|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/27/2004 10:33:07 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
To answer your question, RonB, about the danger posed by the Christian fundamentalist movement, another rather lengthy quotation from rebuff.org: |
Cut/paste/cut/paste ad nauseum. No, tell us your OWN thoughts.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2004 11:19:06 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
...and show that this trend of joining forces between the GOP and religions right is not new... |
So many people on the left will never understand why christians or actualy most religious people in general tend to vote more to the right, for the same reasons that you call it joining forces.
A christian base in America voting for Bush has nothing to do with "joining forces", it is absolutly nothing like the Democrats who actualy do join forces with the ACLU, NAACP, Unions (their leaders, noth the members), MoveOn.org, Michael Moore and many other groups that fall into more of the marxist/communism fold.
And to be fair, there are many examples on the right as well: Military, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-tax, pro smaller government, large corps or business people period... These are all examples of groups that either side "joins forces" with.
Because of this simple misunderstanding and for the same reasons that the main-stream media literly talks about the majority of this country as if it's forign soil; this is why I think it will be a long time before the left gets any kind of foot hold back again in middle America. |
|
|
|
11/28/2004 12:11:49 AM · #53 |
How is it that the leader(s) of al Qaeda and Hamas are able to attract the kind of people willing to perform terrorist acts of "hari-kari" and other heinous crimes against humanity?
How is that certain groups "associated" with Christian fundamentalism/Christian Identity, such as KKK, white supremicist groups, and paramilitary militias have acted similarly in carrying out heinous crimes, such as abortion clinic bombings, lynchings, Oklahoma city, etc?
Certainly, both the Christian and Muslim hate groups that carry out these crimes are in the minority and do not represent the vast majority of the good people who follow Islam and Christian principles.
In the case of Muslims who are terrorists, I would say that they are easily swayed by their leaders because they are promised as being martyrs for their religion and people and they are promised a better "hereafter" when the life they lead is already fraught with poverty, crime and death. Also, because this is a political statement, by people who are politically weakened, against western incursions into their lands for geopolitical and energy control.
In the case of Christian fundamentalist groups I would say that their leaders have bombarded their followers with an ideology of fear and hate. Fear that their institutions, government and communties are being inundated with liberals and other "depraved" groups, such as homosexuals and people of non-white coloring. This can lead to hatred and the willing by some, to carry out heinous crimes. Bob Jones University and the Christian baptists for years have espoused this kind of thinking.
We now also have American Imperialist fundamentalism in the form of neo-conservative Project for a New American Century ideology and linked to the new world order of corporate globalization. They now have Karl Rove and George Bush who appeal and pander to the Christian base for votes.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2004 10:41:53 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
...They now have Karl Rove nd George Bush who appeal and pander to the Christian base for votes. |
Maybe I'll post later on the rest of this post, but for this last sentence. Lets take the big leap and use your poor choice of language: pandering; you obviously didn't read or comprehend my last post...
Is President Bush's "pandering" to the christian right any worse than the Democrats pandering to the left's anti-war groups, pro-abortion groups, union leaders (worse than any enron) or the enviromentalists?
Is it any worse than Kerry scaring old people by telling them that they will MOST CERTAINLY loose their social security if President Bush is Reelected (gore said the same thing remember). Is it any worse than Kerry telling black people that President Bush doesn't want their vote to count and is working to make it so they can't?
I'm hoping for a legitimate answer, not propaganda! |
|
|
|
11/28/2004 12:53:25 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
To answer your question, RonB, about the danger posed by the Christian fundamentalist movement, another rather lengthy quotation from rebuff.org: |
I asked you to supply a single quotation from a Christian Fundamentalist web site that showed why you thought they were "dangerous". I didn't think you could provide one, and, of course, I am not surprised that you were unable to do so.
