Monday, May 30, 2011

A little fun with fundamentalist creationist kairos-out-of-focus

gordon e. mullings (kairosfocus on uncomment descent) is extremely demanding when it comes to evidence for evolution. He expects perfect precision and proof and gets all self-righteous and pissy when it isn't provided to HIS satisfaction. He always thinks he's 100% right though when he is bashing evolution or presenting his case for ID or his religious beliefs.

Let's take a look at some examples of gordy's beliefs and how he judges evidence/proof.

Read this first:



2:48 pm


Were you there to know?

Do you have credible, contemporaneous records that will pass the ancient documents rule test?

Where also: “correlation is not causation.”

Do you appreciate the difference between a model of the past as filtered through the prevalent schools of thought and the real past?

And, do you see the significant parallels to other related topics where your side of the main issue is selectively very skeptical on much stronger correlations and KNOWN causal patterns?



Keeping that in mind, and especially the part, "Were you there to know?", now read this letter from gordy to deacon Peter Espeut:

"Serious misrepresentations, Deacon Espeut
published: Saturday | February 1, 2003


Catholic Deacon Peter Espeut writes in a recent Gleaner column: "One group of Christians called 'Fundamentalists'.... believe that the Bible is inspired by God in such a way that every word is literally, scientifically and historically true... Fundamentalists have their primary faith in a book, not the Lord of history who continues to reveal himself and his truth down to today." ["The religion of a book," Wed. Jan. 29, p. A4.]

This claim misrepresents the views of the vast majority of Evangelicals, Adventists, Pentecostals and other Christians who take seriously the Bible's claim that "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." [2 Peter 1:21.] The article also fails to reckon with the direct link between Scripture and faith in the apostolic teaching: "you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise for salvation through Faith in Christ Jesus.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." [2 Tim. 3:15 - 17.] Further, poetic language, imagery, context and other relevant factors must be reckoned with before one can conclude as to what any text (biblical or otherwise) affirms or denies.

Consequently, what is at stake is whether the text of Scripture as we have it materially preserves what God said through prophets and apostles, so that it authentically and authoritatively records God's revelation: the truth, in love, to us all.

Mr Espeut goes on to claim that "The Bible contradicts itself... in so many places, that a sensible person could not honestly continue with Fundamentalism." He then provides as a prime example of "thousands of contradictions... within the Bible" the resurrection accounts in the Gospels. (NB: let us bear in mind what is required for a logical contradiction to exist. It requires that accounts affirm and deny the same thing, in the same sense - diversity of perspectives, gaps in information or even difficulties are not enough.)

First, let us note that the idea that Christ could have been raised theologically, but not historically or scientifically, fails the test of basic common sense. As Paul put it: "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless, and so is your faith." [1 Cor 15:14.]

What the Apostle affirms instead, is that there were over five hundred eyewitnesses. And, despite the arguments of Hume and many others that miracles violate laws of nature based on firm experience and so are impossible, there are millions alive today who have personally experienced or witnessed the miraculous power of God.

Second, we can simply check the text of the Gospels. What they show is devastating:

The accounts do NOT "disagree on the time of day." Matt 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, & John 20:1 are all consistent with a group of women setting out for Jesus' tomb as the new day was dawning.

The names Deacon Espeut cites actually show that the Gospels collectively AGREE as to the members of the group of women.

Matt. 28 and John 20 do not STATE that any of the women saw the stone being rolled away, nor that an angel spoke to them while he was sitting on the stone that had blocked the entry to the cave-like tomb.

The accounts that speak of one angel do not deny that a second may have been present.

Mark 16:7 does NOT say the angel "told [the women] to tell no one," but instead "go, tell his disciples and Peter...."

Thus, the column reveals a lack of attention to the text, disregard for the inevitable diversity in eyewitness reports, and gaps in Deacon Espeut's logic - rather than "a mature Christianity born of deep understanding of the Scriptures." Perhaps, it is time for mutually respectful dialogue rather than contemptuous dismissal with an epithetical lance - "fundamentalist"-backed up by specious arguments.

I am, etc.,

1 Caribbean Close
Kingston 10
Via Go-Jamaica"

That is from here:


Now read this from deacon Peter Espeut:

"An end to fundamentalism
published: Wednesday | February 5, 2003

Peter Espeut

I AM pleased at the many responses to last week's column. Fundamentalism has deep roots in Jamaica; many accept it unquestioningly as the correct approach to interpreting the Bible and I sincerely appreciate when persons with this background engage believers like me in debate.

Paul Thorbourne from Silver Springs, Maryland, USA (last Friday) does not dispute my assertion that "The Bible contradicts itself with respect to history and science in so many places, that a sensible person could not honestly continue with fundamentalism". He wants to know the source of Catholic teachings not found in the Bible; although he knows the answer, for he asks: "While I agree that God can reveal truths to mankind outside of the Bible, should they not be consistent with his revelations contained in the Bible?" The three non-biblical teachings he wants explained are, in fact, biblical (he could have used the Assumption of Mary, or the Immaculate Conception, which are non-biblical; and he is spot on: even though these are not revealed in Sacred Scripture, they in no way are contradicted by Holy Scripture, and are consistent with it).

