Mon$atan and the gun snatchers.
Among my former college classmates whom I still follow on Facebook, the most adamant opponent of Mon$atan is a guy who happens to be gay. I want to make sure that I am not alienated from this person over something as trivial as gay marriage.
Straight people: gay people are not violating your first amendment rights by getting married. And Gay people: if a heterosexual thinks that gay marriage is against his religion, he’s allowed to express that which is his religious/ethical belief; so long as he isn’t actively trying to persecute you for yours.
Live and let live.
On those issues which we can unite behind, we will win.
If they successfully divide us, then we will lose.
“I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.
“We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a cross, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” (NIV)
I tried Boundary Road Brewery’s Sticky Wicket manuka honey lager … it tastes like fizzy manuka honey.
I tried Boundary Road Brewery’s Chocolate Moose chocolate porter … it tastes like fizzy chocolate syrup.
These are not craft beers for the discerning adult palate, they’re alcoholic soft drinks for children. Notwithstanding that Boundary Road Brewery does make some half-decent beers—I already rated the Bouncing Czech pilsener, and the Mumbo Jumbo IPA is currently my preferred beer in its price range—I’m disappointed.
I suppose that if beer-flavoured lemonade is your thing, you can’t go past the Lawn Ranger lemon and lime infused lager, but otherwise I wish BRB would stick to making actual beer.
Note the juxtaposition of Christian and Satanic imagery in the video.
And you stare at me
In your Jesus Christ pose
Arms held out
Like you’ve been carrying a load
And you swear to me
You don’t want to be my slave
But you’re staring at me
Like I need to be saved
In your Jesus Christ pose
Arms held out
In your Jesus Christ pose
Thorns and shroud
Like it’s the coming of the Lord
And I swear to you
That I would never feed you pain
But your staring at me
Like I’m driving the nails
In your Jesus Christ pose
And you stare at me
In your Jesus Christ pose
Arms held out like it’s
The coming of the Lord
And would it pay you more to walk on water
Then to wear a crown of thorns
It wouldn’t pain me more to bury you rich
Then to bury you poor
In your Jesus Christ pose
No person … is prohibited from entering marriage on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Given the definition of marriage that the Act presupposed, however, few if any homosexual people would actually want to enter marriage, since marriage is the union of a man and a woman – and people who are attracted to members of their own sex are not likely to wish to enter such a union.
If you say that a change to the Marriage Act has nothing to say about opposite-sex couples who get married, then you are simply mistaken. You’ve got the facts wrong. These changes would not change the status of people who are homosexuals. These changes are to change marriage into something else – something that some homosexuals want instead of what it is now. The marriage of everyone is being changed so that marriage becomes a desirable thing to people who don’t currently want it.
… the current version of the marriage Act applies to all individuals equally and does not exclude people from marriage on the grounds of sexual orientation. The real issue is that people of homosexual orientation do not want marriage, for marriage, according to the definition presupposed by the Act, is between people of opposite sexes.
… this is not a genuine attempt to change the status of homosexual people. Instead it is the attempt to change marriage – something that homosexual people currently do not want – into something that they find desirable.
I have a faint suspicion that there’s something slightly not quite right with this line of argument … but I can’t actually see any holes in it. Can you?