Perhaps a less challenging task would be to isolate a single "dangerous" element of Christian fundamentalism from the Rebuff.org site that is not qualified by a statement of opinion ( e.g. "we think", "we believe", "it seems", or some other such qualifier as "would", "could", "might", etc. ). In other words, a statement of fact, not conjecture.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2004 01:11:14 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
In the case of Christian fundamentalist groups I would say that their leaders have bombarded their followers with an ideology of fear and hate. Fear that their institutions, government and communties are being inundated with liberals and other "depraved" groups, such as homosexuals and people of non-white coloring. This can lead to hatred and the willing by some, to carry out heinous crimes. Bob Jones University and the Christian baptists for years have espoused this kind of thinking. |
Olyuzi,
It is difficult for me to extract from the above exactly what you mean by your last statement. Would you be so kind as to explicitly describe what you mean by "this kind of thinking"? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2004 01:32:34 PM · #57 |
First of all, Kerry did not pander to the anti-war vote, as his stand was to continue the war in Iraq, just fight it more effectively. The anti-war advocates voted for Kerry because he wasn't thought to be as dangerous as Bush. Certainly, politics, especially at the national level, is about forming coalitions. I'm not sure, though, that I would say that Kerry and the democrats pandered to environmentalists, unions and pro-abortionists, as you suggest, but rather these alliances have historically always existed, as the GOP has always been the party for the industrialists and the rich, and the dems have been the party of the common man/woman. Whether or not this is true of the Democratic Party today or just an illusion, is another matter, but I have in these threads many times criticized the dems for not distinguishing themselves from the GOP.
The 2000 presidential election did in fact show that the republicans were not the party of the black Americans as they deliberately disenfranchised nearly 100,000 black voters in Florida who would most assuredly have voted for the democratic candidate. Instead of appealing to a broad spectrum of people, Bush and Rove chose to court the Christian right. Many of the groups that fall under that umbrella term have not advocated equal right for women, gays, blacks, etc, but have promoted hatred and fear. In my opinion, they have not been champions of "love they neighbor" and the word of Christ, as the more moderate Christian groups have, but would rather impose an authoritarian and theocratic form of government. (My opinion, and those of others.)
This is fundamentalism and as such is not tolerant of the views and lifestyle of others and as such does not promote peaceful solutions to problems but rather promote violence, destruction, environmental degradation, etc. Christian Identity groups espouse violence. When people in the Bush administration state that they believe the president is doing the work of god, then who could oppose that, even if his policies are imperialistic, go against Christ's teachings and is downright dangerous to life on this planet. This is certainly not democracy. None of the group categories you mentioned that supported the dems are dangerous in any way. Are environmentalists dangerous? Unions? Women’s rights advocates? They may have their agendas for opposing polluting policies of corporations and government, or of promoting better pay and working conditions, or of equal rights in the workplace and at home, but they don't seem dangerous to me. They all support the democratic process but I'm not sure I can say the same of the Christian fundamentalist groups.
What propaganda are you referring to, Russell? I know you're not referring to the propaganda that the Bush administration put out to go to war in Iraq.
*************
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
...They now have Karl Rove nd George Bush who appeal and pander to the Christian base for votes. |
Maybe I'll post later on the rest of this post, but for this last sentence. Lets take the big leap and use your poor choice of language: pandering; you obviously didn't read or comprehend my last post...
Is President Bush's "pandering" to the christian right any worse than the Democrats pandering to the left's anti-war groups, pro-abortion groups, union leaders (worse than any enron) or the enviromentalists?
Is it any worse than Kerry scaring old people by telling them that they will MOST CERTAINLY loose their social security if President Bush is Reelected (gore said the same thing remember). Is it any worse than Kerry telling black people that President Bush doesn't want their vote to count and is working to make it so they can't?
I'm hoping for a legitimate answer, not propaganda! |
|
|
|
|
11/28/2004 03:22:42 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The 2000 presidential election did in fact show that the republicans were not the party of the black Americans as they deliberately disenfranchised nearly 100,000 black voters in Florida who would most assuredly have voted for the democratic candidate. |
Please name one and provide proof that he/she was disenfranchised.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Instead of appealing to a broad spectrum of people, Bush and Rove chose to court the Christian right. |
Wow. And here I thought that at least SOME of the 60+ MILLION people that voted for Bush were not members of the Christian right, and so represented a "broad spectrum of people". Funny how those people voted for Bush even though Bush and Rove did not choose to appeal to them. Must have been serendipity.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Many of the groups that fall under that umbrella term have not advocated equal right for women, gays, blacks, etc, but have promoted hatred and fear. |
Since you say that "many" of them promote hatred and fear, surely you can actually name several of them.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
In my opinion, they have not been champions of "love they neighbor" and the word of Christ, as the more moderate Christian groups have, but would rather impose an authoritarian and theocratic form of government. (My opinion, and those of others.) |
And you are entitled to it, as are others.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
This is fundamentalism and as such is not tolerant of the views and lifestyle of others and as such does not promote peaceful solutions to problems but rather promote violence, destruction, environmental degradation, etc. Christian Identity groups espouse violence. |
It would appear from your comments that YOU are not tolerant of the views of Christian Fundamentalists. So why do you complain that they appear to be intolerant of yours? As before, I request that rather than making broad accusations, you provide more concrete evidence - namely, provide the names of those Christian Identity groups that espouse violence.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
When people in the Bush administration state that they believe the president is doing the work of god, then who could oppose that, even if his policies are imperialistic, go against Christ's teachings and is downright dangerous to life on this planet. |
Could you please be more specific by stating exactly which of Christ's teachings Bush's policies go against? I, for one, am curious.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
This is certainly not democracy. |
It's not? I thought that Bush received the majority of the popular vote and will receive the majority of electoral votes as a result of the majority he won in each of the various states? Isn't that democracy?
