BS: Christian segregationism, 2011

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: frogprince
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 07:43 PM

For some people, dispensationalism is simply "true" because they have heard it from their parents, from every Christian teacher they have learned to respect, or both. I was thinking of people like a professor, a PHD, whom I heard tell a story about an American Indian leader who was responsible for the death of a person who was a witch by the definitions of Indian culture. The victim died because the Old Testament commands that witches be put to death. The professor said that the murder happened because of improper (non-dispensationalist) biblical interpretation.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 11:23 PM

check out this facebook page. The dude (or dude ette) makes some good points.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Dec 11 - 03:22 PM

hi jack-ijust re-read my post to you and see i did not clearly express what i had in mind-apologies.
what i meant was that frogprince had explained that the teaching that is sometimes called dispensationalism accounts for the transistion of how God relates to us in the NT onwards era as distinct from OT times.i had already noted[but evidently not explained clearly enough]that i understood that frogprince was merely providing information, and not affirming the theology involved.i did not imagine that he was answering a challenge or speaking on my behalf .
i hope we are clear now .
i hope frogprince is not misrepresented at all by the foregoing.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: frogprince
Date: 07 Dec 11 - 07:22 PM

No problem, Pete; that's stated fairly.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Musket
Date: 08 Dec 11 - 05:39 AM

Without commenting on my sexuality Pete..

Fuck you.

I suppose what gets my goat, (I'll tether it to the back of your car given the chance) is how you can decorate bigoted intolerance with the odd "bless you" thrown in to look reasonable.

It doesn't wash.

You distinguish between bible obedience and current law. Is it me, or does anybody else find such comments disturbing?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 11 - 07:45 AM

"Bible obedience" means what? Picking up an ancient translation of an ancient set of texts and assuming that you can use it as a manual of instruction just like that? I can't do that with actual manuals of instruction written this year. Takes a lot of effort and advice to make sense of them, and to learn how to use them.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Dec 11 - 08:23 AM

Very confusing - I have no idea of Mither's sexuality and don't need one - but I RUSH to agree with him. Anyone condemning homosexuality in thought or deed on religious grounds is a loathsome bigot. Human rights are not just for the humans you like or who pray like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Ebor_Fiddler
Date: 08 Dec 11 - 06:08 PM

And the odd thing about the "Race" argument, put forward as if all Christians despised black people, is that the fastest growing area for the faith is in Africa!

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Dec 11 - 06:23 PM

What the dispensationalists are doing, from my point of view at least, and pete can include himself in that group or not as he pleases, is cherry picking the Bible for the parts they agree with. I see it another way. Jesus said, "Love thy neighbor." So I am trying to love my neighbor. He said "judge not, lest you be judged." So I am trying not to judge.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Dec 11 - 08:33 PM

Disagreeing with homosexuality or not is your right. Just as is disagreeing with heterosexuality, non-sexuality or tri-sexuality. (I'm not sure if tri-sexuality is a real word, but on this thread that likely doesn't matter.)

What your neighbour does with his or her friends is really none of your damned business, with the caveat that the parties are of legal age, mostly of sound mind (that sort of thing). Because laws were written and established millenia ago does not mean they pertain today, and the authority of THE CHURCH has waned over the ages--rightfully or not rightfully, your MMV.

Tell me why common law marriage between heterosexuals is now recognized by the state (and under law also), but 'common law' is NOT under the law in the case of alternate arrangements? Sounds like Greek democracy to me. Good for some, but NOT all. (I'd like all people to be free, but only within the boundaries we've established. (?? And by who, whom, what and just when were we given this right?))

Clinton is expressing the policy as given to her by her employers--the people elected to ensure the warm shit keeps steaming. Love is not guided by policy, it is decided by inclination, stuff that happens between hears and souls, and social circumstance. I don't mind disagreements--they are part of life and so they happen. But pronouncements about right and wrong based on the writings of ANYONE thousands of years ago have little utility today. Good to think about and consider, but some of you are treating it as though it was the last word!. Fuck, since when?

People holding the Bible in one hand and an olive branch in the other will be seen as people holding a book in one hand and an olive branch in the other. People holding two Bibles will be seen as people who have two books and no olive branch. Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances.

