[quote]hspder wrote:
Your ability to neatly summarize complex issues while still retaining the important details never ceases to impress me. You have a real gift there, nephorm.[/quote]
Thanks! I read a lot of Cliff’s Notes.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Thanks! I read a lot of Cliff’s Notes.[/quote]
LOL! Actually I thought you were going to say “I WRITE a lot of Cliff’s Notes.”… 
[quote]hspder wrote:
You mean, the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy?[/quote]
Yes.
Here it is, not word for word, but what was posted attributed to Einstein is a good paraphrasing of it:
“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something more bizarrely inexplicable.”
“There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”
Douglas Adams was also a rabid atheist. Staunch, at the very least. 
[quote]Because he was purposively vague about his actual beliefs. Brilliant marketing… Example:
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind
" – Albert Einstein[/quote]
He was a bit less vague in letters written later in his life.
Someone already mentioned his agreement with Spinoza’s view of God, which are, basically, that the universe is God. Pantheism basically. No miracles, no afterlife, no messiah, etc.
Of course, Christians using Spinoza to support their ideas is quite amusing, since Pantheism is about a hair’s width removed from atheism.
[quote]hspder wrote:
LOL! Actually I thought you were going to say “I WRITE a lot of Cliff’s Notes.”…
[/quote]
My parents taught me that self-depricating humor makes people like you.
[quote]hspder wrote:
The fact that she would never abort, for example, because of her beliefs, doesn’t mean that she wants to force that belief on others.[/quote]
You said that she thinks abortion is okay in the first trimester or if the mother’s life is in danger, so I assumed she thought there was nothing wrong with it. But now you are saying that she would never do it herself. Why? Because she thinks it is murder? And if it is murder, then should she not care about all the children that are being murdered? She does not need to be political in her stance, but I don’t think any Christian can support abortion in any way.
I have heard many Christians say that we should not fight so hard against abortion, but rather focus on getting people saved, and then they won’t want to abort their own children. I agree that evangelism is the most important thing, but could you imagine if the church had said back during WWII, “We don’t really need to stop the Nazi massacre of the Jews. If they become Christians they will stop the genocide on their own.” It is never right to turn a blind eye to murder.
[quote]
The thing is that she believes, as I said, that the job of the government is to protect people from each other, not from themselves, and hence does not believe the government should enforce or even preach submission to the Word of God. That is the job of pastors, not Presidents and Senators and Congressmen. [/quote]
I absolutly agree with her there.
[quote]
And judging people for their actions and working to change them is the job of God, not humans. I’m flabbergasted by christians that believe that people will change because other people tell them they must, or because of some law; my wife, on the other hand, basically believes that only God can change people, and any attempt of a fellow human being to induce change, or any human law that tries to condition certain behaviors, will backfire. We both grew up in a heavily christian environment and both witnessed first hand what human repression actually results in. It is fascinating how while she was given a lot of freedom by her father while growing up, she never engaged in any risky or promiscuous behaviors (in fact, she was a virgin when we married), while every single one of her friends, who had much less liberal parents, were the exact opposite ? as an example one of them died of AIDS complications just a couple of years ago, and another one committed suicide exactly 4 years ago. [/quote]
A Christian is not allowed to be pragmatic. The word of God is always the Christian’s authority in life. And the word of God is very clear that Christians are to be evangelists at home and to the ends of the earth. Every single Christian was saved because someone else shared the gospel with them. As Romans 10:14 says: “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?”
[quote]
I’m exactly the same: my parents gave me carte blanche as far back as I remember, and after I became an orphan as a teenager, I was completely on my own anyway. However, even though I had no-one repressing me, I never engaged in risky behaviors. My more repressed friends and colleagues, again, were the opposite, and I could actually observe a direct “positive” correlation between repression and risky behaviors. [/quote]
Well, I was raised in a non-Christian home, where all religions and all religious people were mocked, and I turned out to be the most horrible, retched, rebellious sinner you could imagine. I also know many people raised in Christian homes, who never had any rebellious period in their life. So your experiences do not prove anything. Once again, we can’t be pragmatic, but we need to obey the word. Ephesians 6:4: “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.”