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
None of the group categories you mentioned that supported the dems are dangerous in any way. Are environmentalists dangerous? Unions? Women’s rights advocates? They may have their agendas for opposing polluting policies of corporations and government, or of promoting better pay and working conditions, or of equal rights in the workplace and at home, but they don't seem dangerous to me. |
1) Are environmentalists dangerous? Ask a lumberman who was denied employment because the timber harvest was stopped.
2) Are unions dangerous? Ask someone whose automobile was smashed, with them still in it, while trying to go to work during a strike.
3) Are Women's rights advocates dangerous? Ask the advertising agency employees who USED TO work on the commercials for the Master's Golf Tournament.
They don't seem dangerous to you, because you haven't been directly impacted ---- yet.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
They all support the democratic process but I'm not sure I can say the same of the Christian fundamentalist groups. |
If they all supported the democratic process, then they would take their petitions to the public, to be voted on, instead of taking them to the courts, to be decided by activist judges.
Message edited by author 2004-11-28 15:27:05. |
|
|
|
11/28/2004 04:19:05 PM · #59 |
I keep seeing a phrase used that I want to clear up by defining a bit more carefully -- Christian fundamentalism.
For most people, that means people who believe in salvation through Jesus Christ, that he was virgin born and lived a perfect life, that he died on a cross and rose again, and that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God.
That is not what fundamentalism is. Granted, those are "fundamental" truths for many Christian organizations, but fundamentalism is very different.
Bob Jones, Pensacola Christian College, etc. Yes, fundamentalism.
All of the Christian "right" (James Dobson, David Jeremiah, Billy Graham), no. they are considered Evangelicals.
There is a big difference. It's easier to see when you live in a situation where both abound, but to try and show the difference, I'll just point out a few of the "dividing" points.
The Bible Both groups usually believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God and is used for the basis of teaching and preaching. Fundamentalists will usually only used the King James Version, and feel that any other version is "watered" down, or changing the scripture in some way. Evangelicals usually don't balk at other translations or versions, though they may have strong opinions about some of them.
Salvation For both, salvation is through Jesus Christ. For the fundamentalists, there is usually a set standard that the believer must live up to (in my geographic region, it is a dress code of sorts, as well as some social things -- no TV, no movies, no cards, etc). To not live up to that standard simply indicates that either a) you've not really accepted Christ or b) you're not growing as a Christian, spiritually. To the evangelical, there are standards, but they are set by God, not man. The evangelical meets people where they are and goes from there, where as the fundamentalist has a tendency to want people to get to a certain point.
Fundamentalists usually feel that Evangelicals water stuff down and pander to the masses to have large congregations and lots of money. Evangelicals often feel that Fundamentalists are legalistic and bound by traditions.
Unfortunately, the two will probably only contine to grow further apart rather than come together.
And for the record, it was probably more Evangelical Christians that voted republican than fundamentalists, because a large portion of the fundamentalist don't believe in being involved in "things of this world" and that includes politics.
These are just a couple of examples, and they are over-simplified to be sure. But, I wanted to point out that "Christian fundamentalism" as ya'll are using the term is a very small faction of overall Christian population.
Now, what does this have to do with the current arguments. Nothing. But I did want to point it out.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 11:39:21 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
To answer your question, RonB, about the danger posed by the Christian fundamentalist movement, another rather lengthy quotation from rebuff.org: |
Cut/paste/cut/paste ad nauseum. No, tell us your OWN thoughts. |
_____________________________________
"The two great failures of this election were the failure of democracy as a concept in the public mind, and the failure of Christianity as a religion.