Tell y'all what: I won't come back from Mt Sanai if y'all don't talk shit.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Musket
Date: 09 Dec 11 - 05:33 AM

Yeah, see what you have done? Bridge rushing (his words) to agree with me!

Whoever said the bible didn't bring people together?

Mind you, look back and you will see the only reason my sexuality was brought up was that this pete from seven stars bloke seemed to infer that if I said anything complimentary about Gays, there must be a reason for it. It just gets better and better.

I always liked Michael Gambon's answer when he was asked about his sexuality. He said he had tried being Gay but he had to give it up as it made his eyes water.

I used to sing (and have recently started singing again for no main reason, just think it's a song to be heard) Si Khan's "Curtains of Old Joe's House." My favourite line, although a bit preachy, is "So before you start to criticise the lives that others lead, take a good look in the mirror and be sure of what you see."

My experience of our more evangelical brethren is that they are sure of what they see. I recall a thread recently where bigotry was being defined. So here's a belated candidate.

Me? I am never sure and seem able to change my mind and support a view that the other day seemed alien to me. See Bridge? Hope for me yet.

Although... I'll still take a coffee up to my counting house if it is alright with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Dec 11 - 08:18 AM

>>Disagreeing with homosexuality or not is your right.<<

I think it is his right.

"What your neighbour does with his or her friends is really none of your damned business."

Doesn't that apply to opinions held as well as sexuality?

Who ever you are referring to has a right to his opinion and to express it as much as you have the right to rebut it.

I happen to share your opinion. But I can't say that someone else does not have a right to theirs.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Dec 11 - 08:51 AM

ian-i was assuming nothing about your sexuality except that you would not be offended even if i had.
you,on the other hand seem free to make assumptions about me eg-whether i make any examination of my own faults or not.
so as you condemn me for my biblical convictions,it seems that i

have committed the unpardonable sin of having a christian worldview!.


jack-what dispensationists attempt to do is integrate all the bible into a coherent chronology from origins to end times to eternity which includes the different dealings of God in different dispensations.thus i suggest that the charge of "cherry picking" against them is groundless.on the other hand you clearly are cherrypicking, as it is evident that you dont accept NT teaching on this subject of homosexual behaviour[eg romans 1].it is clear that discernment and evaluations are not excluded in the command not to be judgemental.would you not judge some things to be wrong
yourself ?   as i intimated to ian,that does not mean i dont recognize i have my own failings-but i dont accept that believing the bible is one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Dec 11 - 09:13 AM

pete,

Love thy neighbor.
Judge not lest you be judged

Show me where Jesus said that there are exceptions to that and you may have a leg to stand on.


.it is clear that discernment and evaluations are not excluded in the command not to be judgemental.would you not judge some things to be wrong.

Judge not lest you be judged, refers to judging PEOPLE. As in don't beat them to death with stones for prostitution and adultery. Now if you are saying that you "are discerning" about homosexuality but do not judge and would not punish Gays and indeed that you sincerely try to love then and not show your disapproval, then you and I have reached an accord.

As to the dispensation. I don't agree with Paul on the subject of women's rights. I don't agree with his sexual prudishness. Do you believe the woman should be the servant of the man? If the answer is no. You are cherry picking Paul.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Dec 11 - 10:23 AM

Not all opinions are created equal.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Musket
Date: 09 Dec 11 - 11:35 AM

Nothing "Christian" about bigotry. Ask any Gay Christian. or any female Christian. Or any male Christian who is uncomfortable with people cherry picking scripture in order to be sanctimonious about an odious viewpoint.

I have no problem with you believing the bible literally. I have a mate who believes anybody richer than him is a bastard and anybody poorer than him isn't trying hard enough. On the other hand, I have a mate who believes he can pull by smiling inanely at a woman. Bugger manages it too, bless him.

No, you believe what you want to believe. I believe in Sheffield Wednesday although my faith has been tested over the last few years.

But in the same way I don't expect you to sing on our kop, don't expect me to sing in your church. Or in other words, once your view affects others, stop it... It isn't nice and it isn't clever.