I think there are millions of church-attending hypocrites who bring up their children with one message on Sunday and another message during the week. Is it any wonder that there are so many bitter adults raised in church attending families? I think children can pick up on hypocrisy from the moment they learn to communicate.
Well that statement itself is fine. There are few things more irritating to me than quasi-Christians who tear apart and spit on homosexuals as though somehow their own sins are not just as grievous in the eyes of God. I think it was C.S. Lewis who said that men do this because it is the one sin that that they have never partaken of nor thought of partaking of.
That said, it does become a problem when we start to accept this behavior among those who claim to be Christians. The New Testament is so clear that this lifestyle is not acceptable for the born-again believer, and 1 Corinthians Chapter 5 tells Christians to excommunicate the sexually immoral. (This does not mean that the sexually immoral should not be allowed to attend church services, but that they should not be allowed in membership or to serve in the church, and that the church should be clear that their behavior is sinful) Once again, so many churches foul up here. They have no problem putting out the practicing homosexual, but they turn a blind eye to fornicators and adulterers. The hypocrisy and the use of homosexuals as a scapegoat is wrong.
I have a friend (I think I might have mentioned this to you before) who has a doctorate in molecular biology and is a university professor. He fully believes in evolution. He is also a Christian, and used to lead my Bible study group. Because of conversations I have had with him, I have spent a lot of time trying to think out this issue fairly.
There are several big problems I have with trying to mash evolution into Genises.
First of all, Read the overview account of creation in Genesis 1. After each day, it is very specifically stated that that day consisted of one morning and one evening. Why would that be in there if God wanted us to read between the lines and infer something other than one literal day? Does it not make more sense that God put that in there to help clarify what He meant at some future time when it would be disputed?
Second of all, the entire story of the fall of man would have to be thrown out too. The Bible states that there was no death before Adam and Eve sinned. But if they were a product of evolution, there must have been lots of death before them. So once again, the word of God, and the entire story of redemption is made to be a lie.
Third, the detailed account of creation in Genesis 2 states that God formed man from the dust of the ground, and then breathed life into him, and then man became a living being. This clearly says that the first man was fully formed before he was made alive. How can this possibly fit with evolution unless this detail was fictional? There are a whole bunch of other details in the creation account that we would have to put aside as pure fiction. So basically we would have to believe that the Bible is full of bold-faced lies.
Fourth, all through the New Testament, Adam was claimed to be the first man, through whom sin and death entered the world. Examples of these passages include: Romans 5:14, 1 Corinthians 15:22 and 45, and 1 Timothy 2:13 and 14. This would mean that the New Testament was full of lies as well.
And lastly, an attempt to make the scripture conform to beliefs about evolution undermines the authority of scripture, which is one of the most important aspects of the Christian faith. Where do we go from there? Suddenly all scripture is fair game.
[quote]pookie wrote:
In that way, scientific and religious alienation are quite different entities.[/quote]
You realize I did say “I agree with you”, right? And you are making the exact same distinction I was trying to make.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Whether you like it or not, it does affect you. In large numbers, those people can vote their beliefs into laws. The Dark Ages happened once; who’s to say they can’t happen again?[/quote]
Again, we fundamentally agree and you’re arguing semantics. Of course it affects our life – I’m just saying it should not let it make you sad, because that makes you weaker. That allows them to win.
If I let sadness and anger take over after Bush got his second mandate in 2004, I wouldn’t be enjoying the prosperity his blatant mistakes eventually brought me, in both my consultancy work and my public predictions.
Al Gore also became a lot more effective and convincing after he moved on from his administrative defeat, and focused on his positive strengths, rather than venting his frustration at every opportunity. He was even “blessed” with a monumental public (layman) validation of his theories, in the form of the hottest summer ever recorded, right after his movie came out.