"For make no mistake, this is the election in which American Christianity destroyed itself. Today the church is no longer a religion but a tacky political lobby, with an obsessive concentration on a minuscule number of social topics so irrelevant to questions of governance that they barely constitute political issues at all. These are the points of contention tied into what are blurrily referred to as "moral values," though they have almost nothing to do with the larger moral question of how one lives one's life, and everything to do with the fundamentally un-Christian and un-American idea of forcing others to live the way you believe they should. The displacement of faith involved is eerie, almost psychotic: Here are people willing to vote against their own well-being and their own children's future, just so they can compel someone else's daughter to bear an unwanted child and deprive someone else's son of the right to file a joint income tax return with his male partner.
"If this isn't Christianity—and it isn't—still less is it in any respect like democracy. The whole meaning of America was predicated by the founding fathers on the right of citizens to practice their own faith and conduct their lives as they saw fit; to interfere actively in others' lives, on the basis of "moral values" about which there is no agreement, is the most radical repudiation of constitutional values in our electoral history, reducing the word conservative to absurdity. Today the Republican Party is not the right wing of anything; it is a band of violent radical reactionaries preaching medieval totalitarian bigotry. And Christianity as currently preached and practiced in Middle America is virtually Satan, by the standards of anyone who strives to follow the teachings of Jesus. Having degraded themselves to the level of political lobbies, most Christian churches should certainly be compelled to register as lobbyists and pay taxes... "
From this article: //www.villagevoice.com/issues/0445/feingold.php
_______________________________________
"The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant--baptism and holy communion--must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel."
Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), p.87
________________________________________
"What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite."
--Bertrand Russell (Skeptical Essays, 1928)
|
|
|
|
12/19/2004 11:14:05 PM · #61 |
*ahem*, if I may? : )
/me pulls out soapbox, stands on it
My Creed and Culture:
I am an evangelical christan. I attend a non-denominational rather contemporary church, a public school, and extracirricular activities like "In The Know" and Boy Scouts. I play the guitar and like taking pictures. I take college classes downtown, and I have a part time job at Skyline Chili.
I've been baptised, I take the entire bible as fact, I believe in one God. I don't believe in the theory of evolution, I think it's just silly. I believe that Jesus died for my sins, and I'm amazed that some people will recognize this and still turn their backs at it.
I'm only 16, and so that might discredit my opinion among some of you. That's fine with me, it happens a lot when you're 16. I consider my political position "christian"; the main thing that sways me to the right is moral issues. I'm strongly against gay marraige and abortion, and I'm abstinent. I'm indifferent on the war. I've considered enlisting, I think it's an obligation to repay my country in service for all the freedoms I enjoy.
Now, don't get me wrong. Just because I'm against abortion and gay marraige doesn't mean I have any less love for someone who's had an abortion, or someone who's gay. It's the actions I'm against, not the person.
As for Creation, I'm a firm subscriber to the school of thought that the world was made by God Almighty in 7 days, and everything is today as it was then (probably about 6000-10000 years ago). I believe that the sedimentary layers full of the fossils that "show" evolution can easily be explained using a deluvian explanation (Noah's Flood). For example, you have the lower layers, which is just plants and stuff, right? Well, that's 'cause plants can't run to higher ground. You also have towards the bottom fish and stuff, right? That's all from the amount of fresh water mixing with the salt water of the oceans, causing the fish to not be able to breath and such. And it just goes so on from there, until you get to the more recent layers with the more "evolved" life forms. That's my thought on the subject. If presentable evidence can be show for evolution, then I'll accept it. But there hasn't been.
Personally, I think evolution is more farfetched than the "myth" of Creation. I mean, think about it. How can something as complex as the human eye evolve from a one celled organism? Or the brains that created this theory? How did it happen by chance that a one celled organism mutate into an animal with a hard beak to dig into the ground, a light skeletal frame, and muscles and feathers (which in themselves are intricate) in exactly the right places and able to move exactly the right way to allow a bird to fly? And imagine, in evolution, the first bird to "give it a go." "Hey guys, I've got a crazy idea! I'm gonna go jump off that cliff and move my arms, and I'll soar through the air!" It just seems farfetched to me. I have to point to the watch example. Say you're hiking in the woods and you find a finely crafted watch, where all the components move and work and function together. One can either say "Hey, some watchmaker must've made this" or "I imagine that the forces of nature changed these ores into iron and gold, and formulated this quartz, and just naturally mutated together and by chance, got this nice watch. That's how absurd evolution seems to me.