Anybody would think there was a God after all, the way some people rattle on.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Dec 11 - 07:01 PM

jack-seems in generalizations we are in accord.but maybe in the specifics not so much.all i can venture to say is that i would not abuse anyone and would greet them whether they were hetero or homosexual.
jesus did speak of forming judgments
beware of false prophets....
by their fruits you shall know them matt 7v15ff-just down the page from "judge not.."
not clear how not agreeing with paul is not cherry picking the bible-rejecting the bits of scripture you disagree with?
i would be interested as to how much of the bible you do accept.
i would suggest that women in the early church were much better off than those in the grecoroman world in general.i am not sure which text you think teaches that woman is the servant of man,though there is teaching on the role of both genders and their responsibilities to each other,-revolutionary in its time IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Dec 11 - 07:18 PM

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

If you do not believe in the above but you do believe in

"Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

You are cherry picking. You are choosing the follow the guidance that suits you. Paul was a man with faults like the rest of us. He was not a license for modern bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 10 Dec 11 - 07:01 AM

Why cherry pick anything? Most of us or claim to have the ability to make rational decisions and morality comes from the evolutionary convenience of altruism.

Never have got on with the idea of creating Gods in order to answer questions we can't figure out for ourselves. The bible is a man made set of stories, nobody seems to disagree with that, or at least anybody capable of thinking rationally, so why get all hot and bothered over different forms of escapism?

If you hate gays, hate women, hate black people, then no problem. It follows that I will hate you, or perhaps pity you and I suspect many others on this thread may think similarly. But to invoke the same bible that nice old ladies hold dear as your excuse, that's despicable.
And cherry picking.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Dec 11 - 09:29 AM

Jesus is credited with saying, "It is written...but this is what I say" - that is, quoting the "Bible" as he knew it in his day, and disagreeing with some of it. He also made it plain that he didn't accept the Old Testament standard of capital punishment for a moral lapse. More often, Jesus quoted the Hebrew Scriptures approvingly.
I've quoted the Bible to support a point too, but it's been years since I've done so thinking that I'd "proved" my point that way by
quoting an infallible source.

It's easy enough to say that the brutality of the Old Testament was the way God chose to deal with man in a prior "dispensation". Easy enough if you are willing to accept a god who thought it was a good idea for a woman to be forced into marriage with her rapist, and a god who rewarded a man because he would have slaughtered his son "because God told me to". I'm much more comfortable saying that a lot of the Old Testament content reflects the primitive concepts of God and his ways common to people of the period. Perhaps that was a prior "dispensation" in the moral consciousness of man.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Dec 11 - 09:42 AM

Incidental thought: I would challange anyone to find more than a very small fraction of dispensationalists who would not object to the removal of a diplay of the ten commandments from a civic building.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Dec 11 - 11:43 AM

jack-admittedly looking at this text in isolation a case could be made for womens servitude to men.it is unclear as to what their silence in church means since a few chapters earlier we find that women were praying and prophesying in church.
being"in subjection to their own husbands" is not demeaning      -Christ is spoken of,and of placing himself under the submission of the father
-husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loved the church ie sacrificially.
i notice that my suggestion of the greater position given to women in the NT church was not challenged!?
in short i do accept both texts you quote-as well as any others which may illucidate those.

note to steaming willie
i recognize your rejection of scripture as Gods word to us,but the discussion relates to jack since i understand he is a believer of some description that however is not fundamentalist.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Dec 11 - 12:15 PM

frogprince-i cant claim to have definitive answers to the things you raise as to the OT.A lot of things that probably seemed normative to ancients seem barbaric to our modern sensitivities .i can understand why you are not comfortable with it.without going into great discussion,i would just venture that the mosaic law [which i do accept as from God]was superior to other ancient codes.some of the provisions of OT law while seemingly very hard to our modern context were probably more understandable in their own time, and perhaps you have read some expositors who have conveyed this better than i could.
thanks for the civil way you state your position-pete

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Dec 11 - 12:46 PM

I have a pretty simple way of looking at it.