I’m not saying we should not be vigilant – just that we need to remain strong, and sadness does not bring strength.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Here it is, not word for word, but what was posted attributed to Einstein is a good paraphrasing of it:
“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something more bizarrely inexplicable.”
“There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”[/quote]
Well, he did say “there’s a theory” – which might be referring to the quote attributed to Einstein.
If I ever find out for sure, I’ll definitely let you know…
[quote]pookie wrote:
Of course, Christians using Spinoza to support their ideas is quite amusing, since Pantheism is about a hair’s width removed from atheism.[/quote]
Absolutely.
Pookie,
You are so angry it’s scary.
[quote]hspder wrote:
As long as we are debating things without turning to physical violence, it’s worth it… It’s when people stop talking and reach for the physical armament that things get nasty. The fact that she would never abort, for example, because of her beliefs, doesn’t mean that she wants to force that belief on others.[/quote]
I agree - from the tone of your first post, you seemed to suggest you were tired of these debates, rather than wanting to seem them to continue.
By all means, the discussion can be good.
All of which sounds fantastic in theory, but of course, the only way that such absolute freedom would work is if there was absolute responsibility to go with it.
Liberalize drugs? Sure thing, but only with the caveat that any health problems that result forfeit any public assistance in helping.
I don’t think we actually want such a society, and while I agree there must be limits, one extreme is as bad as the other.
I have yet to see anyone advocate this.
This is, in fact, a great statement and one that just doesn’t get enough traction in these debates.
Science and religion were not always at each other’s throats - after all, early scientific investigations were started by the church to do exactly that - decipher God’s universe. Such an exploration actually made one closer to God, in that view, and should be the same today.
Instead we have polarized camps - one group refuses to use God-given faculties to see what is in front of them - scientific progress - all the while nesting in a smug cocoon of blissful ignorance of the gifts that God-given intelligence has afforded us. On the other side, we have a group that arrogantly thinks that Reason has somehow refuted Faith, as if Man can live on Reason alone, and that religion is nothing more than a shackles of the mind - again, smug in the thinking that they hold a treasured secret that makes them superior to the other ‘idiot’.
What I find interesting is that, despite raving admissions to the contrary, these two camps are near identical in their ignorance.
The rest of us - what I think is a fair-minded majority that really doesn’t make enough noise to get noticed - enjoy a comfortable relationship between science and religion and understand that pursuit of knowledge is one of the driving engines of faith.
Another good point - Hspder, we must stop agreeing - perhaps the whole point is that the Almighty wants us to pursue the truth out there, even if we ultimately continually fall short.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Again, we fundamentally agree and you’re arguing semantics. Of course it affects our life – I’m just saying it should not let it make you sad, because that makes you weaker. That allows them to win.[/quote]
There are levels of sadness; I’m not weeping uncontrollably here. There is little else but “sadness” to describe the feeling of seeing all those lives, all that potential wasted on futilities.
That doesn’t mean I’d lie down and let them impose their beliefs on anyone. Sadness taken advantage of can quickly change into anger.
[quote]JPBear wrote:
Pookie,
You are so angry it’s scary. [/quote]
There you go evading all the questions, as usual.
Did you read all (or even some) of the work of the various people you quoted above? Have you even the slightest idea of what the theory of evolution actually says, other than the fact that it is opposed by Creationists?
And from the embryo thread: What should we do with them, other than wishing they had never been artificially produced? That’s another question that was conveniently avoided, while you concentrated on Harris’ reading comprehension.
You often pop-up criticizing various scientific propositions and endeavours; but always disappear after pasting (not a typo) your views with a nice dollop of irrelevant scripture.
Are you able to participate in a discussion further than to post “dogma” from biased sources about stuff you don’t understand, worse, have not even the slightest urge to understand; and then personally attack the poster when your sham arguments are shot down?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Did you read all (or even some) of the work of the various people you quoted above? [/quote]
No, I was just trying to show that not all scientists and evolutionists claim that evolution is a fact without any holes or missing proof. The scientist in the original article said that evolution is a fact and if you are rejecting it is because you are willfully stupid. I was only trying to show that he did not speak for all scientists.