In my opinion, it seems amazing that we can sit here and take magnificent photographs of amazing landscapes and natural wonders, and write them off by saying "Oh, that's just an accident" or "Isn't it amazing what natural mutation and random occurances have created?" In my opinion, nature and the earth is the greatest proof of all of God's divine creation and intervention. There exists just so much detail and beauty that I can't imagine having come from mutation.
And also, another thing I don't get (but then again, I'm only 16. I don't even have a high school diploma yet) is how one can accept evolution and/or the big bang and disregard creation. I mean, think about it. Where did this stuff that's allegedly evolving come from? "The Big Bang." Well where did that stuff come from? It had to originate from somewhere. Did it just, happen? One day, in the empty void, stuff just "poofed" out of nowhere? Maybe that school of thought is above my meager understanding of the human nature. After all, I am christian and republican.
It probably takes a smarter person than me to comprehend these seemingly transparent, if existent at all, facts that support and prove evolution in countless books. I've read them, but I don't get how the "facts" these longwinded and superfluous authors use prove evolution. I don't count them as facts. But that's because I don't have a title after my name, because I'm an ignorant christian republican in the middle of a red state, areas that apparently have all the facts wrong and are completely upside down.
My simple mind has apparently chosen a different book to base my beliefs on than all of the educated people. It took a lot of years to write my book, written by some of the greatest men of their time. It was written all over the world, in prisons and great halls. I base my beliefs on the bible. Personally, I find the bible a bit more optimistic than the theories of modern science. Modern Science, unless I'm mistaken, I've misinterpreted what I've read, writes off humanity and existence as an accident, a random mutation that changed us from some obscure inept life form into what we are today. The bible tells me that I was crafted by God, and given a special gift above all other life forms. It also tells me that the God who created me sent his one and only son to die for me to forgive me of my sins so that when I die I'll join God eternally in paradise. When I die, according to the theories of Modern Science, nothing happens. Paradise, or nothing? Also, the bible constantly give me reminders to be joyful, to rejoice, to be cheerful and optimistic. Modern science supposedly says that everything happened by chance. It's hard for me to find much joy and refuge in that thought, but that's probably because I'm so uneducated, right? Someone with a few more degrees and diplomas than me can get a positive, optimistic message out of that. But as for me, I see no reason to rejoice, to claim that my existence happened by chance, that I have no real purpose on earth. What a bummer, huh?
/me cracks knuckles, takes a deep breath, and continues : )
So that's my little discourse on that. I hope my ignorance didn't offend anyone who is at a higher intellect than I. That's not my intent. My intent was to share my personal views on the subject seemingly at hand (thought is is apparently rather transient, but oh well : )). I guess now, what I say, is that I bid you my farewells, and hope that you stayed awake through my rambling : )
/me steps off soapbox, picks it up, and walks away.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2004 12:15:12 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by xtabintun:
I don't believe in the theory of evolution, I think it's just silly.
<< And I believe the theory of creationism is sillier >>
I believe that Jesus died for my sins.....
<< Jesus could not have died for my sins as he died 1,915 years before I was born. >>
If presentable evidence can be show(n) for evolution, then I'll accept it. But there hasn't been.
<< And if presentable evidence can be shown (and so far it certainly hasn't) for a virgin woman giving birth to a half-breed deity then I will accept that. >>
Personally, I think evolution is more farfetched than the "myth" of Creation. I mean, think about it. How can something as complex as the human eye evolve from a one celled organism? Or the brains that created this theory? How did it happen by chance that a one celled organism mutate into an animal with a hard beak to dig into the ground, a light skeletal frame, and muscles and feathers (which in themselves are intricate) in exactly the right places and able to move exactly the right way to allow a bird to fly? And imagine, in evolution, the first bird to "give it a go." "Hey guys, I've got a crazy idea! I'm gonna go jump off that cliff and move my arms, and I'll soar through the air!" It just seems farfetched to me. I have to point to the watch example. Say you're hiking in the woods and you find a finely crafted watch, where all the components move and work and function together. One can either say "Hey, some watchmaker must've made this" or "I imagine that the forces of nature changed these ores into iron and gold, and formulated this quartz, and just naturally mutated together and by chance, got this nice watch. That's how absurd evolution seems to me.
