Today the magazine The Lutheran has made its interview with Judge Jones freely available on its website. October's cover story is on science and religion, and includes a series of stories on the Lutheran perspective on the evolution/creationism issue. My parents get The Lutheran, so now my strange job has landed in their mailbox. There is no escape!
The Jones interview is notable for including some details on Jones's experience in becoming a judge -- quite an involved process -- and on his religious upbringing, which has not been treated in depth elsewhere. We also get some more on his views on the relationship between the judiciary and politics, which Jones has made into a bit of a personal quest following the post-decision claim that Jones had "stabbed in the back" his political allies.
Reference: Mark A. Staples (2006). "'Not science': Judge John E. Jones: Lutheran tells about his history-making, intelligent design decision." The Lutheran, October 2006.Judge Jones interview in The Lutheran
Today the magazine The Lutheran has made its interview with Judge Jones freely available on its website. October's cover story is on science and religion, and includes a series of stories on the Lutheran perspective on the evolution/creationism issue. My parents get The Lutheran, so now my strange job has landed in their mailbox. There is no escape!
The Jones interview is notable for including some details on Jones's experience in becoming a judge -- quite an involved process -- and on his religious upbringing, which has not been treated in depth elsewhere. We also get some more on his views on the relationship between the judiciary and politics, which Jones has made into a bit of a personal quest following the post-decision claim that Jones had "stabbed in the back" his political allies.
Reference: Mark A. Staples (2006). "'Not science': Judge John E. Jones: Lutheran tells about his history-making, intelligent design decision." The Lutheran, October 2006.
28 Comments
wamba · 10 October 2006
Could you please check and correct the first couple of links? Thank you.
wamba · 10 October 2006
David B. Benson · 10 October 2006
"to argue politely." I liked that...
Nick (Matzke) · 10 October 2006
I fixed the links, sorry about that.
Dr. Michael Martin · 10 October 2006
http://www.av1611.org/cqquest.html
Okay, looks like I'm going to hell ladies and gentleman :). I'm sorry, but I'm a huge fan of DC Talk and oh my goodness, Disciple, Jars of Clay, Mercy Me, and all different types of contemporary rock songs that just don't belong in the graveyard. HAHA, sorry this was pretty funny guys :).
http://www.av1611.org/question/cqnuet.html
Rock music, with it's hard driving beat, played to plants will kill the plants - while soothing classical music causes the plants to grow twice as fast.
Tell me THAT isn't the red herring of the century.
And some Christians actually believe that the giver of LIFE - the Lord Jesus Christ is the author and god of "rock and roll"! The One that made the plants and LIFE itself, is the author of a killer - Rock music! What could be more ridiculous! Who?
What site is complete without a lecture on Linguistics: "Take the English language, for example. If I write the letter 'e' is that a good 'e' or a bad 'e'? Neither. As a building block of the English language it is a neutral entity. However, I as a creative writer can put that letter in conjunction with other letters and communicate something like ...
PraisE the Lord...
or
I hatE God.
"In both of the above usages I have taken neutral letters and put them together to communicate something to you. However, what I have communicated is definitely not neutral, and my intent is clearly conveyed. "(Fisher, Tim The Battle for Christian Music, pp 60-61)
But as any serious Bible-student knows, DIVISION from false doctrine, satanic influences, compromise and worldliness is commanded. The false idea that because someone is a Christian, or professes to be a Christian, we're not to "judge" their error and separate (or divide) ourselves from them is simply wrong. We're not only to separate ourselves from them but also warn others. He's right so far.
And yes, cause divisions. . . (Yes, but of course, I always encourage this in each of my sermons :)).
Our prayer is to cause a DIVISION among Christians. We're presenting the truth about Contemporary Christian Music and our prayer is that Christians will see CCM for what it really is ("wolves in sheep clothing" Matt. 7:15) and DIVIDE from it. (Oh of course, a great Exegetical study is waiting here :).)
Nice job from the King-James Onlyisms here :). By the way, the advice to separate ourselves from the heretical Christian doctrines will be noted and followed :). King James Onlyism is in fact a cult.
http://www.av1611.org/about.html
Now, these are the real guys you need to be harassing :).
Dr. Michael Martin · 10 October 2006
http://www.av1611.org/about.html
If you want to see a STUPID KJV Onlyism website, here it is. These are the guys you should be harassing :).
http://www.av1611.org/question/cqdevila.html
Yes. We Are.