[quote]
Have you even the slightest idea of what the theory of evolution actually says, other than the fact that it is opposed by Creationists?[/quote]
I have a basic idea. I probably know about as much as the average person who claims to believe in evolution. I have never really pursued a detailed knowledge though as I have a difficult time with science and only a high school education.
How about this, why don’t you post your favorite proof of evolution (and please don’t post something that just proves microevolution, as I already believe in that). Show me some evidence (not just a hypothesis) that will change my mind.
[quote]
And from the embryo thread: What should we do with them, other than wishing they had never been artificially produced? That’s another question that was conveniently avoided, while you concentrated on Harris’ reading comprehension.[/quote]
I thought my answer was clear. They shouldn’t be there. They are obviously going to have to be killed, but that was a given when they were created. The crime of experimenting on them and exploiting them is not lessened just because they were already going to die. That’s kind of like saying “well, that person is on death row and about to be executed, so it wouldn?t really be immoral to do some science experiments on him first.”
[quote]
You often pop-up criticizing various scientific propositions and endeavours; but always disappear after pasting (not a typo) your views with a nice dollop of irrelevant scripture.[/quote]
Do I now? Well that’s news to me. And I have never copied and pasted a single thing without giving credit to the author. So if I did not give credit to a source, then I did not just copy and paste my views.
Yes. Yes I can. Thanks for asking.
[quote]JPBear wrote:
If he is your Lord, that means complete death to self and complete submission to the word of God.[/quote]
That is a complete crock. We are given a brain and free will, death of self is a completely ridiculous stance to have.
[quote]Jesus said:
“He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.”
- John 14:21[/quote]
Would you mind elucidating the commandments, as they don’t seem to include a “death of self” any time I have seen them.
Also, too bad for women, as they aren’t mentioned at all… I don’t think they count in a religious sense. Or, will you generalize it while still claiming it is literal?
[quote]JPBear wrote:
Why? Because she thinks it is murder? And if it is murder, then should she not care about all the children that are being murdered?[/quote]
Billions of viable embryos – yes, fully formed, growing embryos – are flushed down the toilet every year. These are “natural abortions” that happen in the billions. I don’t see anyone crying over those dead children or right-wing christian women taking their menses to a lab every 28 days to make sure all there are no viable embryos there and implanting them back in to grow.
Interestingly, when confronted with this, many pastors my wife and I talked to react by saying “well, the souls of unborn Children are saved” – suddenly realizing that means that the ones that are “artificially” aborted are also saved and hence we should not worry about them.
Personally, we are much more worried about the billions of children that are born every year to slavery, abuse, and/or hunger.
[quote]JPBear wrote:
I have heard many Christians say that we should not fight so hard against abortion, but rather focus on getting people saved, and then they won’t want to abort their own children. I agree that evangelism is the most important thing, but could you imagine if the church had said back during WWII, “We don’t really need to stop the Nazi massacre of the Jews. If they become Christians they will stop the genocide on their own.” It is never right to turn a blind eye to murder. [/quote]
Unfortunately, no country considers embryos and fetuses citizens, and, even with children, most countries give a lot of leeway to parents. Unless you are willing to support constitutional amendments that made embryos and fetuses citizens, and rather than issuing birth certificates, start issuing “conception certificates”, embryos and fetuses clearly fall outside the realm of government intervention and responsibility – and, hence, legally, abortion is not murder.
Exodus 21:22-23 also clearly puts abortion at a different level from murder.
Numbers 3:15-16 and Leviticus 27:6 even clearly give children under one month old no value.
Furthermore, contrary to common belief, that is a lot of argument even among Christians, Muslims and Jews as to where life begins. The Bible does not comment directly on abortion, even though abortion was practiced even then. All Biblical arguments on abortion are indirect and open to interpretation, and debate continues even among the world’s most respected theologians. Even so, the Bible seems to suggest in several places that the unborn are not endowed with the qualities or rights of personhood. In fact, the Jews, who are famous for their preservation of tradition, have never considered abortion to be a sin.