Biblical Commandments and teaching attributed to God and to Jesus I take as the Word of God. The rest of it I take interpretations of men doing their best for their time. The bible does not shirk from pointing out the flaws of its heroes. So we have the Ten Commandments, Love thy Neighbor, Love God, and Jesus' sermons. Paul was a man dealing with specific issues in his own day. He should be taken with a grain of salt. As also should a legal code developed while trying to shepherd an unruly mob of former slaves through the desert.

I don't agree with posting biblical commandments on public buildings. I believe that the Gospel should be spread in a loving way and not by force.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 11:20 AM

"I've quoted the Bible to support a point too, but it's been years since I've done so thinking that I'd "proved" my point that way by
quoting an infallible source."

In the city centre, the other day, a bloke with a microphone claimed that the Bible had saved more drug addicts than Richard Dawkins.

I didn't know that Richard Dawkins took an interest in saving drug addicts ... you learn something new every day, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 11:25 AM

No Richard Dawkins is in the business of eroding the faith that might save a drug addict.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 11:43 AM

"No Richard Dawkins is in the business of eroding the faith that might save a drug addict."

But I thought he was in the business of promoting science, logic and rationality ... silly me!

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 12:07 PM

He is in the business of tearing down religion, not promoting science.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 12:13 PM

Has everybody in this discussion forgotten that God, if such there be, did not stop short after creating Christians, in fact he didn't even create Christians.

God, as the creator of all things would be responsible for Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and all the minor religions, as well as agnostics and atheists, and somewhere in there would be the group which grew out of Jews, Romans and others, and came to be called Christians, based on the teachings and identity of a prophet.

Such an all loving deity would hardly be likely to select a small minority of the human race, declare them as his chosen people and all the rest second class humans.

No folks, we created God in our own image, black, white, yellow etc, according the lottery of evolution and location, and none of us can sanely claim to have the one true example.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 12:35 PM

"He is in the business of tearing down religion, not promoting science."

If I remember correctly Dawkins questions the special status that religions enjoy within our societies. If someone tells you that he is possession of absolute truth, as a result of his interpretation of some ancient text of dubious provenance, that should not entitle him to any particular respect or special privileges.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 12:47 PM

is that none except you and your evaluation of other peoples faith ,don!?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 12:52 PM

Dawkins is a scientist, and a good one.
That does not make him better placed than anyone else to pronounce on the existence of God.

Don, all the Christians I have ever met believe that humans were created by the process of evolution.
They were not created as "Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and all the minor religions, as well as agnostics and atheists."

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 12:59 PM

jack-we certainly agree as to dawkins agenda though in fairness to him ,he does like to get some prominent churchmen allied with him though admitting that they are compromisers of the faith they profess.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 01:22 PM

The books Dawkins is famous for are not scientific. They are anti-religion polemics. He is a bigot in that he blames the worst of religion on all of religion rather than recognizing that there are good and bad in all persuasions. He calls fascism and communism religion so that he can make the ridiculous argument that atheists to not start wars.

He makes his living going on show's like Bill Mahers and running down religion to sell his books.

Brian Greene And Neil Tyson Degrassi promote science, Richard Dawkins is a professional shit disturber.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: frogprince
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 01:36 PM

"all the Christians I have ever met believe that humans were created by the process of evolution."
My jaw about dropped when I read that; I really wish I could say the same thing. It may be true of the majority of the Christians in the area where I live here in the U.S., but it's damnably hard to establish a really reliable percentage, and the numbers of vocal anti-evoulutionists can be disheartening and frightening. The disconnect between beliefs here and in the U.K. is apparently greater than I ever realized.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 03:06 PM

I am sure any UK Christian here will have the same experience as me Frogprince.

Dawkins did write "The Selfish Gene" .

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 03:49 PM

""Don, all the Christians I have ever met believe that humans were created by the process of evolution.
They were not created as "Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and all the minor religions, as well as agnostics and atheists.""

1. You obviously don't know about Creationists.

2. I didn't say he created them, the reverse in fact. What I said was that he would have been (assuming he existed) responsible for their presence on this planet, where they created him in their own image according to their colour an location.

Please try to read what is actually being said!!

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

""is that none except you and your evaluation of other peoples faith ,don!?""

No Pete, my faith and my prayers are between me and the one whom I consider my maker, unsullied by the agendas of men, frocked, turbanned or whatever, who profess to have the inside track to the Creator.