But as any serious Bible-student knows, DIVISION from false doctrine, satanic influences, compromise and worldliness is commanded. The false idea that because someone is a Christian, or professes to be a Christian, we're not to "judge" their error and separate (or divide) ourselves from them is simply wrong. We're not only to separate ourselves from them but also warn others. ME: so far so good
And yes, cause divisions. . . ME: (AHH of course I institute this into each and every one of my sermons :)).
Our prayer is to cause a DIVISION among Christians. We're presenting the truth about Contemporary Christian Music and our prayer is that Christians will see CCM for what it really is ("wolves in sheep clothing" Matt. 7:15) and DIVIDE from it.
Well, great. We'll just divide ourselves from the KJV-Onlyism cult and we'll be good to go then, right :).
http://www.av1611.org/question/cqdivide.html
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/recorded_history.htm - another KJV Onlyism. All of this evidence mentioned, none provided. No wonder Christians are so misunderstood about the controversy :). These are your guys FYI. Hit them every now and again.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/darwin_said_there_was_no_proof.htm - Actually this part isn't too bad :).
http://www.contenderministries.org/evolution/questions.php - here's some questions for you guys to answer.
I'm on your guy's side here: (Other recommended reading: Darwin's Black Box, by Michael J. Behe; Darwin on Trial, by Phillip E. Johnson; Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton; and Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, by Jonathan Wells (at least they're honest), Jody F. Sjogren.)
http://www.contenderministries.org/mail/07022004deceived.php
These are pretty good for a laugh: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Wicca%20&%20Witchcraft/666.htm
http://www.av1611.org/666/opinion.html
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/evils_in_government_page2.htm
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/evils_in_government.htm
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Wicca%20&%20Witchcraft/signs_of_satan.htm
My Eschatology kind of semi-agrees with this stuff, in that Jesus will return someday. When it comes to Eschatology, its usually opinionated and nothing more (of course, its primarily based around future events that have not yet occurred). But for the most part, its not exactly as extremist as these groups of Christians are. I believe Satan exists, and is behind every evil act within the world, but at the same time, this biochip thing seems kind of goofy to me. My thoughts are that basically, waste of time and money here. I believe most of this has already taken place, and that its even possible that we're just waiting for Jesus's return to earth. I believe he'll return and everyone's spirit will be resurrected and thats the end of the show. Nothing more there. The whole, all politicians use Satanic symbols though IS NOT what I believe, just for the record :). That in effect is quite amusing as far as I regard it. Good for a laugh folks.
Dr. Michael Martin · 10 October 2006
Oh, by the way.....I still haven't received the article from AIG on this subject, probably because we don't care to write about it :).
Carry on folks. ID and their pseudoScientific political schemes, but of course :).
Dr. Michael Martin · 10 October 2006
This is from Dumbski's Blog. This is about the only thing I agree with him on :).
The Top 10 Things Archaeologists Do Not (or rarely) Find!
10-Dinosaur Bones
9-Mummies
8-Precious Jewelry
7-Alien Artifacts
6-Treasure Chests
5-The Lost Tribes of Israel
4-Whole Pots
3-Secret Tunnels
2-Gold
1-A Steady Job!!!
Coin · 10 October 2006
I think one of the other threads has somehow sprung a leak into this one, or something, because I don't see what any of that has to do with Judge Jones' interview in The Lutheran.
Dr. Michael Martin · 10 October 2006
About as much as I care about it myself. Absolutely none :).
David B. Benson · 10 October 2006
Nick --- I find it past time for the moderator's to begin calling shenanigans on the infamous Dr M&M. His trolling all over many threads is way past funny by now...
Thanks.
Dr. Michael Martin · 10 October 2006
Who's trolling?
Right David, you haven't done a single thing about anything I've stated on this site. I'm still waiting for that oh so glamorous evidence that will move Evolution from cultish belief to Science. What separates Evolution from cults?
Coin · 10 October 2006
Dr. Michael Martin · 10 October 2006
Notice the quiet but keen swipes at the Discovery Institute in here
To keep it fair, looks more of a red herring to me. Its not relevant unless you can show a true analogy between the two events. Otherwise, it just results in a false analogy and is basically worthless.
Coin · 10 October 2006
...What?
One almost begins to wonder if this guy's posts are being randomly generated by a computer program or something.
jeffw · 10 October 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 10 October 2006
Hey Doc, if you're finished shitting in everyone's mailbox, again, would you mind telling me (1) how do we recognize witches, in your opinion? and (2) should women be allowed to speak in church, in your opinion?