Let’s give pro-birth christians the benefit of the doubt, however, and treat the following poetic texts as literal descriptions. Even a literal interpretation does not detract from the philosophy of personhood outlined above.
The first texts are Job 10:8 and 11, describing the experience of Job in the womb:
“Your hands shaped me and made me? Did you not? clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews?”
This text describes only God’s physical construction of the fetus, and brings pro-birthers no closer to proving when ensoulment occurs. Besides not resolving the central question, however, this text raises one of the thorniest issues in all theology. And that is: if God is responsible for the physical creation of the fetus (indeed, the entire universe), then is God responsible for physical deformity, imperfection, even the Devil and sin? Fortunately, we need not resolve this 3,000 year-old controversy to prove the following point: despite the belief that God made everything, which is reflected in this text, some of these things nonetheless turn out evil, and even God permits humans to correct evil.
The second passage is Psalms 139:13-16:
“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”
This is a favorite passage among pro-birth Christians, but they probably be much less enthusiastic about it if they knew more about the third verse. The philosophers of many cultures around Israel – including Plato of Greece – believed that the unborn were formed and designed in the soil of the earth, and then were supernaturally lifted into the womb of the mother. The third verse of this passage is this ancient superstition.
Pro-birth Christians try to get around this damaging observation by claiming it is only poetry. Which, of course, ruins their attempt to use this passage as literal science.
Even disregarding the third verse, this passage says nothing about personhood. The first verse, like the passage from Job, notes that God is involved in the creation of physical entities – no controversy there. The second verse states an obvious truth about the wonder of the human body, but mentions nothing about ensoulment or when it occurs. The fourth verse shows that God has foreknowledge of the unborn, and a purpose for their lives. Yet foreknowledge does not equal personhood. Thomas Edison, for example, had both foreknowledge of the light bulb and a purpose for it before he created the first one. That God knows the future is no theological secret. God would have known about David even before he was conceived, even before the earth was created. Our earlier philosophy on personhood remains uncontradicted: God may simply have kept David’s soul ready until the right fetal body came along. Which fetal body may have been unimportant – it was the soul that mattered.
Jeremiah 1:5 repeats this theme:
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
This text comes right out and says it: before I formed you - that is, before conception – God had foreknowledge of Jeremiah. Again, foreknowledge does not equal personhood.
Another pro-birth text is Genesis 9:6:
“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God has God made man.”
One rebuttal to this interpretation is that the zygote bears no resemblance whatsoever to a finished person; a 12-week fetus resembles perhaps only 70% of a person, and only by the 8th month does a fetus possess the completed organs of a full-fledged person. Besides, this law is relative; God permitted many legal forms of killing.
Finally, pro-birth Christians use the birth of Christ to prove that fetuses are ensouled immediately upon conception. Luke 1:15 says that Jesus would be “filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth.” Some translations say “from his mother’s womb.” The text does not clarify the exact moment of ensoulment: was it childbirth, or an indeterminate amount of time before childbirth (say, during the last few months of viability)?
Others argue that because the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, it must have been present from the very beginning; therefore, ensoulment occurs upon conception. The conception of Jesus, however, was a unique and supernatural event, and it is not at all certain that the birth of Christ compares to that of ordinary mortals. We do not know, for example, whether the Holy Spirit completed the genetic code upon fertilization, only to ensoul the fetus later. And being half-God, the fetus may have possessed the omniscient Holy Spirit in a way that a fully human fetus might not. The answers to these questions can never be known, and the extraordinary event of Jesus’ conception cannot be used to describe normal childbirth.
The reason my wife would not abort is, basically, a) she is not completely sure either way and would rather err on the side of caution and b) we are fortunate enough to have the means to support a child – and the family to back us up.