<< If God is all powerful, which christians believe, then absolutely NOTHING is impossible, even the evolution you scoff at. Your God could effortlessly set up the process of evolution and keep it going steadily and unwaveringly over millions and billions of years. (S)he could even, if so desired, allow your watch to evolve naturally over many millenia. Now, if I were you, I would be careful in calling anything which your God may be working on as absurd or silly or far-fetched as I have heard that (s)he can have a really nasty temper!! >>
In my opinion, it seems amazing that we can sit here and take magnificent photographs of amazing landscapes and natural wonders, and write them off by saying "Oh, that's just an accident" or "Isn't it amazing what natural mutation and random occurances have created?" In my opinion, nature and the earth is the greatest proof of all of God's divine creation and intervention. There exists just so much detail and beauty that I can't imagine having come from mutation.
<< Are illness, poverty, hate, intolerance, terrorism and the like also proof of God's devine creation and intervention? Your God may have created beautiful mountains and seacoasts (now we KNOW they didn't evolve, right?) but (s)he strikes me as being a bit of a sadist and a bully at the same time. I mean, here you have an all-knowing diety who goes right ahead and keeps creating unfortunate people whom (s)he KNOWS will go to hell and be tortured forever after they die for simply not believing in the proper dogma. Kind of like the mean little kid looking at the ant farm though the magnifying glass. >>
And also, another thing I don't get (but then again, I'm only 16. I don't even have a high school diploma yet) is how one can accept evolution and/or the big bang and disregard creation.
<< It's simple. I use my own mind which I was born with. >>
I mean, think about it. Where did this stuff that's allegedly evolving come from? "The Big Bang." Well where did that stuff come from? It had to originate from somewhere. Did it just, happen? One day, in the empty void, stuff just "poofed" out of nowhere? Maybe that school of thought is above my meager understanding of the human nature. After all, I am christian and republican.
<< Now you are questioning your God's abilities again. >>
/me steps off soapbox, picks it up, and walks away. |
Message edited by author 2004-12-20 12:17:34. |
|
|
|
12/20/2004 01:26:22 PM · #63 |
frychikn, it would be more clear if you edit your post so one can distinguish between original post and your inserts more easily.
But well said.
Message edited by author 2004-12-20 13:28:10. |
|
|
|
12/20/2004 01:38:20 PM · #64 |
"If we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusion."
-Noam Chomsky |
|
|
|
12/20/2004 04:58:05 PM · #65 |
| I don't doubt that God could've easily created man through evolution, you misunderstood me. What I'm saying (and I apologize, I'll try to be more clear next time) is that why would God spend so much time creating when he could do it in 6 days? I also doubt that God would've been working on the theory of evolution, because the bible says against it, that earth was created in 6 days. I'd personally rather believe that God did what the bible said instead of possibly crediting him with some absurd theory that the bible never backs. To say that I'm questioning God's ability is to disregard what the bible is says. Again, I'm sorry for not being clearer in what I said, so much so that you had to attack my personal opinion. I'll try to clarify next time. My bad. |
|
|
|
12/20/2004 05:12:31 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Fundamentalists will usually only used the King James Version |
I consider myself a fundamentalist and prefer the New American Standard Bible (NASB).
I find it to be a more acurate translation when compared to the actual greek and hebrew interlinear text.
Here is an interesting link to literal vs. main idea type translations. Its a handy chart when you or someone you know wants to choose a Bible translation.
Translation Chart |
|
|
|
12/20/2004 08:29:39 PM · #67 |
I have evolved enough to believe in evolution!I hope we continue to evolve!There is no point in arguing with someone who does no want to listen to reason.
Neil |
|
|
|
12/20/2004 08:36:08 PM · #68 |
So to all the fundamentalist Christians, do you take the metaphors in other great literature as literally as you do the Bible?
|
|
|
|
12/20/2004 08:41:21 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
To answer your question, RonB, about the danger posed by the Christian fundamentalist movement, another rather lengthy quotation from rebuff.org: |
Cut/paste/cut/paste ad nauseum. No, tell us your OWN thoughts. |
_____________________________________
"..."
From this article: ...
_______________________________________
"..."
Gary North, ...
________________________________________
"..."