You make your own choices and I have nothing to say about YOUR beliefs until you try to make them MY beliefs.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 03:53 PM

"Dawkins is a scientist, and a good one.
That does not make him better placed than anyone else to pronounce on the existence of God."

Absolutely correct! Prof. Dawkins will know that it is logically impossible to 'prove a negative'. So no-one can say,"there is no God". Nevertheless, to talk or act in the name of God a scientist is entitled to insist that, first, you have to prove that He exists. But those of a religious persuasion prefer to bypass all that and smugly tell us that they have 'faith' in the existence of God and can, hence, speak and act in His name. To add insult to injury they also demand respect and special status!

It's high time that someone told them to "get lost!" I am pleased that Dawkins has done so!

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 03:55 PM

I know all about Creationists Don.
I have just never met any, apart from some Jehova's witnesses.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 04:36 PM

""all the Christians I have ever met believe that humans were created by the process of evolution"

I've never met any who'd disagree with that either. The thing is, it appears the USA really is in a strange place in these matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,999
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 04:46 PM

God made it, Darwin explained it.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Musket
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 04:36 AM

Not sure that Dawkins is "out to prove God doesn't exist." I've always been of the opinion that as a scientist he is rightly angry when people stifle scientific advance by weaving in superstition. He is out, if I read him rightly, to say that theological debate has no place in science which is another thing entirely. As a genes specialist, he has demonstrated that it is in the interest of our genes to exhibit what we would call moral traits, which makes the case for excluding superstition from science, as the only feasible reason for taking faith into account is the moral compass that old men in pointy hats claim is their territory. (Funny though, I don't follow them or their ideas, yet I seem to refrain from pillaging, raping and whatever they reckon a Godless society does.)

I share his frustration, but at the same time feel he is becoming embroiled in a rational versus surreal argument. That too can stifle the progress of scientific discovery by being a distraction.

We seem to have created God in our image. Having also given this God character omnipotence and other big cheese attributes, it is a bit vain to then compare him to us? Just one of the reasons I smile indulgently when our evangelical friends start rationalising their wonderful group delusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 04:48 AM

Not sure that Dawkins is "out to prove God doesn't exist."

He does promote atheism, as in his book "The God Delusion."

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 05:48 AM

"He does promote atheism, as in his book "The God Delusion.""

I would have to re-read the book to find out whether that is true or not. Nevertheless, I would struggle to find a reason, in this day and age, why I should take anyone who believes in a lot of mumbo-jumbo seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 06:07 AM

Matin Luther King?
JFK?
Obama?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 06:27 AM

As usual I agree with McGrath - but I am alarmed to find myself again agreeing with a certain amount of what Mither has said ie "Not sure that Dawkins is "out to prove God doesn't exist." I've always been of the opinion that as a scientist he is rightly angry when people stifle scientific advance by weaving in superstition. He is out, if I read him rightly, to say that theological debate has no place in science which is another thing entirely. As a genes specialist, he has demonstrated that it is in the interest of our genes to exhibit what we would call moral traits, which makes the case for excluding superstition from science, as the only feasible reason for taking faith into account is the moral compass that old men in pointy hats claim is their territory. (Funny though, I don't follow them or their ideas, yet I seem to refrain from pillaging, raping and whatever they reckon a Godless society does.)

I share his frustration,"

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 08:01 AM

"Not sure that Dawkins is "out to prove God doesn't exist."

He had a whole book and book tour where he called belief in God a delusion. He has spent a lot of time arguing the point. What would it take to make you "sure?"

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 08:03 AM

Well, if evolution is insufficiently evidenced to be regarded as certain...

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 08:09 AM

Well that makes sense. Intellectually challenged religious fanatics question the theory of evolution so you question the intent of Richard Dawkins.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 10:53 AM

""He had a whole book and book tour where he called belief in God a delusion. He has spent a lot of time arguing the point. What would it take to make you "sure?"""

In other words, he expressed his opinion, and gave a (possibly over long) rationale to explain the logical process by which he arrived at that opinion.

If he is open to castigation and ridicule for doing exactly what we are doing right now (some us with rather more logic than others), we might as well pack it in.

Don T.