The reason she draws the line at the 3rd month is indeed one of pure pragmatism and, again, erring on the side of caution; basically European countries have tinkered abortion laws for decades and experience has shown that is the compromise that leads to the lowest number of (legal and illegal) abortions, because it instills some civil responsibility while still allowing people to abort. The Netherlands is famously known for being the country in the planet with the lowest number of abortions, something that was achieved with that line firmly drawn in the sand, along with plenty of socialist measures to make sure that abortion is not taken lightly. Even atheists like myself agree that abortion is an act that shows an underlying problem with the parents and a socialist or social democratic government is supposed to offer the needed support to go through the rough times that it obviates.
In the US, however, being a right-wing country, it is hard to justify any kind of government intervention, hence it is hard to make a case against Roe vs. Wade.
[quote]JPBear wrote:
A Christian is not allowed to be pragmatic. [/quote]
Not with his/her actions, but why not with other people’s actions? Is it the job of a Christian to judge and control others?
[quote]JPBear wrote:
And the word of God is very clear that Christians are to be evangelists at home and to the ends of the earth. Every single Christian was saved because someone else shared the gospel with them. As Romans 10:14 says: “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?” [/quote]
Again, the argument of vinegar vs. honey. My wife has been extremely effective in bringing people to hear preachers, and has enabled the conversion of many of them. She has done so, however, without passing any judgment, without any negative comments on anyone’s behavior, without bigotry or self-righteousness. She has done so by, first of all, being somebody that people admire and respect, and find loving and caring, and having people trust her and want to be around her – and then inviting them to church, without ever making people feel bad about themselves or their choices. Some will go back home and never give it another thought, but still be friends because they never, for a moment, felt bad – others will indeed be touched and come back. And a sizeable chunk never leaves.
Honey, not vinegar.
[quote]JPBear wrote:
Well, I was raised in a non-Christian home, where all religions and all religious people were mocked, [/quote]
Wait – let’s stop right there. Mocked? Well, that is definitely a problem – my parents never mocked religion, and as I said most everybody I grew up with were Christians. If I ever appeared to mock religion, I apologize. That is not my intent.
[quote]JPBear wrote:
Ephesians 6:4: “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” [/quote]
Again, you and my wife seem to interpret that differently. Her interpretation is not that it means she should be repressive or instill religious beliefs in our children before they are prepared. Nurturing means “furnishing or sustaining with nutriment” and admonishing means “to indicate duties or obligations to; to express warning or disapproval to especially in a gentle, earnest, or solicitous manner; to give friendly earnest advice or encouragement to”, which has is far from meaning repression, or instilling religious beliefs. Telling children or teens to stay away from risky behaviors (including promiscuity) is admonishing even if you don’t add “because the Bible says it’s a Sin” in the end. In fact, it has been proven many times that explaining things in away that is based on simple reason rather than faith actually works much better – because teenagers respond to simple rationalizations much better than they respond to commands.
[quote]JPBear wrote:
I have a friend (I think I might have mentioned this to you before) who has a doctorate in molecular biology and is a university professor. He fully believes in evolution. He is also a Christian, and used to lead my Bible study group. Because of conversations I have had with him, I have spent a lot of time trying to think out this issue fairly.
There are several big problems I have with trying to mash evolution into Genises.
[?]
And lastly, an attempt to make the scripture conform to beliefs about evolution undermines the authority of scripture, which is one of the most important aspects of the Christian faith. Where do we go from there? Suddenly all scripture is fair game. [/quote]
The evidence against a literal interpretation of Genesis is enormous. There is plenty of proof – and I mean proof, not theory – that we only showed up 10 billion years (give or take a few billion years) after the Universe was created. The whole formation of the Earth and appearance of vegetation – that according to Genesis took a couple of “days” – took, in reality, and couple of billion years. Unless you somehow believe God or the Devil have changed the speed of light and the rate of carbon decay on purpose, after Creation, to deceive us – that is an inescapable truth. The timeline is well established and the evidence is everywhere.
That means, that, in fact, you have to be either very insane of very convinced that our reality is a total deception to accept Genesis literally.
So, what do you rather believe? That all scripture is fair game for non-literal interpretation or that our perceived reality, things like the speed of light, carbon decay or fossils, are just an elaborate game to deceive us?