--Bertrand Russell ... |
LOL! That's a good one. At least you've still got your sense of humor. :) |
|
|
|
12/20/2004 09:11:27 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by xtabintun:
.... To say that I'm questioning God's ability is to disregard what the bible is (sic) says..... |
BINGO!! |
|
|
|
12/21/2004 04:21:27 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
Originally posted by xtabintun:
I don't believe in the theory of evolution, I think it's just silly. |
And I believe the theory of creationism is sillier
Originally posted by xtabintun:
If presentable evidence can be show(n) for evolution, then I'll accept it. But there hasn't been. |
And if presentable evidence can be shown (and so far it certainly hasn't) for a virgin woman giving birth to a half-breed deity then I will accept that.
Originally posted by xtabintun:
And also, another thing I don't get (but then again, I'm only 16. I don't even have a high school diploma yet) is how one can accept evolution and/or the big bang and disregard creation. |
It's simple. I use my own mind which I was born with. |
Interesting. Anthony Flew, a legendary and (formerly) well respected atheist uses his own mind, too. And he argued for over 50 years against the existance of God. But now, in his eighties, he has changed his mind "in light of recent scientific evidence". Investigation of DNA, he said, “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved”. Full article here
Some who have posted in this thread must, therefore, believe that some really intelligent people just "dumb down" when they get old. |
|
|
|
12/21/2004 08:56:54 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by frychikn:
Originally posted by xtabintun:
I don't believe in the theory of evolution, I think it's just silly. |
And I believe the theory of creationism is sillier
Originally posted by xtabintun:
If presentable evidence can be show(n) for evolution, then I'll accept it. But there hasn't been. |
And if presentable evidence can be shown (and so far it certainly hasn't) for a virgin woman giving birth to a half-breed deity then I will accept that.
Originally posted by xtabintun:
And also, another thing I don't get (but then again, I'm only 16. I don't even have a high school diploma yet) is how one can accept evolution and/or the big bang and disregard creation. |
It's simple. I use my own mind which I was born with. |
Interesting. Anthony Flew, a legendary and (formerly) well respected atheist uses his own mind, too. And he argued for over 50 years against the existance of God. But now, in his eighties, he has changed his mind "in light of recent scientific evidence". Investigation of DNA, he said, “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved”. Full article here
Some who have posted in this thread must, therefore, believe that some really intelligent people just "dumb down" when they get old. |
Who are "some who have posted in this thread"? Me, perhaps? I am not an atheist; atheism is just as dogmatic as religion. I believe in a creator whom I will refer to (for the sake of convention) as God. I don't believe that this God demands to be worshipped and punishes those who do not believe in "him". I don't believe in any organized religion (just like Anthony Flew). |
|
|
|
12/21/2004 09:03:23 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Some who have posted in this thread must, therefore, believe that some really intelligent people just "dumb down" when they get old. |
Converesely, some who have posted in this thread must, therefore, believe that all really intelligent people don't "dumb down" when they get old.
Personally, the fact that my once sharp grandmother can't tell my father and I apart anymore (when he's got short, peppered dark brown hair, a beard, and is fairly overweight... and I've got long blond hair, no beard, stand six inches taller, and am skinny (yeah, I know... I'm a fox)) would indicate that yes, old people can and do "dumb down".
Snipe!
Message edited by author 2004-12-21 21:07:37.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2004 09:21:12 PM · #74 |
Most death row prisoners find God before they are shown the needle. They try to make ammends for the atrocities they have commited by finding God.
Now I am not saying they will go to heaven or not. But when confronted directly with death human nature will always try to find a God.
I can assure you right before death in some horrible accident, people who never believed in God said "Oh my God" And when dying probably said a small prayer before death.
I am not a Bible thumper, dont go to Church...but when my time is up I will say a prayer...just to be safe. :)
Message edited by author 2004-12-21 21:24:24. |
|
|
|
12/21/2004 09:53:07 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Riggs:
Most death row prisoners find God before they are shown the needle. They try to make ammends for the atrocities they have commited by finding God.
Now I am not saying they will go to heaven or not. But when confronted directly with death human nature will always try to find a God.
I can assure you right before death in some horrible accident, people who never believed in God said "Oh my God" And when dying probably said a small prayer before death.
I am not a Bible thumper, dont go to Church...but when my time is up I will say a prayer...just to be safe. :) |
And this shows the real reason why people worship deities; not love or gratitude or even a sense of obligation, but fear. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 07/31/2025 04:51:40 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/31/2025 04:51:40 PM EDT.
|