The first non-biblical teaching he mentions is "that Mary is prayed to as a mediator to God when there is absolutely no mention of this in the scriptures". In fact, the Roman Catholic Church does not teach that Mary is a "mediator" between God and humanity, for there is only one such mediator - Jesus the Christ, who was true God and true man. What we believe in is intercessory prayer, that Mary - and the Saints - being in the constant presence of God, can intercede for us with Jesus.

Catholics are not required to pray in this way. We Catholics are expected to keep up a lively and close relationship with Jesus, his Father and the Holy Spirit through personal and public prayer. But who has not asked and sought and knocked, and not felt that God was taking a little long to answer? Intercessory prayer is an additional extra to grab God's attention. Look at the story of the wedding feast at Cana, where the guests "drank out the bar". Mary asked Jesus to restock the bar but He was unwilling, and almost rude to his mother; "Woman, what is that to me? My hour has not yet come". Like most mothers, she has influence over her son, and she totally ignores his refusal, and instructs the steward: "Do whatever he tells you". The rest is history! Mary can help to "change the mind" of her son, and that is why we pray to her; not because she has any power of her own, but because she has influence in high places.

His second question - about the meaning of Mat. 16:18 - is easy. For Greek scholars, the clear pun ("Petros" is "Peter" and "petra" is "rock") indicates that Peter is the rock referred to here. Of course, Jesus is the rock of our salvation (see 1 Cor. 10:4); but in this passage, Peter is the rock upon which Jesus will build his church.

I always find it interesting that Fundamentalists take everything literally - except where Jesus says: "This is my body", and "This is the cup of my blood". Nowhere does it say "a symbol of my body" or "a symbol of my sacrifice". Here, a literal rendering leads to Catholic belief in the Eucharist. Fundamentalists, where are you?

I can see (Saturday) Gordon E. Mullings of Trafalgar Park in Kingston, trying to come to grips with how Sacred Scripture can be 100 per cent true and still literally contradict itself on matters of history and science. The texts he quotes suggest that he thinks I disbelieve the truth of the Bible. We Roman Catholics believe the composers of the Bible were inspired by God (2 Peter 1:21.), in the direct link between Scripture and faith, and that all scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness - (2 Tim. 3:15-17). Mr. Mullings continues to miss the point: "What is at stake is whether the text of Scripture as we have it materially preserves what God said through prophets and apostles, so that it authentically and authoritatively records God's revelation: the truth, in love, to us all".

There is no doubt that Scripture as we now have it, materially preserves what God said through his prophets and apostles, so that it authentically and authoritatively records God's revelation. What is at stake is whether the eternal truth contained therein is literal, historical and scientific. I stated last week that the many indefensible literal contradictions prove that God did not intend us to automatically take every word in the Bible as history or science, but as theology. Sometimes theology means history, but not always as Fundamentalists believe.

Last week I named the three points on which the four accounts of the discovery of the resurrection agree, which are not in dispute (it happened on a Sunday, Mary Magdalene was there, and He had Risen). I fail, therefore, to understand why Mr. Mullings claims that I am denying the historicity of the resurrection. What I am successfully demonstrating are some of the thousands of literal contradictions within the Bible, and I am amazed at Mr. Mullings' denial of what his eyesight is telling him.

The accounts disagree on whether it was light or still dark. There is no mention of any "group" of women; the four accounts do not agree on whether it was one, two or three women, and which women. Mat. 28:2 says "Behold - which means they saw the stone rolled away, while the other accounts say the stone was already rolled away when they got there. They do not agree on whether the woman/women saw one person, two persons, or any person at all! I do not accept Mr. Mullings' denial of Scripture, that when it says "one" person it could mean "two". Mat. 28:8 states "So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples", while Mark 16:8 clearly states "and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid." Why is Mr. Mullings in denial? He will not get at the sublime truth to be found in Scripture this way.

I challenge all persons who really want to know the truth to abandon fundamentalism and to study all of Scripture, and not bury their heads in the sand when it comes to contradictions. A mature Christianity born of deep understanding of the Holy Scriptures will prevent the sort of simple literalism which has caused so many scandalous divisions in the broken body of Christ.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and an ordained deacon of the Roman Catholic Church, serving in Guy's Hill and Ewarton."

That is from here:


So, if you made it through all that bible-babble without your head exploding you probably noticed that gordy (kairosfocus) is considered a fundamentalist even by another bible thumper. In other words, gordy believes in the bible as the literal words of god, which means he believes that noah's flood, the resurrection, the creation of the heavens and Earth in 6 days, adam and eve as the first humans, the garden of eden, a talking snake, the fall, the immaculate conception of jesus, and all the other stuff in the bible is literally true and is a precisely accurate account of history and the universe. Of course, like all christians, he believes that his interpretation and version of the bible stories is the correct one.

And this is a guy who calls himself a "scientist" and denounces real scientists and science on a daily basis.

Here's more of gordy the "scientist":