Because, if the latter, then all science and, specifically, all scientific education are basically pointless – and that I’m sure you agree is a very disturbing belief.
Before I forget:
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree. – Genesis 1:11
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. – Genesis 1:24
Notice that God lets “the earth bring forth” the plants and animals, rather than create them directly. Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all.
Evolutionists might argue that creationists are retards in unlikely manners. For instance, some creationists work in intellectual professions as teachers, lecturers, lawyers, etc etc. But the ideas towards creation have them labelled as retards.
It seems to me though that many scientists are adept at name calling and like to throw mud from a position usually of imagined egocentric superiority
(which as we know is what some Christians are often sometimes accused of ) no less.
I’ve heard one (scientist) shout, ‘Creationists are retards’ and then another has been asked to comment, without time to think.
He said :
Creationists are not retards !
Really, they are just a bunch of people whose minds have had been misguided, to learn and propagate all matters backwards in history, in a stubborn attempt even to their own mental detriments, intellectual and spiritual, and unknowingly to go counter to the natural evolutionary trends in our epistemology of human condition and existence on this unique Earth, especially since the publication of Charles Darwins The origin of species in 1859.
Interesting comment I thought, I examined it impartially.
That said, there is in existence a small cabal of truly offensive creationists, and their lies and distortions of evolution and the science surrounding it have to be attacked head on, and exposed as often as possible.
The very fact they are arguing about Creationism and evolution is simply a cloak for matters of the ego.
Examine the circumstances of a bodybuilding forum where many strive to be the best they can be.
Unable to feel comfortable in this surrounding, but not wanting to be made to feel inferior the individual is forced to focus on egocentric righteousness where they hold some remarkable power and truth, usually its something to do with their impeccable religious power in Jesus or similar.
When challenged on the belief system, the Egocentric blindness comes into play. This is the psychological protocol which allows them not to notice facts or evidence which contradict challenged belief or values.
[quote]jasonigor and hspder wrote:
Some interesting stuff…[/quote]
Damn, if these smart and articulate people keep on hanging around these parts I might have to up my game…
[quote]vroom wrote:
jasonigor and hspder wrote:
Some interesting stuff…
Damn, if these smart and articulate people keep on hanging around these parts I might have to up my game…
[/quote]
A MONKEY in a wood somehow got a. looking-glass, and went about showing it to the animals around him. The bear looked into it and said he was very sorry he had such an ugly face. The wolf said he would fain have the face of a stag, with its beautiful horns. So every beast felt sad that it had not the face of some other in the wood.
The monkey then took it to an owl that had witnessed the whole scene. “No,” said the owl, “I would not look into it, for I am sure, in this case as in many others, knowledge is but a source of pain.”
“You are quite right,” said the beasts, and broke the glass to pieces, exclaiming, “Ignorance is bliss!”
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
All of which sounds fantastic in theory, but of course, the only way that such absolute freedom would work is if there was absolute responsibility to go with it.
Liberalize drugs? Sure thing, but only with the caveat that any health problems that result forfeit any public assistance in helping.[/quote]
Well, do we not help people that become obese? Smokers? Alcoholics? How are currently controlled substances any different?
Don’t get me wrong – ideally, I would not offer any assistance to any substance or food abusers – I’d provide no free assistance to people who over-eat, smoke or drink too much. But we either way we need to be consistent. Putting eating disorders, nicotine addiction and alcoholism on a different plane than other substances is hypocritical and idiotic.
[quote]hspder wrote:
…and hence does not believe the government should enforce or even preach submission to the Word of God. That is the job of pastors, not Presidents and Senators and Congressmen.
thunderbolt23 wrote:
I have yet to see anyone advocate this.[/quote]
Really? You must look harder then.
[quote]jasonigor wrote:
“You are quite right,” said the beasts, and broke the glass to pieces, exclaiming, “Ignorance is bliss!”[/quote]
At times, in a moment of weakness, I may momentarily yearn for bliss. Alas, and yet thankfully, this journey does not reverse.