I want everyone to see just how nutty you really are.
Coin · 10 October 2006
For comparison, I would like to remind everyone that Time Cube has never been meaningfully refuted by anyone.
Nick (Matzke) · 10 October 2006
Well, I'll try the nice approach first: Dr. Michael Martin, please keep your posts on-topic for the thread.
Doc Bill · 10 October 2006
Close call! I thought Lenny was on my case and I've been as quiet as a C3H!
My two cents, however, on the Jones issue is that of course he ruled the way he did. Having followed the trial very closely and read the transcripts, Jones would have been an "activist judge" to have ruled otherwise, especially in light of Barbara Forrest's scholarship.
Sounder · 10 October 2006
Pretty decent article, though there's not much new material in it. I did especially like, however, that the magazine posted the list of christian clergy who believe evolution and their religion are compatible.
http://www.thelutheran.org/article/article.cfm?article_id=5353
I've always been confused about the lutheran church. Was it not, after all, Martin Luther who wrote, "[There is] no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason, especially if she enters into spiritual matters which concern the soul and God. For it is more possible to teach an ass to read than to blind such a reason and lead it right; for reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed."? And "Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees it must put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of God"? How could a church with such a founder so easily harmonize their interpretations of scripture with scientific observation? It boggles the mind.
Parse · 10 October 2006
I was raised Lutheran, and though I've been out of the church for a while, I can at least try to answer your question, Sounder.
Essentially, churches change, but the central tenets remain. The main concepts of Martin Luther are still relevant - among them, that we can have a direct relationship with Jesus, that we do not require the scriptures to be interpreted for us - his dislike of reason is not. Through Sunday School and First Communion classes, when we studied his life, we didn't learn of his attacks on reason. (This isn't surprising, though, as we covered very little of his life. We learned enough about him to understand the schism from the Catholic church, but Martin Luther as a person was a very minor portion of the entire process.)
If anything, his view of reason as evil comes from his concept of needing a personal faith. If we apply reason to Jesus's life, we see he couldn't have turned water into wine, walked on water, or come back from the dead. Rather, faith needs to defy reason and say that Jesus indeed do these things, in spite of all of the evidence and rational arguments against it. It's being able to say that I believe this as a matter of faith, not as a matter of reason.
However, for a full, complete, and current explanation of the Lutheran Church's beliefs, I'm probably not the best person to ask - all I know is what I was taught and remembered.
Traffic Demon · 10 October 2006
Sounder - "I did especially like, however, that the magazine posted the list of christian clergy who believe evolution and their religion are compatible."
Well, I can think of at least one Lutheran school that needs to see it, the middle school I was just fired from for teaching evolution as science. Bloody DFW's.
J-Dog · 11 October 2006
As I understand it, Lutheran's are not all on the same page. They have a Missouri Synod that is more liberal than the Wisconsin Synod, and they hate each other I have been told. The WI Synod, as I understand it, is a real YEC type, with no women in leadership roles.
To me it's meh, who cares? They are both crazy religious nuts.... Just my opinion, so let's not get into our own intercine squable again eh?
BTW - I call Troll on HG and "Dr" Michale Martin.
MarkP · 11 October 2006
I like Martin's trolling, it serves as living example of how ignorant critics of evolution truly are. If those idiotic questions posed in his link are the best his side can do, evolution is truly on solid footing. Aquinas is truly rolling over in his grave.
I don't think HG is a troll per se. He wants to have meaningful discourse, he just doesn't have the stomach for where it leads, sort of like the kid standing on the end of the high dive wanting to jump but lacking the courage.
Likewise (and more on topic, sorry), Judge Jones' critics show how intellectually vapid their positions are by the kinds of criticisms they toss his way. Barring intelligent design from science class strips people of their civil liberties O'Reilly? A Bush appointee and fine Christian becomes an "activist judge" when you don't care for his decisions? It's great debating someone when all you have to do to win is let them talk.
chunkdz · 12 October 2006
From Wikipedia:
Lutherans believe God made the world, humanity included, perfect, holy and sinless.
That freakin fundie Jones!!
Mythos · 13 October 2006
A woman is a witch is she weighs as much as a duck. QED.
http://www.churchofcriticalthinking.com/archives/print000160monty_python_and_the.html
movies · 9 November 2006
http://fithome.free-websites.com/adware-killer-popup.html